So first item is a changes to the agenda. Any changes for tonight? That's good. Okay. Public comment. Airty said there's no public. There's no public. Okay. It will move approval of the previous meeting minutes. In your packet, we're minutes from our October 28th meeting. That was the last time we met since we didn't meet in November at all. Any corrections or edits for the minutes from anyone? If not, someone want to make a motion and a second to approve the minutes? I'll make a motion. Who wants to second that? Tommy? All in favor, please say aye or raise your hand. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay. Let me see. Then we'll move on to public meeting on form-based code amendments, including parts one through four and part nine. Eric, I'll throw it to you. Yes. So this is on for a public hearing tonight. So I don't know if you want to formally open a hearing on this item, and then I can do presentation in the hearing. Okay. So why don't we have a motion and a second to open the public hearing? Who moves? Second. Second. Second. All in favor? Okay. You're in an open public meeting right now. Okay. Thank you very much. So this is a public hearing to take comments on the draft amendments to parts one through four and part nine of the form-based code. These are amendments that we've been working through for the past multiple months. So included with your agenda was a draft of the proposed changes. There's a few items that I wanted to highlight as we talk about this and just consider any other comments. So I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen here. As you recall at our last meeting, or you may recall at our last meeting, we had a discussion about some draft language that was being proposed on traffic impact studies to be included. So on the screen here is that section of language and how I revised it. Previously it had some caveats as for when a traffic impact study would be required. So what I did was basically just said that it's going to be required and that the scope will be determined by the discussion with the Department of Public Works and then that specific impact study will be stamped, sealed or provided under cover and in this case the letter head or the cover lettering of a licensed engineer and that the city may solicit comments from outside entities to review those findings to make sure that they are consistent with our existing policies. And so the reason I worded B the way I did is just because depending on the scope and the scale if we're requiring a traffic impact study for every project, it could be a very minor study. So for example, the development that's going on across the street here from City Hall, it's an eight unit apartment building that probably won't have a lot of impact from what was there previously, which was a three unit building. So this could be something as simple as an engineer says, there's going to be no change in level of service and it's really just basically a memo that's written that outlines that information. So instead of doing a full study that's sealed, we would take something to that effect that's just more of a memo that says these are the findings, there's really no impact and just inhabit at that. So that there's various levels of what could be provided for that traffic impact study. But Eric, that would still have to be submitted by a licensed engineer? Correct, yes. We would still require that to be submitted by a licensed engineer. And go ahead, Mike. Oh, and also is, are there any of the larger development companies that have licensed engineers or not licensed engineers on staff? Well, that conflict. I guess I would say typically the, depending on the level of the traffic impact study that's required, an engineering firm maybe, they may have the capacity to do that in-house or they may look to a specific traffic engineering firm to do that study. So I guess what you're getting at, Sarah, or if I'm understanding what you're getting at is, I believe that's the only person that I'm aware that does development and has an engineering firm as well. Everybody else works with other entities, other firms. Yeah, I'm just trying to avoid conflict of interest because I think we were talking about that in another situation. Yeah, can we specify a transportation engineer? So like a building engineer or a wetlands engineer or some other sort of licensed engineer doesn't put together a TAS? I mean, we could. We could definitely specify that it's a transportation engineer. So basically just add in under the cover of a Vermont licensed transportation engineer. With that. And to Sarah's point, does it mean language like unaffiliated with the developer? Well, I mean, I take the point, I'm just, I guess I'm not sure. Let me jump in. I think because it's being required by a licensed engineer, and I would assume that they have standards and whatnot that they have to meet. I think that's acceptable, but the comments see, I was gonna ask about a third party discretion. The other thing is language that it has to be somewhere that it has to be approved by the city engineer or something. You know what I mean? Because we've kind of run into this before where we get a study and it's just, it's accepted. I see you say it, we may solicit comments or review from a third party, but I think we should be specific and say something about the city can accept or reject the study for good cause or something. Right, I think Mike makes a good point and that I think is sort of the city review of the study, that to me, to the extent that we're worried about like a conflict of interest or like the engineer hired by the developer sort of just giving a rubber stamp study, I think that that's the role of the city to not just accept that. I mean, I think Mike raises some good points. Like if it's a licensed engineer, that's some check on what they can say. They can't just write whatever they want. And at the end of the day, whether that engineer is like on the staff of a developer or they hire an engineering firm to do the study, that engineer still within like the confines of professional responsibility is going to try to give the answer or write the study or get the result that the developer wants. I mean, that's why they're being hired. It's not really different from like hiring a lawyer or any other sort of professional consultant. So I think that in that sense, a conflict of interest is sort of unavoidable, but if that's okay, it's really up to the city to kind of flesh that out and make sure that it's legitimate. Yeah. So if we added an item D here that said something to the effect of that the TIS shall be deemed acceptable by the city upon review, is that Mike, would that cover your concern or is that too loose? Well, as you say it, I'm a little bit concerned about the wording just saying the city shall deem it acceptable or maybe acceptable or unacceptable. I mean, I guess the implication here is that, we're not just asking them to do a TIS and then if it says, yes, your level of service is going to go to an F and traffic will be backed up all over the place that will just say, okay, well, you met the requirement of doing a TIS. I mean, I think the implication is that the results of that traffic impact study need to be acceptable to the city. So one of the problems I think we run into sometimes is that things are implied and not specifically stated. Right, absolutely. Which is a lot of what these amendments are for tonight actually. For that exact reason. And that's why I think if we say specifically that the city can accept or reject it based on some criteria. Abby, I saw you drop something in the chat there. That Amy is also trying to get in, it sounds like she's on. Yeah, I just let her in. But you're specific. Thank you. Amy, don't worry about her now. No worries, I've been sitting listening to all of you. Everything's better. There's a V-TRANS traffic impact. I put the link in the chat, but it's the traffic impact study guidelines from V-TRANS. And I just pulled out a piece that's relevant to what we're talking about as soon as and expects that those performing these types of analyses are educated and experienced in the methodologies reference and exercise good engineering judgment. I didn't know if we wanna refer to this document to begin more guidelines around what a TIS is and what's expected of it. So maybe in B after you say Vermont licensed engineer with experience or qualifications as a traffic for traffic study or something like that. Yeah, like it says, this document is provided as a guideline for traffic engineers preparing traffic impact studies to address the traffic impacts and develop that development projects have and the ability of transportation infrastructure to handle those projects demands. So I do think it's worth calling out traffic engineer maybe familiar with preparing traffic impact studies, something like that. My first thought was to reference that the V-TRANS thing, but the problem is that could change and there might be something else that comes up and you're gonna be stuck with something that's maybe outdated or not relevant. So in item B, if we added under the cover of Vermont licensed engineer with specific experience in preparing traffic impact studies, would that... Should we put qualified? I mean, I think the licensure is their qualification. So... I mean, qualified to do traffic, maybe you don't need it if they've got the experience. I mean, a lot of times like with proposals, you're right, they need five years experience in order to apply or 10 years of experience. I don't know, is there any kind of years you wanted to put on that experience or is the license enough? Well, and again, I think a lot of it's gonna depend on the project itself as to the level of information we're gonna see. Yeah. So I think the specific scope will dictate a lot of how and who we'll be able to prepare the study. Hey, Eric, how about if you say you experienced, adequate experience to perform the level of study or whatever, something like that?  Or it may be complex and it's really someone that needs to have really experienced and it's qualified to do these things. I mean, I think what I'm trying to get at and what I'm hearing is it's, we wanna make sure that the engineer is qualified and doesn't have a conflict of interest. One thing for the engineer, you already have an element of bias in there. So I'm less concerned about that than I am, the ability for the city to request another opinion or... Yeah, yeah, I agree, Tommy. Yeah. Maybe you just think that the city can request a second opinion or whatever. Yeah. Yeah, and I'm just thinking about this. Again, like I'm a new associate at a law firm. You know, I'm not, I'm certainly not as qualified as the people who've been at the firm for 20 years. But at some level, I think you have to trust people's like professional discretion. Like the engineering firm should be able to figure out based upon the scope of the project, like who's able to do it. Like it's not like the firm just gives me any case that comes in the door at this point. I get the more simple cases. Like I think, I think Eric is saying, you know, this is a licensed engineer. Like that has to mean something. And so I would be more about making sure we have language that just like as Sarah just said, allows the city to seek a second opinion or have some sort of further review process. Like rather than upfront trying to create requirements that are too burdensome and too specific. So I guess back to the earlier comment about the city having the ability to accept or reject, which is basically I think what you're saying, Brendan. Right. Yeah. Just put another layer of scrutiny I don't want to use the word scrutiny, but the ability to question whether something doesn't seem right in the work that was done. Well, and it all stems from the, we all know the study that we saw that was done by the developer and was acceptable. Exactly. That's what we're trying to put a little more reins on. So if we added an item D that basically said that the TIS may be, or that the city may accept, reject or request additional information based on the findings of the TIS before final approval is given. Yeah, that works okay for me. Because ultimately that's what we typically do in these cases is a TIS will be submitted and we will review that information and request additional information or there'll be more studies that need to be done. So at least on the bigger projects that we've had traffic impact studies for. So I think that at least just spells out what that process would look like. So could you request that a different license engineer did that study? Another study? Sounds like we could. I mean, I don't know if we would say if we would specifically say that we would want a different engineer to do the work but we could say that we could request information that may be beyond the firm's capability and they would need to bring in someone else to do the work for them. Yeah. So for example, there was a project that we had here in the city where one of the engineering firms did all the site work, all the civil site work for it but the traffic impact study, they consulted out to another, basically to a traffic, a transportation engineering firm to do that study because they just didn't have the capability in-house to do it. The only question I have in that language, Eric and I'm gonna throw it at Brennan who's an attorney is the board may versus can, I think it's fine. I just, as we've seen, an attorney comes in and starts interpreting language different ways and I don't know if it's like the word shall versus may or whatever. And you're talking about may solicit? Yeah. Yeah, there's not a, I mean, shall would mean they have to. May means they can't, they have discretion to. Okay, yeah. I'm stealing some language from the city of Santa Rosa in California that has this, just a little bit more specific about who does the TIS. So you just, you just edited that to save Vermont, Abby. It said the state of California. So that's the only part that I edited it. Just because I know developers have engineers and staff and I know there's probably civil engineers that could throw something together that might not be experienced in this, that would need the qualifications under how it's written right now. I think that's good language for B. Yeah, I can replace what's in B with that language if that's what you all would be more comfortable with. I think so. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And then, so then adding an item D as I just described, I'll say the words again, hopefully I can read what I just wrote here that says the city shall accept, reject or require or request additional information before rendering a decision on the traffic impact study. It's a little different than what you said the first time but that's all right. Can you reread that one more time? Yes. The city shall accept, reject or request additional information before rendering a decision on the traffic impact study. Sounds all right to me, but I'm waiting for Brendan to. I'll be careful not to become the commission attorney here, but. And I don't mean to do that. I'm just thinking in terms of maybe what you know about language. Yeah, I might, if I were writing it, I might say like the city may accept or reject the TIS or like following submission the city may accept or reject the TIS or request additional. Yeah. I think it's both kind of saying the same thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So you're generally comfortable with that as a fourth item there under the TIS section? Yes. Yeah. Anyone have an issue with it? Hearing none, I guess everyone's good with it. Okay. Thanks, Sarah. Absolutely. So the next section or the next item that I wanted to bring your attention to and I'm not sure if we previously talked about this. I know we talked about these topics so I'm gonna scroll down here to another page and I apologize for the aggressive scrolling here but there was some language that was added under the, where am I? Here we go. I don't remember if we ever talked about these sections here. I know we talked about them in the context of the definitions but I can't remember if we ever had a discussion on this information. Really this provides a little additional clarification on what the required building line is and the parking setback line is. There's no actual guidance, or sorry, there's no regulatory language here. It's all just guidance language so it's more just to give some information on what the required building line is and the parking setback line is. The language in here is slightly different than what's in the definitions which I wanted to make that was done specifically so that the definitions are the clear language as far as what these lines mean and then this is just to kind of give some general guidance about these two sections. So I don't remember if we talked about this or not previously. So I just wanted to flag it in case we hadn't so that you were aware that it was in here so I don't know if any of y'all have a better memory about that than I do and if you do please feel free to let me know and we can move on. Boy, I don't know if we talked about it specifically but I know we talked about these things quite a bit. Yeah, definitely in the context of the definitions but I couldn't remember if we'd talked about it in the context of the language in line here with the plan. So and the reason this was added is because in this section we're talking about the neighborhood manners area and some of just the other parts of the regulating plan so it seemed appropriate to include because the required building line and the parking step back line are both major components of the regulating plan. It seemed appropriate to at least have reference to them in here as well since the neighborhood manners is referenced here also. It kind of reading it quick, Eric. It kind of all it's saying is that, hey the zoning administrator can provide you this information digitally. Yeah, that's really what it is. Like I said, it's not intended to have any type of regulatory mechanism in here. It's more just to be descriptive and to talk about what these boundaries are and what their intention is. Anyone have any comments, questions? Are there definitions for these terms elsewhere in the formation code? Yes, yeah, we spent quite a bit of time actually talking about the specific definitions for these two. This is the one that had some kind of weird language. I forget which one it was but it talked about the permissive minimum or something that we were. Oh yeah, yeah, right, right, right, right, right. No? The parking step back line has that vertical stuff in there. We do have specific definitions on both of these in the definition section that we're adding or cleaned up at least. And I think what I remember, we did talk a lot about the permissive minimum and I think there was some comment too and it's like you've said, this language doesn't, it's not regulatory. Like it doesn't say a developer can or can't do this. Right. And I guess it's a little bit, to me they feel like definitions. So it feels a little bit odd that we also have definitions. Like if all we're sort of doing is saying what they are, I guess I don't know what this is intended to really do then. Well again, I think because I wanted to have these references in here because this section is talking about the regulating plan and we're referencing the neighborhood manners, boundaries on the regulating plan and because these are both very specific pieces of that plan, I wanted to make sure there was reference. The other part of it is I don't think we get into, in the definitions anyway, we don't talk about how the boundaries or how the lines are drawn and what the data actually looks like and how to get the data. So I wanted to have a little bit of language in here on that as well. Okay, yeah, that sounds fine to me. And from what I can remember, it seems like this, we talked about it and you've made whatever changes were made or we talked about the permissive minimum, like if they've been made, seems fine to me. Yeah, all that was incorporated into the definition section. So okay, so there's two other items that are new that I wanted to bring up in the context of this hearing. So this is actually one of, and this language appears twice. So it's the same reference in two different places and they relate to building height. So here under item four, I added this last line here, except as specified in section 604 when referencing building height. Because what I've been finding is that, so right now there's nothing in section 604 that this is really kind of a placeholder, I guess is the way I would describe it. Section 604 has the specific standards on roofs and attic stories. And currently when we're doing our building height calculations, we do not account, the attic story is not included. What I've been noticing is that some of the designers are bringing in a roof that in essence kind of functions as an additional story, but because it's not measured and it's considered an attic story, it's we don't include it in the overall building height or the story count as is listed here. So what I wanted to do was because we were working on these sections, I wanted to put this exception in so that later we can add language into the roof, the specific section on the roof size and the roof design that we can regulate those roof features that act as an additional story. So right now we don't have the language in section 604, but this would allow us to put that language in and then it's basically ready to go once 604 is updated. Does that- So what happens in the meantime, Eric, if these are approved by council after you have this public hearing and these are approved, if someone goes to look at this and there's no section 604 yet, what happens? Well, so section 604 exists, but there's nothing in section 604 that would contradict the attic story as part of the building height. Okay, so so far they can still reference right now and we would use that clarity to 604 later. That's correct. Yes, that's correct. Okay, it seems reasonable. Yeah, so we're doing it this way so that we can keep moving forward and then we'll work on 604 at another time. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, that way we don't have to, that way when we amend section 604, we don't have to come back and change these differences as we can just- Yeah, okay, that makes sense. 604 can stand on its own. Yeah. So I added it on this line and then also on, I'll just show you on page 29 here, I believe. Oops, not quite there. Right here as well, this under item C. So Eric, is the problem that developers are coming in and sticking on these roofs to get an extra story that they otherwise wouldn't? And if that's the case, should we address that now? Well, so the way that 604 is written is that it talks about pitched roofs and we don't really get into a lot of detail in that section about what we're considering a pitched roof. So any, we do reference, let's see, how is it referenced? It does talk about simple hip and gable roofs and shed roofs or other pitched roofs with a certain pitch ratio that we're calling a pitched roof but it doesn't, the language in 604 doesn't exclude, it's not explicit to say these are the only options for a pitched roof that you have or anything like that. So it just says, these are some examples of pitched roofs. But so at least one project I've seen come in, they're proposing a roof with a fairly aggressive pitch to the point, it's basically a Mansard style roof to where it almost functions as an additional story. It's not the same overall footprint because there is some pitch to it still. But it in essence kind of functions as an additional story but because this language about attic stories and ultimate building height exempt it from those, from the story count and the total height, they're basically kind of getting something that they probably shouldn't be getting. So we haven't looked at any of the language yet in 604. I mean, I'm happy to do it at our next meeting if you wanna get right into it. I thought that we had in here something about building heights of flat roof, X number of feet and a pitched roof, X number of feet or is it am I, I think you know, reading it the other part. Pitched roofs are not counted towards the building height. That is weird. That is weird. Yeah. The flip, I've always seen it though.  Sure. And by allowing that, it does increase the potential density of a building. But it also increases the building's height as well. Right. So. But there's gotta be some limit on a building height. In other words, you can't put a roof in that's, you know, like a, I'll use for example, like an A-frame or a church roof that's really steep and really high. Yep. That you maybe get one and a half stories. Sure. I guess what I'm trying to, the amendment for section 604 will basically say that if you're doing a roof that is over a certain pitch, it's part of the, it's not a roof anymore. That's a story. Yeah. So you're still able to use it and incorporate that design element, but it's no longer out of the, it's no longer exempt from the height and the total story count because it functions basically as an additional story. So why doesn't, at this point, the language back on the previous page you had, I guess, or on this page, say that, you know, addict story doesn't count against the ultimate building height, except it cannot be used for additional living area or something like that. I don't know. That's, yeah. That's what we're sort of going to try to correct. But that's, yeah. That's the purpose of adding this exception for 604. So we can go back and analyze that and think about that, right? Right. I understand that. But now in the meantime, we're going to have these, potentially these projects that are going to be able to use that loophole. And I guess I'm fine with it, but I think we need to address it sooner than later. Sure. I mean, at the end of the day, it's resulting in additional housing units. So it's not that it's something we don't need in the city, but it's a way to get around the regulations that I don't think was intended. Right. And again, that's the flip side that I was talking about. It allows potentially more density, more units to be incorporated into a building, which was- I mean, we need to think about a cap on the heights of any building, I think is another, in other words, then we could have buildings that had nine stories. I mean- And we do have- I thought we had some heights. We do, we do. We have a story height limit and an overall height of the building limit as well. So even with that attic- That line. Right now an attic story is not included in either of those measurements, either the story height or the overall building height. Oh, so you really could build something up there. Potentially. You could call it a roof, it could be. Right. And it probably would not require parking, right? Oh, it'll still require parking, yes. Oh, it would. Yes. All right, so why don't we, I guess leave it like that and address section 604. Yeah. Soon. Soon. Yeah. And that is the only other item that you have not yet seen. So. Any- Well, there is a member of the public on the Zoom call. Councilor Oakleaf is with us. Okay. But there's nobody here in the room. So we are still in an open public hearing. Does Bryn wanna say something? No comments from me. Okay. Well, welcome Bryn anyway. Anyone on the commission have any comments, questions? So I guess the only question I would have, Eric, is, and I don't know if this relates to the planning commission or just to the city council, but when you warn a public hearing, there are significant changes to what you warn. You need to have another hearing. And I don't know if the first thing that we talked about is significant enough or not. I'm thinking it's probably not that we could hold this. I guess to that I would say two things. One, I don't think that's a significant enough change because the language is generally there and we're just adding an additional clarification on what action the city can take. The other thing is, I think you as the planning commission can make changes and forward that on to council. I think if council makes changes that are significant, that's when additional hearings need to be warned. And it also needs to come back to the planning commission for review. Okay, yeah, that was my question. I remember as on the council, if you make significant changes, you have to have another hearing. Right, that's my understanding of statute is that the planning commission can make changes and then forward that information on to council because ultimately council still has to hold hearings on the question. So I guess that's where we are on this is if there's any questions or comments or other edits that someone wants to make, otherwise I'll be looking for a motion to actually, first we make a motion to close the public hearing. There's nobody else out there, right? That's correct. So I guess no one has any comments or questions. So would someone make a motion to close the public hearing? I move to close the public hearing. Okay, is there a second? I second. Okay, I think that was Amy and Abby. Yep. All in favor of closing the public hearing, say aye or raise your hand or however. Aye. Aye. Okay. Aye. The public hearing is closed. So now I would ask for a, if the planning commission would like to make a motion to move these changes on to the city council for their review and approval. I'll make a motion to move it on. Okay. Anyone want to second that? I'll second it. Okay, is there any discussion? Anyone who has concern about that or wants to wait? Okay, hearing none. I'm going to take a vote on the motion then to move this on to the council. All those in favor, please say or signify aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Anyone want to abstain? Okay, Eric then we'll move it on to the city council. And I know that Mayor and Brenner on here, you've got some stuff coming to you. Thank you all very much. I will make those changes to the traffic impact study language and prepare that for council's consideration. You want to unshare your screen? Oh, yes, I can do that. Now we can see everybody. Make sure no one has fallen asleep. So next item on the agenda is overview and discussion of parking inventory analysis and management plan. I'd say we've got about half an hour to go through this tonight. Yep, so included with your agenda were sections of the section 6.0 and sections 5.0 of the parking inventory analysis and management plan. I had previously sent a link to the full plan for you all in advance. So if you wanted to look at that, you can do that also. It's very data heavy, but I think there's a lot of, so there is some good information in there as well. So the purpose of having this item on the agenda tonight because this is still a draft plan right now, section 6.0 is the implementation portion and section 5.0 is the policy action section. So we wanted to put this on the agenda tonight to have a discussion since some of the implementation and policy action does relate to work that we've been talking about and potentially involves changes that the Planning Commission will need to review and discuss should counsel for that information along. I purposefully put these two sections out of order with section 6.0 first and section 5.0 second because section 6.0 is the implementation portion. In particular, there are items in phase two of the implementation on the fourth page of the document that was sent out that starts to get into some of the Planning Commission realm and then additionally in section 5.2, I think it's section 5.2, let me just make sure. Yeah, section 5.2 of the policy actions are some of the zoning options and then there's a brief reference to parking maximums in section 5.4, but mostly 5.2 is the bulk of the zoning policy actions. So wanted to put some time on the agenda for you all to talk about this and to have a discussion, provide any comments you may want to forward along either to counsel or to the advisory committee as we work to finalize, sorry, the project team as we work to finalize the draft plan. So that's kind of how I wanted to set the stage for this. So Mike, I don't know if you wanted to add anything. No, I mean, that sets the stage well and hopefully folks had a chance to read through at least the stuff that Eric sent with the packet sections six and five. And I will say that going through most, a lot of it is really geared toward council actions. And you're right, there are some things really into what we can do with zoning. I just got the sense that a lot of it though was, we need more information, you know, the suggestions that they gave again, and some of the stuff is relevant to big cities where there's robust alternate modes of transportation as opposed to here. But I'm not sure where to go right now other than maybe if people have some thoughts about what they read in both of these parts. And I guess just to kind of ask a few leading questions. So a couple of things I wrote down to just potentially think about is, are there any items in these sections that we may want to recommend be prioritized as far as the work that we're doing and what the city may be doing? And are there potentially some items in here that may or may not be appropriate for the city of Winooski so we can just maybe rule some things out right away so we're not even bringing them into the consideration. Again, as we make recommendations to council when the final report gets drafted. Or just any thoughts in general? I mean, I think one of the things that came through for me, at least sitting through all the meetings and having the discussions is that I think overall, the city is in pretty good shape with the on-street parking inventory and with some of the, there's adequate parking on the streets and in the off-site locations. There was a lot of surveys that were done to reflect time of day, day a week, on-street, off-street parking. And there are definitely some areas where there's some pressure that we need to be concerned about. But nothing I don't think is imminent right now. That's not to say that we get a few more developments in and things change. So there's definitely some areas that we wanna keep an eye on but I don't think there's anything right now that is of critical concern, I guess I would say. I think overall, I did sit it on the meeting on whatever day it was where they presented this. And I did have a chance to read through quite a bit. And I have to say it was refreshing to have people who actually really know about parking as opposed to all of us who sit around and sort of argue about it. So I had a pretty good feeling about the two gentlemen who presented. So I feel like they have given us a lot of good information that felt adequate. I mean, Mike, you're having a slightly different response to it. Well, and I didn't sit through those meetings either.  Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and I appreciate that. And again, I think we do need more information. One of the things that as I was reading through it that popped up is this whole concept of unbundling parking. And I know that there's some developers who've done that in Burlington, but it seems like that's a landlord option as opposed to something that the city should impose. And maybe I misunderstood the way it was written. But that's one thing that popped into my head as I was reading through this. Mike, the mayor has her hand up. Christine, you don't need to be called on. Just jump in like the rest of us. But thank you. Thanks, Mike. Two things. So the first thing I was going to ask is when do you need to have comment by? I, you know, to your statement about wanting more information. I read this in the past week and I didn't, I can't grasp it all. Like I need more time with it. And I just wanted to share that in case others feel that way. Thank you. And then two, yeah, go ahead. No, I said thank you. Yeah. Yeah. It's really dense. And then the second thing I was just going to say. It's very dense. I kind of liked that it was that dense because it really means they put a lot of thought into it. Yeah. A lot of information. I just feel like I'm going to have to read it twice and spend more time than I did. But also you just mentioned the unbundling Mike. And I think this is not a formal. I feel like I have heard from the conversations with developers and the housing commission that like that's not a priority or like a particular, like that's not going to be a really good strategy. So if you all aren't feeling good about that, it's not, I get the sense that that's not really going to move the needle anyway. So. Is this RSG? Who put together the study? RSG was the, was the prime on it. And who were the two presenters? Was it John Slason? Jonathan Slason and Andy from Desmond, Andy Hill from Desmond. Desmond was the sub consultant. Yeah. Yeah. And to the point of unbundling, we actually at the last advisory committee meeting, we did have a pretty good discussion about that. One of the developers, Eric Hoekstra from Redstone is it was on the advisory committee and he provided some good insight that the unbundling it doesn't function as a direct one to one relationship. So if, for example, if a developer offers parking separately and the parking space is say $100 a month, that doesn't equal $100 a month reduction in your rent overall. It's, there's more nuance to the calculations that go into how they actually look at the pricing structure for bundled versus unbundled and the rents for the units and the rents for the spaces. So it's not, it's not a direct affiliation that you're gonna see a dollar for dollar reduction in one area. Aren't most of those new developments that Digas put in unbundled? I mean, the parking doesn't come with the rent. You have to pay additional. Yeah, that's a good question. I know the 15 Manso Street is unbundled. I'm not sure how they're doing the other projects, quite honestly. That's not anything that the city requires. It's really, it's their management structure. So we don't, we don't get into that level as long as they meet our minimum parking standards. That's what we're looking at. I'm pretty sure city lights, you pay additional to park there and they kept pointing to that to show that there wasn't as much parking demand as maybe you would expect for a building without many units in it. But it is, since it's unbundled from what I know, people could just be parking somewhere else for free or less. Potentially, yeah. The other thing that I saw in here and I wrote a little comment on the things is this whole thing of, I'm on page 76, which is what the last page of section six you were on. And it's saying adopt funding mechanisms to pay for some of the both actions in lieu of fees. Yeah, yeah. And I understand that it makes sense, but in order to collect enough money for the city to invest in supporting infrastructure, there's a big amount of money that has to be in it. I don't know how feasible that policy, I guess it is, would be in Waduski, but again, I don't have any data supporting it. For doing an in lieu fee for parking, you mean? Yeah. See? Yeah. That's something I've been thinking quite a lot about lately, just with, as the council has discussions on the budget and council priorities with housing and the housing commission information that they're providing and the discussions they're having. I mean, the in lieu fee, depending on how it's structured, it could raise revenue to help offset, they may not necessarily provide enough revenue to create new infrastructure for us, but things for example, at Monday night's council meeting, it was discussed that there's gonna be a green mountain transit is looking at I think a 16% increase in their budgeting. And so an in lieu fee could be something that offsets that so that the city is not shouldered with that type of an increase. It could be that we're collecting fees on the side that can help offset something of that nature. So I mean, there's ways to do it that it could be beneficial. It may just not result in new big infrastructure projects. I guess I need to reread it because the impression I got from what they were suggesting is that that money be set aside for infrastructure projects. It could. It could. I mean, it definitely could be, but we could use it. I mean, I think depending on how it's set up, we could use it for however we want it really. Well, and then you get into the whole conversation about, well, okay, if that happens, they don't provide enough parking, what's the impact to the adjacent neighborhoods? You know, it's great that they invest or the city use that money to invest in public transit or whatever, but how many of those people will be using those alternate modes of transportation and still parking in neighborhoods, you know what I mean? But that's my big concern. Yeah, and I think we have to think too about like to the extent that we're thinking about letting like developers create less parking or reducing parking minimums, et cetera. I think we need to think carefully about what's, why are we doing that? I mean, we've heard a lot that building parking is really expensive for developers and that's like one of the things that raises rents and like holds down density. But maybe if we're, so maybe if we're making developers pay a fee in lieu of constructing parking, they would just say, well, we still had to pay that money. It just didn't go to parking. So that's still cost prohibitive for us. I mean, I think, I think I, I think I, from what I heard Mike say, I'm sort of with him in that in theory, it sounds like a good idea. I think that in a small municipality, like Winooski, we would need to think about what we would actually use the money for. So if I could jump in. I'm sorry, I was gonna say I went off camera because I had to get close to the screen to read your comments, Christine. So one, if there was a payment in lieu the fee would be lower than what it cost to build parking. That is what would create the savings, but two, we had a lengthy discussion at the last council meeting about housing, zoning, parking, and the crux of that discussion being the council wants to see some incentive that supports specific type of affordable housing, the creation of free bedroom or larger family size housing. And that that should take the form of or could take the form of updating the foreign-based code incentive bonus story to be coupled with some parking reduction or some others don't change, you know, there are other paths to go down. But essentially then, like, if we are doing some parking reduction, it would be only, it would be in service of these priority projects for housing that we're not getting other ones, but not like, I don't think we would entertain like everybody can just pay in lieu to this fund and, you know, do whatever. So do you see that any kind of housing needs that the council and the housing commission is identifying? Do you see any of that housing going into the corridors, the designated development corridors? I mean, the affordable level is, like we've had some of that development happening. The free bedroom or larger, that hasn't happened yet, but we also don't have any, there's no incentive for that, right? Like they're accessing federal funding to support affordability. There's no incentive for the free bedroom or larger housing. Yeah, so that's what we need to see. One of the things I'm getting a little nervous about or I think I've said it before too is that, you know, we might end up with two Winooskies if we're not careful because the corridors have one kind of energy. And I guess what I would hate to see is that we start putting incentives into the other neighborhoods. Not that I'm saying we should change some of that zoning in there, but we start putting incentives there. And all of a sudden there's an abandonment of the corridors before we've got them to the point that we envision. So it's a sort of balancing of... Based on our previous reports that we've heard, it seems as though it's going to be difficult to create an incentive that would have in the gateway district at least or in any of the form-based code areas that we would have an incentive that's strong enough to get three bedrooms. Nobody seemed to jump on that idea. Yeah. So what I'm thinking is, is that I'd love to see the incentive put in there so that we've at least got a chance of seeing whether that can happen in some of the newer buildings that may go up. But I have a strong feeling that we need to revisit the rest of Winooski to allow further modification to existing structures, to allow folks to create three bedrooms where they might only have two now. That's a lot of housing inventory that I think we could improve that would make a big difference. I don't know if anyone else agrees. I understand that too. I don't disagree actually, but I think we need to make sure that the corridor, I call it the corridor meaning the gateway development, doesn't like the deals don't get so sweet in another part of the city that we just end up not finishing developers. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. Is that, you know. So you gotta. There's still more potential there for growth. So let's do what we can to create the incentives that could make it possible. I've just been chewing on something Christine said about the fee and lieu option. You had said that it would be less than the parking, the cost of building parking to incentivize developers. But why would we want to incentivize developers to use the fee and lieu? The fee and lieu to me seems like something that a developer, the incentive for the developers, and they could build their larger structure without requiring all of the parking that would be required to make a plot viable, right? Like they would be able to expand the footprint of the building and then be able to pay the city to have less parking than would otherwise be required. So I'm trying to figure out why we, why would it would be priced less than what the cost of building the parking would be. Well, the goal of having the lower prices so that it is an incentive, they can save money, right? Why? If they were just giving us, if they were just building less parking but spending the same amount of money to give us money, that doesn't help. Wow. Why do we want to incentivize them to use the fee and lieu? I'm not saying that's the route we want to go down. If that was the mechanism we chose, the goal is to save them some money if they build what we tell them to build that they're not building for us already. If the fee and lieu is the right mechanism, I'm not saying that's the answer. There are other, like. We're sort of saying the same thing. Sort of. I think so. Yeah. But it's also like, I think the data is demonstrable that lower income housing tends to require less vehicles. And theoretically, so would the, if we're focused on family housing, theoretically it could too. That's not necessarily how a three or four bedroom unit is gonna get rented out, right? I think my confusion then is you're talking about like the fee and lieu for either a three plus bedroom or a low income. That's how you're seeing the fee and lieu being offered. And that's why we would place, because yeah, okay. I think that's the connection that I'm missing because otherwise a fee and lieu in of itself is like a guess to a developer. It doesn't matter if it's more or less than their current parking costs because it gets them out of what's required. But I think because you're tying it to those two specific things that we're looking. Okay. So it would be like instead of saying, okay, well, wave your parking. If you do the X, Y and Z, we'll have them pay some amount. Okay. So yeah, we would just want this written up in a way that attached it to those housing priorities. Yeah. And I think that's a lens you could put to, I think there's other stuff in here. You know, like if there was a waiver or parking reductions or whatever, like we could think of a tool that could be used, but it would be tied to specifically like meeting these goals that we require. Okay. Well, and I think too, also thinking about what would we use the fees for? I mean, this report seems to sort of contemplate it could be used to like a like blame for infrastructure, but I would guess we could just put the money in like the housing trust fund and use it to like develop more affordable housing or refurbished housing. You know, I think it's, as I understand it, it's money that would come to the city and we could, the city could choose how they wanted to use it. I would push back on that because if we're decreasing the amount of parking, people then their assumption is people are getting around without a vehicle. So the money should be going into a fund that supports services from pulling the ground without a vehicle. And we don't have great funding for that right now. We don't really repaint our bike lanes. We have no, not a lot of infrastructure for bikes and lacking infrastructure for pedestrians. It's definitely an area of need. Eric? Yeah. Great. Eric can, I don't know, is it possible for them to present to the planning commission so that we can like hash out these questions or? Well, that's a good question. I think the plan was to have the presentation at council once the report is done. So that, and then, I mean, you obviously, the planning commission members can attend that presentation and ask questions, et cetera. I don't think we had, we had intended to do a specific presentation to the planning commission as well, though. I'm going to guess that we probably, it's probably not in their contract. The contract probably specifies one year. I think that's, I think that's how it was written up is that it would be, the final report would be presented to council. Okay. So you'll just let us know when that is. Yep. Absolutely. Sorry, Sarah, go ahead. I don't remember. Okay. Any other thoughts about the parking study? Well, one thing I did have, and again, like Christine, I read it through, but you just can't take it all in one go. But I think it talked a little bit about doing it and doing things in stages. And that's a way of getting the community and the public to acclimate to it, so that it's not so shocking to the system because you do this and then you readjust to that and you readjust to that. So it would be interesting to see if we could look at it that holistically and say, well, this is, how do we put this out over a number of years or whatever the scope of time would be? Erica, I know they referenced in here, if I remember correctly, Browderboro, Montpelier and Burlington. And I don't know how recent those changes are in those communities, especially Browderboro and Montpelier. Do you have or is there some way that we can get any information on how it's working? And maybe it's too early for you to know. Yeah, that's, I guess it would depend on the specific program potentially, because I know they reference those municipalities in multiple sections for various parts and pieces, whether it be for their pricing, for their enforcement, for their residential parking program. So was there a program in particular that you were? Well, I thought that they either reduced parking minimums or eliminated them, I forget. Again, I'm gonna refer back to Christine's comment that it's, it was so much to try to remember. And on page 64 at the bottom of that page, I think they do talk a little bit about that. And they do say that the long-term impacts have not been fully realized in many cases. And that's about, yeah, elimination, sort of some bottom of 64 references, Burlington there. So, you know, it's a little new territory, I guess, some of this. Oh, that's under eliminating parking requirements. That was what they said. They don't have a lot of information. Okay, anything else? I guess, is there anything specific that you wanna forward on, either to the project team or to council from this report? And it's okay if there's not, I just wanna make sure that if there is something specific that I get a chance to record that information and forward it along. I had two things. I think I mentioned this in the last one, was that I didn't see that, and they confirmed that, that we hadn't adjusted for winter parking bans, which is kind of a serious one, I think. But then they also mentioned somewhere else about considering removing parking bans. So I would just bring that one up with them. They made a reference to St. Stephens and parking, at St, you know, training that parking up or something, but that's uncertain what that's gonna be. So there were some of those, not D, they also talked about people using the park in, that one also may not be there. So those were three things you might. Anything else? Good, we look forward to hearing in front of the council that we can all come to and listen and comment. All right, so next item was the memo from the housing commission, but I think because of time, Eric, we'll skip that for now. Well, so I'll just say a few words on that real quick, since we do a little bit of time, if that's all right. So the intent of this, I don't think was to really get into an in-depth discussion tonight on it. Really the housing commission has been doing some work, reviewing ways to help create more affordability and more of the style of housing that has been identified as a priority. And so they, one of the documents that they reviewed was this zoning, enabling better places, a zoning guide for Vermont neighborhoods, otherwise referred to as zoning for great neighborhoods. And so they identified several recommendations out of that guide that they wanted to highlight and forward along, which is what the memo outlines. I think there's four specific recommendations that they identified. So these would be things that we could look at as we are reviewing zoning changes in general, specifically looking at density caps, parking, and I believe the dimensional standards was the third. There's two on parking, but so the memo that's included with the agenda outlines those specific recommendations and sites, the parts of the report that the housing commission is referencing. So this was, I think, more just as a referential item, so not anything that we needed to take action on, but just guidance from, or information from the housing commission on what they've identified as potential barriers that could be addressed through zoning to help with the city's housing priorities. And we will be taking this up in further detail at some point in the future. Yeah, and I would envision that we would address these comments in line with our regulations and not necessarily, I mean, we would reference the recommendations from these guides, but it's not specific as far as what the language would look like, so we would spend time working on the language as a planning commission that could address those comments and work to reduce some of those barriers that have been identified by the housing commission. Okay, great. Next item is city updates. Eric or Christine, any updates? I will defer to the mayor on this one and let her start. We have commenced work with our external recruiter to relaunch our city manager search. And we're hoping, timeline we set, we are hoping to do final interviews and a public meet and greet the week of the centennial. So that could like turn out nice for public engagement with the goal of having an offer out by April, starting someone by June. So that's exciting. Did want to mention the housing commission has been shifting their focus to housing quality issues. So they're starting to look at our housing quality data. All right. Yeah, so they have sent out a lot of information and now pivoting on that. We started budgeting, so that'll be the next several meetings. And... Let me ask you what you're thinking. How about city clerk update? Oh yeah, we hired someone. She started this week, Eric. Tuesday, yep, Tuesday. I forgot her name, she comes from Essex. Jenny Willingham. All right. I haven't gotten to meet her yet, but she has a ton of experience and our existing clerks, I was really excited about her. And Carol's last day is coming up, and that's what I'm thinking, so. I know we're just trying to get as much information from her as we can before she leaves. I'm sure that there'll be a lifeline through her in some way. Yeah. She won't be able to escape this entire. 41 years. Yeah, 41 years she's been with us. Dang, that's amazing. And Jana, our assistant clerk, has been here for 31. So, well, I'm knowledge in that office. Well, yeah, and then Angela's now been there for probably close to 20. Has it been, I know she's been here a lot. Well, I'm trying to think. It's probably 15, but yeah. Still. But I was thinking that if you go back in my lifetime, I think there's been four. This will be the fourth city clerk. Oh, the other ones didn't stay long. And I'm 66. Yeah. Maybe this will be the fifth, but not many. Surprising.  I think that's it. Nothing else is coming to mind now. And we haven't met in a while. So I can't remember what all has passed since the previous meeting. So, Eric, I just had one question. Is, are there any big projects coming down the line that you can share with us? Sure. Yeah, actually I was gonna mention that with my city updates. So two other things before that at council's meeting, they did on Monday night, they did adopt a resolution requiring masks in the city. So you'll see some, should see some information about that going around. And also. Is that, if I can ask, is that all indoor spaces, including restaurants, et cetera, or is there any exceptions? If you're eating and drinking, you don't need to wear a mask. And obviously folks that have health issues that can't wear a mask and children under five, I believe. But otherwise, pretty much all indoor spaces. So if I go to a restaurant, I wear a mask in and when I get my food, I can take it off. Yep. Yep. And it's a, I forget the specific language, so I'm gonna get this wrong. It's the kind where we're, a non-enforcement, I don't know, what's the... Yeah, it's, you could do an enforcement or non-enforcement rule and we opt it for non-enforcement. So there's no like ticketing or fines or anything. Just a slap on the wrist. Yeah.  Public shaming. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Just reminding people that we're still in the pandemic days. The other item that I wanted to mention, actually from Monday night's council meeting as well, Representative Colston announced that he will be retiring at the end of this legislative term and stepping down. So... If anyone wants to run for council, there's no one sees. Right. When they're done that. He's stepping down on the city level and the state level. Yes. Yeah. So he'll finish out in May or whatever, whenever the session ends. So for your question, Sarah, so yes, I did receive an application in last two weeks ago now, I think. Maybe it was longer ago than that. For redevelopment up on Main Street as well, the... You may know them as the Hogan Boom Properties. Yeah. 379 and 381 Main Street. The project includes... It's around 9600 square feet of non-residential space on the first level and 72 apartments with that. Wow. So it's a big project. The interesting thing about those properties is they're narrow. They're only about 50 to 100 feet wide, each of them. But the one property is probably about 800 feet deep. So it extends almost the whole way back to George Street. So it's a really deep property. But... Who's the developer? Yeah. It is coming through... So the Hogan Boom still own it. The applicant is sisters and brothers. The handies are the applicants. Sorry, Mike, you would... What did you just ask? I said, are there wetland issues back there? There's nothing that's been identified on the plans. I think there is some drainage that comes in from the school that is... But I think it's all related to stormwater from the stormwater pond that's on the school's property. But I know they spent a lot of time doing site investigations and site work up there. So that is actually going through our project review committee since it's in the form-based code. That meeting is scheduled for Monday, next Monday. So... What is the size of the bedrooms in that? It's a mix of one bedrooms, studio's one bedroom to two bedrooms. I think there's the majority... You can put three bedrooms in. In studio, sorry, what, Mike? I said, make them put three bedrooms in. Well... Right next to the school, it's perfect. I don't have the ability to do that, but... So, Councilor Oakley, if it's 379 and 381 Main Street are the addresses. So are they taking that? There's an old house there, right? There is an old house that's been boarded up for, I think, as long as I've been in the city and that has, I think, there's been some issues with people with drugs and squatters living there and it just hasn't been taken care of in quite some time. And then there's another house on the other... That's the 381 property and then there's another house on the 379 property that I don't know what the status of that property is. So... Let's see, what else is going on or happening? The development or the construction has started on the units right across the street here from City Hall. So there's a lot of activity going on there. There has been. They had to put in a new water line on the road so that was occupying some space for a while because that property did not have... There's no water service that runs on this section of Weaver Street. So they had to put in a new water service completely. But otherwise things have been relatively slow in the development world as far as what I've been getting applications on. So a few big ones here and there. A lot of things getting wrapped up, but that is all I have for city updates. Okay. Once the Digest property on Main Street, when is the completion for that property expected? That's a good question. I would expect that in the next several months they'll be finalizing that. I know they've been moving pretty quick on it, but I don't have a formal completion date on it. And do we know what's gonna be in the ground floor of that building? I do not know. I know, but I think they've got about 1500 square feet roughly of non-residential space to fill. So, oh, both actually to that point, both of the commercial spaces at 211 Main Street are occupied. There's the Fusion Cafe and Wicked Wings moved in from Essex into the other side. So we've got two new restaurants there if anybody's interested in H&I. How about the Lot 7D? Is that, is there any move on that? It's still, there's still discussions ongoing. I have not been involved in any of those, so I'm not sure what the status is, where the progress is at this point. I'll just say there's still forward motion, but it's still slow. Okay, is that normal, or is it COVID slow? It's been COVID impacted for sure. Yeah, yeah. All right, what property were you talking about? Lot 7D, so that's the Dirt Lab by CCD where the hotel's supposed to go. Okay. I had done the archeology for that. Yeah. A couple of years ago. How about our favorite west pad site lot? No, no. Two and four on that? There have been no changes. Is that Lot the other hotel lot that you're talking about, Mike? On the circle? On the corner of Main Street. And he had been using, or he had an agreement with St. Stephen to use parking, but that's been torn up. So anyway. And it was, it ran afoul of our regulations anyway. So it wouldn't have been valid. Yeah. One other thing to report on quickly. The state, the Cannabis Control Commission or whatever they're being called, they have put out two of their rules that at least that I'm aware of rule number one and rule number two. I haven't had a chance to read through them all yet. They're about 50 pages total, but there are some, there is some guidance or some of the rule, some of those rules do relate to land use. So I'll be looking through that information to see if there's anything specific that we may want to look at or any additional regulations. And we may want to incorporate into our land use regulations beyond what the state is going to be requiring for retail cannabis. So as you may recall, the city did opt in to allow for retail cannabis in Winooski. So the state is working on their process to get that all figured out first before any local licenses can be issued. So can we put that in, can we zone that to certain areas? Is that what you're saying? Well, I guess I would say maybe, but I would not recommend that. I mean, it's right now, if right now I would consider it a retail use just like any other retail use. So if you're selling records or cannabis, it doesn't matter to me, it's still a retail use. So we would regulate it the same way we regulate any retail use right now. And so the state, from what I've heard, the state in, I believe in rule two, they have some limitations on proximity to schools and some limitations on signage or advertising that can be done. So I'll look at that and see if it's how restrictive it may not be. But generally speaking, that's the way that I would treat that a business currently, if one were to come into the city or request to come into the city, is that it's a retail business just like any other retail business. Any other business? The only other thing I would mention is that our next meeting, so our next December meeting is gonna conflict with the Christmas holiday, so we will not meet then. So that would put our next meeting at January 13th. So this is our last meeting of calendar year 21. Wow. And Eric, can I request, I know that I asked to table the historic preservation stuff, so Joe got back, but can we put that on the agenda for that meeting? I will take it under discussion with the chair. Okay. But I will not be at the January meeting. What's that? Just to make sure we get quorum stuff, I will not be at the January meeting. Okay. Is there any other business? Hearing none, I'm looking for, I'm sorry, Brennan? Yeah, just a bit of brief news. So my wife and I bought one of the new houses on LaFountain Street, so the new development up there, so we close next Friday, actually. We're scheduled to move there. Awesome. I know part of how I sold myself to the commission is that I'm the only renter on the chair. I'm buying a house pretty quickly, but no, I will say, I don't know how that development came together or what the process was, but the existence of that new housing to own in Winooski was a big game changer and has made the city attractive for my wife and I to stay and like raise a family. So to the extent that we can do more of that would be a good thing. Yeah, those went fast. It was nice to see that we've had an appetite for that community. How big are those houses, bedroom-wise? Two, two. Yeah, mine, it's two, but it's pretty big. It's like a little more than 1,900 square feet with the basement, and someday we could definitely make the basement into like another sleeping area. Yeah, I think the basements were all designed with windows to allow for some sort of living space to be created there in the future, but we're actually, we're going out tomorrow to do our final inspections on that project. So hopefully everything goes through and you can close next week. They should look great. Nice. Congratulations, that's wonderful. Yeah, that's awesome. Thank you, that's exciting. Okay, any other business? How can we have any other business after that? Exciting comment for a bit of news. So I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. I'll move to the chair. I'll second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Anyone want to hang around? No. Thank you, everybody. Have a happy holidays, Merry Christmas. Yes. Happy whatever and happy to see you in January. Yeah, take care. Take care, everyone. Bye. Bye.


Chansey is probably best known for its role as a nurse joys sidekick in the pokemon anime or for being one of the most annoying pokemon in existence if you're a competitive player. But did you know Chansey was and still is the only pokemon to have single handedly won a pokemon world championships. The very first pokemon world championships in the year 2000 in Sydney Australia. Eight players represented their countries from Australia, the United States, Spain, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. These eight players went head to head to see who would be crowned a pokemon master over this two day event playing single battles under the prime cup rules on pokemon stadium. In the semi-finals of this tournament we saw the United Kingdom take a big win over Germany to move on to the finals and then in a combination of losses for the United States against Germany and Spain it meant that Edwin Klaus Germany were moving on making it an all-European UK versus Germany final. Darren Van Varen was the player representing the United Kingdom against Germany's Edwin Klaus. Edwin was known for how dominant his snorlax had been throughout the event whereas Darren had made his way to the finals with the help of his trusty nurse joys sidekick Chansey. The finals were short but very sweet for Darren as he only used his Chansey to knock out all of Edwin's pokemon and become the very first pokemon world champion. And this was no ordinary Chansey this set Darren used was coined the Molly Nut Chansey using a move set of seismic toss, thunder wave, minimise and soft boil. The idea was to paralyze your opponent turn one with thunder wave and then proceed to use a combination of minimise to increase Chansey's evasiveness of avoiding incoming attacks whilst recovering health with soft boil and picking up knockouts with seismic toss. Essentially once Chansey had set up six minimises an opponent had a 33% chance of its move actually landing which made something with the biggest HP stat in the game even harder or near impossible to remove from the field. This is how Chansey single handedly won the very first world championships and conquered the pokemon world.