So I think Mike at this point, it's just Abby and Joe that we're waiting on. Okay. So however you want to, however you want to do it. I think what we'll do is we'll start the meeting and we'll, we'll do the public hearing starting at 635. That'll give that gives them five minutes to get here or give them three now, but whatever. So we'll start the meeting and any changes to the agenda. Hearing none. Public comment. And I don't see. I guess I see one attendee, huh? That was Abby. Abby just joined. So I'm moving her over. There are no, no, no public. Okay. So I guess there's no public comment then. So next we'll move into approval of the minutes from our previous meeting. So I'm looking for a motion to approve and a second. I approve minutes. Okay. Are there any changes or edits to the minutes? Sorry. Who is the second on that? Tommy. Thank you. Any edits? Comments. Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the minutes as presented. Please say aye or raise your hand. However you want to. Okay. Do you want to get down? Tell me and I are both in gear right now because Joe and Terry aren't there. That's what I assume to be correct. Yes, that is correct. You're both, you're both participating members right now. Okay. Anyone opposed. Anyone want to abstain. Okay. That carries and we'll kind of. We'll be back in a minute until the clock. Strikes six 35 and we will open up the public hearing. On the amendments to zoning. Still see no attendees. Right. Mayor, I will. Christine. Yeah. I was going to say, I will let you deal under a city business. The announcement that we got via email. It's on my list. Okay. Okay. That's great. And if we're on the radio, this would be bad. Dead silence, dead air. What's that? You could sing for us. I could, but you know, probably your, your, your screens would shatter. I don't know what would happen. Christine, were you going to say something? Oh, just, I was going to try to make some small talk, but I was like, that's appropriate because it's not on the agenda. Okay. Well, it's, it's. It's six 35. So we will open the public hearing. I guess technically I need a motion to open the public hearing. Someone want to make a motion to. Sarah. And is there a second? Tommy will second. Okay. Public hearing is open. Still see no attendees. So why don't we run through. The changes. Eric, I'll let you do that. And in the meantime, if anyone joins us from the public, we can go back to them. Okay. Sounds good. I'm going to share my screen here for you so I can walk through the, the changes. While we discuss this. One second while I adjust a few things here too. Is my screen being shared? Yeah. So not showing up how it normally does. It looks smaller. Looks a little smaller to me. What I'm used to, but. Okay. Anyway, so. Tonight we have amendments to articles one to nine and section 5.1 of our regulations. These are all changes that have been reviewed over several meetings. So what I was going to do is just walk through the document based on our last discussion. And there were a few changes that I made. So I just wanted to highlight those changes so that you're all aware of what was, what was done. The changes were based off of comments that you all made. The report that I have up on the screen is what was shared with the adjacent municipalities and what was advertised for the hearing. So this is the language. That was set for tonight's meeting. So there's not a lot to go through. So I'll just going to hopefully cover these fairly quickly. So no changes to article one. Everything there was fine in article two. The first thing actually that I would like to add, which is not included here. I would like to add the word dwelling under multi-unit. For the use. It just says multi-unit. It doesn't list multi consistent. Yeah. So I'd like to just add dwelling there. That's one thing that I'd noticed when I was reviewing this earlier. So there is, there was the requested change or the consideration on the, on the, the planned unit development, but I'm going to save that for later to discuss and go through all these, the changes that we've previously done first. So adding the word dwelling to multi-unit on that line. The next item is on the dimensional standards. I think we had, or I had proposed the minimum frontage for the RB district at 50 feet as well. So that's been changed back to 75 feet or no changes are proposed there. As per the discussions. Moving on to section 2.16, this new section. Yeah. Let me interrupt you and go back to the frontage.  I'm reviewing our discussion and there was discussion about having a slight difference between RA, RB and RC. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. And did we finally decide? Let's just leave it where it is. Is that why it's where it is? So I did some review of the, of the dimensions of the, the lots and just the residential B district. Now we're just, we're just trying to get the details into detail and I don't think an adjustment to, I believe we talked about possibly looking at like 60 feet of frontage has an option, right? It didn't, it didn't make a lot of difference in that case. So that's something I figured we can look at in the future. If we, if we want to. But primarily, I, so I didn't want to bring anything new. In regard to that tonight. I figured I would just leave it with what we had previously discussed. Okay. That was, you were kind of taking the lead on that. So are we all good on that? Yeah, all good. Okay. All right, sorry. Yep, no problem. So then in section two, one, six, there were subsections under part D that talked about the allowance of one zoning district to encroach into the other. So those have both been deleted. So now it's just the, there is no language that discusses that. So that's been, like I said, that's been removed. So what that's saying, man, is if I've got a lot that's in two zones, the areas in each zone are governed by that zoning district. Yep. And if I want to get a zoning change, I have to apply for whatever to the DRB. Well, so if you want to change the zoning, that has to come through the Planning Commission as a zoning amendment. If you want to develop the lot as it is, it would require site plan review if it has multiple zoning districts. So I guess maybe I misread, I'm not sure if it was here where it was. It sounded like if, oh yeah, number F, owners with multiple zoning may request a change in zoning outline in 1.4. Didn't, wasn't there also something about that has to go to the DRB? Not for a zoning change. A zoning change can go to the DRB. It goes to the Planning Commission. You all are responsible for changes to zoning. Okay, so if I have a lot that's in the residential A and residential B zone, may it be possible. And I want to change everything to residential B. I have to come to the Planning Commission? Correct. You have to request to the Planning Commission. Okay. And so then if we approve it, then that induces a change to the zoning map then, right? That's correct. So is that the whole map that just that one, or that two lots that we're talking about? It would just be the lots where the request is made. Yeah. That's what I figured. What this language is saying is that if a property has multiple zoning districts on it, the property can be developed based on the zoning districts that are located on the property. They can be developed in conformity with those districts. The district boundaries can't be blurred, but the project would also require at a minimum site plan approval by the DRB. Not everything in our regulations require site plan approval. So this would be an instance where if it has multiple zoning districts, site planning would be required, which is where the DRB has more authority to look at the layout of the property and the kind of the orientation of items and buffering and access and things of that nature. So it provides more oversight for those properties that have multiple zoning districts. So the change here was the removal of items one and two, sub parts one and two under part D, which talked about the moving of the boundary for a certain amount, no longer included. The next portion under the definitions for deck added that this is above ground outdoor living space out of the word living there per the discussion from the last meeting or the last time we talked about this. And then under patio, I'm gonna skip here, patio we added improved at grade living space. So just that the word improved. And then previously there was a definition for owner and then a definition of occupancy. And we had the discussion about having a definition for owner occupied. So basically what I did was removed the definition for occupancy and made it owner occupied. So it's the same language that was in previously for occupancy. It's just now referencing the owner occupied property, which is really, I believe Mike was your question or your comment about making sure that we had a definition for that. So in that definition, just one little thing, as I read it, to me, it doesn't really define, it talks about what occupancy is. Should there be something in there where owner occupancy is required by these regulations? It shall mean the owner maintaining principal residency at a property or premise year round? Well, I guess. I just, when I read it first, it was kind of like, well, all it's saying is the question is who shall maintain principal residency? I guess I presume that's covered in the part words where owner occupancy is required. So we're basically saying owner occupancy is the requirement, but if it needs more clarification, I'll be happy to entertain that. I personally think it does because to me, it seems like it's where owner occupancy is required. And then it just says it shall mean maintaining principal residency. It doesn't say who maintaining principal residency. Good point. Is it a matter of inserting the word? It shall mean the owner? Yeah, I think that's all it takes. Okay. I can definitely. Sarah, go ahead. Yeah, I had one. I don't know if this matters. It's just talking about deck and patio. Is there any language that needs to be what those are made of? I mean, could a patio be made of wood or a deck be made of stone? Is there any reason to have a thought on any of that? Or does it? I don't know if it... Does it matter what material it's made of? Okay. Currently, we don't care. We don't care. The regulations are now. Yeah, okay. Both, is a deck considered impervious? It is, yes. Okay, so then they're both impervious, I guess. Yeah. Eric, can you scroll up to the definition of deck? Sure. There we go. Yeah, so that says above ground living space. The patio is at grade living space. Yep. Okay. Okay, so adding in under owner occupied that it shall mean the owner maintains maintaining principal residence. I think so. Yep. Okay. Is everyone good with that? Yes. Yes. Yep. Okay. And then lastly, under section 51, the accessory dwellings, this is just language to make our regulations consistent with statute. Nothing has changed since the last time we discussed this. So those are the changes that were distributed out since the last time you all saw it for the proposed amendments. Eric, I think my mind was playing tricks on me as I read through this because when I got to saw the 900 square feet, I thought I saw someplace previously 1000 square feet but I couldn't find it going back through. So the 1000 square feet is in the definition of a detached cottage. Okay. That's where the 1000 square feet comes in. Okay. Gotcha. So there's still no members of the public here, so. And what time do it, it's 647. So you know what, are we done with these changes? So those are the changes that I wanted to highlight. I did want to have the discussion on the request for the inclusion of multi-unit dwellings in conjunction with plan unit developments as we briefly talked about at our last meeting. I don't know if you want to do that in conjunction with the hearing or close the hearing and then have that discussion. I included a memo with the agenda that kind of outlines what that might look like if we wanted to include that amendment in this. But we can also just, we can also not have that discussion and move this forward as it is. So I would say let's have that discussion. And the reason is because I'd like to keep the public hearing section open, hopefully until about seven. So that we give ample time for anyone who wanted to come that might've got tied up for whatever reason, including making an appointment to get their vaccine. Time to chime in. Sure. So if you want, I can go through that amendment or the memo on the PUD language. Yup. Okay. So, all right. Did my screen just change for all of you? Yes. Okay. So this is the memo that I included in the agenda. Basically the request that came forward was or is to consider allowing multi-unit development in conjunction with a planned unit development. So the memo that I put together outlines kind of what a planned unit development is, what the purpose of it is and how it's regulated currently. And then if interested, if the planning commission so desires, some possible language that could be inserted into the use table that would accommodate the allowance of multi-unit as a conditional use only when proposed or only when a planned unit development is proposed. I think it's basically the idea here is that it would allow for an additional option of how a property could be developed so that it could better utilize the space and cluster of the development. Right now, the only options that are available for planned unit developments are what is currently permitted in the districts. So in the RA, RB and RC, it's single unit for the RA only and single and two unit for the RB and RC only. So this just kind of gives you an idea of what, you know, in a hypothetical situation of a one acre property, how many units could be developed and what kind of the makeup of those units would look like. So, you know, we have several developments in the city right now that I believe, I'm not sure if they took advantage of the planned unit development option, but they wouldn't be allowed to exist in their current configuration. One that comes to mind is the housing authority property on Elm Street. The configuration of those buildings would not currently be permitted because those are multiple unit buildings. Similarly, there's the townhouse development at the end of West Street. That development would also not be permitted in our current regulations because those buildings have multiple units in them as well. So this is something where we could limit the number of units that would be permitted in any one building. This wouldn't allow for any additional density, it wouldn't allow for any additional building height or any change to the dimensional standards. All of that would still have to be followed. It would really just allow for an alternative or an additional option of how the units could be configured on the property. So at the end of my memo, I did provide some sample language and what the change might look like to the use table. It would basically just be changing the, changing multi-unit in either the RA, RB or RC, we don't have to do it for all of them. We could do it for one or two of those districts or all three if you wanted to do that, but changing it to a conditional use and adding the additional footnote that it would only be permitted in conjunction with a planned unit development. And similarly, we could also cap the number of units that may be allowed in any one building. So I just put in the number five in this case, but we could make that six or four or whatever you so choose or we can, you can also choose to not entertain this tonight and take this up at a future meeting for additional discussion. Okay, so let's get into discussion. Any questions that folks have? And I guess the first question I'll ask is in the gateway zones, we put in some language that allowed increased density for a number of things, one of which was affordable housing units. And I think one was for energy efficiency. That's correct. Would it make sense in this section in a PUD to have some kind of incentive? And I'm thinking primarily of, I know the mayor has talked about, and some of the councils talked about affordable housing and making some provision to allow maybe more units in a building if it's permanently affordable. I'm throwing it out there. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Just the thought popped into my mind. I keep going back to what everybody, what was expressed in the memo from Deake and what the housing commission expressed and sort of what we've been talking about on the commission for the need of a family-sized housing specifically. And I just am having a hard time seeing that this having more units per building would result in family-sized housing when you look at what's been happening in terms of development. Like the bigger the development, the more units in a single building actually ends up being less bedrooms in each unit. And then the smaller the building, the more bedrooms. So I'm having a hard time seeing how this is accomplishing what Deake said she was trying to do besides the fact that she might be going into this wanting to do three bedroom homes. But I would be really hesitant to change zoning for one developer and then have other developers come in and do a bunch of single units, which now would not be stopped. And I forget who mentioned it on the last call, but it was more like, okay, so if we have these three units in a building and there are three bedrooms each, like the scale of that unit is quite different than the other units in that area. So that's sort of where I'm at. I just don't, I know we changed parking regs for the school and then the developer kind of slipped in and use those parking regs for their projects. And I kind of feel like the same thing would be happening if we change regs for one developer. Yeah, Abby, I think I mentioned the scale. But I just started thinking about it if would it help, I guess, promote more open space though if you consolidated the units into one so you'd have more green space potentially? I mean, it definitely can for sure. But I mean, because right now you could basically have two units of a maximum of what four bedrooms per unit or three bedrooms per unit. And then you could have a 1000 square foot cottage in the back, I guess is that sort of, I'm just trying to figure out like... I don't think there's max bedroom, is that Eric? No, we don't have any limits on the number of bedrooms that a unit can have. I thought there was, you couldn't have more than four unrelated people in a house. So we have, we do include language on what constitutes a household for, and it's, I believe it's six people, but there's also a provision for a large family or something like that, a large household which is up to eight. So, but that doesn't limit the number of bedrooms that can be included in a unit. So, the mayor has her. I mean, I could maybe see it in the RC, but nowhere else, because if it does that scale, I guess I would just be nervous as Abby is on the scale. And it's just not being in similar scale as the neighbors. So mayor, you wanted to add something or comment? Yeah, thanks, Mike. So, what Dieg outlined in wanting this change is that it reduces the cost to build the housing. So what we hear from developers is that two bedrooms and three bedrooms are too expensive to build versus the rent you can collect. So this change, while not adding any additional density to the parcel reduces the cost to build because you're building one building instead of two, for example. I do think there's something interesting to what Mike was asking about, can we align this to, you can access this if it meets a housing priority. So like right now, those priorities are middle income affordability and family sized housing, but those priorities could change if the makeup of development changes over time. And so I would look to Eric for some expertise there on like, how do you write something into your zoning to support priorities, but be able to make a change later if those priorities shift? Yeah, that becomes a little more challenging because then the regulations would have to be changed ultimately, which takes a full public process and it may not be something that's supported at the time. So it could be that the priorities change from the council standpoint, but there is not support to change the land use regulations. So something else we could look at, and again, I don't really have an opinion one way or another on this, but something else we could look at is potentially having a property size limit as well so that this would only be permitted if the proposal is for consists of over an acre of land, the way you're clustering more of the development on that acre of land to again preserve more open space, have less infrastructure that may help reduce some of the construction costs as well, but I'm not entirely sure how we might craft that or what that would look like from a legal standpoint, but it's something that might be able to be added in as well. Well, the other thing to, I think we need to keep in mind is that although right now the demand is for rental housing, there are successful for sale condominium projects with two or three units with two or three bedrooms. So this doesn't, this wording and whatever we put in here would require it to be rental or sale, it could be either, but it may incentivize, and I'll say that again, it may incentivize development of some for sale condo units. And in the current financial world, there are very few banks that will land, do construction loans on large condo projects if they aren't like 50% pre-sold. There are some banks that will do it. And that's why you're seeing like two unit buildings going up condo buildings, because they can sell one unit before construction. Do you have any insight into that, Mike? Do I have any insight in terms of? I go in here. Did you hear what I said? Did you have any, because you're in like the commercial real estate world, so I don't know about you. Well, all I can say is that for quite a while, developers were not building condominium projects because they couldn't get financing for construction because the banks had required, as I understand it, the banks had required pre-sale of 50% of the units before they would loan construction loans. There are some banks now who are lending, they don't have that requirement. And the other side of it is that the rental market is so strong that it makes sense to develop these, whether developed as condos or as apartments. I mean, if you go through a bunch of these, they're really, they could easily be flipped to condos, but the rental demand and the rental rates are so high that it makes sense for them to build them and rent them out as apartments because they can get the financing to construct those things. Well, that was my understanding that it was because the demands for rental was so high, I didn't realize that there was an actual financing issue or that's my understanding. Although, as I said, I know there are some projects that are being financed by some banks that they don't put that requirement on anymore. If you wanted to, Mike, if you build it for rental, can you then change it and sell them off as condos? You can, the problem is once they've been rentals, so there's a cost to convert them over. Why would there be a cost to convert them over? Well, renovation, you might have to paint them or fix them up and then you've got to do the condo documents, record all that stuff. That's it. Because my understanding is that a lot of times the developer will just rent them out for the first 10 years because it doesn't make sense because they wanted to get their money back and then they sell them.  I don't know the timeframe, but that certainly is, you know, that I don't know what they do, but there certainly is the possibility if you go into a bunch of these, you know, most of these new apartments, they could easily be flipped to condos and sold. What do people think in terms of this, as far as the upside and the downside to adding this? Because it seems to, so there is limited space in the city that if we said that it had to be an acre, there's not that many places where that could be. Is there? Well, that was, Tommy, that was my concern as well. I was listening to that and thinking that, like, that would really only be a few parcels, right? That would even apply to. There's, yeah. Let me see if I can bring up a different map here. Let me switch my share to a different item here. So, you know, we've got some, so like here's the Elm Street WHA property currently as it's developed, and this is the property that I referenced off of West Street that again would not be permitted under our current regulations because of the unit configuration. As far as property sizes, Joe, there are several properties in the city that are of, that are large enough that would qualify for something like that that meet the acre limitation or at least one acre. There's property up off of Richard Street, which is almost an acre and a quarter. There's the property over here off of Hood Street, which is just over two acres. You know, St. Stephens obviously would be one just over three acres as a possibility. There are, I believe there's a few other properties kind of sprinkled around that would be of significant size. The Armory property, if anything were to happen there, is it an acre and a half? What zoning district are those properties in? So those are in, I believe, well, let me tell you. So those are in either the RA or the RB or the RC. They're in, they're in. Well, the other thing that a size limitation could possibly do, I don't know how practical it is, but it could result in consolidation of some lots and redevelopment. That's true, that is a possibility as well. So just like I said, this is something we can have a bigger discussion about all this if you wanted a future meeting. We don't have to take any formal action on this tonight, but I wanted to bring this forward because we were looking at the use table specifically as part of the amendments. And this is something that I had actually proposed in a previous draft, I believe back at the end of December, in one of the drafts that I had sent around at that point, but I proposed something similar to this at that time. So- Objection service, what would be the downside? I think I'm just being maybe dense, but I don't understand what would be bad about changing this in at least RC. I think the question, I was gonna suggest we take this up again at a different meeting because I'm hearing questions about how many units per building, size of units, size of land, do we restrict or limit the land size where a PUD can be developed? So I think there's, I'm not sure there's necessarily a downside, but I think there's more conversation and discussion that we need to have to all get on the same page and understand as best we can, the pros and cons. I did, I think that meeting we had where we discussed how many properties are we actually talking about? What impact would it have ultimately trying to get our thinking about it that way would also be helpful? Is it graphic representation that Eric did? Yeah, something like that. And I'd like to just read it all through again and maybe walk around a little bit, just kind of see what we're talking about. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think we definitely have the ability to limit the number of units that could be only one building. I think we have the ability to designate where this could apply as far as the size of the property that it's being applied to, where we have, where I think we're probably out of our boundaries is where we talk about the actual configuration of the units and the number of bedrooms and things of that nature. So we could potentially tie it to a component of affordability. We would have to figure out what that is and what those regulations look like as well, since we don't currently have any specific inclusionary requirements outside of the Gateway Zoning District as a density bonus. So there would definitely be some additional language we would need to add into the regulations if we were to go down that road. Eric, I'm curious because the Housing Commission floated this too as they're trying to figure out how to get more family size housing. They were talking about having some bonuses if they have a certain number of bedrooms per unit. What pathway, if not zoning, would something like that be created? How could they create that? Well, I think it depends on what the incentives are that are gonna be offered. Generally speaking, if we're looking at incentives for land use, it's gonna be things like density bonuses or relief from certain requirements like parking or lot coverage or things of that nature. So I think it depends on what the incentives would actually look like as far as how those would be regulated and where they would be located, whether that be in the land use regulations or in some other component of city regulation. So is there a recommendation from the Housing Commission that they would like to move forward to the planning? They had sent out in front porch forum and I think Christine may sit on the Housing Commission or at least talk to Jim, who is, but they were trying to figure out how to incentivize like three or more bedrooms. And one of the things they had wrote was having incentives in place. And I wondered, how would you do that? And if it was something like a density bonus, how would you do that? Like if we said, okay, let's do allow a denser development if they have larger homes, how do we do that? What's the mechanism look like to make that happen? That's a good question. I mean, I think there is definitely a piece of that that can live in the land use regulations. I think because we don't currently regulate the number of bedrooms or anything of that nature, I think again, getting into that type of a regulatory structure would be, I don't know if we could do that, but I think if we tied it to some component of affordability and then there was something else that talked about what the affordability looked like or what that affordable unit looked like, that might work somehow. I don't really know, Abby. I'm not sure I have a good answer for you right now, quite honestly. So that discussion barely started. It's gonna take them a little longer. The goal is to come with some recommendations and to at some point have a joint meeting. We haven't fleshed this out at all yet, but there is more information forthcoming. I don't know about the bedroom specifically, but the two points I would add to this discussion are, we already have something like this in the gateway zoning with the bonus fifth story for affordability. So you could do other bonuses like Eric was saying. The other mechanism is fee-waving or reduced fees for things that meet our priorities. So existing permitting fees, if we implement an impact fee, waving it for certain purposes. So there's a couple of different ways to attack it that are being explored, but the goal is to come with a recommendation at some point. So are we kind of jumping the gun a little bit then? I think if you are talking about making a change to these policies, making a change to these plan unit developments, tying that to like affordability or bedroom size, I don't think your conversation is jumping the gun. I think it needs to connect with the housing commission, but the idea of just allowing, of just the language of considering allowing that, I don't think is. We have our housing needs assessment that talks about infill and accessory dwelling units and that sort of thing to try to create more housing options versus just gateway apartment developments. So I don't think it's jumping the gun to discuss this being allowed potentially, but when we think about how we want to incentivize it, we can connect those two conversations. Makes sense. I think I would agree with that statement. And from my sense of what I was hearing from the other members of the planning commission is that Deke's letter, I think really outlined a lot of the concerns that many people on this commission have expressed and actually crystallized them very clearly, but I just didn't understand how what was being proposed actually provided any real remedy to that. They really didn't sound tied in the way that, but I think that if we framed it in a way like what you were saying, Mayor Laud, if it was tied to other incentives, I think that could dovetail very well together. So should we take all this discussion until we, knowing that we want to at least consider it in some way, shape or form, but wait for the housing commission to come up with some more detailed concepts that they might have? I think so. I think so too. I think that makes sense. And then maybe in the meantime, we could ask Eric to do a little more homework about what lots are around this, sorry. It's all about. I know it's nice to get a visual. Yeah, visual, like you did with the 50-foot, 70-foot, all those properties. That was really helpful. I would also just interject here what's going through the back of my mind. We were talking about, if we did like a one acre thing, the parcels that it applied to, really the only one that it eminently applies to is St. Stephen's. And I think a few meetings ago, you would reassure us that basically the one thing that's in place protecting that amazing structure is the zoning law. So I'm apprehensive to go about changing this before we have other things in place that would protect that pretty amazing property. Yeah, that's a good catch, Joe. Yeah. Because I would like to see some basic preservation ordinance or some remedy for that before we start allowing what could be larger developments on these parcels that are in different zoning districts. Well, I guess just to be clear, there's nothing currently that would prevent the St. Stephen's property from being redeveloped as a planned unit development currently. Right, but you said it was only basically a couple of duplexes that could be put on there. Well, they could develop, so that's about a little over a three acre property. It's in the RC district. So under the PUD regulations, they could technically do, I think I count it out one time. I think they can do about 50 units on that property based on the PUD.  I see. To get to the density that they would be permitted to do where if they could do more units, then obviously it would be a factor of whatever the unit count is. So it still could be redeveloped as a planned unit development. It would just be developed with basically two unit buildings rather than anything more than that. And I think Mike brought up a good point that's worth reiterating, that if we are determining it by parcel size, we may be just encouraging the purchase of multiple lots to be able to then develop something like this. So I guess that made me think about like what are we incentivizing if we do a parcel size minimum? Yep, that's a great point. That's a great point as well. So. Okay, so let's table this for now. We'll pick it up at a later date. Yeah. Hey Eric, what is the, where can I find just how many units can be on a, for a PUD per acre? So it's basically it's in the land use table. Actually, if you look at the memo that I have in the packet, this tells you right here. For the, at least for the residential zoning districts. Okay. So the PUD is based off the number of lots that can be created and then the total number of units that can be per lot, which is already outlined in the, in the use table. So that's how you calc out the number, the total density for the whole property. Okay. Okay. Very good. So it's now seven, my eyes are getting bad, seven, 18 I got, I think. So I'm, there's no one else from the public here, correct? That is correct. Okay. So I would look for a motion to close the public hearing. Some move. Okay, Tommy. Is there a second? A second. Second for maybe all in favor of closing the public hearing, please say aye or raise your hand. Aye. And anyone opposed? Anyone want to keep it going? Any abstentions? Okay. Public hearing is now closed. And so we need to make a motion to, if we want to send these recommended changes to the city council or do we just send them over to the city council? I would, I'd recommend having a motion that you can memorialize the, the document that you're sending with the amendments that we discussed. Okay. And just for clarification, the amendment being the added language to owner occupied. And putting dwelling in for multi-unit. And adding the word dwelling under multi-unit in the use table, correct? Yep. So what's the wishes of the commission? If you wish to move these onto the city council I need a motion and a second.  We can always have a motion at second and vote it down, but I move to have these corrections added to the, to revise the document. And send it on to the city council for their, okay. Sarah, did I hear you second that? Sure. Sure. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion please say or signify aye. Aye. Thank you. Anyone opposed? Anyone want to abstain? Okay. So we will forward that on to you Christine and the council for your consideration. Right. Excellent. And I'll leave it, Eric I'll leave it to you to get it to the proper authorities. Yep. I'll take care of it. Perfect. Okay. Let's move on to the review of article three, downtown core zoning district regulations. Okay. So this is really more of a kind of a, an edit than anything else, a realignment of the regulations. Basically what I'm proposing to do here is take the information that's currently an appendix C which is where the downtown core regulations live and move that into article three, which is currently reserved. We have nothing in article three right now. So it's just a placeholder. Part of the reason for doing this is there's a lot of references in appendix C that are out of date and appendix and there's also portions of appendix C and the downtown regulations that have already been incorporated into the rest of the land use code. So this would further codify the downtown core regulations. I'm really not proposing anything new with this. There are a few minor things that are being proposed as additions, but most of what is included as new language is really more just like introductory statements about where something will apply or what the intent is and things of that nature, where it's not really any type of regulatory language. So there's a lot going on with the document itself, but again, most of it is already existing language that's just being moved to other locations and some of it being deleted because it's already exists in other areas. So what I'm gonna do here is share my screen again and I can walk you through the document and we can have a discussion along the way. So yeah, like I said, this is basically just a reorganization of appendix C into article three. So the first thing is really a description of the district. So this description is based off of what we adopted earlier this year as part of the interim zoning, which clarified the green space boundary that's shown on the building height and location map. So this language already exists in our current regulations through the interim zoning process. So it's really just revising this to match what we currently have. And again, so adding a new part A for applicability just to clarify what that actually means. So what this would also do is delete out the existing description of the downtown district, which is quite frankly, it's very detailed description of what the boundaries of the district are. I think maybe a little unnecessarily detailed, just given what it all says, but basically because we have a new, because we updated the description and part of the green space boundary, a lot of the rest of the language isn't necessary. So one of the other things that I would propose is this A3 deleting this, because I realized it's actually, it shows up in another section, it shows up in section 33. So it's a redundant part here. Are you saying all of three that we see right there? Delete that. All of three is included under 33B or new 33B. So it's a duplication and I don't think it really fits very well in this location anyway. So it would be a basically delete that all out. Okay. So any questions about what's happening with this portion of the regulations? You said there's a lot of strikeout going on here. So it's, but again, it's really just the old definition or the old description of the district since it doesn't really, it won't be as applicable anymore. So the next portion here is these two, this whole section here at the end as a strikeout, these are already included in our definitions in article nine. So this is information that doesn't, it's again, it's a duplication. We talk about what the master plan is and we talk about what the building height and location map is in our definitions. So it already exists in our regulations currently. So that is not necessary. So I'm proposing to strike all that out. These other sections about off street parking requirements and signs and dimensional requirements will be included later on. So they're being moved in that case. So I'm proposing to delete them from this area and move it to a different location. So the next section here is the uses. Again, a lot of information being deleted here. This whole last section as you, so sorry, let me start over. Items two and three here are really just, these are the referential changes that talk about where this new line, where the language should be moved to from the original document. So basically all of this language here already exists in section 2.1, sorry, 2.11, which is the description of kind of what the downtown core district is for. It's included under the description of all the other zoning districts. So again, this is another duplicative section that doesn't need to be in here. Continuing into the use section. So here's again, there's some language just to kind of clarify what the intent of the permitted uses are. So this is new language added to basically clarify to say, we've got this list of uses and then there's also other uses in the use table that are not included here, which are also allowed in the downtown core district. So it's just making the reference back to the use table so that we're not, we're not losing sight of the fact that there's uses in two locations for permitted uses in the downtown core. The only thing, Eric, I didn't understand you were striking out the in through. So I was striking out in and changing it to through. Okay. Thanks. Through instead of drive in. Drive in didn't really seem like it made sense as a drive in window. It's commonly a drive through window. So that's what that changes. The same with the restaurants. Correct, yeah. And so this is another, so this is probably, this is one of the changes that I'm proposing is to strike this language of the aggregate gross receipts. That's something I've never done. And I don't know if anybody ever has done where we've required that restaurants that are serving alcohol provide documentation of the receipts to the city. I'm not sure we really, I'm not really sure how that functions as a land use tool. So, and again, that's not something that I've ever done. And I don't, I've never seen any records of any of that ever being submitted to the city from a land use component. So I'm proposing that we strike that language and just leave it as restaurants without drive through windows. So a little background, the reason that was put in was because we were trying to get away from just strictly bars. Right. And so that was to try to ensure that a restaurant in the downtown was serving, was more of a food restaurant than a bar. And so I guess to that point, one of the changes that we made in the land use table is to allow bars by right in the downtown core. So this may no longer be necessary then with that change going forward as well. So striking that language, so it's just restaurants without drive through windows. Then again, just some clarification of... Let me interrupt you for a second because do we... So that's really what that's doing is it's essentially keeping fast food restaurants out. Basically, yeah. Or any restaurant that would have a drive-up window. Or any... And I'm wondering why. I mean, if we wanna keep McDonald's, Burger King, Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks, whatever out, should we have full service restaurant as opposed to fast food? Sorry, so this would not exclude those uses. They just wouldn't be allowed to have a drive-through window. They could still... A Starbucks could still go into downtown. They just wouldn't be able to have a drive-up window. Right. So I guess I'm wondering why... What the advantage is, if you will, or why have the exclusion of drive-through windows? I mean, the reality is in the downtown, good luck getting a drive-through in, but I suppose it could happen. Well, I think it goes to the fact of, you want your downtown to be pedestrian oriented and a drive-through window promotes auto-centric movements and has the conflict. So I think just excluding them all together is probably the easiest way to make sure you don't have, that you are promoting the pedestrian activity over that auto activity. Okay. Yeah, and like Eric said, that any of those chains can still locate here. The format has to be different, which is the same thing Burlington does if you've noticed there's no drive-in restaurants, drive-through restaurants in Burlington, but doesn't mean they don't have a Starbucks and a five guys and all the fast-food options. It just can't have that drive-through piece of it. And they can still have a walk-up window, right? Yeah. It's not, yeah. Yeah. Yep, absolutely. Okay. So then, yeah, just some editorial stuff. So here's where we... Can I pass you just a minute, Eric? Yeah, absolutely. We have the kind of wanting to promote pedestrian and I completely support that. Why would we allow a gas station in an auto repair shop? Number, it's below the restaurants. Number 19. We're excluding, excluding motor vehicle sales. We're allowing for retail sales, but not motor vehicle sales there. Okay, I missed the excluding word. Sorry. Maybe we should capitalize it and bold that, excluding... Is there a bank downtown now that has a drive-through? Yes. Howard. Or the TD Bank. That's technically not in the downtown district. That's in the... I don't believe it is. I think that's in the... You're right. It's outside this core because the core is south of East Allen Street. Oh, that's disgusting. Yeah. Okay. So, new section 3-3, dimensional standards. So, this is... The intent here is a new statement and the applicability is a new statement because it's just kind of describing the purpose of the master plan for downtown and kind of what its intention is. Part B, some of the language, I believe, was in another section. So, we don't have any... Or it's actually in the dimensional table. We don't have any limitations on dimensions for properties in the downtown. So, then this is again where... Yeah. So, this is where the language from... Previously that I said was moved is included in this section under part 3. So, you can see here where I'm striking that same language again, but it's then being mixed in with maximum building height as its own section and so on and so forth. So, not losing that language, just changing the location of it, which is why it shows up as a strikeout. So, maximum building height is all the same. Nothing's changing there other than just the references. So, Eric, do you understand what they mean by A and B? I think I do based on when this was instituted, but I was reading it the other day and saying, Jesus, this is confusing. What are you... Which part are you referencing, Mike? 190-foot elevation. Oh, yes, I do. Okay. Yes. That's good, as long as you do. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yes, I do know what those mean and it references the... There's a building height and location map that has all these points and areas on it that I'm actually redoing it because it's really hard to read because I think I have it from a scan of a photocopy of another scan. So, some of the words I don't understand on it, but I'm trying to redevelop it so that it looks a little bit more legible. But, yes, I do understand what all that means. Okay. I'll leave it at that. So, here's we talk about, yeah, how to determine maximum building height, no change in the language there. Identity requirements, just adding basically a section for it and kind of describing what that is a little bit more, but no changes to that section for identity. Building locations is a section three, four. Here again, we get into more of the language from the interim zoning that talks about the wetland buffer and the change that was made with that interim zoning to clarify that. So just adding that language in here as well as a change. And then signs, this is a new section for the most part. So there's three documents that talk about signs in the downtown that were all adopted in, I believe in 2006 as part of an amendment to the Act 250 permit and incorporated into that permit. So there's the master sign plan, the sign design guidelines and the sign code. So really the intent of this section is to solidify those documents in our zoning regulations so that it's more explicit that there are specific guidelines for signage in downtown and to reference those documents directly. So these next few sections are, I believe the next few sections are a lot of either deletions or moving to other areas. So this information on overlays is being deleted because we don't have overlays anymore in the land use regulations and plan unit developments are not allowed for the downtown core. So that reference is not valid anymore. This next section, so 6.6B is our site planning requirements and there will be, so I am proposing to add language to that section that I will bring to you probably at the next meeting or when we look at the kind of the more finalized draft of all this, I'll show you what the language would look like for the site plan requirement. It's basically exempting the downtown core from site planning. So I just wanna, we don't have that reference in section 6.6 currently. So this note here is to basically add that reference into section 6.6. That makes sense to folks. And Eric, is that because the city council still has oversight? I think it's partially that and partially because it still has to go through design review at the through city council, but then also at the act 250 district commission. They still have to get a permit and there's also a master plan for downtown. So it kind of already lays out all the building heights and dimensional standards and all the other information that's included in here. So it's fairly limited on what can happen from a site planning perspective. So yeah, but most of it, I think it's because it's wrapped into the city council's discussion. The next part here is about non-compliant structures. So we have a section in our regulations under part 49H that talks about non-conformities. So this language will be moved to that section. Again, that's something I will bring you at the next meeting. It's basically adding a new section to, or sorry, a new sub part to 49, which would be item H, which basically takes this exact language and moves it into that section. So that'll be something to look at at the next meeting. Again, it's basically this exact language, just moving it to a different portion of the regulations. These next items are all moved into section 35. So we'll look at those here in a second. So that's all we're keeping it all. We're just moving it to another location in this regulation. This reference to, oh, so this is a reference to parking, which is unnecessary because the downtown core is already exempt under 412 and we have specific regulations on parking in this section as well, which brings us to our next section on parking. So this is really, while the language all is showing up as added language, it's basically because it's been moved from other locations. So I don't believe there's any new language in here. Other than maybe the intent and the applicability, but everything else in this section is the same as how it currently exists. So the table of parking requirements is the same. And the location, change of use to non-compliant structures, that all already exists in the regulations now. So again, just a reorganization of those sections. And I realized I need to change a reference here under non-compliant structures, this 9.304, since that doesn't exist anymore. So that will be changed also. So Eric, I did have a question when I was reading over this earlier that, so E there, right? Yep. So that's gonna, you're not suggesting any change there, but that's, I don't know, that you have to change the parking if you alter the use of the building, right? So what it's saying? Well, so what this is saying is if, so if you have a, if you primarily have an office use on a property right now, and you're converting that to a, or if you have a residential use and you're converting it to an office use, and it's gonna require you, because of that change, you're gonna need more parking for that new use. This is saying that you need to provide that parking. Yep. Not to get into the parking discussion, but that may be one place where we could figure out how to maybe not have that requirement. Dare I say that? I just did. I know. So that these can be reused and repurposed in a way that doesn't hinder that. Well, I think it's one of the advantages to parking in downtown is that if you're utilizing one of the municipal facilities, there's all these shared use options and these shared use requirements. So the number of spaces you actually need is limited or it's less because of the shared component to that parking. So I think it's already fairly well incentivized to have reuse options available, but it's, I mean, we can definitely look at it. Okay. It just struck me. Yeah, good question though, for sure. So again, non-compliant structures that already exist as well. This last section here, number 10, the downtown core is exempt under the buffering requirements. So that's no longer needed that language. And then the, oh yeah. So a new section three seven, just kind of describing the process for what a zoning permit looks like, what the requirements are, how that process works. And this is where I added some new language to discuss kind of the council process involved with the design review to make sure that that was understood and documented somewhere. There's currently nowhere that that's really outlined in the regulations. It's all just kind of been understood and just from past practice. So this would act to memorialize that process in the regulatory context. And I believe then the rest of this language, yeah, this was all moved to another section or this was just additional language on the alcoholic beverage discussion and how that gets documented and what needs to be submitted. So looking at striking all that as unnecessary at this point as well. And I believe that is everything. Yes. So I realize there's a lot going on here and it looks like a lot's happening. There's not as much happening as there might seem to be. So happy to discuss any of this or go over any of it in any more detail if anybody wants. Any questions or comments? I guess not. So Erica, what's the schedule on this? So what I would propose is for our next meeting, I would basically bring back the cleaned up version of this and the other sections like section 4.9 on non-conformities and section 6.6 on site planning. So you can see what that language would look like and how those references relate here. The other thing I would do is bring back to you the other, so we reference appendix C throughout the document. There's not many references to it. There's maybe five or six references to appendix C. I would bring back of the sections where those references are with the change to article three. So just so that we can have that as kind of a full package of what all would need to change to make appendix C article three. Okay. And then we can look at that for the potential of putting together, actually, no, we wouldn't need to put a report together yet because I think the public hearing for this isn't scheduled for later. Yeah, have the public hearing set on the schedule that was laid out isn't until June, but we can definitely bring this forward sooner if you all are prepared to do that. Okay. So next meeting we'll see the cleaned up version and the other sections that are appropriate. Yep, that's correct. Okay. And then we can go through it all again if you need to because it might look a little different at that point and you might have more questions. Okay. Sounds good. And believe it or not, we're pretty much on schedule tonight. It's 746 and we'll move to city updates and I'm gonna throw it over to the mayor to start with. I know she said she has some items to share with us. Yes. So if you haven't already seen your email or the announcement, Jesse Baker has accepted the position of city manager in South Burlington. Our loss is their gain. So she is going to be leaving this role May 15th. So she has, her contract has like a 90 day notice essentially to start that new position in South Burlington. And as such, I have had some conversations with her and with staff about a hiring process to hire a new city manager. So I will be working with the council and staff to solidify that process at our March 8th meeting. So after town meeting day and new councilor or potentially two is seated. We will approve a process for what that looks like. I will be proposing a sort of steering committee approach that will involve council, staff, partner organizations, a commissioner, at-large resident. Some sort of makeup that brings kind of a broad group into this and some public engagement into selecting our next city manager. So she, like I said, isn't leaving for three more months. We still have her full time as our city manager still focused on one new ski. But we will start, essentially we'll need to like solidify what it is we're looking for, what that process of recruitment will look like, an interview process and want to make sure that we engage our volunteers, our residents and our staff and how that happens. It is unlikely that we will hire someone within 90 days. So I also anticipate we'll appoint someone in the interim to sort of keep the train on the tracks while we do that work. And I'm also talking to her about a transition plan, what can be delegated to staff, how I can support more to make sure that we keep a lot of these big projects moving forward. So just wanted to make some space here to see if you all have questions or thoughts about that. It is, I think a big change for all of us and for the city. Yeah, it was surprising to hear, but I mean, these things happen. And I guess all I can say and is from my standpoint, Jesse served the city great for the last, it's been four or five years. I was trying to think how long she's been. Four years, I think she came in 2017. Okay. So the last four years and it's certainly an opportunity for her to try a new position in a little bit larger community, though not as great a community as she has now. No, there's no doubt about that. But you know, good for her. And again, all we can do is thank her for her service to our city. She's done an exemplary job and wish her the best going forward. And good luck to the city council and in the whole process of searching for and finding a replacement. I am sure that you're going to be overwhelmed with applicants and plenty who are qualified, maybe even hopefully even over qualified who will take this position because the city managed position, Winooski has been elevated to a position that people want. They want to be involved in the city. You know, so I think you won't have any problem getting applicants. Then it's a matter of filtering through them and making that tough final decision. I do get the impression, as you said, like there are people who want to come here who would want this job. I think we'll find some talented candidates and you know, potentially like a fresh perspective that could bring something new to our city and to this leadership role. And that person isn't required to live in Winooski, correct? I think they are. I think they're encouraged, but I don't know as you can force them to, but they're certainly encouraged to live in the city. Yeah, Burlington does have requirements for their leadership positions, but I think Jesse was living in Montpelier. But remember Burlington, the mayor is elected by the city, so he has to be a resident. Yeah, but it's not just the mayor, the heads of all the departments have to live in the city, planning, DPW. I remember going through this when we were selecting managers and I'm not sure. I don't think we have it. No, we don't have it. My recollection is you can't force them, but you can strongly encourage them. There was an issue with that in Burlington about, I believe, the head of the schools who didn't live there. Yeah, yeah, it was like all over the news because he was the only one that wasn't in Winooski. Winooski has never been, it's my understanding, of those requirements. Well, you know what's funny is South Burlington doesn't have a requirement and Jesse's gonna keep her house here and still live in Winooski, so. I know it's curious about that because I consider her a neighbor, she's just up the street for me, so thank you for offering that. I think there's also. What's the best place? It is. There is some benefit to, we have a lot of regional discussions. So we have that regional dispatch discussion. We have the airport issues. There's some discussions happening now across different towns in our county about other ways that we can find regional approaches that are more efficient and more effective. And so having her over in South Burlington that is a little higher resource than us could have some benefits and her having knowledge of our community. So it's not all loss. Right. Well, aren't you ever the optimist to bring it to Winooski? Yeah. It's good. We can put the pressure on her. Yeah. Okay, anything else, Christine? That was a big one, but. That's a big one. We have been offered through a program at UVM this. It's okay. So we have talked about wanting to bring some equity training to our commissioners and we've actually been offered this training from through a program at UVM. It's called structural competence and cultural humility to address disparities and inequities. So it's, that's quite the mouthful of title but to have a professional come and do a training on how to bring that sort of mindset into your approach serving your community of thinking of different cultural needs, different inequities that are in existence and how to support that. I think staff, Eric, I believe staff already went through this and we're gonna be doing it in March and opening it up to, so we're gonna have the whole council attend and then also open it up to and encourage commissioners to attend. So there'll be more information coming about that as well. Okay. And then town meeting day is on Tuesday. If you're not informed already, we have a town meeting day page on the city website and Monday we'll be doing our usual pre-town meeting day presentation with the school. So it'll be live via Zoom. If you wanna watch the presentation you can ask questions live there. I'll try to find the link and drop it in the chat but I feel like most of you are pretty informed already. And then, oh, the last thing I'll just share is that I have been spending a lot of time the last two weeks attending some community meetings that the school is having that are focused on school safety and the school resource officer. No official role there or takeaways yet. They have a couple of room reading scheduled over the next week but have been learning a lot. So there's been a series of meetings for different language groups including English speakers as well as our Arabic speakers or Nepali speakers with translation. So just have been able to hear from those communities who aren't often able to attend these meetings or voice their needs. So something once they finish that series of meetings there will be some sort of update about the takeaways from those. Great. Thanks, Christine. Eric. I have a question for Christine, if I may. Of course. So I saw in the news they were talking about how there's been a spike in COVID cases in Burlington and Winterski but I haven't seen any details as to what that means. Is there anything additional you can share on that? Good question. I joined Burlington's press conference yesterday, I think on that with Dr. Levine. So a good part of it is just because students have returned to the area and they do mandatory testing. So that, Dr. Levine shared the numbers. I can't remember exactly. That has been a good part of it but not the full story. So there is just general community spread increasing. The city's COVID update today had some information. We've also seen a decline in testing. So I think when we first started offering free testing, it maybe sometimes was full and hard to get in. That is not the case now. Like people are not accessing it as much. So we sent some information out today encouraging people to get back on that. If you'll recall in our last outbreak scenario, the majority of cases were asymptomatic. So people didn't, you know, if you don't get tested you don't know that you're spreading it. So we're trying to push communications through our partner organizations to people to remind them that we're still in this, everyone is not vaccinated yet and we have to still be mindful of our choices and engage in testing when needed. I will say that we know there are a number of community members that because of their living situations, housing, having to carpool to work just like can't follow the guidance. And so there continues to be spread in those ways as well. It's not like an outbreak or like a super concerning level yet, but we are trying to get the message out for people to take it seriously and like nip it in the bud. I was really happy to see that the state was vaccinating entire families that had language barriers. I thought that was a super smart move and I hope that our Winooski families have been taking advantage of that. So I'm glad you brought that up. We have, and especially through Jesse's leadership, so we have three mornings a week we meet with Department of Health staff and have been doing this for months. And we have advocated hard for that approach. So they've been doing kind of like closed pod, I guess. Like we have specifically invited these families to come and get vaccinated because of all the barriers they face. And it's been really effective. So most of these folks with language barriers haven't, they haven't registered online. They haven't accessed the normal systems, but through this direct outreach and direct support to them we have been able to get a lot of families vaccinated that way, which there has been some public pushback on that, but not, I don't think too much. It's really in the best interest of anyone because it's for the community good. We're gonna see your work on that. We're also have been pushing that like that is a good approach for congregate housing, for senior housing, for anyone that like has trouble driving to a place, registering online, just trying to make it as easy as possible for vaccines to get out there. Good, good work, Eric. So I think the mayor pretty much covered everything that I was gonna talk about. The only thing that I would add is on the structural competency and structural competency and cultural humility training, it does appear that the date for that will be March 25th, which is the same day as our second meeting in March. So we would cancel our second planning commission meeting to allow you all to attend that instead. Right now the tentative timeframe for that is I believe five to 830 for that training. Jesse, however, will send out more information on that later once the details are finalized. So I guess that's the way of saying plan on not having a planning commission meeting on March 25th, but plan on some training instead. Okay, so one question. So how are you, well, you and Eric and Mike, feeling about our 20th meeting, are we making some good headway? Are we still way backlogged? Are we? Personally, I think we're doing great. I think we're on schedule as far as the schedule is laid out. And actually we might be slightly ahead of schedule right now, given the discussion tonight and getting through all of the, at least the first run through the downtown core regulations that actually takes me into what I was gonna cover under other business. So our next meeting is March 11th is what we're scheduled for our next meeting. And I was going to start the discussion on the form-based code. So basically I'm gonna send out that whole document and I'll make it available as well in print for those of you that want hard copies of it. But pretty much the whole document will start at the beginning and just start going through and then looking at the changes that have been proposed and the ones that we've already talked about that are incorporated into that document. So there's a lot of little tweaks here and there and so just made some overall editing and formatting that I wanted to incorporate to have it more for consistency sake, but also some other changes that we'll need to talk about. But overall, I think we're doing really well with our schedule and getting through some of these regulatory changes. All right, that's good. I agree and I think it having two meetings a month helps in the discussion because you remember what you talked about, at least I remember better what I talked about last meeting than it was two weeks ago versus a month ago. I agree, but it is a little exhausting, I have to say. I feel like I have a lot more homework. Good point, but yeah. Okay, all right. Anything else, Eric? That's the only other thing I had. Anyone that have any other business? I would add that I did attend the last city council meeting and Brita gave the same or similar, it was the same presentation but a little bit different format to council about her survey work for historic structures in the gateway districts that she covered. So it was interesting to get some of the reaction of the council. One of the things that I thought didn't get communicated in that and maybe Mayor Lott can correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, I don't think it was explained that part of the reason the planning commission was moving for this grant and this action was that it was remedying something that was addressed in the adoption of form-based code that was later removed. Joe, you're right. We didn't touch on that, but when we had our priorities and strategies meeting almost two years ago now, we talked about historic preservation and that, like why it was on deck to come up. I think you're right that I think it would be worth me refreshing that to the council because it was the idea that we discussed it. I didn't want the impression to come across that this was coming somewhere out of thin air and was just a little bit like... It's not, yeah. Good, just because I didn't think that kind of prefaced the discussion, but otherwise it was a good presentation. And I will say, you tell me if you experienced it differently, but I felt like the council response was supportive of the same sort of ideas that were discussed here. And Sarah was there and I think spoke well about what you all talked about, the focus of wanting to protect these resources, but be flexible in finding that balance. And I didn't participate in the meeting, but I thought you communicated to the council very well or intent was. Good, thank you. I tried. Okay. Any other business? Hearing none. Oh, you called me just before I asked for a motion at 805. Go ahead. At that meeting, we also had the Wendyski hotel group back. They came back with kind of the same, not a lot of additional information. And we charged them with working with staff to continue to provide more details on traffic impacts, impacts to the right of way, how they're gonna. They address the access? No, so that is one of the things that we asked them to work with staff further on. It's, I guess essentially like they didn't bring a lot of new information and we said, you need to continue to work on those issues with staff. Can I share an observation on that by the way? I did look at his mock-up of what the proposed hotel looks like on the property. And one of the things I didn't see in any of the sketches were where the service entries were. So that was part of the discussion is that there is no service entry. They wanna do it through the front door, but it off hours. And so we were asking for information on what times a day with that happened, it can't be interrupting with like high traffic or even like pedestrian. So they have access through that area in front of the Champlain Mill that it couldn't interfere with pedestrian access. There's a lot of questions still. Interesting, okay. And they're storing their waste in the building until it gets thrown. Yeah. Not at the back door. Not at the back door and over the, nevermind. I should stop, Mike. I'm curious because like the building looked like it had facades in 360 degrees. And because the back of the building would have been like the side you would face on the river. And I was wondering how they were gonna make that work. I guess they're gonna try to do it through the front. Through your ground. Okay. There are a lot of questions still to be answered. That was quite a meeting, by the way. There was a lot being discussed there and the Champlain Housing Trust project on the Avenue. Yes, yes. So thank you for refreshing my memory on all of this. We moved that forward. So Champlain Housing Trust came to present their information for the affordable home ownership. Three bedrooms, units on the front of the O'Brien Center property. Well received. I think they have good plans in place. They're planning to do some direct outreach through AALV and USCRI to new American families as well. And yeah, much better, much better project plan meets some of our goals. And I think they have really thought about, I don't know, personally, I feel like even this very preliminary mock-up sort of fit in with the buildings that are in that area as well, like visually, aesthetically. Are those plans on the website? Yeah, they're in the agenda, the agenda from that meeting includes those plans. So is that, Joe and I were talking about this for a minute. Is that an area that would potentially the setback that we had talked to them? Would that be a building that would have been able to do some of that setback? Eric, that's a better question for you. Potentially it could have if it was in the regulations and they wanted to. I think they've got a lot of room there on the sidewalk as it is. So they, sighting wasn't really a challenge for them. So that's not in the regulations yet that all that setback that we did. That's for the upcoming foreign-based code discussion. Right. Okay, so we sent that to city council but it never went any further than that? Yeah, we didn't send it to the council. It didn't get to the council. We didn't have a hearing on any of that and send that onto council yet, so. Why did we send that? That is a good question. I think because we didn't address any of the other foreign-based code items. Like we wanted to talk about split zoning, which we spoke of addressed tonight. But I am looking forward to having that come to council sooner than later. We're looking forward to getting it to you. Okay. So we have to do the foreign-based code before we present anything forward to city council. The whole document, is that how we're doing it? Cause that doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Well, so the foreign-based code document, basically appendix B of the regulations is the foreign-based code. I don't think there's a lot that will be new to review in that discussion. So I think it is something that we potentially could move the whole document forward if we want, but we can also break it up into pieces as well. So there's the majority of the changes I think we've already talked about. So it's more just kind of finalizing some of the other parts and pieces. Do we, we don't know when council will take, well council won't take up the, what we're forwarding today until after a new council is in. So it's probably, it's at least a month or a month and a half away, I would think, right? It's at least April. Yeah, we wouldn't introduce it to council until March sometime, and then council would have to set a hearing for that. So yeah, the earliest that the hearing would occur would be sometime in April, end of April actually. I think I would echo Sarah's sentiments on that as well. Cause that is one facet of the foreign-based code that we could have, cause that's some real impact. And there's a number of projects rolling forward that will not be affected by that. Yeah, we were being clear. We thought that went out quite a bit. Yeah, I thought we had come to some conclusion on that. Yep. So why don't at the next meeting, Eric, we'll talk about form-based code, see where we are and see if there's anything we can move forward. Sure, absolutely. Okay, any other other business? So unless I'm interrupted again by the mayor before I spit this out, that's all right, Christine. I'm glad you interrupted us. It was good information to have. Is there a motion to adjourn? I can make that motion. Okay. Second it. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. Thanks, Christine. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Eric. Thank you very much. Thanks, Abby's cat. Yeah. Bye. Bye.