[0:00] All right, let's start at the meeting.

[0:02] You guys ready?

[0:04] >> Yeah.

[0:05] Uh, and you need us to introduce our

[0:09] everyone so you have the names or do you

[0:12] >> It's up to you.

[0:14] >> Well,

[0:15] we'll do that. We got Matt on the end.

[0:18] >> We got Brian.

[0:19] >> We got Ruby.

[0:20] >> Hi.

[0:20] >> We got John. We got Mike. And we got

[0:23] Revy.

[0:26] >> So, all right. So, we'll get started. Uh

[0:28] any changes to the agendas

[0:31] or not? Move on to public comment.

[0:36] Anyone online?

[0:37] >> No.

[0:38] >> Move on from that. Approve previous

[0:41] meeting minutes for those who were here.

[0:44] Was everyone here at the last meeting?

[0:46] >> I think so.

[0:47] >> Yeah.

[0:48] >> Um do I have a motion to approve the

[0:50] minutes as presented or

[0:52] >> there's any changes?

[0:53] >> So move to approve.

[0:55] >> Okay.

[0:55] >> I'll second.

[0:56] >> Second. Are there any progression,

[0:58] changes, additions?

[1:00] Hearing none, all in favor, please say

[1:02] I.

[1:02] >> I.

[1:03] >> Anyone opposed? Anyone want to say?

[1:06] >> Okay, there it is. And we're all voting,

[1:10] by the way.

[1:12] >> Uh, let me see.

[1:15] Oh, reorganization. Oh,

[1:21] Mr. Mayor,

[1:23] Mr. Chair. So every year we we elect a

[1:26] new chair, a vice chair, and a secretary

[1:30] treasur secretary. I guess there's going

[1:31] to treasure because we don't

[1:34] >> chair, vice chair, secretary. Secretary

[1:36] is always optional.

[1:38] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:39] >> Yeah.

[1:42] We haven't had one in a while.

[1:47] » Everybody takes the minutes.

[1:48] >> Yeah.

[1:49] So,

[1:52] if anyone wants to make a motion for

[1:54] chair, if anyone's interested,

[1:56] I've been the chair for I don't know how

[1:58] long, and if someone else wants to step

[1:59] in, that's fine. But, um, it's your

[2:02] prerogative. Whatever you want to do,

[2:04] I'll make a motion for you to be chair.

[2:06] I'll second.

[2:08] >> Any other nominations from the from the

[2:11] commission? No. Second up. So, all in

[2:14] favor?

[2:15] >> I opposed.

[2:17] >> I can't vote.

[2:19] How about vice chair? Anyone interested

[2:22] in being the vice chair? Consider it.

[2:26] Okay. Do I have a motion for John?

[2:29] >> I'll nominate John.

[2:30] >> All right.

[2:31] >> I'll second.

[2:31] >> Second. Any further discussion or other

[2:34] nominations? Hearing none. All in favor

[2:36] of John as vice chair, please say I.

[2:40] >> Opposed?

[2:41] >> Extensions. Okay.

[2:44] >> Wow.

[2:44] >> Anyone want to volunteer to be

[2:46] secretary?

[2:48] Don't everyone jump up

[2:50] [laughter]

[2:58] a little warm. [clears throat]

[3:00] >> It's your job as mayor.

[3:04] >> Always needing something.

[3:06] >> What's that?

[3:07] >> Always somebody else's job.

[3:08] >> Yeah. Always someone else.

[3:11] >> Okay. So, that's done. Uh planning and

[3:14] zoning update.

[3:16] >> Yes. Yeah. So, I sent this around a

[3:19] couple weeks ago, so it is a little

[3:21] dated now. Uh, but I realized I hadn't

[3:25] done one of these in a while, and I

[3:28] typically I don't know how it's it's my

[3:30] infrequent regular planning and zoning

[3:32] update. [laughter]

[3:34] Uh, so in here, I just went over all the

[3:38] permits that have been issued in the

[3:41] city and FY16.

[3:43] Um and just summary of how of of the

[3:47] breakdown of the permits issued. Um so

[3:50] 50 zoning permits issued in total in

[3:52] FY26. So from uh July 2025 to end of

[3:58] June 2026. Um permits for 15 dwelling

[4:02] units, seven of which are located in 259

[4:04] Main Street.

[4:05] >> Which one is 259 Main? At

[4:07] >> the corner of Maine and La Fountain.

[4:10] >> Yeah, it's the brand new one. Yeah. Yep.

[4:13] Uh, so none of the permits were for

[4:15] priority housing or for inclusionary

[4:17] housing projects. Um, don't think I

[4:20] remember correctly, no permits for like

[4:23] three-bedroom houses, anything like

[4:25] that. Um, permits mainly for ADUs

[4:29] um, and for uh, the 259 Main Street,

[4:33] which is one bedrooms and I think one

[4:37] twobedroom if I'm correctly.

[4:40] uh six permits uh required review and

[4:43] approval by the local resource advisory

[4:45] board. So local resource advisory board

[4:47] was established

[4:49] in March 2024 I want to say. Um, so at

[4:54] that time, Mike, you can probably

[4:56] provide more information about this cuz

[4:58] this was before my time that the city

[5:01] decided to establish a historic district

[5:06] in a sense um and establish a list of uh

[5:11] structures that are considered historic.

[5:14] Um, this list is largely based off of a

[5:19] report done by VHB in 2020 and 2021. Uh,

[5:25] that report will used our state historic

[5:28] register as a foundation and then

[5:30] collected some information mainly

[5:32] dashboard surveys of structures uh and

[5:36] provided recommendations to the city on

[5:38] how uh and methods to preserve these

[5:41] structures in the long term. Uh so the

[5:44] city took that on and decided to

[5:46] establish a local historic register and

[5:48] an additional review process for any

[5:50] improvements to historic structures. Um

[5:53] this means that say for like a roof

[5:55] replacement project um typically roof

[5:59] replacements do not require a zoning

[6:01] permit. They would only require a

[6:02] building permit. However, if you if you

[6:05] own a historic building and it's listed

[6:06] on the local historic register, that

[6:08] would require a zoning permit uh review

[6:10] by the local resource advisory board and

[6:13] then the a building permit. Uh so it's

[6:16] an additional step for those historic

[6:18] buildings to make sure that the historic

[6:21] nature is being uh retained and

[6:23] maintained over time. Um so so they've

[6:26] had uh they've reviewed roof

[6:28] replacements, roof repairs, porch

[6:30] repairs, and window replacements. Um, so

[6:34] primarily projects that uh for

[6:36] non-historic structures would not have

[6:38] required zoning. Um, but they've had

[6:40] some interesting meetings about larger

[6:42] projects uh that went had to go through

[6:45] zoning anyways and required GRB review

[6:48] and approval. Um, and they provided some

[6:51] uh some input in those projects that

[6:53] otherwise would not have been there um

[6:56] previous to March of 2024.

[7:00] Is there any push back from residents or

[7:01] anything? Because that's kind of a new

[7:02] thing. I know like New York seating

[7:05] stuff, landmarks and stuff is always

[7:07] contentious. I'm just curious.

[7:10] >> It's it's it's had some weird growing

[7:12] pains. Uh [laughter]

[7:14] to say the least

[7:17] when the local historic register was

[7:20] established,

[7:21] most of the property owners didn't know

[7:24] that their properties were listed.

[7:26] Um, so at the beginning of the summer,

[7:30] we sent out a notice to every single

[7:32] property owner letting them know that

[7:34] their property is listed and then we had

[7:37] uh one of our open houses that featured

[7:39] historic preservation and invited them

[7:41] to attend so they could ask um members

[7:45] of the local resource advisory board

[7:47] about their property, why it's

[7:49] significant, why it's listed. Um and

[7:52] even that has had some interesting

[7:54] hiccups too.

[7:57] Um just because uh it's so the the local

[8:02] historic register in includes structures

[8:05] that aren't typically considered

[8:08] historic, meaning that they're not older

[8:10] than 50 years

[8:12] >> of age. Um so it's it's had some

[8:15] interesting uh conversations and quirks.

[8:17] [laughter]

[8:18] And I I know that some of the people who

[8:20] got the letters were very confused about

[8:22] what it meant. I can't remember if it

[8:24] was because it said you've got a

[8:26] historic structure and if you do

[8:28] anything you have to

[8:30] >> have what

[8:33] >> is what is the criteria for being on

[8:37] >> it?

[8:38] >> Is it the same national registry?

[8:41] >> It is similar to but not uh the same.

[8:46] Um, so if a building is I think ours

[8:50] might be a little looser. Let me just

[8:52] pull up the language so that way I can

[8:55] read it out. [laughter]

[8:58] >> Know there's a house on Florida Avenue

[9:00] that we have to add to it.

[9:05] [laughter]

[9:11] [clears throat]

[9:12] >> This all the stuff you learn at the

[9:14] polls, you know.

[9:15] >> [laughter]

[9:17] >> Uh

[9:19] yeah, so historic structures are just

[9:22] are it appears to be if they're um

[9:25] evaluated by a qualified historic

[9:28] preservation consultant and they

[9:30] determine the significance and they ask

[9:33] the local resource advisory board to

[9:36] have their property listed, then the

[9:37] local resource advisory board can

[9:39] recommend to you to have that property

[9:42] listed. Um so the uh local historic

[9:45] registered is register is embedded in

[9:48] our zoning regulations meaning that to

[9:50] list a property requires a change in the

[9:52] zoning regulations and to remove a

[9:54] property requires a change in the zoning

[9:56] regulations.

[9:58] >> It's pretty it's pretty heavy.

[10:01] [laughter]

[10:02] Um so so so that's the entire process in

[10:06] a nutshell. There's no age requirement

[10:08] like with state historic register uh

[10:11] qualifying structures or national

[10:13] historic register qualifying structures.

[10:15] Um it would just require an evaluation

[10:17] by a consult by historic preservation

[10:19] consultant and a review by the local

[10:21] resource advisory board before it goes

[10:23] into the amendment process with you.

[10:26] >> So we be like discussing like

[10:28] individually like properties whether or

[10:30] not they get added or removed. That is a

[10:35] great question that I think the board is

[10:37] still figuring out too. So, it's it's a bit odd and I think it'll come to

[10:44] you too what council's stance on it is

[10:48] at the end of the day. Um, from my

[10:51] understanding, um, the local resource

[10:54] advisory board isn't, uh, tasked with

[10:57] actively

[10:59] soliciting structures to be included.

[11:01] like they're not reaching out to

[11:03] property owners and saying, "Hey, we

[11:04] think your building is important. You

[11:06] should get this evaluated or or anything

[11:08] like that. Um it's it's more of a if a

[11:12] property owner wants the building to be

[11:13] listed, then they can go through the

[11:15] process to have it being listed.

[11:18] But if there's a house that's supposed

[11:20] to be [clears throat] demoed

[11:23] and it's a older structure that may not

[11:26] be on on a list, do they have the the right or the ability to

[11:34] look at it and say, "Wait a minute. This should not be torn down because

[11:40] it's historic for whatever reason."

[11:43] >> Not at the moment.

[11:44] >> Okay.

[11:46] So that's again like another piece with

[11:49] the

[11:50] >> with [laughter] council kind of

[11:51] considering this too. But I I think I

[11:53] would consider this to be a little bit

[11:55] too heavy-handed to have because for for

[11:59] Wooki that could cover most of the

[12:02] structures in the city. Um, so then that

[12:05] would mean that's a demo structure would

[12:07] require uh some sort of review by the

[12:10] historic resource advisory board before

[12:12] it could even go forward, which um I

[12:15] don't think we're trying to encourage. I

[12:20] think that the way that I see it is that

[12:21] we'd want to preserve our landmarks and

[12:23] the foundational elements to that

[12:26] recognize historic character,

[12:29] >> but I I think that

[12:31] >> so so a little background. Sorry. Go

[12:34] ahead.

[12:35] >> One concern that

[12:41] I had had a former mayor had had with

[12:43] this is we're given a list of a lot of

[12:46] properties that could be considered

[12:48] historic.

[12:50] And some of them to say it nicely did

[12:53] not look great anymore. So my concern

[12:57] is, are we going to preserve something

[12:59] because it's old

[13:02] but it's falling into disrepair?

[13:05] >> If we were like a city that had like

[13:07] money to throw at it and be like, we're

[13:08] going to make this look like it did

[13:11] beautifully in its heyday in 1840,

[13:13] great. But if we can't do that,

[13:17] I'm wary of preserving a property that

[13:19] then could get torn down when in reality

[13:21] it should get torn down because it

[13:23] [clears throat] is already falling down.

[13:26] Now, if something is beautiful and you

[13:28] know, somebody very important live there

[13:30] or something like that, that's

[13:31] different. Like that falls into like

[13:33] historic property, it's pretty obvious.

[13:35] But like I want to make sure we're not

[13:37] just preserving [clears throat] old

[13:39] homes just because they're old. They're

[13:41] old and there's a reason for them to be

[13:43] preserved. That's I love that big

[13:46] history buff.

[13:47] >> But just for old sake, that's not what

[13:50] I'm looking to do. So,

[13:52] >> just so you know, some of the kind of

[13:55] happened [clears throat] when we were

[13:55] talking.

[13:56] >> Yeah. I'll also add that in Rooki too,

[13:59] so much change has happened over time

[14:01] with many houses that many historical

[14:05] elements have been lost to time like

[14:08] original sighting um for many houses or vinyl siding that's now on a house

[14:13] that could that that qualified by age um

[14:17] or additions to um front facades that

[14:22] affect the interpretation of the

[14:23] building. So you can't even tell whether

[14:25] it's really historic or not at the end

[14:27] of the day. Um so that that makes uh

[14:30] preservation challenging. Um and

[14:33] arguments for preservation challenging

[14:35] for some properties in the city.

[14:38] And as background, what happened when I

[14:41] think it was in 2015 or so when we redid

[14:44] zoning, we had in there about historic

[14:48] structures and you had to get approval

[14:50] of the state historic

[14:53] preservation committee, whatever it was.

[14:55] The first one that came along was the

[14:58] mansion up on the corner of Mansion

[15:00] Street and Main Street.

[15:01] >> Uh

[15:03] the Vermont Historic people said, "Oh,

[15:05] we don't do that." sort of like

[15:08] [clears throat] what it anyway. So since

[15:12] then we've been trying to come up with

[15:14] some way to get some language in that we

[15:18] could uh save some of the really

[15:21] historic buildings.

[15:23] >> Anyway,

[15:24] >> and I thought that that um I won't say

[15:28] her name but is doing a survey. Did she

[15:31] finish the survey of of buildings? Uh it

[15:34] was going to be on a map or something.

[15:37] question.

[15:37] >> Yeah, we kind of started that idea of

[15:40] like I think the the direction that I

[15:44] was trying to give the board was are

[15:46] there any landmark buildings that are

[15:48] missing from the map and it kind of

[15:50] became let's just document all the

[15:54] historic buildings and I was like no no that's not the purpose of this

[15:57] exercise because if we do do that then

[16:00] we'll enter into this rabbit hole of

[16:02] like figuring out that you know 75% of

[16:04] the houses in Wooki would qualify by

[16:06] your uh by your standards. It's it's

[16:10] making sure that are we missing anything

[16:13] important and um and I and we kind of

[16:16] like put that on pause just because that

[16:19] I think the the meaning was lost with

[16:21] that.

[16:21] >> Um but I mean it goes back to like the

[16:24] like kind of like with mansion or kind

[16:27] of like with with like the Wooki blob,

[16:28] right? Those are landmark buildings.

[16:31] Um and uh it's good to know whether

[16:34] there are any other landmark buildings

[16:36] that were missing. Um not not just um

[16:39] sorry but houses. [laughter]

[16:43] » Okay. And and has there been any

[16:45] discussion that group about districts?

[16:49] You know, for example, you could say

[16:51] here's the mill district or whatever.

[16:55] >> Not yet. And I think that is an

[17:00] important discussion that we need to

[17:02] have.

[17:04] Um, so more information to come with

[17:07] that.

[17:10] >> Any other questions about this whole

[17:12] thing?

[17:14] >> I think Go ahead, Brian.

[17:16] >> Okay. I think you already covered this,

[17:18] but could you repeat like what is the

[17:20] list that of properties that are

[17:23] currently on the register? Is that

[17:25] coming from that initial like 2021 study

[17:29] or are these have these already been

[17:31] like submitted by the property owners?

[17:34] >> So I'll just pull up the map. Um

[17:39] so this map

[17:43] share

[17:48] and

[17:52] will it come? Nice. There it is. So,

[17:54] this map was adopted um back in February

[17:58] 2024. Um this map hasn't changed since

[18:02] adoption. Um this map is based off of

[18:07] the VHB study and our state historic

[18:11] register. Um, so, uh, so for for the

[18:16] creation of this map, um,

[18:19] I think this is a question more for

[18:22] Mike, you Mike or or Thomas, like I

[18:24] don't I don't know if property owners

[18:27] were informed

[18:29] that they were going to be listed on

[18:32] this map. I couldn't find any record of

[18:34] it. I don't think they were

[18:38] because I think these were properties

[18:40] that were already on. There was a stud

[18:43] there was a a study done in like in the

[18:45] 70s that identified um historic

[18:48] structures, but over time I mean if you

[18:51] bought one, you may not have you may not

[18:53] know it, you know. No. Uh and I don't

[18:55] think anything was done to to say, "Oh,

[18:58] Matt, your house, by the way, is on the

[19:00] National Register." Um it was just this

[19:03] map came up and if you didn't see it,

[19:05] well, you didn't see it. Um but then you

[19:09] sent a letter to everyone this summer

[19:12] whose properties were on it. And

[19:14] >> from what I understand, because my wife

[19:17] was on that committee,

[19:18] >> there were several who were surprised

[19:22] that their house was on the register

[19:26] um and didn't know what quite what it

[19:29] meant.

[19:30] So yeah, it it comes up for like most of

[19:34] the applications that come to the local

[19:36] resource advisory board. Uh when I talk

[19:39] to applicants and I tell them, "Oh,

[19:40] zoning is required for this. Your

[19:42] property's on the local historic

[19:43] register." And they're like, "What are

[19:45] you talking about?"

[19:48] Um

[19:49] >> so, and I I think even with the notice,

[19:51] it's still going to happen. Um because

[19:53] there are um like 90 plus properties on

[19:56] this list. Um, but I think more and

[20:00] more, you may or may not know that that

[20:03] the historic society um has a program

[20:06] where you can you can order a plaque to

[20:08] put on your house.

[20:10] >> And I'm trying to think how many again,

[20:13] Sue has been working on it. There must

[20:15] be 20, 30, 40 that they've sent out

[20:20] >> so far at least.

[20:21] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's cool.

[20:23] >> Yeah. So, um, more and more people are

[20:26] getting them. Mhm.

[20:27] >> Uh but that doesn't mean that they're on

[20:29] the national register because your house

[20:31] has to be over 50 years old.

[20:33] >> Yeah.

[20:33] >> You know, but everyone that she's done

[20:35] so far, I'm going to guess that the

[20:39] newest house was probably built in the

[20:41] 20s. Most of them are 1800s and and

[20:44] whatnot.

[20:47] >> Yeah. So, yeah, there more information

[20:49] about that on this Historical Society

[20:52] website. You can order a plaque. What

[20:54] was it like 40 bucks? I think it's a

[20:57] hundred bucks.

[20:58] >> No, it's 100.

[20:59] >> Yeah. Well, it's the plaque and then

[21:01] >> you get all the research.

[21:02] >> S does all the research.

[21:05] >> Yeah.

[21:07] >> And it's perfect research, by the way.

[21:09] [laughter]

[21:10] >> I hope you heard that, S.

[21:16] » Anyway, sorry about that.

[21:18] >> No, you're good. You're good.

[21:19] >> Any other questions about this? Any of

[21:22] the properties that are listed? Uh,

[21:24] anyone see their house on there and they

[21:26] say, "What?

[21:27] >> Chicks is on there.

[21:29] >> Chicks is on."

[21:30] >> The weird one is down in Memorial Park,

[21:32] but that's on there.

[21:34] >> Um, can you bring that?

[21:36] >> Yes. So, Memorial Park is an

[21:38] archaeological site.

[21:40] >> Oh, okay.

[21:41] >> So, it's there is it's archaeologically

[21:43] significant there. I'm not aware of any

[21:45] structures down there, but I I am aware

[21:46] that it is archaeologically significant.

[21:49] And I think the oldest buildings in the

[21:52] city are the Stonehouse

[21:55] >> on East Allen Street, the mansion,

[21:59] and I'm not sure what after that would

[22:01] be. I I I think that the um

[22:03] >> Yeah, the list has it.

[22:05] >> Yeah. But like that it used to be the

[22:08] what is the RVA now

[22:10] >> up the hills?

[22:14] » I don't know that it's here on the other

[22:15] side of the tracks.

[22:17] Oh, there you go.

[22:19] >> Yeah. So, this is all in the zoning

[22:20] regulations if you want to take a look

[22:21] at the list.

[22:23] >> Um, and then the entire state historic

[22:26] register is on the city website. Uh, the

[22:29] VHB report that was done a few years

[22:31] back is also on the website.

[22:38] Okay.

[22:40] So, on to other topics on um that

[22:45] planning and zoning update. Um what did

[22:48] I even write? Um yeah, so

[22:52] uh permits for drawing units is way

[22:55] down. Um but Wooki historically has kind

[22:59] of had these interesting like booms and

[23:02] busts every single every year. It's like

[23:05] there's a there's a year that's that um

[23:08] there are many uh houses uh permitted

[23:12] and then there are years that there are

[23:13] none and it just kind of goes up and

[23:15] down. Uh sometimes in alternating years.

[23:17] >> I'm going to guess recent permits have

[23:20] been for multi-unit structures as

[23:22] opposed to single family. There's not

[23:24] many new

[23:24] >> Yes.

[23:25] >> single family homes being built.

[23:27] >> Yes. Yeah. Single family dwellings are

[23:32] uh few and far between. It's it's mainly

[23:34] been for um like ADUs um multi-unit

[23:40] um additions that were multi-unit

[23:44] projects like that.

[23:46] Um the DRB reviewed eight projects and

[23:49] one appeal uh last year. Um and then in

[23:54] the last uh seven eight months um the

[23:57] internal process has been refined a

[24:00] bunch

[24:02] uh with more input from DPW early in the

[24:05] process rather than later. Um it's from

[24:07] my understanding that DPW is involved in

[24:10] projects after zoning typically and then

[24:14] they work with the applicants or the

[24:15] developers on water sewer connections

[24:17] and things like that. Um I think there's

[24:19] been some recent complications um from

[24:22] projects. Uh so we've shifted DPW review

[24:26] to the beginning. Um and then

[24:28] determining uh completion of a zoning

[24:31] permit only after DBW's completed their

[24:34] review. Uh because that would determine

[24:36] whether uh utility impacts are being

[24:39] satisfied and water wastewater

[24:41] connections are being satisfied. Um so

[24:44] that's extended our review time for for

[24:47] projects uh significantly. Um so

[24:50] turnaround times for government

[24:51] applications requiring public works

[24:53] review can be between like 6 to 8 weeks

[24:55] at the earliest. Now, um, so for

[24:59] example, for a couple projects that the

[25:01] DRB reviewed, um, one project that the

[25:05] DRB reviewed, uh, last month, I had been

[25:08] in conversation with that applicant

[25:09] since January

[25:11] >> and, um, they only met kind of the basic

[25:15] requirements in May and then DPW

[25:18] uh, and I had a conversation and I

[25:20] brought that back to the applicant. And

[25:22] so there was further refinement that

[25:23] needed to happen before they were ready

[25:25] for DRB reviewed. Um similarly uh

[25:29] another project for an ADU that was um

[25:32] reviewed back in I want to say April

[25:36] that also that process also started in

[25:38] January. Um and that and they were uh

[25:43] further along in the process when they

[25:45] came to me. Uh, but that still required

[25:48] some back and forth and refinement

[25:49] before it could be ready for for DRB

[25:51] review. Um, overall though, it's made um

[25:56] review processes with the DRB a lot more

[25:59] straightforward, a lot cleaner. um like

[26:03] uh the meeting uh in last month I think

[26:06] that was 25 minutes [laughter] and the

[26:11] DRV didn't really have any questions

[26:12] because we we covered all the bases

[26:15] pretty much um so I think that's one of

[26:18] the results out of this is even though

[26:19] we are extending review times um we are

[26:24] uh stream streamlining it in certain

[26:26] parts too uh to make sure that these

[26:30] products are comprehensive and complete

[26:32] before they are permitted.

[26:34] >> But even 6 to 8 weeks, I mean, in the

[26:37] scheme of review in the state of

[26:39] Vermont, that doesn't seem too bad.

[26:42] >> You know what I mean? I mean, if you

[26:43] have to go through Act 250, that will

[26:45] under your hat.

[26:46] >> Yeah.

[26:48] >> Right.

[26:48] >> Yeah. In general, say it weeks for a

[26:51] permit

[26:53] >> in a big city would be good. Mhm.

[26:57] >> Is the majority of that time to work out

[27:00] those like back and forth questions

[27:02] between the public works department and

[27:04] the applicant or is there a factor of

[27:06] like staff availability that's part of

[27:08] that?

[27:09] >> Uh a bit of both for public works. Um

[27:12] right now is their busiest season. Um so

[27:16] they're uh

[27:19] capacity to review projects is pretty

[27:22] limited. Um, usually we sit down once a

[27:26] month and just go through every single

[27:28] permit that's on my desk and and then we

[27:31] iron out all the details and then bring

[27:33] that back to the applicant and the

[27:34] applicant comes back with a revision.

[27:36] Um, so it's it's a bit of both on DBW's

[27:41] side mainly just because it's the

[27:43] summer.

[27:49] » Any other questions?

[27:52] Okay. Um, building technologies is now

[27:55] complete. Um, that's in front of you.

[27:57] >> It is complete.

[27:58] >> It's complete.

[27:58] >> Okay.

[27:59] >> Um, so yeah, a couple weeks ago when I

[28:02] was writing this memo, um, we were still

[28:05] working out finer details in the report,

[28:07] but now it's complete complete.

[28:10] >> Um, if you do notice any typos or

[28:13] anything like that, feel free to let me

[28:15] know. Um,

[28:17] there's one. We'll get to it. Yeah. So,

[28:19] it's not complete. [laughter]

[28:22] >> Yeah, I think they can fix a like final

[28:23] typos. That's fine.

[28:25] >> Yeah. Um

[28:28] I think for me, I I picked out a lot of

[28:31] typos and then I just got probably got

[28:33] tunnel vision.

[28:34] >> So, if you notice anything, yeah, let me

[28:36] know. But they're open to answering any

[28:39] questions that you have about the report

[28:40] itself. Uh typos aside. So, if you do

[28:44] have any questions, um, feel free to let

[28:46] me know and I can forward them on to

[28:48] Jeff and Keith and they can give you an

[28:50] answer.

[28:53] >> So, in terms of of discussing this, I

[28:57] don't know if we have to accept this or

[28:59] whatever, but we probably at the next

[29:01] meeting have a further discussion about

[29:04] this.

[29:05] >> Yeah.

[29:06] >> Give us time to read through this.

[29:08] >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be good.

[29:11] Um yeah, I think it' be good for you to

[29:15] accept it. Um does council

[29:18] >> maybe forward to maybe we have to

[29:20] forward it to council for approval to

[29:22] think.

[29:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think um from what I

[29:26] understand from me council doesn't

[29:28] necessarily need to accept it or

[29:29] acknowledge it, but they do should see

[29:32] it and and understand that it's been

[29:35] completed and make sure that we're

[29:36] operationalizing it.

[29:40] What's the dumb question, but I'm going

[29:43] to ask it anyway. Um,

[29:46] what's the purpose of this and where's

[29:48] it going to sit? I mean, it's going to

[29:50] be somehow melded into our zoning

[29:54] regulations.

[29:56] >> How do you envision that?

[29:59] >> That is a good question for the work

[30:02] plan.

[30:03] >> Okay.

[30:03] >> Because it it's going to be deeply

[30:05] connected to the work plan and the other

[30:07] item in the work plan. So, I can You

[30:09] want me You want me to wait and hold it

[30:11] until we discuss the work plan? Okay.

[30:13] >> Yes, [laughter]

[30:15] >> I can do that.

[30:16] >> Thanks.

[30:18] >> Um,

[30:19] >> but remind me when we get there.

[30:21] >> I I'm gonna [laughter]

[30:24] I'm definitely going to bring it up, so

[30:25] don't worry. [laughter]

[30:30] Um, I think yeah, the last two things I

[30:33] have here are comp plan updates. So, uh,

[30:38] the open house on July 29th, uh, was

[30:42] well attended, so thanks for coming out.

[30:44] Um, and and thanks to Watt for for

[30:47] tableabling and doing some marketing for

[30:49] it. Um, the next one is on August 27th,

[30:53] which is Thursday. So, uh, there won't

[30:57] be a second meeting, but if you can come

[30:59] out to the open house, feel free to stop

[31:00] by. It'll be focused on the safe healthy

[31:02] connected people section. uh safe

[31:04] healthy connected uh the commit the safe

[31:07] healthy connected committee

[31:09] is uh going to be uh doing some

[31:13] activities with that too. Um so this

[31:16] will be u from 5 to 7 at the senior

[31:19] center and hopefully if the weather

[31:21] holds up then we can be outside. That

[31:24] that's my goal.

[31:27] Yeah.

[31:29] Um and then with the uh master plan

[31:33] municipal plan, it's now expected to

[31:35] expire at the end of 2027. So under

[31:38] recently adopted act 152, any regional

[31:42] or municipal plan due to expire in 2026

[31:44] or 2027 shall have its expiration date

[31:46] extended until December 31st, 2027. So

[31:50] that gives us uh some breathing room uh

[31:53] to review and uh approve the the comp

[31:56] plan. Um, but I'm still holding firm on

[32:01] the original timeline uh to make sure

[32:03] that we have it adopted around March.

[32:07] Um, I think that I I'm I'm seeing this

[32:12] comp plan as as a lighter update um

[32:15] based on all the work that the city has

[32:16] done on public engagement and all the

[32:19] reports and studies that they've done.

[32:21] Um, so I'm but I'm very well aware that

[32:26] come

[32:27] 2035,

[32:31] we're going to have to do a lot of work.

[32:35] So, it's not only on like the the

[32:37] municipal plan side, but probably on the

[32:40] um bike pad plan side because that uh is

[32:44] a couple years old now. And uh we have

[32:48] accomplished uh a number of items on the

[32:50] bike ped uh plan. Uh and our economic

[32:56] development strategic plan is I would

[32:58] say it's obsolete. It's from 2017. Um

[33:01] it's still workable and we are still uh

[33:05] using it operationally. Um but I think

[33:08] by 2020 2035 it'll it'll be obsolete. So

[33:11] we're going to need to update that that

[33:13] too. So, um, during the next adoption

[33:16] cycle, I think it's going to be a

[33:18] multi-year effort with all the different

[33:21] plans that we have to need to be updated

[33:24] all at the same time.

[33:28] » You guys need to be thinking about that

[33:30] in 2035 because I won't be here.

[33:34] [laughter]

[33:34] >> When you compare that to like what

[33:36] Burlington's doing right now with plan

[33:37] BTV, I think they have like four

[33:39] different plans that they're bundling

[33:40] together in the public engagement

[33:42] process.

[33:42] >> Yes. Yeah, I think by by probably 2032

[33:46] 2033, we're going to be in a similar

[33:47] situation as Burlington with multiple

[33:50] plans that are staggered but also all

[33:54] equally obsolete. So, it makes sense to

[33:57] think of it all uh synergistically and

[34:01] all at once.

[34:06] » EV charging.

[34:07] Uh yeah, the report's

[34:09] finished. uh the was finished back in

[34:12] the winter um back in February. Uh gave

[34:15] a presentation to city council um at

[34:18] that time. Uh we're still continuing to

[34:20] work with CCRPC and the state on

[34:22] potential EV charging installation

[34:23] funding and opportunities. So um there's

[34:27] been I don't know if you've familiar

[34:28] with some news about um Vrans uh doing a

[34:32] call for uh potential places for EV

[34:37] charging. Um so I've submitted uh forms

[34:40] for that for uh um Landry Park um for

[34:46] Cavan. Um and

[34:51] I yeah I think for those two locations

[34:53] um one of the two locations Landry Park

[34:55] was scoped in our EV charging plan. Um

[34:59] we have a quote for the Cassavant

[35:03] um site so we understand the constraints

[35:08] with that. Um

[35:11] >> how many EV charging stations do we have

[35:13] in the city right now?

[35:15] >> Publicly.

[35:17] >> So when in the garage I assume

[35:20] >> yes. So,

[35:23] in the in the Cascade garage, I don't

[35:26] remember how many plugs there are there.

[35:29] Um,

[35:31] but in the Cascade garage, we have level

[35:33] one plugs. Um,

[35:36] and I think with the new garage, it's a

[35:41] work in progress on public EV charging

[35:45] for the new garage. Um but other than

[35:48] that um there are no other public EV

[35:51] chargers available. All of the chargers

[35:55] that are available are private either at

[35:57] individuals homes or uh at apartment

[36:01] buildings.

[36:02] >> Is there EV charging signs? No actual EV

[36:07] charging.

[36:08] >> Oh, here

[36:09] >> at the school.

[36:10] >> Oh, at school. So the school's wired for

[36:12] it.

[36:12] >> The So the school has all the conduit

[36:14] there. They just need to we're trying to

[36:18] figure out is there a way for them to

[36:19] get money uh to put in a charger. Um so

[36:23] yeah, I did submit a form for the school

[36:25] I think too or maybe I don't remember.

[36:27] [laughter]

[36:28] Either way, um the school and I have

[36:31] been in contact about this project and

[36:33] trying to figure out um what their needs

[36:35] are and figure out what are some

[36:37] pathways for them to get the supply

[36:39] equipment to to plug in. That's all

[36:42] they're missing. Are there any statewide

[36:45] requirements for like a minimum amount

[36:46] of EV charging? Like Massachusetts has

[36:48] requirements for new parking areas a

[36:52] certain percentage like 10% or whatever

[36:54] needs to be. Is that something or

[36:56] something we would even want to think

[36:58] about? Like the only new parking is over

[37:01] by Casan. It probably won't happen again

[37:03] >> anytime soon, but it's just something I

[37:08] guess to throw out there to think about.

[37:09] >> Yeah, I mean we can definitely think

[37:11] about that locally. um we can put that

[37:13] into zoning as a requirement instead of

[37:15] an incentive.

[37:16] >> Um that is uh there's been a guidance

[37:19] document that's now a bit dated I think

[37:21] eight years old from Vrans on um how you

[37:25] can incorporate EV charging requirements

[37:27] into municipal zoning um in the most

[37:32] recent residential and commercial

[37:34] building energy standards uh that

[37:36] required EV charging.

[37:38] >> Okay. Um, so for I think for

[37:41] municipalities that adopt stretch code

[37:43] like South Burlington, they would have

[37:45] that EV charging requirement for larger

[37:48] projects. Um, but with the executive

[37:52] order shifting back to the 2020 building

[37:55] energy standards requirements uh,

[37:57] statewide, I think that is only for

[37:59] wiring but not for chargers if I'm not

[38:02] mistaken.

[38:03] >> Okay.

[38:03] >> Um, and it's only for certain projects

[38:05] of a thresh of a particular threshold.

[38:07] >> Yeah.

[38:07] >> Um,

[38:08] Yeah. So, it's a bit of yes and no.

[38:11] >> Yeah, that's good to know.

[38:13] >> Yeah.

[38:18] » Is that it for that?

[38:22] Any questions?

[38:25] Everyone, can you hear me?

[38:27] >> Oh, yeah. You had a question on the

[38:29] chat, right, Trevor?

[38:31] >> Yeah, I did. I'll just so people can

[38:33] hear. We were talking about Act 250 a

[38:35] couple minutes ago and I'm just

[38:36] wondering cuz I read where it was

[38:38] written and there didn't there wasn't

[38:40] more context to inform me. So maybe you

[38:42] know or maybe someone else knows but why

[38:45] was it decided statewide to extend the

[38:48] expiration date for municipal plans

[38:50] until the end of 2027? I just have no

[38:53] background on this.

[38:55] >> I think it has to do with the status of

[38:59] the regional plan timelines.

[39:02] Um so now with the uh

[39:08] trying to forget remember which one I

[39:10] think it's under act 181 that we have to

[39:13] include our housing goal the regional

[39:16] plans housing goals into our uh

[39:19] municipal plan um along with uh their

[39:24] map of

[39:27] um the their future land use map into

[39:29] our zoning. um I think only in the last

[39:34] week that um CCRPC's plan was adopted.

[39:39] Um so because and they're one of the

[39:42] first. So I think in order for everyone

[39:45] else to catch up with the plan

[39:47] requirements uh if the state decided to

[39:49] extend those timelines so that way

[39:52] municipalities can meet those

[39:54] requirements that are in act 181.

[39:59] >> Okay. Thank you for the info.

[40:03] >> Okay.

[40:05] >> Let's move on to let's see what would it

[40:07] be the work plan.

[40:09] >> Yeah.

[40:12] So

[40:15] we have a work plan a draft one. Um the

[40:20] basis of this work plan um kind of stems

[40:25] from previous year's work plans. This is

[40:27] how previous year's work plans were set

[40:28] up where um we would highlight uh city

[40:32] council's priorities that intersect with

[40:34] planning and zoning and um identify our

[40:38] role in that. Um so it's the first three

[40:44] are a continuation of previous uh

[40:48] council priorities from previous years.

[40:50] Um so develop continue to update the UDR

[40:54] address housing priorities carry out the

[40:56] equable housing needs assessment which

[40:57] will be finished the end of this year.

[41:00] Um update the comp plan um and then the

[41:04] last one's a new one the water

[41:05] distribution system master plan update.

[41:08] Um and then the planning commissions

[41:10] role um I pulled from previous work

[41:13] plans uh speaks very generally. Um so we

[41:16] can word smmith that if you'd like um

[41:18] but I I would like to talk a bit about

[41:20] the water distribution system master

[41:22] plan update. So um one of the

[41:25] constraints um that the city has isn't

[41:30] um water supply itself but the water

[41:33] lines. Um, so the water lines in the

[41:37] residential districts are uh sized for a

[41:41] uh single typical single family

[41:43] residential neighborhood. It's a they're

[41:45] 6-in water lines. Um, so we have been

[41:49] mainly DPW's been running into some

[41:52] issues about connecting u multi-unit

[41:55] housing projects to 6-in lines. Um the

[41:58] main concern isn't um water itself but the pressure um because if you have

[42:05] undersized pipes and you have larger

[42:07] needs for it then you would have less

[42:08] pressure and um so that's what we're I'm

[42:12] working with DPW to figure out where are

[42:14] we anticipating growth. So therefore

[42:17] which lines should be um uh switched out

[42:22] to larger wider lines to accommodate for

[42:25] future growth. Um so that's part of uh

[42:28] the building typologies itself. So with

[42:31] building typologies um

[42:34] I think it it helped DPW and I to think

[42:36] about what is anticipated buildout, what

[42:39] could build out look like in our

[42:40] residential districts. Um and how would

[42:43] it look? Um, and so based off of that,

[42:46] if we were to look at building forms, in the RC district, then

[42:51] we would know, okay, this is the

[42:53] expected growth that we should

[42:55] anticipate in the RC district, and

[42:57] therefore we should upsize certain lines

[42:59] in particular locations for that growth.

[43:02] Uh, so we could prioritize particular

[43:03] lines over, say, locations in the RA

[43:06] district that weren't part of the study.

[43:09] Uh, and and those could be dep

[43:11] prioritized for now. and um regarded

[43:14] later uh at a later time for upsizing.

[43:18] Um so I think that thinking about um I

[43:23] think for for me and for DBW thinking

[43:24] about um the building typologies project

[43:27] and then this water distribution system

[43:28] master plan update that is I think going

[43:31] to inform um further conversations about

[43:35] how we want to implement the building

[43:36] typologies

[43:38] about which areas do we want to see

[43:40] further density? Do we want to see

[43:42] different forms um and potential uh

[43:47] changes to other parts of the zoning

[43:49] regulations to accommodate that type of

[43:50] form, that type of built environment u

[43:53] versus other parts of the city? So

[43:55] that's where it all intersects.

[43:58] >> Is there any issues with wastelines?

[44:00] >> No.

[44:02] Well, [laughter]

[44:05] >> again, I think the age of a lot of the

[44:08] infrastructure, especially sewer lines,

[44:10] there there's some pretty old pipes in

[44:13] there.

[44:14] >> I know when we did some back in the

[44:16] early 2000s, we were finding 100-y old

[44:20] um clay tile pipe.

[44:23] >> So nice,

[44:24] >> and finding lines that or not knowing

[44:27] where lines were.

[44:29] So, but that's all been I think it's

[44:33] pretty well updated. So, they've got

[44:34] mapping of there was a time when there

[44:37] was no maps of where water lines were.

[44:41] Uh, and I I tell John Rosher this. There

[44:44] was in the late 90s, I think it was,

[44:47] there was a water there was a water main

[44:49] break. They couldn't find the shut offs.

[44:52] They had to shut the water off in the

[44:54] whole city

[44:55] >> to fix the break. and they found the

[44:59] shut off under six or eight layers of

[45:03] pavement, but they didn't have any maps,

[45:05] so they didn't know where it was. But

[45:07] that has changed, thank goodness.

[45:10] >> Yeah.

[45:11] The the last water distri system

[45:15] master plan update was in 2016,

[45:20] I think. So, yeah, we have precise maps

[45:23] on where water lines are and where sewer

[45:26] lines are. It's it's a matter of testing

[45:29] out its distribution capability and

[45:32] determining which um lines do we want to

[45:35] upsize over time and which we should

[45:37] prioritize.

[45:39] >> And as Revy said, we have last I knew

[45:42] and Thomas, you can correct me if I'm

[45:43] wrong, we have plenty of of sewer

[45:47] capacity and water capacity to to

[45:49] accommodate new growth. Quite a bit of

[45:51] new growth. It's just the distribution

[45:54] lines.

[45:55] >> Yeah.

[46:00] Yep.

[46:02] I think that's all I have for the work

[46:05] plan. Any questions, suggestions, edits?

[46:15] It's a lot of stuff we've always we've

[46:17] been doing all along. So, it doesn't

[46:19] change much year to year, but

[46:24] and I should add that

[46:27] part of our job and and with the zoning

[46:31] regulations or unified land use

[46:33] development regulations, whatever the

[46:35] heck it is. Um, uh, I always look at it

[46:39] as a living document that needs to

[46:41] change and update. So if you if you see

[46:45] something you think we should discuss

[46:47] this, let's discuss it. Something may

[46:49] need to be changed.

[46:52] >> I guess I do have one comment here, but

[46:54] just making sure we have the city

[46:56] council's priorities, like making sure

[46:59] we we know what those those are. I guess

[47:03] >> we don't know that. I know at the end of

[47:06] like the last sessions with some people

[47:09] they felt like maybe we're diverging

[47:11] from maybe what the city council wanted.

[47:13] So maybe just making sure we know those

[47:17] are very clearly.

[47:19] >> It sort of says it but no we do need to

[47:22] because anything that we propose

[47:26] has to get approved by the council. So,

[47:29] it doesn't make sense for us to to um

[47:33] propose something that's contrary to

[47:35] what the city council wants. If we're

[47:38] going down that route, we have to have

[47:39] the discussion ahead of time and figure

[47:42] out where we are. You buy that, Thomas,

[47:44] or

[47:45] >> Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know,

[47:47] not much has changed in terms of the

[47:50] like overall council priorities. If we

[47:52] want we want you all finding ways that

[47:56] will encourage development in the city

[48:01] and be that smart development, right?

[48:04] Like we don't want Franklin Street

[48:07] problems popping up everywhere just to

[48:10] develop things, but we want development

[48:13] to happen. So we do have a fun job of

[48:16] figuring out how to make that happen. Um

[48:20] but yeah, not nothing there that has

[48:21] changed. Like we're not uh we haven't

[48:24] been briefed on anything besides, you

[48:28] know, this water distribution situation,

[48:30] but other than that, like we haven't

[48:32] heard any reasons to why we need to

[48:35] alter our desires for development. So

[48:39] that's the

[48:40] >> that's the plan. I think with a

[48:43] comprehensive plan I think we need to

[48:45] have a discussion of just

[48:49] I'll say how much development we want

[48:51] some parameters in other words do we

[48:53] want to go crazy and you know get as

[48:57] much development as possible or do we

[48:59] want to look at it and say do we want

[49:01] this city to be one of of you know a

[49:04] population of 9 or 10,000 or 12 or

[49:07] 15,000

[49:08] >> because there is some cost to develop

[49:11] velment and one of them is the

[49:14] infrastructure,

[49:15] >> right?

[49:15] >> You know, so I I think we need to have

[49:18] that discussion with the council uh and

[49:21] with the other groups that that you know

[49:23] we're going to be working with um to to

[49:26] give us a path forward. And it may be

[49:29] let's go crazy and do whatever we can or

[49:31] it may be let's kind of rein it in a

[49:34] little bit. one development but you know

[49:36] >> we've seen

[49:38] recently right that there have been a

[49:42] thought and belief in the city that like

[49:44] any development was great that clearly

[49:47] was not the case like people have turned

[49:49] out in droves against some specific

[49:52] projects so not that that has changed

[49:55] any desires develop but I think it's

[49:57] like

[49:59] we're we're not where some of us thought

[50:00] we were in terms of where people are

[50:03] willing to see big structures go up and

[50:05] things like that. So, um you know, like

[50:08] I think we've decided like the

[50:10] corridors, right? Like we can going to

[50:12] put big buildings there. There are still

[50:14] people who will complain, but like I

[50:16] think as a city we can all kind of come

[50:17] to the agreement that like we're all

[50:20] okay with that.

[50:22] >> Um

[50:24] >> but not in my backyard.

[50:26] [laughter] how somebody's going to hear.

[50:29] Oh, you know, I'm not thrilled here. No,

[50:33] like I definitely developing the city,

[50:36] but like

[50:38] the this room has never been as full as

[50:40] you saw it as DRB saw or as we saw it

[50:42] when Franklin Street happened. So like

[50:46] >> Well,

[50:48] but not for

[50:50] 35, but like

[50:53] >> in the past five years. So like

[50:56] >> it was also pretty full when we were

[50:59] proposing the Armory project too with a

[51:01] lot of people speaking in support of it.

[51:02] So I think you know

[51:04] >> I'm not

[51:06] saying Franklin Street for a reason.

[51:07] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[51:08] >> Like there I think [clears throat]

[51:10] and maybe all of you but maybe not can

[51:12] recognize like the the neighbors did not

[51:15] want Franklin Street to happen. So we

[51:18] had thought a lot of us that people

[51:20] would want Franklin Street to happen. It

[51:23] seemed that they [clears throat] didn't.

[51:24] So like we've got some more parameters

[51:27] from conversations that we've had over

[51:28] the years.

[51:30] >> Um the armory is a whole different

[51:32] thing. Like there are people for them

[51:34] who I haven't heard anybody before

[51:36] Franklin Street.

[51:37] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[51:38] >> So like that's why I use that example.

[51:41] The armor is different. There are

[51:42] definitely people for that project.

[51:44] Definitely people against that project

[51:46] but there's more of a discussion there

[51:50] um which hope we continue on. Yeah,

[51:54] actually, can I back up just the the

[51:56] water distribution, how pressing is

[51:58] that? Like, is that is there any

[52:00] development that that's holding up or is

[52:02] uh um or is there some more development

[52:06] that can happen with the current 6- in

[52:08] lines? Um and it's just like down the

[52:11] road we'll need to expand or is there uh

[52:15] does that question make sense? I think

[52:17] it it's a little

[52:20] I'm I I think I'd be a little out of my

[52:23] wheelhouse to to to make that

[52:26] determination because I'm not an

[52:27] engineer. [laughter]

[52:30] >> Like booster pumps and stuff.

[52:31] >> Yeah. And things like that.

[52:33] >> I think Yeah. And I think that with the from my understanding at least

[52:40] um

[52:42] there aren't any projects that are being

[52:43] holding that are being held up and

[52:46] public works just like I feel like the

[52:49] rest of the city like code enforcement

[52:51] public works they always find a way to

[52:52] make it work to make sure that the

[52:55] building is accessible and that they are

[52:57] able to to to maintain their operations

[52:59] and and and work towards solutions. Um

[53:03] it's it's a matter of for these future

[53:06] buildings or even for these current

[53:07] buildings, is there going to be enough

[53:08] water pressure for them? And uh one

[53:11] piece that causes them alarm is

[53:14] buildings behind buildings. Um because

[53:16] that is an extension of a of a

[53:18] connection of an existing connection

[53:20] that goes through a house. Um we don't

[53:22] create any new connections. Typically,

[53:25] um if someone is building a duplex

[53:26] behind an existing duplex,

[53:29] uh water and waste water has to go

[53:31] through the existing house and out to

[53:33] the street. Um so that creates some

[53:36] complications operationally for them uh

[53:39] that they've uh made known to me and I

[53:41] would and I think that would also create

[53:43] some complications in terms of water

[53:46] pressure um just to have the extra

[53:48] infrastructure uh 100 ft of

[53:50] infrastructure potentially to go out to

[53:52] the street. Um so I think that to uh

[53:55] circumvent any future uh issues like

[53:59] that um this is why they're looking at

[54:03] what is distribution like and how do we

[54:05] make sure that we are prioritizing

[54:07] um the upsizing of particular lines over

[54:10] others at the moment as we continue to

[54:13] maintain our infrastructure. Um, and I

[54:16] also think that this is also a piece

[54:18] that they've voiced concerns to me about

[54:20] like is there a way Revy to consolidate

[54:24] all the units into one building so that

[54:26] way there's just one connection out to

[54:27] the street instead of this connection

[54:29] this these connections between

[54:31] connections. Um so and I think that's

[54:34] going to be a broader conversation um at a later time of how do we incorporate

[54:42] some of these recommendations as we

[54:44] continue to maintain infrastructure and

[54:47] upsize infrastructure to make sure that

[54:49] we are growing incrementally and also

[54:52] growing in a way that is uh sustainable

[54:56] operationally for our city staff. I

[55:01] think one one um question that we need

[55:05] answered on the water especially water

[55:08] distribution system is 6-in pipe as I

[55:11] understand it from what you said and and

[55:13] whatever is good for a single family

[55:16] home or or several single family homes.

[55:20] >> How large of a multi-unit building is

[55:25] adequately served with a 6-in pipe? So,

[55:27] in other words, if I have a sixunit

[55:29] building, do I need to upgrade it to a

[55:31] 12 in or a 9 in pipe or something? Is it

[55:34] 10 units? Is it 20 units? You know what

[55:36] I mean? And that's not something you can

[55:37] answer, but I think if we get some

[55:40] information from public works,

[55:42] >> I think that would help us because then

[55:44] we can say, well, geez, we're allowing

[55:47] all these six unit buildings, but it

[55:49] needs an upsized pipe

[55:51] >> or maybe it doesn't.

[55:53] >> Yep. I think so. Yes. Exactly. we we'll

[55:56] have some flexibility in in the short

[55:58] term and the near future um because uh

[56:02] we're not seeing uh you know growth

[56:05] overnight. We're not seeing houses being

[56:06] demolished and turned into four-unit

[56:08] buildings overnight that are going to

[56:09] cause pressure issues. Um, but we need

[56:12] to be mindful of

[56:15] which parts can accommodate growth right

[56:16] now, which parts are going to be

[56:18] prioritized for growth, and which parts

[56:20] of the city are

[56:22] have a much longer time frame for

[56:25] upgrades. Um, in terms of density,

[56:28] >> you or Thomas probably don't know, but

[56:30] I'm wondering with the Main Street

[56:33] reconstruction, did they upsize the

[56:35] water um, distribution line there to

[56:37] like a 12 in or something?

[56:40] >> I

[56:41] I'm very sure

[56:43] >> they upsized it. I can't say

[56:46] >> I don't put I don't know what they had

[56:48] pulled out.

[56:51] >> Some of the sections were wood pipes.

[56:54] >> They were wood like with like metal

[56:57] bands around them like barrels.

[56:59] >> It's wild, but they lasted for over 100

[57:01] years.

[57:01] >> That's what I'm saying.

[57:03] >> Yeah, that's the exact problem.

[57:05] >> Yeah.

[57:07] what's coming.

[57:09] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[57:12] >> I can tell you stories of surprise some

[57:14] surprises that have been found in this

[57:15] city.

[57:16] >> Oh, John showed us one meeting like when

[57:19] they were doing scoping and I forget

[57:21] about Oh, a fire hydrant had been like

[57:23] tapped into one of those like I think

[57:25] about building codes, but like they're

[57:27] not supposed to do that. So, there's

[57:29] like

[57:31] I don't

[57:32] >> old stuff going on down there. I

[57:34] [clears throat] don't remember the

[57:35] specifics, but where the veterans

[57:36] housing is down here on West Canal

[57:38] Street, when they were digging the

[57:40] foundation

[57:41] >> down deep, they found an old um like

[57:44] storm water discharge pipe that was I

[57:48] think it was wooden and I think it was

[57:50] like 36 in or 48 in diameter.

[57:54] >> They didn't know it was there.

[57:56] [laughter]

[58:00] » But that's all been ironed out.

[58:01] >> Yeah. So be confident that that's all

[58:04] that was said Mike figured that all out.

[58:08] >> No, not quite.

[58:10] >> I just kind of scratched my head and

[58:11] laughed. [laughter]

[58:12] >> It's interesting. It'll be interesting

[58:14] too with the pressure stuff. These like

[58:16] lower areas normally have higher

[58:18] pressure and stuff. So it might dictate

[58:20] areas that'll

[58:22] can actually have develop a bit more

[58:25] >> and others that [clears throat] can't. I

[58:26] don't know if that works, but you know

[58:27] that I know a lot of our water comes

[58:29] from the the water towers up on Water

[58:32] Tower Hill in Colchester because

[58:34] >> back in the early 90s we contributed to

[58:37] putting those 425,000galon

[58:40] » storage tanks up there

[58:42] >> so it could serve because Champagne

[58:44] water the water coming into the city uh

[58:47] I think there wasn't enough or

[58:49] something. Anyway, they had to put two

[58:50] tanks up there. Yeah.

[58:52] >> Oh, interesting.

[58:53] >> I know. I got plenty of pressure at my

[58:54] house. So,

[58:56] Yeah. So,

[58:57] >> anyway, we we digress.

[59:01] >> Yeah. Uh, but that's [laughter] okay.

[59:04] >> That's typical, by the way.

[59:06] >> Yeah.

[59:06] >> Sometimes you have to get me in line.

[59:08] [laughter]

[59:10] But I think talking about timelines, um,

[59:12] so I think for the remainder of the

[59:15] year, the way that I have it sketched

[59:16] out is that we focus more on the comp

[59:19] plan and the the revisions to the comp

[59:22] plan based on public input that we've

[59:25] been receiving. Um, so I think during

[59:28] the next meeting on September 10th,

[59:29] we'll reintroduce the comp plan and

[59:32] start going through it section by

[59:34] section. Um, depending on agendas, we

[59:37] might add in like building typologies or

[59:39] talks or talk about stuff. But I mean,

[59:41] we I want to make sure that I'm not

[59:43] overloading you because these are going

[59:45] to be like weightier meetings. Um, and

[59:49] then I think probably uh going into next

[59:53] year once we've cleared out the the comp

[59:56] plan as well and we'll probably go back

[59:58] into thinking more about building

[1:00:00] technologies with the water master plan

[1:00:03] update work potentially and equitable

[1:00:05] housing needs assessment work that's

[1:00:07] going to be finished at the end of the

[1:00:08] year and then and open up the UDR and figure out which recommendations we

[1:00:14] want to take into consideration and how

[1:00:16] do we want to take them into

[1:00:17] consideration.

[1:00:22] I I I mean I think you're right. We the

[1:00:24] comp plan is, you know, hanging over us.

[1:00:28] We got to get we got to get moving on

[1:00:29] that. So

[1:00:30] >> I think that'll be our priority in the

[1:00:32] next several months anyway.

[1:00:33] >> And I think one other piece that I've

[1:00:35] been working on on the side with the

[1:00:38] comp plan is trying to figure out in a

[1:00:40] very general sense where do we want to

[1:00:42] see growth and which parts of the city

[1:00:44] can accommodate more growth. So I think

[1:00:46] we we should have that conversation

[1:00:49] >> as part of the comp with the comp plan

[1:00:52] and that should be in the background as

[1:00:54] we talk more about building typologies

[1:00:56] at goodwell housing assessment and uh

[1:00:59] water master plan.

[1:01:06] » Okay. Any comments questions?

[1:01:08] >> This question is mainly about the comp

[1:01:10] plan but could apply across these

[1:01:12] priorities. Do you are we already

[1:01:15] planning on or do your foresee

[1:01:17] opportunities to have additional joint

[1:01:20] meetings like with the other departments

[1:01:22] or commissions

[1:01:24] on the different sections of the comp

[1:01:26] plan or are those conversations

[1:01:28] happening already separately?

[1:01:30] >> So I have been meeting individually with

[1:01:33] all of the committees. So I've met with

[1:01:36] um

[1:01:38] all of the committees at this point

[1:01:40] multiple times on the goals and actions.

[1:01:43] Um so the draft goals and actions that

[1:01:45] are in the surveys that are being shown

[1:01:48] at the open house um have were created

[1:01:51] after multiple discussions with all the

[1:01:53] respective committees. Sanszu. Um so I

[1:01:59] think

[1:02:00] if we want more input at a later time um

[1:02:03] from those committees we can definitely

[1:02:04] get them. Uh if we want to hold a joint

[1:02:06] meeting we can definitely do that. Um,

[1:02:09] but it I think it'll depend on what the

[1:02:11] other committees how they feel and

[1:02:13] whether there's anything missing from

[1:02:15] our work because I I'll definitely be

[1:02:18] keeping tabs on that, making sure that I

[1:02:20] didn't miss anything in their uh

[1:02:23] observations and experiences working on

[1:02:26] those particular se sections as we work

[1:02:28] on those sections in in these meetings.

[1:02:32] >> On that note, I could see DPW being

[1:02:34] useful at some point planning for that.

[1:02:37] Yeah,

[1:02:37] >> we already implied that, but

[1:02:39] >> yeah. Yeah.

[1:02:41] >> Yeah.

[1:02:41] >> And as Revie said, if we want to have a

[1:02:43] joint meeting with one of the other

[1:02:45] commissions, we we can do that. We can

[1:02:47] ask for that.

[1:02:48] >> Yeah.

[1:02:49] >> We can't force them, but we can ask them

[1:02:51] very nicely.

[1:02:56] Anything else?

[1:02:59] All right. Building typologies.

[1:03:02] >> Yeah.

[1:03:03] >> Is this where I had a question that you

[1:03:04] wanted me to bring up or was that on the

[1:03:06] work? I already addressed it with the

[1:03:08] work plan, but I think

[1:03:09] >> you probably did. Yeah,

[1:03:10] >> I forgot the question. So, [laughter]

[1:03:14] » Thomas, Thomas,

[1:03:16] >> how deep are we diving into this right

[1:03:18] now? So, we were just saying next time,

[1:03:20] but

[1:03:20] >> I don't think we want to dive too deeply

[1:03:22] into it.

[1:03:23] >> No,

[1:03:24] >> we just

[1:03:25] we've seen some of it before, but folks

[1:03:28] like Ruby and Brian have not. So,

[1:03:31] >> Matt, I think you were here when they

[1:03:32] gave that they were

[1:03:35] >> Yeah. for mainly for for Ruby and for

[1:03:38] Brian. Um

[1:03:40] >> Trevor, you were you were here when we

[1:03:42] had Jeff and Keith, right?

[1:03:44] >> Yep. Met with them a couple times.

[1:03:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, at the beginning of the

[1:03:49] year, um yeah, probably like last

[1:03:53] December, um the regional planning

[1:03:56] commission reached out to me and said,

[1:03:58] "Hey, we have a bunch of money for um

[1:04:02] transit oriented development projects

[1:04:04] and we don't know where to spend it. Do

[1:04:06] you have a project?" And I was like,

[1:04:08] >> "Absolutely

[1:04:11] >> I do."

[1:04:13] Um so working with the regional planning

[1:04:16] commission and um working with their

[1:04:18] focus on transit oriented development um

[1:04:21] in which in Wooki we have transit that

[1:04:23] serves our neighborhoods. The number

[1:04:25] nine bus you know goes up and down

[1:04:26] Hickok and sneaks its way through the

[1:04:29] neighborhoods. Um we kind of we came up

[1:04:32] with a project idea for um residential

[1:04:36] building design. What is the design that

[1:04:38] we want to see in our residential

[1:04:40] neighborhoods? um and what are the

[1:04:43] elements that we need to highlight in um

[1:04:46] creating residential building form

[1:04:48] standards. Um a lot of this stem from

[1:04:50] Franklin Street um we were already

[1:04:53] having some observations from planning

[1:04:56] commission members at the time about

[1:04:58] Franklin Street and its design um and

[1:05:00] looking at the regulations and seeing a

[1:05:03] gap. Um, so this uh helps to address

[1:05:08] that gap that's in our regulations uh

[1:05:10] while also helping us think more uh

[1:05:13] proactively about how the city could

[1:05:15] look in the future uh if we were to have

[1:05:18] these design standards. Um, another

[1:05:20] piece with this uh project I

[1:05:23] specifically asked our consultants to

[1:05:24] look at is whether our regulations

[1:05:28] actually enable the priority housing

[1:05:30] that the city is deeply interested in

[1:05:32] seeing. Um, do the dimensional standards

[1:05:36] make sense? Do they work? Um, are they

[1:05:38] functional? Do they need to be changed?

[1:05:41] Um, so they took that and they pretty

[1:05:45] much ran with it with the with the with

[1:05:47] the form pretty much. Um, so our

[1:05:49] consultants, uh, Jeff Frell and Keith

[1:05:51] Coington, um, Jeff Frell worked on our

[1:05:55] formbbased code, um, and he developed it

[1:05:57] back in 2015, 2016. Um, so they came on

[1:06:01] board. um they were pre-selected by the

[1:06:04] regional planning commission. Um so I

[1:06:06] had so there was no consultant selection

[1:06:08] process by me. Um because this was a a

[1:06:12] grant that the regional planning

[1:06:13] commission received from uh I don't

[1:06:18] remember which agency but I know it was

[1:06:19] a raise grant and it there was there was

[1:06:23] nothing that we needed to pay for that

[1:06:25] project. So this project came to us free

[1:06:27] of charge uh through the raise grant

[1:06:29] program through CCRPC.

[1:06:32] Um so Jeff and Keith came on board uh in

[1:06:36] mid to late January to work on this

[1:06:38] project. Um and they came out to the

[1:06:42] city in

[1:06:45] late was it late February? No, late

[1:06:48] March I want to say.

[1:06:49] >> I would have guessed March.

[1:06:50] >> March. I just remember it being cold so

[1:06:52] that's why I was like is it February or

[1:06:54] March?

[1:06:55] >> [laughter]

[1:06:55] >> That's right. We did a walk around.

[1:06:56] >> Yes.

[1:06:57] >> Yeah. So with um uh so for this project

[1:07:02] um I not only solicited you for guidance

[1:07:05] but also the housing commission and

[1:07:08] local resource advisory board. So they

[1:07:10] all had a part in providing input for

[1:07:12] the project and uh were in the meetings

[1:07:16] with Jeff and Keith during their

[1:07:18] presentations providing input to them.

[1:07:21] Uh I think they did uh I want to say

[1:07:24] they they came to a meeting probably

[1:07:26] they online um sometime in February came

[1:07:29] in person in March uh did a walk around

[1:07:33] uh and then did another draft

[1:07:34] presentation in late April

[1:07:38] um and then based on all those meetings

[1:07:41] uh came up with the report that's in

[1:07:43] front of you. Um many of the forms and

[1:07:46] designs that are in part three um most

[1:07:49] of you have already seen in previous

[1:07:51] meetings. Um and they refined it a bit

[1:07:55] to make sure that it had uh some of the

[1:07:58] design elements that you were looking

[1:07:59] for and the information that you were

[1:08:01] looking for take from it. Um overall uh

[1:08:06] they were able to uh show that priority

[1:08:10] housing could be built on uh city lots.

[1:08:13] Um they looked they didn't look across

[1:08:16] the city and look at every single lot.

[1:08:17] They took a sampling and I guided them

[1:08:20] and said take a look at you know lots in

[1:08:24] um PickOP and West Street. Take a look at lots on um Manso and on

[1:08:31] Hood. Um look at the standard sizes and

[1:08:34] determine whether the building forms can

[1:08:37] be developed. Um standardized lots in

[1:08:40] many sections of the RB district are 50

[1:08:42] by 100. Um many of the lots that are in

[1:08:46] uh like Hickok and West uh they can

[1:08:49] range in from like 30 to 60 ft of

[1:08:54] frontage. Um and then with

[1:08:59] 175 ft of lot depth. Um so that's what

[1:09:03] they used as as dimensions.

[1:09:06] um kind of off the off the bat um

[1:09:09] looking at the the map looking at uh

[1:09:13] transit accessibility

[1:09:15] um the consultant said we're not going

[1:09:17] to touch the RA district um so they said

[1:09:21] that this is not uh based on what's

[1:09:24] there mainly single unit houses um far

[1:09:28] from transit in many locations without a

[1:09:31] sidewalk um this would not be uh

[1:09:34] suitable for having multi-unit buildings

[1:09:37] there. Um so they said disre let's

[1:09:40] disregard that and let's look at what

[1:09:42] could what we should be planning for for

[1:09:45] growth which is closer to transit closer

[1:09:47] to our arterials um and areas that are

[1:09:50] suitable for higher density development

[1:09:52] and in locations that already have

[1:09:54] multi-unit buildings already. Um, so all

[1:09:58] the designs that are there, um, they

[1:10:00] feature, um, mainly threebedroom

[1:10:04] dwellings and fourbedroom dwellings,

[1:10:07] mostly three-bedroom dwellings. I think

[1:10:08] they had a few that might have been

[1:10:10] two-bedroom dwellings because of the

[1:10:13] space and um, they had a unique uh,

[1:10:17] configuration setup with the tuck under

[1:10:19] parking. So in those designs it would

[1:10:22] have a ground floor two-bedroom uh unit

[1:10:24] and then the top this the second and

[1:10:26] third floor would be three-bedroom

[1:10:28] units. Um they showed designs. Yes.

[1:10:31] >> I mean wasn't the whole

[1:10:33] purpose of it to to see how many

[1:10:36] >> Yes.

[1:10:36] >> threebedroom prior to home. So

[1:10:38] threebedroom more unit.

[1:10:40] >> Yes. So yes. So, they showed this with

[1:10:43] um at 50% of law coverage. And I think

[1:10:45] at the 50% lot coverage, that's where

[1:10:47] they were towing a line on whether they

[1:10:50] can actually get 50% lock coverage with

[1:10:53] uh with all three-bedroom units. When

[1:10:55] they got 65% lock coverage, they were

[1:10:58] able to comfortably put in three-bedroom

[1:11:01] units uh for all the dwelling units. Um

[1:11:05] and even for the 50% lock coverage, they

[1:11:07] suggested

[1:11:08] some flexibility with that. too. So, um

[1:11:14] removing um front porches from lock

[1:11:17] coverage calculations um because that is

[1:11:20] a quality that we want to see in in

[1:11:23] buildings in Wooki. Um and we don't want

[1:11:26] to penalize them for having it. Uh and

[1:11:30] um and even with that too, they

[1:11:32] suggested going from a base 50% lock

[1:11:35] coverage to 55% lock coverage to allow

[1:11:37] for more flexibility with maneuvering

[1:11:40] and uh parking and uh building sizes. Uh

[1:11:44] so so that is I think the general gist

[1:11:48] of it [laughter]

[1:11:49] that captures most of uh the report. I

[1:11:53] think um they do have certain um other

[1:11:56] recommendations as well.

[1:11:58] um such as allowing for eight-unit

[1:12:02] buildings instead of four-unit buildings

[1:12:03] or more units in a building than our

[1:12:05] current four unit building cap in the

[1:12:08] residential districts. Um along with a

[1:12:12] number of other smaller suggestions,

[1:12:15] >> there was also street tree

[1:12:17] recommendations that we hadn't seen

[1:12:19] before, I noticed. Was there I guess

[1:12:22] more to that maybe to mention? Yeah. So,

[1:12:27] that was something that we had some

[1:12:30] conversations about with how do we

[1:12:32] encourage more street trees? And so,

[1:12:34] they provided us um pretty much their

[1:12:37] typicals for um street trees on a

[1:12:42] rideway that's 49 1/2 ft, which is

[1:12:45] standard size for for roads in Vermont,

[1:12:48] three rods. Um what that could look like

[1:12:51] and how that would appear. Um, I think

[1:12:53] that's something that we could

[1:12:55] incorporate into zoning, too. Um, for new streets. Um, it gets kind of

[1:12:59] tougher with existing streets. Um, and

[1:13:01] something that we'd have to uh have more

[1:13:04] conversations about with council on how

[1:13:06] we'd want to create more street trees on

[1:13:10] our existing roads.

[1:13:15] Okay.

[1:13:16] >> Any other questions on this?

[1:13:21] All right.

[1:13:22] we'll move on.

[1:13:25] >> There's probably I mean I think it would

[1:13:26] be outside the scope of this but I guess

[1:13:29] one thing I am thinking about is like

[1:13:32] expected cost per unit which I think

[1:13:35] that might have a big impact on which of

[1:13:37] these we actually do see developed here.

[1:13:39] Um but um yeah I guess I don't really

[1:13:42] have a question but uh um you know just

[1:13:44] one I think pretty important factor

[1:13:46] that's just outside of the scope of

[1:13:48] this. Yeah. And they they've been

[1:13:52] acknowledged that in some conversations

[1:13:55] that this the way that this the project

[1:13:58] scope was defined to them was looking at

[1:14:01] affordable 3-bedroom

[1:14:03] uh dwelling units. And for projects that

[1:14:06] involve affordable three-bedroom

[1:14:07] dwelling units, that's typically done by

[1:14:09] an affordable housing developer who is

[1:14:11] getting um HUD funding, tax credits,

[1:14:15] some sort of external funding in order

[1:14:17] to to build it. Um so, so they kind of

[1:14:20] took funding out of the question knowing

[1:14:22] that it's going to be for a particular

[1:14:25] uh audience. Um I think once we talk

[1:14:28] about market rate, that's going to be a

[1:14:29] whole other question of design and form.

[1:14:33] Um, but I think that it's interesting

[1:14:35] for us to look at to think about design

[1:14:38] parameters. So that way when a developer

[1:14:41] who's able to feasibly develop a 4unit

[1:14:44] building at market rate wants to build

[1:14:46] it, then we can at least say this is

[1:14:48] what we're aspiring towards and these

[1:14:50] are the design standards that we have.

[1:14:52] So try to move towards that.

[1:14:58] Okay,

[1:15:00] move on to city updates and we'll start

[1:15:02] with Mr. Mayor. Do you have any updates

[1:15:04] for us?

[1:15:05] >> Um, we're on our like August recess. So

[1:15:09] no wa wa

[1:15:11] >> like Congress just

[1:15:16] none of the pay. But uh

[1:15:18] >> we the um

[1:15:22] there was an election uh which was thank

[1:15:24] you to those who volunteered. Thanks to

[1:15:27] those who ran. Congratulations. Um,

[1:15:31] and it was I'm trying to unpull the

[1:15:33] numbers now because the turnout was

[1:15:35] actually 4867

[1:15:38] or something.

[1:15:38] >> It was

[1:15:42] so

[1:15:45] Yeah. 1,437

[1:15:47] voters.

[1:15:48] >> I overshot by 30. I'm sorry.

[1:15:51] >> 81 voters who registered right there and

[1:15:55] then to vote. So that was huge. So you

[1:15:59] were there when we had a gentleman come

[1:16:01] in who was obviously a new new American

[1:16:04] who'd never voted before

[1:16:06] >> and he he went to register with with

[1:16:09] Jenny

[1:16:10] >> and I think he was he was getting kind

[1:16:13] of frustrated because you have to show

[1:16:16] ID and stuff and he started to he said

[1:16:17] well no I'm not going to do it

[1:16:19] >> and there are about six of us

[1:16:21] >> he wants you to vote we want you to vote

[1:16:23] and he kind of looked and he says nah

[1:16:25] and we kept after him he and He said,

[1:16:28] "Okay." So, he went back and he voted.

[1:16:30] >> And when he left, as he was leaving, he made a point of thanking all of us

[1:16:36] for letting him vote. He thought it was

[1:16:37] great.

[1:16:38] >> Yeah. Really nice.

[1:16:40] >> And you see that here quite a bit at the

[1:16:42] polls, and I would encourage if anyone's

[1:16:45] interested in working the polls

[1:16:47] >> to do it. It's a It's

[1:16:49] >> It's serious, but it's fun.

[1:16:51] >> Yeah. No, it's really nice. I I love

[1:16:53] doing it. Do it. Never. I'm not on the

[1:16:56] ballot. And that's that's a really nice

[1:16:58] way to to experience democracy and just

[1:17:01] see

[1:17:02] >> democracy in action, especially when a

[1:17:04] new American, an older new American

[1:17:06] comes in with like their grandson or

[1:17:08] granddaughter who translates for them

[1:17:11] >> and tells them what to do. So, it's kind

[1:17:13] of cool.

[1:17:14] >> That's It's nice. It's really nice. Um,

[1:17:17] what else will be interesting to you

[1:17:19] all? Uh, hotel should be opening up

[1:17:21] September 21st.

[1:17:23] Um,

[1:17:26] let's see. Um, the workforce housing next to it is

[1:17:33] starting to open up. They thought they

[1:17:35] were going to be open the end of June.

[1:17:38] That just didn't happen. The leases that

[1:17:40] they've signed, all of the people who

[1:17:42] signed those leases, they put them into

[1:17:43] [clears throat] hotels

[1:17:45] um until until their apartments are

[1:17:48] ready. So, that's good. Um, but there

[1:17:53] people should be moving in if they

[1:17:54] haven't moved in already to the top

[1:17:56] floor and they're just working right

[1:17:57] now.

[1:17:58] >> Is that was that 87? How many units is

[1:18:00] [snorts] that?

[1:18:01] >> 83.

[1:18:03] >> Yeah.

[1:18:04] It's nice. We did a tour the other

[1:18:06] day. Really, really nice apartments. Um,

[1:18:10] >> the uh hotel manager is trying to get

[1:18:13] some of his people living in the in the

[1:18:15] housing right next to work and got like

[1:18:16] that. But

[1:18:18] >> that pretty much completes the downtown.

[1:18:20] Yeah, I mean that's started 25 years

[1:18:23] ago.

[1:18:23] >> Yeah, that's that's the last piece is

[1:18:25] the hotel. So,

[1:18:27] >> well there there are technically two

[1:18:30] left,

[1:18:32] >> but that's not considered done

[1:18:35] and

[1:18:37] >> No, I I I understand cuz one of the lots

[1:18:40] probably can't be built on and the other

[1:18:42] one

[1:18:43] >> the east pad site I'm talking about was

[1:18:46] proposed and the west pad site. Okay,

[1:18:50] >> I'll leave that at that.

[1:18:53] >> Is the hotel gonna have preeies?

[1:18:55] >> What's that?

[1:18:56] >> I heard a rumor.

[1:18:57] >> Yes, but that the creamies are for

[1:18:59] guests. So, you have to do this

[1:19:01] location.

[1:19:03] >> What' you ask?

[1:19:04] >> I heard a rumor there might be creamies

[1:19:06] at the hotel.

[1:19:06] >> Yes. When you when you check in, you'll

[1:19:08] get a creamy

[1:19:10] >> at a rooftop restaurant.

[1:19:11] >> But there's a rooftop restaurant

[1:19:12] >> station.

[1:19:14] It's It's night if you can if you can

[1:19:16] swing it. A nice little station would be

[1:19:18] good there. Right.

[1:19:19] >> The rooftop restaurant is not a rotating

[1:19:22] restaurant.

[1:19:22] >> No. No. I guess

[1:19:27] >> And the restaurant's open to the public.

[1:19:29] >> Yeah. Restaurant. There's a restaurant

[1:19:31] on the roof. There's a coffee bar

[1:19:35] slashbar in the lobby that's open to the

[1:19:39] public that will have like its own

[1:19:40] entrance. So, if you just want to go for

[1:19:41] a drink or for a coffee, you can easily.

[1:19:44] Um the

[1:19:47] Yeah.

[1:19:48] But yeah, not the one piece. They

[1:19:50] thought about silent time and they were

[1:19:51] just like didn't want to deal with

[1:19:53] having to figure out the whole

[1:19:54] infrastructure. So, it's just a few

[1:19:56] checks.

[1:19:57] >> Future improvement.

[1:20:00] >> Uh yeah, I'll go with that.

[1:20:06] » That's it for your report.

[1:20:07] >> That's it.

[1:20:08] >> Okay. I said I'm on August recess, but

[1:20:11] here I am.

[1:20:15] » Well, thank you for coming, Thomas. hold

[1:20:17] you off of your recess. [clears throat]

[1:20:20] >> Uh is that like in kindergarten when we

[1:20:22] had recess?

[1:20:22] >> Kind of.

[1:20:23] >> Okay.

[1:20:25] >> Do we have a a liaison from the um

[1:20:28] inclusion and belonging commission?

[1:20:31] >> I don't know. I know that they're still

[1:20:36] >> they're doing

[1:20:39] stuff.

[1:20:39] >> They're doing some restructuring.

[1:20:41] >> Okay. Um, I've been including King in

[1:20:45] the emails out or agendas and for for

[1:20:48] future meetings. Um, but I'm not sure if

[1:20:51] King is still the liaison. Um, so I

[1:20:54] think that's to to be determined once

[1:20:56] they figure out their structure.

[1:20:59] >> All right. So, we'll jump to updates

[1:21:00] from city staff. That's you, Revie.

[1:21:02] >> Yeah. Um, let's see. Uh, so we have the

[1:21:06] open house in two weeks for Safe,

[1:21:08] Healthy, Connected. Um DRB is meeting

[1:21:11] next week to talk about ULUDR updates

[1:21:14] that we've all done. Um no applications

[1:21:18] currently.

[1:21:20] Um the the Armory application is on my

[1:21:24] desk uh and it's undergoing internal

[1:21:27] review right now. Hasn't been warned

[1:21:29] yet. So um yeah, it's to be determined

[1:21:33] for that. Um, I think

[1:21:37] that might be the most that I have.

[1:21:41] >> Okay.

[1:21:42] >> Yeah,

[1:21:42] >> that's okay. We might get out of here by

[1:21:44] eight.

[1:21:44] >> Yeah. Wow.

[1:21:46] >> Uh, any other business from members of

[1:21:49] the planning commission?

[1:21:54] » Trevor,

[1:21:57] » I did just start thinking about how

[1:21:59] there's a surprising lack of creamies

[1:22:01] available in Wooki. There's no

[1:22:04] >> chicks.

[1:22:06] >> Yeah, I got one last

[1:22:09] plug.

[1:22:11] >> I ran into some tourists who were

[1:22:13] walking out of chicks asking if there

[1:22:14] were other creamy options and um they I

[1:22:18] wasn't able to give them one in Wooki.

[1:22:20] So, something to think about.

[1:22:22] >> Waterworks happened for a little bit,

[1:22:24] but not enough of us were buying

[1:22:26] premiums apparently. M well if you want

[1:22:29] to start a business

[1:22:31] >> there you go

[1:22:32] >> vacant uh well say so

[1:22:36] >> all right um I think that's it if

[1:22:39] there's nothing else I'll look for a

[1:22:40] motion to adjourn

[1:22:43] >> I make a motion

[1:22:44] >> okay

[1:22:45] >> second

[1:22:46] >> all right uh before we vote on it thank

[1:22:49] you all for coming Ruby Brian Matt John

[1:22:53] Trevor

[1:22:55] Thomas Revy And all in favor of leaving

[1:22:59] a journey.

[1:23:01] >> I thank you Mike also.

[1:23:03] >> All right. Good night everyone.

[1:23:05] >> Thank you.

[1:23:05] But bigger.

Winooski Planning Commission 8/13/2026

Transcript