[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.