Winooski Planning Commission 8/13/2026

All right, let's start at the meeting. You guys ready? >> Yeah. Uh, and you need us to introduce our everyone so you have the names or do you >> It's up to you. >> Well, we'll do that. We got Matt on the end. >> We got Brian. >> We got Ruby. >> Hi. >> We got John. We got Mike. And we got Revy. >> So, all right. So, we'll get started. Uh any changes to the agendas or not? Move on to public comment. Anyone online? >> No. >> Move on from that. Approve previous meeting minutes for those who were here. Was everyone here at the last meeting? >> I think so. >> Yeah. >> Um do I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented or >> there's any changes? >> So move to approve. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> Second. Are there any progression, changes, additions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Anyone want to say? >> Okay, there it is. And we're all voting, by the way. >> Uh, let me see. Oh, reorganization. Oh, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chair. So every year we we elect a new chair, a vice chair, and a secretary treasur secretary. I guess there's going to treasure because we don't >> chair, vice chair, secretary. Secretary is always optional. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. We haven't had one in a while. >> Everybody takes the minutes. >> Yeah. So, if anyone wants to make a motion for chair, if anyone's interested, I've been the chair for I don't know how long, and if someone else wants to step in, that's fine. But, um, it's your prerogative. Whatever you want to do, I'll make a motion for you to be chair. I'll second. >> Any other nominations from the from the commission? No. Second up. So, all in favor? >> I opposed. >> I can't vote. How about vice chair? Anyone interested in being the vice chair? Consider it. Okay. Do I have a motion for John? >> I'll nominate John. >> All right. >> I'll second. >> Second. Any further discussion or other nominations? Hearing none. All in favor of John as vice chair, please say I. >> Opposed? >> Extensions. Okay. >> Wow. >> Anyone want to volunteer to be secretary? Don't everyone jump up a little warm. >> It's your job as mayor. >> Always needing something. >> What's that? >> Always somebody else's job. >> Yeah. Always someone else. >> Okay. So, that's done. Uh planning and zoning update. >> Yes. Yeah. So, I sent this around a couple weeks ago, so it is a little dated now. Uh, but I realized I hadn't done one of these in a while, and I typically I don't know how it's it's my infrequent regular planning and zoning update. Uh, so in here, I just went over all the permits that have been issued in the city and FY16. Um and just summary of how of of the breakdown of the permits issued. Um so 50 zoning permits issued in total in FY26. So from uh July 2025 to end of June 2026. Um permits for 15 dwelling units, seven of which are located in 259 Main Street. >> Which one is 259 Main? At >> the corner of Maine and La Fountain. >> Yeah, it's the brand new one. Yeah. Yep. Uh, so none of the permits were for priority housing or for inclusionary housing projects. Um, don't think I remember correctly, no permits for like three-bedroom houses, anything like that. Um, permits mainly for ADUs um, and for uh, the 259 Main Street, which is one bedrooms and I think one twobedroom if I'm correctly. uh six permits uh required review and approval by the local resource advisory board. So local resource advisory board was established in March 2024 I want to say. Um, so at that time, Mike, you can probably provide more information about this cuz this was before my time that the city decided to establish a historic district in a sense um and establish a list of uh structures that are considered historic. Um, this list is largely based off of a report done by VHB in 2020 and 2021. Uh, that report will used our state historic register as a foundation and then collected some information mainly dashboard surveys of structures uh and provided recommendations to the city on how uh and methods to preserve these structures in the long term. Uh so the city took that on and decided to establish a local historic register and an additional review process for any improvements to historic structures. Um this means that say for like a roof replacement project um typically roof replacements do not require a zoning permit. They would only require a building permit. However, if you if you own a historic building and it's listed on the local historic register, that would require a zoning permit uh review by the local resource advisory board and then the a building permit. Uh so it's an additional step for those historic buildings to make sure that the historic nature is being uh retained and maintained over time. Um so so they've had uh they've reviewed roof replacements, roof repairs, porch repairs, and window replacements. Um, so primarily projects that uh for non-historic structures would not have required zoning. Um, but they've had some interesting meetings about larger projects uh that went had to go through zoning anyways and required GRB review and approval. Um, and they provided some uh some input in those projects that otherwise would not have been there um previous to March of 2024. Is there any push back from residents or anything? Because that's kind of a new thing. I know like New York seating stuff, landmarks and stuff is always contentious. I'm just curious. >> It's it's it's had some weird growing pains. Uh to say the least when the local historic register was established, most of the property owners didn't know that their properties were listed. Um, so at the beginning of the summer, we sent out a notice to every single property owner letting them know that their property is listed and then we had uh one of our open houses that featured historic preservation and invited them to attend so they could ask um members of the local resource advisory board about their property, why it's significant, why it's listed. Um and even that has had some interesting hiccups too. Um just because uh it's so the the local historic register in includes structures that aren't typically considered historic, meaning that they're not older than 50 years >> of age. Um so it's it's had some interesting uh conversations and quirks. And I I know that some of the people who got the letters were very confused about what it meant. I can't remember if it was because it said you've got a historic structure and if you do anything you have to >> have what >> is what is the criteria for being on >> it? >> Is it the same national registry? >> It is similar to but not uh the same. Um, so if a building is I think ours might be a little looser. Let me just pull up the language so that way I can read it out. >> Know there's a house on Florida Avenue that we have to add to it. >> This all the stuff you learn at the polls, you know. Uh yeah, so historic structures are just are it appears to be if they're um evaluated by a qualified historic preservation consultant and they determine the significance and they ask the local resource advisory board to have their property listed, then the local resource advisory board can recommend to you to have that property listed. Um so the uh local historic registered is register is embedded in our zoning regulations meaning that to list a property requires a change in the zoning regulations and to remove a property requires a change in the zoning regulations. >> It's pretty it's pretty heavy. Um so so so that's the entire process in a nutshell. There's no age requirement like with state historic register uh qualifying structures or national historic register qualifying structures. Um it would just require an evaluation by a consult by historic preservation consultant and a review by the local resource advisory board before it goes into the amendment process with you. >> So we be like discussing like individually like properties whether or not they get added or removed. That is a great question that I think the board is still figuring out too. So, it's it's it's a bit odd and I think it'll come to you too what council's stance on it is at the end of the day. Um, from my understanding, um, the local resource advisory board isn't, uh, tasked with actively soliciting structures to be included. like they're not reaching out to property owners and saying, "Hey, we think your building is important. You should get this evaluated or or anything like that. Um it's it's more of a if a property owner wants the building to be listed, then they can go through the process to have it being listed. But if there's a house that's supposed to be demoed and it's a older structure that may not be on on a list, do they have the the the the right or the ability to look at it and say, "Wait a minute. This this should not be torn down because it's historic for whatever reason." >> Not at the moment. >> Okay. So that's again like another piece with the >> with council kind of considering this too. But I I think I would consider this to be a little bit too heavy-handed to have because for for Wooki that could cover most of the structures in the city. Um, so then that would mean that's a demo structure would require uh some sort of review by the historic resource advisory board before it could even go forward, which um I don't think we're trying to encourage. I think that the way that I see it is that we'd want to preserve our landmarks and the foundational elements to that recognize historic character, >> but I I think that >> so so a little background. Sorry. Go ahead. >> One concern that one concern that I had had a former mayor had had with this is we're given a list of a lot of properties that could be considered historic. And some of them to say it nicely did not look great anymore. So my concern is, are we going to preserve something because it's old but it's falling into disrepair? >> If we were like a city that had like money to throw at it and be like, we're going to make this look like it did beautifully in its heyday in 1840, great. But if we can't do that, I'm wary of preserving a property that then could get torn down when in reality it should get torn down because it is already falling down. Now, if something is beautiful and you know, somebody very important live there or something like that, that's different. Like that falls into like historic property, it's pretty obvious. But like I want to make sure we're not just preserving old homes just because they're old. They're old and there's a reason for them to be preserved. That's I love that big history buff. >> But just for old sake, that's not what I'm looking to do. So, >> just so you know, some of the kind of happened when we were talking. >> Yeah. I'll also add that in Rooki too, so much change has happened over time with many houses that many historical elements have been lost to time like original sighting um for many houses or or vinyl siding that's now on a house that could that that qualified by age um or additions to um front facades that affect the interpretation of the building. So you can't even tell whether it's really historic or not at the end of the day. Um so that that makes uh preservation challenging. Um and arguments for preservation challenging for some properties in the city. And as background, what happened when I think it was in 2015 or so when we redid zoning, we had in there about historic structures and you had to get approval of the state historic preservation committee, whatever it was. The first one that came along was the mansion up on the corner of Mansion Street and Main Street. >> Uh the Vermont Historic people said, "Oh, we don't do that." sort of like what it anyway. So since then we've been trying to come up with some way to get some language in that we could uh save some of the really historic buildings. >> Anyway, >> and I thought that that um I won't say her name but is doing a survey. Did she finish the survey of of buildings? Uh it was going to be on a map or something. question. >> Yeah, we kind of started that idea of like I think the the direction that I was trying to give the board was are there any landmark buildings that are missing from the map and it kind of became let's just document all the historic buildings and I was like no no no that's not the purpose of this exercise because if we do do that then we'll enter into this rabbit hole of like figuring out that you know 75% of the houses in Wooki would qualify by your uh by your standards. It's it's making sure that are we missing anything important and um and I and we kind of like put that on pause just because that I think the the meaning was lost with that. >> Um but I mean it goes back to like the like kind of like with mansion or kind of like with with like the Wooki blob, right? Those are landmark buildings. Um and uh it's good to know whether there are any other landmark buildings that were missing. Um not not just um sorry but houses. >> Okay. And and has there been any discussion that group about districts? You know, for example, you could say here's the mill district or whatever. >> Not yet. And I think that is an important discussion that we need to have. Um, so more information to come with that. >> Any other questions about this whole thing? >> I think Go ahead, Brian. >> Okay. I think you already covered this, but could you repeat like what is the list that of properties that are currently on the register? Is that coming from that initial like 2021 study or are these have these already been like submitted by the property owners? >> So I'll just pull up the map. Um so this map share and will it come? Nice. There it is. So, this map was adopted um back in February 2024. Um this map hasn't changed since adoption. Um this map is based off of the VHB study and our state historic register. Um, so, uh, so for for the creation of this map, um, I think this is a question more for Mike, you Mike or or Thomas, like I don't I don't know if property owners were informed that they were going to be listed on this map. I couldn't find any record of it. I don't think they were because I think these were properties that were already on. There was a stud there was a a study done in like in the 70s that identified um historic structures, but over time I mean if you bought one, you may not have you may not know it, you know. No. Uh and I don't think anything was done to to say, "Oh, Matt, your house, by the way, is on the National Register." Um it was just this map came up and if you didn't see it, well, you didn't see it. Um but then you sent a letter to everyone this summer whose properties were on it. And >> from what I understand, because my wife was on that committee, >> there were several who were surprised that their house was on the register um and didn't know what quite what it meant. So yeah, it it comes up for like most of the applications that come to the local resource advisory board. Uh when I talk to applicants and I tell them, "Oh, zoning is required for this. Your property's on the local historic register." And they're like, "What are you talking about?" Um >> so, and I I think even with the notice, it's still going to happen. Um because there are um like 90 plus properties on this list. Um, but I think more and more, you may or may not know that that the historic society um has a program where you can you can order a plaque to put on your house. >> And I'm trying to think how many again, Sue has been working on it. There must be 20, 30, 40 that they've sent out >> so far at least. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's cool. >> Yeah. So, um, more and more people are getting them. Mhm. >> Uh but that doesn't mean that they're on the national register because your house has to be over 50 years old. >> Yeah. >> You know, but everyone that she's done so far, I'm going to guess that the newest house was probably built in the 20s. Most of them are 1800s and and whatnot. >> Yeah. So, yeah, there more information about that on this Historical Society website. You can order a plaque. What was it like 40 bucks? I think it's a hundred bucks. >> No, it's 100. >> Yeah. Well, it's the plaque and then >> you get all the research. >> S does all the research. >> Yeah. >> And it's perfect research, by the way. >> I hope you heard that, S. >> Anyway, sorry about that. >> No, you're good. You're good. >> Any other questions about this? Any of the properties that are listed? Uh, anyone see their house on there and they say, "What? >> Chicks is on there. >> Chicks is on." >> The weird one is down in Memorial Park, but that's on there. >> Um, can you bring that? >> Yes. So, Memorial Park is an archaeological site. >> Oh, okay. >> So, it's there is it's archaeologically significant there. I'm not aware of any structures down there, but I I am aware that it is archaeologically significant. And I think the oldest buildings in the city are the Stonehouse >> on East Allen Street, the mansion, and I'm not sure what after that would be. I I I think that the um >> Yeah, the list has it. >> Yeah. But like that it used to be the what is the RVA now >> up the hills? >> I don't know that it's here on the other side of the tracks. Oh, there you go. >> Yeah. So, this is all in the zoning regulations if you want to take a look at the list. >> Um, and then the entire state historic register is on the city website. Uh, the VHB report that was done a few years back is also on the website. Okay. Okay. So, on to other topics on um that planning and zoning update. Um what did I even write? Um yeah, so uh permits for drawing units is way down. Um but Wooki historically has kind of had these interesting like booms and busts every single every year. It's like there's a there's a year that's that um there are many uh houses uh permitted and then there are years that there are none and it just kind of goes up and down. Uh sometimes in alternating years. >> I'm going to guess recent permits have been for multi-unit structures as opposed to single family. There's not many new >> Yes. >> single family homes being built. >> Yes. Yeah. Single family dwellings are uh few and far between. It's it's mainly been for um like ADUs um multi-unit um additions that were multi-unit projects like that. Um the DRB reviewed eight projects and one appeal uh last year. Um and then in the last uh seven eight months um the internal process has been refined a bunch uh with more input from DPW early in the process rather than later. Um it's from my understanding that DPW is involved in projects after zoning typically and then they work with the applicants or the developers on water sewer connections and things like that. Um I think there's been some recent complications um from projects. Uh so we've shifted DPW review to the beginning. Um and then determining uh completion of a zoning permit only after DBW's completed their review. Uh because that would determine whether uh utility impacts are being satisfied and water wastewater connections are being satisfied. Um so that's extended our review time for for projects uh significantly. Um so turnaround times for government applications requiring public works review can be between like 6 to 8 weeks at the earliest. Now, um, so for example, for a couple projects that the DRB reviewed, um, one project that the DRB reviewed, uh, last month, I had been in conversation with that applicant since January >> and, um, they only met kind of the basic requirements in May and then DPW uh, and I had a conversation and I brought that back to the applicant. And so there was further refinement that needed to happen before they were ready for DRB reviewed. Um similarly uh another project for an ADU that was um reviewed back in I want to say April that also that process also started in January. Um and that and they were uh further along in the process when they came to me. Uh, but that still required some back and forth and refinement before it could be ready for for DRB review. Um, overall though, it's made um review processes with the DRB a lot more straightforward, a lot cleaner. um like uh the meeting uh in last month I think that was 25 minutes and the DRV didn't really have any questions because we we covered all the bases pretty much um so I think that's one of the results out of this is even though we are extending review times um we are uh stream streamlining it in certain parts too uh to make sure that these products are comprehensive and complete before they are permitted. >> But even 6 to 8 weeks, I mean, in the scheme of review in the state of Vermont, that doesn't seem too bad. >> You know what I mean? I mean, if you have to go through Act 250, that will under your hat. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. In general, say it weeks for a permit >> in a big city would be good. Mhm. >> Is the majority of that time to work out those like back and forth questions between the public works department and the applicant or is there a factor of like staff availability that's part of that? >> Uh a bit of both for public works. Um right now is their busiest season. Um so they're uh capacity to review projects is pretty limited. Um, usually we sit down once a month and just go through every single permit that's on my desk and and then we iron out all the details and then bring that back to the applicant and the applicant comes back with a revision. Um, so it's it's a bit of both on DBW's side mainly just because it's the summer. >> Any other questions? Okay. Um, building technologies is now complete. Um, that's in front of you. >> It is complete. >> It's complete. >> Okay. >> Um, so yeah, a couple weeks ago when I was writing this memo, um, we were still working out finer details in the report, but now it's complete complete. >> Um, if you do notice any typos or anything like that, feel free to let me know. Um, there's one. We'll get to it. Yeah. So, it's not complete. >> Yeah, I think they can fix a like final typos. That's fine. >> Yeah. Um I think for me, I I picked out a lot of typos and then I just got probably got tunnel vision. >> So, if you notice anything, yeah, let me know. But they're open to answering any questions that you have about the report itself. Uh typos aside. So, if you do have any questions, um, feel free to let me know and I can forward them on to Jeff and Keith and they can give you an answer. >> So, in terms of of discussing this, I don't know if we have to accept this or whatever, but we probably at the next meeting have a further discussion about this. >> Yeah. >> Give us time to read through this. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be good. Um yeah, I think it' be good for you to accept it. Um does council >> maybe forward to maybe we have to forward it to council for approval to think. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think um from what I understand from me council doesn't necessarily need to accept it or acknowledge it, but they do should see it and and understand that it's been completed and make sure that we're operationalizing it. What's the dumb question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Um, what's the purpose of this and where's it going to sit? I mean, it's going to be somehow melded into our zoning regulations. >> How do you envision that? >> That is a good question for the work plan. >> Okay. >> Because it it's going to be deeply connected to the work plan and the other item in the work plan. So, I can You want me You want me to wait and hold it until we discuss the work plan? Okay. >> Yes, >> I can do that. >> Thanks. >> Um, >> but remind me when we get there. >> I I'm gonna I'm definitely going to bring it up, so don't worry. Um, I think yeah, the last two things I have here are comp plan updates. So, uh, the open house on July 29th, uh, was well attended, so thanks for coming out. Um, and and thanks to Watt for for tableabling and doing some marketing for it. Um, the next one is on August 27th, which is Thursday. So, uh, there won't be a second meeting, but if you can come out to the open house, feel free to stop by. It'll be focused on the safe healthy connected people section. uh safe healthy connected uh the commit the safe healthy connected committee is uh going to be uh doing some activities with that too. Um so this will be u from 5 to 7 at the senior center and hopefully if the weather holds up then we can be outside. That that's my goal. Yeah. Um and then with the uh master plan municipal plan, it's now expected to expire at the end of 2027. So under recently adopted act 152, any regional or municipal plan due to expire in 2026 or 2027 shall have its expiration date extended until December 31st, 2027. So that gives us uh some breathing room uh to review and uh approve the the comp plan. Um, but I'm still holding firm on the original timeline uh to make sure that we have it adopted around March. Um, I think that I I'm I'm seeing this comp plan as as a lighter update um based on all the work that the city has done on public engagement and all the reports and studies that they've done. Um, so I'm but I'm very well aware that come 2035, we're going to have to do a lot of work. So, it's not only on like the the municipal plan side, but probably on the um bike pad plan side because that uh is a couple years old now. And uh we have accomplished uh a number of items on the bike ped uh plan. Uh and our economic development strategic plan is I would say it's obsolete. It's from 2017. Um it's still workable and we are still uh using it operationally. Um but I think by 2020 2035 it'll it'll be obsolete. So we're going to need to update that that too. So, um, during the next adoption cycle, I think it's going to be a multi-year effort with all the different plans that we have to need to be updated all at the same time. >> You guys need to be thinking about that in 2035 because I won't be here. >> When you compare that to like what Burlington's doing right now with plan BTV, I think they have like four different plans that they're bundling together in the public engagement process. >> Yes. Yeah, I think by by probably 2032 2033, we're going to be in a similar situation as Burlington with multiple plans that are staggered but also all equally obsolete. So, it makes sense to think of it all uh synergistically and all at once. >> EV charging. >> EV charging. Uh yeah, the report's finished. uh the was finished back in the winter um back in February. Uh gave a presentation to city council um at that time. Uh we're still continuing to work with CCRPC and the state on potential EV charging installation funding and opportunities. So um there's been I don't know if you've familiar with some news about um Vrans uh doing a call for uh potential places for EV charging. Um so I've submitted uh forms for that for uh um Landry Park um for Cavan. Um and I yeah I think for those two locations um one of the two locations Landry Park was scoped in our EV charging plan. Um we have a quote for the Cassavant um site so we understand the constraints with that. Um >> how many EV charging stations do we have in the city right now? >> Publicly. >> So when in the garage I assume >> yes. So, in the in the Cascade garage, I don't remember how many plugs there are there. Um, but in the Cascade garage, we have level one plugs. Um, and I think with the new garage, it's a work in progress on public EV charging for the new garage. Um but other than that um there are no other public EV chargers available. All of the chargers that are available are private either at individuals homes or uh at apartment buildings. >> Is there EV charging signs? No actual EV charging. >> Oh, here >> at the school. >> Oh, at school. So the school's wired for it. >> The So the school has all the conduit there. They just need to we're trying to figure out is there a way for them to get money uh to put in a charger. Um so yeah, I did submit a form for the school I think too or maybe I don't remember. Either way, um the school and I have been in contact about this project and trying to figure out um what their needs are and figure out what are some pathways for them to get the supply equipment to to plug in. That's all they're missing. Are there any statewide requirements for like a minimum amount of EV charging? Like Massachusetts has requirements for new parking areas a certain percentage like 10% or whatever needs to be. Is that something or something we would even want to think about? Like the only new parking is over by Casan. It probably won't happen again >> anytime soon, but it's just something I guess to throw out there to think about. >> Yeah, I mean we can definitely think about that locally. um we can put that into zoning as a requirement instead of an incentive. >> Um that is uh there's been a guidance document that's now a bit dated I think eight years old from Vrans on um how you can incorporate EV charging requirements into municipal zoning um in the most recent residential and commercial building energy standards uh that required EV charging. >> Okay. Um, so for I think for municipalities that adopt stretch code like South Burlington, they would have that EV charging requirement for larger projects. Um, but with the executive order shifting back to the 2020 building energy standards requirements uh, statewide, I think that is only for wiring but not for chargers if I'm not mistaken. >> Okay. >> Um, and it's only for certain projects of a thresh of a particular threshold. >> Yeah. >> Um, Yeah. So, it's a bit of yes and no. >> Yeah, that's good to know. >> Yeah. >> Is that it for that? Any questions? Everyone, can you hear me? >> Oh, yeah. You had a question on the chat, right, Trevor? >> Yeah, I did. I'll just so people can hear. We were talking about Act 250 a couple minutes ago and I'm just wondering cuz I read where it was written and there didn't there wasn't more context to inform me. So maybe you know or maybe someone else knows but why was it decided statewide to extend the expiration date for municipal plans until the end of 2027? I just have no background on this. >> I think it has to do with the status of the regional plan timelines. Um so now with the uh trying to forget remember which one I think it's under act 181 that we have to include our housing goal the regional plans housing goals into our uh municipal plan um along with uh their map of um the their future land use map into our zoning. um I think only in the last week that um CCRPC's plan was adopted. Um so because and they're one of the first. So I think in order for everyone else to catch up with the plan requirements uh if the state decided to extend those timelines so that way municipalities can meet those requirements that are in act 181. >> Okay. Thank you for the info. >> Okay. >> Let's move on to let's see what would it be the work plan. >> Yeah. So we have a work plan a draft one. Um the basis of this work plan um kind of stems from previous year's work plans. This is how previous year's work plans were set up where um we would highlight uh city council's priorities that intersect with planning and zoning and um identify our role in that. Um so it's the first three are a continuation of previous uh council priorities from previous years. Um so develop continue to update the UDR address housing priorities carry out the equable housing needs assessment which will be finished the end of this year. Um update the comp plan um and then the last one's a new one the water distribution system master plan update. Um and then the planning commissions role um I pulled from previous work plans uh speaks very generally. Um so we can word smmith that if you'd like um but I I would like to talk a bit about the water distribution system master plan update. So um one of the constraints um that the city has isn't um water supply itself but the water lines. Um, so the water lines in the residential districts are uh sized for a uh single typical single family residential neighborhood. It's a they're 6-in water lines. Um, so we have been mainly DPW's been running into some issues about connecting u multi-unit housing projects to 6-in lines. Um the main concern isn't um water itself but but the pressure um because if you have undersized pipes and you have larger needs for it then you would have less pressure and um so that's what we're I'm working with DPW to figure out where are we anticipating growth. So therefore which lines should be um uh switched out to larger wider lines to accommodate for future growth. Um so that's part of uh the building typologies itself. So with building typologies um I think it it helped DPW and I to think about what is anticipated buildout, what could build out look like in our residential districts. Um and how would it look? Um, and so based off of that, if we were to look at building forms, building forms in the RC district, then we would know, okay, this is the expected growth that we should anticipate in the RC district, and therefore we should upsize certain lines in particular locations for that growth. Uh, so we could prioritize particular lines over, say, locations in the RA district that weren't part of the study. Uh, and and those could be dep prioritized for now. and um regarded later uh at a later time for upsizing. Um so I think that thinking about um I think for for me and for DBW thinking about um the building typologies project and then this water distribution system master plan update that is I think going to inform um further conversations about how we want to implement the building typologies about which areas do we want to see further density? Do we want to see different forms um and potential uh changes to other parts of the zoning regulations to accommodate that type of form, that type of built environment u versus other parts of the city? So that's where it all intersects. >> Is there any issues with wastelines? >> No. Well, >> again, I think the age of a lot of the infrastructure, especially sewer lines, there there's some pretty old pipes in there. >> I know when we did some back in the early 2000s, we were finding 100-y old um clay tile pipe. >> So nice, >> and finding lines that or not knowing where lines were. So, but that's all been I think it's pretty well updated. So, they've got mapping of there was a time when there was no maps of where water lines were. Uh, and I I tell John Rosher this. There was in the late 90s, I think it was, there was a water there was a water main break. They couldn't find the shut offs. They had to shut the water off in the whole city >> to fix the break. and they found the shut off under six or eight layers of pavement, but they didn't have any maps, so they didn't know where it was. But that has changed, thank goodness. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The the last water distri system master plan update was in 2016, I think. So, yeah, we have precise maps on where water lines are and where sewer lines are. It's it's a matter of testing out its distribution capability and determining which um lines do we want to upsize over time and which we should prioritize. >> And as Revy said, we have last I knew and Thomas, you can correct me if I'm wrong, we have plenty of of sewer capacity and water capacity to to accommodate new growth. Quite a bit of new growth. It's just the distribution lines. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I think that's all I have for the work plan. Any questions, suggestions, edits? It's a lot of stuff we've always we've been doing all along. So, it doesn't change much year to year, but and I should add that part of our job and and with the zoning regulations or unified land use development regulations, whatever the heck it is. Um, uh, I always look at it as a living document that needs to change and update. So if you if you see something you think we should discuss this, let's discuss it. Something may need to be changed. >> I guess I do have one comment here, but just making sure we have the city council's priorities, like making sure we we know what those those are. I guess >> we don't know that. I know at the end of like the last sessions with some people they felt like maybe we're diverging from maybe what the city council wanted. So maybe just making sure we know those are very clearly. >> It sort of says it but no we do need to because anything that we propose has to get approved by the council. So, it doesn't make sense for us to to um propose something that's contrary to what the city council wants. If we're going down that route, we have to have the discussion ahead of time and figure out where we are. You buy that, Thomas, or >> Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, not much has changed in terms of the like overall council priorities. If we want we want you all finding ways that will encourage development in the city and be that smart development, right? Like we don't want Franklin Street problems popping up everywhere just to develop things, but we want development to happen. So we do have a fun job of figuring out how to make that happen. Um but yeah, not nothing there that has changed. Like we're not uh we haven't been briefed on anything besides, you know, this water distribution situation, but other than that, like we haven't heard any reasons to why we need to alter our desires for development. So that's the >> that's the plan. I think with a comprehensive plan I think we need to have a discussion of just I'll say how much development we want some parameters in other words do we want to go crazy and you know get as much development as possible or do we want to look at it and say do we want this city to be one of of you know a population of 9 or 10,000 or 12 or 15,000 >> because there is some cost to develop velment and one of them is the infrastructure, >> right? >> You know, so I I think we need to have that discussion with the council uh and with the other groups that that you know we're going to be working with um to to give us a path forward. And it may be let's go crazy and do whatever we can or it may be let's kind of rein it in a little bit. one development but you know >> we've seen recently right that there have been a thought and belief in the city that like any development was great that clearly was not the case like people have turned out in droves against some specific projects so not that that has changed any desires develop but I think it's like we're we're not where some of us thought we were in terms of where people are willing to see big structures go up and things like that. So, um you know, like I think we've decided like the corridors, right? Like we can going to put big buildings there. There are still people who will complain, but like I think as a city we can all kind of come to the agreement that like we're all okay with that. >> Um >> but not in my backyard. how somebody's going to hear. Oh, you know, I'm not thrilled here. No, like I definitely developing the city, but like the this room has never been as full as you saw it as DRB saw or as we saw it when Franklin Street happened. So like >> Well, but not for 35, but like >> in the past five years. So like >> it was also pretty full when we were proposing the Armory project too with a lot of people speaking in support of it. So I think you know >> I'm not saying Franklin Street for a reason. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Like there I think and maybe all of you but maybe not can recognize like the the neighbors did not want Franklin Street to happen. So we had thought a lot of us that people would want Franklin Street to happen. It seemed that they didn't. So like we've got some more parameters from conversations that we've had over the years. >> Um the armory is a whole different thing. Like there are people for them who I haven't heard anybody before Franklin Street. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So like that's why I use that example. The armor is different. There are definitely people for that project. Definitely people against that project but there's more of a discussion there um which hope we continue on. Yeah, actually, can I back up just the the water distribution, how pressing is that? Like, is that is there any development that that's holding up or is uh um or is there some more development that can happen with the current 6- in lines? Um and it's just like down the road we'll need to expand or is there uh does that question make sense? I think it it's a little I'm I I think I'd be a little out of my wheelhouse to to to make that determination because I'm not an engineer. >> Like booster pumps and stuff. >> Yeah. And things like that. >> I think Yeah. And I think that with the with the from my understanding at least um there aren't any projects that are being holding that are being held up and public works just like I feel like the rest of the city like code enforcement public works they always find a way to make it work to make sure that the building is accessible and that they are able to to to maintain their operations and and and work towards solutions. Um it's it's a matter of for these future buildings or even for these current buildings, is there going to be enough water pressure for them? And uh one piece that causes them alarm is buildings behind buildings. Um because that is an extension of a of a connection of an existing connection that goes through a house. Um we don't create any new connections. Typically, um if someone is building a duplex behind an existing duplex, uh water and waste water has to go through the existing house and out to the street. Um so that creates some complications operationally for them uh that they've uh made known to me and I would and I think that would also create some complications in terms of water pressure um just to have the extra infrastructure uh 100 ft of infrastructure potentially to go out to the street. Um so I think that to uh circumvent any future uh issues like that um this is why they're looking at what is distribution like and how do we make sure that we are prioritizing um the upsizing of particular lines over others at the moment as we continue to maintain our infrastructure. Um, and I also think that this is also a piece that they've voiced concerns to me about like is there a way Revy to consolidate all the units into one building so that way there's just one connection out to the street instead of this connection this these connections between connections. Um so and I think that's going to be a broader conversation um at at a later time of how do we incorporate some of these recommendations as we continue to maintain infrastructure and upsize infrastructure to make sure that we are growing incrementally and also growing in a way that is uh sustainable operationally for our city staff. I think one one um question that we need answered on the water especially water distribution system is 6-in pipe as I understand it from what you said and and whatever is good for a single family home or or several single family homes. >> How large of a multi-unit building is adequately served with a 6-in pipe? So, in other words, if I have a sixunit building, do I need to upgrade it to a 12 in or a 9 in pipe or something? Is it 10 units? Is it 20 units? You know what I mean? And that's not something you can answer, but I think if we get some information from public works, >> I think that would help us because then we can say, well, geez, we're allowing all these six unit buildings, but it needs an upsized pipe >> or maybe it doesn't. >> Yep. I think so. Yes. Exactly. we we'll have some flexibility in in the short term and the near future um because uh we're not seeing uh you know growth overnight. We're not seeing houses being demolished and turned into four-unit buildings overnight that are going to cause pressure issues. Um, but we need to be mindful of which parts can accommodate growth right now, which parts are going to be prioritized for growth, and which parts of the city are have a much longer time frame for upgrades. Um, in terms of density, >> you or Thomas probably don't know, but I'm wondering with the Main Street reconstruction, did they upsize the water um, distribution line there to like a 12 in or something? >> I I'm very sure >> they upsized it. I can't say >> I don't put I don't know what they had pulled out. >> Some of the sections were wood pipes. >> They were wood like with like metal bands around them like barrels. >> It's wild, but they lasted for over 100 years. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah, that's the exact problem. >> Yeah. what's coming. >> Yeah. >> I can tell you stories of surprise some surprises that have been found in this city. >> Oh, John showed us one meeting like when they were doing scoping and I forget about Oh, a fire hydrant had been like tapped into one of those like I think about building codes, but like they're not supposed to do that. So, there's like I don't >> old stuff going on down there. I don't remember the specifics, but where the veterans housing is down here on West Canal Street, when they were digging the foundation >> down deep, they found an old um like storm water discharge pipe that was I think it was wooden and I think it was like 36 in or 48 in diameter. >> They didn't know it was there. >> But that's all been ironed out. >> Yeah. So be confident that that's all that was said Mike figured that all out. >> No, not quite. >> I just kind of scratched my head and laughed. >> It's interesting. It'll be interesting too with the pressure stuff. These like lower areas normally have higher pressure and stuff. So it might dictate areas that'll can actually have develop a bit more >> and others that can't. I don't know if that works, but you know that I know a lot of our water comes from the the water towers up on Water Tower Hill in Colchester because >> back in the early 90s we contributed to putting those 425,000galon >> storage tanks up there >> so it could serve because Champagne water the water coming into the city uh I think there wasn't enough or something. Anyway, they had to put two tanks up there. Yeah. >> Oh, interesting. >> I know. I got plenty of pressure at my house. So, Yeah. So, >> anyway, we we digress. >> Yeah. Uh, but that's okay. >> That's typical, by the way. >> Yeah. >> Sometimes you have to get me in line. But I think talking about timelines, um, so I think for the remainder of the year, the way that I have it sketched out is that we focus more on the comp plan and the the revisions to the comp plan based on public input that we've been receiving. Um, so I think during the next meeting on September 10th, we'll reintroduce the comp plan and start going through it section by section. Um, depending on agendas, we might add in like building typologies or talks or talk about stuff. But I mean, we I want to make sure that I'm not overloading you because these are going to be like weightier meetings. Um, and then I think probably uh going into next year once we've cleared out the the comp plan as well and we'll probably go back into thinking more about building technologies with the water master plan update work potentially and equitable housing needs assessment work that's going to be finished at the end of the year and then and open up the UDR and and figure out which recommendations we want to take into consideration and how do we want to take them into consideration. I I I mean I think you're right. We the comp plan is, you know, hanging over us. We got to get we got to get moving on that. So >> I think that'll be our priority in the next several months anyway. >> And I think one other piece that I've been working on on the side with the comp plan is trying to figure out in a very general sense where do we want to see growth and which parts of the city can accommodate more growth. So I think we we should have that conversation >> as part of the comp with the comp plan and that should be in the background as we talk more about building typologies at goodwell housing assessment and uh water master plan. >> Okay. Any comments questions? >> This question is mainly about the comp plan but could apply across these priorities. Do you are we already planning on or do your foresee opportunities to have additional joint meetings like with the other departments or commissions on the different sections of the comp plan or are those conversations happening already separately? >> So I have been meeting individually with all of the committees. So I've met with um all of the committees at this point multiple times on the goals and actions. Um so the draft goals and actions that are in the surveys that are being shown at the open house um have were created after multiple discussions with all the respective committees. Sanszu. Um so I think if we want more input at a later time um from those committees we can definitely get them. Uh if we want to hold a joint meeting we can definitely do that. Um, but it I think it'll depend on what the other committees how they feel and whether there's anything missing from our work because I I'll definitely be keeping tabs on that, making sure that I didn't miss anything in their uh observations and experiences working on those particular se sections as we work on those sections in in these meetings. >> On that note, I could see DPW being useful at some point planning for that. Yeah, >> we already implied that, but >> yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And as Revie said, if we want to have a joint meeting with one of the other commissions, we we can do that. We can ask for that. >> Yeah. >> We can't force them, but we can ask them very nicely. Anything else? All right. Building typologies. >> Yeah. >> Is this where I had a question that you wanted me to bring up or was that on the work? I already addressed it with the work plan, but I think >> you probably did. Yeah, >> I forgot the question. So, >> Thomas, Thomas, >> how deep are we diving into this right now? So, we were just saying next time, but >> I don't think we want to dive too deeply into it. >> No, >> we just we've seen some of it before, but folks like Ruby and Brian have not. So, >> Matt, I think you were here when they gave that they were >> Yeah. for mainly for for Ruby and for Brian. Um >> Trevor, you were you were here when we had Jeff and Keith, right? >> Yep. Met with them a couple times. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, at the beginning of the year, um yeah, probably like last December, um the regional planning commission reached out to me and said, "Hey, we have a bunch of money for um transit oriented development projects and we don't know where to spend it. Do you have a project?" And I was like, >> "Absolutely >> I do." Um so working with the regional planning commission and um working with their focus on transit oriented development um in which in Wooki we have transit that serves our neighborhoods. The number nine bus you know goes up and down Hickok and sneaks its way through the neighborhoods. Um we kind of we came up with a project idea for um residential building design. What is the design that we want to see in our residential neighborhoods? um and what are the elements that we need to highlight in um creating residential building form standards. Um a lot of this stem from Franklin Street um we were already having some observations from planning commission members at the time about Franklin Street and its design um and looking at the regulations and seeing a gap. Um, so this uh helps to address that gap that's in our regulations uh while also helping us think more uh proactively about how the city could look in the future uh if we were to have these design standards. Um, another piece with this uh project I specifically asked our consultants to look at is whether our regulations actually enable the priority housing that the city is deeply interested in seeing. Um, do the dimensional standards make sense? Do they work? Um, are they functional? Do they need to be changed? Um, so they took that and they pretty much ran with it with the with the with the form pretty much. Um, so our consultants, uh, Jeff Frell and Keith Coington, um, Jeff Frell worked on our formbbased code, um, and he developed it back in 2015, 2016. Um, so they came on board. um they were pre-selected by the regional planning commission. Um so I had so there was no consultant selection process by me. Um because this was a a grant that the regional planning commission received from uh I don't remember which agency but I know it was a raise grant and it there was there was nothing that we needed to pay for that project. So this project came to us free of charge uh through the raise grant program through CCRPC. Um so Jeff and Keith came on board uh in mid to late January to work on this project. Um and they came out to the city in late was it late February? No, late March I want to say. >> I would have guessed March. >> March. I just remember it being cold so that's why I was like is it February or March? That's right. We did a walk around. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So with um uh so for this project um I not only solicited you for guidance but also the housing commission and local resource advisory board. So they all had a part in providing input for the project and uh were in the meetings with Jeff and Keith during their presentations providing input to them. Uh I think they did uh I want to say they they came to a meeting probably they online um sometime in February came in person in March uh did a walk around uh and then did another draft presentation in late April um and then based on all those meetings uh came up with the report that's in front of you. Um many of the forms and designs that are in part three um most of you have already seen in previous meetings. Um and they refined it a bit to make sure that it had uh some of the design elements that you were looking for and the information that you were looking for take from it. Um overall uh they were able to uh show that priority housing could be built on uh city lots. Um they looked they didn't look across the city and look at every single lot. They took a sampling and I guided them and said take a look at you know lots in um PickOP and West Street. Take a look take a look at lots on um Manso and on Hood. Um look at the standard sizes and determine whether the building forms can be developed. Um standardized lots in many sections of the RB district are 50 by 100. Um many of the lots that are in uh like Hickok and West uh they can range in from like 30 to 60 ft of frontage. Um and then with 175 ft of lot depth. Um so that's what they used as as dimensions. um kind of off the off the bat um looking at the the map looking at uh transit accessibility um the consultant said we're not going to touch the RA district um so they said that this is not uh based on what's there mainly single unit houses um far from transit in many locations without a sidewalk um this would not be uh suitable for having multi-unit buildings there. Um so they said disre let's disregard that and let's look at what could what we should be planning for for growth which is closer to transit closer to our arterials um and areas that are suitable for higher density development and in locations that already have multi-unit buildings already. Um, so all the designs that are there, um, they feature, um, mainly threebedroom dwellings and fourbedroom dwellings, mostly three-bedroom dwellings. I think they had a few that might have been two-bedroom dwellings because of the space and um, they had a unique uh, configuration setup with the tuck under parking. So in those designs it would have a ground floor two-bedroom uh unit and then the top this the second and third floor would be three-bedroom units. Um they showed designs. Yes. >> I mean wasn't the whole purpose of it to to see how many >> Yes. >> threebedroom prior to home. So threebedroom more unit. >> Yes. So yes. So, they showed this with um at 50% of law coverage. And I think at the 50% lot coverage, that's where they were towing a line on whether they can actually get 50% lock coverage with uh with all three-bedroom units. When they got 65% lock coverage, they were able to comfortably put in three-bedroom units uh for all the dwelling units. Um and even for the 50% lock coverage, they suggested some flexibility with that. too. So, um removing um front porches from lock coverage calculations um because that is a quality that we want to see in in buildings in Wooki. Um and we don't want to penalize them for having it. Uh and um and even with that too, they suggested going from a base 50% lock coverage to 55% lock coverage to allow for more flexibility with maneuvering and uh parking and uh building sizes. Uh so so that is I think the general gist of it that captures most of uh the report. I think um they do have certain um other recommendations as well. um such as allowing for eight-unit buildings instead of four-unit buildings or more units in a building than our current four unit building cap in the residential districts. Um along with a number of other smaller suggestions, >> there was also street tree recommendations that we hadn't seen before, I noticed. Was there I guess more to that maybe to mention? Yeah. So, that was something that we had some conversations about with how do we encourage more street trees? And so, they provided us um pretty much their typicals for um street trees on a rideway that's 49 1/2 ft, which is standard size for for roads in Vermont, three rods. Um what that could look like and how that would appear. Um, I think that's something that we could incorporate into zoning, too. Um, for for new streets. Um, it gets kind of tougher with existing streets. Um, and something that we'd have to uh have more conversations about with council on how we'd want to create more street trees on our existing roads. Okay. >> Any other questions on this? All right. we'll move on. >> There's probably I mean I think it would be outside the scope of this but I guess one thing I am thinking about is like expected cost per unit which I think that might have a big impact on which of these we actually do see developed here. Um but um yeah I guess I don't really have a question but uh um you know just one I think pretty important factor that's just outside of the scope of this. Yeah. And they they've been acknowledged that in some conversations that this the way that this the project scope was defined to them was looking at affordable 3-bedroom uh dwelling units. And for projects that involve affordable three-bedroom dwelling units, that's typically done by an affordable housing developer who is getting um HUD funding, tax credits, some sort of external funding in order to to build it. Um so, so they kind of took funding out of the question knowing that it's going to be for a particular uh audience. Um I think once we talk about market rate, that's going to be a whole other question of design and form. Um, but I think that it's interesting for us to look at to think about design parameters. So that way when a developer who's able to feasibly develop a 4unit building at market rate wants to build it, then we can at least say this is what we're aspiring towards and these are the design standards that we have. So try to move towards that. Okay, move on to city updates and we'll start with Mr. Mayor. Do you have any updates for us? >> Um, we're on our like August recess. So no wa wa >> like Congress just none of the pay. But uh >> we the um there was an election uh which was thank you to those who volunteered. Thanks to those who ran. Congratulations. Um, and it was I'm trying to unpull the numbers now because the turnout was actually 4867 or something. >> It was so Yeah. 1,437 voters. >> I overshot by 30. I'm sorry. >> 81 voters who registered right there and then to vote. So that was huge. So you were there when we had a gentleman come in who was obviously a new new American who'd never voted before >> and he he went to register with with Jenny >> and I think he was he was getting kind of frustrated because you have to show ID and stuff and he started to he said well no I'm not going to do it >> and there are about six of us >> he wants you to vote we want you to vote and he kind of looked and he says nah and we kept after him he and He said, "Okay." So, he went back and he voted. >> And when he left, as he was leaving, he he made a point of thanking all of us for letting him vote. He thought it was great. >> Yeah. Really nice. >> And you see that here quite a bit at the polls, and I would encourage if anyone's interested in working the polls >> to do it. It's a It's >> It's serious, but it's fun. >> Yeah. No, it's really nice. I I love doing it. Do it. Never. I'm not on the ballot. And that's that's a really nice way to to experience democracy and just see >> democracy in action, especially when a new American, an older new American comes in with like their grandson or granddaughter who translates for them >> and tells them what to do. So, it's kind of cool. >> That's It's nice. It's really nice. Um, what else will be interesting to you all? Uh, hotel should be opening up September 21st. Um, let's see. Um, the um the workforce housing next to it is starting to open up. They thought they were going to be open the end of June. That just didn't happen. The leases that they've signed, all of the people who signed those leases, they put them into hotels um until until their apartments are ready. So, that's good. Um, but there people should be moving in if they haven't moved in already to the top floor and they're just working right now. >> Is that was that 87? How many units is that? >> 83. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's nice. We did a tour the other day. Really, really nice apartments. Um, >> the uh hotel manager is trying to get some of his people living in the in the housing right next to work and got like that. But >> that pretty much completes the downtown. Yeah, I mean that's started 25 years ago. >> Yeah, that's that's the last piece is the hotel. So, >> well there there are technically two left, >> but that's not considered done and >> No, I I I understand cuz one of the lots probably can't be built on and the other one >> the east pad site I'm talking about was proposed and the west pad site. Okay, >> I'll leave that at that. >> Is the hotel gonna have preeies? >> What's that? >> I heard a rumor. >> Yes, but that the creamies are for guests. So, you have to do this location. >> What' you ask? >> I heard a rumor there might be creamies at the hotel. >> Yes. When you when you check in, you'll get a creamy >> at a rooftop restaurant. >> But there's a rooftop restaurant >> station. It's It's night if you can if you can swing it. A nice little station would be good there. Right. >> The rooftop restaurant is not a rotating restaurant. >> No. No. I guess >> And the restaurant's open to the public. >> Yeah. Restaurant. There's a restaurant on the roof. There's a coffee bar slashbar in the lobby that's open to the public that will have like its own entrance. So, if you just want to go for a drink or for a coffee, you can easily. Um the Yeah. But yeah, not the one piece. They thought about silent time and they were just like didn't want to deal with having to figure out the whole infrastructure. So, it's just a few checks. >> Future improvement. >> Uh yeah, I'll go with that. >> That's it for your report. >> That's it. >> Okay. I said I'm on August recess, but here I am. >> Well, thank you for coming, Thomas. hold you off of your recess. >> Uh is that like in kindergarten when we had recess? >> Kind of. >> Okay. >> Do we have a a liaison from the um inclusion and belonging commission? >> I don't know. I know that they're still >> they're doing stuff. >> They're doing some restructuring. >> Okay. Um, I've been including King in the emails out or agendas and for for future meetings. Um, but I'm not sure if King is still the liaison. Um, so I think that's to to be determined once they figure out their structure. >> All right. So, we'll jump to updates from city staff. That's you, Revie. >> Yeah. Um, let's see. Uh, so we have the open house in two weeks for Safe, Healthy, Connected. Um DRB is meeting next week to talk about ULUDR updates that we've all done. Um no applications currently. Um the the Armory application is on my desk uh and it's undergoing internal review right now. Hasn't been warned yet. So um yeah, it's to be determined for that. Um, I think that might be the most that I have. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's okay. We might get out of here by eight. >> Yeah. Wow. >> Uh, any other business from members of the planning commission? >> Trevor, >> I did just start thinking about how there's a surprising lack of creamies available in Wooki. There's no >> chicks. >> Yeah, I got one last plug. >> I ran into some tourists who were walking out of chicks asking if there were other creamy options and um they I wasn't able to give them one in Wooki. So, something to think about. >> Waterworks happened for a little bit, but not enough of us were buying premiums apparently. M well if you want to start a business >> there you go >> vacant uh well say so >> all right um I think that's it if there's nothing else I'll look for a motion to adjourn >> I make a motion >> okay >> second >> all right uh before we vote on it thank you all for coming Ruby Brian Matt John Trevor Thomas Revy And all in favor of leaving a journey. >> I thank you Mike also. >> All right. Good night everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. But bigger.