City Council - Regular Meeting

But not more than the last time. Really? Yeah.

Just different?

All right, the time is six o'clock. I now call to order this meeting of the Winooski City Council. We will start with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Deputy Mayor Bryn Oakley. All right. Agenda review. Councillors, are there any items on tonight's agenda that you'd like to discuss before we move forward?

No. I know.

All right. Public comment. So this is a moment where we encourage public comment. If you would like to provide public comment, we'll ask that you come sit at the table if you're here in person and speak into the microphone. Don't comment from the audience. If you're online, ask that you raise your hand and then you'll be brought over to make a comment. State your name and your address, where you live. Direct your comment to city council. Staff will follow up after the meeting if appropriate. If you can keep your comment to two minutes and leave your comments for items that are not on the agenda below. That said, is there any public comment? Doesn't look like any in the building. Is there any public comment online? not seeing a hand raised online we will move to our consent agenda on tonight's consent agenda we have approval city council and liquor control board meeting minutes of july 6 approval accounts payable warrant july 9 approval payroll warrant june 21 to july 4 and approval of the disability pride month resolution Can I have a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Wonderful. Consent agenda passes. That's awesome. Council reports. I forget where I started last week. Elsie, how about you, Steph?

Okay. The Finance Commission will next meet tomorrow night, July 14th, at 6.30 here at City Hall. We're on Zoom to discuss the payment agreement purchase procedure and elect new officers. The Winooski Finance Commission also has one vacant alternate seat. If you're interested in serving on the commission, please apply today at winooskivt.gov.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Safe, Healthy, Connected commission meeting, people commission meeting, will be tomorrow at 5.30 and will be held in the community room at Myers Pool. And we will be welcoming our two new commissioners, also electing officers, doing orientation, and going over the comprehensive plan. Housing Commission has not been posted. The agenda hasn't been posted yet on the city website, but I believe we do have intent to meet later this month if we can get a quorum. And then the Chinnitzal Waste District, they usually meet the fourth Wednesday of the month, but it's going to be moved from the 24th to the 29th. of July and the agenda for that will be noticed on their website later this month.

Thank you.

We have an airport commission meeting on August 1st at 4 p.m., which is available and open to the public. I posted an update to Front Porch Forum regarding the really robust and incredible conversation that we had with the Inclusion and Belonging Commission and also the Safe, Healthy and Connected People Commission regarding our draft background check policy. And there's nothing... there was no movement or suggestion made to city council outside of the fact that this is a conversation that will most certainly continue to be had within the community. And I want to echo what Councillor Goodrich said. We have multiple spots open on the Inclusion and Belonging Commission. And so folks can reach out to myself and or can find more information on the Mnuski website. And then as the city council lays onto downtown Mnuski, and I'm sure our city manager will also be I'm suggesting this, but I really want to highlight that we have a block party starting at 5 p.m. in the Rotary on Wednesday, and I would love to see as many people out there as possible. I know I will certainly be there. And so that's all I have to report.

Yep, so this month's Municipal Infrastructure Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, July 24th, 2026 from 6.30 to 8 at City Hall. The agenda will be formalized in the next week. If residents have items they would like to be added to the agenda, please reach out to me. Additionally, the Municipal Infrastructure has a comprehensive plan open house on Wednesday, July 29th, 2026 from 5 to 7 PM at the Winooski Senior Center. This open house will allow folks to give feedback to the city's long-term infrastructure goals and objectives. For example, sewer, water, storm water, transportation, energy infrastructure, and so on. During the event, city staff will present maps identifying recommendations for transportation improvements based on input from the Winooski Walk-Bike Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. Lastly, refreshments will be provided. We hope to see folks there.

Awesome. At the last planning meeting mission, planning met with the DRB committee and it was a really good conversation. A lot of topics that some of you may have heard about before came up. There was ample discussion over Armory Project as well as, gosh, now I can't think of the street that that house is on. Franklin Street. I can't believe I forgot the name of Franklin Street. That took up a lot of the conversation and kind of just how we get there, how we stop that from happening again. We talked about character of the neighborhood for a decent amount of time. One thing that I think was great is that both of those bodies recognize that it's good for them to be in communication. So they decided that they will make these joint meetings happen twice a year. So they're going to do January and July. So the next one will be in January. Another thing that was really raised, I just think, was that they recognize the difficulty that folks have understanding the work that Planning Commission does. And a lot of people end up going to DRB to express concerns that they've had with things that have happened in Planning Commission. So I encourage them, as we've been encouraging ourselves, to make sure that they are, trying to communicate with the community as representatives on those commissions, that they are a tool in helping to educate our community as well, which I don't, they all kind of were nodding, and I think they agreed, but I don't know if they necessarily had thought that that was a role that they could take. They had some possible asks of communications from the city. I shared that it might be difficult to implement new procedures at the moment, but I completely understood the want to try to push out more information as quickly as possible. I would recommend for anybody who's interested in the city and how it's changing, where it's going, to go back and watch that meeting. It was pretty insightful, the conversation that took place. I'm forgetting the exact date, but I'll put it in the official minutes if you want to see it there. And then my next update, not about planning commission, but just very infrequently has my Instagram messages or email have been completely flooded with communications from residents and recently a Confederate flag was hanging in our city and I truly can't express how busy my social media was with people sharing a video that was shared from a local content creator and also just people taking pictures and sending it to me. I also recently found myself having to take Go on my own social media. after some comments that were made to reiterate how this city council supports the diversity of our city and not only supports it but cherishes it. So I just wanted to say in this official format, you know, I think a lot of people in Vermont, we frequently hear the saying that hatred doesn't grow in the rocky soils of Vermont. That isn't necessarily true. And a lot of community members or hurt by what happened, particularly with the flag and with some other things. So I think it's important for us to remember, as leaders in this community, that there is a notion that Vermont has no racism in it. And I know that you all know that that is not true, but we saw it so very plainly on one of our main streets in our city. For those who saw it and are upset, if you feel like you need to reach out to a public official, all of our emails are certainly open and we'd be happy to hear from you. It's not something that I think any of us would want to see or condone or approve of, especially not in a city that is so diverse as ours and that cherishes, truly cherishes that diversity. With that, Elaine, welcome back. City updates.

Well, yes. I'm going to echo Councillor Ogilvie's invitation to the next open house to the City of Winooski's Comprehensive Plan series. The next one is covering municipal infrastructure. It's on Wednesday, July 29th from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Winooski Senior Center. That's at 123 Barlow Street. The 2026 statewide primary election is on Tuesday, August 11th, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., also at the Winooski Senior Center. To view the official warning, sample ballots, and to register to vote, you can visit winooskivt.gov slash vote. And we are thrilled to share that the city's Thrive After School and Summer Program was recently awarded a five-star designation from the state of Vermont, which is the highest quality credential awarded by Vermont to licensed childcare programs. STARS is Vermont's quality recognition and improvement system for childcare, preschool, and afterschool programs. Participation in STARS means that a program is striving beyond base licensing regulations to meet higher quality standards, uphold professional practices, and commit to continuous quality improvement. Congratulations to the Thrive team on this outstanding achievement.

That's awesome. Thank you for letting us know that. That was great. That's excellent. And I know there's a lot of work that goes into getting those five stars, so thanks. All right, our regular items for tonight. So our first item is a public hearing. Amendment to Unified Land Use and Development Regulations. I'd like to seek a motion. Well, before I seek a motion to open the public hearing, just a reminder to us at this table, public hearing is a moment for the public to let us know what they think. So we'll hear from the public, and then after that, we can have discussion. So I'd like to seek a motion to open this public hearing.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Wonderful. Thank you. And I see Revy walking on up.

Hello. So we've discussed this item a few times now. But I think it's good to just go over and do a primer. So the Sections that are suggested to be changed relate to allowances for a gentle infill in existing structures in the C1 zoning district, clarification on the applicability of permitting processes, revisions to the ADU allowances, signage allowances in the public district, required design elements for all projects. This includes the maximum blank wall length and width, outdoor lighting and screening requirements, closing fenestration requirements, the transparency requirement, and building orientation requirements, edits to the administrative review allowances for priority housing projects to provide some scaffolding and structure for the administrative processes for that, modifications of the definition of block coverage to include pervious pavement and gravel as block coverage as suggested by council, and then the building energy standards certificate requirements for new buildings as suggested by council. I think there was one question that I received before this regarding fenestration versus transparency. Fenestration is used in a form-based code. I suggested transparency for this draft. Fenestration just seems like an inaccessible word in a way, but transparency just makes, it's more in the vernacular. So I figure we should probably switch to transparency. And then probably when we work on form-based code, move that towards transparency as well. Because we're trying to say the same thing. It's just the inaccessibility of the word fenestration versus transparency. The other item that actually came up while I was catching up from my time away was that in late June the state passed Act 179 and in that they removed the owner occupancy requirements for accessory dwelling units. So this affects what is in front of you right now, and this was not discussed by the Planning Commission at all. So at this point, you can put it back, you can just remove it from discussion, put it back to the Planning Commission to discuss. State statute supersedes our regulations, so we won't be adhering to the owner occupancy requirement because I have to abide by state statute as written. But this does give some time for the planning division to discuss, to grasp, to grapple with what this change is because it's so recent. At this point, I'll turn it over to you for any questions.

Great. Well, let's save our questions for the second part and open up for public hearing. Anybody in the building with any comments that they'd like to offer on tonight's public hearing? Yep, we'll just have you come up to the table. And if you just want to state your name.

Sure. Hi, I'm Jen Berger. I'm here as part of a group of folks who've been talking about public art, and we have reviewed this document and have some questions. I think it's section 414 and on, but there's a lot, and I'm wondering what the best way for us to share those questions or comments with you rather than just raising our hand every time you get to that point.

That's a good question, Jen. How many questions or comments do you have?

13, according to our Google Doc. But it might be like three comments on one thing, too, so it might not be that many.

I mean, technically, if you'd like us to consider it for tonight, we'd want to go over it right now. If it's something you don't want us to consider for tonight, you could email it to us and we could look at it later. I'll leave that up to you.

Thanks. We'll just do it now because it's the thing. Okay. We can do it together. Let me get my notebook.

Do you want to start with that first one? Can you see it?

Oh, and if you could just introduce yourself as well, please.

I'm Leslie Fry. I live at 48 Elm Street in Winooski.

Wonderful. Thank you, Leslie.

So this is A from section 4.14. And instead of boring everybody by reading it, I just would like a real-life example of what the pros and cons are within this little section here, if anybody can do that.

It's the section on intent.

The intent of this section is to promote and protect the public health welfare and safety of the general public by regulating signs, da, da, da, da, da. And then there are these. So it's 4.14A intent. This is kind of.

Okay, so this is the section about signage. And I'm sorry, was there something that you would want changed or that you didn't like about that section or you're just curious to understand more about it?

I don't understand those considerations and would just like a concrete real-life example of what those pros and cons are.

And also maybe like the language accessible to, because it's confusing for somebody who's not in there.

Very good. We're in a public hearing. I don't know if you want, you don't. If you need time to look at these things and respond later, that's fine. I wouldn't be able to give an example right off the top of my head just from reading it. Okay.

With the intent... If you need time, you can... Yeah, I mean, I can speak to it now very generally to the best of my abilities. The intent of it, with the intent statement that's up top, it speaks very broadly. I think the first sentence harkens back to the purpose statement that's in the beginning of the zoning. Zoning, these regulations by design, they're intended to protect the public health. welfare and safety of the general public. So that's where the connection is trying to create there in that first sentence. And then speak specifically to signs in order to protect that public health safety, general welfare. With the second sentence, intent to ensure the signs are clear, informative to the public, and durable. Signs should be scaled and designed for their intended use. Signs that is glaring are too large, creates distraction. Struts into and lessens the urban experience and creates visual clutter. I think those sentences are I would say to signal that we are regulating the size of the sign or the size of the lettering or the placement of the sign or the placement of the lettering. We're not regulating the message of the lettering. Case law has repeatedly said that with the first amendment, we can't regulate signs on, uh, based on the message that we can only regulate on the size, the placement, uh, the duration. Um, and, and that is the limit of what zoning can do. Uh, so that's, that's my understanding at least for the latter sentences on that.

Okay. It just seems so general that you could apply it, you know, negatively or positively to a lot of different cases.

And specifically, we're just going through the comments that are in our shared Google Doc, but there was also specifically a question of when we're talking about signs, does that include public art? And if so, can that be specified where they're similar and where they're different as far as the regulations?

So public art is mentioned towards the bottom of that section under subsection L. So it says public art includes sculptures, monuments, murals, and other objects of art that are not enclosed in a building or the structure that will be visible in a public way. So there... Public art is always a bit of a gray area when it comes to sign regulations. So there's this sort of, I think, negotiation that happens with public art with the public and with council and with the artists themselves on making sure that the public art is representative of the communities and the community's interests. So I think the public art piece of it, I guess maybe going back like one second Two, five minutes. I guess, is there a piece of public art that you're trying to do that you're facing any sort of? No. No. No.

We're just thinking about the future of public art here in Winooski.

OK. And I think part of it is, in this section, it's talking about signs, but it's not clear. And later on, when it does talk about public art, are those things that are mentioned in public art held to the same regulations in this intent as the signs? And if so, could it say that? And if so, then we might have more questions. But if it doesn't, just to say specifically the signs public art is mentioned somewhere else in this document. Just so that way, you know, if somebody's putting up a mural, that it's clear where to look for information and where that discussion can happen. Because right now, it could or could not be in there.

Yeah. Now I see what you mean. Okay. Yeah. So generally, public art gets tucked into signs just because... that all is kind of in the same umbrella, but public art is always kind of in this niche pocket that's outside of science as well. But I think that you're mentioning as well that public art isn't necessarily a sign, and a sign isn't necessarily public art. They could be one and the same, but they're not necessarily connected. But I think that kind of It might be a broader discussion with Planning Commission and you at a different time on how we want to split that up. And I'm going to need to do a little bit of homework on how to maybe make that split a bit better and to spell that split out a bit better. Especially considering that with public art, the public piece is pretty important to make sure that the city is promoting public art that is representative of its interests.

Our next, this is specific to this one. I'm going to try to go through it somewhat quickly, but there was a question towards the end of this paragraph. It says, creates distraction, intrudes into or lessens the urban experience and creates visual clutter. And there's a question about what is the urban experience that is being described here?

I think... With intents and purpose statements, they speak in very general and in broad ways. That is how purpose statements are generally written, even throughout this document and other zoning regulations. And I think that There's a certain amount of subjectivity that's in there, too, that's like, what is an urban experience? What is the urban experience? Does even Winooski have an urban experience? Some might say no. So I think that, yeah, with the purpose statement, too, it's not something that I can take into consideration with the administration of the regulations, but it is used as guidance for the Planning Commission and Council to set regulations on signage. And so that is what council and the planning commission is thinking about is how does this connect that to the intent and purpose of these regulations? Are we actually setting in place regulations that are in alignment with the intent and purposes? It also opens up whole other discussions amongst you.

I just got whatever comments. Okay, very specific. We don't want to take up too much time, but we're just trying to, like I said. It's a public hearing. We're just.

It's one from the public.

You know, the public art thing is very, you know, in the beginning stages in Winooski, and so we're just concerned that, you know, some of this might be constricting if public art is falling into the signage thing. That's all.

And one thing, you know, that I'll say, too, just about the future, and the chair of the Planning Commission stated this at their last meeting, is this document isn't It's meant to be a living document. Like it's not we're going to make decisions tonight and decisions will never be opened again. That's probably actually not the case at all. We'll make more. So I think as the public artwork continues and as kind of you all are narrowing in more on specific policy and how things should work, If this document is contradicting with that, we can keep looking at that as we move forward. So again, love to hear everything you have tonight. There's not many people in the public besides Scooby, so please share everything. But don't also think that if we don't figure everything out right now that public art isn't going to have a future.

Is that we can share with you our comments and you can take those into, like we don't have to do one by one, but I can share with you the comments and then as you're discussing.

Yeah, if there's any specific questions.

Unless there's something specific that comes up that we need, but I think that'll make the conversation flow, if that's okay. I think there was the next question. There was just some need for clarity about substitution clause. And it just didn't feel clear, especially if we were trying to think about if public art was part or considered under the substitution clause, which is under C. The next one is under D. This is a small one, but it says something about unsafe, insecure, or a menace to the public. And we were looking for clarification if that's a physical safety issue or what that actually refers to in that section. Do you want to do this one? No, I'll go ahead. In section E, direct application. Let me just read the question before I say it out loud. So the question says, no murals on street-facing walls unless they are done on a board and hung, question mark. Just looking for clarification on this. Again, this is from a public art perspective. And just asking for more clarity. Why is this one coming up? There it is. In Section F, again, it says here, permit from the ZA for a period not to exceed 90 days. Oh, all signs temporary in nature may be granted temporary permit. We're wondering if that includes public art and if not, should that be specified? And then, I think we don't need to talk about that. Yeah, we can skip that one.

And then... Oh yeah, this might be a typo. Oh yeah, I'll say this one. I'm not sure. H. Number one, all proposed signs will not relate to the architecture of the building on which they are to be located. I didn't know if the word not is really supposed to be in there. Wouldn't you want a sign to relate to the architecture? I don't know. I'm actually not sure.

Yeah, I'll check earlier iterations to see if it wasn't captured.

It just doesn't sound logical.

I think we're done, but we might have one more.

I don't think we need to get into that much detail.

Just to look, so J3, height of signs, also clarifying that it would relate to murals and other public art. That's just signage. Oh, and then we were also just, when it does say public art, it's under L, and we're just wondering if there is a distinction of the definition of public art to come sooner, so that as somebody's reading the document, they're able to distinguish between science and public art throughout the document. At the end, it kind of helped us understand some things that earlier on we were questioning that aren't in our comments. That's helpful for you later on, but that's super good.

All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you so much. Please do email those to the council and Rebby.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other? Oh, actually, Sarah has her hand raised online. Paul, would you be able to bring Sarah over?

Hello?

Hey.

Hi. I'm Sarah . This is 60 Lucy Fallsway.

How are you doing, Sarah?

Good. I just wanted to, and I missed the very first few things that you said this evening, so that's what you were talking about. But I wanted to just touch back on revisions to the administrative review allowance for priority housing. I was reading your overview, the overview, and it talks to me that you've gone to legal counsel and it wasn't allowed for an extension of a time period. You guys, you know what I'm talking about. And I was just gonna, I was just gonna recommend to city council that they may, so instead of approving the, I don't know what number we're under, but on page 59, under section, article five in administrative review. I was just gonna recommend that you may try to figure out what that change is being designed to do and throw it back to the planning commission and maybe even the development review board because it just feels like an individual, that there aren't any checks and balances in that. the developer review. And like I said, I just think we ought to look at that more closely. So that was my only comment. Thanks.

Sarah, thank you. And I was not able to attend your last planning commission meeting, so I wasn't able to say it then, but thank you so much for all of your dedication to that commission. You're welcome. It's a different room without you in there, so I hope you're enjoying your retirement.

Yeah, I'm actually at Lake Georgia on vacation, so I just wanted to... Well, not too bad.

You can do things like that once you don't have all the commission work to do.

But I just felt like that was one thing that was important to just... let's understand what that administrative review really is going to mean and the consequences.

And it's, you know, it really puts it all on that one person who's in that role, which is Reverend right now.

And that's, maybe that's okay, but maybe we want, because I know the public, you know, there's talk about the public being more involved at some level. So just think that one through a little bit more. That's all I'm asking. So.

Thank you, Sarah.

Okay. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comment online? All right, last chance in the room if you thought of anything else. All right, well then I will seek a motion to close this public hearing. So moved.

Seconded.

All those in favor? Aye. Wonderful. Public hearing closed. We'll move on to our next item, which is our discussion approval to adopt MMSC unified land use and development regulations. Robbie, I don't know if you want to say anything. You've already kind of said. I guess maybe let's start with the public art discussion that just happened. I do think given the broad amount of things that they brought up, maybe it would be good for planning commission to, maybe not your next meeting, I think it's all scheduled out, but maybe the one after that. Maybe they can have that conversation about distinguishing between what is public art and what is signage. I don't know what folks are feeling.

Yeah, I think it depends on, I'll have to check with Ray about where the status is about the public art policy and try to make sure that what's in the UDR aligns with the public art policy and they work hand in hand. Deputy Meyer?

If I might, so we as council approved a short term policy that will expire mid-October. And at the moment we have had no additional conversations about a longer term public art policy since May when council adopted the short term policy. So no additional meetings have been held because this is coming up and Ray punted some of the elements of public art to the signage ordinance as it relates to some projects that have come up I believe from local motion. it seemed i believe probably pertinent to members of our community to address some of the confusion of the signage ordinance because things don't always happen in tandem the way we would prefer them to okay i also wonder when this is on the planning commission agenda i could not think of that word um

if there's a way that we could reach out or planning commission and or whomever could reach out to people on the public art team committee. Okay. Thank you. Um, and just say like, we wanted to let you know, this meeting is happening. Like I think folks like Jen and Leslie and others who were, have been a really vital part of that conversation. Um, and just let they know that it's on there, that it is on the calendar. Um, cause I think having them there in the room, whether it's virtually or physically in person can be really helpful.

Given that it hasn't been talked about since we passed it, were you advocating that planning doesn't talk about it until?

No, no, I am absolutely in favor because it's extremely difficult to get coordination between the two groups. So I think planning and ordinances, that should and will be its own conversation. I would love for Safe Healthy Connected to have a joint meeting with planning, but that also seems unlikely. Perhaps, but I, yeah, maybe. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but maybe. So I, yeah, I definitely am very supportive of planning, seeing and looking at this from the ordinance lens, because I don't, anticipate the subcommittee having the capacity to really get into that depth of detail. Okay.

If I may.

Please. A little side note. This might be obvious to you all, but it's surprisingly difficult to navigate the overlap between public art and signage. So it would make sense for planning to take a look at it with Revy's advice. Yeah. It's sort of similarly, like you might think you know what a billboard is, but it was very difficult to pass that legislation in Vermont. Right.

Yeah. I appreciate that. What Sarah just brought up, I don't know if anybody would like to talk about that? Or do you have questions on what the admin review process is?

If I can jump in, it does look like we have some proposed language in that section under 4E. I think that was part of the intent of notifying adjacent property owners. I think the community at large wants notification. We're not a large city. And I think something that happens a block away is still tangible and can be felt. So I think our attempt, we had a pretty robust conversation about what's feasible. And so I think E was kind of where we settled. So as I was scrolling down, I observed that that was an attempt. But I appreciate that Sarah is looking for a little bit more.

I mean, I think we have this we have an administrative review to try to in certain circumstances to be able to speed along development given The previous council at that time some of us were there, but some of us weren't Desire to make sure that we're developing more in the city as much as we can be Obviously Franklin Street hangs over all of these I don't want to drag it up too much as possible, but... I don't want to... I mean, we can have a bigger conversation if we still think administrative review is what we want for a tool and trying to aid development. If we do, I think... The addition of E certainly helps with some of the concerns that the public has brought up. I understand it doesn't address all of them, but that's what we have to balance. If we think that this is a tool that is useful or if we don't, if we put more kind of guidelines around it or add to it, we're kind of diminishing the intent. That's not necessarily wrong, but would love to know what you all think.

I said more of a question. How many administrative reviews of buildings have you done since you started your position?

Under this section?

Under this section, yes. Two. Two, okay. So it kind of, for me, it's more of a, there's an incentive, there's a benefit to having administrative approval Two is actually more than I thought. I thought it would only be one. So actually, it's interesting. It changed my mind a little bit. So it's a hot topic. Yeah. So I do believe that there needs to be incentives for affordable housing. And I think this is a great one. I think the bureaucracy of going through DRB and also lots of reviews can be cumbersome, especially for a tight margin business like affordable housing. So I believe this is a good incentive.

I'll also note C, which has more city staff putting eyes on it and codifies that. I believe that's something that Ruddy has kind of done in the past too, but it puts it in this document. I mean, one thing I would think about maybe adding, which might help with public concern, is having the city manager officially added to this list. Because I think the city manager, as a result of your role, is very tied into the community, maybe more so than other members of staff might be. That could be one way of kind of adding in another level here without slowing the process down a ton. I think what some folks have asked for is that these types of things would receive of e-meeting or a semi-DRP meeting, which, again, would really slow the process down.

I think that's a wonderful suggestion. I think this is a really valuable tool. I think there's a lot of applications for it. I do think it should be point-based. F instead of E. But I think adding the city manager's review to it would be a really good idea. I think it's also something that perhaps could go before a planning commission again if we want more feedback on this. Good catch.

That's a good catch. It is policy that whenever we mention your role, I'd like to know what you think.

Well, so everyone else in C has technical expertise, which I'm the generalist of the staff. So I did hear what you said. I'm not sure what...

role i would actually be playing though i don't know maybe rallying i guess i don't even know if it's appropriate but i think maybe given what administrative review is i guess my thought would be you'd be like i know the community is really upset about this or i've heard from the mayor in our meeting that council is concerned and the community members are concerned can you give it another look over because this is what we're hearing

So the point of administrative review is that, is it strictly in compliance with our regulations, like in the box, inside the lines? That sounds to me like a political review, essentially, which is not, that is outside the point of administrative review. If you want that policy angle, it needs to be in guideline.

My thought is, And I'm maybe thinking this review would be faster, but if people are saying, if the outcry from the public is that the building is too tall, you could be then that point that says, again, this may not necessarily make as much sense to the process, but this is what people are hearing. Has that been verified by all of these people? followed by city public works, code enforcement, and by whoever is in Revy's job, then at least we could say, we've heard from the public, they think it's too high, but it's not, and these people have checked that. Yeah, again, this may, I mean, it's, my proposal is just to try to give the public what they're feeling like they don't have, which is a little bit of a voice in it. I'm not saying it necessarily makes sense to the document.

So I think some of the changes in Section 4 are it's a pendulum swing. So there were a number of errors made on Franklin Street. And so now we're responding to the community's reasonable degree of frustration that the project was approved with a number of errors. and want to see what are mechanisms we can implement to help minimize those from occurring again. Um, so I, I, I think adding C was one attempt. Um, and then even during administrative review, there can be things that are missed. These are complicated and confusing documents. Um, so it's, I think I appreciate what, does it make sense to add Anyone else to item C for additional layers of review? I just put that in context of what are we trying to solve? And I think it's trying to catch errors.

I also just want to note that we're, I can't remember who said this, but it's the idea that we're trying to be more expeditious in this. And one of the things that I think we've all been really mindful of and we're talking about a lot is that there's a very limited amount of staff time. And so then I wonder if by adding more layers and that includes staff time, particularly the city manager's staff time, I just wonder if that in the end would be like a double-edged sword with a thought wrong cliche but the idea that like we're trying to be expeditious and in the end this could just sit on your desk and so I'm just trying to be mindful of that and I think also the thing that I think about so often and I've really like learned this lesson from the mayor is the idea of like we are writing this for people when we are not here And so we want to ensure that it's accessible. We want to ensure that people understand. And so my thought is this, right? It's like, we all know, right? Everyone knows about Franklin Street. And so then it's like the, how do we ensure in succession planning in that institutional knowledge is being passed down, right? And we're not obviously going to write something in a document that's like, don't let this happen again. Absolutely not. But it's just the idea of like, how do we ensure that that, and I think that's sort of like a broader question, right? And so that's the question that I have is like, how do we ensure from like a like yeah, like institutional knowledge and succession planning to ensure, because to me it sounds like that's the thing that we're trying to sell for. It's like it's a little bit, this might be a jump, but like fear-based in the sense of like we're afraid this could happen again, so we're trying to just like, you know, put all of these things in place. Um, and so that's just, those are my two cents.

So I think there's a little fear. I think we've all been in the building. I think like Robbie had a really rough experience with this situation. Like I think we've all, um, or operating from fear, because we don't want that to happen again at all.

So I need to point out that there was only one error made, and it had nothing to do with height. The height was not illegal. But it's relevant. That's the point. I appreciate the framing, is my point, is what I'm trying to say. What are we trying to accomplish with a change here of what you're trying to propose? If you're going to send this to Planning Commission anyway, I'd like to talk to Rebby about it before we comment further.

I think another part is, and again, operating from this one building, is that the admin review process, you're meeting certain things, right? You're checking them off, and if they meet, that works. But then, as you mentioned, like it was only, there was one error in Franklin. The majority of it is actually technically fine. But like, and I forgot, I think I'd asked like if council is able to deny a permit, but maybe like we would have had we known about this building and seen what it looks like. Like we might have asked like what can be done to stop this?

My understanding is you could have asked, but you couldn't have denied it with any legal basis. Like if it meets zoning, there's nothing to... Yeah. If it checks all the boxes, then it checks all the boxes.

Even with DRV, too. If it checks all the boxes, it checks all the boxes.

Yeah, we could have been sued for being arbitrary, essentially.

So then it's... Sorry, I'm jumping in.

So I guess I'm trying to understand what is different with this than what has been done in the past? And based off of the written document right now, what is going to change from historical times?

So process-wise, this establishes a clear box for checking out for Public Works and Code Enforcement's review for any type of project. So Public Works is involved in water and like water sewer related matters, storm water related matters. So right now, all my permits are now going through Public Works first. I think past practice was to have Public Works review it later. So we've kind of moved things around and recalibrated with Public Works more involved in the front end of projects.

With code enforcement, yes? So just to add on to that, I think during Eric's time, he would consult them earlier. And I don't think Revy was told that or knew about it. And so this is what Al is saying. It's like this builds in some of that institutional knowledge. Yeah.

So there's that. That's one piece of it. Another piece with it is the written notification. That is not typically done for administrative approvals. That is not specified in the statute. It's not even spelled out as a possibility in statute. So we're taking the extra step to notify adjacent property owners that There's this project that has been reviewed by me. The appeal period has started. And if you want to appeal, you can appeal.

All right.

Awesome.

I understand you probably have a checklist that you're going through to hit all these items, and code probably has that. I wonder if instead of actually sending, after all three of these departments review, sending this to the city manager, if there is instead one compiled checklist that you could complete and have public works initial, have code initial that they hit there, three, five items that they want, and instead that completed list goes to the city manager for review of everyone has done what needs to happen here. So instead of the city manager having the onus of looking at the entirety of the project and looking at all the elements discreetly, more of a rubber stamp approval of that we acknowledge that all the disparate parts have been addressed.

Thank you for explaining.

Yeah, I would want to discuss it with Revy before I responded to counsel. If you're not intending to take action tonight. If you are, then we can confer a little bit offline. Or like to the side.

I would at least recommend going forward with the language here as a stopgap. And for us to make any other technical changes afterwards.

I think the language as proposed in the head and review section answers gets to some of the concerns. Adding the city manager was just a thought I had about trying to further those concerns. Again, I get that technically it may not, but a lot of this game is about perception too.

If there, as you talk about process side of things, if it was feasible for there to be of the notification documents that go to the applicant and adjoining property owners, that's one of the documents that's included or available for review, not necessarily sent out, but available for review is like the checklist that each of the departments went through.

So yeah, this specifically says the, so you'd get, if you're an adjoining property owner, you'd get a description of the proposed project, so it'd be a cover letter, the actual zoning permit application, and then additional information that clearly informs the recipient where additional information may be obtained. So we can also include any other review documents, additional documents with that.

So folks can see that it's been looked at.

Mm-hmm. All right. Thank you.

Good discussion there. Any other sections of this talk that folks want to talk about?

Can I ask for clarity what you want changed, if anything, in this section?

Nothing changed right now. Okay. I'm thinking to have planning commission talk about adding in the city manager, or we just want to drop that.

I would be partial to not including that. Okay. So long as there's some confidence that subsection E incorporates kind of that depth of review from each of the departments.

I think C and E together, again, if we want to keep Ed in review, I think it's technically enough here.

Yeah. And I would say, add on to that, to your point, is I think comprehensively, not just this section, but looking at some of the other sections, is just trying to enhance avoiding and mitigating the blank wall, which is really one of the drivers as well for the... Yes. Outrage. Yes. And pushback. So we are, you know, there's this section that stands out, but there are, you know, other sections within this set of reviews, set of proposed changes that try and tackle that, too.

Yeah. I think it's important just to note, like, for the public, like, just because it's admin review doesn't mean that somebody's showing Revy the Willy Wonka house and like that doesn't fit any of like any of our codes in this document and he can approve it like he's still using our documents to approve the things that he or when he retires in 20 years whoever maybe then like they're still looking at the document which is the work the real work that planning is working on is trying to actually stop Franklin from happening again by saying what the building can actually look like or not look like.

Yeah, if I might. I appreciate the I think we looked in there's only allowed the words I'm looking for are the appeal period that's limited to like two weeks, right? Yep, 15 days. And so that's not something that can be changed and something else we learned about Franklin Street is zoning administrators are protected under the state statute from lawsuits. But such a small window for appeal and the protection of that statutory language, it just enhances errors that can be made there's a very, very small finite amount of time where it can be corrected or addressed.

Which I think now that we will be notifying people, like two weeks is still short, but it's better than we have to hope to walk by and see the sign and then decide to appeal. And then if we're also providing all of that documentation plus checklists that I think we've talked about, I think that would give people, the checklist will help people understand that document a little more, I think, too, because they'll know the exact things that you have to check off. So although it is still a short period of time, I think taking those steps makes it easier for somebody to work within those two weeks. Again, not ideal, but much better than before.

It is much better than before.

Okay. So we're good. Any other sections that folks would like to talk about? Eli.

Yeah, so one, well, I'll start with my smaller item. So I was the one that asked about the fenestration versus transparency. And I was hoping, I think Revy kind of answered the question for me, kind of what answered my, how I hope you would have answered, was I think just keeping it consistent across the document would be great, and then once form-based code regulation number gets updated, change it to transparency instead of fenestration. Yeah. I had to look up what administration meant because I didn't know. So that was a great response, and I support that type of change. The thing I was hoping to propose to change in this was I wanted, after chatting with the Planning Commission this past Thursday, I'm proposing that we change it to blank walls for 15 feet per floor instead of by area. My rationale is this is more consistent with other areas of the land use regulations for Winooski, in particular with form-based code, as well as with the transparency addition that we're adding in this current proposed UL, UDR. And I was looking at other land use regulations for other areas. It seems like all form-based code is done by per floor. It seems like Williston and South Burlington, they do it based off per floor on other areas besides their form-based code. So I was trying to keep it consistent for all areas in Shannon County.

Yeah, I appreciate that, Eli. Planning Commission talked about this a lot, and we talked about it a lot the other day, too. The reason they wanted to do by area is they were concerned that a developer could put a stairwell on one side of the building and just put small windows we talked about portholes for a while on each floor. So therefore you have a window on each floor which is what by floor means. But you really have with the intent of what planning is hoping. So, essentially, if we, of course, Franklin, look at that building that has no windows, would it really look that much better if it just had four little, or three, however many floors it is, little windows going up? So that's why they did area instead of floor, where we did share with them that, like, everybody else says floor across Shipman County and maybe further, but they were, like, pretty intent on that.

Yeah.

You said 14 feet.

Fifteen? Fifteen feet. Sorry, 15 feet per floor. Okay.

Just one, you're like, do you? Was there something more to that statement? Okay, just confirming.

As a side note, I will say that I think that is the most stringent that I saw of all the land use regulations in the area. Form-based code does have 15 feet for a few different areas, but for general around different municipalities, like Williston has 30 feet, and South Burlington wasn't really clear, but... So, yeah, we are restraining.

Yeah, so thanks for bringing that up, Elaine. Thoughts?

I support 15.

You support by four.

By area is fine with me, so long as we're avoiding unintended consequences of the policy. Like trying to avoid the porthole windows.

So you want to keep it as an area? Yes. Okay. Any thoughts from anyone else?

I agree with Eli. I think that by floor it makes a lot of sense. I think It's easier to encourage development into our city if you don't have to reinvent your building and your blueprint to fit within a unique code in such a small city. I think if we have developers building wonderful affordable housing projects in South Burlington, it would really behoove us to be more consistent that they could come here.

I feel like I see Revy thinking of something and I'm like, do you want to share it with the team?

I don't have too much. I mean, we've had a lot of discussions, as Thomas mentioned. Yeah, it's like the vast, vast, vast majority go by floor. It's very, very few instances that I found by area. And the Planning Commission was very insistent on this two-dimensional plane area that... can be no larger than 15 by 15 feet it does make a lot more sense for us to be more consistent across different municipalities my colleagues across city lines are working with the same developers that we do and so we want to make sure that we are being consistent across the board so that way the same they don't have to fit into a particular niche box in order to develop I've shared this with a couple developers, and this didn't appear when they were reading through the language. The only thing that one asked for was an example of what exactly do you mean by blank wall area, so that's why the graphic was included in the definitions. So those are my two cents.

I just have a real question that I wonder, and I don't know if you've been able to look into it since planning that conversation, but... If we change it to floor instead of area, would the scenario planning commission is worried about, is that what could happen? Or would it, in fact, would they have to put more windows or whatever else it would be to not make a blank wall?

it's it's a bit of uh it depends on the context because you have this plus the minimum transparency so they might have a blank wall that's forts that's 15 feet wide but they might not need the transparency so they have to put in a window in order to meet the 15 transparency per floor um Yeah, it really depends on the context and the width of the building in order to determine whether they're going to meet both of those requirements. They might meet one, but not the other, and they might meet one, but not one.

Which is what I think is the concern that my name kept coming back to and why they landed on the area, because if we go by floor, in theory, there could be multiple ways, it seems, where an unappealing streetscape could still occur. whereas it was less likely by area.

Yeah. I mean, typically with seeing buildings, seeing a lot of different buildings, it's mainly the stairwells that don't have the windows. And so that's what the blank wall is really. It's really a stairwell in most cases, the vast majority of cases. That could be mitigated by putting in smaller windows that may not meet egress, but... are going to meet the 15% transparency and provide a nice little aesthetic touch. So it seems to me that there are ways to get around it. It just depends on where that building is located and how wide is that building going to be and what is the context of that building and whether they're actually going to be able to put in a window in a particular location that the regulations kind of forces them to put in that window or if there's something structural in there that prevents them from doing so.

Do you know if the 802 homes says and building typologies has kind of dove into this?

Our consultant has. So we've shared it with him, and he's kind of like, sure. As long as you have both blank wall limitations and transparency limitations, then you're fine. He also developed our form-based code, so he developed it by floor. He also developed Williston's form-based code. That's why that's also by floor. And that is the model code for blank wall limitations. It's by floor.

Are you aware of the 802 homes, the statewide conversations?

Yes. I've seen the designs. I haven't seen any. A light skin. I haven't seen any discussion of blank walls in there.

All right. Thanks. I'm avoiding. I'm in favor of avoiding Franklin Street and unintended consequences. I'm leaning with the Planning Commission's preference right now. I don't know that we're even seeing that many projects to have it really have an adverse impact.

What I would say is We have a tendency to overcomplicate code. And because of it, things can get missed. And so my objective, mostly with this, is just to keep things consistent so that when you look at this, it's like, oh, we don't have this one weird thing that we have 15 by 15, or transparency versus fenestration. Like, why do we use different terms? So my main objective with this is just to make things a little more coherent across the whole entire document instead of having this band-aid approach of fixing problems here and there and approaching it that way.

Just because something has been a certain way for a long period of time doesn't mean it's the right way.

Just because something in this tradition doesn't mean it's right.

I haven't decided where I land on this, but I will say, yes, I like a consistent document, and so it does make sense to me. However, it is our job to fix things. So we do see a big glaring problem. And if this is how we can fix it, and it takes the document out of conformity, I think it's our job to fix things and not just align for aligning.

I would ask what, with Franklin Street, this reason why we're having these conversations, was the blank wall more than 15 feet per floor?

I'm not.

Not sure.

I'm not sure. could be, but again, I'm not sure.

The reason why I ask is because I spent a lot of time looking at stairwells at various brick buildings around Burlington, and they tend to be around 15 to 16 feet. So they're around that frame, but they're not any smaller. So it is quite difficult to build a stairwell that is meant for a multi-story building adhere to those regulations. I particularly looked at CCRH, that was one that was billed recently. So yeah, because stairwell was typically what was talked about with stacking of things, so that's why we're looking at that.

I believe, as Deputy Mayor said, we're not seeing a lot of development right now, and I think this plays into that. This isn't too much of a concern right now. We're trying to plan for the future and get around it, but also the reality is we're not seeing a lot of development right now. And we would like to see some more development. And I think making things, removing barriers and cleaning up language that's inconsistent is to the benefit of the document.

OK. We'll go to the end on everything. So any other exceptions that folks wanted to talk about?

I only wanted to say thank you for including the language about the energy code standards. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Anything else?

No.

We did just do a public comment, but in case our conversation has spurred any public comment, anybody online, if you'd like to add anything, just raise your hand. Okay. So, we're leaving, it seems like we're leaving everything except for what was noted in the language, but you already did that? Or do we need to vote on that? Transparency?

No, that's already in the language.

Okay, perfect. So just the blank walls, then. All right. Well, I will make a motion to approve the document as presented, but changing the section about the area of a blank wall to making it by floor. I don't know if that's clear enough for you.

Yeah, so that would be a change to section 2.5 about blank wall length. and then also changing the definition so that the blank wall area will look some magic and try to say blank wall length and remove the graphic and make it more speaking to length and more in alignment with our form of scope.

I'll seek a motion for that.

The only other piece that I do 5.1 about accessory dwelling units and in C2 downtown for industrial and public. So we'll just strike through all the changes related to... Yeah, I mean, if it's state statute... Yeah, with 5.1, and then we'll come back to you after Planning Commission has discussed the changes in state statute with revised language that aligns fully with state statute.

Okay. Yes, with that added.

So moved. Seconded.

All those in favor? Aye. All those against?

I'm staying.

Yeah, that's good. Passes. Thanks.

Yep. Thank you.

Our next item. Our last item. Discussion approval, Vermont League of Cities and Towns, appointments to the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee.

Were you all able to read my memo? Yes. Yes. If you weren't, that's okay. You can tell me the truth.

So I'll just summarize then. So a resident reached out, gosh, like two years ago at this point, I think originally, because they were interested in this advisory committee and letting us know about it for a variety of reasons. We didn't really move forward with it. When I became mayor, I met with, so VLCT holds this, like a meeting of the mayors once a month. And so I had spoken with them about it there. And I thought it was an opportunity and interesting for our city to be involved in the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee for a variety of reasons. I mean, one, I think there are definitely people in our city who have been impacted by the opioid crisis and still dealing with it, some who have been able to come out of it. And they will be discussing important things on this committee that I think if Winooski can have a voice, why not? The LCT shared the information that I had put into the memo in terms of appointing someone. They're kind of doing the vetting of the person. You know, we would, if we do decide to do this, we would do our own vetting in terms of, like, what we do currently for commissioners. So we, you know, they'd apply online. We'd interview them. But then the LCT would ultimately decide, like, is this person a good fit for this committee or not? And, which to me, also given the, better about us essentially recommending somebody. As I had mentioned, somebody had reached out about this. They had informed this person that if we decide to want to recommend somebody, that they are not the person. They'd have to apply, and we would advertise to try to get as many voices as possible who would be interested in this. But yeah, you read the memo. So if you have any questions, let me know. The deputy mayor helped me with this, as she does with many memos I bring to you all. So she looked this over as well and provided some edits for me before I presented it to John to put in the packet today. Any questions, concerns?

No, I just want to say that I think it was very well done. Agreed. Yeah.

All right, in that case, I will seek a motion to approve Winooski being able to offer a recommendation to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns as outlined in the memo, where we will hold applications, do interviews to find somebody to recommend to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

So moved. Seconded.

All those in favor? Aye. Wonderful. Well, the time is 7.17. We have no other business. Oh. I should have stopped. Does anybody have any comments in the public on what we just spoke about? All right. I didn't see that hand raised. So it's still 7-17. I will look for a motion to close tonight's meeting.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you so much, everybody.