Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the meeting to order [snorts] and let me see changes to the agenda. Hearing nothing, we'll move on to uh public comment. Is there any Trevor Thomas? Is that a public? No,

Trevor is on Trevor is one of our newer members. Oh, forgive me, Trevor. I don't see your face. That's the problem. [laughter] That's my excuse anyway. All right. So, now we go to approval of some minutes, I think. October 9. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't see the minutes in the packet. Did I just skip over it? Uh, I did. I think they I might have forgotten them and they went online though. Um you can hold them until the next meeting.

Well, I don't if if other people have read them. People has everyone read them or should we hold these until next month? I'm not going to vote anyway. I have read them. I've skip. Matt, did you read them? Trevor, did you read them? Seems like maybe we should hold it. As silly as it sounds. So So does someone want to make a motion to approve the minutes? No, I I was saying I think maybe we should hold off. Okay. All right. We'll hold off till the next month then. Couldn't really understand anyway. Yeah. Reflect how complicated our

sort of reflected how complicated conversation was. All right. Let's go to item five. Uh Rebby, I'll send it over to you for item five. Okay. Um, so I realized 15 minutes ago that I forgot to include a memo in your packet. So I'm just going to talk a bit about that memo. I had a memo.

That was for the for item six. Um for item five though, uh so last meeting we talked about breaking down this entire packet into smaller chunks to make it a lot more digestible. So I sifted through um picked out all the items that we've kind of come to consensus about um and a couple other items that we could further discuss and tease out for today. Uh but for the most part all the items under item five are all items that we've been we've discussed over the last six seven months and have kind of come to a good place with them. I think uh these items are the uh gender infill allowances for existing structures. So this is related to to Mike's request for allowing existing all existing structure.

Don't keep bringing me up as [laughter] this. Come on. This is related to um the owner of 26 and 30 East West Allen Street [laughter] and their request the anonymous owner is yes to uh private citizen private citizen not planning commission person but private and and and to be clear the request was to add residential uses. Yes. Yes.

Yes. So the the text would allow for um single unit, two unit trilexes up to four units uh to be um built within existing all existing structures within the C1 district. Um uh the the triplexes and quadplexes would have to go through site plan review. Um and it would only apply to existing structures as of the date the regulations go into effect. Um and then alongside with that revisions to accessory dwelling units. So this is the uh textual changes in order to better align our accessory dwelling units uh uh standards with statute um to capture all of the single unit dwellings in the city instead of just the ones in the residential district. Uh because all single unit dwellings in the city have um the ability and the right per statute to have an accessory dwelling unit. Um third point uh allows us for ADU projects that are converting existing unfinished space into a dwelling. So this would allow for the conversion of attic spaces uh basement space, garage spaces into a dwelling unit if there are no changes to the site uh being made. Um, this was a follow-up to Sarah's comment uh from a couple months ago from the ADU workshop uh thinking about how do we make ADU conversions maybe easier, more equitable um specifically in regards to uh properties that aren't going to make any site changes. No changes to parking, no changes to improve services, no changes to structures, nothing. It's all going to be internal improvements. Um so this is one way that we could move that forward. Um so alongside all of that the abil the the applicability and permitting process for planning unit developments. So this is um the

clarification of when a subdivision uh when subdivision standards apply uh when plan unit development standards apply and alongside all of that uh the allowance for uh multiple principal structures of up to four units um or four buildings um on a property um under site plan reviewed. Uh so it allows for a little bit more flexibility to break down massing to allow for more gentle infill um without having to to uh to go to build a duplex or a triplex. Um but it would still have some some controls in terms of uh access and circulation that is reviewed by the DRB before it can be approved. Um clarification on the subdivision re review process. Uh the DRB brought up some vague parts in the subvision standards um that needed some fine-tuning and tweaking. Um so that has been included. And then the last two requests are items that you haven't discussed yet. So signage allowance in the public district. Um there are no signs sign allowances in the public district. Uh so you can't put up a new sign in any of our parks. Uh so the the language that that's in front of you would allow for new signage to be put up in the public district that this signage matches uh it's it matches to an extent the C1 district allowances uh in terms of size and um and types of signage. And the last thing that I have that's completely new is the alignment of the definition of affordable housing with the standards in inclusionary zoning. Um, so this is something that Jasmine brought up to me that our inclusionary zoning um standards for affordability rates are different from what we set for priority housing. Um and I went to uh a

conference a couple weeks ago um on specific more it's planning in general but I think most of the sessions were on land use planning and um a couple of uh people came up to me um who work specifically for state housing agencies and they were like and because I presented on our priority housing uh uh state incentives and they were like why is it set at 100% AMI? Why isn't it set to best stand best practice of 80% and 120? And I was like, well, our inclusionary housing is set at 80 and 120, which is best practice. I'm not sure why this is set at 100. And I I asked Mike about this and and we're not entirely sure why it's set to 100 um in general. Uh so I think that in order to provide better guidance to applicants and to provide more uh standardization across the board with our zoning, uh I would recommend um changing the priority housing incentives to uh be allowed only if rent is set at 80% up to 80% AMI and or up to 120% AMI uh for uh dwelling units for sale. So that that draft language is now included in your uh in your materials. I'll turn it over to you Mike to okay guide this discussion.

Does anyone have any questions? Let's start with the allowances of the gentle infill that the anonymous citizen requested. Any any questions or comments about that? Matt and Trevor, if you have anything, either raise your hand or just jump in. Is that on? What's that? Where where are we looking at that in our section 5.1? I'm so sorry. [laughter] There's just too much information all at once. Oh, that was Let's see where that was. You know what section that is?

It is section um 2.4. So, at the bottom of 2.4. Let me pull that up in a second. It's okay. Say it's okay. It's at the bottom of this. Oh, okay. Yeah. The table page 13. Yep. It's the red.

So at the bottom of 2, it's tiny. Yeah, it's tiny font that says um no new structures are allowed to host to million dwellings, to dwellings, and multi-unit dwellings. Only structures in in existence on insert the date that the regulations are in effect in uh in in the central business district are allowed to to host single unit dwellings, two unit dwellings, multi-unit drawings uh with three to four drawings. What bullet point is that on that page? Seven. Seven. Footnote number seven.

Oh, okay. Sorry, I didn't print it in color, so I'm looking at it, but it was all crossed out. No new structures.

Okay. So, okay. Allowed to host. No new structures are allowed to host. That means allowed to build. are um allowed to have in this case. Yeah. Okay. As opposed to the older existing structures. Yes.

Why did we put just existing structures? So we started with historic structures. Yeah. And um at the time I think it was Christine uh thought that why would we restrict it to just historic structures? Why wouldn't we capture all of the existing structures? And then some of the historic structures are, you know, defined in our inventory, but then other buildings which are older, which aren't classified as historic, right? People may want us, you know, work in those as well, changing those as well.

Yeah. I'm just wondering why if, for example, if a [clears throat] if a house in the C1 zone gets destroyed for whatever reason and you you replace it with a new structure, is this saying you can't put up to four units in it even though you may by the regulations by whatever you can you could if you had a vacant lot you could put four units on it.

No. So, this would only apply to buildings and structures that have been in existence prior to whenever this goes into effect. So, if a if a building is destroyed and they want to rebuild, they wouldn't be able to rebuild just a house. Um, same with a vacant property. If there's a vacant vacant lot, they wouldn't be able to build just a house. They would have to build more than four units. But okay, I I hear what you're saying, but if a single family home gets destroyed, they have a certain amount of time to place it. If it's damaged by act of God, fire or I forget all the languages, but that's standard

practice, correct? Most anywhere. Yeah, we wrote that in at some point. Yeah, let's look at demolitions 4.1. I mean, I see it as a way for people to repurpose the buildings that they have. Yeah. Yeah. And that it's it's um you know, if somebody chooses to neglect their building so that they can then right, you know, take it down because it's unhinabitable.

Yeah. I we can include a a caveat that uh cross references section 4.1b. So 4.1B says within 6 months of the after the uh let's see no that's for demolitions um 4.1a timely reconstruction of damaged structures I think there's a way to do a cross reference so that way if there is a building or structure that is destroyed you can do a onetoone rebuild okay but it's an act of god [clears throat] one right it's not somebody who likes the Yes. Get that wave. Yeah.

Okay. So, what this is doing is is because my initial request was just to allow one, two, three, and four unit residential in that zone. This is really saying no, we're just going to allow it in existing structures. Yes. Okay. [clears throat] Is everyone okay with that? Yep. It's fine with me. I s agree with Mike's question. Why limit it to existing structures? But I'm I'm not going to fight about it. I think I'm fine with it as it is. Me to neither. Don't fight about it. Okay. Any other questions about that section?

So if you build it the statewide, you can't build like how it essentially say you you can build housing if you have commercial on the first floor, right? Is that No, you can build housing at scale. So it has to be more than four units. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Or it could be commercial with Yeah. It could be mixed use. Yeah. That makes me feel better. There's some Yeah. So you're thinking like mixed use like ground floor commercial and like three units above, two units above. But don't don't they have to have at least five units?

Yes. Yeah. I wasn't Is that what you're looking to allow? I'm not I was just I was just responding to to Trevor's question. Okay. Because he said you can't build residential. He [snorts] was asking if we can't build residential lots. Okay. Gotcha. Jen has your hand up. Yeah. Who is it? Hi everybody. This is Jen from Inclusion and Belonging. Um I'm just asking a clarifying question because this is new for me. Um, so I'm hearing this thing about if the building gets rebuilt, how many units? I'm wondering if there's any limitations to the size of the structure.

So it I mean typically for those types of situations, it would be a onetoone rebuild. Um, I the only limitation on size would be setbacks and height. Uh, we allow for 100% lock coverage. Um, so, so yeah, that would we don't that would be the only limitation on on size if it's like a single unit or a duplex. Thanks. Yeah. Anything else on this one? Not on this one, but we skipped um the one right before it. No, this is the first one. C1.

It's um this one. I was the first one. Sorry, one more thing. I'm sorry. I was looking allow section five. I'm looking here at our And it was in the front of our packet, too. Oh. Oh, that's Oh, yeah. That's a definition. Good catch, John. Sorry. Is this what John said? What John said? This part that needs to be edited and it needs to be what? The latter part where it says multi-unit dwellings needs to be edited to add uh with three or three to four dwellings. Oh yeah. Yeah. Right. Thanks. Good catch, John.

I bad with my Roman numerals. Yeah. See, that's that's not back here. Put this here. So, we found the same one. [laughter] That's right. from the president. So the question was I I skipped the first thing in uh on the agenda that Abby has was article nine which is the definition of affordable housing I believe. Yeah. And I think there's a typo because it says 1,200% of the uh Yeah, that's an extra zero. That's very okay. on the memo you gave me, Revy, you had that as the last item to talk about because we hadn't talked about it yet. Mhm.

Right. So, so I'm going to follow what Revy had because we'll get to it at the end. We'll get to it at that. Sure. So, then we've got revisions to accessory dwelling units. Okay. You want to give us a little intro to that?

Yeah, sure. So the edits to this section is primarily technical in order to include single unit dwellings in the C1 and gateway districts. Um about 20 properties in the gateway and C1 districts are single unit dwellings. The way that our current regulations are written, it appears as though uh those property owners do not have the right to build an ADU. Uh but by statute they do. Uh so the suggested change would uh clarify that allowance that that they have per statute. What page are we on? Uh 5. Let's start at 5.1. 5.1.

Yes. Yes. Say 5.1. Yes. Okay. Article 5 5.1 accessory dwelling units. Right. Yeah. quick qu there's no quick question I guess I only have high context answers [laughter]

we've we've got under um I guess it's now B five B15 or B1E accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 30% of the average total habitable floor area of the existing dwelling units are 900 square ft. Mhm. My question is um whichever is greater. So if I have let's say a three three one-bedroom apartments and they're all 900 ft which is a good size one-bedroom apartment. I can put a accessory dwelling unit 900 ft the same size as that. Uh it does not use

according to this. It looks like you can. So it's really not accessory dwelling unit, is it? [laughter] Yeah. Yes. I I'm not sure uh again about the history of this because I know that this was um part of your discussion history because before a couple years ago you had detached cottage allowances and this was this became the detached cottage allowance. Um so

I I'd have to look back and see what how it was for detached cottages and whether those same stipulations applied then and it was just a conversion. I think that that the conversation back then was more about adding an accessory unit to a single family home. Yeah, that's why I'm confused with that. So that 900 square f feet, a normal most single family homes are greater than 900 ft, right?

You know, an accessory dwelling unit wasn't supposed to be the same size as the primary. So that's why I'm bringing it up that it says 30% or greater the greater of 30% or 900 square feet. And I'm wondering because now we've locked in multif family properties can do this. So is it really an accessory dwelling unit? Well, I'm confused about what we're doing here would be into

Yeah. So the accessory dwelling unit allowance um in general is for 30% of um the side the floor area of the of the house or 900 square f feet whichever is uh greater. I'm pulling up 4412 just to double check my numbers. Um, uh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So, uh, I think that's where the the the the the numbers come from is from the statutory allowance for single unit dwellings. Um, but I but I mean you bring up a good point of if it's supposed to be accessory, uh, which is incidental and subordinate to the primary structure, then having all of the units be the same size really makes you question whether it's incidental and subordinate to the primary structure. Yeah. Um, and then Aby's point was on the latter part, so it's all kind of coming. Again, [laughter] this goes into the next bullet point about allowances for ADUs um in for contexts in which uh no change is being made to the structure or to the site. So the under the um B2 uh it creates that allowance for ADUs that are looking to convert unfinished space into a dwelling unit to be uh without any site changes to be allowed as a permitted use and approved by me. So, if you had a a barn or a garage that was bigger than the house or square footage, you can convert that.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Um I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Mike. Well, what I'm saying is my understanding I think the definition of an accessory dwelling unit is something that's subordinate to the primary. And if you've got you're putting in an accessory dwelling unit that's the same size or larger than the primary unit, is it really an accessory? So the 30% can kick it up to a larger No, the 900 ft. The 900. Okay.

Whichever is greater. the the I think the hypothetical you're giving Mike if I understand you is you have a trip a triplex with three one bedroomedroom apartments that are 900 square ft and then you could have a quote accessory dwelling unit that is also 900 ft

I have something radical to propose what if you just removed the ADU allowance for for multi-unit structures because if you're already if because you're considering allowing for multiple principal structures under site plan review and we already allow for u for um multi multi-unit dwellings of up to four units through site plan review that pretty much allows for an ADU type building and it also obviousates what Mike is pointing out that if it's supposed to be accessory and if it's not significantly smaller in size or scale than the primary structures Is it really accessory at the end of the day?

So why not just call all of them primary because we're already going to allow it through the same permitting structure at the end of the day. So So limit it to accessory dwellings for a single family because Yes. Yeah. Yes. I I'm fine with that. Yes. Because you can because what you're saying is you can put two units in anyway or up to four units. Yes. Yeah. Yep. But if it's an existing building and it happens to be larger, you can Yeah. You can use that. Yeah. And I think what this captures is that flexibility for property owners that own a duplex that want to put a unit in the back. Right.

And so if you going into going two steps ahead, if you are ready to move forward with allowing multiple principal structures of up to four units and up to four structures, then you're pretty much allowing this. Yeah. Um I'm like digging deep to remember when we were working on this. Um you're digging.

Yeah, [laughter] I feel like I'm digging real deep. Um we talked about ADU in length because we were seeing um a lot of people buying up property, renting out the front and building an ADU in the back and renting it or built or Airbnbing it. And we were like, we should be using the ADU. By statute, it's an owner occupied situation and that retains residents and allows them to have extra income to keep them in when you see, which is what was really important to us. Um, then it was like the conditional re like because the detached cottage went away, we lumped it into conditional use, which is what it looks like you exed out. And that was for people who bought bought the front, rented it out, and wanted to do that like an apartment in the back. They could go through a conditional use process. And I think this is what the C was. That's now B. But you Xed out the conditional use. So I'm like really confused about what

Okay. What? Yeah. And I do remember that Abby, right? That's that's how we Yeah. Um so let's try to parse this a bit right. Um so we have to allow for ADUs for all single unit or we can't really change anything about for all owner occupied single unit.

Yes. If the owner is living on the property for adus um we like in a on a completely parallel track too. We also have rental short-term rental issues, right? The the rental issue, frankly, I'm not going to be too concerned with because we need to boost housing supply for everyone. Uh we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crunch. And so, we need to expand all opportunities possible for for renters, for rentals, and for ownership. On the short-term rental side, the city's done a lot of work to to curb those effects so that way long-term renters um can stay in the city and are not being taken away by uh by the by short-term rentals. Um so, so we have the short-term rental registry. Um which is I think Thomas, you probably know more than I do. [laughter] I'm not too familiar with our code of ordinances on short-term rental registries, but I think our cap is at 50 for for the number of short-term rentals. Unless it's owner occupied, then there's a certain caveat allowance. Um, but so we've addressed this the the main supply issue uh when it comes to short-term rentals through our short-term rental ordinance. um with the going so going back to this section as well. The commer the the conditional use aspect as drafted only applies to ADUs that are not uh conversions of unfinished uh parts of buildings, unfinished buildings. Um and it so it applies to any ADU that is built um to uh for a duplex a tri or a triplex. Um and even with that too it gets a little

problematic um just with all the statutory the historical statutory progressions that have happened with multi-unit dwellings. So first few years a so like few years ago back in like 2021 first uh the legislature said that you can't apply character of the area in considering uh multi-unit dwellings when it's allowed and then now they said that multi-unit dwellings have of up to four units have to be permitted um where all single unit dwellings are allowed. Right. So if you have water and sewer if you have water and sewer which means which and if it meets the the setback in

Yes. So in so we've kind of so we're kind of in that weird gray area legally I would say by by requiring conditional use review for multi-unit properties of up to four units anyways. Um and I think one piece that I always whenever I review this in order to be legally clear that I always cut out is the character of the area aspect just because I know statutoily that is a problem area. So, what I'm trying to get at is that in order to circumvent all of that [laughter] is to just allow for multi-unit dwellings of up to four units through site plan review, right? Which is allowed by statute. So, we can allow we can require site plan review for three-unit dwellings for four unit dwellings in residential districts. Um, and then to go beyond that to allow for more flexibility in size, scale, massing, and opportunities. Um what is part of the next part of this discussion is to allow for multiple principal structures of up to four units or four structures. Uh so that obiates um that whole legal gray area aspect of the conditional use review while also advancing creating more housing supply and more housing supply and more creative ways. That's the way I see it. So, back to the ADU. I I I like the idea personally of having it for single family single family dwellings only and let the multif family two, three, four, whatever. If they want to put another unit in, they got to go through I I don't know if it an administrative review. If it's if it's converting unfinished space or a garage or whatnot

into [clears throat] a unit, that's that's a administrative review. Yeah. If they if they want to convert a single family into a two family, then they have to go through whatever steps, call it a duplex. Yeah. Yeah. Or two to three, call it a triplex. Yeah. And what would be that process? Would it be to the DRB or would it be site plan? Would it be

properties with uh so so now that's gets into the latter part right so [laughter] so triplexes and quad so properties with um with any property with multiple principal structures so that's a house in the front house in the back uh a duplex in the front house in the back duplex in the front duplex in the back would all require DRB review as site plan review under the draft regulations unless it's priority housing and then it's no administrative review

only under specific circumstances. So, only for properties that are proposing up to four units and only if half of those units are offered for sale um affordable at 120% AMI uh and have three more three or more bedrooms. Okay. So ADU, [laughter] how do people feel about ADU? So if we took away if we made it just for single family,

one then two we're saying would still be an owner occupied situation. Two would be removed. Uh or actually no two would be for but yeah say two for two for an owner occupied situation. Three would be removed. That's correct. Are we are we talking about the former three which now I think is C. [laughter] Okay. Just confused. Sorry. I'm talking about deleting these two. So we'll just strike through through these two

and we'll keep this and then we'll add in that owner occupied caveat uh under two. Yes. Okay. Deleting these two.

Uh now for B the if you go up. Yes. Up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up right there. Mhm. We take out uh an ADU within or pertinent to A. Are we taking out two unit multif family unit? [clears throat] So that's what I was just talking about, right? So I think B needs to be revised a little bit so that way these permitted projects that aren't providing any changes uh to the site can be permitted, but maybe with the caveat that they have to be owner occupied. Those properties have to be owner occupied.

Yeah. So So maybe B is is eliminated and A is changed to um [clears throat] permitted You add single family. Yeah. Dwelling. Something like that. I'll rework it. Okay. Okay. Make it simpler. That's the key. Make these as simple as you can. It's a lot of work to make things simple. It is. [laughter] Yeah. I like what Mike said. That's pretty much what we're going for, right? I think so. Is everyone on board? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that way the ad the accessory part is still intact

because that's what we want. We want these buildings, these uses to be accessory. Yep. So John, Matt, Trevor, you're all okay with that? All right. Good. Okay. Good lord. Only only 40 minutes into this and we got [laughter] through and I thought this item would be straightforward. Well, we we basic we covered the allowances for ADU that are converting unfinished space, right? So, yeah. So, we've done three. Yep. So, PUDS I think is the next

that's the big one, right? So, that is the um that is the the change for multiple principal structures to be allowed under uh cyclone review. So I'll open up 4.18 and I think that one clearly lays out what I think we're here. So proposed land development

4. Oh, here we go. Okay. 18 page 25 at the bottom. 25 point at least on the I printed on 25. Okay. I Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Next time I can do like page numbers and a table of contents. Yeah.

Um Yeah. So under this uh allowance um so this shifts um the from the plan unit. So this shifts uh the multiple principal structures permitting process to site plan review for uh residential uses of up to four dwelling units and up to four principal structures in the residential districts. Um, so in terms of review criteria, it doesn't change much. It only changes the um the the permitting timeline. Uh, and it clarifies that a bit too that we're talking about for these types of projects, uh, a meeting with the DRB and then um their approval and then needing to sign off on it. Um, with PUD's, the way the language is set up, it's it's a little confusing on whether they're subdivisions or not. Um, so that's part of this cleanup process too is to clearly establish that PUDS are subdivisions and have to go through the subdivision review process. So multiple hearings, multiple meetings with the DRB. Um, if they are priority housing, they can they can skip one of the steps in that multiple hearing process. So instead of three meetings with the DRB, only two meetings with a DRB. um but they have to provide all of their application materials up front uh instead of in sequence like uh other PUD projects or subdivision projects have. Um so that's part of the incentive process and then all the incentives have been modified accordingly to this. So that way it allows for um create creativity and layout with this multiple principal structures uh shift so that way um the projects that we want to see going forward can be firmed with site plan review. So I had one very small sort of house cleaning thing on this which is and this wasn't in your package but under our

definitions um we have a definition for principal structure but there isn't a definition for multiple principal structure and the reason I got to that was because I was like okay it's it's just sort of an odd um you know you've added another kind of term I guess. Yeah. And the term multiple principle structures is sort of auximan, right? The princ how do you have principle implies the principle, right? So,

so I just wondered under our definition section and put that in or maybe instead of multiple here or in reference to multiple maybe I could put in can include more than one principal structure. Do you need to put principal in there right? uh multiple structures. That's yeah, that's kind of like like what I'm thinking about is let's say you have I don't know find this any four unit buildings that are all the same on one lot or whatever. There's not really any principal structure there. Right. Right. Why would you? Mine's principal, yours isn't.

Right. Well, the difference between the difference uh the dichotomy in the in the regulations are between principal and accessory. So, we don't want to confuse applicants who maybe want to put another shed next to their existing shed and then be confused like, oh, I now have three sheds. Do I have to go get site plan review? Um, when sheds are considered accessory structures. Um, so that's why there's that repeated reference of principal structures that it's a it's a building that houses um a a main use that a standalone use versus a shed that is um that h that depends on the the primary use for it to have that value. So it is it awkward if you said multiple commercial and or residential structures.

And maybe that doesn't address what you're saying. I don't know. I'm just thinking or or just write a definition for multiple principles. Yeah. Okay. You know, then you that's probably the simplest thing [laughter] because if someone's confused, you go to definition and you go, "Oh, that's what [clears throat] it means." as opposed to well no I don't know I think I I I can see the point of okay we do have a definition of principal structures so I can have more than one of what that is um

I I mean I I take the point about it's sort of odd to principle implies there's a principle one but I don't know that you you couldn't have multiple sort of equally important structures, right? Principal. What's our definition of principal structure again? A building or structure which contains the main or principal use of the lot on which said building on structure is located.

Yeah, that could cover like if you had four duplexes, I think that would all you know like that they would all meet that definition. Yeah, there's there needs to be also a slight revision to that definition too because it it says that uh multiple principal structures require site review and approval. So, sorry [laughter] did it's not even on your agenda tonight there. But anyway, I definitely appreciate it. Just one of those, you know, when I read through it, it just was kind of odd. So, nice.

Also, it might be I know there's multiple this is kind of like a hot topic these days. local cities and towns are trying to do a similar thing. They might have like a a basis for how that's defined potentially. I'm not sure, but I know a lot of places are trying to do something similar where they have multiple principal structures. Yeah, maybe they have a way that they figured it out that makes sense. Yeah, I can do some research on that. Um this definition that we have is fairly standard for principal structures but

princ maybe the multiple Yeah structures maybe there's a way that's figured out to make that make sense. Yeah. Mhm. So are you thinking you would put a definition of multiple principal structures or add something to that definition that says there may be more than one principal structure on a lot? Right. Right. because that I think that's kind of what yes that what the the having a definition for principal structure was about. It was like we we want to d have a dichotomy between a principal structure and an accessory

one and also this idea that we only want one principal structure which like I think we're saying no necessarily you know so yeah yeah I'll I'll revisit the definition of principal structure and rework it a bit so that A captures everything. So on this, so I'm reading this correctly. Num on B. So in [clears throat] the residential zones, up to four units get site plan approval. Five or more goes is a PUD.

Five or more would be it. Yeah. If it's priority housing, then yes. Um but five or more is not allow. Well, it's Oh, yeah. So, five or more. Yes. So, like you're talking about like five houses on one lot. Yeah. That would that would be or five units on one. Yeah. Yes. However, yes. Yes. Yes. All of that. Yes. Yeah. So, that's a PUB five house. Less than that is a site plan. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. And PUB is a little bit more intensive.

Uh yes. So, the review is more rigorous. [clears throat] Um multiple there'll be multiple meetings with the DRB. Um, and the application requirements are are a lot more thorough. Um, Jen's had a question for a while. Um, I think she she put in a in the chat, what are what's considered priority housing first? Jen, did you have any other questions? Sorry to take away your thunder, Mike. No, that was it. Thank you. Okay, Jen, because I can't really see and I don't look that much at the at the screen. Just jump in if you want. We're pretty informal here. Um, but yeah, priority housing. Oh, sorry, Jen. Yeah, I'm just saying thank you. Sorry.

It's okay. It's okay. So, priority housing um are a set of incentives that the city has in the zoning to advance the creation of affordable uh units with three or more bedrooms and also affordable uh dwellings with three or more bedrooms. Um to advance this um we've included incentives like additional lot coverage if you have affordable housing or housing that is family sized or affordable housing that is family sized. Um additional density if you provide for affordable housing that's familysized. Um, and then in one specific uh instance, if you provide housing for sale that is affordable and family size, then that could be reviewed and approved by me instead of the development review board.

We give you a lot of power. [laughter] Okay. Anything else on this? Moving right along. clarification within the subdivision review process. Okay, that was 18.

Uh yeah, so that's part of uh the PUD review. It's under 6.2 6.3. Um so so this would connect PUDS and subdivisions together. The subdivisions are PUD, the PUDS are subdivisions and go through that process. Um this would also clarify um which projects uh can be waved from preliminary uh subdivision review. Okay.

So this has been a huge question mark for the DRB when reviewing subdivisions. Um under the current language they are not sure in which instances they can grant flavors for preliminary subdivision review. So this sets up specific parameters for when they can wave uh that process.

What page are you on section? Uh on page uh 79, right? What section? Uh 6.2. 6.2. So page 79. You said nine. Not I I don't have all of the pages like you do, but it's under 6.2. Um, so let me ask you this because on on page 79. Yes. Yeah. On 6.2 [snorts] uh E it says modifications and waivers. And then 6.2 where you are. Mhm. Uh K.

Yes. It says waiver. And I didn't I didn't tell you be honest. I didn't read E to see if it's consistent with K and why there's two waiverss areas in there. Yeah, that's a great question. Um, so I stay up all night thinking of these questions. [laughter] you can do it till I'm

um so that's a that's also another question for that the DRVs raised too is um so under E1 then the the modification or waiver of a standard um was very unclear on what could be modified or waved. So applicants have asked them to wave uh permit processes um such as preliminary subdivision review. Um and so this part I tweaked a little bit so that way it's only from only a waiver from the standards that are listed under 6.2H uh and not a waiver from any process fees. Mhm.

Um and then uh the the waiver under uh 6 point under on page 79 uh it only applies to preliminary subdivision review uh for that permit process. Okay. Why would they want to wave their review? It's easier. The the preliminary subdivision review.

Yeah. It's a bit cumbersome for smaller projects. So like if you're looking to do a two lot subdivision, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for you to go through three meetings with the DRB just to draw a line with no changes, no improvements, no buildings being proposed. um for for projects that are specifically for projects that are smaller in scope that aren't making any improvements or smaller in scope in which the applicants know exactly what they want like a house in the back or a duplex in the back. Going through a that elongated process doesn't result in a different product. Um you're you're just going to see the same product three times over the course of six months. Um, so you're not creating new housing supply and you're just adding more to the cost at the end of the day. Um, so that's that's one one reason why they would want to we would want to wave those types of projects forward. Um, is to uh move advance the projects that there aren't any municipal impacts or little to no municipal impacts. Um, and the DRB clearly knows what the parameters of the projects are and the project is pretty minor in scope. So, they'd just be waving the first of the three meetings.

So, they would still have sketch plan, which is an informal uh pre-application meeting uh with uh with the DRB. Uh and then they would have final plan. So, sketch plan, they come in, DRB looks at it and says, "Okay, you're going to want to do this, this, this, this, or it looks good." Yeah. Exactly. So, at sketch plan, they determine whether the waiver should is granted or not. Can I ask which is a little bit embarrassing but it's like subdivision 101. So what is subdivision? Does that mean it becomes two different owned piece of property or just means that people are putting two uses on the property?

Not necessarily. It it really at its very basic level it's really just drawing lines in the sand. So, somebody wants to just draw a line on their property in order to create two new lots. Um, that that new piece of property, they could sell it to someone, they could give it to Habitat, they could build another house on it and rent it out and own it as a So, it does in a way it does separate ownership even though the same owner owns both properties. Not necessarily. They could just own it all in common ownership and just have, you know, one as a rental and one as a as their own house. It creates two separate parcels.

It's multiple. You're you're creating a new at least one new. It's like this is my lot and I go sell it and you can sell it and you can sell it. Four of them. You can sell quarter of them. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, didn't mean to. No, it's a it's a good question. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I feel like subdivision colloally a lot of times it's like it's like a new culde-sac or something, but that's not means at all really.

Yeah. Yeah. And here recently, I've only really reviewed small subdivisions, right? So, like two lot subdivisions. Someone has a house in the in the front. They want to build a house in the back. They put they draw a line in so that way they can have that house in the back, maybe sell the front or create another lot in in in a in a similar fashion in order to sell off that lot. Well, you've got the one on Maso Street that was in the the stuff you sent us creating a separate lot. Yes.

And so for that project um at Sketch, we had engineered drawings. We knew exactly what was going to happen. The the impacts were little to none. They're not creating any new structures. Um I'm assuming the property owner just wants to sell that lot to someone else. So and they will build the house. So when that happens, we'll then review the house that's going to be built there uh under with with the building permit application. Um

so what's the advantage or disadvantage? I don't know if this is the topic of conversation, but to have a subdivision versus a you know four multiple structures. I mean does within zoning does that change radically? No, in zoning it doesn't really matter um to it. It matters on the financing side. I think Mike you might be able to talk more about this. I know that c that certain property owners prefer to have a separate lot so that way they can get financing construction financing for building on that vacant lot compared to building an additional house on the back. Essentially creates additional income for because they can sell the lot. Yeah. Yeah,

you know, for now what's a lot in Wookuski or any place go for used to be 15 grand [laughter] now not so much but anyway. Okay. Anyway, I don't mean to take too much time on that but I do have a a a question that may be a little off topic but it's related to U 6.2F H4 A what number? Page 73. Just look at the screen. [laughter] 73.

Yeah, it's talking about residential zoning districts. And the fourth line down um is talking about uh third line down. Lots and building envelopes shall be sized and located to maint maintain consistent building line and street scapes along the road and to maintain privacy in the rear. And I'm wondering why not side, you know, from the neighbors the sides too. and and specifically I refer to a recently constructed building that has garnered a lot of conversation. Um

Mhm. So, I mean, we want to we want privacy from the rear, but don't we also want to make sure that there's privacy from the neighbors or for the neighbors that don't infringe on on the neighbors? And I was just wondering if we can add that language and and also I was looking at when we get to landscaping. Isn't there a requirement to to put landscaping on your side yard or if not there should be fencing or something?

Yeah, I mean we can definitely include that into this section for settlement patterns. Um, for the landscaping part, landscaping gets interesting just because our standards are pretty uh I would say are pretty uh weak and minor. So, it just simply says landscaping you you have to have a landscaped yard in the in the side and rear. It doesn't specify to what degree that should be landscaped. And to me, I think we should have the privacy rear and side so that you're protecting the neighbors. Yep. This is just I mean this section though it's just descriptive, right? Like it's not it doesn't really have force.

No. So it's not that I think it's a bad idea. Like I just not sure it's going to do anything. I mean if you want to add a landscaping that's Yeah. And I mean that's what we're going to be talking about later, right? Depending on time, right? Well, [laughter] later in our project of but I would think if it's in here the intent is privacy from the rear and the side so that the DRB can look at that and say well what's the intent the intent of the planning commission was it doesn't hurt them to have that information I would add it

yeah I [clears throat] mean it doesn't hurt to add that information but it also we also don't want to mislead the public as well too because with these types of purpose statements um they they really don't have that much regulatory weight. They are to inform the DRB on its decision-m and the public on both the intent of the district, but the standards are what are have the regulatory weight at the end of the day.

So, I think that's that's a balance to consider as well is um how much uh language do we want to put in there and what is um what are we trying to convey with that language? to me simply protecting, you know, not infringing on neighbors. I mean, whether I mean, my neighborhood, our lots are 99 ft deep. So, I mean, I'm close to my backyard neighbor and and I wave to Chris when she's doing the dishes and I'm at the sink, [laughter] you know. So, I don't know. Yeah. I mean, we'll back it up with actual code so it doesn't

Yeah. being in the narrative too is I don't see a concept. So if we go back to 6.2 to the red section that we started on. Um 67. Yeah.

The one comment I had was in A2 or A. Yeah. A whatever whichever it is. Um the purpose of subdivision will have little to no impact on municip municipal services and the surrounding neighborhood. So what does no impact mean surrounding neighborhood? I mean I get it with the services. What does that mean?

Sort of like the manso would be a good example where they just it's a big lot. She subdivided it, but there's nothing being proposed on it. There's no impact to the neighborhood. But impact to the neighborhood is seems to be a little bit subjective. Yeah. What does impact mean? That's what Yeah. But I think that leaving some subjectivity to the DRB is not necessarily a bad thing. Yeah. But I guess the question is, do they need guidance? I think and what we because that was what they've been asking for, right?

Yeah. I think for that um I think the intent of that is who showed up for the meeting. Um so for uh for Manso uh for the sketch uh sketch plan meeting, no no neighbors showed up. Um for another subdivision as well, um that's very similar. two lots subdivision um duplex in the front house in the back neighbors did show up but they mainly just wanted to learn about the project um they didn't feel that there was any impact uh on the surrounding area by the project so uh I think that that piece is there on I think it's a very open and subjective and vague piece that it it leans on whether on who shows up and whe and what their concerns are about the proposed subdivision Well, I don't know. I think impact is it's supposed to be an objective term, right?

Like I don't The impact is the impact regardless of whether neighbors raise raise it or not. You know, you know what I mean? Yeah. Does it make sense to throw things in like tra increased traffic or congestion or I mean concerned about defining it and then limiting them to those things by defining it? [snorts]

I I mean the other if we want to speak more objectively we could just remove this the and the surrounding neighborhood piece because the municipal services aspect covers all of infrastructure. I mean, is this something that you would take back to them and say, "Does this work for you, this change?" Typically, no. No. It just gives them the opportunity that they don't have right now to wave that first review. That's all it's doing, right? It's they don't have So, yeah, they don't have a way to do it. This is just the standards that allow them to choose to wave a part of the review, right? Yeah. So, they don't have to wave it. They don't have to. And it's just part of the review. Yeah. Yep. So I I would leave impact the neighborhood in.

Yeah, they they can m I think what's what's the worst that happens? Maybe they they define that too broadly and don't grant the waiver that much. Yeah. I don't think that's that big a deal. Yeah.

Okay. Any other comments about this? All right. signage. Your favorite, Revy.

Oh, my favorite. Um, so I've included some uh some basic uh language, potential language for signage for us to consider for the public district. Again, it matches it very much matches um the C1 just as a starting point that you have a a primary that you're allowed a primary sign and a secondary sign. Um the primary sign is 40 square feet. Secondary sign is 15 square feet. Um sign any sign on street level establishment must be 8 ft above sidewalk. Types of permitted signs uh other permissible signs. Uh and then portable signs. Um so in essence this would allow for say like the Myers pool to have signage for the pool and then signage for this for the snack bar. So question for you [clears throat] under uh 4 A you've got primary signs are an establishment major sign um and then you've got afterwards later down uh um secondary to secondary signs used to indicate secondary alter alternate entrance or egress to a commercial to a commercial establishment.

Mhm. We're in a public area. I don't know if there's a if there's a definition of establishment because I'm wondering park is included here. Mhm. Right. Yeah. So, is there a definition for establishment? Um, I don't think so. And a part of me hopes not because that can get really flawed. [laughter] Well, I'm hoping not either because I mean, we're talking about public basically private properties that includes parks and whatnot.

And so, should that be clarified that you could put a sign up like they you could put a sign up for the Gilbrook? Yeah. Okay. So, maybe just remove commercial. Well, from the from the secondary part from the first one, primary signage to identify the public facility. I don't [laughter] where are we? Can you We're on Wait, 414. 414. 414. So, we're back up to this. Okay. Sorry. What I pronounced starts on this page.

[laughter] every single one in the lower section. Oh my goodness. [laughter] This is what I pointed out like that. Oh, you know what? Oh, wait a minute. [laughter] I'm sorry. It's uh Yeah. 4:14. 414. I'm so sorry. [laughter] And I'm on like the second to last You've already gone through the whole thing. Okay, I think I took note on the permanent on permanent. I'm on J4. So, how did the pool get a sign up? If it wasn't Okay, I think that is a fantastic question. I think Billy Noral did it when he was there.

Yeah, someone stood out. [laughter] Stop me. Jeff Myers when he was on the city council. Yeah, that's right. You notice I did that before I was involved [laughter] and before you too, Tom. Yes. So anyway, on that section, just to to make sure it's clear that it's for parks and wherever because that's what it's supposed to be for, right? Just parks and stuff. Well, parks and it could be a building. City owned stuff. Yeah, city own. Okay. Well, is there any public that's not cityowned? Um, like the school maybe. Yeah, the school. Yeah. Well,

I don't think that sign. No, not public. No. Yeah, other than the school. Yeah. Anyway, on that subject, what is the public district technically? Pull up the map. The map. Yeah. Okay. There's several on the table on the map. I actually brought [laughter] the map this time. Are we getting punchy? I see the P. You're having too much fun. Yeah, I have it. I have it open here actually. So, there's three. It's Rich. Uh, so Gilbrook, Back to School, and Landry. That's it. [snorts] Okay.

Okay. And the size size of the sign was fine. So, 40 foot square. All of Cavan is in the C1 zone. I thought we talked about changing that. No. Yeah. Oh, maybe I'm the one that So, every time I tried to change that, Mike, you're like, "No, don't do it. Don't change it." We could change the island, though. Yeah. Can we change? They used to have They used to have a horse track on that. Back in town. Apparently, the river [laughter] was dry. That's what happened to it. But then that lady got stuck out there. Oh, I didn't hear about that. [laughter] Did you have to rescue Thomas? Yeah. No, I wasn't there. Christine in her in her canoe. What else? [laughter] Yep. Okay. Okay.

That's fine. And that's So, City Hall is not in a It's not in a public. Okay. No, it's in Gateway. Yeah. I I remember that it'll get redeveloped one day. Well, there was conversation about that, right? Yep. Anyway, so 40 square feet is basically 5 by8 more or less, right? pretty small. It's not that big. I mean, [clears throat] you know, you're changing the shape of it, but yeah, I've talked to Ray uh Ray Coffee and Paul Sarn about this uh about their thoughts about signage for our parks, and they haven't had a they don't have anything to change at the moment with our signage. Um

Paul has this ambitious idea to to do more like more wayfinding planning. Um but we just have to find the time of day to to do it in the money. So, uh, I think when we get to that point, we'll probably have more discussions about what we want to maybe include in the public district and also what signage requirements do we need for our our public properties. So, here's a really off-the-wall question because I'm just thinking about this. Public property are right ofways considered public and this refers to zoning, but I I guess that's just going over the top a little bit too far.

Yeah. Cuz because rightways are typically not considered part of any zoning, right, anywhere. Yeah. Um it's kind of in it's in the public realm. Uh whatever signage that we need to put in there, that's allowed uh not only in our zoning but by statute uh for for traffic safety. Um so they wouldn't they wouldn't be impacted by our signage regulations unless it's um you offsite. Um they are we can set limits to to to size if it's not uh like a in the manual. more.

Yeah, if it's not in the manual of uniform traffic control devices, then we can set size limitations. Um, so but and and they usually follow the size limitations of what's allowed in the district typically. So this doesn't really help us with casan and um memorial and other Richard's park like this is not applicable to those parks. No. And so can they get signs too? So they can actually because the C2 allows for signage. Uh the uh industrial industrial industrial district allows for signage. Does residential

residential allows for for small signs. Yeah. Uh gateway allows for signs but in uh a very specific way. So Richard's Park can't is not allowed a freestanding sign even though it's residential. Uh oh. Richard's Park. Yes. Yeah. The original park sparks can't I'm talking about the sorry the pocket park over here with the tank that park. No with the tank. No talking about the one right here. It used to be called Smith Park. I don't know if it still is. Yeah. I always get them mixed up but Richard's park is a lot of sign but small No, right there in the corner in front of four quarters. Main and west. Yeah. Four quarters or the pumpkins. Where there Yeah. There's a weird shed or something. [laughter]

Oh, it's gone. It's turned into Yeah. Sally Sally's thing that was Smith part for president [laughter] or bank of whatever it was savings bank. Okay. Yeah. But yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um yeah, Richard is also more interesting just because of the deed restriction on structures. Um so signage freeze chaining signs would would fall under that. So yeah, we've got a few can't golf those kind of things. All right, I think we're good with signage in the public district. How about you want to do alignment of affordable housing definition with standards of inclusionary zoning?

I'm hoping to be really quick with this. Um, yeah. So, this is I I I don't want to I just want to limit this uh review to the top part of 5 uh 14, which is uh with affordable housing. Um it it's currently set for uh at 100% AMI. This would shift to best practices for um owner occupied housing to be set at 120% AMI and rentals to be set at 80% AMI. Um this would match up with inclusionary housing. This would better align with the rent with the rents that we do that are in the city on average. Um so it's uh yeah, that's that's pretty much it. That was the 1,200.

Yeah, that was the 1200. Okay. 57 to seems fine. I just I can't remember why we did 100. Um, was it the missing middle? Yeah, I think I just Yeah, something vaguely is like I feel like I have a memory. We we didn't want it to be too low

basically because we didn't we we wanted to like not disincentivize development too much. I I think I you know I could easily be wrong about that but um this matches our inclusionary and ordinance stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the the 120 for a owner occupied would get at this idea of like not wanting it to be too too low. Yeah.

So, I do have a question and I'm trying to find the exact section because as I was reading this Oh, yeah. Well, on on 514C1A, I think Abby or someone already brought up you've got 1,200%. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, revise it accordingly.

I'm sorry, I can't find it now, but it seemed like under the affordable housing, didn't I read that it was in some place here was talking about um, both owner occupied and in the same paragraph, uh, rental, but now I can't find it. So, maybe I was maybe I was I was dreaming. I don't know. So the current uh regulations combine them as owner occupied and rental set at 100% AMI. Um this new definition splits it. So owner occupied is at 120% and rental is at 80%. Right.

I'll have to find what I was reading anyway. That's fine if it's split. I I was just my question was I thought I read where it had both of them in the same paragraph like No, I couldn't I couldn't figure out h how to keep them together. Even with the current definitions, it's like it kind of jumps a bit. Rent owner occupied rent owner occupied rents owner occupied. So, in my mind, I was just naturally inclined to to split them. Yeah. And then what's the edit that you added um under subdivision on that same page? Uh on the same page

as well as do you mind if I come back in two minutes and get my charger? Oh gosh. Yeah. Like what was the benefit of adding that to subdivision that So Mike, when Ry comes back, Jen has a question. Oh, yeah. Thanks. There's always hope for the last.

Sorry, too ambitious. Got it. Um, so we have a we have a question. Jen,

hi. Yeah, sorry I put it in the chat. I'm gonna try to chime in. Um, I'm just curious when you're talking about the affordable housing, uh, 80% of AMI for renting and 120% for owner occupied. How does that compare to percentages across the state and more in county? Is it higher, lower, or average? So 80 by definition from HUD is considered to be the threshold for low income. That's what they how they would define it as. Um and then once you get down to fair market rent and 60 and below, you get into very low income. Uh how that compares in terms of numbers. Um hold on one second. If I may, and this might answer your question partially, Jen, the the AMI is for this metro area as defined by like federal regulations essentially. So,

look at this. the area median income for the Burlington South Burlington area would be I don't know comparable to Chitten County I I would think maybe a little bit higher.

Yeah. So see here I prepared this slide deck for the DRB to help them understand all the differences and I pulled this table from DHFA on rent rates and uh housing prices. So 80% um is a in Chinden Franklin Grandal counties as um as Brandon noted um that is uh set for a three-bedroom unit at 80% is two is about 2,000 uh per month. Um and then with a and then at 100 and then so a three-bedroom house uh within those three counties um at 120% AMI is at 491,500.

Thanks. I was just asking in relationship to the I think there's a comment about um you know wanting it to be make sure it was still accessible for development and I just from a from an inclusion lens just thinking about the relationship between development but also accessibility for for needing housing and just looking at these numbers like I know that they are average for now but I just can't quite understand anybody toward these but just wanting to you know balance out the need for more housing with the need for actually being able access to housing. Yeah. Yeah. It the numbers really speak in the abstract, but kind of connecting it back to the community. Um, our rents on average are between 80 to 100% AMI, which is actually on the lower end for Chitten County, um, as a whole. Um, so it's it keeps in line with the with the affordability and based on the research Jasmine and I had done, it it still allows for development to to go forward. um and um while also increasing accessibility to to housing opportunities.

Great. Thank you, [clears throat]

Revy. I have a question on um e incentives under plan unit developments. Um what would it be? A a IV it says uh projects develop under this provision you get a bonus up to um a total lot coverage of not more than 65%. Mhm. Then when you go to um number four administrative review it allows up to 75% law coverage. Why is there a difference?

That is an excellent question that I don't have an answer for. because I wasn't here when these regulations were drafted. Um, that's what you say all the time. [laughter] But you but I think you [clears throat] drafted the administrative review because that wasn't in here when we when Eric left. No, I I haven't I haven't touched this until now. You haven't touched this at all? Yeah. How did administrative review fall out of the pud then? Because we had developed everything around the planet development. Yeah. I I yeah I I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I brought it up. Why is there a difference? And I don't think because I remember talking about going to 65% but not 75%.

Yeah. And I don't remember the administrative review piece at all. Yeah. Well, I I don't either. But that doesn't say anything. [laughter] Yeah. You've been around for a long time. I remember having the conversation. Yeah. But what the outcome was, I'm not sure. Yeah. I'm not either. But did we even ever put it forward. Well, I guess we must have. It's It's here. Whether we approved it with our eyes closed or not, that's a different question. But, uh, now, personally, I think it should be 65%. That was the incentive we gave people. And I don't remember the 75% lot coverage. Um, let's see.

Go back to the tapes. Okay. Yeah, I'll go back to the tapes, but I I mean uh you know, speaking in terms of best practices, I think this is a this is actually a really great section just because it it advances the creation of affordable housing supply and housing for sale. Um so I would I would keep it, but um adjusting the numbers to 65% I think would be fine as well. I think they need to be consistent. Yeah. you know, I don't because I don't think you can have one for a PUD approval and one for an administrative approval. And actually, actually, if you have different numbers, the PUD should have a greater

than the administrative because that's going through more of a public process. Yeah, I think the 65 for the administrative would be better. Yeah. So, there's also this allowance too for projects that are um all uh familysized affordable housing under um E 1B that allows for 75% law coverage. Yeah, this this is what I was remembering when I heard 75 was like I think you got to do you got to do both, right? It's got to be affordable and threebedroom, all of it. Now you can get 75 cuz you're like, "Okay,

that's that's what I remember." Yeah, that's what I remember, too. You had to do quite a bit to be able to cover that. Let's give it a shot. Yeah. Kind of right. That's what I remember. I do not remember this 75% administrative review. Yeah, the 75 was defin It was definitely like um connected just to it had nothing to do with administrative or not. It was it was all about what what are you building? That's what it was connected to. And it was connected to 100%. We were like, "Wow, if we can get 100% of these to be threebedroom affordable, then yeah, 75% lots like okay with." I don't think we were thinking about administrative or not administrative.

But this administrative, that's why Rebby, I thought you put this because I don't remember. Um, the administrative covers every every district outside like you don't have to be a PUD. So all you have to do is do 40 50% and sort of my what I was trying to talk to Revy about before was in the in these small lots like the lot we got on Franklin like it was a single family home like affordable home. It's like an old home and it got tore down and without this it would have probably been a duplex or a triplex just cuz it's a like a a small lot and that's what you can build on it. And um we were really targeting like trying to combat these like huge studio expensive studiobroo apartments or one-bedroom apartments and trying to get developers to consider familysiz housing when they're putting in and affordable housing when they're putting in these big developments. Not really trying to get that person in a little lot to do one more unit. So to give them 75% and administrative review for maybe getting one more unit out of that lot seems like a lot. Saying a lot lot. So I would say either 65% maybe would be a way to kind of level that.

Yeah. And the and the or get rid of administrative review. Well I don't know if you get rid of administrative review but put it 65%. And and so if

yeah because that as Brendan was saying that we talked about if you've got all percent you go to 75%. So yeah, well you need to maintain the incentive to do all threebedroom plus affordable, right? Like there has to be a gap, right? Otherwise, they're not they won't do that.

With a lot coverage too, you have to balance out whether you want to allow for more lot coverage or maybe reduce that that lot coverage limitation and then reduce some other way that they would like parking. So that way they can cover more of the the lot with the building to accommodate the geometry of three three-bedroom units. Uh which is I know a bit of a of an uneasy compromise to consider. Yeah.

So where we talked about the 75% if you go to 100% priority housing where is that in here? So that is under the page before. Uh yeah. So under um what was it? E one B. E1B. Mhm. Right there. Yep. 7.75 right here. Oh, okay. Well, that's for residential B. Be eligible for an additional Oh, no. This is Sorry. Density.

Oh, here we go. Yeah, under V. I guess it says total lots not more than 75%. Projects we're 100%. Okay. Yeah. So I think I think in the administrative review side dropped that to 65% because we give the 75% to the to the 100% priority housing. That's my next quick question. Clear my question.

Absolutely. Is there um sorry I'm in the dark my motion detector turn the light off anyway um is there a reason that we're concerned about lock coverage other than just sort of the having like a differential um to provide an incentive. So, is there a reason that 65 versus 75 or 75 versus 80? Um, is there like a limit that we're trying to cap things at or um

I think we when we were talking about this, we wanted to cap it at 75% and give that just for the 100% of uh priority housing. And so that's I think that's the the difference between the 65% and 75% is just a little bit more incentive if you're going to do all priority housing. and we have 100% lock coverage um in other districts. So, it's sort of the way our districts are set up is we have um 100% lock coverage in our like gateways and core and commercial and then we have RA, RV and RC and those set up are set up to be RA is the least dense and RC is the most dense. It's like a transitional district. And so the conversation around lot coverage is we're really talking about for residential districts and sort of right now they're 50% lot coverage. So how much more lot coverage do you want to get them? And by doing that, what are you asking and making sure it's related?

Which also raises a good question here too is [clears throat] whether you would want to allow for what's here only in the RC and RV districts. So that way you still maintain that transition element um as the core moves outward uh instead of in all the all the residential districts because the the 75% lot coverage it it allows for that transitional element between 100% lock coverage that's allowed in um the the C1 um practically really 85% lock coverage in the gateway 85 to 90% lot coverage in the gateway and then there's no real other transitional aspect to to it in terms of density and intensity. So 75 would be that immediate next step in between the gateway and the rest of the residential districts. So maybe instead of reducing the standards in this case, maybe it's um in the RC district it's at 75% and then it steps down accordingly. So that way you maintain the uh the scale and intensity throughout the districts but it's at an incremental fashion that matches the district and matches the form if that makes sense.

I think it would make sense to have con I know you don't like the context sensitivity that's like all throughout our plan but I think that that would kind of flow with what we were trying to do with the RA BRC which ultimately provides that diversity of housing that we're all trying to get at. Yeah. So, you're saying go to 75 in the RC, 70 in the RD, 65 in the RV, Oh, 65 in 55 or something. Yeah, 55 isn't really much of an incentive at that point. Well, those are the biggest lots. So, it is it is something. It's not insignificant. Depends on the lot.

You could do that. I don't think you have my lot and an RA 55% coverage would greatly expand what I currently have there. Yeah, you could do like a ton everywhere, but it would be significant if I increase my house. You could do like 75 70 maybe you could do up to 60 in the RN. Yeah. Again, again having 100% priority housing as you see what I'm saying? Yeah. because that because again part of what we're talking about here is like [clears throat] you we want there to be an incentive to build the priority housing, right?

Yeah. I think I think in order for this to work out a little bit better, I think it's and I mean we I only have two two like uh two data points to even refer back to. So it's kind of weird that we're manipulating this already when we haven't really seen that much that many projects that have taken advantage of this at all. Um, so I I really I really really wouldn't touch it until I have more data points in order to to see whether it's working or not. Um, but I would still suggest because we're talking about the the um incentive here that we were talking about earlier was for 50 at least 50% affordable, right? Yeah.

Make that 65% both in the administrative review and in the PUD, right? And if it's 100% well it can be 75 as is in that. You follow what I'm saying? Yes. Because I think you want you're talking about incentives. There's no incentive for me to build 100% um priority housing if I get the same lot coverage if I build 50%. Yeah. Which we've talked about that before. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The carrot has to be a carrot. Yeah. Yeah.

So then instead of doing the tiered by district, you just change 4 C to 65. Yes. That's what I'm suggesting. Yep. I think that's that's what to the extent we understood what we were doing, I think that's closer to what we intended. Yeah. because the administrative review is a big carrot there and it's not it doesn't exist anywhere else in our folks online understand what we're talking about. Is it clear? You don't. It's okay. [laughter] Yeah.

Yeah. With this piece too there, this is only going to be applicable in very very limited circumstances. Um, I mean, right now with the Armory as proposed, they're at about 60% law coverage. So, if they do, if you scale it down to 65, it's going to work for them. But, um, I think it'll be a question mark in the future of whether other projects that are all affordable, all three plusb units would be able to to be developed at at 65%. But the Yeah, but they would they would get 75. But they would get 75. I'm not following this properly. Yeah. Yeah.

Is there 100% affordable three bedroom? We want to I think le leaving aside the administrative not administrative piece. I think what what is important to us is like we want if you're building all priority housing, right, that we we're okay with the 75% law coverage, but we want there to be that should be like the trophy, right? You shouldn't get 75% lock coverage if you're not doing that, right? Like that Got it. There has to be a delta between that and

now I now I get it because there isn't this section isn't really congruent with the other sections. There has to be some changes to be made to make to match it. But at the same time, I'm also curious to see who even takes advantage of this. But that's besides the point. [laughter] It's there that they can, right? Yeah, they could armory could have Okay. Yeah. So, the change is what was it? 4D on section uh 5.14 65 6.14 5.14. Yeah. 4 4 D. Got that right? I think I did.

We'll correct you if you didn't. Yeah, of course. [laughter] We have to remember it. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's the key. Okay. Given the fact that it's 82 or so, uh we're running late. You warned me, Revy, and I didn't believe you. Anyway, let's move on to uh city updates.

Yeah. Yeah. So, what do I got? Um Armory is next week. So, I included the public hearing notice in your packets that way you're aware of it. Um so, that's happening here 6:30. Join online or come in person. Uh, let's see. What else am I working on? EV charging is almost done. So, we're wrapping up that project. Hopefully, you're going to be done with that project at the end of the year at thereabouts. Um, oh, I totally forgot I included a whole like planning and zoning update, I [laughter] think. Right. Yeah. So, I can actually refer to that. Um, so that is um let me just pull that up. Uh, I have actually talking points for once. Um so in terms of uh current planning in addition to what I was talking about I've uh in last year I issued 39 zoning permits 70 permits required DRV review. Total amount of housing units uh permitted were 116 but

what was the second number you said? Uh seven of the 39 required DRB review. DRB review. Yeah. Um total number of permits issued for housing units is 116. Um 83 of those are for the Winni Falls housing project. So um as of uh last week I've received um 27 zoning permit applications. Most of them vast majority of them have been for administrative

small projects. We've only approved 11 [clears throat] dwelling units at this point. No priority housing or inclusionary housing projects as of yet. Um the seven of those 11 are for a um main street project that's uh under construction right now at the corner of Maine and Le Fountain. They ripped down the house. That house Yeah, that house went down quick. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. A big hole. [laughter] Yeah. Up on the hill there. Yep. Yeah, I live on. So, yeah, I was Yeah, that house went down in like an instant so fast. It was really old. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was like, did they even get approval for that? Like, this is crazy. Yeah,

they did. They started They got by me. They started digging. They started digging the street sign the closing table [laughter] just took it down. Tipped it over, right? Yeah. No, it was I mean, it was Yeah, it was kind of already tipping. I don't know how much work they had to do on it. Oh yeah. San Diego East with the mudslide. What are they putting there?

Uh seven units. So ground floor commercial, seven units above. Um and one I think one unit on the ground floor as well in the back. Um it's going to be uh from what I'm aware of the first modular multi-family housing project. Um, so a lot of So they're actually bringing Yeah, they're bringing the the housing in boxes pretty much and just stacking them. Uh, no nails, just a little glue. [laughter] So, has anything been built for sale? Um, no. Aren't the Franklin Street ones? They must be for sale. Yeah, they're not completed yet.

No. Right. But yeah. So, um, the [clears throat] one So, at 12, two out of the three are for sale. At 8, which they're about to start, um, two out of the four will be for sale. Yeah. Um, yeah. No, not not really. Um, yeah. Uh, yeah, this this year has been a lot slower compared to past years looking at permitting records in terms of how um, dwelling is permitted, but this was nice to have it be. I mean, I appreciate getting this information and to put more on your plate. If we could get it something like that every month, that'd be great. Yeah. [clears throat]

Yeah. I I kind of have like an internal calendar to do this every few months. Um, and then I sometimes lose track, but then it pops up again. A quarterly type thing I think would be good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. with those with those metrics like how many are for sale and how many are three plus bedroom and how many are affordable. Yeah. Yeah. Zero. And knowing what's on the on the on the block too, you know, projects that are coming in. Yes. Projects you have permitted or are in the permitting process. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh so armory um and then your project your discussions um other long range planning projects. So with comp plan update, I've talked to a few commissions already. Um next month I'm going to talk to DRB, safe, healthy connected and inclusion and belonging. Uh compile all those notes, come back to you at some point uh so we can talk further about the comprehensive plan. Um

and then as mentioned EV charging planning um is wrapping up and then infill housing campaign. So, I'm working, Jasmine and I are working with uh my colleagues, our colleagues in Essex Junction, Burlington, and South Burlington on a public campaign to inform community members about info housing development opportunities in our city in the cities. So, it's a it's a basic what is this and what does this mean? Uh and and what is and what can be what can you do on your property? Essentially, uh we're trying to keep it in a at a very um introductory level. uh plain spoken level just to um get more information out about uh the the housing opportunities that can be built in our cities. Um as all three cities are a bit ahead of the curve compared to us in terms of residential housing allowances. Um they allow for multiple principal structures. Um, administratively, um, they allow for, uh, multi-unit, residential, up to four four units administratively. Um, but we can still, uh, I think advertise our priority housing uh, incentives just because that's something that we have that they don't have. Um, that does allow for for expanded uh, housing opportunities. Um,

we have just a lot less land to deal to deal with, too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh yeah. So, we're in the planning phase. Um we're going to have a series of events to to inform community members and we're going to have events across all four cities. Uh and we're expecting to start that sometime in the spring. Gary, you were going to get us last time um some information about how much housing the state was wanting us to try to create. um or the housing targets. Yeah, it's it's on the CCRPC website. Yep. Yeah. If you want to look at it.

Mhm. [clears throat] Yeah. And I'm going to bring it up again probably in the in the next couple months with the with the uh comprehensive plan because those housing targets have to be included in our comp plan. Great. Jen, anything you want to fill us in with? Say that again. anything you want to uh update us on? Um if you don't that's fine. Yeah, nothing nothing of nothing important. So um just some internal conversations but yeah thank you Thomas. Mr. Mayor,

um I don't really have anything. So I just got back from Hawaii yesterday and caught up. So, um I arrived and attended the Wooki school district and city joint meeting yesterday. Um which was it's always nice to get together with the school board. Um as you probably imagine, their main focus is um keeping up to date and advocating Wookski's position on the legislaturator's plans um of new financing and possible redistricting and things like that. Um they put out a statement today actually that I think you can see on their social media. Um our plan as a council is to kind of align with what they're saying in in those terms and my advocacy in the state house. I plan to try to go to the state house as much as I can this um legislative session uh to testify and just also to informally talk with um legislators who have influence in the the school the school redistricting conversation um outside of just um those who represent Wooki. Um but yeah, not not much for you all.

Okay, great. I have one thing I want to I want to bring up and um I think I'm thinking that as we get as we're delving into this meeting once a month, we come in and we we kind of rehash things because we forget stuff. How do people feel about going to two meetings starting in January until we get through this, until we get the comprehensive plan just so we can get through the stuff we have to get through and have it relatively fresh? Well, you young folks, it'll be fresh in your mind, but uh relatively fresh. So, probably January and February anyway have two meetings each month. Um, maybe March. Hopefully we be over the hump by that time.

I think it would be helpful while we get through this really thick content. Two winter months. Someone's [snorts] awful quiet over here. [laughter] It's not his favorite thing. No. No. I I mean, no. I just when it's just temporary. No. Um, no. It's just like you got kid duty. Yeah. like you just have like a 2-year-old and I mean I do a running group on Thursday nights and work is really busy and uh you know I I like once a month at this stage but who are you kidding you're going to run once January and Friday [laughter] you know if it's like

over 20 yeah um so I can't I can't say I'm like super excited about it. But I mean, I'm just I think I'm comfortable putting this out there now. My my term is up in June and I'm thinking that'll probably be it. So sucking it up to do hard before you're gone. You know, before I go, you know, it's probably doable. So yeah. How about you all up on the screen?

I'm pretty busy these days, but I probably could do two a month every single I would probably miss one or two potentially, but I can try to make to be honest. Okay, Matt. Yeah, if you all feel it's necessary. Yeah. Can Yeah. Okay, Trevor.

I'm hearing [clears throat] a big yes or an awful lot of quiet. [laughter] There you go. He just unmuted. Yeah. And just to clarify too, we're only thinking about doing it for like January and February, not for ever. Yeah. Not forever. Just So, we're adding a couple of two meetings two more meetings. Just to kind of get over the hump. Okay. Yeah. I have a project that finishes in February, so that's partially why I'm saying that, but that's fine. Okay. Yeah. I mean I mean, how does it work if we can't all be here all the time? We just need a quorum. We just need a four three of us. Can we be aware if we don't get a I mean if we don't get the bulk of us here that we need to be a little more communicative to the people who weren't here or something like that.

You see it in the minutes. They're so you know Yeah, there's the minutes. Yeah. Okay. Any other business from anyone? Rey's ready to go. Look at him. So am I. Reie didn't get to chime in. I wonder if he was all right with this. [laughter] kind of like, okay, I don't know if I can keep up, but okay, do my best. There [laughter] you go. You actually have to have less on the, you know, if there's no other business, I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. So moved. So moved by Abby. Is there a second? Brendan, all in favor?

I. Anyone opposed? I wouldn't think so. [laughter] Thanks, everyone. Have a great Thanksgiving.