►
From YouTube: Winooski Planning Commission - December 8, 2022
Description
00:00:00 Call to Order
00:00:19 Changes to the Agenda
00:01:00 Public Comment
00:02:58 Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
00:04:47 Continued Discussion on Article IV – Sections 4.1 through 4.12
01:22:37 City Updates
01:51:18 Other Business
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
D
G
Hi
I
just
wanted
to
you
could
get
a
I
would
comment
in
support
of
revising
the
parking
minimums
that
are
the
post
changes
to
party
minimums
that
are
outlined
and
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
consider.
You
know,
in
terms
of,
for
the
purposes
of
you
know,
increasing
affordability,
engineering,
climate
goals
to
follow
conditions.
A
G
F
G
Just
asked
you
to
consider
you
know
significantly
reducing
parking
requirements
and
when
you
speak
to
enable
more
political
development
patterns,
smaller
apartment
sizes,
things
that
to
reduce
missions,
I'm
busting,
Rock
mode,
chair
and
I'd.
Ask
you
to
consider,
following
all
the
recommendations
from
the
chimney,
County
Regional
Planning
Commission
parking
study
that
was
conducted
earlier
this
year
around
reducing
residential
parking
requirements
thanks.
Okay,
thank.
F
A
A
F
A
D
Yep,
thank
you
very
much.
I
know
Sarah.
You
had
wanted
to
so
sorry.
Let
me
just
back
up
a
step.
So
at
our
last
meeting
we
were
we
started
our
discussion
on
parking
in
section
4.12
Sarah
reached
out
to
to
want
to
briefly
revisit
the
incentives
in
under
the
design
review
section.
So
Sarah
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
go
back
to
that
now
or
if
you
still
wanted
to
to
revisit
that.
At
this
point,.
A
I
had
a
conversation
with
Sarah
and
one
with
Eric
as
well
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
revisit
maybe
briefly
section
4.4
yeah
the
design
renew
and
the
incentives
and
talk
about
keeping
the
design
review
language
in
as
a
as
it
presently
exists,
rather
than
striking
it
and
putting
the
incentives
into
an
appropriate
area
and
I
think
it's
five
point.
My
right.
C
G
A
Is
the
design
review
area
I
suggest?
Let's
leave
that
in
as
currently
written
we
can.
We
can
come
back
to
it
at
some
later
point
to
to
revise
and
edit
it
or
whatever
we
might
want
to
do,
but
for
now
leave
it
in
there
and
Eric.
Maybe
you
can
let
the
rest
of
the
Planning
Commission
know
your
I
think
you
had
a
conversation
with
the
attorney
yeah.
D
D
We
don't
really
have
a
mechanism
for
design
review,
there's
no
design
review
District,
that's
a
this
is
a
carryover
from
a
previous
version
of
the
regulations.
So
the
initial
thought
was
to
to
build
in
some
level
of
preservation.
Standard
was
to
create
some
incentives,
while
we
work
on
some
component
of
design,
review
or
other
preservation
Elements,
which
is
where
the
language
is,
the
the
new
language
proposed
is
coming
from.
D
After
a
conversation,
I
had
with
our
attorney
recently
about
another
issue,
I'm
more
inclined
to
leave
the
language
of
design
review
as
it
is
as
it's
written.
So
we
still
have
the
design
review
language
included
under
Section
4.4,
but
then
also
add
in
this
new
language,
for
the
incentives
for
adaptive
reuse
in
a
new
section
5.15,
so
in
essence,
we'd
be
keeping
what's
already
written,
even
though
it's
shown
as
a
strikeout.
D
Now
we
would
keep
all
that
language
as
it
is
not
not
change
that
at
all,
so
that
there
is
still
the
basis
for
a
design
review
component.
We
could
revisit
that
in
the
future
to
bolster
that
language
add
in
standards
for
design
review,
the
the
design
review
districts,
the
boards
other
things
that
we've
talked
about
previously,
but
then
also
add
in
the
section
5.15
for
the
the
incentives
for
adaptive.
Reuse.
D
That's
I
think
the
the
the
better
direction
to
go
in
at
this
point
so
that
we're
not
eliminating
everything
related
to
design
review,
and
we
have
nothing
in
place
at
least
right
now.
We
do
have
something,
so
we
would
continue
to
keep
that
so
there's
something
in
place.
While
we
work
on
new
language
for
design
review.
C
D
Yes,
so
the
incentive
language,
we
would
add
that
into
a
new
section
5.15.
As
you
recall,
the
incentives
we
did
for
priority
housing,
we
created
a
new
section
5.14,
so
it
would
follow
in
that
same
vein
of
incentives
being
included
in
article
5..
So
that
would
be
part
of
this
package
of
amendments
that
we
would
take
forward.
Really
in
essence,
what
we
would
do
is
take
forward.
My
intent
was
everything
from
section
4.1
through
4.12.
D
We
would
take
forward
as
a
package
of
amendments
to
council,
including
section
a
new
section
5.15
on
incentives
for
adaptive,
reuse
and
some
additional
language
on
sorry,
some
additional
definitions
to
to
make
sure
we
have
consistency
with
the
various
sections
of
of
the
various
language.
Sorry,
we
have
consistency
with
the
terms
used
in
4.1
through
4.12.
B
F
D
I
guess
that's!
The
question
is:
if
the
I
guess
one
I
would
ask
do
do
we
know
where
examples
of
that
exists
in
the
city
right
and
and
two?
If
so,
would
that's
fine
and
and
I
think
if
we
know
that
there
are
examples,
I
think
we
can
potentially
under
the
applicability
portion
here
we
can
rewrite
this
so
that
it
it
clarifies
that
if
the
if
there
is
an
accessory
structure
or
something
else
that
is
historically
significant,
that
would
be
the
context
of
what
we
wanted
to
to
preserve
yeah.
G
B
Are
often
times
like
complementary
structures
that
are
included
in
the
listing
right
and
they're,
probably
I
mean
I.
Don't
have
you
know
a
definitive
lifts
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
did
say
at
the
last
meeting
an
instance
of
it
where,
like
a
property,
that's
on
the
state
historic
register
where
they
had
a
pretty
large
Carriage
Barn
behind
the
house.
It's
now
used
as
like.
D
B
D
And
I
guess:
I
would
also
say
that
you
know
just
because
we're
moving
on
from
this
section
and
looking
at
at
412.
sorry
yeah
412.
We
will
come
back
and
and
review
everything
before
we
set
a
public
hearing
so
that
all
the
language
has
been
been
re-reviewed
and
there's
nothing
that
we
we
have
missed
or
overlooked
as
we
go
forward.
F
H
A
B
D
And
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
relation
later
under
City
updates.
Just
to
give
you
more
more
context
with
that,
I
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
get
into
that
now,
but
we'll
get
into
that
later
on.
So
thank
you.
Okay!
So
are
we
so
we're
good
to
move
on
to
parking?
Let
me
just
make
sure
okay,
so
I'm,
just
going
to
zip
ahead
here
in
the
document.
Real
quick
apologies
for
the
scrolling.
D
C
C
E
D
So
I
guess
I
would
say
in
my
experience
with
with
working
with
developers
here
in
the
city
since
I've
since
I've
been
here,
there
is
no
one
that
has
wanted
to
build
any
more
parking
than
they
absolutely
need
to,
and
in
fact
everybody
wants
to
wants
to
find
ways
to
build
less
so
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
any
areas
where
we're
putting
a
maximum
would
would
really
apply.
But
I
mean
it's
something
we
can
look
at.
It's
gonna
I
mean
it'll
need
we'll
need
to
do
some
additional
work
on
that.
D
If
we
do
want
to
install
maximums
just
because
each
use
will
be
different,
so
it's
not
like
we
could.
Although
we
could
also
say
you
know
that
they
can't
exceed
a
certain
percentage
of
the
required
parking,
the
minimum
required
as
a
maximum,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
foresee
anybody
trying
to
build
more
than
they
need
to
just
because
it's
costly
and
there's
not
a
ton
of
land
in
the
city,
but
yeah
I
mean
we
can
look
at
that.
If
you
want
to
incorporate
a
maximum
a
maximum
cap
on
parking.
A
I
personally
am
comfortable
with
without
it
in
there,
but
I'm
one
of
seven
so
I
mean
we
can
we
can?
Let's,
let's
talk
about
it
because
I'm
not
it's
kind
of
a
foreign
concept
to
me,
but
just
for
the
fact
that
I
agree
well
that
you're,
saying
Eric
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
it's
necessarily
applicable
in.
A
D
So
if
we
want
to,
if
we
want
to
go
in
that
direction,
that
way
we're
not
looking
at
individual
uses
and
saying
well,
this
residential
use,
you
can
only
have
six
spaces,
even
though
you've
got
room
to
put
in
10
and
that
would
accommodate
all
the
units
you
have.
You
know
I,
you
know
it's.
It
can
be
tricky
to
get
to
that
number.
So
I
can
I
can
look
at
the
numbers
a
bit
and
see
if
there's
a
way
to
to
establish
maybe
a
percentage
of
maximum.
D
A
C
Well,
you
know
what
I
said
last
time.
My
fear
was
just
that
you
get
a
a
drugstore
or
a
one
of
the
chains.
They
do.
The
chains
do
put
those
more
parking
in
that
they
than
they
know
they
need.
Is
it
possible
that
in
the
future,
something
happens
that
we
there
is
property
that
some
sort
of
chain
we
want
to
do
that
I?
Don't
know
I'm
just
being
extra
cautious
about
the
future,
more
than
nobody's
ever
done
it
before.
Do
you
know
what
I'm
saying.
A
And
I
guess
when
I
think
about
that,
it's
like
well
I
mean
again:
that's
you
know,
that's
their
decision
and
if
that's
what
they
want
to
use
the
the
the
land
for
I
mean
if
they
do
in
the
Gateway.
We
have
provision
it's
going
to
be
in
the
back
anyway,
so
it's
not
going
to
be
seen
right.
So
that's
what
they
want
to
do.
D
G
B
B
D
B
C
H
That's
fair
I,
don't
know
yeah
I
and
then
just
for
again
some
validation
for
you,
Sarah
I
can
see
the
need
to
minimize
impervious
surfaces
for
storm
Runner
runoff
that
all
would
have
to
be
managed
by
our
Wastewater
system.
That's
non-point,
Source
water.
That
has
to
be
managed
and
treated
I.
Think
about
the
the
canopy.
The
urban
canopy
need
for
Green
Space
things.
F
H
That
that
could
be
a
factor,
so
you
know
I
I
appreciate
the
question
that
you're
raising
Sarah
and
Mike
the
creative
thought
behind
you
know
if
there
is
an
increase,
a
desire
in
having
over
the
minimum,
then
perhaps
having
drb.
Consider
that
as
well
so
I
think
it's
fair
not
to
limit
it
in
the
ordinance.
B
I
D
H
A
A
I
And
what
I
don't
understand
what
I
have
Amy,
because
she
had
done
the
drb
but
Eric
I
know
you
oversee
both
she
had
sort
of
indicated
that
the
drb
review,
isn't
they
don't
really
have
much
power
to
review
anything,
that's
not
like
stated
in
some
standard.
So
how
would
they?
If
we
sent
this
off
to
review
to
the
drv
for
review?
How
would
they
be
able
to
yay
or
nay
something
like
that?
Yeah.
D
That's
a
good
question.
It
may
be
that
we
could
look
to
like
the
conditional
use
standards
as
far
as
what
would
be
the
their
standard
of
review,
but
yeah
you're
right.
There
needs
to
be
some
level
some
standard
of
review
for
the
for
the
drb
to
follow
in
that
instance.
So
it
may
be
that
anything
above
that
percentage
would
would
trigger
review
by
the
drb
and
and
they
would
need
to
follow
a
standard
review
for
similar
to
conditional
use
or
something
else.
D
I
mean
I
think
the
intent
that
we
have
in
our
parking
standards
already
May
cover
that
okay,
so
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
to
have
a
new,
an
additional
intent,
but
we
could
potentially
add
to
this
to
say
something
like
to
reduce
impervious
cover
or
you
know,
provide
additional
Green
Space
or
something
along
those
lines
as
necessary.
But
I
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
to
add
more
language
under
the
intent
on
okay.
E
F
I
D
D
D
And
vibration
and
odor
and
things
of
that
nature,
so
it
may
be
that
some
of
those
could
work,
but
we
would
maybe
you
maybe
we
would
use
those
standards
to
create
an
additional
standard
for
parking
specific
review.
So
it's
not
really
a
conditional
use
review,
but
it
is
a
review
with
a
specific
standard
included.
D
A
C
D
Okay,
so
looking
at
the
table,
some
changes
that
that
were
made
since
our
last
meeting.
Let
me
just
get
my
other
sheet
from
last
meeting,
so
Assisted
Living.
We
changed
that
to
one
spaces
per
three
bed
or
1.0
spaces
per
three
beds
under
theater
and
entertainment.
We
included
the
language
of
the
the
square
footage
component.
If
no
seats
existed.
D
Under
Health
Care
Facility,
we
did
patient
bed
or
room
just
in
case
there's
one
or
the
other,
and
then
we
had
a
discussion
about
the
school
parking
and
so
I
did
reach
out.
I
didn't
reach
out
to
the
school
directly,
but
I
did
reach
out
to
the
architect
who
designed
the
school
just
because
I
thought
he
might
have
some
more
input
on
both
our
school
and
other
schools
in
general,
and
he.
D
Quite
a
quite
a
bit
of
really
good
information
on
this,
so
what
he
recommend
well
I
shouldn't
say
he
recommended
it,
but
what
we
talked
about
were
was
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about.
I'm.
Sorry
trying
to
find.
My
other
notes
is
that
and
I
didn't
realize
this,
but
with
the
primary
schools
there's
often
time
while
there's,
while
it's
children
that
aren't
driving,
there's,
often
potentially
three
or
four
adults
that
are
in
the
room
as
well
for
the
instructional
space.
D
So
when
you
get
into
like
the
first
through
fifth
grade
you're
looking
at
you
know,
oftentimes
two
or
three
adults
in
the
room
and
then
when
you
get
into
the
high
school
in
middle
school,
it's
usually
just
one
teacher
per
classroom
at
that
point.
So
but
then
there's
also
other
staff
and
what
not
going
on
so.
D
So
what
I
was
thinking
is
we
may
and
looking
at
what
the
school
has
currently
and
what
they
proposed
there.
So,
the
previous
school,
before
the
Redevelopment
I,
believe,
had
around
200
to
225
spaces
on
site.
They
were
proposing
275
spaces
with
the
Redevelopment,
so
that
would
be
so
at
three
spaces.
Sorry,
they
have
86
instructional
spaces
in
the
in
the
new
school
total,
so
at
three
spaces
per
instructional,
three
parking
spaces
per
instructional
space
that
would
that
would
come
out
to
258
spaces.
D
If
we
did
three
and
a
half
that
would
be
301
spaces,
if
we
did
four
that'd
be
344
parking
spaces,
so
I
was
thinking
somewhere
in
the
I
was
thinking
at
three
spaces.
Three
parking
spaces
per
classroom
for
primary
and
secondary,
putting
those
on
the
same
line
and
then
changing
the
the
line
of
secondary
school
to
higher
education
at
six
spaces
per
per
classroom
did.
D
Which
so
as
you're
ramping
down
the
number
of
teachers
and
instructional
aides
in
the
classroom?
You
are
kind
of
increasing
the
number
of
of
students
that
are
driving
I,
don't
know
what
our
current
enrollment
is
at
the
high
school
of
of
students
that
are
of
driving
age
and
how
many
of
them
actually
drive.
But
my
guess
is
a
majority
of
them
are
still
walking
if
they,
if
they
are
able
to
drive
but
I
I
have.
B
B
D
Right
exactly
so,
I
was
thinking.
We
changed
that
we
we
make
it
primary
and
secondary
schools
at
three
spaces
per
classroom
and
then
higher
education
at
six
spaces
per
classroom,
because
we
do
have
CCB
so
it
we
do,
have
higher
education
here
in
the
city,
but
the
three
spaces
per
classroom
at
least
given
winooski's
new
project
lands
us
kind
of
right
around
where
they
are
with
the
number
of
spaces
that
they
have.
G
D
D
D
B
C
D
D
D
That
was
more
of
a
case
because
we
didn't
have
a
standard.
Okay
at
that
when
they
came
in
for
their
application,
we
didn't
have
a
standard,
so
the
standard
I
was
looking
at
would
have
been
for
office,
so
they
would
have
had
to
do
four
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet,
which
would
have
been
like
I
think
five
or
six
hundred
parking
spaces,
which
they
definitely
did
not
need.
H
D
I
D
I
D
Sure
I
mean
well.
I
can
definitely
follow
up
to
see
if
he
can
give
me
a
break
out
of
that.
I
mean
I.
Think,
though,
if
we're
combining
the
primary
and
secondary
into
the
same
line
or
making
it
the
same
standard
of
parking,
it
I
think
I.
If
I'm
thinking
about
it
correctly
would
kind
of
just
it
would
be
a
wash
depending
on
it,
wouldn't
matter
if
it
was
primary
or
secondary,
because
it's
the
same
standard
but
I
I
might
not
be
thinking
about
that
correctly.
I
I
D
E
D
So
yeah,
that's
a
really
good
question
so
in
in
my
conversations
with
the
architect
he
did
in.
He
did
indicate
that
the
instructional
spaces
are
not
necessarily
just
traditional
classrooms,
so
it
could
be
some
sort
of
Art,
Studio
or
band
room,
or
something
like
that
that
they're
calling
instructional
spaces
yeah,
which
may
be
why
they're
using
the
term
instructional
space,
because
it's
it's
more
more
just
generic
than
a
classroom.
B
I
think
we
were
kind
of
talking
about
new
new
construction
versus
pre-existing,
but,
like
Saint
Francis
said
your
school
like
a
few
years
ago,
they
didn't
rebuild
the
school,
but
they
redesigned
their
parking
and
I
can't
remember
what
we
discussed.
If
they
did,
they
have
to
visit
that
office
standard
when
they
redesigned
that
yeah.
D
That's
a
good
question:
I
think
that
was
happening
right
as
I
was
starting,
so
I
don't
believe
they
did
have
to
to
revisit
it
because
they
weren't
adding
new
space.
They
were,
they
were
just
kind
of
reconfiguring
their
existing
parking
and
and
I
think
they
were
maybe
added
some
additional
parking,
but
I
I'm
not
entirely
sure
of
the
details
on
that.
B
D
A
C
C
D
B
B
Also,
just
the
thought
crosses
my
mind:
if
we're
talking
about
what
the
public
school
was
able
to
use
as
far
as
the
variants
that
they
were
granted,
does
that
kind
of
de
facto
make
it
best
practices
for
any
other
private
organization,
because
I
know
there's
some
subjectivity
there,
but
wouldn't
it
be,
like
you
know,
kind
of.
If
this
is
the
standard
that's
applied
to
the
Winooski
School
District,
you
know
if
your
Center
Point
School,
could
you
say
hey?
This
is
what
they
did.
D
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question,
I!
Think
if
I'm,
if
I,
remember
correctly
the
with
the
the
waiver
process
that
the
school
went
through,
they
had
identified
a
number
of
spaces
that
they
needed
and
could
accommodate
on
site
and
I.
Think
they
just
brought
that
number
forward,
because
there
was
no
standard
at
the
time
to
review
against
a
school
and
I
think
that
is
what
they
used
as
the
the
basis
of
review
for
getting
getting
that
waiver
to
the
parking
standards.
D
A
So
here
what
what
you're
suggesting,
if
I
heard
you
correctly,
is
we're
under
schools,
you'll,
make
schools
primary
and
secondary
three
spaces
per
institutional
space
or
whatever
the
heck.
We
call
it
and
then
you'll
have
school.
Higher
education
and
that'll
be
six
spaces
per
instructional
space.
That.
F
D
I
I
I
I
D
C
C
D
I
I
D
I
You'd
have
to
build:
if
it's
just
a
primary
school,
they
would
have
to
build
more
spaces
than
what's
proposed
currently
and
then,
if
it's
just
a
secondary
school,
they
would
have
to
build
less
spaces
than
what's
proposed.
So
there
is
some
implications
of
combining
them.
If
we
think
we'll
have
schools
that
are
K-12
right
right.
D
But
the
guidance,
or
at
least
the
information
that
I
got,
was
that
generally
those
Primary
School
classrooms
have
more
AIDS
or
other
teachers,
age
or
other
instructors
that
are
are
helping
out.
He
basically
said
that
at
the
Pre-K
level,
there's
usually
four
or
five
adults
in
a
classroom
of
15
to
20.
Kids
is
the
information
that
he
gave
to
me
so,
which
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
they
design
for
in
some
of
their
work.
D
B
Only
wondering
if
that's
excessive,
because
again
being
a
public
school
system,
there's
a
lot
of
different
needs
being
accommodated,
whereas
like
say
like
a
smaller,
more
intimate
educational
setting
that
maybe
wanted
to
open
up
in
wanushki
like
this
might
be
a
little
bit
restrictive
I.
Don't
that's
just
the
thought
that
crosses
but
I
also
like
I
just
mentioned
earlier,
I'm
kind
of
wondering
you
know
if
this
is
the
standard
that
the
Winooski
School
District
follows.
Should
the
others
have
to
follow
that
as
well?
So.
A
I
G
B
Is
this
ridiculous,
ridiculous
to
say
like?
Maybe
there
should
actually
be
an
asterisk
on
like
those
two
like
to
see
the
definition
because,
like
I
think
I
don't
know
if
I
was
like
a
developer,
proposing
an
elder
care
facility,
I,
wouldn't
necessarily
think
of
looking
for
a
daycare
facility
under
I
I,
don't
know
so.
D
For
assisted
living,
we
Define
that
as
a
state
licensed
facility
that
provides
rooms,
meals
and
personal
care
service
in
living
arrangements
designed
to
meet
the
needs
of
people
who
cannot
live
independently
and
usually
do
not
require
the
type
of
care
provided
in
a
nursing
home.
That's
how
we
Define
Assisted
Living.
C
D
B
A
A
F
A
D
A
Parking
capacity
and
if
you
know
if
you've
got
10
retailer
or
convert
first
level
commercial
spaces
and
you
give
them
a
reduction
in
Beyond
site
requirement
for
parking
because
you
you
say
you
can
use
five
speed,
Park
spaces.
Well,
are
we
over
overusing
those
over
to
the
describing
those
screen
spaces.
D
D
A
D
A
D
I
Jurisdictions
are
doing
again
to
kind
of
ground
some
of
the
stuff
and
I
look
at
Concord,
New
Hampshire,
and
they
may
have
just
as
comparison
they
have
for
their
Primary
School,
which
is
their
elementary
and
middle.
Two
spaces
per
classroom,
our
high
school
seven
spaces
per
classroom
and
they're
post-secondary
school
and
colleges
are
15
per
classroom.
F
I
I
A
D
A
D
A
B
I
I'm
just
I'm,
just
to
reiterate,
I
I,
think
we
know
that,
like
the
Winooski
school
district
has
kind
of
taken
care
of
in
this
regard,
we're
kind
of
thinking
about
I,
don't
know
my
from
my
perspective.
This
would
be
going
forward
for
other
potential
new
educational
facilities
coming
coming
into
University
sure.
D
And
I
think
it's
also
important
to
remember
that
these
are
just
the
minimums
that
we're
proposing.
So
this
would
be
the
minimum
number
of
spaces
that
are
needed.
People
can,
as
we've
talked,
we
have
no
maximum,
so
they
can
add
as
much
as
they
want
within
the
the
limitations
of
the
rest
of
our
regulations.
But
these
this
is
what
the
this
is,
the
minimum
that
we
would
require
that
they
do
and.
D
B
D
Okay,
all
right
so
moving
on
the
next
section
here,
I
believe
I
believe
the
language
that's
stricken
under
item
two
here
has
been
moved.
I,
don't
believe
this
is
a
get
rid
of
because
it's
in
green
I'm,
not
exactly
sure,
I,
think
it
was
it.
Some
of
it
was
rolled
into
Part
D
here
under
the
parking
adjustments
yeah,
so
some
of
it
was
rolled
into
Part
D,
some
of
it
I
believe
was
removed
for
clarification.
D
But
really
this
section
under
Part
D
is
where
we
get
into
some
of
these
adjustments
that
we've
been
talking
about
and
how
to
reduce
the
the
number
of
parking.
The
minimum
number
of
parking
that's
required,
currently
yep,
so
not
much
new
changing
here
under
d.
One
thing
that
has
come
up
I
was
contacted
by
one
of
the
property
owners
and
developers
in
town
about
the
shared
use
and
questioning.
D
If,
if
the
the
the
square
footage
number
here
was
too
high,
if
there'd
be
a
any
interest
in
potentially
considering
a
reduction
in
the
amount
of
non-residential
square
footage
that
could
be
shared
and
I,
don't
disagree,
that's
something
I've
been
thinking
about
as
well.
I
think
10
000
square
feet
of
non-residential
space
is
a
is
a
fairly
High
number
for
what
we've
seen
for
developments
and
I
guess
just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
some
of
the
Gateway
developments
that
have
been
built
recently.
D
The
348
Main
Street,
Juniors,
fodang
I,
believe
they've
got
about
6
400
square
feet
of
non-residential
on
their
first
floor,
355
Main
Street
at
the
corner
of
Bellevue
in
Maine
they've
got
about
1200
square
feet
of
non-residential
on
their
first
floor,
211
main
where
the
fusion
Cafe
and
Wicked
Wings
that's
about
that's
just
over
5
000
square
feet
of
non-residential
space.
On
that
first
floor,
the
10
manso
Street,
where
sarum's
Cafe
is
that's
about
1500
Suite
1500
square
feet
of
non-residential
space.
D
On
that
first
floor,
so
I
mean
we
are
seeing
a
non-residential
space,
we're
just
seeing
smaller
amounts.
So
I
don't
know
if,
if
what
url's
opinion
is
on
on
the
10
000
number,
it
seems
high
to
me
if
we're
looking
at
creating
areas
of
shared
use
where
we're
looking
at
a
non-residential
use
sharing
with
a
residential
use
or
even
the
non-residential
uses,
sharing
among
themselves,
which
I
believe
is
how
this
is
currently
written.
B
Well,
you
just
referenced
a
property
that
I
think
I've
asked
this
a
number
of
times,
but
you're
just
saying
that
you
hadn't
seen
an
instance
where
a
developer
had
built
parking
beyond
what
the
minimum
was
required
right
correct.
So
the
the
building
that
Juniors
is
in
on
upper
Main,
Street
I
forget
the
address
number
350.
D
D
D
C
Yeah,
what
is
that,
what
if
they
had
bought
that
property
and
just
left
it
that
way
are
we
did
that
what
I
mean
the
Juniors
building
honors?
Are
we
good
with
that?
In
other
words,
should
that
be
tied
to
the
to
the
buildings,
this
the
parking?
In
other
words,
can
you
just
buy
a
lot
and
make
a
big
parking
space,
not.
D
D
D
That
was
something
that
happened
right
as
I
had
just
started,
but
there
has
since
been
a
development
proposal
that
has
been
approved,
with
one
outstanding
condition
to
redevelop
that
site
at
what's
addressed
is
340
Main
Street,
okay,
when
that
gets
developed,
whatever
parking
is
associated
with
that
development
will
accommodate
what
the
the
needs
for
that
project
and
348
Main
Street
I
believe
has
all
the
parking
they
need
on
site
currently
to
accommodate
their
development.
I.
D
C
G
A
D
Other
thing
I
was
thinking
of
I
was
thinking
something
similar
Mike,
but
I
was
also
thinking
about.
Maybe
we
do
a
tiered
approach
or
we
could
do
a
tiered
approach
so
like
from
zero
to
two
thousand
square
feet,
you
get
a
certain
percentage
and
then
from
two
thousand
to
five
thousand,
you
get
another
percentage
and
then
so
on
and
so
on
up
to
ten
thousand,
so
that
so
that,
for
these
projects
that
are
building
these
smaller
commercial
spaces,
they
they
still
can
get
the
benefit
of
the
shared
parking.
D
D
B
D
A
A
B
A
A
D
I
I
I
Don't
know
like
classically,
yes,
like
residents
would
leave
during
the
day
and
then
they
would
return
in
the
evening,
but
we're
also
saying
Hey
Nobody's
driving
anymore,
a
bunch
of
people
aren't
you
know
driving
and
then
we're
also
saying
hey.
It's
all
working
is
real,
and
here
you
know
so
are
we
are
we
grounded
in
the
same
reality,
we
were
when
this
was
proposed.
Yeah.
D
I
mean
that's,
that's
a
good
point
as
well.
I
guess
to
to
the
to
the
point
of
the
incentive
and
I
I
do
I
I
do
believe,
Abby
that
you
are
correct,
that
it
was.
There
was
some
incentive
to
to
create
these
larger
non-residential
spaces.
With
that
said,
you
know
looking
at
the
the
Juniors
fodang
space
and
the
the
Wicked
Wings
Fusion
Cafe
spaces,
their
entire
first
floor
is
non-residential
and
they're,
not
they're,
not
getting
close
to
the
10
000..
D
So
again,
that's
just
an
example.
I
I
think
it's
just
a
reality
of
the
the
size
of
the
buildings
that
are
being
constructed
and
just
what?
What
available
land
is
there
to
to
put
anything
in
so
I'm
happy
leaving
in
a
10
000
square
feet?
I
just
just
wanted
to
just
get
some
insight
on
from
you
all,
if
that's
still
a
realistic
number
or
if
we
should
reduce
that
sum
to
to
be
able
to
encourage
more
shared
parking
on
sites.
H
H
D
That's
a
good
question:
yeah
I'm,
not
sure
I've
looked
at
that
in
any
in
any
detail
to
see
how
that
might
be
impacted.
I
would
guess
that
it
would
just
given
the
if
they
were
able
to
utilize
this
shared
use
provision
just
given
the
the
percentage
of
parking
that
would
be
allowed
to
be
shared
yeah,
but
I
that
that's
a
good
question.
H
You
know
optimizing
space
and
for
both
residential
units
and
for
commercial
retail
space
and
we're
encouraging
shared
use,
but
we're
also,
at
the
same
time,
agreeing
to
reduce
parking
minimums
all
right
like
how,
if
that
actually
would
really
work
out.
The
way
we
needed
to
for
the
shared
in
incentive
to
work.
F
D
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
D
E
I
Like
a
token,
throughout
a
lot
of
the
changes
we've
made
in
the
zoning
I'm,
always
thinking
about
like
how
a
developer
can
staff
can
stack
all
these
together
to
get
it
to
you
know,
to
get
to
a
parking
reduction
that
will
have
been
consequences
on
the
neighborhoods
around
it,
which
sort
of
is
where
an
assault.
This
conversation
started
way
back
when
so.
I
We're
reducing
the
parking
reduction
from
the
table,
and
then
we
have
parking
reductions
for
the
TDM.
You
know
incentives.
We
have
the
parking
reductions
potentially
with
shared
use
and
then
with
EV
charging
and
then
with
under
underground
parking
right.
So
I'm
like
I,
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
thinking
about
how
these
all
can
be
stacked
on
top
of
each
other
and
what
implications
that
could
have
for
a
property
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
surrounding
it,
because
I
think
a
lot
when
we
made
some
changes
in
the
manso
property
happened.
I
That
was
like
all
we
heard
about
for
a
long
time,
and
it
really
like
I,
think
sparked
reassessing
some
of
this
stuff
and
I
think
we're
making
some
really
good
moves
on
like
right,
sizing
things.
But
I,
don't
know
if
we're
fully
thinking
about
what
what
it
looks
like
if
incentives
are
stacked
upon
one
another,
because
there.
F
F
I
D
D
We're
enforcing,
where
we're
doing
resident
only
some
of
those
other
components
that
came
out
of
that
parking,
inventory,
analysis
and
management
plan,
so
I
think
I,
don't
think
it's
it's
exclusively
just
looking
at
minimum
parking
standards.
I
think
it
also
is
going
to
include
looking
at
the
management
of
our
of
our
existing
on
Street
facilities,
which
is
obviously
not
included
in
zoning,
but
is
a
part
of
the
conversation.
B
I
I
do
think
what
the
point
you
raised,
though,
with
the
10
000
square
feet
of
non-residential
gross
floor
area
I
mean
unless
that
is
in
fact
going
to
be
an
incentive
to
get
that
built
in.
It
does
seem
so
far
afield
from
what
the
average
is
that
it's
not
functional,
functional
I
can
see.
I
see
the
value
in
the
tiered
approach.
D
I
Yeah
and
I
and
I
think
about
the
building
is
in
and
under
the
current,
like
I,
don't
think
they
needed
the
shared
use
provision
to
work
for
them,
because
it's
pretty
minimal
their
parking
in
the
back
is
pretty
minimal.
Pretty
small
tiny
lot
back
there
surfing
that
building,
so
I,
don't
think
they
would
need
would
have
needs
needed
to
take
advantage
of
this
based
on
what
they're
already
required
to
do
and
how
little
that
is.
I
D
I
I
D
A
I
A
D
E
A
D
A
D
D
F
D
H
F
A
D
H
Months
now,
but
Council
just
had
our
first
meeting
to
review
the
budget
high
level
review
of
the
budget
on
Monday,
so
we
pretty
much
meet
almost
weekly
through
the
end
of
January,
barring
holidays
and
I'd,
say
as
much
as
you
can
just
to
encourage
you
to
follow
along
with
that
and
to
email,
myself
and
the
other
counselors.
Any
questions
that
you
have
I
know
that
the
slide
deck
can
be
pretty
dense
and
sometimes
hard
to
follow.
H
H
Your
input
really
will
help
move
the
direction
that
Council
ends
up
going
with
us
I
think,
namely
the
most
important
thing
is
if
the
city
keeps
a
level
funding
at
this
point
it,
the
tax
rate
could
increase
14
about
just
over
14
percent,
with
proposed
some
proposed
Cuts,
as
well
as
a
proposal
to
use
one-time
Bridge
funding,
essentially
arpa
funding.
That
would
bring
it
from
that
14
just
over
14
down
to
five
percent,
and
then
there
are
some
adjustments
that
could
be
made.
H
H
To
have
that
side-by-side
comparison
as
well
I
think
there
tends
to
be
some
confusion
in
the
community
as
to
how
much
the
city
has
influence
over
all
of
the
taxes.
So
this
you
know,
we
city
council,
only
has
control
over
the
city
taxes
and
not
the
school
side
of
things.
So
you
know
attending
school
board.
E
F
I
H
So
that
there's
a
slide
in
the
slide
deck
from
the
council
meeting
on
Monday,
it's
it
comes
one
point
of
confusion.
Is
that
it
won't.
The
file
won't
be
saved
as
a
DOT
PPT
it'll
be
saved
as
a
DOT
PDF,
which
you
know
is
no
surprise
to
many
of
you,
but
if
anybody's
watching
I've
already
had
some
of
that
confusion
of
where's.
H
So
there
is
a
slide
in
there
that
talks
about
the
Tiff
what's
already
what's
allocated,
what's
left
over
and
it
accounts
for
what
council
has
approved
for
allocations.
So
it
doesn't
talk
about
other
potential
intended
uses
on
that
slide
and
I.
Think
the
anticipation
is
the
Tiff
should
expire
in
fy25
and
any
any
arpa
funds
that
would
be
applied
for
fy24.
F
A
F
F
A
H
A
F
I
H
So
we're
progressing
through
through
that
and
basically
compiling
feedback,
as
as
those
meetings
occur,
I
would
anticipate
because
there's
no
urgency
so
the
way
the
council
and
City
staff
have
been
referring
to
arpa
funds
is
essentially
as
like
the
money
formally
known
as
arpa,
because
we
were
able
to
essentially
apply
that
money
to
the
general
fund.
Now
we
I
guess
this
past
year.
Now
that
money
is
more
for
the
most
part.
H
I
D
Initially,
initially,
the
arpa
funds
had
all
these
specific
requirements
of
how
they
could
be
spent
and
and
all
these
these
programmatic
requirements
and
then
eventually
over
time,
I
think
the
the
federal
government
just
kind
of
said
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
just
for
communities
our
size
or
smaller
communities.
They
basically
just
said
here's
some
money,
do
it
do
with
it?
What
you
need
to
do
with
it?
D
H
D
D
I
would
just
say:
yeah,
it's
still
moving
forward.
There's
it's
it's
slow,
but
it
is.
It
is
still
moving
forward.
I
haven't
been
too
involved
in
the
discussions,
just
because
I'll
be
the
permitting
entity
on
it.
So
I've
been
kind
of
been
kept
at
an
arm's
length
on
purpose,
but
but
yeah
it
is
still.
There
is
still
a
a
proposal.
Moving
forward,
7D.
D
So,
oh
sorry
did
you
have
any
more
okay,
so
updates
from
my
end
earlier
today,
a
some
some
information
went
out
to
our
to
the
business
Community
about
some
proposed
changes
to
our
sidewalk
use
regulations
in
the
city.
Currently
we
allow
for
businesses
to
request
use
of
the
sidewalks.
Any
business
in
the
city
can
do
this
request
use
of
the
city's
sidewalk
space
for
for
seasonal
activities.
Mostly
it's
been
happening
down
in
in
the
circle,
but
there
are
other
businesses
throughout
the
city
that
use
those.
D
So
we've
we've
been
having
some
staff
has
internally
been
having
some
discussions
and
some
concerns
about
how
that
space
is
used
and
just
getting
a
little
bit
better
handle
on
the
administration
and
review
of
those
applications
as
they
get
more
complicated
and
people
are
looking
for
more
space
and
wanting
to
push
the
boundaries
a
bit.
So
we
have
drafted
some
new
information
provided
that
out
to
the
business
community,
so
they
have
a
sense
of
what's
coming.
That
will
be
on
a
future
Council
agenda
after
the
budgets
for
sure.
D
D
So
that
is
one
of
the
other
things
we're
looking
at
is
so
there's
a
so,
for
example,
Water,
Works
and
also
McKees
are
they've
got
a
kind
of
a
different
scenario,
because
it's
not
really
sidewalk
per
se
as
much
as
it's
city
property.
So
we're
looking
at
what
we
should
do
as
far
as
some
sort
of
Licensing
agreement
or
leasing
agreement
for
for
in
instances
like
that.
So
but.
D
D
Another
item
to
update
you
all
on
is
you
may
remember
the
the
proposed
development
at
Main
and
Mansion
for
the
the
old
mansion
house
and
then
the
property
next
to
it.
November
19th
their
permit
expired,
so
they
there's
no
longer
a
development
proposal
that
has
a
valid
permit
for
that
project.
So
anything
they
want
to
do
on
that
site.
They
have
to
come
back
through
the
whole
process.
They
have
to
start
the
application
process
over
and
and
comply
with
our
current
regulations
that
are
in
place.
D
A
I
D
D
D
D
D
The
other
item
I
wanted
to
update
you
all
on,
and
this
alludes
back
to
what
Mike
had
mentioned
about
the
design
review
standards
and
why
the
interest
in
in
now
keeping
the
language
in
place,
we
did
receive
a
an
application
for
demolition
of
the
St
Stephen's
church
that
has
come
in.
There
is
still
an
outstanding
item
that
needs
to
be
included
with
that
application.
D
Before
we
can
com,
consider
it
a
complete
application
and
conduct
our
review,
because
it's
only
an
application
for
demolition,
it
will
fall
under
those
standards
of
design
reviews,
so
it
will
get
issued.
A
zoning
permit.
Presuming
everything
is
in
place.
It
will
get
issued
a
zoning
permit
which
carries
all
the
same
standards
as
any
other
zoning
permit
does
so
in
the
property
will
be
posted.
There
will
be
a
15-day
appeal
period
before
any.
Permit
will
be
issued
on
that
site
and
then
because
it's
demolition
there's
other
standards
that
they
need
to
follow
with
I.
D
Believe
it's
with
the
EPA
and
the
state
office
of
whatever
I.
Don't
I,
don't
remember
what
State
Environmental
office
it
is,
but
related
to
air
quality
and
and
kind
of
a
time
frame
for
when
any
action
can
occur
on
that
property.
So
still
more
to
come
on
that,
but
they
will
like
I
said
they
will
get
issued,
a
zoning
permit
or
sorry
presuming
everything
is
complete
and
they
provide
the
rest
of
the
documentation.
D
A
zoning
permit
would
be
issued
property
posted
rights
to
appeal
to
the
development
review
board,
like
any
other
zoning
permit
is
but,
like
I
said,
we
still
need
the
still
need.
The
environmental
report
on
that
I
did
reach
out
to
the
State
and
Division
of
historic
preservation,
because,
while
that
building
is
not
listed,
it
is
referenced
in
the
survey
for
the
rectory
building
and
the
state
basically
said
that.
That's
not
enough
of
a
connection
to
consider
it.
Historic.
D
The
property
owner
could
request
a
determination,
a
determination
of
eligibility,
in
which
case
that
would
put
in
some
other
standards.
If
it
is
determined
to
be
eligible,
it
would
kick
in
some
other
provisions
of
our
regulations
that
would
require
a
qualified
historic
preservation
consultant
to
make
a
determination
that
the
building
is
no
longer
contributing
or
eligible
for
listing.
If
they
did
not
make
that
finding.
If
they
said
it
is
still
eligible,
then
we
would
not
be
able
to
issue
a
zoning
permit
so
or
or
a
demolition
permit
for
that
matter
as
well.
I
D
That's
correct
as
far
as
the
listings,
in
the
National
and
in
the
state
Register
sorry,
the
the
rectory
building
is
listed,
but
the
church
building
is
not
when
the
survey
was
done.
It
was
either
the
church
building
was
either
not
quite
old
enough
to
be
eligible
or
was
just
barely
old
enough
to
be
eligible,
and
so
they
did
not
survey.
It.
I
D
Permit
they're
seeking
is
just
for
the
church
because
that's
as
far
as
I
understand
it
is
part
of
the
the
sale
agreement
is
that
the
church
needs
to
be
demolished
and
that's
actually
coming
from
Saint
Saint
Francis.
The
parish
is
saying
that
so
there
was
a
letter
that
came
along
with
the
application
that,
from
the
from
Saint
Francis,
basically
saying
we've
de-consecrated
the
church.
It
is
now
considered
a
vile
use,
as
as
as
Canon
canon
law
is
uses
that
term
vile
use.
It's
doesn't
mean
that
it's
somehow
v-I-l-e.
D
F
D
That's
I
believe
that's
correct
so
anyway,
so
that
is
it's.
We
have
the
application.
Like
I
said
it's
not
currently
complete.
We
still
need
the
environmental
assessment
on
the
lead
and
Asbestos
and
then,
as
I
mentioned,
it
would
go
through
because
it's
coming
in.
Oh
sorry,
this
is
what
I
meant
to
also
add,
because
it's
coming
in
as
just
a
demolition.
D
So
in
the
past
there's
a
little
bit
of
background
in
the
past
when
a
property
has
requested
demolition,
like
with
like
with
the
mansion
house,
like
with
the
property
at
hoods
Crossing
at
the
old
223,
East
Allen
Street
it
a
company,
it
was
accompanied
with
a
Redevelopment
proposal.
So
technically
on
our
regulations,
we
would
issue
a
zoning
permit
on
the
Demolition
and
on
we
would
issue,
we
would
issue
a
zoning
permit
on
the
Demolition
and
the
Redevelopment.
D
D
So
in
that
case
again
it
follows
the
same
standards
as
any
other
zoning
permit
does,
with
posting
appeals
Etc.
So
it's
it's
slightly
different
in
that
regard,
where
those
other
buildings
that
were
historic
in
nature,
received
a
review
from
the
state
with
a
memorandum
of
agreement
with
the
division
of
historic
preservation
on
how
to
mitigate
the
how
to
how
to
mitigate
the
the
demolition.
D
Basically,
in
this
case,
it's
there's
no
development
proposal,
so
it
it's
just
for
the
demolition
right
now
which
could
carry
some
adverse
consequences
when
they
go
to
redevelop
it's
what
they
call
anticipatory
demolition.
So
that
may
cause
some
issues
in
the
future
when
they,
when
and
if
they
do,
submit
a
proposal
for
redevelopment,
but
that
would
that
would
occur
at
the
state
and
potentially
Federal
level,
depending
on
what
they're
proposing
and
what
what
potential
funding
they
might
be
seeking.
D
D
B
D
I
D
D
You
know
there's
nothing
to
stop
somebody
from
appealing
the
the
permit
and-
and
you
know
going
through
that
process,
which
then
goes
to
the
development
review
board
for
for
their
hearing
and
then
potentially
that
decision
could
get
appealed
as
well.
So
it's
I
guess
it
depends
on.
It
depends
on
what
the
process
is.
We
I
mean
there's
a
process
in
place
going
forward,
but
demolition
is
not
a
prohibited
activity
in
in
the
city.
F
I
D
D
G
C
D
A
C
F
D
I
I
F
D
H
F
C
F
C
F
D
The
only
other
thing
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
so
we
this
is.
This
is
our
only
meeting
in
December,
so
we
will
resume
meeting
again
in
January,
so
our
next
meeting
would
be
January
12th,
the
second
second
Thursday
again,
we'll
be
hybrid,
and
actually
that
would
be
the
last
opportunity
so
starting
January
15th.
D
The
legislation
that
allowed
for
remote
only
meetings
expires.
So
we
will
have
to
go
back
to
hybrid
meetings
unless
the
legislature
re-ups
that
that
legislation,
so
January
12th,
will
be
our
next
meeting
and
unless
we
discuss
at
that
meeting,
otherwise
the
intent
anyway
was
to
go
back
to
two
meetings
a
month
in
January.
So
we
would
be
meeting
again
then
on
January,
26th
I
believe
so
that's
all
I
had
for
other
business.