 It is 6 30 p.m. Right any comments from the public not for items not on the agenda there's no one from the public here nobody on line either moving to the minutes for December 6th we have a motion to approve the meat the minutes some of any discussion on the minutes changes I need to be made I would make an addition that the tax rate increase that number six is around school taxes that might be someone in the minutes in the minutes it says here in number six page page three commissioner kind of spoke about this much and residents are concerned about the tax rate increase it's actually potential school well there's both there's a book there's that too but that was about school tax specifically you were talking about that okay is that amendments that you think should be made to the minutes yes okay do you have to redo your motion to approve no oh we haven't voted yet oh we just open it up for discussion yeah anything else all right so voting to approve the minutes of December 6 with the additions of clarifying the tax rate increase that they had mentioned all in favor aye aye all opposed motion passes to approve the minutes so we do have one attendee online now okay and one yeah we can move back now that we have members of the public if there's any comments from the public on items not on the agenda any online we can move forward to the business items then the land development code for science all right so as we talked about last time the land development codes sign regulations have to be amended to be contents neutral and there was discussion last month about how we would go about doing that whether or not we would tweak the existing rules to to try to fix it or just start over fresh from something that we know works it's like the consensus was said to go with starting to start with Burlington's sign regulations which we know have been have been amended for you to be content neutral so Jennifer has gone through the existing land development code and replaced you made a version with track changes on replaced the existing sign regulations with with the closest proxy of what's what Burlington's sign regulations are of course we with some adaptation because the rest of our land development code works a little bit differently but to a certain extent this is a technical exercise but there are you know there are real trade-offs to be you to be looked at as well so I think maybe the way to do this is I can go over the items or discussion that's that's I'd put on the memorandum these are what we thought were were the the issues that you know that that were worth discussing or at least like really understanding a bit more okay so you will see the first item here we have is a 714 j sign lighting the way Burlington's regulations are a little bit different from a 6 junctions old regulations and part of this was because we also had basically holiday lights and kind of see seasonal lighting and a string lighting put like within the sign regulations part of the LDC to me that didn't really make sense so this so in the draft we have put those back into the lighting section but we pretty much retained it we took out language about Christmas just you know this is a government's regulation you know we thought it should be a it should be neutral in terms of what holidays are celebrated there was something about illumination of building facades and landscaping that's that we we put back into we put into yeah we basically we put the yes the string lighting part of it into there instead of having it that regulated by science any questions reading through this the amended sign regulations my neighbor actively uses string lights light life it's back porch okay all your app mm-hmm so by this regulation he would not be able to do that tending right okay technically so I don't know a lot of businesses who use string lights if they have outside eating because it's very effective efficient way of lighting or an outside dining area today but now it's a little warmer like 30 but so I'm wondering you know yes the the light I agree with the holiday lightings and such going until January 15th I can understand that but wondering if we need to be we need to be a little more flexible in doing that especially with especially when it talks about that they're they want the body down line January 15 and I'm right now we're pretty darn lucky that we don't have like how many you know advice whatever our roots try to take something down while things are encumbered by the elements may not be so I think we really want to say have them down by the 15th or we want to say we don't want them lit after the 15th and people taking down as they can because I mean let's I think our regulations are such that we don't we don't want the lights lighting up somebody's side I mean I think that was the point in having the lighting in the signs but I can see the logic of having a smile I mean it's on but that was the purpose was not to have lights the lights to draw a page anymore so I mean that sounds like there are two issues over there there's there's a holiday lighting and you know requiring to not be lit after the 15th versus being taken down up I've no problem with adjusting that I think functionally there's also not on it's yeah well but I can't one we have today of course you could take yeah no I'm just reading and the general standards under the lighting section 704 and I just wonder if that exception thinking about your neighbor and certainly people do this all the time I mean the way it reads I feel like that would be allowed in somebody's backyard because it's not visible potentially not visible at the property line it's used for the purpose of illumination and not for advertising purposes and then the portion as it relates to holiday lighting is specific as it relates to intermittent lighting so I just wonder if it's already kind of in there street because they're lit it's very nice to see the light but so what I happen not that I don't think they're but that's my subjective and that's not with the right so I'm looking at the right package it's page 50 so I would say that I think the in terms of string lighting and whether or not the LDC is like already has you know already allows it in some cases yeah maybe it does but it I think there's a point that's like Diana the point that their string lighting is sometimes useful like for restaurants for you know even in places where you can see it from the public right-of-way yeah and I do that that is something that can be adjusted if you know if we think there's value in in key allowing flexibility for that as long as I was careful of what what you don't want to happen well that's what's going to have that discussion so I mean the other part is that we have dark sky compliant rules yes string lights are not and they are anything but right so so they would be out of compliance just from the get-go well I'm kind of curious now too because we have lights in front now they're going to come down we also have lights in the back porch which my wife wanted to keep up now if you can see the lights in the front obviously from the property line but you can also see the lights in the back from the property line if you look over the fence which is easy to do from the public complex back of us so I mean which which is an inconsistency because you can still see it from the property line just proposed a devil's advocate kind of because I was thinking of one too yeah the purpose of what this is here is that if as I see it one one purpose up that if some private residence lighting became too abrasive to somebody they would have the means to ask them to take it down it doesn't bother you you're not going to call City Hall and say hey these need to be taken down if they're sitting around they're not necessarily forcing this but it provides them a rule of thumb to say if it does become abrasive that here are the reasons why if we relax too much than anybody and everybody can put up whatever light they want next you know we're letting up all of Vermont with our little city that's a junction and there's nothing to stop anybody doing I don't have any objection to be more straight as opposed to the union because and so I don't mind that just I'm looking for the consistency here but the way you've explained it makes sense which is basically it's it's I wouldn't call it subjective but it's at the discretion of people who feel it's a loose and then it would give them a mode to which to say it needs to be taken down for these reasons otherwise stays off indefinitely and causes a nuisance so just a question here so somebody reported it then with somebody in your office or somebody else go out and say yes it's a nuisance please turn it off yes yes that way that is the way it goes and you know I think one way to think of it what I was at about this is that it could be different between commercial premises and a residential it's not such a big deal if someone complains and we tell someone to turn off their their string lights in their backyard but if it's a business with outdoor dining I guess they could always submit it as a part of their lighting plan but you know if they didn't do that and it's just some small business trying to innovate and do something that's that's cool but someone doesn't like it we are bound to have to tell them to to take it down unless the TA or the guidance provided to the business is you have next number of days to submit a lighting plan right for review right that would include string lights for approval and I guess if string lights are not allowed because they're not dark sky can plan and whatnot if there's no exception for that in the in the LDC even if they submitted that as a part of their lighting plan we'd have to say no so I do like technically I think Diane has a point here in that it is it could be problematic in a sense it is the way we've drafted it right now is like we haven't seen it kind of follows the principle it hasn't been a problem that has really popped up so we are rocking the boat right no and and it is it is a valid a good point I'm just anything to what point like if you start to relax and make it too lenient to remove things how far could somebody potentially go which is why I want to pose yeah and and say okay it's you know not that I suggest only wouldn't would disallow right the other hand is that if it was a business also we could say that as part of their business plan okay that the lights go on to time and close okay at the end of the day the light has to go off yeah so if you know if you close business at nine you know lights have to go off at nine right a commercial private split make sense in some some way it would make sense you know but you know I'm you guys haven't had the privilege of having someone talk about the the overlit skating rink in the backyard where the light was indeed going everywhere but you want that intensity make sense you're skating you know so I kind of looking going to strangle ice and but yeah unfortunately still I didn't exist and those would have been a natural um for that but you know to that don't think about the hockey I'm sorry to interrupt like could you put a time limit on it like we have with noise work yeah lighting or something to that effect right after a certain hour those lights in the backyard lighting the hockey rinky campion best in piano you know something I mean I mean I mean we could actually get string lights could be applied like that right that I guess a time limit could be applied to string lights just all together well I mean I could try to put we could so this is gonna be a bit of an iterated process I think where we'll make you know I think the discussion that comes from today will inform any tweaks that we have to do we'll also kind of go through again with a fine comb to check for technical and consistencies the coming month or months yeah so that and that perhaps that you know what I just heard could be enough for staff to proceed with throwing something on the wall and see if it sticks yeah yeah I've got a hundred sands or at least we've got something to store on right okay I didn't think it would be such a stimulating conversation I think it's a very interesting thing to you know we can get there and lightning okay next the next item I have on here in the memo is about awnings and canopy signs basically the key difference here between sx junctions existing sign regulations and Burlington sign regulations is that sx junctions rules regulate all awnings whether or not there's there there's text and logos on it versus Burlington sign regulations which only regulate the awnings with symbols and logos and then like separately they regulate awnings in another section given that it's that's just not the way our LDC works right now this draft just put the the the full awning regulation back into signs even though it's like a little bit out of place any issues with that okay re-standing signs so there are several things here several points of difference there's in Burlington's sign code it goes they differentiate between free standing sign and free standing yard sign I think the reason why they did that was so that they could have different size regulations based on zoning district as it stands right now as extensions regulations only as one category so I think yeah this do we have a regulation dealing with the free standing yard sign because I was looking at this and going I didn't I didn't go on to our online what our current code is go and see if there was actually something other than there I'm assuming that when you went through everything you were giving us the whole section so and I'm seeing the free standing yards I'm assuming it's the one that says something like yard sale it's not at my house or something or other that we don't that this isn't that isn't detailed here okay those are temporary sites that's it because the temporary side so and is it the assumption that in a residential area that there would be no free standing sign that so where where specific types of signs are allowed I think we will discuss that when we get to the chart because I think that's the central to the way Burlington sign regulations work is that chart that that shows each type of sign and where it's about yeah but only basically I think Jennifer points out just the difference differences in size regulations for this and also there's a there's a regulation about setback it's not a very big difference but by default we're going with the draft went with Burlington's so yeah any any issues with that so far and we will reserve the discussion about what types of signs are allowed where at the chart there's also a point here about how there you are existing sign regulations has a few extra caveats about free standing signs but we have not retained them and there's something about how businesses with drive-through facilities may have like some extra signs basically and service stations convenience stores for a bit and physical gas stations you know I can have a few more but yeah for simplicity we just went with like completely with Burlington's this front okay the next item here is projecting signs I think this one is kind of interesting in that projecting signs are are defined a little bit differently in Burlington they have they have something called a blade sign which is you know something around around this side it's basically our projecting signs that we allowed which is like this sticking out from the side of a building they call blade signs they basically allowed everywhere but they also have projecting signs which are big kind of like architectural features right they have pictures of what they're saying are projecting signs and I thought those signs signs that are stuck on the ground and they can be 10 to 12 feet tall okay are those not like big feathers are those are feather signs and those are temporary signs they're not projecting signs have to be stuck on the mounted on the wall permanently okay so that's not late all right yeah okay I'm just it's terminology is always a good thing it's nice to have these pictures yeah yeah and that's something I think is is neat about this you know going with Burlington's we just have pictures we might even be able to replace some of them with local examples we don't have all so but we don't have all the types so but I mean this this thing with what they call projecting signs they are they're currently basically not allowed up here they're much larger there they're kind of architectural features you know imagine a theater that has that has a vertical giant sign that sticks out do we have are there you know do you have any thoughts on on if that if it makes sense to just follow Burlington's route well okay so I was reading having as you've seen I've taken some notes that it appeared to me that the ostatiousness that Burlington has is not reflected here in the junction it things are signs are closer to the building they'll have they'll say eight or six inches away from the building as opposed to 12 inches from the building for max so I was thinking I was reading through this and going okay so this is what it's kind of got the feeling that there was more of a more of a it's like here's my sign versus here's my sign okay sort of a thing so I mean that's kind of like the context I was starting to get to feel as I was reading this and going you know as he's trying to say the signs there but I don't want you out there in front of my face whereas Burlington here with the Wilson in yeah okay that that definitely works it on the second story and you know when you're looking for something looking around going where's the end well there it is okay and you can find that sign here it's just a matter of how out there are you and whereas the nectar sign which of course is on the building supposed to you know like the Wilson sign there being so so I think there's several there if we wanted to stick with something that's close to what's the current rules are it would be just to say under these these new definitions no projecting signs at all but yes blade signs blade signs where are projecting signs I think there was some provision in there about projecting signs you're needing more of like a design review yeah I was gonna say that like could you include some sort of exception like what they're what's there is like good but then maybe some sort like that in exception can be made within the design review overlay so that because I think sometimes projecting signs architecture interesting yeah and like maybe we don't want to like necessarily push design away maybe if some if an architect has a really cool design for a sign that's gonna go you know in in the overlay district we want to see that I think and have the ability to say actually that would be really cool to have so we could say though projecting signs have required yeah be approval basically yeah under the design review as well and I could there they would only they would only be allowed in certain districts probably you know the districts with the highest densities and they're already in the design review over this is like yeah and that makes sense that that should be reviewed by the drb okay yeah so then having them split and separate makes sense okay differentiation within there uh chris we just go back to the standing signs real so the idea is that we're gonna go with the burlington regulation unless you have and unless you have other thoughts i'm just wondering if there was if there is any if it was looked into at all by staff on like what what that might change and i'm just thinking i'm just thinking of like the fairgrounds and like does that allow for a barger sign like what are the changes that this makes um 60 square feet is big right okay we can look into that i don't know like i don't know if like what that might change just just it would be interesting to know the effects of what or what i mean i think the fairgrounds is already that big yeah it might be yeah right that big because that that television screen there is is that's at least six feet by four so that's and i would say the fairground yeah that's good yeah that's true because remember the sign includes the base the whole thing so do they have three x of that yeah they probably do um but i don't think it's out of line with where where it is placed and how it's on the yeah i just wasn't sure if there was an idea of what might change because i would assume also because yeah you're right 60 square feet is not that big but also three x of what that is i assume the frontages of burlington are probably on average less than here and so there might there might be right so properties that could go bigger with their sign right like let's say post office square or you know the larger properties um it is yeah okay we can um we can look into this uh do a little more analysis on freestanding signs and what adopting the straight up adopting burlington's might have on the larger properties or even maybe just coming out seeing and figuring out yeah some of the larger signs that we have like the three largest but what are those sizes so we get an idea yeah we actually have have information on that on file because they they've had to submit permits uh get permits so the next uh item here is just wall signs so what's different over here we have you know there's some technical differences in size restrictions uh we also have a point about how in the village center district you can have an internally lit or neon window sign that's an open sign really um we try to uh we try to address this under the window sign section of the draft amendments by allowing pretty much um yeah like anywhere like as a window sign you can also have that open sign uh you like I guess this might be worth discussion on whether or not that should be allowed everywhere or or only in the village center district as functionally that's that's where it's allowed right now okay any comments or questions about that this is the wall wall signs yeah yeah um does this include painted wall signs like a mural or yeah there's actually another there's a point where they're down about murals and murals are allowed um under Burlington's rules and I think we'd copy that over into the draft uh and they defined murals in a very specific way you can like you can't have lights pointing at it and stuff like that um but the wall sign could also be a commercial advertisement right the wall sign could be and and that's why their size mural could also be a commercial I think they made it so you could not and for some reason they didn't think that was uh that was an issue with content neutrality but presumably they've thought about it we can also ask her you know when we get to that part it's uh uh yeah we should we should take a look at that I think I think it was further down I mean one of the examples for Burlington was a uvm wall sign that was painted looked like yeah there's an example a picture of uvm's logo on a wall right I mean could you do that here for example um that's I am I mean we had intended to in this draft just copy over the entire wall sign section so presumably yes uh what do you have thoughts about whether that should be allowed no I'm just asking I mean there are there are several buildings on the main street for example that have walls I mean obviously there are windows and stuff there as well the other side of the street there's a couple there you know you could fix you could paint something on that wall I'm just wondering if that would be allowed it's also coming back to some of the comments a lot of you had well art or community art I'm just trying to get a sense of how it's good well so I mean I can't tell you with certainty that so whether or not you know without without really reviewing it but I could use I mean it would be useful to have any feedback but whether or not you think it should be allowed um what you know what the considerations are not that are buildings where you could actually do it well okay the section where the UVM land catamount and so the v is on page uh in our 14 214 or or in the our documents 26 and it's talking about the calculation sign area it's supposed to but that one I mean is that one painted or that one's that one's painted on the brick is it yeah that one's painted on the brick and they're trying to you're using these examples to calculate square footage it's taking it's supposed to whereas when you get down to it's uh all sides in the in the examples um it's more of like Phoenix books how can we imagine I mean it does say on page I think it's in our page 42 or 230 in the regulations a wall sign may not be painted on walls made of previously unpainted stone or brick so to me that says a wall sign could be painted it could be I mean we have yeah we if it was designed that way it's right yeah I mean we have a lot of brick buildings a lot of brick buildings but could there be places um you know but the question from Scott was that it was that a wall that if a wall sign could be a painted sign as well right yeah yeah so I'm reading that it could be a painted sign okay uh so is that okay any issues about that all right so that don't wait wait wait what's this a wall sign may not be painted on walls okay previously unpainted stone brick okay so in other words if it's all words right I think that that sounds like it was it was designed to protect your nice exposed brick basically and prevent that becoming a net um so okay so there's window signs um yeah basically if we adopt Burlington's which is in the draft right now it would be a minor it would be an increase from 25 to 30 percent um and there's also the uh the the open sign allowance uh any any thoughts on that um okay so on page good beginning there um it says something about signs inside buildings that can be 40 percent window that's not in here on page 43 it's up see my notes I've stopped going this by section I went by this was written um so where are we exemptions it's under exemptions um but it had something in there saying it was 40 percent total window not not not 30 percent that's down from trying to reconcile here we we have okay so the window signs they have for the example or section like we've done so something painted in the window like their birth of church okay um now I know that we have a lot of window signs which become or supposed to be temporary that they become somewhat permanent um and that you literally had that full sheet of paper in that window so if that full sheet of paper is in there for year-round basis is that part of the signs because it'll say say stuff about you know what's on sale or whatever's on the inside or a menu or a menu um you know so there's window sign like whenever it says birth of church or window sign and that's a window sign I think technically yes if you put a piece of paper there and and there's contents on it that's a that's a window sign and that's it's in a separate case I mean that that's and that's a technicality that that could be reasoned to you know let's say for a restaurant to to to and make sure it has a flexibility to put up a put up a a menu without having to go through a whole different process supporting you know installing a a box for that um that could be reasoned to go with 30% instead of the current 25 and that the default assumption right now is that we're going with 30 but I don't know if if you if you have any issues with that before we make the regulations such that if they want to go more that they need to go well they have to go before the DR no they'd have to go before the DRB because they would have had to go before zoning and pass for a sign so if they want more they would need to go for the DRB to do it how are you guys interpreting the uh quantity max out of curiosity one per first or second floor window and or ground floor entry no third I'm interpreting that as 30% of any window with a sign or if all windows have signs it could be 30% of the total area or if you have 10 windows could you put 10 signs in one window and that's I think our interpretation our interpretation under our rules has been yes and you can concentrate it all under yeah okay one window that's how I'm reading so in the instance where you know menus and these other signs as long as they have the appropriate number of windows to account for the number of signs going in that singular entryway they would be oh no sorry I'm not reading it each window each of your in your example of 10 windows each window would have to have a sign to count towards the I mean but I think you could also because it says make the argument the other way if you have 10 windows and take 10 signs and put them in one and I have one one sign per first or second floor window doesn't say it doesn't necessarily say which window they have to go in but it says of all windows with signs yeah but where's that the catch is it says windows I shall not interfere with the primary function of the window which is then to enable and pacify public safety personnel to see through the window so if they totally cover a window that it's not that it cannot be seen through they would be out of compliance so they also couldn't do that so no I couldn't do that they'd have to if the parcel is such that safety personnel or pacifies could see that there was activity inside but yeah in your example though like if they had 10 windows as long as even if it was like a little sign in each window they could have one window that they just filled up to like 50 or 60 as long as safety personnel fits still that's how okay well I guess the interpretation of how this is this how this works is is important but I think even more important is whether or not you think this text um that we have on here works um and like basically like is this okay or do do we need to do we need to tweak any of this I would say that we go with it but I think we need to think about how a total total covering a window is that really I think we allow okay so I guess I can so we can I can work with Jennifer to kind of think through scenarios that you want like potential problems that you that that you're identifying here so one potential problem that you don't want this policy to allow is a total coverage of a window of one window right so I don't think so I this I was reading from like from the memo section that only had the third bullet point here I didn't see the other ones I don't think this would allow why not based on the miscellaneous now okay so we can make sure that this won't and I think we're ready there but we can make sure that this won't allow for total coverage of a window there's one other situation where windows would be covered which is if you have a canvas retails oh yeah okay we need to add basically an exemption must add that or basically anything that's covered by that that's required by state statute yeah because we are cbcb dealer all straight it's gone 75 percent of it's for no problem but I think you can cover it if you well okay no there is a point here that says you cannot interfere with the primary function of the window um I guess the signage part of it the 30 percent thing that doesn't really matter if you don't have if it's just a blank covering um which is you know I think we still if there's a cannabis shop we wouldn't want to say cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis everywhere you would you'd rather it just be blank right which is with the situation and you know six out of it right and the purpose is you don't want people to be able to see inside yeah yeah okay we can make sure that's uh that's such an exemption is is in there it's a matter it's a window covering does that matter in the nuance here we just talked about signs essentially makes a window a wall right well but we can make sure that it yeah we're going to see there's one example I think you know just the windows literally are 75 percent of it's covered okay and this talks about having a sign behind the window and I think I'm recalling my drive here there where they have a neon sign in the window with the covering behind it so the covering's not on the window it's probably 12 inches or whatever you know behind the window that's covered so you you put a shelf there yeah shelf whatever okay and and so um well I guess what I'm asking is are we talking in this instance the covering that they put behind it or the neon sign can't be any bigger than what is the regulation not the covering that's behind it and is that a nuance that we need to pay attention to so I think that that's I think an exemption to make make sure that's you are allowed to cover a window in a way that it does not interfere with the primary function of the window is necessary somewhere in the LDC it doesn't necessarily have to be here as long as it works right I think this was written to focus on signage specifically right and I think it's saying that's the signage cannot interfere with the primary function of the window there's probably you know Burlington's thought through all of this like you know for for years right and I I'm pretty sure such an exemption to allow for like you know the cannabis stores to have blocked windows is somewhere but it just might not be here and we have to make sure that we allow it somewhere so I mean we can go back and check and make sure yeah I mean that's I'm interested to find out what happens around my corner there um a couple of questions on this the eight inches that's just the max height for lettering uh yes yes and so I'm wondering if the neon aspect should not be regulated in the lighting section as well because I'm reading this like 20 percent of a window in neon is a lot like you can have a neon sign right yeah signs window sign should not be illuminated however the use of neon as part of the sign design is permitted and then you have 20 percent of the area of any window be that sign and if that's a neon sign that seems like a lot what if the letter can only be eight inches lettering if you have a neon sign that says open right the letter but that's that's four letters eight inches right but neon doesn't have to be just lettering right neon can just be a design well is this so is this trying to solve a problem that doesn't that that isn't that doesn't exist and it's not likely to exist or like or I've I've heard about issues about neon signs in this city before in previous meetings so okay so so I'm just saying that it sounds like we're allowing for a light to put in that is 20 percent of a window and I want to make sure we that's something we want to do or if we want to move the lighted aspect of this to the light section as well lighted section to I mean so what what would you want it to say basically like what functionally what do you think the limit for the if if someone you know has an open sign or some or any kind of neon sign what what should the limit be is it basically what we had before in the bc district because we could we could just to be honest I don't know what we had before regarding neon signs I think an open sign is fine I think most open signs are not 20 percent of the window signs I mean you can make a you can sign that's just zigzag that's just bringing attention to here three square doesn't have to say anything so right our existing regulations say three square feet I mean we could say the neon aspect of it and not exceed three square feet just yeah that's what we had yeah and be fine with bringing that into this that's fine okay and just one other question though are we not do we address signs window signs above the second floor at all I don't think it's allowed basically it's that's under this regulation it's just so we're saying one per first or second floor window well I guess yeah one first or second rate so none above so third floor office wouldn't be like a second floor would still be allowed I guess there there's no signs allowed on top of rooms or above so but yes I suppose as we get buildings that go higher but right now our business unless somebody wants to put something on one of our residential buildings like across the street I'm just I'm just wondering if we properly it wasn't clear to me immediately that we were that we were saying you couldn't do it on a third or fourth or fifth potential fifth right yeah I think this this line the first the top line over over here pretty much just says that says yeah that's that's a max quantity maximum all right all right um um yeah so yeah that covers window signs um I think the next point here is about uh basically this this table of what's allowed maybe it's easier let me see if if it's Chris can you know too since we're here in the example section yeah um for sandwich boards this is and we need to eliminate it's on page 229 I guess what's the pdf page uh 41 okay um when you get to the final piece here it says public my way improved by the department of public works or the church street marketplace commission oh yeah we can fix it um maybe as well get that eliminated I don't have a problem with the department of public works being uh consulted but yeah church street I don't think it's really going to care about you know downtown us oh yeah that that was clearly a mistake oh no it's popping up you understand but we're we're in the process of okay so this would be yep thank you okay so in a trity um pull up that's uh the the table of uh the land use table although this I'm gonna stop sharing because this is being very slow with that um and I put up the clean version where are we going I'll throw this up in a second um sorry so yeah I'm trying to put up the the table that tells you where each type of sign is allowed like based on zoning district this is 714 m1 714 m1 okay so one thing I did notice and the comment I have is the tables the consistency of the color of uh sign types permitted or not permitted between the three charts are not consistent it's one clear is permitted another one clear is not permitted so when you want m1 clear is is not permitted then you get to the next one is it's clear is permitted so if we can tweak that such that same colors are the same thing otherwise it's not either permitted or not permitted and they're identical so you're not going oh wait a minute I just saw that and there it's red no no no I want to go for it clear um I'm having trouble pulling this up right now so it's it's it's hard for me to yeah page it's page 44 45 and 46 in the pdf and yeah what Diane's saying is that the the red dots when you when it's the sign type combinations the dark red dots are where it's permitted but then where it's in the where it's allowed in the district it's it's switched and personally I would say to use the dark red dots is where it's permitted because that seems to me like you've checked it yeah so you've said yeah here is here yeah I got it so yeah it's kind of why would that not be written in that district what's that the same I'm misunderstanding the sign it hits okay um hopefully you you you all have this open uh do you have any so I would basically take a guess because the Burlington zoning districts are obviously different we had to use some logic and and and uh come up with something that approximates what we think the intense uh of the regulations was um do you have any issues with what uh what's in the draft in this regard um are you also trying to share a map are you trying to share a map or could you share the map the zoning maps yeah uh I was not trying to show it but I can't yes it would just help I can I mean I can bring it up but my first my first question was why why why we were why we were excluding on awning in the planned exposition district excluding some signs awning band sign blade sign marquee monument and I'm just wondering like how I feel like when if they're renovating the fairgrounds or updating some buildings like the signs in there can be all different types and I'm just curious what the I'm not sure there was I'm not sure there was uh uh yeah that was an intentional choice I think uh uh Jennifer might have okay yeah I would just say it seems like the more signs that are that can be so more flexibility right yeah more flexibility in the planned expo now I don't know how that affects no no no I don't want to the frontage signs I'm thinking more of like the signs in the fairgrounds and on the buildings it's 100% of the plan is the is the exposition yeah entire entire works yeah so uh so can I wait I have the uh zoning there it goes hold up yeah yeah yeah that makes sense to me and then my piggyback on that I would just say transit oriented to like why would we necessarily want to limit marquee signs like it could be some kind of cool development maybe we put in a theater in post office where no marquee would be pretty cool yeah I think the the the the only consideration I think marquee signs tend to be allowed in the densest areas you know it's like that the the central business districts of you know of the larger cities um and they may be like you know one step back so it's like I think it's it doesn't have to be that way and also this is probably the next step back from the village center district would probably be the TOD district so it to me I just feel like naturally that's where we want the development densely right that's right transit the TOD and the village center yeah okay so marquee signs any other I mean it could also be the same thing where like an exception to this could be granted by the DRP right we could we also write that in there's a way to address it instead okay so all basically all types of signs or no no no specifically the marquees or the ones that we've said in the TOD marquee sign that are not permitted that we could say that an exception could be made by the DRB or a waiver could be granted by the DRB I don't know yeah I don't know okay I'd also I was most trying to go back to another kind of oh yeah I mean there's like I'm looking right now and potentially cause an issue the fair I mean the fair you know marquee right yeah they have they yeah I mean they have yeah not I'm thinking more of like a theater marquee right I mean yeah a flint center yeah well they could put a marquee above the the sales office you know sign where you buy your tickets they could put something there um like that might actually be beneficial things but I mean a monument sign in the TOD well I'm you know considering the development some of the developments we're talking about they're probably gonna have a monument sign unless they have a sign on the building right so oh do we want to obviously say no monument signs so wait right now we are saying well I'm looking at at M2 and it says no monument signs in the TOD yeah and I don't know what was approved by the DRB I didn't know let's see what they were approved with the newest rights is the building gonna have a sign on it oh it's not a series of art um it's not the TOD I guess it's a highway district there um are they're out yeah there's a series of three buildings that are coming down and one's going up but are they going to have a sign out I know that her apartment buildings have more our monument signs in front of them they don't have them on the building right so I mean I I not I'm not sure what's a Jennifer's intention was with when she put that in but I can I could imagine that monument signs tend to work better where there's a lot of space around it and the TOD district is trying to encourage development that has much that's much more compacted would not have the space from for monument signs having said that it doesn't mean that we have to ban it because right now clearly those are the where it's a TOD district it is still uh you know they're strip malls and why not great apartment buildings with monument signs I mean so I'm kind of one we would make them remove them well I won't make them remove them but as they're driving by because you know it's supposed somebody's going and looking at the building they're looking at the highway um we could yeah we could change that if there's no problem so it's you know do we want to make things non-compliant because that's what we would be doing right making more buildings non-compliant I'm not sure how many even we have is it worth this well yeah I mean I I can see your point here and I I think it makes sense to just change that just to flip that and say that monument signs in the TOD to TOD districts are allowed I would say there actually aren't that many monument signs out there are the the ones that exist are at the malls one of the malls um but um 197 I think that's a freestanding sign I think yeah there's like there's there's a the difference between a freestanding sign and a monument sign is you know not very huge other than the fact that it's like there's no gap there's not like posts and then a gap for a monument sign uh but I mean I I see no no issue with uh just allowing that to provide the flexibility of nobody else okay so some of the residential areas we actually have monument signs they have this is whatever there are actually monument signs up there when the developments when they didn't put in tree ones but I know that there's one up the hill one that one is 12 there might be a sign up there you know I'd be hesitant to think about why I just because yeah we yeah I think I think we could we could just flip that it's no problem I think okay um yeah any other use table issues or considerations and of course we will be doing another kind of look through it with a fine with a fine comb um upcoming months so in that general area there's up on page 43 or 231 um what I have here it says mix mixing multiple sign types a and then you know so then you have come down to multiple signs on the sides and side types well so my question is is is a needed you know could it just be multiple signs and then here's multiple mixing you know get going and just go with it um unless you want to make two of b and and just not need the number one just this is this I guess it's it's an editing of as to how that reads we always are you talking about so so are you saying you think that the whole sign type combination table is no it's fine okay this is the paragraph that proceeds it I don't know I think they say two different things okay I think the 1a there is telling you that you can have multiple signs but they have to be compliant with the table and number two is telling you that if you do have multiple signs they have to be consistent with the overall architectural of the building and employed in complementary manner materials colors designed yes okay but I'm wondering since it is mixing multiple sign types colon why do we just have a do we just go mixing and just eliminate the a get rid of the letter a and just go mixing multiple oh yeah yeah yeah that's that seems like a it would simplify it a little bit and just not have two levels for no reason right yeah yeah okay now that's the that's the there for the meaning of things but this is a editing letter okay that's yeah easy easy tweak all right um any other comments about these sign types and districts or are we good to move on we're good okay just make sure we covered everything here okay so last point is that there's our existing ldc also has has some things about subdivision multifamily and school entrance signs uh because those schools are allowed in every district uh and also like you can't you can't have like free standing like a large free standing sign in front of uh just a single family house but maybe the whole subdivision one that's what we had um and allowance for before uh I didn't see any reason to take that out so we we actually we intentionally retained that under section 714 n o and p oh yeah there's something about maintenance of science saying I can't allow them to become dilapidated and you cannot unlawfully cut trees and shrubs to increase visibility to your sign didn't see any issues with that so we can move to and you know these things like even though we didn't see it in burlington sign regulations it could just be a part of like another part of the regulations um so yeah they probably somehow covered this as well okay so that takes us to the next steps we will yeah um we will uh go through and edit the draft based on the discussion today and bring this back uh we'll also look through for technical and consistent season conflicts um and yeah we'll bring it back for the february planning commission meeting and uh these you know we'll have other topics to cover at that point uh perhaps you know if we're ready to bring forward uh electric vehicle charging we might we might bring something up um for that um but we are actually pretty busy right now there's gonna bring up some things about the maps that you included in the end yes okay so um is that part of the next conversation that might be the next conversation yes the expanded nda about the nda expansion oh okay sorry i thought it was part of the lbc um oh wait i figure we're right there okay i guess that yeah that's that's all i have to say about the sign regulations i think we proceed great direction from you yeah great okay so yeah moving on to the business item b updated boundary for the nda okay so this is not the first time it's probably like the fourth time we've uh uh uh been able to uh talk about this topic but we are just about ready to submit um an application for the expansion of the neighborhood development area uh it needs council approval uh but regina thought that's uh you know it it would uh it would be good for for you for the planning commission to you know make an official you know motion to recommend uh this but we've actually let me throw this on the screen this has also changed a little bit um based on some recent work we've done so there so previously we talked about there were several choices and how you could you could uh uh expand right there's a there's a quarter mile buffer which you could just do a straight quarter mile buffer out from the village center um and and uh that's that's easy like they would they would almost certainly say yes to that uh you could ask for extending beyond that if there were some if there was strong reason why why that was necessary and um I think we thought that it was perl Street corridor for sure but also the the rest of the design review overlay district seems to make sense because that's that like our policy is that we want to allow and concentrate the uh growth in in that area so we try to take a hybrid of that um and of course if the if the neighborhood development area expansion is granted by the state it doesn't mean that people have to make any changes it just means that uh you know they they may be able to access some more resources if they want to um previously though we had uh the a previous version of this had the uh proposed boundary go out you know this way it's yeah the previous version had it go out this way a little bit as well just to get the quarter mile buffer but Regina looked at it I was like and and said and thought that could be contentious you know it might make it sound like we're trying to densify an area that's that you know that that is uh the rest of policy is not not not trying to do and I thought it was it would be a compromise to say the rail line is a cut off it's a natural you know it's a natural barrier for walkability anyway so that was kind of the compromise over here um we kind of go with a quarter mile buffer but we really concentrate along the the design review overlay district and we get you know it didn't really make any sense to cut these people out of the benefits if they were ready to densify individual uh landowners and up here as well where there's an established small lot residential neighborhood um yeah that's basically how we came up with this boundary are there any comments okay so concerns about it or that district in the legend um the black line and the dark blue line should be noted as to what they are the boundaries for right we could add that into I think in the actual draft application it's it's made more clear but I exported this in a way that's uh that doesn't have all the information but uh we can make sure that is that is obvious but I will explain right now the black line the area with the black boundary is the proposed expanded neighborhood development area the blue outlined area is the current neighborhood development area and the village center uh designated area okay question I have math 11 is in the legend on the side there it's I'm not sure what's going on with the gobbledygook with structures infrastructure with help me okay on my sheet here it is um so which math 11 is age probably 55 or 56 kind of straddles on here the flood hazard oh flood hazard okay flood hazard areas and the top of the legend is uh here it is corrupted oh yeah ah yes might be just a pdf export issue we can fix it so like all all we did over here was put the proposed boundary over our uh official plan maps that was the requirements of uh the the the application process and you know you just have to show if you if the expanded area is going into any vulnerable areas yeah well that that was my only you know cutting on okay people looking at this and here we go one in the world was um the map two is the deposit of this map that's going to proceed to go um is it possible for that pink shading orange shading to become lighter so that it doesn't interfere with the historic district colors but we can actually see them it I might see them a little bit better on the wall but it's difficult to actually see the history that is good feedback we can certainly make that change and um well let me use similar on map six okay with the the coloration makes it hard to see what's going on in the business district and I know that there's a sidewalk on hill crest which is not noted or I have a difficult time of seeing what's noted on hill crest there is a definitely green on summit street I'm not sure what's going on on hill crest we just put in a brand new silo oh yeah well was that after 2019 I'm not sure it might have been about that time we could certainly annotate this map if uh I don't think we'd be changing the map because we're saying that comes from straight from the official plan but uh we can look into that just to make sure if it's if it's not on the map we can annotate it because it's it's it's definitely a full block silo that goes all the way up to frost by street sorry what was street again that hill crest yeah I mean there's something it looks like something's on there but I'm having a tough time with this map see yeah we'll take a look at the full resolution version and and tone down I think we'll tone down the the color red we could see what's thank you same thing the shading thing also happens in there this is city of s extension zoning yep well this one is a little bit necessary because it's the the zoning map is a chloropleth map already and then we're trying to put it another well we got I guess we could just use the black outline as the main we can make it work we can make this work because I was having a tough time seeing what is this it's um girl street oh color are you it's green looks like it's green green and white maybe I say I'm gonna make a tough time see what it is it's across from the fairgrounds okay how's that um yeah and yeah I'm having a tough time seeing what color that is so if it the touch shake it just get toned down or something for the they run so we can actually see what the colors are yeah yeah we can do that I think we'd probably just make the black outlined thicker so that that's that's the focus uh okay I know that with our coming study you know it'll be important to know what's the HA district and what's the TOD district right okay so in terms of the so we'll make these technical changes to the maps in terms of the proposed boundary over here uh if if you support this we could use a motion um to forward this to uh to to support yeah basically to approve this for I'll make a motion to approve the boundary as presented second all in favor of approving the boundary as presented I'll oppose motion passes all right cool we will move forward with that and uh keep you updated as uh as we move on yeah nice work on it Chris good uh a lot of good thought process went into it thank you okay moving on to the next agenda item business item c selection of consultants for the TOD stuff okay um I have a few background slides over here I think they may be helpful because there's a little bit of confusion about you know what this project is what these consultants are doing whether or not they're there they are working on multiple things with the with the ccrpc um and whatnot uh but I'll let you know what I know um and also you know we can talk about what has you know what the scope is for sure and what it might be but yeah this is a transit oriented development plan um project and there are four phases of this uh the first phase of this is uh is a real estate market demand evaluation uh specific to you know for the region and also specific to sx junction uh the second phase is the part that I think the planning commission would be most involved and I think this is probably the most consequential for the city master planning and municipal zoning updates um so this may but it doesn't it may or may not end up being a form-based code and we'll talk a little bit more about what a form-based code is in a sec but uh the the goal is to updates our municipal zoning to enable and encourage you know dense walkable development in in the most transit friendly places um and you however will get there it will be explored uh through this project and you know some topics um that might be explored outside of just a form-based form-based code discussion might include uh an official map for a future conceptual street grid through the currently large lots let's say like where where the uh the strip malls are you know what what it would look like to completely redesign that with a street grid uh something like what you see at tap corners uh there's currently you know very large uh parking lots there but the the plan and the official plan of the city includes a map uh of where the street grid would be so that might be yeah uh a part of this and um form-based code is is a it's just a one potential thing that's uh that might help us get there as well third part is the ridership transit ridership forecast and then the fourth part is an evaluation of ways to finance the this type of developments and for transit operations um so obviously the intention uh is for is to really combine land use and transportation planning over here uh and make sure that land use is like each optimizes for the other so um yeah i'm just going to talk a little bit about about the importance of this and and uh and the areas where it's most important you know in terms of public transit for public transit users frequency is freedom and i think that is something that unless you are a user of public transit it might not be so obvious uh because frequency is not something you experience with most other modes of trans of travel you know walking uh you know driving or riding a bicycle you go when you want to go but the closest thing i could think of is probably uh you can imagine if there's a gate at the end of your driveway um that only opens once every hour that's a kind of experience that's a public transit users uh have and really the way to get people to the way to make transit more effective um an attractive is not really to focus not really to make transit go faster but to focus on uh making this gate open more often so if we look at frequency of transit service existing transit service in the chendon county area this is a map that shows what we have uh coded by frequency so red means a service that at uh at noon runs every 20 minutes or better it says 21 minutes that shows how i categorized it uh blue is basically it means 30 minutes and um then there's um there's uh you know there's the lower frequency services of this teal color that's basically six 40 to 60 minutes and then beige is over 60 minutes so you can see like route 11 over here actually knows i think it's route 10 the one that goes in a clockwise circle and also goes down to tap corners um it exists but it's barely there it's it's not nearly as powerful as what's what we have over here um that runs every 20 minutes and this 20 minute service is the most powerful service that exists in in uh all of ramon you know it is so yeah it's something we should value and something that's that makes sense to uh to make use of um so of course the transit oriented development study that at least last parts of it will look at uh you know how to expand uh frequent transit as well it will look at your potential rail corridors perhaps uh and how to fund that but i think the important thing to note is that you know frequency is important regardless of mode whether it's a bus or a train uh and for attracting high ridership frequency is even more important than mode uh you a train that runs every half an hour is is not going to out compete a bus that runs every 15 minutes and the other thing is that frequency is expensive so we have to put it where it's most effective and we have to kind of be able we have to think about where it's possible to put uh you know high frequency transit so when we think about increasing density in certain areas of the city we are targeting places where it is possible um and where it would be cost effective so when you're looking at or when gmt is looking at where uh you know to propose high frequency transit you know they would you know putting it where where it's most effective it you know it would be these four factors over here there's density putting it you know where there are lots of houses lots of lots of residents because you know what this example above is the same transit service but you get twice the ridership is what's down here just twice the number of residents around you'd focus service where there's good walkability because you can see with these two examples over here to the left the one at the top traditional street grid within a quarter mile walk you can reach almost the entire radius down over here in a more suburban kind of disjointed street grid you can only reach you know a small portion of that we have areas in the city that are like the top and areas that are like the bottom and the last thing over here is that it's you know you've got to talk you've got to consider where it's possible to cross the street and if we can make it possible to for people to get across the street because if you want two-way service you need sidewalks on both sides and and crosswalks and I can think of one area where that's that's a real issue pearl streets um west of west street between west street extension and Susie Wilson road has transit service going west but no transit service going east because you know the the buses fly by with doors closed because there's no sidewalk and there's no one crosswalks over there and lastly and also it's basically linearity is another thing that's that's required for transit to work well I think architects often forget this they think they understand about all this all the talk about density and walkability but linearity is specific to transit um if all your destinations are arranged along a straight line transit is much more you know cost effective and it's faster for everybody but down here if you have to torture your bus route to reach every every destination uh you know it's lower for everyone also distance is time and time is money for transit I can think of several situations that are already like this um the fact that you know at the uvm hospital the uh the main entrance is way is back off uh you know in in the center of campus instead of near pearl street the fact that in south burlington uh the the bus has to do a pretzel shape because the the high density development is kind of a little to the south of wilson road um and that this is something that I think we have to think about when we when we're dealing with uh it transit oriented development here as well and proximity shorter distances just being like you can you can read you can do more runs within the same uh you would you can serve more people with the same bus um um when things are close to get and I think yeah the fact that we have some gaps um between our destinations means that's uh you know there's there's opportunities to kind of fill in what's in the middle and increase the density there so what did um what did other municipalities do in the past and what might this look like so this example is what uh what when new ski did about 10 years ago they went through a form-based code process and that is something that might end up happening here but I think the first image over here is just of their public process their charrettes their their design sessions where they try to get community members to sit together and and decide what mattered most um what what they could imagine the main corridors becoming in the future and regardless of whether or not we end up with a form-based code I think whatever consultant comes in will have to do something like this to get people on board and to make sure the end product is something that people uh believe but uh when new ski took this and they turned it into um into more refined sketches like this and then they uh they redesigned their zoning so that along these three uh these three corridors these three kind of fingers going out uh they replaced traditional regular zoning with form-based code so this is their form-based code map this is a regulating map of a form-based code and you can see that it's a lot more detailed um in terms of where the the lines are of what you can build up to um the they've got something and they've got a parking setback on here that is specified we have something I guess similar in our zoning districts but it's not you know quite as clearly laid out they have kind of a neighborhood they call them neighborhood manners setback it's kind of a protection zone to to uh to to kind of soften the transition between the high density and the um existing neighborhoods um and within the streets you can see like each block is uh yeah you know is a little bit different in terms of what they want the uses um they allowed use in form to be uh this is when we zoom in this it's kind of what it looks like and you don't have to read through this but I'm just showing you an example of how detailed form-based code can get uh this page is talking about how to be you can have a building that's you know that looks like this but it's it's got to be split into your different sections with different window placements so that it looks like a more traditional uh smaller you know smaller building a set of buildings uh that are that are beside each other um you know we've got specific guidelines on how you would uh have have setbacks from the lower density residential districts and how that transitions more detailed kind of drawings and illustrations of how it vertically what things are supposed to look like um and yeah so that's what form-based code could look like if we were to go that way but I think the important thing in terms of selecting the uh the vendor here uh the consultant here is not necessarily the fact that an expectation that we would go towards fully towards form-based code but really the community conversation part of it and making sure that's there there's there's a good visioning process that gets many people on board and that people and that process you know and making sure that process is something that people will will lean on for years afterwards instead of you know going back and opposing what was kind of agreed on at that point so yeah what do we have to do here we I think today is a good time to discuss what's uh what's uh this shortlist looks like and also if it's necessary we can set up um interviews with you know a couple or all of them if um I guess any questions about the intense of this project the purpose of this project any questions yeah I'm still a little bit confused what you said at the beginning um they got a grant they got a radius grant the rpc and basically it's for the regional study the money they got is broken down to counties and municipalities that are participating those are listed at the end of this grant proposal um or no they're listed at the end here but what I don't get is exactly what we get compared to the other cities and municipalities and that was also complaining that clear queue because it's a discussion of the first-year f1.24 plan which has two task orders called task orders attached but it doesn't mention anything about this extension my question to you Chris you today was are these consultants that will be on call for all of the municipalities or these are consultants so the consultant that we choose would be our consultant but they may also you know they are they may also be be working for other municipalities and other aspects of this project as well you'll see the so the raise grant is more specific than the uh the the rfq that's uh that the gendeng harry regional planning commission sets out because they they were looking for um land use planning and development regulation consulting services all together for the raise grant um tod project and other projects so they they've come up with a shortlist and I think they have you know they they will end up assigning uh the available consultants certain ways but they they've recommended three potential ones three potential consultants and these are these are the three kind of shortlisted consultants that would be um assigned to work specifically with a six junction on our land use uh issues and like visioning for our transit corridors and uh and how zoning would change here so we would basically fit based on which consultant we choose you your staff would have to come up with a task order scope of work right for them to to implement I am not sure how much like uh you know how much customization we we have available basically I I don't know if ccrpc has uh has like have a standard task order that they want for all of these uh you know all the participating municipalities I think there's a certain amount of uh the rigidity in the in the raise grant application you know that that has to be achieved in in every participating municipality but we we do get I I think we pick one consultant and that consultant spends you know a lot of time with us um we are not going to work with multiple consultants on this so I'm just trying to get a sense of how this is going to be actually implemented right so my assumption is that there's maybe a generic scope of work right at the RPC as well which includes the market analysis form-based code the trade whatever was the transit study those four things you're out of that's right yeah and so that that scope of work would be implemented by those consultants this consultant for us right okay it's just a little bit confusing yeah especially when they threw these things in here on east and west a lot right right because in there um there RFQ includes projects outside of this uh this raise grant TOD projects all right it's the timeline in one of those make a little bit of sense right watch it process this all right well it's no I got it yeah um yeah and let me just I aggregated the scores together but I would preface this by saying that the scores might not matter so much because they were I kind of messed it up and also I think it's really it's more important to to just you know talk about the advantages and disadvantages of each one but let me throw up what I do have and I'll point out what was potentially problematic here it said so demonstration overall first of all that my my scoring system here and the the maximum total scores was not the same as what uh what the CCRPC had for their um their RF their I guess their RFQ that's the other thing it says RFP over here there's there is no um like there's no proposal in any of these these responses these are their qualifications yeah so yeah they don't really tell you exactly how they plan to proceed and I think that is that's going to be up for you know for more discussion um the other point over here that said that I kind of messed up was uh it said 20 I think it said 20 points up here but 30 points in the example and I meant 30 so that it all adds up but I also figure if if you understood it to be 20 you equally you know that that bias equally fell to uh to each of these uh these candidates um yeah and that's that's it but the the scores that as they were added up kind of put tool design at the top uh but not by very far and framework and Jeffrey Ferrell associates were very close one point off um and then I think there were a lot of comments about uh each one I think that's that's really what we should be um focusing on here um because I guess any any questions or or discussion about uh the aggregate points or should we just we've looked at it we don't I guess it's fine right okay so can I uh clarify my confusion so if we pick one of these consultants for example tool has the largest number or the highest score right now we pick tool are we guaranteed we're going to get tool or is each other in city municipality going to be rating these same three consultants and they're going to aggregate the scores I am not sure I am not sure like they they CCRPC is asking which is our preferred one okay uh but they may be asking the same of yeah yeah there might be some kind of balancing of workload they that's uh that they might have to do but I don't I don't think I think we should just assume like we should just come up with a clear priority list you know what what we get is what we um so yeah there were a bunch of uh comments about each one maybe maybe it's actually I had a few comments as well and Regina had a few comments to share but maybe we'll keep the staff comments to the end I think that makes yeah um yeah Phillip how do you yeah I guess there are different ways you do this um your explanation I mean that's so it makes I mean I honestly would be happy with any one of them but if I had to choose I think I would lean towards I lent sort of framework and tool I mean my scoring was off by I mean by five points between those two and what I liked about both of those is that I think the responses spoke a lot to uh placemaking that I thought Farrell didn't necessarily didn't jump out at me in terms of uh placemaking which is really taking what we have within our community and making it ours making us unique and kind of making that ourselves the thing about Farrell and um tool that I thought was interesting is that they've worked um I think it was Farrell that did Tafts and Winooski and tools currently working with B-trans to do a statewide transit study or something to that effect which I thought would be extremely useful knowledge to bring in but it's good to know that they'll be part of CRPCs that anyway that'll be you know bringing that knowledge into the whole process um and then in thinking of that and with Farrell in the idea of placemaking I thought it might be better to go with maybe the lesser known entity and framework um in that I thought it was unique that the individual had some close ties to s-extruction who might be motivated to really bring something very unique um out and in terms of their work product um but to uh to not work with Farrell because despite the idea of continuity between the three communities of Williston s-extruction and Winooski I don't want people to get lost in the sense of as you're driving through which community by the own desk junction I want it to be unique I want it to be a placemaking I want it to be different than the way those other tools were designed and I think bringing in a different consultant other than Farrell um would have a diff would bring a slightly different uh elements to that design and a slightly different approach and uniqueness that you wouldn't necessarily get from somebody who's only worked in the other team in that sense my tool would be framework or tool so I would prefer right um I had a hard time the first time I read through it and I had to read through it again I thought they were all very general in their discussion the second time through I got a little bit more clarity um the one thing I didn't like about framework in in Farrell is they seem to be focused on one or two or three individuals framework was had two people that they use in every single project and they mention them in their write-ups you know Steve uh whatever his name was Steve Cecil was the lead consultant he's the you know the lead person the other person they have who's on the letter was the other person they were promoting and Farrell it seemed to be Farrell was the one-man shop so to speak or one person shop um I what I liked about tool was they had a diverse group of people um supporting the projects and they also had an extremely good DEI approach I'm not only just writing it up but it's actually embedded in their all training program and I felt that they had a wider array of techniques Farrell didn't mention visualization at all in terms of shredding and they also didn't have a lot of recent projects as corners was the most recent and they said in their letter that they had a light workload so they could be adaptive which to me means they don't have enough staff um so I was a little bit concerned about that I would be happy with all three but I think tool and framework would be my preferred choice over Farrell and Farrell was too much form-based stuff that was you know he's the he's the guru of form-based planning and they didn't really talk up the other aspects of it their market analysis stuff was pretty slim um one of the others also didn't have much to say about market analysis I think it was framework so that's why I went with tool yeah I think I agree with what you both said so far um and my scores were really close too so it was it was just like yeah I'd be happy with all three of them but tool was the highest that I scored um I think just based on their similar projects and the experience in Vermont I think especially in this project if they're going to be working with a lot of different communities it seems like that experience and other projects in the state gives them a little bit of a leg up but the same like you both said like between framework or tool I would be happy with either one I do I really like your point of like introducing a new uh frame of mind perspective into it too though so framework would be good as well well I like tool that they have definitely the depth of TOD um I think I know mr right from his previous then and his mother lives here so um and we know I share with Chris I think we might be you know blaming the TOD district so mr right obviously might be written that that right when he was here um because he it preceded my time here and that is when he was here I think I was in between worlds and and heard of him um so that's that pace um I like that both framework and feral spoke and wrote their their proposal and qualifications in a very comfortable manner now whereas tool seemed um engineered um so I mean I was kind of wondering I don't know the people that they're using maybe may not they maybe have the personal personnel qualifications to interact with people get the best out of them I don't know but they did seem to have quite the breadth and depth of where the other two did so but I thought that they all understood the RFP and wrote well about that so um having them chosen I do agree with Scott that they seem to be heavily weighted on a couple people um when it comes to the feral and and framework the one gentleman that was was spoken of at least three times in each one of their works so and he's a locally based contractor so I guess that's you know yeah I I wouldn't like this to have as it should have its own identity and we would have to hear about big boxes along the road uh and you know that's become the when this came out and I think we have a choice of something that's slightly different from that that is not a continuous strip of 15 to be big box I won't share some of the ugly numbers that I've got um on that but you can start so but my my question is which one do you think would interact with and get people out uh I forget which one said they would do things by internet first well that's a good place to start but given that our community really wants to have hands on and be here um you know we need to get people here to do that shred so how do we who's which one of these three is going to be able to get people to come and participate that shred that's my big question because we really need that public input um and only 75 percent of our community my my numbers have internet access the rest of them do not that gentleman there I got to came to visit I'm not sure where he is um but he's I think he's born and bred in this area um that he's lived here all his life and you know how do we get a couple comments on that my experience with the strategic planning initiative um the discussion during this election process was local versus more remote um the scores indicated that we preferred the consultant from Minneapolis there is some downside to that which is you don't have somebody on site essentially um and what I thought about tool versus the other is the tool project manager is based in Vermont and I think that would be better for communication in a lot of way you might be able to get access face to face access as opposed to zoom meetings the other sort of lesson I'm learning is and this was very clear from the consultant for the strategic plan is um they're not going to mobilize people that's a responsibility falls on us there's not enough money in the scope of work for them to do that especially if they're coming from Washington or from Washington DC or even from Boston where it's hard for them to mobilize people they can't do it they don't have the budget for that generally so the lesson that we're learning is that we need to be able to do that ourselves and we don't have the framework for that right now we don't have a communication outreach engagement framework that allows us to do that in the easy fashion so that's just something to keep in mind that no matter who you choose a lot of that organizing for the show rats and stuff falls upon us as volunteers and safety staff um I can relay what's uh what Regina had in terms of comments uh so she prefaces this by saying that uh without reading uh having read the the full proposals uh here are her thoughts uh Jeffrey Farrell is great and he did Winooski and with and uh Williston's codes I like the formats of his stuff uh it doesn't have too many parts and pieces uh to fit together so it's more simple than some of the other formats he is an architect which is also a helpful skill also the the first visioning step of these projects were highly helpful in getting to consensus on the ultimate zoning changes um and then about framework uh Regina says Jeff Rangos experience and history here and as extension is probably a major plus Seattle inputs could also be beneficial though uh you also have Portland insights already like that's I have Portland insights um David White uh so that's that's uh the um so David White was the planning director in Burlington for decades and therefore would bring great experience in being at a city where a form-based code was uh was being developed and he clearly understands the local context um and she says that's uh what I know of tool is that there are more transportation planning focused and there are excellence at it however you have uh I have that skill sets uh so maybe it's not as great of a need for us so that's what Regina says did you see David White wrote Burlington's sign code um I didn't actually so you see what his work product looks like outside of you know form-based code I mean I think form-based code and the the sign stuff actually kind of was maybe done nearly at the same time because it was it was a part of the same consideration um my comments uh were that for framework I saw that they had strong experience from larger cities um and also small the smaller cities they worked with uh you know had had actually you know decent transit transit outcomes and uh I think TOD transit oriented developments in those cities that they worked with was kind of serious transit oriented development whereas I saw with Jeffrey Ferrell uh associates it might just be if you know because of where they've been working but I I don't see many examples of where um their work product ended up here you know with the with the robust transit outcomes even over here uh you can see like out of Winooski's form-based code it mentions transit but it's not optimized for transit if it was optimized for transit it would it would focus development going east along the you know route to bus which also links here but they also have stuff going out the Mallets Bay Road which will never have good transit because it doesn't have the the density and linearity um and continuity that's necessary but yeah I I've seen some of their other examples uh in in other states that they've worked with uh where they've come up with TOD plans those are places where transit runs every hour I mean like yeah it's on paper it's TOD it might be very walkable but in terms of designing for serious transit outcomes your their product is not gonna come with that um that was yeah Ferrell yeah and in tool design I I didn't really have much to say other than the fact that their team is pretty big which um it's just hard to tell who actually would be spending most time on the project you know they the project manager probably who is you know who is local would likely likely be uh the one but to spend the most time with on this project but uh the person with the most experience on specific topics that we might be interested in might not be you know spending that much time there so I mean I I was actually I was kind of leaning towards framework um but uh yeah I mean too to me tool uh has other advantages as well that's what those are my comments so to be clear on what we're doing we're selecting our recommendation to CCRPC yeah of who we like to work with yeah no side and if you want if it's not clear from our discussions here we could invite the candidates for an interview but not necessary I mean I feel like if we're not if we're not the ones that are actually making the decision interview doesn't really seem to make sense I think you're almost making the decision I I do think the CCRPC is you know they they want they want the city to choose um and they've already kind of shortlisted who who they think would work given the constraints because if these are our consultants only then I just don't get a sense that these are our consultants only is each city going to have a separate group of consultants no so CCRPC put out the RFQ the request for qualifications yeah to work on their entire as I understand it the entire raise grant and these are the three out of all of that CCRPC has whittled it down and said we want to work with these three and three firms to work with all 12 of our municipalities so who out of these three would you like to work with as exjunction and all am I misunderstanding that I mean I feel like all three are going to be part of this whole thing oh well see that that makes sense to me but that's not my understanding what I was doing I thought we were if that's a case if this is a roster of of consulting firms it's available to RPC and we're choosing one of the three that makes sense I mean we are picking one of the three we're choosing the one that's going to work with with us in our community all those three are going to be working for our CCRPC and to work on the raise grant okay we get we get access to one consultant to focus on what we would like to see happen as part of that raise okay that wasn't clear to me that that's my table that's what I that is that's correct yeah that's what I got and there's 12 communities well something like that there there's actually there were more than three like they shortlisted three that they recommended for us but no in terms of community communities yeah there were there were there's about eight right so but if all 12 are saying I want to work with tool clearly that's not going to happen so we're not necessarily still making the actually we're going to essentially rank them and say this is the order in which we would like yeah so my my suggestion was then yeah we should just send a ranking okay oh that's that's that's fine I guess that's what I was trying to understand exactly what we were deciding right exactly it's like we can't work with all yeah so in some fashion we're going to be assigned somebody and you know quite honestly in interviews not going to give me any more information than I have already so I don't it's not necessary and and the actually Regina's in your comments for health um especially Regina's experience working with so okay with the rankings so yeah tool tool framework feral that's where I think Patrick has framework first yeah I want a framework yeah I mean I'm looking yeah yeah I know based on our aggregate score yeah but if I had to put my actual opinion for it would be to flip framework and tool and do recognize they're like a one-a-one e situation but tool hey you know yeah right give him a chance to rework what he may have done I mean it it's he's got to me is kind of like yeah some people I can't be an experience of saying okay so now 20 years later all the stuff that I learned okay I've got to rework this little project and he might have something to say for okay so we just this kind of my point you know maybe yeah that's our mandate come back and fix it okay so how many changes in 20 years 20 years ago that was a great project probably but 20 years later it's things well it was innovative to try to get this but as we've had you guys haven't been in my chair to say okay so we're trying to get you to do this and this is the requirements of this district and basically they look at it and go now I want to do it my way I have my architect with my drawing and this is how it's going to be I don't care I'm going no you need to alter your drawing because this is the standards of this district and we got you know people and we don't people walk away because they were not willing to play with their drawing to meet our needs or our standards so um you know it's not everybody can take a farmland in this case we're not thinking of farmland it's starting brand new or we got something already there you got to redo it um well so by my count it sounded like staff had framework as first I mean I did I I wouldn't say Regina I think Regina did not yeah Regina sounded like she was leaning towards feral I'm not sure she was leaning towards anything I mean it's true yeah it's true they were just comments they were really comments yeah I tried to squeeze a recommendation out of it it could well Scott I know Scott and I have tool first tool framework there Diane the questions of being is which one do we think is really going to do that's the junction Bali John um I guess I could go with framework first I mean I it it's how much time are we going to get from these people you know are they good you know having a depth of people how many of them are actually going to come here and evaluate what we're going to go on the other thing is good again based on my experience with um strategic planning process it's Seattle's a long ways away get a lot of trips no but Boston is drivable but the interesting part is maybe they want to put a train in after coming up here yeah there you go it's the train how to robins train I love a train to Montpelier as long as Montpelier figures out how to design transit from Montpelier junction up the national life hey we just got to be transit um but it's you know the interesting part is is that the similarities between climate dealing with Portland and Washington and here as this last week with the rain um it's kind of like you go on well it's what do you and I really tried I can go easily and just be looking at their past experience list of recent projects and the back end tool the tool recent projects look great it looks like it would be phenomenal and they would bring a great outlook and that sounds like consensus sure yeah okay tool framework tool framework okay okay all right all right moving on hey in general on cc rbc selected pretty good ones okay moving on to uh members members updates uh just quickly um the day after the last meeting of the planning commission we had a workshop on the 12th I think it was with a future IQ and the steering committee to talk about the pillars for the strategic plan um I don't first we never got notes from that meeting as far as I know so I can't remember what the six seven pillars were so I can't report what they were but there's similar to when things you would expect economic development housing um etc etc the next two major events are an open house stroke community dinner which um Regine is trying to put together I guess with Jess on the budget so that we can have the community dinner where we have the various committees at the expo talking about what we do in the budget presentation to the community and at the same time have pillars um mean identified for the public and the public being able to give feedback it's not clear if that's the way we're gonna go um it was dependent upon whether the budget could be prepared quickly enough to move the meeting up community meeting up and then the second thing is focus groups and those are all basically planned for the end of January so a period of three days would be the open house community meeting and the focus groups I think it's the 27th 28th 29th January that's all I know we're having another meeting with the steering committee on the 22nd but Ashley is supposed to convene another meeting before then the steering committee to talk about mobilizing people for the focus groups in the open house oh there's a sort of slow things down a bit I just had a question uh for Chris so and my calendar I have next Wednesday is the city council hearing on the rental registry is that still scheduled oh that as is the 24th the 24th yeah that the conceptual like originally we were trying to aim for the 10th but yeah we 10th is so next week is gonna be focused on the budget okay all right any other member updates moving on to staff updates uh just a few things here so there are two projects that's uh you know that fall under community development that's uh that actually there are three things so there's there's the rental registry and as I said we're gonna have a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on the 24th the ordinance will be put online probably sometime next week I'm putting together some some information on that right now but not that much has changed I think the city council didn't they provided some direction on a few tweaks like they they didn't want an exemption for the uh the non-profit housing and things like that you'll see the the next version available soon so there's also the Amtrak project and the Main Street Park project Amtrak project is uh gonna proceed to an RFQ for the tool the 30% design phase I have yet to put together that RFQ but we'll we'll be working on that over this month and trying to get qualified consultants on that the Main Street Park projects due to some uh budget discussions um and the fact that we don't there's uncertainty over whether or not the economic development fund which would be used to to fund it would be renewed uh it has been put on hold council does not think it is a high priority and certainly does not think it is higher than Amtrak uh so yeah we will hear more about that after uh voters decide on things um lastly I've got a UPWP request so this is a request for for an update to the scoping study for uh for Pearl Street between West Street Extension and um and Susie Wilson Road uh this is to come up with uh with a design that's you know a lower cost design that's right now the the preferred alternative is beyond what what has ever been paid for out of out of uh VTrans bike and pedestrian program um and it involves removing a center median and doing a whole and having replacing the whole sidewalk with an eight-foot shared use path and having buffered bike lanes um I think it should be possible to have something sooner that is uh you know without having to move so many curves and rip out a working sidewalk so that's what this uh this request is about uh council will be considering approving that request next Wednesday that's it between West Street and Susie Wilson that's right yeah West Street and Susie Wilson that's right to make it bike my bikeable but I also specifically put in um to the scope uh consideration for trying to put in uh eastbound bus stops um by reallocating space and you know maybe using temporary treatments like barrier post barriers and uh maybe uh temporary bus platforms um but I I see this as a major problem that that bus is fly past here with the doors closed um yeah that's East would be coming into coming into s extension but basically people who live here who might be working in Burlington do not have a way of getting home yeah no I'm at well there's I think there's a bus stop right at West Street extension yes there is right here right there's no bus it's from but in terms of s junction from Susie Wilson West Street it's just a railroad railway there's nothing on one side on one side on the other side of houses all the houses are on the other side so it's means the buses so you haven't done it is the buses would be going toward us this junction flying down and in but it feels like okay well actually the boulevard makes it less interstate when it used to be four lanes like the side on the right cars flew even faster than they fly now believe it or not and but the buses to have no place to stop there's no place for anybody to cross from uh what is the pillars of for the fort all the way down to west street there is no stop there are people who try to get off at Susie Wilson Road so that they can get off and go to work um and I'll see people walking because they the bus driver is actually said okay maybe I can stop I'm serious yeah and I've become a bus rider just for funs and giggles um but it also becomes even the other side too is that we need to have um bus transit I mean it's you know I got off at subway um I really want to get off at the next one and they just it's like okay so you just walk um but yeah there needs to be something there I mean there's no you know on Pearl Street the first crosswalk is actually either at west street or you have to go all the way down to McDonald's to get the next crosswalk that's outside of the scope though but that's well okay yeah but it's you know it's this it's a it's the going frame mine is that there wasn't anything on the eastbound side up Pearl Street are you saying there's more um as a result of more density of housing there's need now for an additional bus stop well there is for all the people who work along Suzy Wilson and also the all our all our residents who are you know on the north side of the street they have effectively no transit service because they only have one way transit service they can leave their house but they can't go home or the or vice versa um and adding if we can establish one or two new eastbound bus stops effectively we would be bringing like hundreds of people within walking distance of useful all day frequency yeah so yeah that that's that was my intention with this that's all my updates all all right that's it do we have a motion to adjourn second all in favor of adjourning all opposed motion passes meeting adjourned 855 p