 Let's see, all right. Welcome everyone. This is John Alden remotely chair of the planet commission calling the January 6th, 2022 meeting to order at 605. We have a number of people remotely and one one person in the room. So we're in the second hall, including the or in addition to the camera staff so we're we should be ready to go we have a full. Well we have a we have an we have a quorum and whatnot a full group. And I'll just lead off with an announcement that we received. And today, a resignation by our vice chair, Stephen so we're we're down a person, and there's a vacancy, which will will figure out how to fill I'm not sure what the requirements are there but probably we have to appoint somebody else to take over his, his vice chair capacity and then the trustees if they so choose will will fill the seat at some point. Is that how that works Robin. As long as you're here you can just wave. Okay. So, we do have audience visitors number one I don't think there's anyone in the room or anyone else present online that that is not here to speak on the agenda topic is, is that true or is there somebody that would like to say something hearing nothing. We'll go to the review of the meeting minutes of December 16, which were sent out to us. Last week or earlier this week, does anybody have a motion to approve the minutes. I had actually a question about them. Well, they have a motion motion motion and we need a motion to approve a motion to approve to approve the minutes from my second. All right, the more the minutes are on the floor is there anybody with comments and questions about the minutes. Yes. Just in the, in the requirements for approving the site plan numbers 14 and 15 where it specifies ballard lights I wasn't sure if we were wanting to be that specific that we required them to install ballard lights or just wait for a lighting plan and approve it from there. I think we, we talked extensively about having very low height lighting so there, the ballards were suggested. So it's not inappropriate that they're in the minutes. If the landscaping plan and lighting plan comes back and there's something else in there I think they talked about maybe a couple of taller light fixtures out by the parking area. Those might be appropriate, but I think we're waiting to see what that looks like. Okay, just wanted to, but actually it's listed as part of the requirements. So, I mean, right. So, although it sounded like the applicant was very agreeable to having those. I think, I mean, I think I'm with you Phil I mean pinpointing them on saying that it has to be bothered like ballard lights I don't think was I think we're just using that as an example of low level lights that could be used. Yeah, I wasn't I mean is this is this list is that what they're going to be given and say that that it has to meet all of these requirements in order to be approved or will we, I mean a lot of it is again has to come back to us for approval for like the landscaping plan. I don't know if they have their room to keep this the way it is, but then if they come back and have other low lights that aren't four feet up here. If you look at the approved conditions, there's nothing about coming back to the planning commission for the landscape design at all. That's correct. It's a four foot high along the walkway. And then it talked about bothered lights on the south side of the parking lot, which could be six feet high or something but I think our intention was that the lighting not be tall, typical parking lot lighting that's right. You know, in other people's eyes at night, but that they had a requirement and an obligation to light illuminate the walkway to a safe level. So, I'm fine with the number 14 that calls for the boulder blight no more than four feet tall along the walkway. And I'm okay with 15 because it doesn't specify a height. And I might adjust 15 to bothered lights or similar low, low, low height lighting. Is that worth that? Yeah, I think that works for me. I'm not, if there's if they're not coming back, then I think the way it's written or saying bothered lights and similar for 15 is fine. They're not coming back to us way. I believe that the 10 of the whole thing is that they're coming back to staff. With the landscaping plan and the lighting plan. It's not returning to us. It's it's returning to Robin. Correct. Yeah. That's correct. Just just see the homeowners association will go to the village attorney. Correct. Yeah. So since you haven't seen this yet, John, that that means you haven't signed signed this. So we could change this until you sign it. Yeah, I didn't want to write anything until the PC had approved minutes. Okay. Fair enough. So let's let's make that. I think it's trying to say that here, but it doesn't quite say that. And that it's using in 15 and using ballard lights as, as a category of light that may not necessarily be a ballard, but it's not a full fledged parking lot light here. Yeah, I like your idea of saying similar. I don't think that boxes them in as much as strict and allows for what our intentions are is a low level. Light that still provides adequate lighting. Good. Any other comments on the minutes. All right. All in favor of the minutes as amended say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. And we are now into the work session warned for tonight. Our continued updates for the land development code and possible discussion for retail cannabis, which seems like we've been having that every time we get together now. Frankly, I don't know that we need to talk about it until somebody votes. In March, but let's go with it. Let's go with the work session a land development code and. And Regina first. So, thanks everybody. So really what I wanted to talk about tonight and this, this doesn't need to take very much time, but I just need some direction on what's next in terms of other big things that the planning commission wants me to try to take a look at and address. So we've been through a lot of the pieces that were that were on my plate. So expanding the village overlay district. The state statutory stuff, the water wastewater public works stuff that I think we probably have a little bit more on on wastewater. So we've talked about a few things along the way, but it would help to know how to kind of set the schedule going forward and how to wrap things up. If I can understand if there's any other big items out there that we need to look at. If there aren't any other big major items to look at. What we can do going forward is just take chunks of the, you know, probably look at chapters one through four collectively with everything we've looked at so far. We put them on the agenda. So you've got them beforehand. Everybody can take a look through and sort of address kind of minor things going along the way. If we're, if within that process, we're going to just hit other big chunks, then I want to just be aware of those big, big areas that you want to talk about first. Otherwise, we're going to, we're not going to be able to move quickly through those chapters at all. If that's making if that's making sense. So I think I know what you're trying to say. Yeah, I'm going to go back to Diane's master list. And I think we should just pop through that tonight and make sure that, you know, we're not missing one of the, the big things that was on her list. The only one that still continues to plague me especially is, is the whole, you know, how do we provide the proper language that we're all comfortable with around PUDs. So another one come in last, last week, last meeting that came in as a PUD. You know, I kind of stumbled through the review in my own mind a little bit like how do you tell them what you're supposed to do in a PUD, you know, we know what the trade off is you get you get certain, you know, waivers but but you have the ability to not strictly follow some of the normal dimensional and other criteria within the development in exchange for something. And I, I'm not sure, you know that we're still seeing them come to us with the with the clear understanding from the developers that they know what we want. You know, they keep saying, Well, we'll do whatever you want us to do. Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. You're not supposed to show up at the meeting and say, Tell us what to do. You know, you're supposed to come to the meeting with an idea about what you want to do and it's supposed to fit into the goals and the desires of the of the land development code, you know, whatever we're thinking, whether it be more open space or better design or connectivity or something, you know, like there's there's a bunch of triggers for us that give us a reason to do a PUD and I'm still thinking where we're just not clear enough because our applications aren't showing that they get it. A case in point. Okay, the Mr Burke in our last application made this grand assumption that we would guarantee a density bonus and included that instead of asking for density bonus which the land development calls for a request. He did not request he made the assumption that we were automatically going to do it. Now you might have assumed correctly. Okay, but it was always nice to follow the form which says you're supposed to ask just like some of the waivers. He made this assumption that we would already do the big and give it you know, the holy blessing and whatnot. And it's like, No, you need to really ask for those. I did not see anything in the paperwork that he was saying to fulfill his project as envisioned. He needed a waiver and he recognized that I did not see that it may have come in the conversation. But it should have. Am I wrong to make the assumption that he should be saying I need a waiver to fulfill the needs of this PUD. Well, let me ask you a different question in answer. It's possible that our application form does not properly trigger these kinds of things, you know, like if it came in and that if the actual application that you fill out that it's probably been around for 20 years unchanged and you know, I'm making that up but the if if the application form was somehow designed or redesigned to to all to make people choose. Okay, how are you presenting this is that a PUD is a not a PUD if it's PUD. And it needs, you know, certain things or you need any waivers for any reason whether it's a PUD or not. Have you identified them and have you provided. You know, the reasons for why we should do this, you know, what are what's the trade off. And I don't know that our form really is clear about about doing that but if we could go through the application form, and then the applicant's written statement and then the staff report and see all that stuff lining up like, Hey, this is presented this way. They applied for the project this way. It identified these things that are required because of our land development code and here's how those are resolved and we staff find that they're either in compliance or they still need a little work or whatever. Wouldn't that be nice. Well, it would also use our last application as an example is that you jump from literally an idea that was presented at a meeting that wasn't his. Okay, it was ours. And he said, Hey, can I run this by you. Well, yes, that's a concept, but that wasn't conceptual by definition. He he kind of jump like one or two stories to get the conceptual. If you read our instructions, he kind of he's kind of went from, Oh, yeah, let me get the everything together. Oh, yeah, we got cookies. I'm sorry, where did you mix things up. He did mix things up. So, getting getting down to it. I think when and we've had more applications come through he is not the only one that has gone from conceptual to final skipping one or two stages in between. Where as where as you read, and then then by the way, okay, things also seem to be skipped by by the way you need to have a land landscape plan. Okay, it isn't just talk about it when you get here. You need a lighting plan. It needs to be presented. So they're, they're missing that checklist piece of those things are required. You know, it's like going from zero to 60 and just, you know, well in between. Wait, it is for us, but I'll remind, I'll remind you and others that that applicant that application was like three or four months in in process, you know, the they applied and then you know we don't see it for for months and so there's a lot of things happening in there, which includes the engineering reviews and so forth. We get it and we're supposed to add, you know, act on it that night so I'm, I would like to see a way for us to maybe reinforce that and Regina is that that's within your purview to actually help us with the paperwork that's besides what's in the code for so that we maybe have a better chance of helping our applicants, you know, provide a full and well thought out thing just because they've got questions to answer that they're not answering now until they get to the meeting. No. Not as currently. I just did quickly look at your application and you do have, you know, a simple generic DRB application where they're just checking which process it is and then then basically just a checklist to make sure they have everything that they need whether it's a site plan or some division or whatever else it is. So I I could definitely see that there's some narrative that's missing because there should be some some real explanation and discussion about why this design is the way that it is and the benefits that it shows in accordance with the LDCs and therefore these waivers are needed. So I'll do well as a start I'll definitely just sort of take a look at the PUD regulations as they're drafted right now and see if there's anything that's kind of missing there that can be strengthened and improved. Then on on the back end I can't commit to helping with that right now but I can kind of put it on our list and see where we land tonight and what what really are the critical things that you guys need and if that happens to be one of them as opposed to opening a whole other section in the LDCs then then that's fine and I can see if I can put some thought into that for you. I will say the code permits someone to just jump straight to final. I always tell them it's you know that could be playing Russian roulette but the code permits them to go straight to final if they choose to. Doesn't mean they're going to get approved but that option is there. Yeah and. It might happen once a year. Well in other jurisdictions is that is that allowed. Yeah there's definitely so you know really in line with a lot of this housing conversation and trying to just sort of get things a little bit more streamlined and not process things to death. There is definitely other towns that are trying to sort of. Get things going through the process faster and so yes that's definitely having happening places where you're basically your board is seeing it twice. That's that's pretty normal. And I would say especially for a six unit development. Yeah. Which is what last last week's was. It was small and yeah, I think it's intended to make sure that this process doesn't get dragged out just because of a process you know we want it to be fair and consistent with with the nature of each application so. Okay, good. So I guess I'm thinking as we're we're discussing this perhaps it's not so much a paperwork thing with the applicant perhaps as staff is working that maybe we need to have an internal thing to say hey this applications come in. This is where I'm working with this. Okay this is where it's at. And we might be able to have even if it's sharing of subliminary ideas, it might the commission might be able to input, even if it's not officially at least get that person having or persons getting some ideas as to where we're where we're getting if they're not getting it because this last application took six months from it. Or more. No, pretty close to six months. Okay. I think we legally have to have a public meeting though don't we to any application. I don't know if we can, we can provide comment or direction on an application if we don't do it in public. And it seems like with this, and it seems like with this specific one like if there were these concerns we shouldn't have approved it last week, or last month sorry, and asked for them to come back with an updated plan. Yeah that's always your other option and you know it's always so tough to know if it's if it's a big enough thing that you want to continue the hearing so you can see it in front of your own eyes before saying okay or if you're confident that they got the point and they'll get it and you can reiterate and make sure that what they get in their hands at the end of the day meets the planning commissions conditions. It can go both ways you know and that stuff is tough to decide. I'm a little hung up maybe on the whole landscape design thing because sometimes it seems like a small issue, but you know we're actually trying to make it a bigger issue every time like that. You know that you can't imagine a project that doesn't need a really robust approach to the landscaping you know whatever that is unless you know it's like the only one I can think of really was like Firebird comes in or some similar very urban location. And I think that there's a sense that there just isn't a lot of opportunity for let's what what's traditionally landscape, you know, like the whole point of it isn't put trees in it's to provide a more, you know, kind of hardscape, you know, so what do you do right, what is there but though you know design for those is also a thing that goes towards the landscape budget so I guess I'm stuck wondering you know when do we apply the landscape overlay and say it has to have one and when doesn't it and I think there's a trigger in there like anything over such and such a size, it must have a landscape plan that we put that in the last time right. But Robin, do you remember what the trigger is for for a mandatory landscape plan well. But what we put in was it had to be a million dollar project or more for to require registered landscape architect. There you go. So in other words an engineer can do it. I think we saw an engineered landscape design at the project at 41 maple street. Oh, it really was was landscaping used as fence. That's not a landscape design I tell people all the time you want to screen yourself from others if you don't do it right you're actually putting yourself in the shade. I think the staff report said it was unimaginative. I think I could come up with so and didn't we have to do a bunch of math at the meeting to determine whether they were above or below the million dollars. You know, I think I think that's one thing we should put in we should require the cost of each project be part of the application. Do not have that. I know you you're pretty good with job numbers john about that sort of stuff I'm reasonably good. But, you know, whether it's vinyl siding or spruce siding or cedar siding or brick that changes no matter what the square footage is. So I think it'd be really good to have something in that says, what is the construction costs of this project. And we're talking about the whole thing so if you need a new water line and a bunch of, you know, all the road work and then curbs and sidewalks and the whole thing but it's not necessarily the building that we're talking about here it's really the The totality over what overall design because all of those other things are really the part we're interested in. Right. We'd be looking at the building for sure in this district. You know, I am most I go back and forward you know construction is more than just hard costs. So cost construction is hard and soft costs. And I think it should be the totality total costs. Is there. Oh, sorry. Okay, because we have in dealing with landscaping and when I asked the question about the tree that was there or are they going to keep it or not. We also have a section here that says that we will value current landscaping that's kept. We value trees. So there's got to be, there is no cost on this as to the rate. So perhaps on the forum we need to say what's the estimated cost for the project and just requested up front. Yes. And then we should have in the code. You have a couple of things that are kind of cost. No, it doesn't be at the very quick. It, it said we alluded to it, but we don't ask for it. Okay. Is it possible to provide previous plans that were approved that we think we're really great examples so that developers have examples of plans that were approved. They kind of have an idea of what we're looking for. But we've always resisted that we, you know, in a way you're talking about form base code, perhaps. Which I think means there's no truth in architectures Joe and I had the discussion about. We always say we'd like something that blows our socks off. Yeah, I guess I mean, I guess what I'm saying is not really like the design aspect of it, but just what a complete plan looks like to the commission. That's just one idea. Yeah, well, here's, so we have the thing, we have the material that we can prepare that says, here's what we want to see when, you know, and there's a checklist and there's the application and so forth. But really, you know, we have to keep leaning on our staff who is the only link to a from a project before it gets to us. The staff is there to help them through that. And I think maybe we can, you know, continue to work with Robin and Terry, and, you know, staff to try and make sure that by the time the project actually goes on the warning for one of our agendas, it has those items in it, you know, that it's, it's well put together and laid out and crosses all the keys and dots the eyes and that's, you know, it happens the way that the engineering comments work, you know, they get to have a whack at it and send it back for, you know, clarification and updates and comment and then, you know, I would like to see that our planners can actually have that same, you know, ability to kind of tell them they're not ready yet they need to clarify some things and fill in the blanks and before it comes, comes to us because because then you know we have that, you know, review review responsibility that's live on television and we kind of want, you know, to feel like these projects are are brought together as completely as they can be. Back to Robin, but, you know, I don't really need to sit in front of a applicant, you know, on a live performance and and try and hash through a landscape plan that they say complies but you know hasn't got all that stuff in it. You know, I'm not, for example, in the last one, you know, they tried to say that they have enough experience to put that together, even though they weren't registered landscape architect but, you know, I'm not. And I like to actually try doing that myself but there are a lot of components that go into it and you know if you can do it great but if you are just like you say casting shade on the project that's you haven't really thought about how this is going to work or what is going to benefit to the project that is over and above a normal delivery than in the PUD example, you know, you're not really quite there yet. And just so I know, has this really this landscaping specific landscaping issue, has this only been a challenge in PUDs, or is it more broad and should I look at you know we've already looked at the comments from the tree advisory committee and we also thought about some like rain guarding type stuff in the landscaping standards as well but I can also look at that from this lens it's a broader issue as opposed to just a PUD issue. I'm glad you brought that up because I think it is a, you know, I think the burden is higher in the PUD but I think the requirement is throughout and I'm glad you brought up the tree advisory committee because we are trying to write them into a larger role. In this review is specifically around the landscaping and the green treatment or existing trees or what have you. You know, once they're able to work with, you know, reviewing a plan and having a recommendation you know they're going to say stuff like that they're going to say, you know there's some really nice trees on this property. They can do about keeping them, you know, and there's, you know, whether there's a value to them, which there is, you know you can't take a 30 inch tree, you know caliber tree and say, you know that you're going to replace that with a two inch, or you know even a bunch of two inches and be fine you know that's a big tree. And it takes decades to grow one so I think that we are asking by virtue of bringing them into the mix in a review capacity. We're already asking for a more knowledgeable approach to each site and what's happening on it in terms of the specific site and also how it fits into the overall planning for the whole village. So, you know, yes, that's going to be a thing and it's only going to get more important. So, maybe you can help us tile that together. Yeah, I think also our experience has been that when it's a PUD on a large site. We've been more pleased than if it's been a PUD on a small site. Yeah, so maybe we have to have different criteria for a site less than half an acre and then criteria for everything else because if you look at the PUD thing, if they did a half of it on a smaller site, there wouldn't be any room for proposals. Well, I'll say it can be more challenging, although in some ways there may be more interesting like this plan that came by last time was was a fascinating concept like it's not anything like what we've seen before. And it was a reaction to that specific site and the challenges with that site and I was happy that it was able to be presented and approved because that's not normal. And so that for me, that's exactly what the PUD is designed for. It's designed to allow, you know, flexibility for something that's, you know, difficult to do under the normal zone. You know, if you get a better product with good results for people and that that should be, we should have a way to allow that. Any anything else in the PUD realm of things that have been sort of big challenges going forward on the DRB on the development review side of things. There's prompting the applicants to have a list to draw from on the kinds of things we're looking for. And I think maybe if all of us can just take one more shot at that list that is what we're asking applicants to, you know, it's not, it's not to be a limited list you know, it's kind of like we're interested in the following, you know, including but not limited to kind of thing. So you want to, we all want to be happy with the things we're promoting or asking, asking for an exchange for the PUD situation. You know, I think throughout the comprehensive plan and within the land development code, there should be a consistent flavor to the what we're looking for, you know, more green space, more open space, more landscaping, more connectivity, more amenities that are either for the living or, you know, for the development or for the development and visitors or the community at large, you know, with those things are pretty easy to just shoot through but you know when it comes down to, well I'm going to put in a jungle gym or something like they need a little bit of direction on, you know, it can't be every project all of a sudden has a jungle gym, you know, or, you know, that's not really what we're trying to do there. It's just an idea. Yeah. Well, it's like the senior senior housing when exactly having jungle gym, you know, sort of thing but to make an assumption that they don't need a bike rack well they probably do. Yeah, they probably do. Um, you know, it's Regina, that's that brings up another one and I don't want to over commit to this but the whole bicycle and and other alternative transportation issue. You know, the, the bicycle rack is, you know, it's old school, the modern equivalent of that which is considered an amenity of higher value starts to get pretty interesting, you know, whether it's a, you know, indoor accommodations for bicycles and starting to get into lead credits with having showers and, and the whole thing or, you know, in a commercial setting, which doesn't really get covered by our rules. You know, if somebody's doing a lead project and to get the building certified it'll have that stuff but you know our own regulations don't really have a way for us to acknowledge the for example the enclosed bicycle parking that we have in the community or secure bicycle parking other than you know you're chaining something to an object and, and maybe, you know, that could be considered on the list or what there's something that ought to be considered for a community resource or amenity. You know, like, especially if you're, let's say you're out in front of the library or Lincoln Hall, you know, is the traditional bike rack. Enough to set, or, you know, there's, let's say by the train station where you're multimodal, you know, there's been people that would, you know, I know a friend of mine that that leaves is has to park his bike. You know, a block or two away because he doesn't think it's safe enough to leave it at the train station all day while he takes the bus in to the city, you know, to Burlington to go to work. So, you know, it may not be just the applicants but maybe there's an overall picture of of how this, you know, more. The next level of this connection and multimodal stuff could be overlaid. And, you know, if we have that vision out there, then when somebody comes in with a project and says, Well, I'll tell you what I'll, I'll provide some enhancements to our project that will that are consistent with what you're looking for on the village as a whole and here's how that's going to work. And in the LDC, do we have a comprehensive plan or is the LDC that starts to bring in the bicycle path network and the, you know, I know all those maps exist because we had to review them a couple of times. But, you know, there's an overlay for transportation of all the, you know, walking trails and bicycle paths and, and, you know, bus routes and trains, you know, we get all of that stuff here and that's one of the great things about our villages it's all here. Right. And we should be looking to promote all of those things, which we are. And it's one of the reasons why the housing piece has been so strong around five corners is that you are right there next to all of them. So, as you're pulling this stuff together is there a way that we can enhance the awareness. So, in terms of any connectivity that you would like to see that doesn't exist today. There is a tool that you could use in zoning to sort of lay out, say, various rights of way that would help make different connections to different parts of the village, if they don't exist today. It is a thing called an official map that you could adopt as part of your zoning regulations and it basically it's kind of a little bit of an interesting tool. It requires applicants to accommodate that right of way. If they have what if an applicant comes forward to make an application in front of you for whatever any kind of development, if there happens to be a right of way wish on that official map on their property somewhere. They would accommodate it when they come forward with them with the development. And you folks, what the official map does is it lets the planning commission deny the application, if that right of way is not accommodated. So, the agencies have 120 days to decide whether they want to take action and seek to acquire that land in order to make the right of way happen. Finally, the examples that come to mind for me are, you know, for for decades now Williston has been trying to put in essentially bike paths all up and down. And, you know, you would see one show up on somebody's development and it would go nowhere because there weren't any other parcels around. Yeah, so but eventually it all gets pulled together and I guess I'm, I am interested in how that works because I think we want to include our, our wishes on on this connectivity, and whether it requires a right of way and a granting and you know, all of that I don't know I mean some of it's just as easy or as normal as sidewalks. Once you get into a shared use pathway or something more substantial I think you know you're going to see some, some more activity there I know Essex town. I think in their recent ET, ETC next tried to envision, especially, or at least on Route 15, you know, how do we, you know, get some of these pathways in place where we've only got bits and pieces of them now so it's a great idea. So, you know, there is a bike. Is there a bike advisory committee or is it just a, there is a network of bike paths that includes, you know, striping in, in the, in the roadway so it's not necessarily its own path yet. We are working hard to create safer and more independent roadways and you know we saw all summer long the improvements along Route 15 by the fort and Fannie Allen which are, you know, going to be a big step in that regard to get bicycles off of Route 15 and onto something better and isolated. So, we should be where the LDC needs to address those things I would want that to be on our list of things that we should be aware of how that works. Speaking of which, John, the connectivity between the Susie Wilson Road to the West Street extension that section is, I guess, next in the queue for the state, and it will totally alter how that section of Pearl Street there will be no more boulevard anymore it'll be trees to the side so you know the traffic will be there will I guess properties going to be exchanged so there will be a need to have a dedicated right away bike path that's going to go go down Pearl Street. Because they're talking about putting that in bringing the trees from the boulevard and having things go outside if I remember correctly it's hate to say it's been about 10 years or more. Okay, since it was going but that's in the queue next now that they've gotten in front of the fort done so this that's the next step. Now, it will impact us and it's something the states state or the region's already agreed to, or, or it's the next thing to be agreed to I'm not sure where it is. I've lost track of it a little bit. Well, okay, you know it's there's so many things going on besides the alteration of our of our boulevard. But that is the next step. Yeah, and you wouldn't need an official map to do to accomplish that that kind of thing I don't I don't know where that is in the in the world right now either but you don't really need an official map if you're talking about additional amenities or resources within a right of way, or just outside of it because eventually that will go through a whole right of way process for for the most part. Like, if you think about the application that you folks had in front of you at the last meeting. If there happened to be like a bike path connection that was, you know, coming north and south parallel to main street a little south, and that property was had the key connection to try to bring these two things together. So this tool would give you the authority to sort of hold the line on that if they weren't willing to accommodate a right of way to connect those two pieces. If that makes a little bit more more sense. It's less necessary than whatever you would need to do within existing public rights of way already. I can take a look I mean the other thing that you can do too is if you do have some bike path connections that you want to see happen and that is all mapped out the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is definitely there to be used as it's not it's not law like zoning bylaw is law right but the projects should be in line with the comprehensive plan so there is some wiggle room to sort of strengthen that language a little bit if you want if you want to just do that process that's can be done pretty easily too. Good, so let's let's just take a pass through that and make sure we were picking up the things that we want to highlight. And, and I would also, I know that when we started this process this time we were trying to also increase our consistency with the trustee approved and endorsed design five corners. Again, as a separate document, it's harder to figure out how that gets evaluated incorporated and and embedded into the LDC, you know, if it if it isn't actually embedded into the LDC somehow so. Yeah, we I incorporated a lot of language when we were looking at the village center district and then the overlay district. And I think I even put it in as a point of reference but I might not have actually like we could just identify the document as a reference document within the LDC as well. But the other a little bit outstanding question for me was we talked a little bit about the standards of the TOD zoning district as well when we were talking about some of those concepts. And I think I was able to incorporate a few of them but I didn't know if folks had other things that you wanted addressed or changed in the TOD zoning district standards. I would like a little guidance on on that because I'm not sure that that district has produced the kind of development that we were thinking it would. And I know it had some pretty specific reasons for for being created. And, and I'm not, I'm not sure how that's going because it, there were a number of projects that, you know, were either denied or never happened because they didn't meet the new requirements. And then the one that kind of did go in, you know, we're not that happy with with it. And, and so I'm, I just feel like that's a part of the village that we could be doing better on either in what we're telling the developers we're looking for or in our ability to actually achieve, you know, that goal. Short of, you know, I mean, I know we were trying to figure out how to promote a hotel or something larger that really took a big chunk of it and and created a, you know, almost a mini little development of its own with kind of additional streets and connections and parking and building on the front and so on that really would would be pretty interesting but we're not really getting that. So it's been difficult for us to figure out what's going to happen there so many of the buildings that are there now are existing non conforming by, by virtue of they were already there as, you know, fast food places or something when, when the, when the district got created so, you know, how do we work our way through that it's been been difficult. But we are overlaying design review on that district. Right. Yeah, so that will allow us to have more of a say in the design aspect of the buildings. Yeah, you're right and that might be, it'll be interesting. I'll look through that section again just to see if there's anything else that I can try to strengthen but you're right Phil I think with that overlay that will definitely help. Like I feel the building that got put in there as the front piece for what was supposed to be a two building development, the second building being the hotel that it didn't backwards you know like it feels like the part of the cornice that we see facing the streets the back because it's the part where the water drips off and you're seeing the parapet edges not the parapet and, and then the rain so called rain garden or the, you know, drainage ditch or whatever is in the front that's that's managing stormwater is, is not what I would consider to be, you know, an attractive city it's more of the, you know, you do you put the stormwater pond in front. Well you can, if it looks like taps corners and it's turned into a park with a fountain and a little pond, you know, but, but not if it's going to look like, you know, it's just waiting to fill up with, you know, let's just say it's not landscape to to attract your attention. So, yeah, so I essentially put the parking lot on the street, which is what we say we don't want in our land of Emma code. In this case, it's a storm retention pond that should have been a rain garden, and it's not a rain garden, because the rain garden flowers and other landscaping in there to beautify the front instead of just having a grass pit. Now it has potential to come but it's, it's not leaving, it's not living up to expectations. And it's kind of, unfortunately, a lot of the TOD district doesn't live up to expectations. The last application did not like the fact that they had to have retail on the first floor. So I'm kind of wondering the guy that came by and said, hey, you know, is he going to live with the fact that he's got to have read it says right there, you have to have retail on the first floor. So, okay, is he, you know, is he going to do proposal and say that no, no, I need to have it all be housing, but our application or TOD, which I'm looking at on page 84 says a lot about transportation modes. Well, okay, but how is that going to get commercial and residential development on this street, if all we're talking about is cars, buses, bikes and anything else that moves. Because there's no access to the railroad, it just passes back in the backyard. It doesn't have any, there is no proposed substation or anything else on here. It, the TOD is, it's not meeting my expectations and quite frankly, I don't even remember why it was proposed as such. Although I think it was to try to get other methods of transportation going so that people weren't just driving by on a four lane highway out of town. Well, I think we can agree that it is on a transportation, a main transportation route with with multimodal options, but I don't know that it's really providing the amenities that might want to go with that the way it is now so we'll. I would like to just say we should take, you know, maybe there's something we could do to that district that, again, like a PUD it starts to tell more about what should be going on in the front yard because you know, a rain garden, does that, is that a pedestrian amenity, you know, is that a, you know, what is that doing for the people that are experiencing it and so anyway, there are a lot of ways you could make that cool like I've seen restaurants that had, you know, like a whole developed little mini garden event with bridges and all kinds of fun stuff and, you know, in front of their restaurant, you know, and so the base drainage ditch that's there now actually gets turned into something really fun, you know, but it takes some creativity and and execution to do that and, you know, that that's where we're not really seeing that happen yet so help us out with that one if you can. Okay. All right, so that that all sounds pretty good and and doable, I think that I think the only outstanding thing is so. So definitely clear the housing committees focused on inclusionary zoning. I think we kind of have to just sort of leave that open at the moment in terms of getting through some of this other stuff and figuring out where they are with input because I think they definitely you definitely want them to do sort of like the development and input and a couple of other pieces before you decide how you want to get that into your into your bylaw. So I think we're just going to have to sort of play that by ear for a couple more months to see if I can still help sort of like get that into the LDCs and if you want to try to take the time to get that into the LDCs or if you want to just button up what we've done so far, call this one amendment and then give that a little bit more time before you decide whether to try to get it in there or not. I'm okay with a sense idea. I think something I think something related to housing that I would like to discuss is density. I would like to talk to district which I think is like probably the majority residential district we have is single family and I would like I'd encourage to talk about potentially increasing that to allow multifamily. So what's one way that we can address housing needs in the junction is by allowing a wider allowing areas that are currently single family only or potential to be multifamily with the right needs. So, the people feel that we can discuss that or talk about density in those those districts. I think it would be comfortable having a discussion that said we want to look at density across the board and then we can look at our one or two or three whatever. Absolutely. Yeah, and see what our options are and if our two is is where we decide that we want to focus maybe that's, you know, a way to do that but I think it should be a slightly broader original view and then we can own in on something that's a few. Sure. Totally agree. Phil are we leaving you out for anything you got any, any comment there. Patrick you mean. Yeah, I'm talking to Patrick. Why do I keep doing that. No, no, I like the density. The only thing I was going to bring up was the that idea of the inclusionary zoning is I like John how you mentioned this month that we could just go all bore and just do it right now and throw it in there but Regina to your point you know to hear a little throw a little caution at it and hear what you know the housing committee kind of comes through as they go through their process a little bit. I did read through Burlington's inclusionary zoning packet or whatever they're 25 whatever number of pages it is complex. Yeah, but it all made sense. I mean I like it's almost as if I would take that with a few small minor tweaks and just add it you know especially knowing that there's so much development that's coming down the pike. That's right in front of us with redesigned five corners that there's a lot right in front of us that we could have an opportunity to quickly get ahead of it. Before some of these applications start. You know coming in a little bit you know more more frequently. Well in addition to that there's I mean I'm thinking of a place on West Street that used to be owned by Bill Weatherby. It used to believe it or not used to be a corner store and their houses behind it. It itself I'm not sure if it's one or two apartments or what what its condition is at this point in time. But at one point in time it was a corner store with a an apartment attached to it. Now when you look at it you just say it's a building it's got a glass door blah blah blah. Okay, so unless you knew what its former former function was. You wouldn't know what that is you say it's a little it's a strange looking building in the middle of a residential neighborhood but it's at a crossroads. The corner of West Street extension and West Street. So we have the potential for properties to do as as Patrick said to have more density. How many more properties do we have that would amend itself doing more than just an ADU could somebody do more on that property to have more housing. If it was allowed to happen but because of the residential to it. It can't. Okay, you could go to an ADU because those are allowed carte blanche. But if you want to do more if you want to put try to put two ADUs on there you can. We have properties here in the village that are large enough that they could go that way. We've had a lot of infield course made a lot of people very upset. It stopped for a while but it's returning. And I have not heard people getting all bent out of shape other than the fact that there's lots of apartments on Pearl Street. And they don't want to see any more apartment buildings. But you know maybe there's something to that we townhouses instead you know where people are are actually owning them versus renting them. But we haven't we haven't asked our community what what do you want to see for a while. You know what is it that all we hear. I don't like that but what do you want to see and we haven't had that question that's not in the land development code, but land development code is going to drive a lot of this. And, you know, I recognize it's not going to affect anybody until it's next door. I'm trying to try to get that next door conversation in my head before they come and say I don't like it because it's next door. There could be. There could be the that design review when when we add the design review overlay to along these main quarters if the language is strong enough about what that means and what is requested similar to when we're asking people to provide a new development in our historic village center that is consistent with and and doesn't detract from the historic properties that are there. You know, we might be able to beef up the what we're expecting to see on those main trunk lines. And that's a design issue that's that's asking for more. You know, I don't I'm not sure exactly the method I know in the form based code they'll show you what they want. You know, it will without that, we need to describe what we want or at least describe where the bar is and how high it is and say it's got to be, you know, we're looking for something better than you know what we're seeing now. And and you know we can do that and maybe Regina knows how how we're going to do that but it can be done in a number of ways and and form based code has been pretty popular but I'm not sure we're headed that way right now it's probably much heavier lift and this this LDC update is prepared for but I think getting the design overlay along those corridors is is the first thing that's important and then figuring out how to make sure the the bar is set high enough for those developments will will start to come along. Yeah, and I think it's like it. I think it makes sense to try the design overlay and see how that goes and if it's still not doing what you need it to be doing then maybe you look at some kind of. You know, so the one the big benefit of a form based code is really the process that goes into it and it's a big helpful. Typically week long design sure at you get a lot of word out lots of people have a bunch of different ways to participate in it, and it can really help get some input and some consensus around a vision. And then you kind of code the vision. But it's it's definitely a different avenue than what we're attempting to do right now but you know for the most part you guys have been able to get some really great stuff done in the village and so if you just sort of like take that model and sort of send it down Pearl Street. Maybe that's all you need and you can get some good success with that. I think I think this makes sense. So I've got all this, all this stuff on the list. Patrick definitely hear you like I mean I think it would be amazing if we could just get Izzy into this to before we button it up. So I think we've got a lot of other stuff to sort of think through and work on for a couple of months here and so hopefully the housing committee will be in a place where they can give us enough of the specifics of what they want kind of plugged in there. Awesome. Okay, all right. Anybody have anything else. I think that's great. Thank you very much. Thank you this is super helpful. Okay. So under work session be possible discussion for retail cannabis is there anything to add this this week or we just kind of kind of wait for voting to happen and decide whether or not it's an issue for our community. So set up another forum. It looks like it's going to be February 16 probably around 536 o'clock. I'm not sure it'll be very different from the last one. There haven't been many more changes made by this theater coming down to pipeline. But we were asked to set one up. Currently residents and the select board have been asking how things are going. So we're setting one up and it'll be hybrid. So we're still talking about the time. It might be 5, 5, 30 or 6 o'clock on the 16th of February. We're still working out the details. And is it a joint meeting with the town or are we? Yes. We'll be doing that until February 25th. Any other updates on on what the. The village town situation is happening and what it might mean to our planning commission. At this point. Nothing for me, John, I don't think. There will be an impact on the planning commission. If there is separation or we go back to what it had been. I mean, the trustees have decided that if it's separation, then we're city. If it's not separation, then we're going back to where we were before all the March merger discussion started. So. The planning commission will be intact either way. Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Any other planning commission items for tonight. Hearing none. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Make a motion to adjourn. Second. Second. Hey, wake up. Well, it's a little garbled coming over the feed sometimes. All right, all in favor. Aye. Aye. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you all very much.