 Ready? Call a meeting to order. First item on the agenda is changes to the agenda. Eric, you have some. Yes, I have one item that I want to add to the agenda, which is authorization of the chair to sign off on a municipal planning grant application. They just, the state of the agency of commerce and community development, I think earlier this week, actually announced the municipal planning grant application cycle is now open. So as part of that application process, the chair of the planning commission needs to sign off on the application as well as a resolution from the city council in order for the city to submit the application. So what we wanted to do was, when that grant is finalized and ready to go, instead of either having to call a special meeting to get authorization for the chair to sign or trying to coordinate submission of that application with another planning commission meeting, we figured we would just have that as an agenda item tonight so that when the application is ready to go, the chair can sign on behalf of the planning commission. The intent, as we've talked in the past, was to submit an application for the historic resources inventory to start that process rolling. So that's what we're, I believe that's what the application will be for, or at least that's one of the items that we are looking at at submitting. Are we gonna discuss this? Yeah, we will. We're gonna get to sitting on this, right? Well, I'm gonna suggest that we make that item six after election of officers and then because that way we won't forget about it. Right, later. Any other changes to the agenda? There are none. Public comment. Communications involvement manager from the street partnership for prevention. I don't know, something that Arianna had in mind but I also looked into. Yep, I did include it with their agenda packet and forwarded it out to them as well. So they should all have copies at their table and had it in advance of the meeting. The one-pager MD multi-page document. Through grants, through the Vermont Department of Health as well as some federal grants. And one of our initiatives that we're trying to undergo is restricting outdoor advertising along areas where youth frequent because there is research that shows that exposure to advertising can increase use and also the perception of harm and the cultural norm of drinking and tobacco use. And so a way to combat that would be to restrict advertising in some manner. So there is, let me reference the actual law. The 2009 Family Soaking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives local municipalities the power to pass something like this as long as it's not content-based. So you can't say tobacco ads have to have like let's eliminate this language or that but you are able to, you could restrict just advertising in general so that would affect tobacco but also alcohol, food, that kind of thing. So an example could be restricting like the percentage of windows in a convenience store or gas station to say 50% of the windows, window space can be covered in advertising or we're proposing manner advertising restriction. And so that would just be prohibiting, well, it's kind of a combo actually. So the percentage of window space but also prohibiting advertising on say like poles or fences or things like that. And so I did send some packets that I came up with because I was trying to compile answers to what I thought would be your questions. So I mentioned this at a city council meeting in March but we underwent a survey. We had got 106 respondents, 75% or so were Manuski residents and we basically pulled them about advertising regarding tobacco and alcohol. And you have the full results but the piece that I wanna pull out was the majority of people would like to see fewer advertisements for tobacco and alcohol overall in Manuski. And when it comes to outdoor advertising, that rises. So 79% believe tobacco advertising should not be allowed outside stores and then a little bit less with alcohol at 69%. So there's definitely support for a restriction. Also in 2016 we pulled some store owners cause obviously they would be the ones affected by this and they seemed, the answer was that they would be okay with it as long as it was applied equally among all store owners so that one's not getting an advantage because they have all their advertisements. And so what we were proposing is doing it, placing the language in the form-based code. So that would affect, there's a map that I pulled out on here of the zoning district map. It's on the second and last page. And so that would be all the teal areas. So Mallets Bay Ave, East Allen Ave, East Allen Street and Main Street and so with Mallets Bay that's where the O'Brien Community Center is. Main Street is everyone's walk to school route and then East Allen you would be kind of hitting anyone who might be walking to school down there. There's a few community stores. So I think if we put it in the form-based code that affects the gateway district then you would be applying it to the majority except for the downtown court of storefronts and also where you frequent. So kind of place both sides. And also in here it's just like, so you can kind of flip through this on your own but the research behind like how advertising impacts youth there's plenty of research on that as well as health risks of alcohol and tobacco. We kind of all know how bad it can be health wise but some of the statistics are really stark when you look at them. And that also when you see wouldn't be the first community to do this. New York City actually just banned Uncle Heads on all of their city property. This is following LA, Philly, San Francisco and then there are multiple countries including Iceland who have banned tobacco advertisements at the point of sale and then we can just think of like the most popular example of the banning of tobacco ads on TV like that's a proven tobacco prevention strategy to prevent or reduce use. So- Is there a place in Vermont that has adopted this kind of? Yes, in Manchester and Williston. It's, I still have to flip through to get like the perfect language but they have done window percentage restrictions. So I could get that for you if you would like. Let me ask you a couple of questions that I have to go through this. So you talked about in this stuff you talked about outdoor advertising and point of sale advertising. I guess the question I have for you is when you say advertising, are you saying as minimal as Budweiser or Camel cigarette? You know what I mean? I think of advertising TV ads when you go Joe Camel or the Marlboro man or the most interesting man in the world pushing beer. You talking about anything that references any kind of tobacco or alcohol? Yeah, I think a better way I guess to describe it would be signage. So that would include Budweiser, Juul. Like all those things that they're ads but they're really, it's just they're branding. They're really trying to get that in front of people. And when you say point of sale, you're talking about at the counter? Because I'm not sure what jurisdiction we have over inside advertising, you know what I mean? Yeah, so I'm not, when you say point of sale you're talking about the cash register or you're talking about inside the... To me point of sale encompasses like when you're going to a store, right? Like the advertising you see on the outside but then also on the inside. If you go to the counter, I think that's more common definition of going to the cash register. What do you see? What's there in front of you? What we are proposing is that, you know if you're entering the store there's gonna be advertising. It's gonna be kind of more difficult to restrict that. Just but if kids are walking to school and they're seeing it like that is something they're not choosing to enter that store. And so we're trying to prevent kids being exposed to messages from just like walking around. So you're focused on what you can see from the outside? When they're on the side of the building, on that, you know, like on the gas station sign that has the prices and they might have a pad for whatever, beer or liquor or something. Right, right. I'm kind of thinking to your point as far as uniformly enforcing something like this because it sounds like very noble that we would eliminate this from like roadways and so on but then it sounds like effectively if you don't have any point of sale restrictions just pushes it inside and if kids are still shopping in the store they're seeing it in the store. But the real question is do we have the legal authority to ban advertising inside the store? I don't know if that's, if we do or not. That's a question. Before we do anything like this, we need to get an opinion of this city attorney. Also as far as uniformly applying this about places that serve all the fault too, I don't know how to apply it down. Well, kids wouldn't be in there anyway. No, they wouldn't, but necessarily places on Main Street that are designed on. So I'd be curious to know just how other places are actually doing this, the places that have passed it through Vermont. Like exactly how, what language they used and how restrictive is it? And if you take cities that you mentioned what does it look like there? I also think if you're gonna try to do it uniformly the form-based code doesn't hit all the commercial locations. Like there's Chick's Market that might have something out there. So I feel like you'd have to be, maybe it could be part of the form-based code but I think it would have to be across the whole. Chick's probably is the only outlier I would imagine. Is this right? I don't know. Yeah, because that's the only a grandfathered in. Well, and the one's downtown too. Yeah, downtown, that's true. Yeah. The other question I have is it really, Christina, I'll address it to you is should this be done through, is it proper place through zoning breaks or is it a city ordinance that one does? And I don't know what the answer is. Right, yeah. Yeah, so I think that's the other question that we should get answered. Signage is regulated in zoning. The sign is itself and so the dimensions, the location, the type of sign, that all comes in from the zoning perspective, so. But I'm wondering if a city ordinance is stronger or a better way to do it than in zoning. I know. And that's what I'm asking the question. I don't know what the answer is. Or about, yeah. It could be both, yeah. Because if it came down to zoning, wouldn't it mean you would have to enforce it? Whereas, correct. If it was a city-wide ordinance that it could be enforced by other. Code enforcement. Code enforcement, yeah. Yeah, it's, I know you've been pushing this for a number of years, trying to get it through. And I think it's, in my mind, the stumbling block of getting something done has always been, what's our jurisdiction for doing this and how do we do it? And you mentioned that, is it a state law that was passed, a family and whatever? Oh, no, that was a federal law. Federal law. When was that passed? 2009. 2009? Mm-hmm. Wow. It's time. Well, no, no. The reason I asked is, I remember you came before the council when I was on the council and we had concerns then about, well, can we do it? Is there laws and nothing, we never got any information that there was a federal law that would apply. Yeah, it definitely took some more research. The other thing that comes with that is there's an agency that I can call to ask these legal questions that act as a legal support for organizations to pass something like this. So, those questions. We're still gonna need the advice of the city council, or the city city council. We do need that, but what's the city attorney? Mm-hmm. They definitely could just act as a sounding board, maybe point in the right direction. I'd like to see it go through, but I don't know legally how it's done. So, I just wanna say I would be in favor of it, but how it is implemented would be. Yeah. We'd have to be legally binding. I mean, I think it's certainly something that we need to bring up, whether it's in this venue or the city council. And of course, we have to have public hearings. If it goes through us, we have to do public hearings presented to the council. They have to go through public hearings and adopt it. So, no matter what, there's gonna be several public hearings, which isn't a bad thing. Nothing. It would seem like it could be done. If you can regulate billboards and sign dimensions that some ordinance could be produced for. I just remember a discussion about, I don't know if it was this specifically, but that within the establishment, there were limitations on what you could do. I may be, maybe that's changed, or maybe I got it wrong, but that's kinda, my biggest thing is okay. Outside seems like a no-brainer. You can do it inside is the question. Do we have jurisdiction to say to a store owner, I'm sorry, you can't put an advertisement for Budweiser, they still sell Miller out. Whatever it is inside your store. Because, I mean, you walk into a store and you got a cooler with glass doors and it's right there in your face anyway, you know what I mean? That's how it works. It would be interesting to see what they're doing in other places just so we know what it looks like. But I think you addressed it in Williston and. Manchester. Manchester, they're limiting it to a percentage of a window, right? Yes. Anything outside? Do you know if it's just a window? I really need to get through the whole thing. I've been talking about beer, but we're talking about beer, wines, tobacco products, all that stuff, and tobacco products, smoking, chewing, all that stuff. And then eventual possibility of cannabis are we talking about that too, when that becomes part of our society? So, I think we're ready. Yeah, well I'm kinda wondering, like it's raising a flag in my mind, like, how's the beverage warehouse gonna feel about this? Like, that's what they do, you know? And so, to them it might be more of a hardship than a corner market that sells other products. Although, maybe there's a distance from the road, from the actual path of travel, because they are so far back that you might not even see the sign. I mean, why would kids be going there unless they're going to get alcohol? But if they're just walking on the sidewalk, would you even read and have a precedent that far? So I'm just saying the way we limit it. I hear what you're saying, because I'm just trying to think, do I remember seeing advertisements on the beverage warehouse? Oh, yeah. They tend to put them in the big plate last month. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, generally speaking, anything that's gonna be inside the store is outside the purview of the zoning regulations. We wouldn't have any jurisdiction there, but on the exterior, that is more our purview. As an example, we have some precedent already. In downtown, we have specific sign guidelines, which are part of the master plan that dictate where signs can be placed, how big they can be. So there's a uniform plan for all the signage in downtown. So it's not that it's, I mean, this can all be done. It's just a matter of being careful to not regulate content. It can't be content specific. That's the big key. Oh, yeah, that's, you're using good questions. So a lot of this advertising is actually stuff to place within the establishment that's being used for a window. Because I can't think of many actual fixtures that feature a way to back over alcohol advertising on an outside of the store. But is that still considered signage though, if it's in the window looking out? I think typically with our regulations, and I think a lot of regulations, if it's inside the building, it's not part of what we would regulate. It wouldn't be a window covering of some sort. Currently not, but I think it can, I think we do have the ability to regulate that area as well. Again, we just have to be very careful as to making sure that we're consistent with how we're regulating it across all uses and for not regulating the content specifically. And if it applies to everyone's advertising, not just alcohol and tobacco, how are we making sure people can still show you what their service or products are? Yeah, because we talked about this before, like you have a sandwich board sign that's advertising at 12 pack, discount or whatever, but also have a sidewalk sale for a boutique that is using a sandwich board for a sale. Do more research. Yeah. The guidance that we've been using in the land use world is that if you have to read the sign to determine if it's consistent with your regulations, then your regulations are not legal. So that would be content-based regulation in essence. So you can regulate the size, you can regulate the location, you can regulate other aspects like that, but if you need to read the sign to determine if it meets your regulations, then it's your regulations are not consistent with federal. That's kind of interesting because like the federal law also prevents aren't, maybe I'm wrong, I thought that cigarette advertisers were banned from newspaper, or magazine ads. No, they're still magazine ads. They're still magazine ads. They're not on TV anymore, I think. Not on TV or are they in newspapers? Yeah, I've seen them in the 70s. That's right, in the 70s, okay. So yeah, we need to find out what they're doing in other places and how they're doing it because then obviously that would be, if they're doing it in other parts of the month, then we can adopt something similar, I don't think. We can look into it. I was just gonna mention quickly that working on a project at EVM, they were trying to put something inside the window, a large sign, and Burlington had their opposing. So you might just want to. Yeah, and some municipalities do limit that as well. It just depends on, that's an area where it's often, if it's behind the glass, it's oftentimes is not included in the regulations because it's then inside the store. So that is a way that some establishments use to put more advertising up than may be allowed by the sign regulations. So it really depends on what the specifics are. I think such a sign that it was neon too, a lot of places like RV and W use neon signs in their windows rather than actual placards or things that fix to the building. I definitely have some notes. So I can look into all of this and pass it along and pass it along to the commission. We can keep the conversation going. I definitely know I was a journalist before and have been to a lot of planning commission meetings and things in July. So I definitely know it's gonna be a long process, but I'm really excited about hearing your responses and your attitude about it. So. Well, thanks for coming in. Thank you. Thank you. So, no more public comment, I guess. Let's move on to approval of previous meeting minutes. The July 25th meeting minutes are included in your packet for consideration. If someone has a chance, is ready to make a motion to approve in seven seconds, we'll take action on that. Did, I have a question for comment. Didn't Sarah bring up, or maybe that has to do with the split zoning, but just historic buildings? And wasn't she? I think she had in the past and she did specifically at this meeting. She didn't. We were there too. Maybe I just thought she had, but maybe she had. She has in the past, so it doesn't. Right. I don't remember anything other than the things that mentioned here. Okay. I'm merging all of the meetings together. But it's stuck in your mind, so that's what I'm saying. It did, it's important. The reason you have actual one meeting. Yeah, yeah. You look for any excuse for that, won't you? Not that I don't like spending time with you all, but all right. I guess I need to approve minutes. Okay. Who wants a second? Joe or Terry? Joel second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Very none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Sessions? Motion carries. Election of officers. We've been waiting for months to do this. Let me just ask this. Do any of you have any interest in being chair? Not stepping up, okay? Anyone have any interest in being, taking the vacant vice chair position? And just as a reminder. You're saying Abby does? Abby. Abby. Just as a reminder, Joe as an alternate, technically, still he can't be an officer. So when are we gonna make Joe, what? That'll be a function of the planning, sorry, of the city council. Can they do that next meeting? The mayor's right there, so. Is that August 19th? Yeah. I might be there. Oh, you should, you might be there anyway. Yeah. Um, just, yeah, just an aside from all this, like are we, we're getting more members, right? That's the plan, yes. So they're gonna be approved at the next city council meeting? Well, no, not yet. Do we have any buyers? Not yet, we haven't, I'll cover that under city of Kansas. Okay, okay. Well, this is important to this conversation. Absolutely, absolutely. But even, so any new members that would come on would be coming on as alternates. So they would, so the intent is to move Joe up to a full member, as I'll call it, and then any new members would come on as alternates. And there's four of us, five of us as regular members? Five regular members, two alternates. Okay, five regular members, who's that in? Abby and us, it will be. It's just nice to have 234. So, Pallas was the other. Right, right, right, okay. Member. And how long is the position? For which? Any of these positions. August is a year. A year. Yeah, we elect annually. And usually, I know, I don't really wanna do it, but I will do it. Pure pressure. Do you wanna be vice, and I can do that, or I can do vice? Or vice versa. I'll give you, I'll give you a choice. Between us, Joe's not part of this conversation. Well, no, Abby, Abby is, but she's not here either. But we can just elect her. I mean, you guys could have done this to me last time, and I'm grateful you didn't, so that's fair. We can reach out to her and ask if she's interested. I can stay on at this, I can be vice. The vice chair position, all you're doing is, if I don't show up, you've run the video show up. No, I know it might be easier than this, maybe. He does have a pretty good record, so. I was just giving you a choice, because you have been here the longest. I can stay on doing this, it's fine. Do you wanna, do or do you wanna wait? How about we ask Abby, and if Abby wants to do it, she can do it, if not, I will do it. Okay, let me, let's do this, let's do this then. Let's do this then. I know. So, no one has stepped up to be the chair, so why don't you elect me as chair again for this year? Okay. Okay. Someone make a motion? I elect Michael as chair? Well, someone make a motion in a second. I move to, I move to elect Michael as president. As chair. As chair. As sovereign leader of the planning commission. And Joe seconds, all in favor? Aye. Okay. Now, will someone make a motion to appoint or elect Terry as the secretary? Is it secretary plus treasurer or just secretary? Just secretary. Secretary. I will move to appoint Terry as secretary. Okay. I second that. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So those two are done, and the next meeting we'll talk about the vice chair position. Okay. And if I don't show up, that means Terry has to run the meeting. No. Didn't you just select me as, you just select me as the vice chair? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it goes on and on. The vice chair. The vice chair. I will be here. Are you people in the audience, in the television audience getting all this? Come join the fun. Seriously. So that's done. Now let's move on to review, update and work plan. No, this is where we added the item. Oh, that's right. Wait, who seconded that motion? Who seconded that motion, you? I did. Take your back. Oh, this is for signing. Right, for authorizing the chair to sign for the municipal planning grant application. And what are we going for? What's the... Right now the plan is to prepare an application to get funding to do the historic resources survey that we've been talking about as part of the update to our regulations related to historic preservation. Do we have any idea of the dollar amount we're thinking? Five grand, 10 grand? So the, I believe the maximum amount that a municipality can get is, I think it's around 20,000 with a certain percentage match. I want to say it's a 20% match. Okay. So it would end up total project cost being around 25, $26,000 or something like that. Sorry, can you repeat what you guys just said? So I'm still in the box. I asked about the dollar amount and he said the maximum he thinks is 20,000. For this municipal grant. Yes, with a 20% match. But we don't know how much we're going to go after it. I would guess we'd probably go after the full amount whatever is available. Yeah. How did, did we get like a quote from somebody in the field who thought that it would cost probably 25 to 26,000 to do this or do we just know from other? No, well I think that's so generally the way the municipal planning grant process works there's a couple of different ways it can work but typically the way that I've seen it happen in the past is a municipality will put in for a grant application with a project in mind be awarded a dollar amount and then go out with an RFP with that as the dollar amount for a not to exceed. So that's generally how that's, how it's done. It, I mean I've seen it other ways where a scope will be loosely put together and then sent out to a list of consultants or other professionals to say here's what we're proposing, here's the amount we have kind of give us a scope of what you think you can do for this much money. And then that's kind of also built in. So it can happen from either side but typically the grants cap at a certain amount per either per municipality or as an individual application or they do a joint application that's has a greater value for multiple municipalities to go together on a combined application. I believe we're just doing a single application in this case. Do you remember by any chance how much like the municipal master plan like that was over an extended amount of time but was that grant, that was grant funded? That was, yeah, that was a municipal planning grant. I would guess that was probably a 25, $26,000 grant or total for that. I remember right. I thought we had a couple of them. I know we've had, my understanding is we've gotten a municipal planning grant each of the last three or four years. One was for the master plan. We just got one for the way findings study that's being done now. And what was that for? How much was that for? I want to say about 25, 26,000 total. And what would we, what are we going after with this one? Do we have an idea of this? For the project? He's thinking probably. The historic preservation survey. Okay, that's what I was thinking. Yeah, the historic resources survey. Okay. Yeah. We're also exploring some other opportunities for funding for that also. So that might either help enhance the application or give us another funding stream that we could look at and maybe look at municipal planning grant funds for something else. Have you seen a report that you think is good for this and how much that normally costs? I mean. I haven't. And I really don't know what preservation consultants charge. I would think for that price, we get something really nice out of it. That's what I was thinking. If we can get a municipal planning grant or municipal master plan for around that cost, then I mean, there's a lot that goes into an inventory like that, but I wouldn't think it's of the same level of intensiveness. Yep. But either way, the idea here though is to just authorize, have the planning commission authorized the chair to sign off on that application once it's ready so that we don't have to either convene a special meeting to take that action or to potentially try to make everything aligned so that we can get that on an agenda. So the chair of the planning commission signs, does the mayor sign as well? There's a resolution from council that goes along with it, I believe. So council has to sign off on a resolution, but the planning commission chair also has to sign off. All right. So I look for a motion to allow the chair to sign municipal planning grant when it comes forth. I second that. Any discussion? Thoughts? No. All in favor? We say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. That's great. Thank you very much. Now we can go to the former number six. Right. The review of updated work plan. Yeah, so I included sort of our last meeting we talked about some changes to the work plan, specifically incorporating some discussion of the housing commission taking on some, some of the initial tasks related to, related specifically to item two, the review of the parking and item three, the evaluation of incentives. So I've incorporated some new language to reflect that in this draft. So this is really more just a kind of the, what I'm hoping is the final draft for the work plan for you all to look at. And then if you're okay with it, we'll make it final and take the draft stamps off. And this is what we use to kind of guide our work going forward this year. Right, so I'm sorry, I didn't catch all that. No, that's okay. Did you just back up before getting some of this work to other? Sure, so at our last meeting we talked about, which actually you weren't at our last meeting. Exactly. That's probably why. Yes, okay, absolutely. Thank you. So at our last meeting we discussed some of the background data and other information related to parking specifically would be an initiative that the housing commission would take on as they were doing some of their work related to housing in general, looking specifically at some of the residential parking, either the inventories now, if there's any shortfalls in any of the areas of the city, looking at other data like the number of people that even have cars, for example, and maybe even some of the commuting patterns to determine some of that to give us some background information and some kind of baseline data on what parking looks like now in the city so that we can kind of use that to move forward in looking at potential changes or amendments to the parking requirements in our regulations. Similarly, they're going to be looking at the incentives. Right now we have several incentives in the form-based code for additional height in essence for development based on a need for affordable housing and also for energy efficiency in buildings. And so what the housing commission is going to look at again is the incentives to see if those incentives are working. Nobody's really taken advantage of those incentives yet so to see what other incentives might be more appropriate or to see what might be of interest to the city to start trying to incentivize as well. So again, the housing commission looking at some of the background data and preparing some of the information to come forward to you all to look at in an effort to consider updates to those aspects of the regulations as well. Other questions, thoughts, comments? So we reviewed this last time, right? Correct. And we're just trying to... Yeah, so really the primary changes from the last draft were under items two and three where I've added some language about the housing commission in otherwise I believe everything else has stayed the same. Looking to make a motion right here. I don't even know. I don't think we need a motion just if it looks all right to people. Looks good to you. Okay. Joe, you good with it? Amy, Perry? This is something that... But I think I want to read it to you too. Sure. I think it's something, this is just kind of a template. Right, it could evolve. Yeah, it'll evolve as we get into it, but... Yeah, I mean, it's a fairly high level overview of kind of the broader picture of what we're gonna be looking at as a planning commission this next year to kind of help guide us as we go forward and then also give us a way to... I mean, ultimately the work that we are doing primarily the planning commission is in charge of implementation of the master plan. So that in this case, well, in all cases, will involve other commissions of the city working as well with the commission realignment that's going to help kind of focus the different vision areas that were outlined in the master plan to those different commissions. So ultimately the planning commission though is in charge of implementing the master plan. So this is a way for us to kind of pick out the land use components of the master plan to start looking at how we're gonna be implementing those pieces now and then also incorporate the other commission's work going forward too to look at how we're all implementing the master plan. Right. Okay. Yeah, no, I think these are good. All right, good job, Eric. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have review of form-based code, siting, building form, and architectural standards. Yes, so included in your agenda were two documents. They look very similar. One has more pages than the other, however. So at our last meeting we started to talk about kind of the siting standards and the architectural specifics of buildings that are coming up in the form-based code and whether or not we're getting the type of development that was outlined in the vision that was presented initially as the code was being developed. We reviewed the charrette document that was produced from those, the charrette document that was produced from the public meetings that happened back as the process was going forward to look at some of what the vision was outlined in that document, kind of what was presented. So what I have before you tonight are two documents. They're both, like I said, they both look the same. The biggest difference you'll see in the highlighted yellow, the one document, the smaller of the two deals more with the siting components of the form-based code and under 402 on the first page you'll see G-citing is the first item listed. So it's the one that looks like this with the little box. The other document is more of kind of the building form and architectural components that are outlined in the form-based code. And I tried to highlight the areas that are relevant to each of those pieces, the siting and then the architecture and building form so that you can quickly get through them if you need to and to identify what those components are. But I wanted to point out a few areas specifically because some of the things we talked about last time were, and I have to look at my notes here, kind of that step back off the building line, the required building line, whether or not the first floor should have some sort of different architectural characteristic to it, the materials in general, just the brakes and the facade and things of that nature. So like I said, I tried to highlight the areas specific in each of these sections to those components. So what I thought we would do first is look at the siting document to see, just to orient you to what's in the document now so that we kind of all have a baseline of what we're starting from to determine what changes, if anything, should be proposed going forward. And then I've also got some slides, the same slides I presented last time of the actual buildings and some of the designs, but also some questions to consider as we look at this and the specific code sections that the questions relate to. So for example, there's this 24 inch offset that's identified and it's under 402 G3. Before you go there, can I ask you to kind of, please? Overwriting question. Because when I read that through this, I'm going, it's confusing, it's complicated. Sure is. So I'm wondering if developers have an issue with it. I mean, it takes, I'm reading through it and I went through the whole thing and we passed it and it's still going, Jesus. Yeah, and that's a really good question. And it's a little difficult to just look at these two pieces kind of in their own documents and not seeing them in context of the larger code. I would say in general, in general, no, the developers understand the regulations. I would say generally they have, I mean, they will have some questions about, what does it mean by this or can you explain this a little bit better or I have this situation, will this be something that fits within the code going forward? But generally speaking, I think the development community and the design professionals that we have out in, that work in the city are, they're pretty comfortable with the code. They are pretty comfortable. One of the other parts of it is once we have some of the initial conversations with a potential applicant and talk about how what they're proposing fits in with the regulations or not, once we get to a point where they're ready to make a submission, formal submission, we present them with a series of checklists that they have to go through and identify how they're meeting the different parts of the code specifically. So I've developed some checklists that will walk through and talk about things like your building being on the required building line or if it's not, how far off the building line is it? So they will answer those questions specifically so that we can go through and make sure they've met all the components. And that's also a good way for them to go back through to kind of look at what's required and make sure that they're meeting the requirements also. I guess when you read it, if you understand build to line, the different terms, the different manners for the partings that are, that's very helpful. Because I think it is relatively simple. It's just the language is kind of, it's odd. It is, it is, it definitely is. Okay. So I, just any changes that we're gonna make to this, obviously have to go through the council. Well, they have to go through you all first. Right, then council for a public hearing and all that. Correct. So I'm just curious, and this is probably like a question I should know the answer to, but are we, we are making recommendations are we getting any public feedback at all? Well, we will. Yeah, I mean, I think we will. I think the first step though is to start to figure out what changes we wanna make or what we wanna consider making. And then we'll start crafting language to see what that might look like as a proposed change and then start getting feedback on what that proposed change is gonna look like and what that's gonna do. So I think it's really kind of figuring out one, what we wanna change and then determining what those changes might look like to meet, to meet the, either better match the vision or to get a different development style. And then I think for the form-based code in particular, what I would envision is that we would bring in some design professionals to talk to them directly to see how it would impact just a generic building or if it makes sense in their opinion. You know, in a lot of cases what we see with some of these developments is that a lot of the form is coming together because of the way that the building is being structured. So for example, you might see a parking, an underground parking that has, you know, all the pillars are on 27 foot spacing because that's just kind of a standard spacing increment. So you've got three spaces between each pillar, which is gonna affect the upper floors. And so that'll also impact what kind of materials they can use and things like that. So we would engage some of the design professionals and the design community to say, okay, if we adjust this number here, is that going to create all kinds of new problems from a design perspective from the building? You know, a lot of times it's, everything's kind of uniform and standard to say, you know, we can use this piece of precast concrete because it's this dimension. So if you're changing that dimension, now it's a special order. And so we have to, we have to, it's a whole new ball game and nobody's gonna build anything because it's gonna be too expensive. So yeah, we'll definitely engage, we'll engage specific members of the public, but then also generally engage the public as well on any changes. And we'll have to, because we'll have to hold public hearings before we can send anything forward to the Council. And then yeah, Council will have to hold hearings also. So I have a few questions that I kind of was contemplating as I was looking through this information. And again, based off of some of the conversations we had at the last meeting to see as kind of a way to get the conversation rolling. And those questions are up on the screen here. So the first one we had talked about is this offset from the required building line. You know, there was discussion about whether or not there's enough space between the sidewalk and the building, or we should maybe consider moving it back a little bit. So there's a little more space there. We do have this offset provision already that buildings can be 24 inches behind that line, the required building line and still be considered to have met that standard. So is that a good enough distance? Should we be looking at a greater distance, less smaller distance? Do we not have enough information yet? But Terry, you missed it last week. We went and saw a few projects on the different corridors and what we thought. Yeah, and I have those slides again. I can bring those up as well with that. So that sort of helped us. So here's. We didn't know what that, I didn't know what that was. I thought it was sort of a full north end or Burlington. I know, it's Fodang. Yeah, I know. Is it the Fodang building? 348 Main as we like to call it. Which in a way, I don't mind because it kind of looks like the block down on Mallet's Bay Avenue and it kind of fits in with Winner's Street. So this, when you say the 24 inches, is that the part that's under like? No, so the 24 inches, this facade here has to be right. Basically the facade of the building needs to be on what we call the required building line. And the required building line is in essence the property line. Okay. So what's that? Back of sidewalk. In essence, the back of the sidewalk. Yeah, right now. And the sidewalk is supposed to be five feet now in these new places or? So the sidewalk isn't changing because that's in the public realm. That's not on the property side. But the Main Street revitalization may change that. Correct. Okay, that's what I was... Right. Right, so the property owners aren't going to be necessarily incorporating that new sidewalk width because that's in the public space. Right. But they are still required to build basically to that line. So what this provision allows for is if they want to have any step backs or any undulation in the architecture or the facade, they can step it back up to, basically up to two feet and still be considered to be meeting that standard of view. So it has nothing to do with the covered area where they have seating. Correct. So that's up to them. Do you have a picture of the apartment house across from Norman Street? Because I think that kind of shows it. Okay, I guess my question was about that slide though is specifically is the outdoor seating areas. Because any of these places that are going to want to have restaurants are going to want to have outdoor seating. Sure. So in this situation, they put the facade on the property line and they allowed a certain amount of space underneath their restaurant. Right. Allow for seating? Yep. Okay. Yeah, that was totally their design to have that, basically that colony. And that works with our code because it's... It does. Okay. Yeah, it does. There's no requirement that the facade wall has to be solid. Okay. I mean, it does require that there are breaks in it. It is... And that might be something that whether or not we want this type of a development pattern to continue. So I have a question just about the outdoor seating. Is that... And this is off topic, but is that... Like when it's on the public space, like how is that regulated? So typically... City Council. They would get a sidewalk permit. Right. And they identify... So in this case, they don't need to because it's private property. Correct, because it's up under... It's on their property. Got it. Okay, okay. So going back to your initial question. Yep. Personally, I'd like to see that 24 inches widen to maybe five feet to allow the option for people to set something back. And to be clear, what is written now is that parts of it can be 24 inches back. Is it a percentage? Is that a building? Because that's the niches that you're seeing in that building there. Right, like a could a builder say I'm going to take the whole 24 inches for my entire facade. Good question. That is a good question. That's a good question. I think there is the potential that the whole building could be set back. Two feet. The two feet. So that brings up a good point. Should there be like the door stupor, whatever you call it, you know what I mean? Comes out to the line and then back. I just, I think two feet is... Minimal. It's not very much. It's narrower than the top of the table. Yeah, it's okay. The trees don't have a chance. Yeah, it's one of them. I think you have to allow enough space for vegetation to grow. The three foot shrub would be... Well, and I think that's, you know, that goes back to the question of what's, is it, is that jog to allow for... And I might change my answer to you, Mayor, about whether or not the whole thing can be set back. I think the intent is to allow for a jog in the architecture. So I guess the question then becomes is the, would we rather the intent be to allow for vegetation? Because that's another, you know, as we've talked about with some of our streetscapes is that if you want a tree belt, you need a certain width to have a healthy tree grow. So this step back isn't intended for a landscaping feature, but if that's what we want to see there, then we're looking at a requirement to add in new landscaping language, but also we would need to make that step back greater to accommodate that landscaping. Well, it could be landscaping, it could be outdoor seating. It could be a patio for, you know, a restaurant. I think both. I think we're looking to accomplish both the objectives is to be able to foster a little bit more variety in the architecture, as well as maybe a little bit better vegetation facing the road. But I do think there should be a certain percentage that needs to come to that street. Agree. Come to that. Yes, I would agree. What that percentage is, I'm not sure. Yeah, and that's what I was saying. One switch up. Why do you think that? Because I think it creates a few, a lot of times to have a lot of the buildings that come to the same line, it creates uniformity within the street. I feel like the mass of the building needs to be on the street, but there can be more than 50% needs to be on the street just to create that edge. I think I know what you're talking about. We talked about this with the CCD building, like to have a turret that's kind of like the anchor of the building, but then the rest of the building is set back probably five to six feet. Because also you think of streets, you think of space between buildings. And so if you don't have a clean edge, a lot of times the space can get lost and not defined well. So if the majority of the building is there, then it helps create that space. But you could still allow for maybe areas that step back five feet, so they could get a street tree that would give some space to that street tree or even shrubs. I think it would just help break up the building. Especially in things like the mansion where it creates a large entrance. Yeah, it's gonna take a lot of frontage. Yeah, yeah. I think the street trees, though, I think we have to keep in mind the main tree, we have to re-realization, because I think that's part of it. That is part of it. I'm not convinced that's gonna be adequate, just quite frankly. Well, there's also, but you can't have a tree along the street and then one five feet away from the building. Yeah, but you also, like, the tree is gonna need enough room to mature and develop a canopy. And if the buildings are so close to the road that it can't develop a canopy, then it won't really matter. Well, that's why I think the setback. Yeah, exactly. We're talking about the same thing. Yeah. Yeah, I guess I'm just saying that in that five foot space, maybe we limit the size of trees that you don't put a giant oak in there. Well, the thing is, though, you do, I mean, and that is what you're trying to achieve with trees, typically in a street. You want a canopy that is overarching and you can walk through it and under. So it would be a larger shade tree instead of a more columnar tree that's just like an object that is blocking views instead of, well, personally, you'd want to limb up branches so you could create a colony underneath. So are we talking about in the five foot setback or are we talking about the street? We're talking on the street. Yeah, okay, yeah. So the regulations already do require street trees. Our form-based code does require street trees to be incorporated along any street. Does it, though, what kind of, does it say a certain size canopy? It does not. It does, however, say that, let's see. It's on, it's in part five. It's the last page of the small siting document, the highlighted text in yellow, item number two, that if the city has adopted a plan, then that plan would be followed. So I think it's... So I'm just trying to understand, so these trees that we're talking about here are city trees, yeah? Or are these trees that, but might they be required by the, let's not try to put it in. In this section? Yeah, in this section here that we're talking about, the street trees that are required along any street, is that required the city is putting those trees in or is it the developer putting those trees in? I would, my interpretation on this would be that it's the developer. The developer. As the developer. And they also have the option of making payment in lieu. Well, we have offered that to some of the developments going on Main Street because of the greater, the greater plan for Main Street. We don't want developers to put in these trees and then we come in a year and tear them all out to do the infrastructure. So in those cases, we have been allowing it, but if there's no plan in place for a streetscape, then we would require it. Yeah, so like East Allam Street, there's no plan right now in place. Correct. Main Street, it's not in place, but it. We have a plan. We have a plan. Yeah. That's a simple observation I made the other day, just going down in front of the Champlain Mill. I have an extra neighbor who worked for many years at Gardner Supply and she was talking about how a lot of those cage trees have a very short lifespan because they really don't have enough of like a root base and like the concrete around it actually kills the roots. And if you look at a lot of the line of trees in front of the Champlain Mill, a lot of them are dead already, more dying. And it's not really as noticeable because there's kind of a nice lush green space behind it. And I'm not saying that that's what we're looking for up and down Main Street, but just having something on the property besides relying on just the street trees is useful. Well, I can tell you the tree in front of my building, it's the second tree that's been planted there. They probably don't. Green, one, nowadays they're looking into street trees. You need to have structural soil or silversails, it's typically the way they're moving for very expensive means because what happens is you have this tree that's living in a box and it doesn't allow for the roots to spread out. So I think moving forward, I am sure we can get street trees to grow if they're located correctly and we use the technology to make them grow. They're expensive. We talked about that, I think, when we talked about the Main Street, no, we talked about the Main Street project. I remember the... I think they talked about what do you call the silversails. Yeah, he talked about it. We talked about it, too, because it's very expensive. I mean, structural soil is another thing. It's better than nothing. It's not as good as a silversail. But I think if you're, they say a street tree lasts seven years, not long. So what's wrong in that? It's about five years, yeah. So I think it matters. I think the city needs to think of how much money they want to put into these trees and what's the investment. Oh, it's certainly an investment, but I'm also just thinking, why is it all in the city? I think this could be something that could be fostered in our... But I think a lot of times the developer pays for it, but the city implements it in order to create that uniformity. But a lot of time is the infrastructure but five feet at the city is like almost a collaborative, but I don't know. Five feet isn't gonna be enough for a tree to grow, is it? I mean, if we change this from... Well, right now it's 24 inches, right? So, but if we change it to five feet, that's not gonna be enough space, anyhow. But what's your sidewalk, five feet? I mean, I guess if your tree is four feet off the curb and then you have another five or six foot wide sidewalk and then you have five additional feet, that would be large enough for a canopy. Not huge canopy, but... And I think the question becomes then too, as these sidewalks get widened, is the step back then gonna push the buildings if we go with a five foot setback, is that gonna put the buildings, is that gonna make them seem really far off the street then? I mean, not, it might not. I think if you have a certain percentage of the building on the line, it won't matter. Is it imagine if you could get a little porch or a little patio down there? Well, and in, so I should also point out too that the, where does it say it? For the supplies, the detached frontage building form standard this wouldn't apply to because they already, that already requires a, I think a 10 foot step back from the required building line. In the townhouse small apartment, there's the option of doing a stoop or a front porch and if you go with a front porch, you can actually be up to eight feet back with the building so that that porch would take up that front portion. So the building form standards do allow for some variation. I think the real question is primarily this is going to impact the urban general, which is the primary corridors and the storefront. So whether or not we wanna start allowing those to be stepped further back or stay fairly tight, I think is really that's the question. The thing is, I sort of feel like there's professionals that do this for a living to tell us. And I feel like maybe we're not, I mean, we're going off on gut feeling, is it or? But all we're doing is an allowance for that distance back doesn't mean they have to necessarily do it. Right, true. Right, and their professionals will probably tell them. Yeah, they're gonna decide about building. Let's be real about this. Like the developer is gonna wanna take as much space as they possibly can. They're gonna wanna cover as much surface as they can probably. I would think, I mean, I can't imagine that they would wanna put a porch on when they can put another bedroom. Right? Kind of the reality of it. Yeah, but could they build that whole, up to the whole face could be on that line? It could be. I mean, there'd have to be breaks in it, obviously for fenestration and for doors entryways, functional entryways on a certain distances across that facade, but yeah. But it's not a percentage, it's just sort of. In which. I mean, how do you determine how often, you do have something that says the breaks that happen so often? Correct. Yeah, there have to be breaks every. 60 to 75 feet? Yeah, 60 to 75 feet, depending on the building form standard, there has to be a functional doorway. Or I think it's also an average. You can do, I think you can do a longer one, but you have to have a shorter one, a longer facade, but a shorter one so that it kind of averages out as well. But I just wanted to, so I've got a cross section here of, I believe this is part of the Main Street plan, if I hope it is, because that's where I think I pulled it from, to show kind of what it's going to look like going forward. So right now we have on Main Street, there's roughly, between the sidewalk and the green belt, it's about six or seven feet of space. And so the proposal would be for basically a seven foot sidewalk on each side of the road, and a six foot tree belt as well on each side of the road. So 13 feet off of, in essence, where the buildings are now to the curb. And then that little extra curb line in there too. So we're already looking, at least on Main Street, we're looking at moving the curbs in towards the center of the road, six to seven feet of additional space. So almost a whole parking lane, or whole on street parking width in. Just thinking those trees, they're three feet off of the curb, a truck comes through there, takes off the bottom limbs. I guess I'm just trying, I feel like, That's actually true. I saw that happen on, just across the bridge over in Burlington where a box truck took out the, it actually damaged the truck and took off the limbs of the tree, going up the street there. Well, I think some of that can be controlled with the tree itself and pruning and whatnot to make sure it's appropriate. But when you initially put a tree in, branches are maybe eight feet up. They'd have to be higher. They'd have to be a certain size caliper, I guess, just to stick in. Yep. And I realized this is a drawing, but these trees are touching the building. Like if you live in one of these buildings, do you want it that close to your windows? That's an urban condition. And the discussion we had last week, you know, talking about if this 24 inches is enough or the fenestration changes are enough. The discussion we had last week is that they are not, that we're seeing are these like flat box surfaces. So I just want us to come back to that while we're debating if we wanna add more language to that. Yeah, I mean, we can, you know, I can put together some language to increase that. I think it would be appropriate though, Amy, as you mentioned, to incorporate a percentage that would have to be built. Yeah, to the line, but allow for more of a jog, potentially. Should we require a jog? Just to break it up. It's gonna feel like you may want to. Do we already know? We do not now. I think the question becomes of how wide of a lot you have. Yeah. Right, but we talk about breaking up the facade. So if you have 60 feet of one type of siding, you have to change it to another side. But I wonder if you could also or instead, maybe it's both, have a jog two to five feet, let's say. I think we do have language in one of the other building form standards that does talk about that every so many feet, you do need to have a different plane, in essence, if the building is going to be over a certain width. And so the question then is, should we have that in all the different building standard coating zones? Whatever the heck you call it. I don't think you need it in all the different buildings. Well, I'm just thinking, I mean, if you're in the storefront and someone puts up a 75 foot long building that's just flat, you know what I mean? Do we want that or do we want, even if they change, you know, they have stone siding here and. Do we want to change? We'll change. No, I think you're right. But I don't think the residential would need it. But I think probably the majority of the. I think the residential ones are going to want to have a little bit of a yard. They do. I mean, that makes sense to me. But it's really the storefront ones. Break it up somehow, yeah. And it could even be like Fodangs and Junior's building is that you have the overhanging, you know, first floor that's recessed back, but then you have a bit that's out. You know what I mean? The thing is, though, even with that building that Colonnade works, even though it's all touching, 100% is touching, it works, though. But maybe they, maybe it could, it would be an exception because it does have a step back. That's what you're saying. Right. Okay. It's really the first floor of it. You can kind of look at the, honestly, the Winnieski Block as like a successful example. I mean, that's a really wide building, but it has enough, and it really isn't a broken plane, but it has enough architectural detail on it that has movement to it. Yeah. You know. I consider it a broken plane because the doorways are. They're recessed. Yeah, exactly. It breaks it up. Exactly. What is that walk, would you say? At least 10 feet? In front of the Winnieski Block. And it has like steps. Well, it steps down. I'm not even sure I can guess. It'd be interesting to look at that section because you have your tree. You have your, I'd like to know the depth of that. But it's also, and this is a different circumstance, too, is Winnieski Block also overlooks a very large open space. Right. It doesn't have another building just like it facing it, which is kind of, well, I mean. It is comfortable. Yeah, if we don't have a little bit of like undulation, the architecture will get a really tunnel effect when you're going through our corridors. True. So that kind of leads into the next question that I had about what about overhangs of the buildings into over the sidewalk. Right now we don't allow that under the elements section. No part of any building may project forward except overhanging eaves, awnings, shop fronts, bay windows, stoops, steps, balconies, or handicap ranks approved by the zoning administrator. So right now we don't permit any type of projection off the front of the building that would in essence act as some sort of an overhang. So. Well, I mean awnings, these are awnings. Well, an awning. It's gonna be like eight feet tall. Is there a height limit? Yeah, they do. They have to be a certain height about the sidewalk. And they have to project out a minimum depth as well. And is there a max to them as well? I think there is. So we don't allow awnings or? We do. We do. We do. I think that's fine. But this is like we allow eaves, awnings, okay, shop fronts, bay windows, stoops, steps, all that stuff is allowed into the outside of the buildable area? Well, it's gonna depend on the building form standard as well. So for example, stoops are a requirement in the small apartment townhouse standard. But you have to basically be on the sidewalk with the urban general. So you wouldn't be allowed to put a stoop in in the urban general. So it really depends on the standard. Unless we give us up, let's sit back. Well, actually no, because the. But do we want a stoop, I guess? Well, we would have to change other parts of the regulations because there is a maximum distance above the sidewalk that the entrance has to be. It can only be a certain change of, I think, like 18 inches in the urban general above the average grader into the first floor. Oh, yeah, really clear. I saw that there was a clear support. I wonder if there's that glass. What would we call it? Well, there's like a con in this sort of thing. In certain standards, yes. Yeah, all right. Yeah. So, okay. So we're thinking no on the projections though. Keeping it as it is. I'm thinking no. Okay. No, that's fine. We were just talking amongst ourselves. On Church Street. On Church Street, they have, I don't know whether it's defined as an awning or if it's considered a built structure, like the kind of a. But it's a municipal thing, I believe. Is it part of the market? Yeah, because it's all the way up. I can't imagine. Pretty much all of it. I'm assuming it was put in by the Church Street Marketplace. Okay. It's a city approval, right? I think it was and then now we're trying to take it down. Yeah. It's detached from the buildings. It's ugly. Oh, okay. All right. That's what I heard at the. It's useful. I didn't think it was that way. Although I must admit, I go there. When it's raining, I always thought that was it. Yeah, it is useful. And it's actually not a prusive because it's translucent. Yeah, it's probably old, so it doesn't look as. Okay. So a final question that I had under the kind of the sighting was whether or not we should be requiring landscaping as part of the street space area, which could be incorporated into those step backs, which then we would potentially need to require step backs, things like that. Like I mentioned, there's the street tree requirement that's already there. So whether or not we want to have additional landscaping, required landscaping in the front of the buildings, or if that's something that could be an optional element to bring in. Do we have landscaping in any of the building form areas? It's generally, so we require, in the private open areas that are on the ground, we do require trees. We do require trees and parking lots. We do require landscaping on the property, but more back of house landscaping. Because in essence, the facade is gonna be on the, is gonna be right on the property line. Yeah, the back of the house interacts with adjoining parcels, so that's where you really need it. Correct, so we don't require it now, and I think this primarily would impact the urban general, because again, with the other building forms, they're already going to be set back some, so there will be some space in front that can be used for landscaping. I think if, my thought is, if there is a setback from the property line, there should be some kind of landscape requirement. Well, I guess, should it be a requirement to put landscaping or to put something there? So it could be seeding, it could be landscaping, it could be a bike rack, it could be other amenities, or do we wanna specify specifically that? Because I'm concerned about snow removal. And on the sidewalks, where does the sidewalk snow go? If we're that tight, and if they don't maintain it, and it's just salted, the plants are gonna look like crap, and so then it's like, who? And then it all looks bad. I would be the first one to say, put landscape in. But I'm concerned it's not gonna look great. And if someone wants to put it in, they can, but if they were to put a bench in, or a bike rack, that would be great. Right, so maybe it's not a requirement, but it's something that could be, maybe it's more of we would wanna see something in that step back, or it would prefer something in that step back. Would they do that though? Maybe not, I don't know. I mean, if you're gonna have a residential on the first floor, and you stepped it back five feet, that'd be nice to have a shrub, like a barrier to the, I mean, if- Or a shirt, some kind of a fence. Or a bench. Yeah, or something, yeah. Okay. I'd have to think about that more, I know. What, I don't know. What do you think? You don't know. It's a lot to think about. Well, I mean, it's a lot of thing about, like we're affecting the whole corridor. Right. One of the things I think could be relatively easy, I don't know, maybe this is ignorance, but one of the concerns I was hearing brought up about one particular project was exhaust vents at like a sidewalk level. And I think that that could probably be easily resolved under the 504 general provisions in like section five there. It seems like there could be something added about requiring like dryer vents being- Screened. Seems like we talked about that last time with the picture of the, that other picture that you just showed. Yeah. Remember they had the vents right- Yeah, I'm not trying to target out anyone's particular building. Yeah. But that was an issue that came up. I'm not sure. That's what I got. I heard of this. Yeah, because that's what- I think it's already here. Okay. That's, I'm actually kind of surprised that happened. Because it's actually compressors, pumps, water heaters, it talks about like mechanical stuff, but not actually like venting. And I think intake vents are probably fine there, but anything that's projecting something out onto the sidewalk. Just seemed like there could be something very easily added in there that would resolve- Yeah, and there is another section in the regulations that does talk specifically about mechanical equipment and where it can be located and how it has to be treated. So I think between the two sections, I'm fairly comfortable that the language is already there to prevent that. Okay, so that happened in that instance. Yeah, it may have just been that that was, it wasn't really contemplated that the venting for the dryers would come, or whatever those are for, would come straight out onto the sidewalk right there. If they didn't. But- They might actually, are we certain that they're dryer vents and not be furnace vents? Because like- Oh, the matters. People are noticing it when they're walking by. It seems like it might be more than a dryer vent. You could just paint it a certain color and it would go away. Maybe. But that might be it. But I'm wondering if you did have the five foot setback, you could put those in there, but did they have to be screened and you'd have enough room to screen them? Well, I don't think it was like an aesthetic. I think I think it was more that people were talking about like- It was more of a safety issue. Yeah. I think it should be both. Because it's so close. That's how it means to you. I think it should be both though. Right there. Right here. All those vents that stick out. Oh, yeah. It's exactly house items on your main street. Right. It looks like they're back on the building. But the problem is it's so narrow that I don't... Yeah. Yeah. It is. Yeah. That's great. And those rubs aren't looking great already in this set. Exactly. But to what Amy was saying. Yeah, it's not deep enough. And it looks like that probably is the 24 inches. But I'm wondering do we need to specify a certain size plant goes in? Or is it if we did have a landscape? I would prefer that we didn't just because I think that that's more... One of the advantages I see to the form-based code is that it's not prescriptive right now. I mean, it's prescriptive for some things. But it does allow the flexibility for a lot of other things. And I think keeping that balance of prescriptive versus voluntary is really important. To allow enough flexibility for the developer to identify how they're going to meet the code. And I think it would be... I would hope that any design professional that's proposing landscaping is going to choose something that's appropriate for the space. Right. I think it's true. You need to give room for creativity. Right. Look at all these rubs there. Well, this is what Joe just said. They don't look very good. And somebody probably picked something that fit... I think they just put in small. Somebody picked something that fit in two feet of space. That's exact. Because that's probably... I can't think of anything else that would fit. And think about what goes by there. Not just salt from the sidewalk, but people walking their dogs. Dogs. Dogs aren't indiscreet about where they... Well, there was an article though in seven days recently about where they... Are we beating? Is that what those little... Are we ready? Are we ready? Yeah. About how the salt affects those. They plant a lot of them along route seven. Close to the road. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In the form-based code, is there anything about responding to intersections like the corner building responding? So... Sort of a pet pavement. Yes. I would say yes. That a corner... A corner lots, the building needs to be basically on both corners or it needs to be on both street fronts. But... They can have a chamfered corner as well and be set back in to kind of... Address the corner? Yeah. To address the corner specifically. I feel like that is more appropriate to have it address the corner. Because I feel like most places there's a corner... You're going down and you're looking at the intersection. You're looking right at the corner of the building and I don't think that's appropriate. Well... It seems bad for visibility as well for drivers. And it doesn't... It just doesn't address the intersection as... I mean... It's interesting because as I was reading through this today, if I remember right... Just today? Yeah. Just today. Was it a vacation? No, I didn't read it on the client. But there was a point in here about, I think, corner lots. And doors can be no closer than 30 feet from the corner of the building. Maybe I read that wrong. And I'm thinking... It makes... Yeah, like CCV is... The entrance is on the corner. I think that looks good. I think at major nodes it should be. Yeah. And where Mallets Bay, you know, dies into... What is the police station street? You mean this one right here? Right here. West Allen Street. West Allen. West Allen. And that new apartment and how you're looking straight down Mallets Bay and you're looking right at the corner of the building. It doesn't relate to anything. It doesn't address that larger intersection. Yeah. And I feel like it's just not attractive. Yeah. It's not good architecture and responding to the street. And creating spaces that are inviting as street space for the public. With that said though, you're talking about the redstone building that's behind where the Peking Duck House was. Yes, that's true. You know, it took me a little while to get used to that though, but like... And people were complaining about the building to me, but I... As I've seen it over time, I actually think in some ways it is successful because there's nothing movement to the roof line to it, but it's not so imposing in the neighborhood. It kind of... Even though it's surrounded by historic buildings, it kind of fits. I don't mind the building. I just think it should have responded to the corner. Yeah. That intersection, it should have had, like, a chamfer that looked into the street. Yeah. I'm bringing it up as like... We were kind of talking about how to... How to encourage that a little bit more in the form-based code. And that set back... Language. How many feet does that set back? Three to five feet? Because they have a hedgerow in there. I'm just wondering if that's sort of a... They have stoops that come out. That's true. If it's not, it's not really. Yeah. And it's not form-based code either. No, it's not. But I'm just trying to think of areas that seem to be working that maybe... Yeah. Well, you know, I never thought... You brought... Joe, you brought up the Muskie Block. That's a big, long building. Sort of an exception. No, no, I know. But I mean... They're beautiful. There are situations where a big, long building will work. And what you have to have... I think you pointed out, you have to have some architectural characteristics. Yeah. Yeah. At least on the first floor. Articulation. Yeah. And I personally... I like that solid brick across the upper floors a lot better than I liked the, like, kinks crossing. When you look at the back of that, you've got red and yellow and blue and green and... Anyway, whatever. I'm just saying... Okay. Well, that's kind of how they're creating movement to the building without... Because they don't have the nice materials like the brick, they're using the color. And that's what's happening with this building. Yeah. And it is modestly successful. Okay. Okay. It's five minutes of eight. Yep. I was thinking we would not dive into the next section right now. I agree. I agree. And hold that until the next meeting. And that'll also give me some time to look at... Well, to go through the comments that you all just made and try to put together some language that might address these comments and concerns, and then also have some time to consult with some other folks to see if that works or if there's any issues with creating some of these additional elements and components. Yeah. We can look at the architectural components at the next meeting. Okay. Great. Thank you all very much. Thank you. So we'll move to the part... Sorry, actually one more thing before... I already moved on. Before we move on from that, one of the items that I'm doing along with the specific updates in the regulations is a full reformatting of the document to match all the branding and the updated marketing and branding. So I don't know if that's something that you all want to see as well as we go through this. I'd like to see it just... I mean, ultimately you'll see the final... The final... The whole document, I think, will have to go forward to be re-adopted collectively because there's also going to be just... There's going to be a lot of editorial changes. I just noticed some misspellings and little things like that as I've been going through it. Right. But we don't have to... We don't really have to approve the reformatting. Well, that's what I wanted to bring up, is that I'm doing all that and I think ultimately what you will send forward will be the specific changes and the reformatting document. But I don't know if you need to go through the whole thing and be like, yeah, this color's... I wasn't going to bring it all forward to discuss the reformatting as well, I guess is my point. Unless you want to. I think we've got enough without having to deal with that. I think it would be nice if we saw it. Yeah, absolutely. Where you're making the changes, just highlight some... You know what I mean? Yeah. Absolutely. The changes, whatever. But otherwise... Yes. Well, you're already seeing some of it here. This is the updated, at least the updated text font style that we're using. So... And I should say with the reformatting, some of the images I'm moving around into different locations and kind of adjusting those a bit as well. It's more specific to the form-based code, but they're all still there. They're just in slightly different locations. But anyway, I just wanted to let you know that that's all happening as well with these more specific changes. Okay. Sweet. Department and city updates. So just a couple of things to update you on. First, I wanted to mention that I sent around some zoning amendments from the city of Burlington that they are proposing. So if you have any comments on any of that, it's primarily district boundaries that they're updating. They're mostly related to the downtown area, so not really anything that's going to affect our borders with Burlington. But if you have any comments, you can send them to me and I'll forward them along to the city. Would that affect at all our split zoning area? I mean, would we make us think about our... I don't think so. Okay. It seemed like it was mostly like patches of things that should have been already included in a district that they were kind of doing a pullback trip including them in a new zoning district. I think that's... Yeah, getting in that form-based vibe where the heck they call it over. Yeah. Yeah. Downtown Santa, I think it is. The other item I wanted to mention is that I believe Monday, we're going to be sending out, the city will be sending out the call for the open positions on both the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board. We wanted to purposely keep it separate from the realignment of the other commissions because those are kind of new entities and we wanted to give people the opportunity to see those commissions in kind of first because the Planning Commission and the DRB aren't changing at all. We have to have a planning. Well, we don't have to, but the city does have a Planning Commission and the Development Review Board which have specific regulatory and quasi-judicial functions in the city where the other commissions are... They're not only advisory, but they're primarily... They're focusing on the strategic visions, but ultimately it's going to be up to the Planning Commission to make recommendations on how any regulatory changes are made to Council. So it's... So anyway, that's a long way of saying we're going to be sending out the call for membership to the Planning Commission and the DRB probably on Monday, I think, is when that's going to go out. So then that's the only item I had or items that I had. Christine? I know we haven't had a meeting in so long. Yeah, I can't remember what happened in the last City Council meeting, but I know over the last couple of weeks how and I met with Congressman Welch and then Leahy and Senator Staff and Governor Scott primarily to talk about the noise mitigation and get that on everyone's radar for one name and planning for that. But also mention other things that are going on here in Main Street Project, funding for the school, just doing some advocacy. So their solution is just noise abatement for the F-35? Yes. And now it's not being paid for? No, no, no, no. Misinformation that is... Well, that's why I'm asking. No, they're in our public comment. So in order to... We extrapolated from the number of people that lived in the previous 65 decibels which was those smaller homes, right? And now we're talking about urban areas. There's way more people involved. We actually extrapolated from... They spent like $20 million on however many people that was. We... Looking at how many people are now included in it said this could be $64 million to annually, to, you know, make it apparent that this is a big issue. That is a number we made up. Like, that's almost certainly not true. You know, once they actually measure, like newer developments probably won't be applicable, right? So we don't know how many in it. So the cost is not known. And Burlington has... Previously the airport paid that 10% match to the FAA funds. Burlington has said they intend to continue that. How they will be able to afford to is something to keep an eye on. I think the state might get involved there. We've also been talking about how to potentially combine noise mitigation program with weatherization programs that already exist in the state. And, like, kind of leverage that money and how people do both at the same time. But it will be June of next year, I think, before they finalize the noise compatibility program plans because the FAA gets to sit on the map for six months before. So it's on the fast track. Yes, yes it is. It's kind of interesting to be honored just where my mind goes. So we're going to get money for all this weatherization and soundproofing. Everyone's going to put new windows in and then none of these buildings are going to be, like, eligible for state historic register anymore. Because that was the big argument with the mansion house and they delisted it was the windows that were placed. That's a good point. And we actually had to... You were there and I was arguing. I wrote a document to them. I'm like, you know, this is something the state is encouraging, you know, updating windows. There's programs paying for that. And you can get windows that look historic. Well that was my argument, because they did look historic. That's a different thing. But it's just, you know, do things that are playing. That is interesting. Everything affects something else. Do you happen to remember, Mike, I hear long time people when you speak talking about whatever the plane that was based at Burlington Airport, like the 70s. Do you remember what the name of that was? You're talking about the military jet? Yeah. Was it the B-104? And everyone talking about, like, oh, those were so much fun. You don't even know, like, this is nothing. And you're saying, we put up with that. Well, I also found a news article recently in the 70s where they were arguing about this. There was an FAA study saying in the 70s that 75% of Winooski's houses of stock would be uninhabitable based on the noise standards. But again, there's a misnomer because nothing says that it's uninhabitable. Yeah. It's just... It's not conducive. No. No, no, no, no. Is that the term they use? No, no. I'm trying to think the word they use. Incompatible. They don't use incompatible. They say it's... In the 65 and above, it's fine if you put in the soundproofing to get the... You live inside your house all the time. Well, that's all they care about. But remember, all that is, is that it's a HUD or FAA kind of made up, if you will, level that they now say you're eligible to get these funds. All right. Okay? So you have to ask yourself, okay, I live here and the 65 line is here. So... You're not eligible. I'm not eligible, but what's the difference in the sound between here and here? There isn't. You know what I mean? It's just a thing. So you can live in a 65 DNL zone. And here, the other thing is think about how much during the day are there planes going overhead? And these military jets go over... I think it's four jets take off in the morning and come back four jets take off in the afternoon and come back four days a week. And that's really a matter of eight or ten minutes. I mean, it's not even that that the noise is loud. So, I mean, it's... The 65 DNL zone here, in my opinion, is a lot different than if I was at LAX or someplace where planes are going every minute. You know what I mean? I'm sorry if I'm trucking your... No, no, no. But you're right. I mean, the planes used to break the sound barrier. Yeah. We'd be in elementary school and you'd hear the boom because the jets were breaking the sound barrier. I mean, whatever. And the other important thing is that everyone is sensitive. The noise is different. That's true. So anyway. And look how he turned out. I know because he's switching over there. Yeah, exactly. Anyway, so we digress. And anyway, other business. I would just note that our next meeting, since we're going back to one meeting a month, will be September 12th. So... September 12th. I will... I think I'll be here. So you might not have to run the meeting, Terry. I actually might not be here. Oh. Oh. I think... I'll be coming back for me in that day. I don't know if I'll be back in time further. It's only a, what, three or four hour drive from me. No, it's a five hour drive from where I'm going to be. And I don't know... It's 6.30. I know. I don't know if I'll be back by 6.30. I'm being non-committal. We see that. We used to meet on the 4th Thursday. Now we changed it. It used to be the 2nd 4th. What was it before that? It was the 4th Thursday. All right. So September 12th. September 12th. Hopefully Terry makes it back, but if not... If not, then... We'll let you know what... Then what? You'll have to run the meeting. No. You're going to come back and you'll be the vice chair. Yeah, that's right. It's already in the notes that I was secretary. All right, all right. And when you control the notes... That's right. You control information. You control the world. Okay. So looking for a motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn. I second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? We're done. Thanks, Eric. Thank you. All right.