September 26th, 2019 Planning Commission meeting all right. Oh, you're not ready All right, welcome everyone Planning Commission meeting September 26th, 2019 we have a guest bonk bonker tonight Ever and we are good to go All right, I'm gonna put it over here for now. Okay. Thank you. He doesn't let me play with it either Um Everyone signed in who's here to visit. We're good. Do we have we have no amendments to the agenda that I'm seeing? Then before we get into public comment, I'd like everybody who's gonna offer any comment to please stand and swear in easy simple process Painless mostly Do you swear that a testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities Thank you We have as we go into public comments It is an opportunity for folks to give us commentary on items that are not on our agenda It is also the opportunity for commissioners and public to offer comment on The consent agenda, which is the next item in front of us on the consent agenda tonight We have a boundary line adjustment or Thomas and Elizabeth Taylor This is a proposal to adjust a property line between 3a and 5a Jericho Road That said, do we have any comments or questions about anything including the consent agenda? Hearing none It's time to move on to the to the consent agenda. I'm gonna get the sequence down. Correct We'll take a motion on the consent agenda Gender item the boundary line adjustment Thomas and Elizabeth Taylor between 3a and 5a Jericho Road By Ned seconded by Josh all those in favor I posed motion carries 5-0 We're good The next item on the agenda is a discussion about the ETC next plan We've had some back and forth we've had a Some dive we've had some dialogue the last couple meetings. We have a note Response from mark in our packet this evening and I guess we can open things up to have a little discussion on that So I'll let staff go first If you have anything to offer us John and John Not shoe and dusty gave us some comments on the plan U3 And we tried to help you out we You know did a response to your concerns and and mark has prepared a A memo on where to go from here And so I just like to stress that We got to wrap this thing up. I'd like to see A way forward to that tonight to get to yes And um Let's see if we can do that. Okay, I'll chew on that for a little bit I guess I'm I'm we'll let that set for the next so we're gonna ask a question. Absolutely. Um So Dana based on that I I guess I'm confused because I thought that um That the direction that we were given last we talked about this was that we were on hold until Staff town manager everybody got on the same page That's with the regulations Not the plan our biggest Feedback I think has been that the regulations to be taken out of the plan So they're still in there and I didn't see anything from mark addressing that feedback Which has come up like in the past three meetings regulations themselves aren't in there But there are references to the regulations sufficient So that when we go to implement the regulations, there's enough to hang our hat on So I guess I'd still be confused as so if this is Truly meant to be a visioning document and is supposed to set the stage for us to then Go forward and modify the regulations. Why would Leadership want us to approve the plan Before we resolve some of these open issues Because I mean if this is going to drive the the zoning and subdivision regs And we go that means going to set the vision and we could be way off if we don't Resolve these issues with Dennis and with some of the growth and infrastructure Am I missing something? Maybe and maybe not I mean I talked to mark yesterday, you know We have some options and that's what I want to discuss tonight and I think we should just go ahead, you know One is mark pointed out was to put the whole thing on hold until after the merger And that's not My preferred I'd like to get this Put to bed We really need to Get to the select board in november I just speaking is just an individual member. I'm a little uncomfortable with just being the number of open Items that have been raised by both public works and other staff members That we would approve or You know frame this document knowing that all that exists And that's even outside of the context of everything that's happening in in town government right now which is You know happening at the same time. I just I'd like to I personally would like to see some of those things flushed out So that whatever we end up with as a final plan really memorializes both what You know public works and other departments can get behind So we have a kind of a unified message and a unified plan rather than something that the planning commission Came up with and can't ever be implemented I don't know. That's my two cents We responded I mean, I'm I'm a little bit confused Specifically responded to your comments And sent them to you Can I jump in? Um, so Dave's been asking about what staff departments have been saying and you know Whether they support the document and we did have a meeting with staff To go over the outstanding issues and we did come to agreement that they were supportive of it With a few changes that have been proposed that we've either incorporated or plan to incorporate in the next version And that includes public works. They actually even said they are okay with the street types Provided they're no less than 50 foot right of ways But if the what which they are exactly But the the alleys and service lane idea was Fine as long as those were privately owned and maintained and not public roads So I think we're actually in broad agreement with all of the Other departments and the only sticking points are One the route 15 corridor, you know Question of whether that becomes a town highway and then the question of Impact to police and fire of additional growth and those are not issues that we can resolve Within the plan necessarily because it does identify that there will be impacts And those need to be Accounted for somehow, but that's not within the scope Of this plan to resolve it identifies in this future work Well, and those are somewhat insulated by our current phasing policy anyway, so And those will probably be dealt with under Either the merger or future impact fees, but those are again part of the next steps And probably should be dealt with before we implement regulations that Exactly, you know put forth that vision and allow development to happen that may have those impacts. It's not fully accounted for Is that Yeah We um, we had the meeting with all all of them police fire Dennis and um And talked about the impacts and and We came away feeling really good about it There isn't all that much stuff um Dennis still has I think I There is a memo dated august 5th from Dennis summarizing Um, his his view of that meeting Or maybe there was a later one I can't remember but anyway Dennis's stuff has been sent to you um We're feeling pretty good That had been raised and with staff departments And that are really important relative to the plan sort of integrity The density question and david to kind of get to your point. I think is The density question that the the proposed densities for the epc are related in somewhat some ways To what the town's ability to provide the infrastructure to them at some point in the future The big thing that I think that's been uh, a little confusing has been Part of this plan is aspirational and part of it is foundational to the regulations, right? So there's two it serves a dual role And the aspirational part puts out the density figure because through the public process we identified Several really important goals and one of the goals was to provide enough vitality within the etc to allow it to Sustain itself as it evolves. So the key to that is getting some more residential density to make that happen So we've identified that that was a public publicly identified goal The plan brings that forward by by enhancing some of the density particularly in the mx districts Which are definitely increased in density primarily those are the only two that are really increased in density and That does put the community on the hook to have additional discussions and conversations about how to provide that infrastructure um As I understand that public works is concerned about committing to that density In the absence of having the public infrastructure a plan for the public infrastructure readily available I the way I look at it is Is just like you do with your town plan in some ways you put out a lot of aspirational things and Then there's follow-up work to be done And I think the plan tries to identify what that follow-up work that needs to be done to Find to how that density could be implemented whether that's all on the backs of the community at large Or if there's a combination of public private partnership or if it's all private You know those things have not been resolved and I don't think it's in the place of a plan like this to actually try to resolve all those things I think the plan tries to get those Those issues communicated that these are steps that need to be taken And you know the goal would be to get to those that increased level of density within the etc Um, so it's kind of chicken and egg a little bit Because you can argue about the densities too high or the density is not right because we don't have the infrastructure in place But you don't know what infrastructure you need in place until you know what densities try to want to get So we're kind of in that little circular loop problem um I think the recommendation that we had was that you know Dennis has done some more public works has done some work to try to understand some of those underlying issues like the the flow rates And and some of the other you know issues, but there are other issues that need to be resolved and more work needs to be done So the plan that that I wrote up the Recommendation I wrote opposed to make sure that those are referenced more fully in chapter eight, which is the implementation chapter And they get a little more clear in that chapter about the steps that need to come ahead That the community's got to go through a process of finalizing those engineering studies You know having conversations with the developers and following what see what partnerships can be created all of that So that that's kind of how we're that's how we're approaching that density issue essentially Number one and number three are kind of linked Route 15 really to me is the only real structural Disconnect between the plan as it exists now and public works Um, and I think it's important to recognize that the idea for the median the boulevard on On a small segment of route 15 and or the taking over of route 15 to a class one town highway at all was was promulgated in the plan as a remedy To allow the too many more flexibility in dealing with access management issues speed And public safety of crossing. That's the purpose of it You know the the important also to note that the 1991 plan the current plan enforced actually shows A boulevard unfortunate of group 15 It's made it made a bunch of assumptions before the idea of even transferring over to class one town highway existed About the idea of access management along route 15. So it's not new It's it's been continued in some And I think the concerns that that public works has raised about Um, the community is taking over the road. They're they're legitimate concerns. You do have to understand the cost of that You also have to understand the benefits of that And I think what the plan says is here is an idea that many communities are taking on This is a program the state of amand has definitely been supportive of and in getting communities to at least consider And you should study what the implications of it are so that you can move forward in some ways to address those issues of access management public safety and And and public control of the streetscape Um, does it commit the town to anything? Particularly it commits you to basically just planning continued to plan which is oftentimes what master plan does so My understanding from staff though is is that dentists is Is particularly concerned about even having the implication of that being out there. He doesn't believe It's his contention that the program Would cost the community too much and that it would not be in the community's best interests And to my knowledge, I haven't seen any detailed analysis about or conversations with v-trans to sort of Help me understand if that's the case or if it's just a if it's just a concern that's been raised And I don't have any information other than that So to me, that's one of the things I think the planning commission should be You know help us understand if that's how important is to is it to the planning commission to Uh press forward with at least the idea of of of that route 15 changes um because If we decide to get rid of them if we decide to vacate, you know any community control over route 15 The ripple effect on the there are there is ripple effect within the plan itself The document does have a lot of references to 15 and a lot of emphasis on that so we'd have to take a exercise and Redaction or reduction to get rid of it So I just want to make sure I understand I think that's if there's one ask I have today That's one of the asks is to give the planning commission Um, so let's jump into this for a minute here because I'm I'm thinking that we're we're we're each looking at different targets And that's disturbing a little bit because I think the commission for the last two or three meetings Has been pretty clear. We've been in support of the vision the goal the target what we've been what we've been contesting is What's in this as a scope document and we're calling it a scope document. We are not calling it a Technical document as far as this is not the rules and regulations. I think We as a commission And gentlemen, please correct me if I've missed something But we made a conscious decision once we saw a final a complete draft, which we had not seen a complete draft um in near history history Once we saw that complete draft and started Analyzing this as a as a whole document We made a decision to make this much more of a visionary document and that's what I think we our contestation is on um, whether we include root 15 as a potential boulevard and include all of the reasons why Public works finds it would be risky or finds it would not be financially feasible for the community is In my mind it has not been a point of contention So we put a lot of emphasis on that and quite frankly, I don't see that being An issue we can leave it in there and say we like it's it's an idea and put all the reasons why public works Thinks there are challenges around it and it's not no we can't do that. It's yes If we do that it will take this I have no issues with that What I have issues with that's what we talked about and it really is on your recommendation list number two I don't concern with number one. I don't concern with number three number two is is where I'm feeling challenged And Dana to your point about let's wrapping this up tonight I'm a little challenged by putting an artificial timeline on this Well, I didn't say tonight. Well, you did say tonight No, I my hope is that maybe we could wrap this up. Um At the end of october. Okay, but you did say tonight. So that's I just want to be clear. That's that's a little bit of a challenge um and I So so I'd like to talk about The whole concept that the commission Wants to do which is to make this a more visionary document We understand that that we need to be supportive of the regulations, but this is not the regulations By making it visionary we can then take all of the work that's already been done. We don't get rid of it It's there when we start doing the regulations. That's our supporting documentation for the regulations Speak to that quickly. Yes We're currently in phase two of our project which ostensibly on our our contract was to draft the regulations based on the Master plan that was developed under phase one So what I've been doing for the past few months is actually working on the regulations based on the draft And I'm sorry. I wasn't here for your discussion on the plan as a vision I certainly understand that and I understand where you're coming from But I also think it's important to recognize that a master plan is not the comp plan The vision's actually established in the comp plan the master plan the intent of that is to flesh it out And you guys went through a pretty extensive process under phase one to do that through community process So I think I'm going to jump in right back in and I no let me finish here Let me jump in I think what what we're missing is that this commission as a body said this is a visionary document The regulations are separate from this. So we know that we've been working on it and we know that this is enabling so I don't really want to hear too much about contractually while we're doing something if we're going to have to talk contract We're going to have to go into executive section. I'm not I'm just trying to get a clear We're looking at I'm looking at the master plan having worked on these before as more of a strategic plan That you've got the vision established both through your comp plan and the public process And you're right. Maybe that needs to be brought forward a bit more and I think our recommendations say that But in terms of taking out a lot of the stuff if you recall there was a big discussion on whether to go with Form-based codes or hybrid codes If you went with a form-based code you would be doing what's called a regulatory plan Which actually the plan itself Establishes zoning parcel by parcel block by block At the point in that discussion we decided not to go that route But in terms of shifting over to more of a form-based code There is stuff that needs to be in the plan to support the regulations So when you have that section on building types And street types and civic space types There aren't any specific dimensions associated with most of those or some recommendations and we can talk about that But taking those out of the plan basically takes out all of the guidance For the regulations and the plan is used in this in two two ways one It does become a regulatory plan in act 250 If a project in the city center or the The town center has to go through act 250 they will look at the plan not necessarily your regulations So it's really important that they jive And the second thing it does and this is outlined in the plan is it serves as your design report In order to adopt design standards in vermont under your regulations You need to adopt a design report that specifically talks about design And the recommendations for design in that will go into the regulations And that is intended to provide the guidance to the regulations For both the developers and the board So maybe where things got maybe where things got confusing For me in terms of the process and I don't know if this Will be articulate how maybe other people came to this but It seemed like we went from a bunch of Meetings in phase one with you where we did very high high level Drill downs into different areas of what became this document we talked about things like building types and frontages and density and we did a lot of that in a very High-level non Committal way And there was a lot of talk about well the planning commission needs to decide and the town You know people need to decide if you want to go this way or that way We did that for a long period Then we get to a point where we finally saw this document in its totality And I think the consensus around the table and I want to put words in other people's mouth But was that this became very prescriptive quickly and we were fearful that rather than this being a visioning document this actually was Like rubber hit in the road and we were talking about some real numbers in it and for me it felt like we went from this Obscure or or limited discussion on building types to all of a sudden like really prescriptive in specific areas specific roof styles specific types specific stuff and there seem to be for me A disconnect. I don't know if i'm articulating other people's thoughts there, but that's where I where I am I think if I can where I am and you alluded to it earlier the challenge between balancing the aspirational aspects and the foundational and I think the sort of specificity I need is I hear you loud and clear when you say This is a substantial amount of information of what helpful I'm sorry the different ones the current draft plan provides an important basis for support For those code changes and protects the town should they be challenged So is the implication there And this is I think what I need to square that this level of specificity is absolutely necessary to then Have the regulations hold water little later on should they be challenged is You need this sort of it will be exactly like this because then like you said we're not talking aspirational We're talking real drill down specificity and if you view this as a layperson I think I said this at the last meeting That's a tough sell That instead of saying like I think I personally again not speaking for anybody else I agree conceptually with pretty much everything. I like the ideas about route 15 Obviously, there'll be a some interaction there. I like the idea of density. I like the different villages. I like all of it But there's a difference between sort of the goal and the means to achieve it And I think that's where a lot of the hang up is is how much do we have to prescribe the specific means In such a way that will bind us and then if that specific means is found to be infeasible Are we really in trouble that we've got a plan that we know can't work as opposed to the goal of this plan is We want good stuff on route 15 obviously phrase more artfully than that with a little more specificity And here's how we're going to do it regulatorally as opposed to since we need this as the foundation document We have to say specifically class one road and then come to find out Dennis says later on Class one road isn't going to work and here are the reasons why and here's the data I've been working on So that there's a couple questions in there. Let me try to get a couple now Maybe you can talk about the sort of risk issues with um, you know the the foundation plan So one of the things that's come about again This is kind of a we're building a chicken and an egg at the same time thing, right? So as serin mentioned over the last years Several months we've been working on the regulation part of it and we've been having having conversations with staff about public works comments about that So as the as the current draft standards exist, there's nothing in around route 15 I mean, so you haven't seen that yet But we've kind of backed off route 15 because we've been concerned about the resolution of this issue of the class one town highway issue Um Now that doesn't mean it's still not worth in the visioning process to go ahead and study that it is I would stand up here and say that until I think it would be worth the Actually having a concerted conversation with e-trans and say what it would be the cost. What are the benefits? How do we deal with this? Is it all or nothing can we do it? but in terms of where the regulations would at the current draft we've really kind of backed off of of Of doing anything on route 15 in terms of the street typology or anything like that that would prescriptively Define something that you can't do now. Okay, so that's one thing Um, second thing I want to sort of point out is the the the balance of aspirational and foundation There's two reasons The private reason that this plan is constructed as it is is because when we were we first were engaged with this project It was the presumption of their original rfp That this would move into regulations It's wasn't this wasn't a project to simply just update the plan it was a it was to update the plan and to develop regulations ultimately and The staff can correct me if i'm wrong on this but my understanding of the rationale behind that Was that that was the failure of the 1991 plan It didn't it didn't elevate the work that had gone into the 91 plan to codify in some foundational way that would provide a more definitive outcome in the regulatory process Commensurate with that the other big thing that was cooked into this plan And that's another really reason why some of this stuff is in this plan as it is is an emphasis on form You know so you can argue we can argue about the the road stuff with public works and stuff like that But one of the big things on this project was to sort of bring forward Um bring forward the discussion within the community within this part of your community about what types of architecture What types of forms you want to see and that was a considerable part of the public process There was a lot of work done during the public process to try to get to those Foundational things about what is appropriate architectural character form all those sorts of things so I think we tried in the in the draft as it stands right now to try to find enough detail in there So that anybody who reads it And again, this is not necessarily a document that's appealing to the masses It says a little more narrowly focused than that But anybody who reads it gets the impression that the community wants to see an outcome That is decidedly Different than what's there today So let's make sure we're talking about the same the same components You know because I we're not talking about taking the forms out. We've never said that we've talked about taking some of the specific numbers out You know, for example Um I was looking for one of these things everywhere building heights take them out You know, we're talking we we talk height. We talk we talk number floors, but we also talk height take them out You know, we're we're not talking I mean allow the forms there. We've got the forms. I think we're all in support of that Yeah, yeah, can I just I'll give one at a time would be great. So During the public process if there was one metric That was continually Paul is here. She can attest to that there was one metric that was continually discussed in public forum and through the conversations with the steering committee was height and the feeling that at some level We needed to be clear with The community about the types of heights the heights of range of heights that would be needed to support the densities That were proposing so again Foundationally if you look at this as a plant an aspirational vision to not say anything about height to simply say but we're not Looting that we're talking about taking the numbers out. We're not talking about taking the form. So we've got I'm looking at neighborhood commercial And it shows multi story structures Yep, so we're not talking about I mean we're using the visual representation of the forms I I haven't seen any of it didn't hear any of us say not to use those What we talked about was we have a recommended height range 30 to 40 feet Okay, height range is fine, but then we also talk about maximum number of floors and stories We don't need both. We don't need either really If we're talking about multi-story units, we've got pictures of them if we're using forms We're setting an expectation regulations per area Who are we put in per zone? We'll say this zone. You're not going to have more than 40 feet just this zone Yes, we want more than 40 feet our plan says we want to increase the density Or we want to have a higher density here. We need more higher buildings So I think I think what our direction was Is not to remove the intent But as josh was saying is to remove the specificity and say how And even limits because we want to maybe we want to go higher than that In a particular zone, so we're not looking for this to prescribe how But to give an indication of what? And that means new these forms multi-story buildings difference uses whatever whatever is in here The streetscapes things like that. That's what we're seeing as the scope in the plan So that's why I don't think we're really we're we're bouncing around the same point We're just looking at it from different sides of the circle Square whatever trapezoid We have guidance in the plan about colors It's different guidance specified what you mean by guidance You know it says it says it's not it's not prescriptive as in these are the colors you get to use But there's some there are some metrics around which we're proposing In terms of the palette that the materials complementary colors essentially Uh a limitation do you understand what a complementary color is? I do but the question is well in the regulations can we define it? I mean again a complementary color is an opposite color So are you going to have a street that has red and green and blue and orange? Let's not drift too far down But I will say that's a good example of where the design portion of the master plan has to address that in order to include it in the regulations Right, so we we also were focusing on the On the lots in density. We're not arguing with increased density. We're not arguing with With much of any of the of the overall intent what we were finding finding Disagreement with was including A chart with acres and then a pie graft With expected use and this is historic center page 73 Again, you know, we were calling into question and I wish John Alden was here because he brought up some of the Derivation of the you know the math used and the it's fine to say the math is in the index But if you have to look at a table and then go somewhere else to And study something else understand it when the idea is to have a An idea of what we're trying to get to So this is when we're talking about removing some of the specificity. It's We didn't feel we needed to have a chart that shows the total area the estimated buildable area when we've got something Down below which we're looking to drive A more generic direction So I think this is what this is why I don't think we're we're really we're not that far apart But we want this we we had chosen to take a more visionary approach to this And not have this be prescriptive as this is the number of acres and this is the number of acres But this is the percentage. This is a percentage and then let the regulations Be specific based on the time the need the zone and so forth Okay I'd say that's fair the one thing I would point out though Is that is the basis for the building types and things that are included in those districts? In order to achieve that then we put a sentence in there that says that And the other thing I would just note with the building heights is that actually gets to some of the fire emergency public work standards So there It could be tied to some of those recommendations So the other piece of this is that none of this stuff is considered. We don't consider any of this throwaway work When we get to the point of doing the regulations, we have all this stuff to be able to say We're going to do a regulation and we need a descriptive piece for the regulation So we have the more detailed information that has been crafted It goes into the regulation documentation references back to the generic spit or the non specific documentation of this plan. So we're not looking to Remove a link we're moving looking to put the descriptions for that links in the in the in the regulatory Document not in the visionary document. Is that close? I'm not as good with work. Please say it again Yeah, the idea being that if there's something and this is going to the point about aspirational versus foundational If there's something that could be put in an index or an appendix as in the actual front loaded part of the document Yes, we mean what we say Look in the appendix page three for all the details Because i'm i don't think any of us are really opposed to their being details and that being tied to a regulatory framework It's just it does that need to be in the visionary part of it and does that need to be as As specific because again, it just i'm just imagining how it's Excuse me going to be received and the less prescriptive the vision can sound in the specifics I think the better it'll be received It's a greater chance for success a greater chance for success That's okay Any in as much as that is is feasible Okay, but I would say it's That's fine, too But it also links to the public works and fire code standards and things like that not just the the zoning and subdivision regs When you start talking about building heights and things like that. Yeah, so it affects more than just The zoning and subdivision. I think that's where some of the concerns from public works in the fire department. We're coming from Well, I think I was going to make I think that was kind of one of the reasons why the range was in there So to allay fears because you may recall during the planning process the public process There was a discussion even about six stories or or more I mean, there was a lot of discussion early on about what density should the etc have and so out of that process There was I think the consensus range that's the recommended range that's provided Um, kind of brought it down to where people felt comfortable with it But the other thing that came up in all of that discussion. I think it holds for not just The south district, but you know any other district where height is relevant that That the height relates to the elevation of the site. Yes, right So that to me is important wording that Maybe should be included in what you're working on now Yeah, it's in the it's in the plan, but I think your point, you know If we're going to take out the range the range did cover that the rate the recommended range was meant to Provide the the foundation for that conversation when it got to zoning. Yeah, but it doesn't specify that there is a The original draft original did then we take it out both and and we were asked to take that out The original did specify sub height zones had a line. It said this is the zone here And this is the zone here in both the north and the south based on the elevations that were flowing with the drone Okay, but that was specific to Those zones. Yes, and I'm saying that what I'm saying is more of a general philosophy The elevation of the basic site Can influence It says one of the one of the one of the bullets said just so you read it just under height Under building high record, and I don't think I have the most recent one because it paid 73 isn't it? Okay, so the most recent the most recent version under height recommendations for all the neighborhood says Height zones within the neighborhood could be established to allow Variability and overall height in recognition of important regional views That's an aspiration that was regional views, but there's there are also You know if If there's an area that has different So yeah, so so let's let's we got that And it's on page 13. It's on and it's also I'm talking about the individual neighborhood descriptions That's a carryover from that description about the different levels, right? So to me that's a perfect statement for the plan and I agree with what Paul's saying too So it's good to see that's in there But the details that you're talking about afterwards to me that seems like that should not be in the plan Like the goal is to state in the plan what our aspirations are like here's what we want to do Not discuss how we're going to do it the how we're going to do it is what the regulations should define Yeah, it's like again. I think the uh Sharon's point about You know in terms of the way okay, you have cop plan And then this is kind of an area plan It's kind of a different animal the design copper plan comprehensive play So where's that because we haven't talked about that Okay, the overall comprehensive plan covers all those things right that is your most aspirational plan That is the one that sets the policies and goals the big broad policies and goals Right when you get into an area plan like this when you get into a master plan We're trying to strike a balance for you to protect you guys about if somebody comes back and you if it say if you decided to do Not include any height guidance in here at all between 45 and 65 feet for one neighborhood. So just Deal with it in the regulations Right they go through this document They go through this plan and they look and they and they they get if it's not in here It lacks a little bit of an underpinning that could come back Because this data as Sharon mentioned this is what ends up getting looked at an active 50 first and foremost Your statement can limit that to a certain degree though and that provides your protection same colors But that's example. Yeah, you could say the commoners the colors need to be harmonized You don't need to say it needs to be this color that color the other thing that provides some funding for you to stand The colors could be harmonized now. You should be giving them a specific palette of colors to choose from Well, that's something the planning commission would need to decide So I think we have to be laid out not just in the regs But in the in the design review standard saying and we've already got a bit of that for the Essex center because it's historic So there's different design considerations there than there are say in mixed use north or south, right? But there is no Context for mixed use north and south in terms of what the color should be what the palette should be Whether it should vary by street Whether it's so I don't want to get too hung up on color and I want the conversation to be here And then we're driving this tonight, but and I don't want that to be forgotten I I understand that but my point is that that those those questions or those considerations Should be addressed in here in order to Be referenced give it a foundation in the regulations, right? Aaron so What i'm hearing from a lot of the planning commission is that you don't want to be too prescriptive in the plan because one you're afraid that might Lock us in too much into a future and a design outcome that we're not comfortable with that might be wrong in the end And and also that you want to push a lot of that into the regulations Because this needs to be a visionary plan and so on and so forth Which is fine But again to strike that balance of you know, you need to have something to fall back on I'll give an example of the business design control overlay district as it exists today Says very little in terms of specifics about what buildings should look like and what sites should look like And where parking should be and all of that so we have an application in the door that Comes through and appears to meet all of that because it doesn't give clear directives of Whether this is right or wrong the only thing that does is the 40th and allen And sx center historic design control standards And the only thing that that says about building design is gabled roofs double hung sash windows and Paneled entry doors that's literally all that it says Specifically the buildings have to have so the building could look like anything as long as it has those three things So as a planner who's reviewing the development applications, it's impossible for me to Push a design outcome that I know the planning commission in the community wants to see Because all I have to fall back on is some vague language So I'm just encouraging you to think about that from how you review and we're providing that in the regulations So we're not looking to have you know We're not looking to go to form-based code because that would resolve your issues right there form-based code. Boom done We're not looking for that. We're looking for variability. We're looking for adaptability. We're looking for harmony As much as possible within areas. So that means that it it comes in for review We set guidelines. We set intent you made a number of statements early on mark that we're talking about that were Sentenced descriptive of what we needed So get rid of the get rid of the charts get rid of the everything and provide sentences said this is the intent of this area We're looking to do this. We're looking to harmonize Josh found the comment early on In chapter two. I think last one of the last times around that talks about this is the intent Yeah, so we can state that and I know it's nice to have pictures and graphs it because it's easier to read sometimes easier to see But if it's locking us in and if it's not doing what we want Then let it be a descriptive More descriptive more more littered. What's the right term more wordy whatever words more than picture narrative You know you you used a number of sentences early on in your description that really hit this and they're in here But but we've got all all the extra stuff that takes it and I think that's what the commission is saying is it The way this is presented as a document as a whole Takes it beyond where we felt it should be As a as a vision as a guide Now the only caveat to that i'm hearing that tonight that's different than what we've talked about before is sharing I'm not again going up the words. You know, you seem to be saying that there's a Case and requirement putting it in at this stage In order to have it be defensible for i'm assuming appeals If it's ever challenged. Yeah, so I mean if that's the case, I guess I would just want to know A that that's true Not that I'm quite but like why it's true if it's either statutory or case law based and if if that's the case then I think we If we if Are saying or being told we have to put it in there because of those reasons Then I think we're going to have to go back and spend More time making sure that we have the nods across the table to say okay If it's got to be in there because of either case law or statutory requirements All right put it in there, but we better make sure we're all on the same page with What the numbers are so that we don't get hamstrung You know, I mean if we did if we didn't have this as a guiding document What do we go back to we go back to the original the original plan and the town plan Right original master plan and control standards. Yeah, thank you 30 years old to your point though And I think that is kind of the basis of the of some of the concerns And I think it's particularly important in this location because what this Vision does and what the regulations would do to support it would do it does elevate The architectural character that you're looking for it does make it's going to make development a little bit more challenging Right. I mean that you're asking you're asking people to elevate what they're doing That's the that was the intention of the plan the vision. I mean folks don't like what's there now so Developers in the etc. This is a yeah, you get something for it There's definitely a nice carrot that's been put in here in terms of the density and the use mix and all those other things But there are some quid pro quo's to so to speak to go along with it So I think that that that also is not lost on us in terms of making sure that the guidance that's in the document is Solid enough foundationally So that when somebody goes and if they do appeal you have very clear You know chain of custody back to why that was decided as the range for height for example So I think you can have that in there and still have it Very fairly vague. I mean I work with FDA regulations on a daily basis They are extremely vague, but yet they cover everything And it's I think we're lacking a lot of the vague descriptions of statements that need to be in there For example during the parking issue you were talking about that could still be accomplished with a vague requirement of you must have parking that Accommodates the intended use of the building something. I don't know what it would say But that would cover that without going into that level of detail Same with like the regulations I'm talking about I deal with they're they're very generic like that And then the then how you choose to implement it is up to you as long as you You got to go back and meet that Described high-level requirement. So I think if we had a lot more of those And less of the very specific detail that could still have you covered easily Well, I would say a couple of things to that one Unfortunately municipalities don't have the liberty to be as vague as even the state government Pace law GM golf Says you cannot be vague. You cannot be unbridled in your discretion Um, so there's that out there, but I would say more importantly, you know, there are there are the legal ramifications But I look from as a planner. I'm not an attorney. I look at it more. What is the guidance we're providing for both the applicants For staff and the board and is it clear enough to everybody that everyone's on the same page in the plan? And I think if there's stuff that you guys agree on as a commission that this Is the design that we want put it in there and put it on in writing Um Because that will help a developer see that and say oh, they clearly want me to put the parking here Not there or they want the roof to look like this and not that and you know To your point john, you know, if you put that Very vague language in it doesn't give staff and the commission the You know authority to tell someone no When they bring an application in the door and I understand the regulations can't accomplish that But the more you can agree on upfront the better its design will look coming in the door And the less we have to You know force the developer to go back and redesign it because it doesn't quite fit what we think it should look like And it doesn't leave us liable to be being accused of it's up to staff But also doesn't allow us it doesn't allow the the anybody to vary have a variance or Go ahead. I'm sorry. This is an example of the vagueness. I think you're both have kind of interpreted it differently For example, you know a regulation might state something like you must have quality objectives defined in your organization, right? That's vague sounding, but it's pretty specific It's up the organization to say oh, I'm going to have 10 Objectives or and here's how I'm going to have defined them and and whatnot But the end goal at the high level is that you must have those objectives. So it's that kind of You know less specific detail that I prefer into I'm trying to understand how that would translate into regs but or into planning and development. Yeah, do you had a You've got the sort of classic Thing that you go through on Almost any building project.  You know and and so it's it's a It's a progressive we've got I think we've got agreement on what we want the project to look like Uh, there's many ways to express it. I don't I don't necessarily even think that What we've seen in the so-called vision has You know duplicity and charts and stuff But maybe that's because I read right through them. It don't fail out of attention I've been you know, I already read the idea. What do I need to look at? You know, if you read one thing you skip the skip the rest. You don't take it all But you know now we're really at the point where I think we're just working out how We complete the framework for this vision. I think that's what our next step is Yeah, I'm hearing Well, I just like to add that From the perspective of a professional planner or someone who's active in the vermont planner's association I see these things all the time And um The detail and the Graphics are this plan's great strength It's It's it's an award-winning plan Just the way I mean it's great so that right there Dana just to be to jump in to say that we're that we're crafting this or the idea of awards is is Kind of another challenging statement I know but it but it but it it's it's As I've made some bad jokes before that's not necessarily the right joke to make at this time I've I've been in that position I think we're go ahead josh I want to make sure that i'm getting you because I think I Know what you're saying. Um, so you're saying say we had a plan And the plan what we call the visionary part said Houses need to be Nice-looking and the colors need to be complimentary and then we have regulations with specific complimentary colors You're saying that the developer could then say you didn't specify which colors are complimentary In the plan and so on that basis they could challenge the regulation At least in an active 50 level. Um, I don't know about at a local level But in and to be honest with you it gets really difficult in the aesthetics end of it I mean building forms are probably less Controversial but when you get into a lot of the aesthetic stuff One I will say that's usually the the last thing a developer will challenge you on Because as mark said, you know, the color of it is kind of their least concerned. Um But if they do, you know, or for some reason Because aesthetics is so subject can be very subjective The point is to try to give enough guidance so that everybody is on the same page So saying that color should be complimentary What what does that mean even from a planning standpoint? Not just a regulatory standpoint, but what does that mean? If you you have a general statement, you need to plot of you know, provide parking sufficient for the use What does that mean in terms of where it should be located? What the size of the spaces should be how it should be accessed? You know, where is it in relation to making it a walkable environment? Um, and I think that's what the plan tries to get at some of those things Saying that these are the kinds of roofs We we prefer in this district. It's not just uh, you know, it's not please give us a roof that we like or that um, a roof that Is compatible with the neighborhood the neighborhood again because in those areas you really don't have anything to compare it to So there's some good resources that maybe we could all take a look at. I just did a quick, um You know having looked at the jam decision before even at this board, you know land use That has a good section on the jam piece and doing um doing ambiguous versus specific Plans and and regs And some of that stuff may be good to just kind of help us set the stage for what's appropriate They've got some good examples in there for yeah, you know, if you look at chapter, um chapter six There's a weird a lot of this I think discussion is centering around right there's not that many numbers in it Really, there's not there's a range of height. There's a recommended range of heights Recommended range of stories. Okay that relates to architecture There's some recommendations about the percentage of color for trim or accent versus the face of building stuff So there's there's not that there's a distance of like six to 800 feet for walkability for parking So there's not a lot of numbers in there There's a few key ones that we think are really key because again, if you put if they're gonna put parking for the use that's 1,000 feet away 2,000 feet away. That's not walkable. That's not creating walkability, right? So I don't think there are too many numbers in there I think the question I would have for the planning commission is if there's if your fear is not having if having your hands tethered In the regulations then this the suggestion would be to at least make sure that those ranges are Big enough so that you have some wiggle room I mean that you know if you said 35 to 80 feet in the wreck in the range of potential range for heights Then the regulations say 75 you're within the range that's presented So I I think I Hang out a second. I'm not going to go 85 feet just to be clear. Hang on a second So I think I see what you're saying because we've been saying that we feel The foundational stuff if it's too specific Will wreck what we see is the aspirational concept and what I i'm interpreting you to say is that the aspirational Concept won't work Unless in the foundational aspect won't work at all unless informed by specificity in the aspirational part Yes, like if we say we want this thing We have to be pretty specific on what we want or we won't get it at all regardless of what our vision is Right. So if you say like chapter one through five what it says is okay We want to build a walkable Yeah place And then if you don't say anything about what how that how that's achieved Then you get to your regulations and you have this really prescriptive requirement There's a disconnect and that that hole is where the j.m. Golf sort of decision goes because it's like you went you took a leap from aspiration To specificity in the regulations and we don't see the nexus between right and so we were To sort of use the leap metaphor We were concerned that our leap was too small and you're saying you're setting the leap to Yeah, and I think we tried to you know that we you know if you remember the earlier draft of this There was there was definitely even more Specificivity in some of those requirements because we were trying to you know front load as much as we could And we heard you know earlier on there's let's back that off. So these are provided as recommendations So they're not they're not prescriptive. They aren't saying these we even got rid of the shals I remember there was a surgery place for shals that took out the shals target ranges recommended ranges, you know guidance guidance really guidance and That doesn't mean you can't deviate from the guidance If the planning commission decides when it adopts regulations to make some specific particular Neighborhood less than 40 feet. I don't think that cup creates a huge gaping hole for you because it's recommended range It's not it's a it's a range. It's not prescriptive, but um I think we were trying to find that balance so that you guys are protected Later on eventually if it if it comes to it And as I mentioned to Dana in the call yesterday, um, you know This is the kind of thing it gets a little wonky I realize but you know, you're better off figuring this out now Then when you have a lawyer calling you up Because there's a disconnect between your regulations and your plan. I mean, we know one wants to be there That's not a great place to be no community wants to be there So we're trying to find that balance to make sure that you know What you've said is the vision what you said is the aspiration has at least some Legs on which it can stand and then the regulations if you think these are detailed regulations are going to be Very detailed. Yeah, I was going to say the regulations get into a lot more detail than what's presented in this plan Yeah, they do and they and they have to because again, we're back to the the rationale behind this entire project You're introducing a whole new set of regulatory structure within this part of ethics that that demands you have The ultimate with the regulations you have all the things to guide to tell people what they need to do And some of the things we're working through you know with building heights We're saying two to four stories. But what what should the story height be? That's going to be in the regulations. The first floor height is probably going to be different than the upper floor heights And it may be different for different building types And then looking at building types, we're associating a lot sizes and things with building types So, you know the single family That would say you have a minimum maximum lot size minimum maximum frontage tied to that building type not the zoning district Right. So if they do get into much more specificity when you're in at that level Dusty, I just want to clarify On my joke about being award-winning what I meant Is that this plan is state of the art in vermont right now and Could be in The way it is and To water it down to take a lot of the teeth out Would be to make it not state of the art But just average So I just wanted to Tune you into what a piece of work this is and how great it is And to jump off that really quickly you know part of the impetus for this entire project was What we have today isn't working. It's not creating the design outcome we want because People aren't happy with what the town center looks like so In order to be in part of that is because there wasn't enough specificity and it wasn't enough direction in the old documents to Say what it was that we wanted we just know we don't like it So I think putting as much as you can into this that everybody agrees on This is what we want will help and if you don't agree on a very specific thing on a certain height Keep it as a range or keep it with some options or you know recommendations But do as much as you can up front to make it easier down the road And yes and I mean yes and no if you make something and I think what what we are One of the other concerns we've had is that by putting everything in here as much as we are We're making it very challenging to be accepted At different levels. I know you've staff has worked with other staff And gotten basic agreement and so forth, but that's You know as a result of a lot of changes and a lot of challenges and so forth So One goal of this is to actually be something that can be accepted You know not not just you know the state of the art visionary document or master plan for the future But it's something that that can also be to be backed now. I mean That's another balance that we have to find is what can be accepted Not just what is going to protect us and so forth, but but if we can't get and if we can't get it to move forward It's moot You know, so We're looking at this not just from the point of view of getting everything in there for the for the planners and the developers But also something that can be successfully brought forward It will have to be modified and somehow in the future. We're looking at the regulations to help find two Here's a solution potential solution Not talked to anybody yet.  I would have gotten hit by shoes a lot You haven't been chair long enough in there Um, so Again the in the way the plan's constructed You know chapters one through five really just talk about the background and present the vision, right? And we've heard from some comments that you just sort of make sure that Bring a little bit more of the vision stuff up front and that's fine. I think an executive summary will go a long way to Sort of bringing that out of there potentially possible as a potential solution is you you you take this plan and you make it those six chapters or five chapters plus a Paired down different version of chapter eight, which is next steps and in that next steps that outlines things like the studies that that dentists needs to do the studies that You know, all your other ancillary things you take then Chapters six and seven which are the design guidance for the plan And you publish that as a separate document And you make that the design report basically for the zoning regulations That's not far from what we've been talking about. Yeah, that really isn't because we it doesn't ruin the process that much It's because the one I think it mirrors what Dustin was saying, which is none of this is throwaway. It's just no not in the right Yeah, he's just taken another little step in in the middle there We're telling people how we're going to get there and then we come out with the nuts and bolts To get to the end.  You're wearing boots We're friends right now, although that's very intriguing. I'm curious what staff has to say about that Paula you have something to add I can't hold on to thoughts that long I can't either You're 56 Anyway, um, I I have sort of a little list I had some questions that because I have not seen the most recent Version of this I had some comments way way back And I don't know if they were addressed or not So I would like to discuss with you at some point those things Um, I'm I'm I want you to use a different word than complementary colors Because if you look at any artistic color wheel It will tell you that the complementary colors are the ones that are opposite on the wheel And I don't think what you're looking for is red and green Which are complementary colors Orange and blue which are complementary colors and purple and yellow which are complementary colors I think you're looking for compatible colors So good to me to me claire. I what I I misread what I was in here It actually says select colors that enhance the architectural form and complement building materials Not complementary colors. So is it a different term? It's a little different. Yeah I just want you to be aware that you know sometimes You can get yourself into a lot of trouble Paula you can get yourself into a lot of trouble. We know that I went was originally it was all taupe Brick red brick red brick red across the board So I think mark your your your Okay, this Next phase as you're suggesting that the people seem to be Interesting Is something that would also Be something that we who have been coming but are not members of the planning commission Could have input If you come to the planning commission meetings, you have input Is the suggestion simply to just break up this big document into to smaller documents essentially You would have to create some interstitial language to sort of communicate the intention of the separate pieces It could be an it could be an appendix to this document Yeah, you can use it as an appendix And it could go through because technically under statute if it's a design report you have to go through a public hearing on that Separately separately so you could do that too This is a question for somebody else There was a question about density minimums and I think the question had maybe more to do with Why are there density minimums? Would they be in all areas in all? No, they would just be And just just because you haven't seen the most current version what's presented now in what will could become the design report is Not a minimum maximum situation. It's a range. It's a recommended range And again, it's much softer language obviously And each neighborhood would have a separate range of density that would be a target Similar to our residential phases Yeah, so that's a that was a compromise because the concern the minimum concern was raised I think early wrong by the planning commission and the idea But that we get back to the The foundational nature of this design report as it relates to your regulations is you need to have some like If we come back in in the regulations and we have No way of achieving 24 units per acre on a building form then that's a huge disconnect Right, so we get caught. Well, you said in the design report that we can do 24 units a brand There's no design visual form that we can do big hole. You're going to get challenged by that So this idea of breaking it out. I think gives solves a couple problems That might be a fan vintage this process It it does let the vision sort of be the vision That's sort of you know, I think the the language of the new implementation chapter will need to be Clarify a little bit to sort of point out this Take this vision forward. You got to do you got to develop the zoning regulations So that's actually a big part of chapter eight. You need to do zoning regulations Well, we're working on that But all those other things and then the design report The design report would be able to you'd be able to make some additional tweaks to that if you felt you wanted to separately Um, and then and then so that could be adopted along with the regulations potentially And then the other piece that josh, I think brought up last time Which I think if you're going to do that would be effective would be to make sure to get the vision I think you said this get the vision right up front. Yeah And take the historical stuff and make that more We're thinking about doing a To help the staff on an executive summary that was really basically communicating the vision right up front Right up front get it out there the rest of it's all kind of whatever background and Click do you think that's probably could you adopt the design report along with the regulations come answer it with that So that's another way of you know, because again, you know the handoff on this project I apologize if it didn't go How the commission wanted it to go we tried to do our best to Give you enough time to have those conversations because we needed that input to sort of make this pivot Um, and I will acknowledge that this is a complicated thing. I mean no one goes through any sort of code changes, especially significant code changes without a lot of Elastination and gnashing of teeth. Um, so it is difficult Dave Tore's hair out It's particularly difficult. It's particularly difficult when a community is making the leap Into design into regulating design more and that's always a big step if you talk to anybody It's out Burlington Burlington, you know with anybody that's done it. It's a big challenge for everybody that's done it So I applaud you for staying with it because it is important But I think the idea of pulling that out if if to your political ramifications here if it makes the vision Be able to sort of everybody get on board with the vision first Great Because we need the that underpinning to make sure the foundation can be established through the regulations can follow I think we echoed that here in that quite a while ago as a commission We've said and we've been we've been consistent on that that we are behind This plan, you know, we haven't been You know, we put it to bed a while back that we're going to, you know, stop it, you know, we've we've we've been on board Exactly 25th meeting Okay, so so we've we've I think we've done that as well as we've committed to this And it's we want to make sure that this succeeds and to do that. I think that there's been a consistent Um opinion that we need to shift This Initial document initial presentation. We need to shift it a step to the left So that it becomes more visionary and and you're framing of of providing a a Separate document really was what we've said Which this isn't throwaway. None of it is throwaway. We just need to package it differently That's fine. The one the one area where there is again, uh, uh A bit of friction as Dana pointed out, I mean we've got I think all the departments in Out are on board with the general vision all of those things make a lot of sense So I don't think we're having any problems there, but but for This question of route 15 take it out Well, I There goes my hair I think I think you leave I think you leave that in there and you frame it to the reality with which It is currently which is this there's certain things that The public And staff and other people would like to see happen and some of it is beyond our control But it doesn't mean we're going to leave the vision behind And the decision and you know, I think that's one of the you know, I know Staff can correct me if I'm wrong here, you know, Dennis has really got a lot of anxiety over that And I get that But I mean but a plan like this you've had the current plan since 1991 A lot has changed since 1991. I've had I had more hair in You know and a lot has changed. So I think the point is is that you know the idea of Gaining some control over over over 15. Who knows what v-trans will do in 10 years They may be giving a fire sale like we want you to we're going to demand you take them over That's the direction they're heading they're heading that direct So the idea of putting it out there as a potential remedy for some of these structural problems with your town center I still think is really valid and you know, the solution may not be in the short term The solution may come with consequences that the town needs to fully vet and understand But it's still an idea that's worth keeping on the table and ultimately, you know, what's recommended That's that's the means to achieve the goals and everybody agrees on the goals of access control You can do other ways Yeah, you can do anything and that's Dennis's point too is you know, we can achieve all of these And results whether or not we take over as a town one class highway So as long as we agree on that I think that's phase on the plan That's one alternative is take it over to town highway and the other alternative is work with v-trans to make the same Ends happen then We can work with staff to make sure that the language does what it needs to do on that But I would say to that point v-trans is on this kind of Because they just don't have the equipment and the manpower to manage a lot of what would be considered more urban infrastructure They can't plow sidewalks. They can't, you know, manage A narrower bowl and stuff like that So they're very reluctant and they're becoming increasingly reluctant to approve those kind of changes Within their corridors I'm not to dive too deeply But I think the understanding from Dennis was the town would take care of that part of the things that Had relate to it being part of the town center in the urban Urbanized area, but v-trans still has responsibility for paving plowing and storm water essentially traffic lights traffic lights Traffic lights, I know that's an issue too. Yeah I think as concerns the plan the exact wording potential remedy is perfect Those are the two words that need to be included because that's I think the exact balance We're talking about a potential remedy for this problem is this solution And then I think I don't think there are any problems at that point at the vision level um if I can put a plug in for Moving the vision forward specifically the two words or the two phrases that I really liked they're on page 20 something with better connected more cohesive That needs to be put on literally every page Because that's what we're trying to do and in terms of separating separating out the document and having the um Sort of guidelines and then the vision to be two separate things the more times the visioning document Says better connected more cohesive the better I'll take that advice with some grain of salt As a watermark We'll make t-shirts. It's a whole Oasters Hats And I think I mean to to to be to be to be fair acknowledging everybody's work and respecting all the work that's been done We haven't felt that anything has been inappropriate as far as the flow and the and the progression. I mean We've spoken that that this feels like it's a very natural progression from ideas dealing giving components putting things together And looking at things from a from a larger standpoint or a more complete standpoint and then Feeling that we needed to shift A little bit and it doesn't at no point have we felt that we've been really out of sync It's just the way it's been presented it needs to be slightly different in order to be Achieve a greater success and allow everybody to embrace the the idea without the the vision without being stuck by That one particular item that I can't stand behind It's just a potential Thank you. I appreciate that Do is the you know again, I think it we for for clarity to make sure we get this right because the time I'm we're operating under is Tight closing in yeah, yeah Is it the preference of the planning commission to separate this out entirely? Or make it an appendix because if it's an appendix it would be Usually adopted along with the If it's a separate Then it could be adopted through a public process as a design report separately. Is that right you got that right? I think I got that right. Yeah, so in the past and you get chime in but in the past we've taken documents and made them separate We've taken them out of plans out of town plans and so forth. So it allows the plan to be stand and allows the The secondary or associated documentation to be updated and adopted separate from the open space report or open space plan that allows us to it allows greater flexibility and adaptability and Allows you to update pieces without having to update the entire thing So that from my opinion if if we split this out and make it a separate document Then it it would be complimentary But it would be it would go along with and it would be It would either have to be done concurrent with the with the regulations or prior to the regulations Just to clarify so we're Have to be a preamble to Link them There's a master plan that says appropriating by referencing. So close my reference some little language Maybe some more clarifying language We can probably bring up bring it we already talked about chapters in chapter five Anyway, yeah, I'm just wondering because that's the neighborhood. So that would be the basis for the zoning districts Right, but if this is the design report, that's okay, right? We need to control a little bit, but I think the attention we understand the intentions Maybe some it may not be as clean as six and seven, but it may be I mean the the the The content the the goals of sex should be there. So, I mean we that's what we're talking about And the because that's kind of the basis for the zoning map changes, too So, I mean we need to have we need to have the reasons why we have a design document I think the the vision statements for each neighborhood make sense because those are You guys voted on those.  They voted on those. I think yeah, they did Yeah, so so we could probably pull out those parts in there and then leave a little bit more of the technical stuff into the Yeah, some of this stuff we can I mean it's really it's what are we trying to do? Why I think I have a better understanding of that today than I did before I came here, right? Okay, so that's helpful. Now we could work with staff to finalize that So the goal would be to try to get this in the next two weeks so that we could get it to Uh, staff and you can have a look at it as Yep, pretty good. I one thing I just want to mention because it came up a few times in this meeting I'm not a big favorite fan of a median and 15, but certainly improvements on 15 I've mentioned it a couple times in past meetings. So I just don't want to really think that's a Favor of um, the other thing is who's the intended audience of this and we mentioned it we talked earlier I mean we know it's the planners and developers It's kind of I mean it's it's anybody lives in the etc sure this is a this is certainly it's not a broadly It's not a broad document in terms like your town plan is a broad document. This is a much more localized So I mean it's real. It's real intention though. I mean it's real intention In in the aggregate between the the aspirational part the foundational part is the backstopping for the zoning regulations And it's a little bit weird that way I know because it's not what we normally I'm on my planning commission I know we spend a lot of time trying to think about that long-range vision and really sort of paint the picture This is the pivot to the real detailed zoning regulations stuff And then lastly, um You mentioned to your point earlier about, you know, if we can't get approval on this is kind of a move point Have we done any review with select board on the plan as it's drafted just to get early feedback Are they going to throw their arms up and say there's no way we're not even close? Or are we going to wait and find out when we think we're all done? Is there any way to do that in a At one of their meetings or something has that it been haven't we I think I think direction has been to try to get everything resolved before It goes to the select board. Yeah, and then we would have a work session and couple hearings, but they see our minutes they see our We did present them early You know waiting to the end to drop it on them Well, the end is just it's still their beginning So I see what you mean as far as if we get to where we think we're we're good and clean and we got a great documents I'm about to make the changes they want now Before we give them the final if we can if we can get some of that feedback in advance just like You're developing something for a customer, you know, I think they I think the pro and and you guys can definitely comment on this But I think some of the major Feedback that they're going to be looking at as public works And if public works is against it, they'll be against it is is in general They can't be you can't say that with with certainty But if public works it takes a stance against a number of elements then Probably get kicked back. So John, that's right. They typically Dusty said it. Well, they get it and it starts their process So they're going through the same thing you did as Dana said with the workshop and then maybe a hearing They might want more or they might say we don't like this So that is their Expected to be their initial review Earlier a version of the plan about a year ago does the town attorney review it thing, I guess Before it goes to the soft board and before the pc Accepts it or pushes it up for You could do that anytime That might be a thought you will point out if your exchanges will be made. Yeah Good good you guys So what we'll get on the next for the next meeting is just the vision document not necessarily to sign the port of both So so are you happy in a week? You guys can work That's all yeah, let us know Okay, I'm sorry. I thought he said two weeks So October 24th is um, if that's what we're shooting for we would need that in Two or three weeks for packets So Mark and Sharon, I know we kind of beat this up tonight, but do you feel You've got enough clarity at this point with staff and so forth. Absolutely. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it It's for all your work And for the record it won't be submitted for any type of award unless you guys We need to have a chicken on the cover I was thinking of it Oh So we now move on to Paula, by the way, thank you for participating and you guys were quiet tonight. Do you want anything? Listening to Guys have been troopers for coming for every meeting now. We appreciate that. Yeah, a little bit nice if you brought snacks Is that a good pro pro So Dusty, I guess there is an amendment that the minutes should say September 12th September 12th instead of august 22nd. Okay So noted Do we have a motion for the minutes of september 12th? I move we approve the minutes of september 12th 2019 Second seconded by Move by john seconded by john Okay, it's shoe john and john Sharon I I'd sent you I think a couple no those were grammaticals you update. Okay. So grammaticals does it going through does anyone have adjustments they want to make to the document as written Other than grammaticals that you can communicate to staff at any time That said all those in favor. I opposed motion carries six zero And you noted that commissioner schumacher arrived at such and such a time. I did 701 Any other business 36 seconds? Uh joint meeting. Um, I have I have some other business Just the fyi stuff. Um ccr which is currently on colchester road is looking to Have alers place They might they will look they're bad moon rising, huh? Admin rising They will be looking to there will be some minor site plan improvements until I see the plan I'm thinking that it's low level and not needing to return to the planning commission table Especially now that the conditional use review allows the zoning board to do site plan review when it comes in I'll give you another update But I I think you're not going to see is what I'm saying And the second one is starbucks has made some slight changes to the lighting Because they had to shift the doors and it didn't change any of the lighting levels So again, you're not going to see that but I did just want to share for your information and if you needed to get Anything you could That's all I have Oh other than to also tell you with starbucks Unfortunately, they found a huge sink hole. They came upon a huge sink hole. So It has caused a little bit of a delay on portion of it. So a little hiccup for them Over at the runs under uh, the runs sundial drug runs through apparently had some erosion around the pipe itself That stuff happens. It happens the joint meeting real quick went went okay Uh, I don't know when they're going to come in and want to get Sharon. Did you want to go with Before we disappear. Yeah, I'm going to grab another page All right, I move we adjourn Um, hang on before you move that before you move. You didn't really just say that yet Um, Dana, you'd suggested another date and next date for a joint meeting Um, I don't remember what that was but I Feel that it's fine to put it on the calendar It was out there Um, I don't remember the day you said anywhere or something something you you'd suggested a date and I think we should just make it happen Just offer it and um, I didn't get any any other feedback. So And with that I will make it official And we can let robin communicate it to the village and as he wants to do and go from there Now I move we adjourn second All those in favor. Hi. Hi first was Dave second josh Okay, and we gotta wait for Sharon to come back