Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I will call recording in progress this uh meeting of the city of Essex Junction Planning Commission uh to uh to order at uh 6:31 p.m. on uh Thursday uh November 6th. And I'll call the city council meeting to order.

Uh initially, do we have any agenda additions or changes? Okay, not seeing any. Uh, moving on to public to be heard. Any comments from the public on items not on today's agenda. All right, [snorts] not seeing anything online. Moving right along. Uh, we can move. Uh should we approve the minutes as part of the meeting given everything else that's going on? Yeah.

Y okay. So uh any discussion um or modifications to the planning commission minutes uh from our September 4th meeting? No. I make a motion that we approve the minutes. Right. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Uh moving right along to business items. So uh 5A we have a discussion in consideration of the connect the junction transit oriented development master plan.

All right. So I'll kick those off over here with the uh just I I had included a memo in the packets uh kind of briefing what's uh going on today. Uh in May, the uh planning commission and city council got a presentation uh on the uh transit oriented development master plan. Um and uh from that meeting there were some uh comments and uh questions um and and uh requested uh changes to that uh that draft uh draft plan report. That version um was actually put online in June. I said I said in the uh um this memo that it was the May 2025 uh draft plan is available on the website. It's actually the June version that already takes into account um the comments that were received during that uh first round of uh um of review that both the planning commission and the city council had uh had the opportunity to do um throughout the summer. uh city staff and the project team were uh out in the public um and uh engaging the public on this uh plan and specific elements of it um including on the issues of the heights and on uh what uh we envision as a potential uh change to the five corn the operation of the five corners. Um today we have uh with us the consultants uh from framework uh here with us today. Uh Jeff Rango is online as well as this uh Sarah Lukans uh and they uh will uh provide a presentation of uh what we have learned so far from uh the uh public engagement efforts and what the uh uh recommendations are. Now,

excuse me. Did I have a clarification? When we're talking about the connect the junction, are we talking up to West Street Extension or up to Susie Wilson, including the West Street Extension?

So, the Connect the Junction transit oriented development plan is uh a larger plan that covers the entire uh Pearl Street corridor. Uh it technically goes down Park Street as well. I mean this is this is a a whole planning area and this project is about both land use and transportation. Um there are sub elements uh within here including the uh Pearl Street multimodal improvements project uh that in terms of implementation and what's happening specifically with that that is uh not a part of uh today's discussion but at a at a high level it is a part of the plan. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Uh well Jeff uh Jeff is online and uh I have enabled screen sharing. Uh Jeff, you can take it away. [snorts]

Okay, great. Uh thank you Chris. Hopefully everyone can hear me. Okay. Um thank you for the opportunity to be with you virtually. Really excited uh to present the current draft of the connect the junction plan. My name is Jeff Orango. with framework and uh we're based in Seattle but have roots and connections in Vermont. Very excited to be back in the state working with the junction on this plan. So let me go to the next slide. So our agenda tonight will provide a project overview, a little bit of a lighter overview than we have in the past since the draft plan is out. Um we'll we'll focus a fair amount of our time going over the public engagement and input that we've received to date over the last uh year or so that we've been working on the project and then we will discuss some of the key proposals. I would say the first item a project area height increases um probably deserves the most attention because we are developing the zoning code or land development code updates. Um the other proposals are related to public space improvements and while we do want to have a concept in the plan that can move forward there is more flexibility on that during the implementation process and then we'll wrap up on next steps. So starting with the project background, this is a transit oriented development master plan and it is funded by the rebuilding American infrastructure with sustainability and equity or raise program. There were 10 communities throughout northwest Vermont uh to that are developing to plans in collaboration with the Chitten County Regional Planning Commission which has been a great partner and provided a lot of guidance and resources during this project. And transit oriented development really focuses on dense walkable mixeduse development near transit. Essex Junction is fortunate to already have transit service and some of

the elements of a walkable mixeduse comm community with which we can draw upon and there's opportunities to reinforce that through this plan and address some of the major challenges like housing costs and access to transit. Uh so the study area is essentially the entire uh Pearl Street corridor from Susie Wilson uh to Five Corners. It also includes uh the Village Center District around Five Corners and then the Park Street corridor as well down to Cascade Street. There are some secondary study areas identified. Those are areas that we considered as we were developing the plan but are not really a focus of implementation strategies in the same way that the core study area is. So now we'll go through a brief overview of uh smart growth and some of the concepts here and I'll turn it to Chris to talk about the housing targets.

Yeah. So this plan is uh developed um largely [clears throat] to address uh the housing shortage. Um it is one piece of how the city can um can try to meet uh the housing targets that is that is now being passed down from the state. Uh and these are numbers that uh we had gone over in a previous meeting before uh with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Um, as a whole, Chittenden County uh is aiming uh is targeting uh to to add about 31,600 housing units by 2050.

And uh Essex Junction itself is uh is targeting about 3,000 uh new units by 2050. Um in terms of how that looks on an annual basis, uh right now the the city adds about uh 50 uh new units per year on average. Some years it goes some years we've got uh multiple apartment buildings that's uh that are finished. Um it could be up to, you know, 100 120 new units. Some some years it's close to zero. Um but on average the city uh adds about yeah 50ish uh housing units per year. In order to achieve the uh mid-range of the housing targets which I think a lot of municipalities are really you know trying to trying to aim for um the city would have to more than double uh the uh rate of housing production. Um we all know that uh as of right now um housing costs are really high um relative to to what it was before and uh the the rental vacancy rates in Chinden County uh continues to be uh stubbornly low at under 2%. And that just means that renters and really buyers are they they don't have the choice and they don't have the the uh the the market power to exercise uh over negotiating uh better rates. And this lack of availability also just means that uh some uh uh some folks that are looking to move here for jobs that they might already uh have lined up just can't come here. And so that has an impact on uh uh on economic development as well. But uh yeah, this this project aims to uh uh try to address that in the areas that are the most connected and the most convenient. And we look at that as the Pearl Street corridor with its uh uh convenient transit access. Uh Marcus has his hand up. [clears throat]

Just a quick question on the vacancy rate. What do you see as a healthy vacancy rate for that kind of competition that'll actually impact the marketplace? Um if I remember correctly, it's uh the uh the rate that is considered to be healthy is I think four or 5%. Do you do you remember uh if that's generally the case? Yep. closer to 5% has been the target for our region for quite a while. Um, and I don't recall ever achieving it. Thanks. Great.

Uh, thank you, Chris. Um, so why [clears throat] transit oriented development? Um, I think there's a couple reasons. One, uh, the Pearl Street corridor and the studier in general has existing infrastructure. you know, many smaller Vermont communities and traditional downtowns really struggle with this issue in terms of adding new housing and and potential for jobs. Um, we do already have frequent transit service and the opportunity to improve that by connecting it to our land use strategies. And then this can of course mitigate additional car trips and uh make the community more walkable, more livable, and less impacted from [snorts] from local and regional traffic. So there's also some some uh you know metrics that you can apply to transit oriented development or smart growth and that is just the efficiency and productivity of land which gets into environmental as well as fiscal considerations. So the uh diagram on the left hand side shows a development uh in in a zone that would be similar to the R2. The middle uh diagram here shows the amount of building area aggregated in the purplish uh square and then the land area around it. And then the strips show the length of road miles that are needed to serve those. So you need this amount of road to serve this amount of buildings and this much land left over in the yards. Uh looking at a 100 unit uh denser urban project. uh the land area and the building area are roughly correlated here and you can see the road miles are much less. So that means there's less infrastructure uh more revenues and it's more efficient from the land productivity which has implications for you know tax revenue and uh provision of city services so on and so forth. So there's an economic benefit of this

approach and you know Chris highlighted the ability for people who are coming to Vermont to take jobs and employers to be able to attract workers. Huge huge issue and one we're really struggling with in the Seattle area as well. Yeah. Pause there for a second.

Sorry for being that guy. So, quick question since you talked about the economic benefits of that area in relation those those areas in relationship to each other. Um, but let me ask you in in when you're looking at that one plot of land with that one building on it and we're talking about height and density. Um, does it make a difference if it's renters or property owners? Does does it make a difference in that economic impact of that density?

I I think the economic differences are probably more minimal. Well, I think there are some differences just in terms of like proportion of renters versus owners and sort of long-term investment in communities and are people able to get ownership opportunities where they want them and and sort of develop roots in the community. I think that's an important issue. I think in terms of like tax revenue, it's probably not much of a difference except that there's always a premium for ownership units. So, one of the things that we run into, say if you're looking at uh feasibility for like a townhouse project or potentially even uh like an apartment style building that's condos, although those tend to be less uh common, um oftent times or fairly often, uh an ownership uh project will be much more feasible than a rental and that's because people will pay a premium to own that. So there could be a little bit of a difference in the value, but I would say overall not as much. And then in terms of like attracting employment, it could kind of cut both ways. Uh some folks maybe want to rent for a while and then figure out, you know, what their long-term plans are, where they might want to move. So it's kind of the gateway to getting people there if they can't buy a home to take a job locally. Um while at the same time I do think having more affordable smaller scale ownership opportunities really seems to be um the the thing that many communities we're working with are focusing on because that's the part of the market that's most tough to deliver. you tend to get larger, more expensive uh ownership uh homes and then smaller, more um you know, not really long-term uh opportunities on on the rental side, whereas that small home ownership is kind of where the the market is kind of missing that. So hopefully that answered your your question. If you have any followup, please feel free to let me know.

I appreciate it. I think what I'm being mindful of is the fact that what I think what we're seeing here in the community is a real lean toward rentals in such a way that it it is skewing like our rental percentage as it's been acknowledged. Um but the you know when we talk about some of this these buildings that would be potentially target you know opportunities for height adjustments right um I think based on what we're seeing and the developers who are doing it they're leaning into rentals versus providing a variety of of opportunities whether it's smaller space for a single homeowner or maybe a smaller space for an older individual to downsize in their retirement years. you know, whatever it may be, we don't have that variety. So, uh, anyway, but I think you you reinforced my my assess my assumptions already on this. So, thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Um, okay. So, the the plan is really organized around this vision statement and what we call the big ideas. We really try to use the vision statement and the sort of um big ideas to frame the whole strategy within the plan and then filter that down to very specific strategies and actions that can be implemented which we're really focused on in developing the plan. So just some of the themes and I think these have been reinforced in the engagement. You know, really wanting to prioritize people um and sort of benefits for Essex Junction, not wanting the regional traffic concerns to make the community less livable. Um so how do we make Essex Junction for Essex Junction? How do we capitalize on the Crescent Connector? Really long-term project. Took a while to get implemented. a lot of hard work and great effort on the city's part to deliver that which is very impressive. Um, very important and something that the community is just starting to re reap the the broader benefits uh even beyond just the street connection. More activities and amenities, things to do within the study area. That really is what makes living in a dense environment worth it. You know, you have things to do, you have opportunities for uh socialization. um close access to transit, jobs, community, those sorts of things. Uh the plan is centered around adding housing because that is the major issue that uh the region and the state is trying to address. Improving connections with focus on uh biking and walking. Making some of the assets shine of which there are many uh within the community. And then again just this really focus on Essex Junction for Essex Junction as it's getting its legs under it as a as a new city um but a community with very strong connections to the past and a bright future.

So as I said we really try to organize the plan around kind of a road map and make it easy to understand how it gets implemented. Um and so we've organized it around these uh four themes. On the left hand is kind of the core of the transportation housing connection that is the hallmark of transit oriented development and on the right side are you know some of the things that go along with it. More access to services and amenities, economic development opportunities and then just a great public life and community vibrancy and uh continuing to build off of the success of the um the main street events and other things that have been happening in the community. So, it seems like there's a lot of really good energy, which is awesome. So, now we'll move into the engagement and summarize what we've heard there. And, uh, we work with a lot of communities around the country and in Washington state and the Northwest. And we always find that having a strong partner at the city on engagement is really a key to success. And just want to commend the city staff and leadership on their efforts for engagement. It's been uh very well thought out and um impressive in terms of the number of folks that have been reached. I think we can always wish we had more engagement, but I feel compared to other projects that we've done, we're we're hitting the mark here. So, at the top is just some of the numbers that we hit in terms of some of the outreach um communications through social media, the newsletters, the junction news segment, uh so on and so forth. Um we have done a lot of conversations with property owners and developers. So I think we've had uh stakeholder interviews with each of those um if not twice at least once. And uh the first thing I think to say is that the the property owners and developers have very good things to say about doing business and working with the city. So very positive. They don't have a lot of bones to pick per se. Um

they also seem very uh supportive of the plan. um and the efforts there. So, I think we got a lot of positive feedback in that regard. Um we had a mix of online and and in-person engagement. Um some of you will recall we had the inperson sharet about a little over a year ago. Um the city has done some great in-person engagement, which I'll let Chris talk about here in a moment. And then we've had a very robust effort online um to to get participation there. and then of course uh outreach that was done at the Main Street event and other events. So this is some of the in-person engagement that was done over the course of the project and um I'd like to turn it over to Chris to talk specifically about some of the inerson engagement they've done and in particular some of the outreach at some of the apartments that are within the study area.

Yeah. So thanks Jeff. the uh city staff uh spent quite a bit of time this summer uh being out in the public and the focus really was on trying to be where people already are. Um the first event that uh that uh the city staff actually and the planning commission members uh uh coordinated on was the uh July 4th uh fireworks event. Um and then they we were also out at national night outs uh ta tableabling there and having our displays up and answering questions um as uh people came along. I think our first uh the uh one of the events that had uh particularly high turnout um was what we uh was an event we held that's uh Maple Street uh park just uh it was during um summer camp pickup times. We we really timed it so that uh we would be there uh when parents were coming to uh pick up uh their kids at the end of the day. Um and also just to try to uh capture some of the people who are who are just uh going to the park um for the park or going to the pool. Um yeah, a lot of uh a lot of turnout there. Um we got a lot of uh good input there. Uh the next two events that we did were uh really focused on uh getting the inputs of renters. Um throughout uh a lot of the projects that we've worked on uh it's been uh a little bit difficult to uh engage with the renters specifically uh particularly those that are already living along the uh higher density corridors. Um we set up uh a a little ice cream stand at uh uh at two of these uh locations. um just basically in front of the uh in front of the entrances uh of two apartment buildings uh along Pearl Street and uh we solicited inputs uh from folks who were living there uh and folks who are living uh who are visiting. Um I made a presentation to

the Rotary Club um uh on September 3rd. Uh and during the meet me on main event series uh we were uh out for uh two of those events. Um, one of them was the full uh openhouse uh meeting where we also had uh a bunch of displays set up inside for a more in-depth dive. Um, the uh project team uh from Framework were uh here as well uh on September 27th. Uh but on October 11th, uh two members of the planning commission uh were out um in uh uh on Main Street as well um just to to get uh get out there for one more opportunity. And uh yeah, that's it. I think for uh the rest of the July to October period, there was also a series of online um engagement opportunities available.

Great. Thanks, Chris. And thank you to the planning commissioners and others that helped us staff the open house at the Main Street event. That was great, and we got a lot of great input and discussion there. Okay, so now we'll go through each of the key proposals. uh first focusing on the height increase potential. Uh so our framing questions and we'll go back to these at the end. Should we allow increased heights within the study area? Uh if we allow increased sites, how much housing can we expect? Which is something to encourage and we'll show that if we allow increased heights, how many additional floors should we allow to maximum benefit to maximize benefit? Uh so this uh looks at the different proposals and also uh aligns them or looks at them uh with respect to the growth targets. So again we're looking at the mid-range of about a little over 3,000 units. Um and we'll talk a little bit more about the land capacity analysis that we've done here in a moment but uh alternative zero which is existing is four stories in a onetory bonus. uh estimated capacity would be about,50 uh new homes and [clears throat] you can see the breakdown there between the TOD zone the village center annualized growth would be 46 units at that pace through 2050. The draft proposal uh would have seven stories with the potential for a one-story bonus. That increase would be about 500 homes in terms of capacity. um much of that would be in the village center zone here and that would result in an annualized growth just within the study area of 66 units. Um, you can you should also note that the 1,600 units or so in alternative one is about half of the growth target. And just in general, whatever we decide

on for this project and this study area, the remaining balance of the 30,000 will have to be accommodated in other parts of the city and that will be something that'll be looked at as part of the comprehensive plan. So the the proposal before you is sort of the middle one. We did also look at alternative two. Uh as you get above eight stories, again there are some nuances with this a bit now with some of the newer building technologies. But the general rule of thumb is once you get over around 85 ft, you start getting into high-rise construction and your feasibility starts changing. uh that may be actually a case where you might see more condo and home ownership opportunities because those tend to be more expensive to build and therefore there might be a premium in doing for sale units versus rent. Um however uh at nine stories with a one-story bonus again you're getting into kind of that in between height between a mid-rise building and a high-rise building oftentimes isn't feasible. However, with things like mass timber, um we are seeing some buildings that are popping up in that kind of in between height, but it is a little bit less common. So, the draft plan proposal, just to be clear, is alternative one, and we'll come back to that in a few moments. Uh so, the U land capacity analysis that we've been working on, um you know, the housing targets are due for Vermont. something that's been talked about for a long time and now are being put into place which I think is is good in many ways. It gives uh communities something to aspire to and some more uh detailed sort of information or targets with which to look at your land use plan and calibrate it appropriately because the study area is relatively small compared to some of the larger communities where we do this type of land modeling um has

been very common in some of the western states because we've had housing targets for 30 years or so that we've had to to update and accommodate. So um with the help and guidance from Chris and others at the city, we've been able to get very detailed here. Uh we are able to include pipeline development. So those are projects that we sort of know uh what they will be. They may not be constructed yet or they may be in the process of being constructed, but we generally know how many units and whatnot. So those have been plugged in. [snorts] Um, and then through many of our conversations with the property owners, uh, we've been able to glean their plans for redevelopment and timelines roughly and be able to factor that in as well as identify other parcels that are either medium, low, or not likely to be redeveloped. Um, so I feel like we've gotten in more detail in this analysis than we might in sort of a city-wide model, which is great. And then we just assume a certain amount of density based on anticipated average height and unit size for each scenario. Just one thing to keep in mind um you know since this is the first round of doing this uh we have a little bit of flexibility I think on assumptions but as you all know there's a fair amount of variation in terms of what could be built on some of these parcels. Um and so if projects are built say less dense than what's assumed in the model that'll just have to be accommodated or updated in the future and recalibrated. Um but for now I think we've done a good job and uh coming up with estimates based on the best information that we have at time. So appreciate the help from the city on that

there. Um with the uh assumption of uh uh scenario one with the uh uh seven plus one story limits uh we certainly aren't assuming that every new building is going to that pops up is going to be eight stories. Uh in fact we are we are assuming that we would get approximately you know uh an average between five and six stories and that's just because of the variation in uh lot cons configurations and lot sizes. um uh a a taller building is just not feasible in uh on all lots. Um if it's too small, it just it doesn't work. Um so um I I think we have uh we've made some uh uh assumptions here but uh they have they have been tested and validated against uh the uh styles of developments uh the the types of development that that's uh we've seen along the Pearl Street corridor and what has been proposed lately in terms of uh lot coverage unit size um and uh and just the density assumptions. Sorry, Chris.

Sorry, I I have a question. Um, it's clarification again. So, on the alternatives here, we have the TOD zone and the village center zone, and I'm trying to get a sense of how it uh applies to our current land use map that the regional planning commission is now submitting, um, which has a downtown center and a plan growth area. So is can you sort of define what the village center looks like in terms of it relationship to the downtown center?

So uh yes there's uh actually that's that's a good point. There's there's two pieces uh to mention here. Um the village center uh as as we talk about here uh aligns basically perfectly with the

sorry it aligns perfectly with the future land use maps uh the regional future land use maps uh center designation. Um and the planned growth area is going to be basically the rest of the city minus areas that are that are um you know vulnerable to to floods. Um, but what we what we're calling uh the TOD uh area here is actually it's it's a a combination of the current TOD district which is where the uh uh shopping centers are um and going down to I think where uh around where the CVE is plus the highway arterial district which is kind of where the uh uh the fast food joints uh are uh with KFC and whatnot. That's um and the MFMU I think it was the MFMU1 zone. So basically everything west of West Street Extension the uh uh the newer apartment buildings there where that is all a part of what we're calling the uh you know to uh area over here as a part of the uh uh housing calculations.

Yeah. No, I was just mainly trying to figure out what the relationship was between downtown center and village center. Right. I'm talking about the same. It's the same thing, right? That that would line up. Okay. Just as a point of clarification, if we go with alternative one that says seven stories with potentially eight, that's for the entire area. There's not a designation to say you could if you're in this five corner downtown development zone, you can build nine stories and as you get out further down Pearl Street, it's a reduction in those.

No, that is that is entirely possible. I think we what we have uh here is just a a draft recommendation. Certainly if there's interest in that by uh uh members of the uh the planning commission and city council that's uh that is something that can be nuanced in here. Uh in fact there could even be more nuance um written into here with uh with form-based code. uh you know if there are specific worries that uh that uh there's a desire to alleviate we just it's it would be important to know what um what the impact is that that there's a worry about and form-based code could be written in a way um you know to try to address those uh uh those specific impacts um or you know if if there's a desire to have some kind of um variation you know as as as Tim is alluding to right now with his hand motion swoop [laughter] in for those who are online. I kind of envisioned it as a as a step in. So as you come further into the core, the buildings get higher. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's kind of the way I

Well, if I could just build on that a second. So when I was talking about the downtown area, downtown center, and you got 973 units there, um, with seven stories plus one, etc. Um, it it's actually, sorry, Jeff, it's going to some of the the future slides, but I'm trying to look at the slide that shows Maple Street and the five corners and it shows a a tall building on one side, but it doesn't show anything in terms of the Marton side or railroad avenue on the other side. So, it's more a question for me of what what we want to see there in the future in in the five corners and how does that relate to what it is now?

Yeah. So in terms of how like these calculations don't like they exclude u lots that we don't expect um uh redevelopment of uh you know anything that is that is like historically designated um um and also where there's where there's no indication that there's any development interest uh you those were either weighed really low in terms of a probability of redevelopments which would you reduce the number or uh or you know we just didn't include them at all. Now, we do know that there are several parcels in the village center zoning district that are uh kind of where the owners have um uh voiced u an interest in in redeveloping including what's in the the within the Chitten Crossing uh master plan that you know that was uh uh started uh uh you know several years ago. Um and those are all kind of up for uh uh up for discussion here. Yeah, go ahead.

Uh, [snorts] so what you're saying is, uh, with these two alternatives, it would not get us to the 3,000, but it would get us close to meeting those expectations. Well, it would get about half of the uh, a little more than half of the uh, growth targets to be accommodated. uh within the transit oriented development area. Um it yeah it means there's more work to be done um even if uh you know if this was a case to you know figure out how to uh accommodate the additional housing.

Thank you Diane. So, so if I understand it's up to our prerogative to if we want to have higher story buildings in the village, what we're terming the village center, the downtown center, that's our prerogative is we wanted to put something higher there and and essentially pyramid things in from the other sections of the city to to ramp up toward a higher center if we want to do that because that's what our current zoning does right now.

That I mean you can certainly uh write the policy for that. I you never know if there's going to be uh if the uh final uptake and final development patterns uh end up using all of the available uh allowed heights. Uh but the the policy can certainly be written to enable that. Are there any I'm sorry I can't see any counselors. Marcus has his hand up.

So um as far as So two questions first off the targets totally understand trying to shoot for the midtarget but outside of like missing the overall housing targets. I mean, I I seem to remember that when this came down from the state, we gave them feedback to say that those numbers were a bit of a stretch that and I I thought in that discussion we were probably thinking a little over low, but I'm not sure that I felt like we were really going to we felt comfortable that we were going to be able to hit the mid. Um, so I'm a little curious about that background. The other thing is, um, if if we deem it necessary, would it be possible to potentially 3D render a potential, you know, what what it might look like with these with these heights um, in our community. I can answer that just from a a technical perspective. Yes, we're actually doing that for another client right now. Uh we have some, you know, renderings in the plan, but we intentionally make them more conceptual because uh we want the process to sort of build out and and see where the questions are and where the momentum is going. But if there was a desire to take those and and render them uh to make them look more realistic or what you might expect, that's pretty easy to do. So,

uh we could coordinate with the the city to to see what that looks like, but that's that's not too hard to do. And you could look at things like shadows and views and things like that. Great. Thank you. uh

the first part of the question about uh about the low, medium and high uh targets. I mean I I think the many municipalities in Chinten County are in the same struggle. Um it is very difficult and it it does take a lot of intentional um policy uh change to to be able to uh change the course of uh uh the region's housing uh housing situation. Um but there is there there's no enforcement mechanism written into the housing targets right now. Uh the these are these are housing targets that were uh based on the uh state's housing needs assessments. The mid-range targets uh is kind of a split between the the the low and high. And I'll explain what the low and a high um have different assumptions uh based on growth rate. uh the the low um kind of assumes a precoid a return to uh uh the uh Vermont's growth rates uh you know before the recent acceleration um and the high uh assumes a kind of uh uh postcoid era uh increased uh pressure growth rate. So um and and the the the midpoint is is really just some the medium one is just somewhere in the middle. And I think there's nothing to say that uh you have to I think municipalities are expected to to try um and and to document how the uh the uh comprehensive plan um to show in the comprehensive plan uh the the efforts and the uh and the kind of calculations behind how how you aspire um to making it work. But um if it doesn't work at this point there there is no uh direct

penalty to uh the uh [snorts] uh to the city um I mean it it will just be a continuation of the uh the struggles of the uh housing shortage. Yeah. All right. Thank you. And and some sorry go ahead.

You know to to kind of follow up on some of the the questions that Marcus is answering. Um if we um if we shoot for the the the sevenstory the sevenstory proposal um it's kind of shooting at the the midway the midway proposal. Um and I and and yes I understand that we have other places where we could develop some density. Um have we looked at what percentage of the rest of the city where we're likely to go up is there. Um I'm I'm worried that if this is the this is the opportunity for building density prostrate, right? Um and um it seems to me that the if we're if we're ever going to make the high target, we should shoot for it. And um this is the place to do it. And I'm wondering if there is a I'm I'm wondering if I mean my opinion is we should go for option two so that we can so that we give the opportunity for developers to go up especially with as Jeff mentioned this gives more opportunities for home ownership um as they as they as it's more likely that developers will build condos there. Yeah, I think it's exactly why we have it on the slide so you can see and understand um the reality of our chances of hitting the targets. Um the you know in addition to this work um state law has also changed and we have also already done this work where [snorts] um single family zoning anywhere where you're allowing single family zoning you have to allow four units now. Um so some of that will happen. Um it certainly won't happen throughout the entire city. Um, but the opportunity is to really maximize homes on the road where the bus is passing. Um, that's the concept.

That's the idea here. Um, I I do think the higher you go in this area, the more pressure that you kind of take off um the other parts of the city. But I'm I'm saying [clears throat] that with exactly what Chris just said. They are not requirements. Um but they're there for a reason. Um you know how much housing we are in a housing crisis right now. People do not have a place to live. That's why we're talking about this and trying to figure out how to do it in the right way.

No, I get I I get that. I just my my my concern with the with it going for the middle is that we're with that which which no one thinks we're going to build seven stories from uh from the CVE to the to the townline, right? No one thinks that's going to happen. I mean, Chris mentioned that there's some lots that where that's not possible, right? So, um, so aiming for the middle seems to be that we're aiming to miss the middle target. So, I would, um, I would, I guess, recommend that we that we go for the higher proposal.

So, can you expand on the Chitten Crossing area? I mean, I remember the plan, the master plan being presented to me on the planning commission a while ago. Um and it was at that time proposed to actually put a mini village um down there in that area. So has there been any action on their part to step up? So the Chinden crossing project that was um it had gone through uh site plan approval uh for uh pieces of it. Uh I think the first phase [snorts] of it. Um but [clears throat] at this point that site plan uh approval has actually expired. Um and the developer uh Black Rockck Construction uh did the first uh the first building um the one on Maple Street. Um but they are not interested in continuing. In fact, they've sold off pieces of its to other developers. Um, and they are they are looking to offload uh uh the the additional uh pieces of it um to to other interested parties. So, we we don't know what will come of it. Uh but the fourstory proposal uh that was uh approved there um I I can imagine if if the policies change, the outcomes might change. [snorts]

[snorts]

Okay. See? Okay. Thanks uh for those comments and questions. Um now [clears throat] we'll look a little bit more specifically at some of the engagement. Um so this is specifically where we ask questions about supporting increased height specifically on the Pearl Street corridor. And interestingly enough, there is quite a bit of a split between the in-person uh uh feedback and online. Uh for in-person engagement, which included the activities we summarized previously, um uh 97 or 94% or 61 votes were in favor, four votes were uh not in favor. in the online 24 favor, seven neutral, and 20 uh in the no. Uh not a huge sample size, but I think uh still representative of those folks that participated in it. And again, quite a split depending on whether respondents were giving input online or in person. So, in person, uh, 87% responds, uh, respondents were favored the 8 to 10 story height increase. And you can see a little bit of a difference between the village center and the TOD. Uh, online, uh, similar to what I just showed you, over 50% of online groups favored keeping the existing height limits. Eight stories was most favored height among supporters of increased height limits. My experience when talking about height, which probably is no surprise, tends to be one of the more controversial issues. If people are very much opposed to it, you would get a lot more responses than this just in general. Don't know that to be true, but that's just been my experience. Uh, so balancing some of the the feedback um related to the height

increase on the pro and on the concern challenge side. So on the pro, I think you know the main is is uh it just provides more capacity for housing to address the crisis and all of the reasons that were just discussed. Uh concentrating your population near your local businesses. Um I think you know some of the new businesses that have come in as part of the development projects in the village center have become great assets for the community and wouldn't be there if they didn't have the economic driver of the housing development up above. uh increased development viability and flexibility for maximizing the construction type which is that mid-rise typology which typically maxes out around eight stories. Uh more progress or more likelihood to achieve the growth targets and more fiscally and environmentally sustainable um more uh productive from a land perspective economically. Um just to give you an example and we have this I think in the plan or we've had it in previous uh generally speaking uh the per acre value of property that's developed with the newer apartment buildings in the village center is about $10 million an acre. It's about $500,000 an acre on some of the shopping centers on Pearl Street. So quite a delta there from a fiscal perspective on the concerns challenges the potential for conflict with historic architecture and the suburban rural character. It's important to note that we have a lot of flexibility and opportunities to address this in the code updates including changes to the zoning district standards themselves as well as additional design standards and form based code elements. uh more housing equals more cars, more congestion, and a need for more parking. Uh certainly that could be the case in some instances. Not everyone will use transit, but by locating it in places where there is opportunities for different modes of transportation and

access to goods and services within walking distance provides the best opportunity to reduce vehicle dependence and increase transit use. uh potential for disrupted views. Again, something we can look at pretty easily through some of the modeling that was just discussed. Uh perceived decline in public safety and then poor build quality on some of the recent developments could be exacerbated by height increases, but again could potentially be mitigated through the code updates. So our recommendation or the recommendation of the project team uh would be to go with the seven stories uh outright with an additional bonus floor which would help address the affordable affordable housing goals of the city in the region. Uh some of the potential mitigation strategies we could look at um some were mentioned earlier. We could have different heights uh within different districts or subdists. Uh we could have standards that limit uh the height of buildings within certain proximity to the street frontage because um that definitely influences how it feels uh for pedestrians particularly. Uh we could look at requiring transparency, window transparency and active street level uses to increase public safety and activities in the public realm. um even without those retail requirements, the city's getting a lot of great new retail as part of those mixeduse developments. So that's telling me that developers see value in that. And then we could look at improved frontage standards to enhance again design outcomes, whether that's a little bit less height within a certain distance of a street or improvements for people to hang out and seating and outdoor dining and things like that, public art. some of the things that make urban living attractive um we could embed into the code as well. And then we just have this slide again

if we need to refer back to it and again our recommendation is alternative one and then back to the discussion and I think do we want to pause here Chris for a bit and have some discussion um or should we go through the rest of the presentation? I'll leave that up to the chairs. Uh I guess Oh, sorry.

Uh thanks Jeff. Um I guess just Chris and Regina, I would like to take your recommendation in terms of we obviously have a number of the public here who are interested. Would it make sense at this juncture to invite public comment on what we've heard so far or what folks have reviewed in the materials or to conclude the presentation and then move to a public comment period? Um, so good question. Um, my, um, inclination would be to offer both to the planning commission and the council if you have any other questions and comments to talk about on this hype topic first. If you don't, then I think it would be a good time to open it up to the public.

Chris, any I I I think uh that is a good idea. Thanks. All right. So in that case, members of the commission or council, do you have additional thoughts? Defer to Amber for the city council. I can't see you, Amber. So that's a good thing. Uh I don't have I don't have any questions. Um I don't see Marcus' hand up, so I think we're okay. And I don't know about you, Brian, but [snorts] earlier. Okay. So council's good. uh Finn.

Um so when we did the uh public outreach, we um sort of like told the public that if we were to shoot for the recommended height of eight stories, that to get to that, we would need up to uh eight stories, which is what alternative one uh said. And um based off of what we see here with the eight stories, we will get about half of what we told the public of 3,000 with what was it? Uh 1,662. So, in my mind, we I would go for alternative two because we would get closer to what we told the public in uh how many uh new homes that we would be expecting.

Uh thank you. Uh Jeff, I have a question that you may be able to opine on. um or possibly Regina or Chris, you might have thoughts. Uh in all of these scenarios, when we're looking at a a density bonus of a single story, are there scenarios or are there municipalities that you're aware of that let's say they do a multiple density bonus? So let's say we have the target or we have the maximum being eight but the t the last two floors would be only available if you're achieving those increased affordability limits or is it always is it just the standard to just have it be the the final story?

So the the final story in Vermont is is a legal requirement. It's required by statute. anything. Um it is it is uh up to the municipality if uh if you want additional um requirements like that. I think um this this type of policy uh is in in other jurisdictions uh it certainly exists uh where there there are height bonuses that go uh that's more than one story. Um I think the thing to be aware of when you set a lower limit and then say you can have it if you uh do certain things or or meet certain um targets is that you you probably the aggregate supply you you shouldn't expect it to be higher you know with with those restrictions than if you had u you know just a straight up higher uh higher limit to start. Uh but it is it is a trade-off that's uh you know sometimes it's worth making and it is some uh uh something that does exist.

And I'll just pipe in for one last comment as I spent 20 years in the construction industry. When you start talking above five stories it involves concrete and steel. So the cost difference between seven and eight stories and 10 stories is negligible because it's concrete and steel and then wood on top of that. So it's just a matter of uh what the how tall the foundational bases whether that's four stories or five stories before they transition to wood and the way cost construction costs have gone lately. uh if they're on that same trend, uh I don't know that the developer is going to bock much between the cost difference. So [snorts]

Marcus has his hand up. So

quick question. Elijah, I appreciate your question because it brought to mind um and I so I'm just wondering if staff has any insight on this. Um but I know that there are municipalities here in the county that also have some um LDC requirements around requiring a a certain percentage of affordable housing units. Um, now the definition of that of course I think is slightly different than what we may be talking about generally. But in that context, do you know whether or not those um those requirements in those municipalities because I believe Burlington has 20% as I recall. Um,

if those have been effective in other communities.

Yeah, I I can speak to that a little bit. Uh we have I think what you're referring to is inclusionary zoning. So it requires a certain amount of affordable housing for any project and usually when that is put in place it is done so to meet legal requirements at the time of an upzone. So if there was to be something put in place now would be the time to consider it. Um it's also um a very robust program in the city of Seattle and they actually just did a fairly well done sort of look back and report on that program and I think the findings were pretty clear. Uh, one is when the development economics are favorable, uh, meaning construction costs aren't egregious and borrowing costs aren't egregious. Uh, those programs can work very well and produce housing. Uh, sometimes those

what's that? Which is not right now, right? Exactly. Good point. Um, and so they they can be very successful. Uh, some communities uh will offer like a fee instead of doing on-site units, which can also be some tension. And in the case of Seattle, everyone opts for the fee um for whatever reason. Um so the but the other I think cautionary uh piece of that is that those assumptions that you uh look at when you put the program in place which theoretically you should be doing like a proforma analysis and seeing how the costs of the affordable units affect the overall delivery of the project otherwise it won't move forward and you won't get any housing. And the finding of that report for the city of Seattle was just that those assumptions are really not durable over time. And so if you are to consider something like that, I think you know being a little bit more modest on the requirements so it doesn't stop market rate production uh is important and then having regular check-ins um to sort of look at the program and recalibrate it so it doesn't end up stopping housing from happening. The other I think thing is that you know the middle housing the small more affordable ownership housing is really the hardest to deliver in the market and sometimes I think the uh inclusionary programs really focus more on sort of the higherend housing that can then pay for the subsidized units and you don't get those middle uh home ownership opportunities. Of course, there are exceptions to that and some affordable housing developers and I will will produce those projects but not usually at the same scale. So, I would say that those programs in some cases if they're done right and the assumptions work have been very uh successful, but they've also tend to be controversial. Developers for obvious reasons don't

like them. um and they can stop market rate reduction if if uh if left uh in place under some previous assumptions that have changed over time. But to answer your question, yes, it is something that communities frequently look at and you have to look at it at the time of an upzone to be legally compliant and not have like an adverse taking type situation.

Thank you for that insight. I appreciate it. So, the only thing I'll add is um uh Burlington certainly has inclusionary zoning. South Burlington has inclusionary zoning. Um as Jeff said, the calibration is really important. Um we often sort of think that, you know, developers are making a ton of money and it's really easy for them to absorb, let's say, 20% affordable. That's not necessarily the case. Um so it can be it can be difficult to achieve. Um it certainly is something that makes sense to look at when um uh when we are allowing our height to go higher uh because we are basically saying right now you can do more housing than we could have before. Um it's it is tricky for a lot of reasons. Um, and I think uh the state made it pretty simplistic in terms of another height, not a percentage, just another story of height. Um, you could stay that simplistic and go two stories. There's really no reason um not to think about it in that way. Um, but it is it costs more certainly. Um and the other challenging part is the whole point of inclusionary is uh intentionally combined. So you have affordable units within a new building that has market rate units as well. Um for the affordable hous um only because it's we would have to manage that affordability here in house. We would have to make sure on an annual basis those affordable units remain um accessible to affordable folks. uh whereas the affordable housing folks when they've got a whole building, they're managing the whole building and

it's just can work a little bit more easily that way. So, lots of things to think about, but an excellent um question and conversation along with this question about more height. [snorts] So, Regina, a followup on that then um and I appreciate Finn bringing it up. So, in talking about like if let's just say we were to say as a city we were going to throw in an an extra bonus floor into the mix, right? Would you actually see I mean do you see right now this one story let alone if we were to make it say two stories is that an in do you believe that for developers that is being seen as an incentive?

Uh [snorts] inclusionary is probably not seen as an incentive [laughter] by developers. it is uh a a requirement, a bonus story. Um I think they probably look at it as an incentive a little bit more because if they can make it pencil, they'll do it. If they can't make it pencil, they won't and they don't have to. So, uh to Jeff's [snorts] point, it would not prevent the development from happening altogether. [snorts]

Yeah. How how long how long does the affordability bonus uh last? In other words, is it 5 years, 10 years, in perpetuity, etc. Um that's a good question.

It is. So, so as the state wrote it in uh in the home act, it is not uh in perpetuity. Um that that is I I don't remember the exact number. I think it was like I think it was 20 uh 25 years. Uh I I it is something that I can look up. Yeah. And the perpetual affordability is a question right now in a couple of different programs. The CHIP program, the infrastructure program for housing, that is not a permanent affordability requirement. Um, and I think it's a really interesting and tough question when you start [snorts] to look at uh intentionally putting public dollars into a project. Should it be permanently affordable?

There's a lot of reasons why it should. um so that you can maintain that over time. Um but we're also at a point in time where it's really difficult to build and so um anything we can do to uh help influence that um could be a positive but there is a lot of good debate on that all those sides of that question. Yeah, if I could just add something for context. Um there was a discussion, I think it's called Bay Ridge, the development along Shelby Road. Um the um quote on the threebedroom unit was $660,000 to build. I mean, be realistic about cost. Well, the other part that we need to be realistic about is the fact that last time we opined about um how many stories anything was going to be or how many buildings that we thought as a planning commission could be built. We lowballed it on alternative what is referred here as alternative zero that we actually I think voted on it at some point in the last few months um to do that. So I I will disagree with Finn that we promised anybody. We didn't promise anything other than saying that we thought that alternative zero might be viable, but we the planning commission are restricted by what the council decides on how the building height shall be. They have control over building heights, not us. We can propose something, but they are the guardians of how high we go. I think they'd be okay with a recommendation.

I didn't say that we couldn't recommend but it's you know that you know it's you know we have been overridden in the past when it came to the land development code. we had proposed possibly I think five or six you know probably 10 15 years ago and the what would be the trustees at the time decided that four was the max they got pressure from the community and made that proposal and it's stuck in the land development code so yes we're talking about possibly changing that um given current pressures, but yes, everything has the pencil. So,

so with that, uh I'm sorry, Marcus, I can only see you. Uh Amber, do you have any other thoughts before we let's say open it up to members of the public who are in attendance? I'm good, [snorts] Elijah. Thanks.

All right. So, uh, for those folks in the room and anyone who's online, if there are folks online, maybe we'll alternate between in person and virtual, um, but maybe start with someone, uh, if there's anyone member of the public who, uh, would like to comment on, uh, the current topic of discussion. Uh, please come up to the, uh, table to the microphone. Um, state your name for the notes uh, and share your thoughts. please.

Hi, I'm Luke Brock Meyer. Uh, something that occurred to me during this conversation is how good the view would be from the 10th story at five corners. And so if if one of these is 10 stories and the next one's nine stories, the next one's eight stories, that might be some of the best views in the state. That That's all. [laughter] Thank you for your comment.

Short and sweet. Is there anyone member of the public online who has a comment, a question or clarification, thought they'd like to share? Elijah, just just so you know, uh Elena uh from the planning commission is online as well, but she doesn't have her hand up. [laughter] Not seeing uh yep, is it Jake? Jack. Jack, sorry. [laughter]

No worries. Um I'll be brief. I I I am a uh I'm not a resident of Essex Junction. Um but I kind of come with a little bit of like the state level perspective. My day job is with uh Let's Build Homes as the policy director. I'm not speaking on behalf of them today. Um but as a housing advocate, um I live next door in Burlington. Um I I find that this this whole proposal is really well thought out and really much needed. And so my my thought on this is that this would make my job as an advocate in Burlington specifically, not even at the state level, but there too, um much easier um at at the kind of higher stories levels that you're considering. Um the 8 to 10 range. Um, I think transit oriented development is is something that is going to be critical for Chanden County as a whole and kind of connecting uh Essex Junction's housing needs with the rest of the region from an economic perspective. Um, and I was chatting with some people today about the housing pressures of a best case scenario for Beta's IPO this earlier this week. um you know there's a lot of um possibility in the future um for the region and I think Essex Junction has a chance to really be kind of a leader um on this especially with kind of maximizing the the use of of Pearl Street and the Village Center um right along a bus route I was on the number two today um you know there's just so much possibility um connecting the region um and that that's it I just I want to say I I really think this is a great proposal. Um, and I would like to be able to point our city council at the work that that you approve. Um, as we kind of redo our corridors, which we passed last year at

four stories and has really yielded no interest at all. Um, and I, you know, I'm hoping that we come back in the next year or two and revisit that at an 8 to 10 story level to really pencil out the density that we're going to need to hit our housing target. So anyway, thank you. Thank you, Jack. We appreciate your thoughts and joining us. Um, is there anyone else in person who has a thought you'd like to share? [snorts]

Hi. Uh, my name is Brendan Degraph. Um, live in Essex Junction. Uh, me and my wife just bought our house this year. Um, just wanted to voice my support for the 8 to10. Um, similar to what Brian said, um, you know, if this is our opportunity to tackle the density problem, um, you know, we we should go big and try to go all the way. And, you know, the worst that we can do is developers don't find that economically viable. And you know uh I don't know specifically what goes into all that calculation but um you know more homes means you know we we hit those targets. So that's really what it comes down to. So thank you.

Thank you Brandon. Appreciate your comment. See is there anyone else online um would like to share or clarify anything? I'm not seeing any of their hands. All right. Is there anyone else in person like to share a comment?

Howdy, Jack Evans. Um, coming at you from Local Motion, which is the statewide advocate for active and vibrant transportation, dipping our toes into transit. Uh, I'm also a a once resident of Essex Junction. My mom lives here. She used the fact that I came here to help fix the faucet earlier because I was already coming into town. Uh [snorts] my brother and sister-in-law also live in the Brickyard area and they're raising their four-year-old and 2-year-old right now. It's a city that having lived in it and then moved back to Burlington, I can see myself moving back here, especially with the bold work that the city is doing in transportation and hopefully with housing. Um, [clears throat] I support, of course, the adoption of the plan. I really do urge you to go beyond just the seven stories. Um, it's kind of like you said, project costs, both of you said, I guess it comes down to how the financials pencil out. Not every not every building that uh gets built in a eightstory or a 10-story zone is going to be 10 stories. Um, but it could be the difference between a parcel being zero stories and 10 stories. So if a project is either not going to happen or can happen with the assistance of an additional story or two, I think that that makes much more of an impact on affordability and housing and community vibrancy and economic solveny of our public services and the corridor uh support of transit because it's it I get the pyramid idea and I like I would be cool to drive on or take a bus maybe on Pearl Street and see the density ramp up. But I mean, aesthetically, we're talking about a

couple of stories in that instance. And the impact of those stories is way greater for affordability and housing, uh, than it would be for aesthetics, frankly. Um, so I support pushing for 8 to 10 stories with the adoption of this plan. Thank you. Thank you Jake or Jack rather. Um check not seeing any hands online. Is there anyone else in person comments questions? Current subject of discussion please.

Hi. Um, I'm Rachel Mloud and I just as you were talking through the the affordability housing um and just the I think of the missing middle the workforce housing um seems so important. Um I work in mortgages and we just see that average first-time home buyer age continue to rise. um you know it's closer to 40 now and these houses that they're buying [laughter] they're like500 to $650,000 houses. Um finding the ranch in Essex Junction for 425,000 that's like 1,200 square feet or less is rare. Um and so I just think that's so crucial. Um, and then I also think, you know, of our elderly who need to move down to a smaller house. Um, so anyway, just while I think, you know, the subsidized housing and the perpetual affordability is also important, um, it seems like Vermont's really good at that actually. Um, and it just seems like now's the time to focus on that missing middle. So that's all. [snorts]

Thank you, Rachel. their thoughts or sharings from the public. All right, thank you all. [snorts] Uh, with that, we can return back to your presentation, Jeff or Chris. I'm not sure which one of you is up there. Yeah, Jeff has been uh screen sharing. [snorts]

I got it. Just give one second here. Um, okay. Thank you for all those comments. Really appreciate the participation. And let me just share my screen again. Okay, just a few more slides and uh these will go through the rightway uh reconfigurations. Uh first on five corners. So the framing question, should we modify right away in five corners as recommended? Again, this is something that there will be some flexibility uh in the future to, you know, look at the design and and potentially make some changes, but at a at a high kind of conceptual level. And do the recommendations provide the right balance of improved pedestrian and bike experience um while sufficiently addressing the concerns of vehicular traffic? So, the you know, the quintessential challenge working in Vermont downtowns is that the main street is One moment. Hold on.

Yeah.

Sorry. Um I just want to point out that um all of this work is land which is super helpful because it's making us look at both our uh public realm rightway area as well as um the land that the land development code regulations more of the private side will it will um come into play. um they are implemented in two completely different ways. What what regulations we put into place in the land development code really will dictate the private side development um and uh housing that we'll see. This whole realm of work um is more within the city's purview of how we go about doing this um and what work that we might do. So, I'm just pointing that out before we get into this section because um this is implemented in different ways and will ultimately be approved and moved forward in different ways also with lots of other different feedback along the way. So, just to just explain that uh so these concepts are very much that conceptual.

Thanks, Regina. Um, so [clears throat] the, you know, the the quintessential challenge of doing planning in Vermont downtowns is that often the main street or main streets is a state highway. In the case of Essex Junction, we have three of them. And for those that have been in the community for a while, you remember how bad the traffic used to be. And it really limited both the opportunities for development and you know space for pedestrians and bicyclists in five corners because we were having to accommodate and still to some extent do accommodate the region's traffic and I would say with the uh development of the connector and changes in transportation patterns uh new development so on and so forth we have an opportunity to capitalize more on the connector. um the five corners uh street skate project that we did back in 2008 2008 or so uh I think that was around then um you know for those reasons I just described we couldn't touch curbs we couldn't change anything so we did add lighting and redid the signals and stuff but it was parking neutral so we didn't change any of the parking we couldn't change travel lanes and we couldn't change sidewalks so essentially most of the rightway continues to be used for cars Um, and in particular, the two places I think that we would uh have otherwise had the opportunity to do that would be Park Street, where as you approach five corners, there's four lanes, and then also on Main Street, where you have three lanes, one headed towards Essex Town and the other two coming into Five Corners. So, the previous planning efforts looked at closing Main Street and uh certainly that could be an option. Um, but I think in terms of uh whether to to look at that, you have to consider not only the traffic and circulation, but can it be a successful pedestrianonly street [snorts] and certainly we have church street as an

example, but the reality is most of those pedestrian uh streets failed on when they were developed on a perpetual basis. I also think the meet uh meet me on main event showed that it can be very successful on an interimm basis. And I will say in the pretty limited engagement we did uh we we walked around and talked with all the business owners. It was just limited in the sense that this topic only came up with one person I recall and uh longtime business owner you know quite opposed to a permanent closure. So take that for what it is. However, um when we were coming up with the concept for the connector years ago, I'd always thought, well, if we had this other connection, then we wouldn't have to provide all these turning movements and we could sort of recapture some space for pedestrians, which helps us mitigate all of the traffic impacts as well. So, this looks at how we could kind of like what was done on Maple Street by changing the turning lane and adding the bike lanes. You could do that on some of these other legs in order to capture public space. And then you could close Main Street for events, maybe uh more of a seasonal thing or something in the summer that's a little bit longer term. But that's essentially a programming or management issue. It's not necessarily a design issue in the sense that you'd have to design it like a pedestrian mall like Church Street for it to be successful. So these look at the turning movements and where we could remove them. And we'll just start on Main Street. Uh first we were proposing removing the slip lane and and doing some activation around the uh veterans park which uh you know is a little bit isolated, a little bit removed from some of the other parts of the village center. And then you could remove this turning movement from Main Street onto Park Street, which would give you about 11 or so feet that you could add to the public realm. And I'll show you that in a moment. Um the other big move that you could do is on Park Street. So instead

of going this way to Maine, this would be uh removed and you could take the lane that's in front of the Lincoln Inn and uh widen the sidewalks which would really help with the redevelopment of it, have outdoor dining, slow and tame the traffic and really emphasize the pedestrian environment. Um and then the connector would be there for those making those other movements. So this is kind of what we mean by capitalize on the connector and then whenever you know there's a desire or need to close Main Street for events, I think that's absolutely something that could be in the toolkit of the community for activating the downtown. So this looks at uh one concept for the main street proposed lane reduction and to Regina's point, you know, you don't have all the information when you're planning at this level. And what I would fully expect and what we've done on every streetscape project we do is just a finer grain level of engagement. We would, you know, likely do something like the design chet where we're getting hands-on with with folks. Um, but this looks at one option that would be sort of minimally disruptive because it's on one side of the street and there are plans to develop the pocket park. I see a hand up which I'll just come to in one moment. Um, but this would take out one of the lanes. So you'd have one lane in each direction and you could create this wide pedestrian prominade which could have a bike facility and um more public space for people while also taming the traffic and then similarly um do that on the memorial way closure as well. Um and I think for those reasons we're not recommending uh permanently closing Main Street. I think there is another layer of this where you could introduce some more design elements to make it feel like more of a pedestrian street. you know, commonly or pedestrian or festival street, I should say. Um, looking at things like curbless streets where you make it much more accessible for pedestrians and access to businesses and

some treatments that would sort of signify a special place but could accommodate cars uh when that's desirable and maybe when it's less viable as a pedestrian street in the winter and things like that. I'll pause there for a second and go to Brian who has a question.

Yeah, thanks. I've been um looking at this part of the proposal for a while. Uh and uh I full disclosure I think I'm one of the I think of the four quindrance of of Essex Junction um the one between Maine and Park is probably the smallest in terms of residents. However, that's where I live. Um so I find Memorial Way super useful. Um, so I'm wondering a how much we're really buying by um and I find it super useful because if you drive um down if you're going to say city hall and you're coming down Main Street, use Memorial Way to get here. Um if you're coming down Main Street and you need to go to Park Street, um better Memorial Way than uh making a right turn at Five Corners. Um so um so I guess my and and by the way, I do love the narrowing of Main Street and making it more accessible for cyclists. Um, so I'm not that's not my um concern. I'm just wondering how much are we buying by closing Memorial Way and what is your proposal for what is the resultant expectation for going from Main Street to Park Street there?

Can can I just take one second and piggyback on that because Memorial Way is a giant slipway for the volunteers that come to the fire station that want to avoid Five Corners and get to the back parking lot in an emergency. Yeah, [clears throat] fair enough. I mean, I I think like any move you make in terms of urban design, there's always trade-offs. Um, so it would undoubtedly create some different uh movements in order to access different places. I think because of the connector and some of the other existing streets, you know, there would be certainly ways to access those points, but it would not be as convenient. Um, and I think that would have to be weighed uh amongst the community in terms of that versus the benefits of of doing something like this. Um, I think, you know, it does, I think, create a bit more activity and presence for the park, which does not seem to be maybe used as much as it could be. It could also be something that is just done during, say, the summer months, um, and it could be open during the rest of the year. So, I don't think we're envisioning this as like a permanent thing, more as a temporary programming element. And that might also allow some opportunity to test it. Um, and see if it makes sense or if it's causing, you know, negative impacts that make it not worth it.

Heard correctly. Uh, Brian also had a question about how you would get from, uh, main to park. Is that was that was that a question? That that's a a route that I take all the time. If I come down to if you're coming down to Nest, you park on Main Street. And now I got to And now to go home, I either got to make a U-turn um in from those diagonal from those diagonal parking um or um you know, or I take or I take them more way to go back and park. So, and um I love and don't get me wrong, I love the the connector. I the connector is great for my neighborhood if you're going to Williston um or coming from Willist. Um but it doesn't um but yeah, the connector doesn't help you get to to city hall from Main Street or the or or to uh to um try to get Tim's uh support here or or to the EJF. Well, and I I was just going to point out that we've had some uh waterline work being done over here on Park Street, which has closed the road and forced the traffic onto the connector, and we have noticed the severe limitations of the traffic signals uh with that roadway as we try and push more traffic onto it.

Yeah. And and I and I agree with what you said that to Visav's um there's always going to be trade-offs. I was just trying to understand what the trade-offs were. I'm certain that I'm certain that you know that I'm one of the the the few lovers of Amoro way in Junction to be clear. [laughter] So

yeah. Yeah. No, that's fair. I mean I I do think you know if you were coming up maid and you wanted to go to the fire station you go this way right which is longer and in an emergency would not be ideal. Um I certainly um appreciate the comments about some of the limitations of the connector and turning movements particularly if there are major changes. I think for those reasons that's that's one of the major factors why I don't think closing Main Street longterm would necessarily be the best way to go in addition to potential impacts to business owners. So I think you know that's in some respects why we propose something that um you know has some flexibility and isn't meant to be necessarily a permanent improvement or block that off permanently. So, it might be something that we test. Uh we could also, you know, uh maybe do a little bit of light traffic uh analysis or ask some thoughts from the city engineer or something to to take a look at that. But, um appreciate those comments and you know, something we'll just have to work through for sure.

Jeff, I have a question for you. Um, you're you're showing possible closing of a Memorial Way. When when you uh put the food trucks there, were there any questions from the business community that you interacted with as to plopping the competition in the front on the front porch um as opposed to down the street? I mean, some of these brickandmortar people might be a little testy about having the competition literally in their front yard. Yeah. Well, I have not dealt with that issue uh relative to this plan, but I think, you know, back to Regina's point, this is probably something that would require some uh outreach to the business and property owners or the stakeholders within the directly affected area, which is something I would definitely recommend. Um, but I have had that issue come up in other communities. It's really interesting. Um, there's there's kind of two schools of thought. one is the competition kind of piece and and certainly that's a perspective I've heard from business owners when we have put in like food truck ordinances and things like that. You know, on the other hand, anything that brings people down and and um creates more activity, you know, might create uh business opportunities for for other businesses beyond that as well. So again, that kind of goes back to some of the tradeoffs, but those are conversations that I think we would have to have before implementing it and um kind of see where that goes and um you know what the what the desire is based on the consideration of those trade-offs. But that is definitely an important consideration and one that I've heard and that's also can come up too with things like farmers markets and other events where folks feel like there's competition or it's taking part and things like that. Sorry. Can I um I want to ask first of all I don't think I said it in the beginning and I just want to say this

whole process from when you started Jeff to now is really quite uh exemplary and it's given us the opportunity to really think about what we want the future to look like. Um I think it's been a great opportunity all along and I congratulate everybody who's been working on this. Um, in terms of the traffic provisions, I was looking at this and thinking about route two for the bus. Um, and it doesn't impact the bus movements for route two. Um, but I don't know the other bus routes that we still have in Essex Junction and whether or not that was considered in any of these scenarios. The other so the only other bus route right now in Essex Junction is the uh I don't know if it's still called the 10, but it's it's a loop that that's um it's a service that's it's a one-way loop that goes to the town and uh it goes in a clockwise direction. Um I yeah I I I do not think uh this would uh this would impact um this closure would not impact the uh the uh operations to that route.

Okay. And then just actually sorry it's not this closure but this this turn restriction uh would not um would not impact just quickly I was thinking about it for meet on the main what happened to Route Two during meet on the main [snorts] route two had to uh reroute uh during uh the event I think they went around um I think they they went straight through the intersection to Maple uh and then turned left on the the uh Crescent Connector. So the railroad streets made [snorts] a little zigzag and made it up. Okay. Yeah. The um the other buses um Yes. Now it's called the four

the number four Essex Center um and it goes from it goes down Maple Street. So I don't [snorts] yeah I don't think it would be impacted but certainly we would look at that if it goes any further. But in general, I you know, I think these scenarios from my point of view make sense, forgetting about Memorial Way for a second, but I think the traffic patterns I think make sense to me.

Yeah. When looking at I did look at the the traffic analysis that was done around the permanent Main Street closure, which is interesting. But the the movement that I have the most concern about just if some of you are thinking about a permanent or longer term closure is this turn here that you'd have to make to go uh route 15. I just feel like that has the potential to because people are having to go left here to back up. The traffic analysis that was done a while ago did not seem to indicate that that would be an issue, but I certainly have my reservations about it. So that's why I think this proposal and this could be something that could be tested too fairly easily. We have worked with communities to test lane closures and we so that is something we might be able to look at. I don't know

not not to try to dwell on this but uh what Jeff is referring to the traffic analysis that was done there a while back as a part of uh design five corners uh de boys and king uh the engineering consulting firm did a traffic they ran a micro simulation model uh for what this would look uh what the five corners area would look like if it was turned into a four corners intersection um with the main street being um pedestrianized Uh there were some assumptions in there that um you know are no longer accurate. Uh it assumed three lanes on on uh on Maple Street. It it didn't have the geometries of the um uh of the uh railroads in there. So it's um yeah without a turn lane like there there are just a lot of assumptions there that uh we don't believe to be um accurately reflecting what is there now now that the um the crescent connector has uh been completed. Uh, but that that's what Jeff is referring to.

Thanks, Chris. Uh, Marcus,

thanks. Um, so just going back, I'll just reiterate that I think in looking at your your recommendations. I'm I'm with you. I however every pathway except for that one coming from Main Street on Lincoln, it's the only one that's not answered by some other easy route solution. So that's the only one that I'm concerned about. But I am open to testing. So, I'm I am open for a short period of saying, "Okay, let's put a couple of food trucks there for whatever, you know, a short period of time just to see what that, you know,

kind of experience it a little and then work with that. But that aside, the other thing that came to mind for me just now was when we were talking about and this this is related when we talked about the pocket park. I remember some of that discussion that we had and we kind of did some planning around that or at least I think some of the discussion around it was we were doing something and keeping in mind that there was a possibility for a future that included that park being larger. Now we're talking about making a decision that that's not going to happen, which I'm okay with. Um, but it also then makes me wonder about whether or not we should as another conversation on another day have a have a conversation about then what are we doing over there in the pocket park along with what's happening along Main Street um in a new dialogue because of the fact if we're going to come to this new decision that will mean that there's no future for four quarters versus five. So I just want to put that out there for staff consideration for future.

Appreciate that and I absolutely agree. Uh so this yeah this concept just looks at the same similar lane reduction on park where right now we have four lanes and they are planning to redevelop um the site that's associated with the link in. We talked with the property owner about that. They were very favorable to this. thought it gave them uh nice frontage, mitigated some of the traffic, opportunities for outdoor dining uh without eating into their site per se. Um so they were quite favorable on this and we would have the opportunity I think to incorporate a really high quality bike facility uh in that as well. Uh so engagement takeaways um would folks uh support uh these sort of vehicle turn movement reductions for lack of a better term. uh for the in-person engagement um and I had many of these conversations at the Main Street event uh very positive 98% again small sample size uh 43 total votes uh online again it was mixed uh about 43% yes 17% neutral and 40% no and again you know as part of the implementation effort and next phases you know some some more detailed uh engagement with all of those that own and operate businesses and own properties along those affected frontages. Uh should absolutely be engaged at a more detailed level. [snorts] Uh so this is just showing the meet on main events. Wow, that was super fun. Amazing job by everyone involved uh putting that on. Uh it was so fun to come back and and see Main Street used that way. Everyone seemed to be having a really fun time. And you know, one of the things we always advise community is if you're going to do something like this, go big and make it awesome. And and Essex certainly did that with this event. It was fantastic. So, congrats to

everyone. Um, looking at balancing our feedback and pros and cons and, you know, understanding we might be able to test this stuff and get feedback, um, you know, before we make some big moves, uh, if that ends up being part of the strategy. So some of the pros, you know, when we're doing streetscape projects, sometimes we just look at, you know, how much of the rightway are we allocating towards pedestrian vers bicyclists and, you know, if you have unlimited space, you can have a car street and a bike ped street and it's not that much of a conflict, but in the five corners, you know, we're pretty constrained and we're having traditionally to use most of that right away for vehicles. So this would expand space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Uh reduce traffic impacts which speed is really one of the biggest factors not only for safety which it is but for noise and just sort of quality of of the urban experience and then it does uh enhance some of the connectivity. Uh concerns, challenges, some of these were brought up. You know unclear if the crescent connector can handle the true traffic volume. Um, you know, there are probably some limitations to that. Um, concern that there isn't a sufficient bike community to justify reducing the traffic in bike lanes or traffic lanes to make pet bike space. I think that's always kind of a chicken and egg thing, you know, or people not biking because there isn't a safe place to bike. I know for me personally, I'm not a big urban biker because of the danger uh associated with it. And when you can pro provide facilities where kids and seniors and everyone in between feels comfortable, that is where you really can start to move the needle. Um, and then let me just finish the slide here and then I'll go to you Marcus. Um, mitigation strategies again completing more traffic study, lane closures, um, using some temporary measures to test it. Um, and we could

provide examples to that that's desirable. Yeah, calibrating the light timing and turning movements. That's really important. And of course, we all kind of like have the the light cycle of five corners. I feel like it's like embedded into my whatever. Um, and I think with these turning movements, it would be interesting to see how you could change that. Maybe there's some more simultaneous movements both for vehicles and for pedestrians, which now is very safe, but it sets shuts down the whole intersection for that. So, there might be some opportunities there. And then again just testing some of the stuff before major money is spent if that's the direction. And Marcus go to you. Quick question Jeff on your experience around this because you know what you were just saying about cyclists um because I heard this recently from someone who was talking about the fact that look we the community has spoken that they want a multimodal city but in terms of when one can bike it's half the year it's not all year. So what is your experience in other communities like ours that have the same kind of you know seasonal change and because I know that there are communities like ours who have already gone those extra steps created that multimodal system what has that experience been like I mean if you can give me some insight on impacts pros cons around that that thinking Yeah, good question. I think it really depends on the context and what the goals are and what the competing interests are. Um, I think, you know, there's always different opportunities to enhance biking and walking in different ways. If you have unlimited space, then, you

know, you aren't constrained by that. And I think it's not really a a competition between modes. Um, in other situations and certainly on less volume streets, you can do things like shared use pass and things that mix modes and are very efficient from a space perspective. They maybe aren't the ideal for all of the different modes individually, but they can accommodate it. And I think some examples are that are the uh multi-use path on Brickyard Road and then the multi-use path that's being planned um down on the far end of Pearl Street, you know, which again maybe isn't providing the best facility, but it's providing a safe facility and that I think should uh encourage some people in those areas to utilize them. Um you know, definitely appreciate your thoughts about um winter use and things like that. I think fortunately Essex has a really good street grid and a lot of the streets are slow enough that people feel comfortable biking on them. Um, and there's a culture of walking within the community. So, I think those are positives. Um, the last thing I'll say is sometimes when you're in a very urban environment with a lot of retail and and the demands or competition for space of the rideway is limited, uh, bike, you know, dedicated bike facilities sometimes aren't the the best use of space. Um but by and large I think in the case of Essex Junction we've given up so much space to the cars and now we have different tools with which to manage that and different opportunities. I don't see those as competing as much and I think to your point the community would like to see it and I think that's one of the best assets about Essex. It's very walkable. It's what four square miles. You can get anywhere you want to be on walking and biking, but the arterials that are traditionally had large volumes of traffic are really the barrier to that. So, I feel like at the point we're at now, we can do that and

have our cake and eat it too. But before the connector, we we really couldn't. And before some of these new concepts for Route 15 for bike facilities, you know, we weren't able to accommodate those traditionally either. So thanks. Appreciate it.

A really short uh response to that as well. Um you know the point of a transit oriented development plan is to enable a future where more people uh can live uh without a car or with fewer cars in their household. Um, but the thing with cycling, even if if you don't even if someone is not a year- round cyclist, having access to a a uh having the ability to bike places um and having access to good transit is ma makes it much more tolerable to not have a car than just having uh transit alone because bike biking and and um and transit just specialize in different trip distances and uh and also yeah, even if you if you can't bike all the time. Um it it's just um yeah, it it just makes life easier enough that maybe it would tip the scale for some people um to choose not to uh to have a car and uh to require all the space and and uh right ofway that's uh and and parking that's needed for that.

Sorry. Sorry, Brian, before you I just want to build on what Chris was after you.

Um I'm I'm a biker. I used to bike to Burlington for work many years ago, even when it was snowing. I don't do that anymore since I don't work. Um, but I I bike recreationally and there's a famous line in Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will come. Okay, there if you don't have it, people are not going to bike. If you start producing bike lanes, people will use them. And one of the difficulties we have in Chip County is the regionality of bike lanes. We don't have connectivity between the various places. So Pearl Street doesn't it's starting to it doesn't connect very well with Wooki. Same with Wiston. If you go across the bridge you can get onto the bike path but it only goes so far. If you produce safe zones for people to bike it makes it easier for people to bike. So just my personal point of view. Brian, do you have a thought on the same subject or

Well, I have um I mean really what I was going to say is we have two pretty dedicated bike commuters in the room if I'm and a representative from Local Motion who might be able to speak to um you know I don't want to put you on the spot, Jack. Um but [laughter] uh um who who might speak to the yearround um uh who might speak to um hopefully well I expect to agree with Scott with Scott's opinion here which that if we build it they will come. Um, I know that I uh um as a as a retired triathlete, I don't ride in January, but I see people doing it. So, to say that we shouldn't build it because no one's riding in the winter, I think is um I I would defer to the the the the actual commuters in the room um you know, and perhaps a professional if they're willing to speak to that.

I I appreciate that. I I do want to say that I I do want to be mindful that I'm not my question is isn't taking us off task and keeping us on because I know as Regina said that we're going to have you know with any of this portion there's going to be more dialogue more conversation um so and I'd love for all these members to keep coming back to these conversations because this transformation is going to happen over years not just you over this one dialogue. So, um, but not to cut anybody off, I want people to have their chance to speak. I just I also just don't want to derail the whole thing for for for this at the moment if that if that's cool. So,

um I think uh Jack, because you have been invited, if you have a succinct statement you would care to make, we would love to have it. 60 seconds. Yeah. And then Marcus, yes, let's move on. Um because this will be an ongoing conversation.

Yeah. Um, so the year- round benefits of cycling infrastructure, I I mean there there many like we've said, if you build it, they will come. People are beginning to winter cycle more and more often. It's actually one of the number one questions that we are fielding as an organization is what are you recommending? What routes should we be taking? Um, and we do have an issue with plowing and winter maintenance and like salulting, but that is solved by separated and protected infrastructure. when it's just bike lanes on the side of a road, those become snow pile lanes in the winter. When you have separated shared use paths or two-way cycle tracks, those are usable year round. Um, many of the benefits of cycling infrastructure are also not just for bikes. They are traffic calming. Uh most of the time on Vermont's narrow roads, adding cycle infrastructure narrows the road visually and physically, and that causes slower traffic for everybody, which in this instance is a good thing. It's not like congestion. It's just slower, more aware travel. Um, and as somebody who just this summer was able to sell my car and go fully carless and is on I think my fifth year now of full bicycle commuting. Um, it really is true that just a little bit of improved infrastructure, being able to get to the core destinations that you need to get to really does help. I will say in Burlington I can benefit from car share. Uh so it's winter cycling is helped by those extra options like better transit and car light opportunities like car share. I think that is all I'll say. Thank you. [clears throat]

Great discussion. Um last thing I will just say real quick um kind of related to your question Marcus. Um, I would say more often than not, if we can do it now, we're designing bike facilities at sidewalk grade and sort of integrated with the sidewalk. One, it's safer, but the second is when there's not cyclists, it's and not that it becomes necessarily part of the sidewalk, but again, it buffers uh the traffic a little bit and it feels a little bit more like one space versus a bike lane when it's not used is just sort of there by itself or to the comment that was just made is full of snow. So these are becoming more um the standard I say when when you're doing a capital project and making that kind of investment. Okay. [clears throat] So discussion should we modify right away five corners is recommended. Um again we don't I don't know as we need to make a a definitive decision on all of the elements but in concept the idea of uh capitalizing on the connector in this way and you know looking at Main Street as more of a a programming element uh for intermittent closures um mitigation efforts and phasing sufficient to minimize risk understanding there might be some more analysis needed and then is there anything we haven't discussed yet in terms of information that we would need to include this in the plan at this question. Um, since some of our our main artilleries are state roots, how much play do we have since they are state roots?

Uh, I go ahead, Chris. Class one roads city has uh control over the design of them. uh the states uh uh retains the responsibility for paving um but yeah the the the city can make changes [laughter] if they get here.

They would likely weigh in though for sure. But yeah, we do we do have the the control over the design of it. So, I know like we're pushing for uh more like biking, which is good and I do like, but if let's say, for example, a snowstorm comes in and covers the sidewalks with like 6 in of snow, then you're going to have to have like plowers come out and plow that thing. And if they don't get there early enough, then the people that do take bikes to work are not going to be able to do that because of the snow on the sidewalks.

Yeah. And so absolutely from what we've heard already tonight, like the the seasonality and where we live on the globe is a factor that we would need to consider in any future planning projects. But it does sound like that there are ways that we could mitigate that. But certainly that's a a facet that we would absolutely want to consider. Thank you.

Um I guess at this point um maybe we could take the same approach. I think commissioners and counselors have had the opportunity to uh share thoughts or ask clarifying questions and just do a double check with either of those groups before again opening it up if there are members of the public that have uh thoughts or discussion specifically on this right-of-way modification uh piece of the plan. Uh counselors or commissioners Well, one of the things that the the the uh Park Street rightway alteration has brought to to mind is that I remember we negotiated getting more sidewalk, so pushing the buildings back from um the property line so as to have the sidewalks that are available. Um, so perhaps we need to do that event of pushing the sidewalks or pushing the buildings back from the the property line. Um, in our new land development code coming up and get just get that right out there. um that allowing that that push back of the building would open up the streets a little bit um and give the certain individual there on on Park Street some uh free free park sidewalk that park built tables on if they wanted. Um, of course, everything's negotiable, but uh, you know, that that would it seems to be would that entail getting the same effect? Um, I'm I'm looking at at my Tuesday drive. Okay.

And that uh the crest connector failed u when it got to u to Maple Street. Um but uh you I also saw that u with all the road work being done on Essex Road in Willist and all the way down to Industrial Drive um has really pressured Park Street. um that uh my dear husband keeps telling me that his his attempt to drive over to uh Home Depot and some of the other places has been um frustrating and that everything is parked up. It's literally made Park Street become a parking lot um because of the construction um over on Willist. So, but I know that from sitting at Rocky's at Irakcoy and uh Park Street that that road needs to have a turning lane at that intersection. Um that uh that backs things all the way up to the connector to Maple Street when when things are or all the way back to the dam depending on your point of view and which direction you're going in. So I'm thinking we need to put in not necessarily on this but definitely in perhaps in conjunction or after this um and looking at how our roads are um and do does it really let people walk, bike or drive um without being frustrated? I know frustrated drivers try to start looking for bypasses around five corners, which is not what we where we want to go again, but um let's let's let's try to be smart about this and get that smart growth in. Thanks.

Any counselors online that have any Nothing here. Yeah. [snorts] With that, uh, is there anyone, any member of the public that would like to comment or add to the discussion on the right of way modification piece. All right. [snorts] Great. Then Jeff, I think it's back to you if just the last few slides.

Okay. Yep. Thank you for those comments. Uh, and to follow up on what Diane was describing, I think she she hit all the topics uh, on the head, so to speak. Um, and the issue of whether to, you know, have a lane reduction and expand the sidewalk or set the building back. I think those are the two options. Um, so you could require a setback. I I agree that's been a great design feature of those other new buildings. Um, but you also might be able to require front edge improvements as well, which could expand the sidewalk too as part of that. So, we'll uh we'll take those comments in and see how we can um try to help answer those questions in the future. So, last uh section is on public space um fraing questions. Which public space improvements and programs should move forward and are there additional ones that should be prioritized? Uh so this one is uh looking at putting a mural on the fire station and um I believe the city has funding for it and um murals are a great way to express your community identity and add vibrancy to the public realm. Um the fire station has these nice kind of bays that I think would lend themselves, again this is just a photo sim, so who knows what it will look like eventually, but um big opportunity I think to have some near-term impact um there on the fire station.

Uh so excuse me, just to be clear, so far we have funding for design, not implementation, but

Right. Sorry. Thank you, Regina, for clarifying that. Um, and we have done we have done a number of mural programs in communities um that have been successful and you know needs to be done thoughtfully but um but exciting and can build momentum. Uh so Railroad Avenue you know has uh traditionally been sort of the festival street or it has been used for that for the block party. There was uh this was the first streetscape project that uh we did back in 20, I don't know, 2003, 2004. Um, and if [snorts] you recall, the travel lanes used to be like 42 feet wide collectively. So, we expanded the sidewalk um on the building side and add a little bit of green space and trees. There was a farmers market there for a little while as well. Um the idea here would be to put in some simple kind of uh structures that um could support parking, you know, during non-events or just be covered um but could be used for community events that wouldn't necessarily even require closing the street. Um, you know, we have worked in other communities that have structures like this and have done farmers markets and it just kind of adds another element to it by having sort of more of a dedicated structure for weather protection and things like that. Um, so again, like with everything, there are trade-offs and we would have to consider that in the next round of engagement, which would include more uh discussion with business owners in the community. And again, it it comes down to not just developing this, but how it gets programmed. And ultimately, we want it to be successful, not just kind of a design exercise. So, more work on this, but I think this could be a nice complement to um the events and stuff if that does long-term shift to to Main Street. And I think the recent events show that it can be very successful there.

So in terms of the engagement um again a bit of a mix and a divide between the inerson online the inperson uh very supportive between 80 and 100. There were some cautions and you see some of that here on the veterans memorial um food truck space that we talked about concerns around noise um uh and just limiting the circulation. the other categories for in person got 100% again small sample size online it was more mixed um sorry uh there was a comment here about having a farmers market which again there used to be um this one uh has a comment saying five uh corners not a place for a park too loud poor air quality inadequate parking completely unattractive area but I think maybe they that's not the five corners that I experience uh currently um certainly there have been those elements and there are still some of those elements but it seems to be drastically improving and I think we have more opportunities to do that but anyways all of the thoughts are valid um not wanting to invest on pocket parks um the one with the food trucks uh concerned about budget impacts and trying to just cram more stuff into the five corners uh murals um kind of a split between support and neutral of around 20% 48 8% were cautious uh wanting to support local artists and uh concern around doing nice things and having it ruined by folks through tagging and things like that. And I think that is the end of the presentation. We can pause there, see if there's any thoughts on this one. Um but again more work to be done to move these concepts forward and really give them the full consideration and attention and engagement that they would need to advance to design and implementation.

Turn it back over to you chair. Thanks Jeeoff. Are there any uh counselors or commissioners that uh have thoughts um or questions about this last piece in terms of the public space investments? Nothing online.

Thank you. Uh any members of the public that would like to share or have thoughts? All right, that we can move on. Thank you, Jeff. Okay. Well, thank you so much. Really great discussion. Apprec appreciate all the thoughtful comments. We'll kind of summarize those and follow up if we have any more information to provide. But, um, great discussion. So, in terms of next steps, um, you know, just finalizing any revisions to the plan, which I feel like we've had a a good period of time to vet that with the public and appreciate everyone that's participated. We really can't be successful without that level of input and appreciate those that came out tonight to provide comments. We are working on the land development code updates um and we'll certainly incorporate the feedback we got this evening. Um but that is kind of our next step. We're anticipating [snorts] uh working on that over the winter and um likely adoption in the spring or early summer. Um and wrapping up the project by the middle of next year. So I think that is all we had for you. Thank you and I will turn it back over to the chair.

Thank you Jeff. Um, so I know in the memo that there was at least the possibility of further discussion and uh possible [snorts] recommendations um from the council or not to the council by the commission um and then even the possibility of uh a vote by the council. Uh before moving forward with that, I do just want to take a kind of a pulse check with the collective group also recognizing the time and uh additional um business items for the commission to consider. Uh but just kind of see how people are doing and whether moving forward uh with additional discussion towards uh the possibility of making a recommendation by the commission tonight is something we want to tackle or put in our next engagement in December. all shadow at once. Um, I guess I have a question for Chris since you wrote the memo, which is if we adopt the plan um the TOD plan uh as discussed um what does that and I assume the the LDC changes would indicate where certain things happen, but I'm trying to get a sense of if we adopt the plan, does that lock us into anything or we have flexibility. My my concern just I'll give you my personal feeling. Um I was at two of the meet two of the engagement u processes and there was a lot of

discussion about height and there seemed to be as this indicates in in the the results of the data here seemed to be an indication that people were not opposed to taller buildings. Um, from my point of view, I think that at least in the downtown center, village center, whatever we want to call it, um, there needs to be some clear thinking about where that would be. Um, and I know we had some discussion about it this evening that it wouldn't be where they're historical buildings. It wouldn't necessarily be on Railroad Avenue, but by adopting the plan, are we locked in or is the LDC still give us the opportunity to decide where those heights would be? So the uh the code amendments which is still within the scope of this uh project um and the consultants uh are uh are able to help with is uh you know is there to provide the nuances of uh of height regulation. I I think what the this this plan is meant to provide a general high level guidance as to how to approach uh the rest of uh you know the code amendments. Um and and that's that's the high level um kind of guidance that's that that we're looking for. I I don't think we're I mean I guess Regina could could chime in as well like as to how locked in we are you know. [clears throat]

Yeah. I mean, so the plan itself, it is a plan. Um, and uh it's not even necessarily your comprehensive plan, which would maybe have a little bit more teeth to it, but either way, it's a plan. The regulation itself is the land development code, and that's what will be more specific.

Uh the land development code, any amendments that happen with that require planning commission uh public hearings. Then it passes to the council and council public hearings. So there's still a lot of process on the back end of that. What um would be helpful is if we have guidance um and if it's a range in certain areas that's that's fine. Um if it's a specific number in certain areas that's great. Um, at the end of the day, a number needs to be chosen [laughter] so that we know ultimately what goes in the land development code. The more we can get to consensus on that now, the better. But there is another process. Um and more importantly the next process uh brings in parameters that help um address some of the concerns like a step you know a higher up step back as you get further back from the sidewalk those kinds of things.

Right. Right. But if we don't have a direction it's very hard to build a code.

Thank you. Go ahead. I would like to add on to that uh Scott because um uh some people um are like alternative one and I'm seeing people like myself uh like that alternative two. So I feel like we should it doesn't have to be now but I should say that we should come up with a alternative that doesn't conflict which with each other so that we can move forward in this process.

Well and sorry go ahead. No just going to Amber's had her hand up.

Yeah. Amber please. I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but I just want to make sure that the planning commission uh understands that the city council does not expect you to make a decision tonight. We recognize that there's a lot on the table um and fully expect that you're probably going to need another meeting to have this conversation amongst you guys um and to then bring a recommendation to us. So, um, this was and this was an an opportunity for the three of the boards to get the same presentation instead of having three separate meetings. Um, which I think is probably appreciated by Jeff to begin with and city staff, I'm sure. Um, but I but I definitely do not expect that uh you're going to make a decision tonight and um we're not going to make a decision tonight at the at its almost 9:00 at night to be honest. Um, so I hope that helps frame your guys thought process.

Yeah, Marcus, were you going to No, I'm good for now. Thank you. She said exactly what needed to be said and uh but I really do appreciate this dialogue. It's been very good tonight. But um I do look forward to the recommendation coming to us.

So I have a question. Um the memo suggests that we adopt and I'm going to suggest that we accept the report um as opposed to adopting and endorsing at this point in time. I think we need to discuss if that's real as a board or commission as is that really what we where we want to go and how we want to go. I'm willing to accept the report because that's kind of standard MMO is you accept a report. Um not not sending negative comments at you Jeff. It's just that's a matter of semantics. Um you've been there. You know how this works. So um because at this point I don't know that we have one missing member and um be nice to have all of us have this discussion going forward.

I'm okay with that.

Yeah. Okay. So so noted. So uh with that um I think that from everything that I'm hearing we can uh again thank you framework Jeff for the presentation. Uh we will as the planning commission in our December meeting plan to uh discuss uh uh accepting or adopting we'll figure out the language that we want to use in terms of how we will move it forward to council. Um and we will also uh see if as part of that passing the baton uh we may be able to provide some specificity around some of the key parts of the plan that were presented on tonight. Um understanding that then council will do their own process, have their discussion and go from there. Um, but I think with that, unless Chris Regina has anything else we need to do on business item number A or 5A around the transor development presentation, uh, we can call it for tonight.

We need to move to accept the report. I think that's for our next meeting. No. Do we need to move to accept the report tonight? We could do that just to have it in the minutes as being I think we indeed could indeed should should indeed you do. Okay. accept the report. It would allow staff to move forward with with that. Our further discussion could then

Sorry, [clears throat] Eddie got in the frame. Okay, so we have a cat. Okay. um that uh they're well always well informed, you know, but anyhow, so it's it's a matter of of I guess I guess I'm uh yeah, I'm unclear on I I think distinction between if we're going to if we were to move to accept it, I don't know that there would be then any more discussion. Oh, lots of discussion. Do you want to do you want do you want to endorse it? Do you want to adopt it? Okay. Okay. I see what you Yep. Okay. Okay. So, yeah.

My my recommendation, the memo says the planning commission would endorse it. It's fine. Endorse. Accept. Whichever phrase you want to use. The intent should be. Is the content what you want the content to be right now? If it is not, then I would hold. Talk at your next meeting. Decide where you want to land on what the content of the document should say, and then take that action. and then we can move it on to the council.

And so members of the commission, do based on the content and the discussion that's been had here tonight, do you want to move it forward? And if someone does, you can make a motion. I will say that the content has improved uh with further thought um from when I last saw um content from framework. Um, I would um I guess I'm willing to endorse the majority of the content. I mean, first off, it's it's got some errors in it that need to be corrected when it comes to spellings and that sort of thing, but the fact that it told said that I was at a meeting that I wasn't at is um concerning. Okay. Having content that's not correct. Um I wasn't in town on August 13th, so I couldn't very well be at the Maple Street Park. Um so I mean it's Can I adopt something that's got some occasional incorrect information? Well, yeah. Okay. I mean it's uh

I just recommend that you table it until that meeting because any hemming and hawing honestly I mean this is just me saying this generally like we should take a pause then consider it and then at the next in the next conversation then move it forward. There's no there's no push on from us to have to do this now. So a motion to table the report until then. Second. All those in favor of tableabling the report until the planning commission's next meeting say I. I. I. I.

All right. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. You hear me? Just make sure that that's not going to hold up Jeff or the city's next steps. Yep. Okay. [clears throat] Great. No. Yeah, it won't it won't hold us up. I mean, we've we've already been working on the plan because there's a lot of um things that are independent of like the height decision and things like that. So, it's it's not going to hold us up and we want everyone to take the time to feel comfortable with it. So, we're pressed.

All right. Thank you. Uh so then moving on business item 5B, the introduction of the 802 homes homes for all phase project.

Yeah, this one's actually I mean really straightforward. I I don't really have to say very much of it. It's all in the memo. Uh but the 802 homes uh project is uh uh something that's the the state of Vermont is uh working on. It's uh and it aims to create a set of uh uh basically ready to build code compliant home designs. um 10 of them that fits the Vermont architectural vernacular and are kind of designed to fit the the typical um lot uh to enable infill housing. Um there are opportunities for uh uh members of uh you know city council, the uh planning commission and uh um and uh and other interested parties to participate. Um, and the the first thing is actually going to be uh uh this virtual uh site tour uh that's coming up on November 18th. Um, if you are if there are any members of uh city council or planning commission that are interested in attending, just send me an email to um to uh confirm some times that you're available. we need to we'll have to nail down those time slots uh really soon uh because the state is like the the organizers are moving forward with this but um it's a an exciting initiative uh and an opportunity for uh board members to to uh be involved and eventually um in the winter uh an opportunity for uh the public at large to uh be involved in a design char. Could I just congratulate the city for securing this grant? I know it was competitive and I just want to congratulate you. I think it's a great opportunity. It's very exciting.

Thank you first. And to be clear, it's not really a grant. It's but we are we are participating. The city is participating as uh what they call a a development ready community partner to kind of shape what's um what's in there. Yeah. Do councilors or uh commissioners have any questions about the initiative at this time? All right. Uh moving on. Uh member updates.

Um I have just one thing to add. Um four of us went to the agency for natural resources municipal day. That was Chris and Mike from the city and Diane and I. Um, and I just wanted to highlight one of the things that, by the way, all the presentations are on the ANR website. Um, happy to share the two presentations I thought were most useful. If people would like, I'm happy to share them. Um the one thing that I wanted to point out is the climate action office at ANR is developing some guidelines for integration of climate change into uh municipal plans comprehensive plans. So I made u an initiative to talk to the head of that program at ANR to request uh the possibility become a pilot community and I connected her with Chris and Regina. So there will be I think three pilot communities selected next year for participating um by integrating the climate change guidelines into whatever plans they're working on. So, just FYI.

Thank you, Scott.

So, uh, last week there was the regional housing. It was a virtual event. Um, Chris and I were there. I'm not sure who else, you know, may have attended. Um, but, uh, I will say that it's it's always informative as to know what's going on in the region. Um, and since we don't have a housing commission, um, we're it. [snorts] Um, but I will say what the the presentation in the discussion at the end dealing with Jericho since, uh, sounds like they are being active in in tracking information for like their permits. Um they're tracking things as to how many permits and how they were taken out for and that sort of thing so that they have an idea of how much what's what's being what's being built and changed and whatever in their community. But they're also dealing with uh the energy committee and um and I know that you said sent out a note about uh something at the Darthy Allian um and I didn't know if anybody had gone to that event or not. I did not. Um but I think looking to um other communities as to what they're um actively pursuing might help us since we don't have the various components um for committees and commissions and since the comprehensive plan would call for these pieces we're it. So, um, just thought, you know, it might be interesting to look at Jericho and see what they they're up to. She sounded uh the presenter sounded very um um knowledgeable and and and whatnot as

to what what they were doing. I forget who the who who she was. Um, but she was I'm hoping that maybe they'll send out some minutes Thank you, Diane. Uh, with that, uh, do we have any staff updates? Uh, not in addition to what we all day. All right. Uh, well, with that, um, look, at least do we should we let the counselors adjourn first? I don't know. I get a motion to adjurnn. [laughter] I move that the city council uh adjourn.

Anybody? Okay. All in favor? I No, no, no. That one never gets a nay. So, so similarly, we get a motion for the coun or the I move that we adjourn the planning commission meeting for tonight. Second. All those in favor? I I was opposed. You can take it. Thank you everybody. We really appreciate you joining us. Thanks guys. Thanks a lot. Have a good night.

[music]