The first part of the survey asked people to express their "visual preference" for various architectural styles and features by making a side-by-side comparison of six pairs of Borough buildings. Participants made their choices and got to add written comments.

Comitta offered some suggestions for additional criteria and asked participants to weight them from very important (+3) to very unimportant (-3). Then Comitta asked the audience for suggestions for additional criteria and had the group weight them as well. Here is the complete list of criteria and the way they were weighted by the participants:

Criteria proposed by Tom Comitta
Weights =	+3	+2	+1	0	-1	-2	-3	Left blank	Weighted total
Architectural Design Guidelines	34	20	8	2	2	0	1	0	145
Green Architecture Guidelines	31	11	12	8	2	3	0	0	119
Historic District Design Guidelines	28	13	14	7	1	0	1	3	120
Fiscal Viability Requirements	25	12	20	7	1	1	0	1	116
Traffic Impact Mitigation Requirements	23	26	9	5	3	1	0	0	125
Streetscape Requirements	35	17	12	2	1	0	0	0	150
Criteria proposed by workshop participants
Weights =	+3	+2	+1	0	-1	-2	-3	Left blank	Weighted total
Skyline Aesthetics	10	16	14	7	2	1	1	16	69
Rooftop Mechanicals	7	15	15	4	2	1	2	21	56
Change of Use	10	11	13	7	0	1	3	22	54
Public Works Infrastructure	18	12	6	7	0	1	4	19	70
Public Art	3	6	10	16	1	2	6	23	8
Neighborhood Context	9	15	9	7	0	1	1	25	61
Pedestrian continuity	7	17	7	5	1	0	1	29	58
Relationship to Park System	5	10	15	5	0	0	2	30	44
Community Landscaping	9	9	12	3	0	0	2	32	51

The last column ("Weighted") shows the results of multiplying each point rating times the number of people who chose it, and adding them all together for each type of criterium. It is one way to show what most people thought was the most important criteria. Sorting the criteria by their calculated weights, it appears that "Streetscape Requirements" and "Architectural Design Guidelines" were the most popular criteria, with the requirement to mitigate the traffic impact a distant third. When evaluating these numbers, however, keep in mind that some of the criteria were introduced shortly before people made their choices and that despite Comitta's efforts to clarify them, it was not clear that everyone in the group understood them in the same way. Despite that, it is significant that criteria related to a building's appearance outpolled criteria related to its economic impact.

The third part of the survey asked the participants whether all criteria should apply equally to buildings no matter what height limit was selected. Comitta offered a range of possible maximum heights descending from the current 180 feet, and asked participants to indicate what criteria should be used to evaluate proposals for buildings at each height. The results appear below, and show that (as Comitta noted in his report), "Enhancing Architectural Design" was most important and "Providing Adequate Parking" was second.

Maximum Height Option Town Ctr/East side	Economic Development	Historic Preservation	Architectural Design	Streetscape Design	Adequate Parking	Traffic Congestion	Location	Left Blank	Total Votes
136-180 feet	28	15	19	17	28	4	11	26	148
126-135 feet	28	16	26	19	31	6	11	22	159
91-125 feet	32	19	31	23	31	10	9	14	169
Total (tallest 3)	88	50	76	59	90	20	31	62	n/a
76-90 feet	26	27	27	27	28	8	9	15	167
46-75 feet	22	35	34	33	22	7	2	11	166
up to 45 feet	19	41	33	37	19	8	1	11	169
Total (lowest 3)	67	103	94	97	69	23	12	37	n/a
Total (all categories)	155	153	170	156	159	43	43	99	n/a

Comitta's report also noted differences between the proposals for higher limits and those for lower limits. In brief, participants at the workshop thought that Economic Development, Architectural Design and Adequate Parking were more important if the height limit was higher, while Streetscape Design, Historic Preservation (and Architectural Design) were more important if the maximum height limit was set lower. Comitta also grappled with how to evaluate the relatively large number of "no votes" (i.e. "left blank") and concluded that a blank for a lower height limit meant that no new standards were needed, while a blank for a higher limit meant that no new standards should be considered.

The fourth and final part of the survey asked the workshop participants to weight various proposals to alter the existing height limits. Comitta offered a list that included keeping things the way they are (45' maximum height, plus the option to go to 180' in the Town Center and to 90' east of the Town Center), allowing higher buildings east of town center, and reducing the height options by varying amounts. People were encouraged to add comments to their surveys, and eleven people did, suggesting additional alternatives, of which five provided or taller buildings east of Town Center than in the Town Center itself. The results appear below. (Note: Comitta's report presents these results in the form of percentages. WCJIM converted them to "votes," based on 68 total surveys submitted, to make this part consistent with the second part of the survey.)

Recommended maximum height	3	2	1	0	-1	-2	-3	Left blank	Weighted
180/90 (no change)	12	4	5	5	2	2	35	4	-62
135/70	17	4	6	6	2	3	29	2	-30
125/60	7	9	2	11	6	7	23	4	-48
90/75	7	3	5	11	6	8	22	7	-56
90/180	4	5	10	10	8	2	26	4	-58
75/75	4	5	8	12	6	2	27	5	-61
45/45	5	1	3	7	2	4	42	5	-116

Once again, the "weighted" number was calculated by mulltiplying each point rating times the number of people who chose it, and adding them all together for each height limit proposal. Since all of the "weighted" numbers are negative, the larger the number, the less support it had. These results show that prohibiting all construction above 45' in height was the least popular option, following by leaving things the way they are now. Opinion was fairly evening split on what the maximum height should be, but there was clearly support for lowering it, while allowing some taller buildings to be constructed.

Since the workshop that produced the numbers on which this report is based, Borough Council members have hosted two more public meetings to gather input (at the Nazarene Church on Oct. 11 and the YMCA on Oct. 16), and they have another one scheduled at the YMCA on Oct. 25. Once data from those meetings has been collected and presented to Council, they will begin the formal process of considering whether to revise the height ordinance. That will be discussed at least twice by the Planning Commission, once in Council's Planning Zoning Business & Industrial Development (PZBID) Committee, twice at full Borough Council sessions (to propose an ordinance), and finally at another Borough Council meeting when they hold a public hearing on the ordinance proposal. So expect there to be more discussion of the question of how high buildings should go in the Borough, and stay tuned for WCJIM for meeting agendas and news updates.