Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/14/2014 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 OCTOBER 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 October 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; T. Duff, S. Roy, S. Dopp, R. Greco 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: Ms. Greco thanked members for taking on the sewer allocation issue.. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Louisos: Advised members that she presented the Commission’s letter regarding City Center sewer allocation to the City Council and responded to questions. The Council didn’t feel it was as urgent as the letter suggested and hoped the issue wouldn’t take away from the Commission’s other work. The Council then voted to have staff present a proposal to hire a consultant, “sooner rather than later” to look into the allocation. Mr. Conner noted that Shelburne is doing a similar kind of proposal and provided some information. Staff will probably include some options for the proposal when presented to Council. Mr. Conner: Noted the new system instituted this week for agendas and minutes. Following a meeting, the minutes will have all the attachments from the agenda packets. The plan is to go back in time so a topic can be researched all the way back. Members indicated some issues they had with the system, and Mr. Conner will look into these. Another city project is to codify all of the city’s ordinances. Those that are out of date will be repealed, some will be updated, others re-adopted etc. The Sign Ordinance is being updated to align with the City Center work of the City. There will be 2 events regarding Dumont Park: a 15 October meeting of stakeholders and committees, and a 18 October public workshop. 4. Viewing of City Center Digital 3D modeling prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere Architects: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the project. Mr. Duff and Mr. Roy then showed the 5-minute presentation. Mr. Duff noted they are showing the connections through City Center to places like Central School, Mary Street, Dumont Park, etc. Some of these are pedestrian/bike connections only. Mr. Roy said he personally feels the school should remain because there will be a lot of residences in the built-out City Center. Ms. Dopp said she liked the connectivity of the three municipal buildings, even though they are separate buildings. Ms. Benton felt the playground should be more in the public view, not hidden away. She felt this was a safety issue. Ms. Dopp questioned how this view matches up with the public meetings and public input. Mr. Conner said it shows what is allowable under form based codes. Ms. Greco agreed this did not look like what the pubic had put on paper. Mr. Conner noted that the Market Street design is what was approved by the four committees last fall. Mr. Duff said they had looked at City Center from the point of view of what the city has control over, which is only an acre and a half. Ms. LaRose noted that one of the purposes of the visualization was to help people see what something could look like (e.g., a 5-story building next to a park, etc.). She also noted that the code has not yet been adopted. Mr. Conner then showed 6 still shots provided by Messrs. Duff and Roy. 5. Review and Consider Approval of Garden Street Purpose and Need Statement: Ms. Blanchard reviewed the location of Garden Street, including improvements that will be made to the intersections of Williston Rd./White Street/Midas Drive and Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road; Williston Road. The goals of the Garden Street project include: 1. Providing infrastructure for City Center 2. Providing comfortable and attractive public space as well as places where transportation occur 3. Improving transportation, connectivity in a multi-modal way; creating a grid system 4. Enhancing multi-modal traffic in City Center, and recognizing all modes (including bicycles) Ms. Blanchard noted that Commission approval is needed in order for the project to move forward. Ms. Louisos suggested clarifying the use of the word “green” in the second line. Mr. Gagnon suggested better language. Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission approve the Purpose and Need Statement for Garden Street as written with the second line change to add “including green infrastructure” nd “along the adjacent Williston Road.” Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of Letter of Support and Summary of ongoing work to the Georgetown University Energy Prize: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. Ms. Quest noted that “food” considerations had been left out of the draft Comprehensive Plan Vision statement. Mr. Conner will check on that. Ms. Quest then moved to approve the Letter of Support for the Georgetown University Energy Prize. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Accept Resignation of Heidi Auclair from Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee; consider identification and appointment of new member: Ms. Quest recommended Rebecca Adams as a replacement for Ms. Auclair. Mr. Gagnon moved to accept the resignation of Heidi Auclair from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee and to appoint Rebecca Adams as her replacement. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Draft Amendments to Land Development Regulations: a. Review of pubic input provided on the draft LDRs Ms. LaRose noted the wide range of input. There was a lot of feedback from people on Iby Street related to a specific development proposal at Market Street/Hinesburg Road. Ms. Quest asked if there had been any decision from the School Board regarding the Saxon offer. Mr. Conner said the last he had heard the Board is planning public meetings to discuss the offer. Ms. Quest asked about incentives for “green” and “sustainability.” Mr. Conner said that becomes a long conversation; specifically, what happens if a developers provide solar or other “green” elements on their own? Would you want to give them a 50% break for something they are already going to do? Ms. LaRose noted some comments from Keith Epstein asking that there be no stormwater grates on the bike paths. Ms. Quest asked about PUDs in the City Center. Ms. LaRose said the intent was not to have them, but the more they look at it, this could be an issue. For one thing there could be a difficulty with financing if all the buildings are on their own lots. Ms. Quest asked when form based codes will go into effect. Mr. Conner said they have been meeting weekly with property owners who have some great questions. They are also working on “readability.” The thought is that some pictures would go a long way to making things clearer, and they are looking for someone to do some simple drawings. Ms. LaRose added there is also an ongoing legal review. Ms. Benton asked if the legal review will address things like “encourage,” “shall,” “should,” etc. She also questioned who would “encourage” if there is no DRB review. Ms. Louisos questioned if there is something more the Commission should be doing regarding parks Ms. Benton felt it was not the number of parks but the quality. Ms. LaRose asked if the Commission would be OK with developers paying into an open space fund to buy central green space instead of providing their own open space. Mr. Gagnon cited the danger of being too specific and precluding the possibility of some really good creativity. Mr. Conner noted that they are wrestling with the question of how to get public input into an administrative review. He suggested the option for an “administrative hearing.” Members briefly discussed the question of landscaped islands and whether these should be 10% or 15% Mr. Conner noted there is an ongoing review of parking requirements and which are too many or too few. 9. Other Business: A. Review upcoming meeting schedule: Mr. Conner noted that the first November meeting is scheduled for Veterans Day, and the second November meeting is during Thanksgiving week. Members will make decisions about this at the next October meeting. 10. Minutes of 23 September 2014: Ms. Louisos asked that the word “indefinitely” be added to her comment that the city can’t keep expanding the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 September 2014 as amended. Ms. Benton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. , Clerk Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com To: Jessica Louisos, Chair Planning Commission From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director Subject: Garden Street Project Purpose & Need Statement Date: October 10, 2014 Background: Last fall the City initiated public outreach for the Garden Street Project. This project includes the development of a new street in the City Center TIF District that will cross Market Street and connect Dorset Street and Williston Road via Midas Drive. This project also includes improvements to two Williston Road intersections - at White Street/Midas Street and at Patchen Road/Hinesburg Road. The project is in the “Project Definition Stage”. Public outreach meetings have been held: a public kick-off design workshop (field walkabout and in a workshop) and stakeholder meetings. From these meetings and a review of existing conditions that consultant team has drafted a Purpose and Need Statement. The purpose and need statement for a project is used to evaluate or “test” alternatives. Specifically, the consultant team will ask “Does the alternative meet the Purpose & Need” for the project and document whether each alternative meets the purpose and need. Alternatives will also be evaluated using the matrix in the Local Transportation Facilities manual which include such items as cost, impact on natural and historic resources, utilities, and right of way, etc. The purpose and need complements this matrix as the expression of the community needs and goal. Once alternatives are generated and tested they will be shared with the community for feedback as part of this process, and a recommended alternative will be presented to the City Council to complete the project definition process. Attachments: • Draft Garden Street Project Purpose & Need • Project Area Map • The Project Development Process • Garden Street Project website Recommendation: Review Purpose and Need and consider for approval. Additional consideration: Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016. DRAFT Garden Street Project Purpose and Need Statement Purpose The purpose of the Garden Street project is to: support South Burlington’s new, sustainable, livable downtown; promote economic development in City Center; create comfortable and attractive public spaces that establish a distinctive identity; improve transportation network connectivity; and enhance multi-modal travel and safety. The Garden Street Project includes a new street and intersection improvements on Williston Road (US Route 2) at Midas/White and Hinesburg Road (VT Route 116)/Patchen Road. Need 1) Develop supporting infrastructure for City Center – South Burlington’s new downtown. The construction of Garden Street and associated green and other infrastructure improvements is needed to allow development of and economic investment in South Burlington’s City Center - a future mixed-use downtown district. Currently the area lacks a street network sufficient to support development and redevelopment of City Center area parcels. 2) Create comfortable and attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center. City Center is envisioned to be a distinctive, highly livable and attractive downtown. Decorative lighting, landscaping, gathering spaces, public art, integrated and attractive stormwater treatment and other public amenities are needed to create a high quality public space that promotes economic development and attracts residents, businesses and visitors. 3) Improve transportation network connectivity and circulation. City Center is an important regional commercial center but lacks a robust network (grid) to distribute trips. The lack of an interconnected street network and connecting pedestrian/bicycle facilities in this area contributes to congestion along on the adjacent Williston Road and Dorset Street corridors, particularly in the peak hour. Greater network connectivity would improve access to City Center and the many destinations and activities along and across Dorset Street and Williston Road. Intersection modifications will need to ensure adequate capacity across all current and future modes. 4) Enhance multi-modal travel in City Center and South Burlington. There is a need to create safe connections that encourage multi-modal travel choices. Improvements should support current and future transit operations. City Center is planned to be a dense, walkable and bikeable mixed-use district, but existing roadways are unattractive, uncomfortable and unappealing to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. The new street and existing street segments, should incorporate shade trees, amenities and roadway geometry to signal drivers to “slow down”. The intersection of Midas/White with Williston Road has an awkward geometry and has no multi- modal functionality to cross Williston Road. Additionally, these intersections are characterized by significant traffic volumes and high numbers of crashes which compound the general uninviting atmosphere for biking and walking. South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com 1 South Burlington Energy Committee South Burlington City Council October 14, 2014 Re: Planning activities related to the Georgetown University Energy Prize Dear City Councilors and members of the Energy Committee, The South Burlington Planning Commission is excited to share its full support of the City’s submission towards the Georgetown University Energy Prize. In support of this submittal, we would like to update you on some of the many projects we have and are in the process of completing on behalf of the City of South Burlington. These efforts have been done in coordination and cooperation with the City’s Energy Committee. We’ve broken these out into two broad categories Amendments to the City’s Land Development (Zoning & Subdivision) Regulations The Commission is nearing completion on a significant overhaul of the development regulations for the core area of the city, known as City Center. This is an area with tremendous opportunity to foster inviting, walkable, sustainable infill development. The resulting mixed-use city core will concentrate more people living within walking distance of amenities and reducing the need for transportation energy usage. The Commission is targeting completion of these updates during the winter of 2014-15. Among the features of the draft regulations: a. New buildings along the street with regularly spaced operable doors, windows, and architectural articulation Energy impact: Helps create a pedestrian-oriented environment, lowering dependence on automobiles for transportation b. New buildings largely required to be a minimum of two (2) stories Energy impacts: Fosters more energy-efficient space heating and cooling; more efficient and compact usage of land; helps create a pedestrian-oriented environment, lowering dependence on automobiles for transportation c. Building separation (side yard setback) requirements eliminated 2 Energy impacts: Allows for buildings to be connected throughout the FBC District, allow for more energy efficient heating and cooling d. Parking requirements are significantly reduced, and all parking must be behind buildings Energy impacts: Increases the proportion of land that can be dedicated to compact, multi- story buildings; helps create a pedestrian-oriented environment, lowering dependence on automobiles for transportation e. Applicant must demonstrate that they have completed an analysis of roof-top solar potential Energy impacts: Provides opportunities for applicants to realize financial and energy benefits of renewable energy generation f. LEED-Silver construction on all buildings encouraged Energy impacts: Urges evaluation of potential for more energy-efficient buildings, could in the future be a source for municipal incentives g. Pedestrian-oriented Street Types established and required. Energy impacts: Helps create a pedestrian-oriented environment, lowering dependence on automobiles for transportation h. Low-impact development stormwater management for all development over ½ acre (draft regulations apply city-wide) Energy impacts: Infiltration of stormwater can reduce dependence on more engineered stormwater systems Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan The Commission is also nearing completion on a major update to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which sets the overall vision, goals, target objectives, and implementation strategies for the community. The Commission is targeting completion of the draft plan during calendar year 2015. Among the elements of the draft Plan: a. Sets new city vision statement: “South Burlington will strive to have a sustainable quality of life comprised of identifiable, diverse neighborhoods, quality natural areas, and a vibrant sense of community.” b. Sets a series of 10 principal goals, including: “Reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy production” c. Sets targeted objectives, including: “Achieve a reduction of 20% in carbon-dioxide-equivalent emission from 2009 levels by 2020 through an increase in renewable energy production and reductions in energy use in the following sectors: transportation, commercial/industrial, residential, municipal/school.” d. Sets specific implementation strategies, including: 3 1. “Develop incentives for existing and new buildings to meet or exceed state energy building code, Energy Start, and Leader in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.” 2. “Explore the creation of a clean energy assessment district to facilitate residential and commercial financing of clean energy improvements.” 3. “Consider a policy that capital investments by the city include any and all energy efficiency that are projected to pay back or break even over the lifetime of said investment.” 4. “Continue energy upgrades (weatherization and mechanical systems) of school and city buildings for all items that will pay back within 10 years; buildings should be built to at least LEED Silver standards.” 5. “Encourage owners and developers to explore the possibility, and feasibility, of cogeneration and/or district heat in higher density areas, notably City Center.” In addition to the items listed above, the Commission has been active in the review of renewable energy generation facilities (principally solar), which are considered for approval at the State level in Vermont. The Commission has strongly supported applications for roof-top solar arrays. In summary, the Planning Commission, as the body responsible for developing a land use and transportation vision, plan, and regulations for the City of South Burlington, is exciting to be moving towards an increasingly sustainable and energy-conscious future. On behalf of the South Burlington Planning Commission, Thank you, Jessica Clark Louisos Chair, South Burlington Planning Commission Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response We would like to see similar language detailing requirements for active and passive recreation space: Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We would like to see language regarding Application Submittals that would require a developer to adhere to this: From the OSC Draft Report: Page 61: 2. Require the set aside of common, usable open space within new development (10-15% of project area or x SF/Unit) for the use of residents or occupants, to include passive and/or active recreational uses or facilities as allowed amenities that are determined and maintained by a condo or homeowners association. Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 Policy We would like the Form Based Code Committee and the Planning Commission to consider the following. These statements point to a strong commitment to the concepts and goals of creating adequate recreation and green space in development: A. In December 2012 the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee adopted the following Resolution: The Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee of the City of South Burlington believes the city should require all new housing developments to provide outdoor recreation space suitable to the expected occupants of the development. The larger the number of housing units, the larger the recreation space should be. If in the opinion of the Recreation and Parks Department the space to be provided is too small to develop appropriately for recreation use, the parcel should be combined with adjacent development to provide a larger space that is suitable for recreation. The recreation space should be fully accessible to all occupants of the development, should provide amenities consistent with a neighborhood park and should serve the needs of the residents of the area. Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 Policy B. From the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 2012 to 2016: Strategy 159. Work with private developers to integrate additional public parks into the recreation system. Strategy 160. Strive to make recreation areas accessible to all residents regardless of physical ability consistent with the proposed use of a recreation parcel and activity. Strategy 162. Strive to provide access to a park or open space area within a one-mile safe walk from each neighborhood in the city, and provide each neighborhood with a small park, mini-park, neighborhood park, community green or meeting area. Strategy 166. Explore the possibility of having the Recreation -Leisure Arts Committee serve as an advisory board to the Development Review Board on potential credits of the recreational impact fees and/or dedication of public parks to the city as a part of development review. Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 Policy C. From the OSC Report: 2. From the Open Space Draft Report Page 57: 3. Amend the city’s land development regulations to require, in association with new subdivisions and development, the set aside of common “usable” or “functional” open space for the use of residents or building occupants (e.g., % total land or lot area, X square feet/unit). This is especially important in association with higher density multi-family and mixed use residential development and for development in urban and other more densely settled areas that lack private or individual yard space. This is also critical to support active outdoor recreation in areas currently underserved by city parks and recreation facilities, as highlighted in the gap analysis. Private or common open space areas that are not intended for public access should be programmed, managed and maintained by an owners or tenants association to reflect changing user needs. Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 Both 3. From the OSC Draft Report: Page 61: 4. Require the set aside of common, usable open space within new development (10-15% of project area or x SF/Unit) for the use of residents or occupants, to include passive and/or active recreational uses or facilities as allowed amenities that are determined and maintained by a condo or homeowners association Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 5. From Attachment A. Open Space Guidelines for Neighborhood Park: Basic unit of park system [Intended primarily to serve recreational and social needs of a residential neighborhood or development Public/nonprofit]; [Varies by population served 2 to 10 Acres]; [Neighborhood Pedestrian Shed: 1/4 to 1/2 mile]; [Designed to support a balance of unstructured passive, active recreational use, as determined with residential input]; [Neighborhood gatherings, events Passive, active, recreation, Leisure activities]; [Walkways, paths, benches, furniture, Lawn areas, Play areas, facilities, Ball fields, Picnic areas, facilities] Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 6. From OSC Attachment D. By-Law Amendments: Application Submittals. For land subdivision or development projects that include one or more resources identified under Section 12.04(D), the applicant shall prepare and submit the following information in addition to that required for site plan or subdivision review. An application shall not be considered complete until this information is received. (The OSC By-law Amendments then include a detailed list of requirements regarding natural and conservation issues.) Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response We, the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee, strongly support of language in the OSC By-laws regarding natural and conservation areas. Again, we would like to see similar language detailing requirements for active and passive recreation space: Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We look forward to seeing enforceable regulations incorporated into the Form Based Code and Comprehensive Plan. Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 6/16/2014 10/14/2014 I have reviewed the Red Line City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations of June 27, 2014. In reference to the above, two sections interest me: Article 9.06 SEQ, Pages 9-4 to 9-5 speak to requirements for natural areas and recreation space. Page 9-7 to 9-8 Section D. speaks to “Park Design and Development” with great specificity and detail. Therefore, the concept of Neighborhood and Special Use Parks in a neighborhood has been realized in regulation for this subdivision. However, in looking through Article 15, Subdivision and PUD Review, I find no language speaking to requirements for “Neighborhood and Special Use Parks,” although other areas are treated with great specificity. The closest item to parks is the mention of “Paths” in several places. I am suggesting that this should be remedied. JKK, Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 I would like to give you my input regarding City Center and FBC. I have been a resident of Iby Street for the past six years. In that time I have grown to love the uniqueness and beauty of my neighborhood. To be able to live in an area that still has many of the original residents is indeed rare these days. Currently, there is a project being proposed by Black Bay on the corner of Hinesburg and Market St., on the land that adjoins my Iby Street neighbors. This is an area where City Center abuts an existing neighborhood. I am writing in support of the buffer zone as state in the new draft regulations: (4) WHEN CITY CENTER T-3 ABUTS AN EXISTING NON FBC NEIGHBORHOOD A BUFFER STRIP SHAL BE REQUIRED (SEE SECTION 18.02(B)(13) Buffer Strip. Where a Building Envelope Standard requires a Buffer Strip, it shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: (a) A planted buffer not less than twenty (20) feet wide landscaped with dense evergreens and with options for other planting and fencing. Stanley, Cynthia 7/23/2014 10/14/2014 Having this buffer zone in place to protect existing T-3 areas that are contiguous to City Center will be very important for citizen support of the project. Also, water is a big issue in our neighborhood. I am one of the lucky few that doesn't have water in their basement. This natural 20' buffer zone will go a long way in preventhing this from happening or getting more severe in homes that already have to deal with it on a regular basis. (Tom DiPietro is aware of all of the issues, as we met in January 2014). The BlackBay project eliminates mature trees, which acts as a natural buffer and would replace these areas with pavement...a move that will certainly will not help the issue. The first project that is approved will set the stage for development in the entire eastern end of this project. I think getting it right from a design, transition and storm water point of view is critical. Thank you very much for listening to my comments. Stanley, Cynthia 7/23/2014 10/14/2014 Solar ready should be required Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Eliminate 90 degree or 10' setback Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Adopt the State of VT's "stretch energy codes" - LDR should say all new buildings shall meet the stretch energy codes that are current at the time of the application Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Too much control is given to the administrative officer. What does "encouraged" mean when an application is reviewed by an admin. Officer?Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Transit facilities should be required in the typologies, and min. standards for the transit facilites (i.e. keeping people dry, warm, informed w/signage, and comfortable (benches))Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Policy No stormwater grates in the bike lane/path Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Both The town of Williston's Unified Development Bylaws relating the car and bicycle parking that we should consider Epstein, Keith 6/27/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Since I live on Iby Street, the proposed city center FBC is vital to protect the residents and their interests that surround city center. T-3 and T-3+ neighborhoods will have a direct impact on our homes, streets, storm water, traffic, etc.Ford, Chris 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 − Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response I am still concerned with storm water and would like these regulations to be focused and diligent in managing storm water and protecting our homes and properties from water damage and flooding as city center is developed over time (think storms such as Irene, etc.). We (Iby Street residents) met with the S. Burlington Storm water dept this past Jan. to express our concers and need your help enforcing these regulations througout development of our city center Ford, Chris 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 Given our location directly connected to a proposed T-3 neighborhood, I want to share that I fully support Section 8.07 City Center T-3 and T-3+ BES. Specifically the requirements written for lot coverage of a max of 75% (Section B.2), 1.5 min/2.5 max stories (Section B.4a and b), and "when a city center T-3 abuts an existing neighborhood a buffer strip shall be required (section I.4) Ford, Chris 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 Both As expected, I fully support section 8.02, section #13 as written for requiring a buffer strip as outline in the BES.Ford, Chris 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 Policy In addition, to help with storm water, I also would like to make sure section 8.05 - open space regulations remain and are enforced. In fact, I would like to see more "green" space incorporated within the entire city center as I feel this helps with water and provides residents a pleasant "downtown" feel. Ford, Chris 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 Policy My final thought is that I want to let you know that I am concerned about a proposed development - Blackbay Development on the corner of Market St and Hinesburg Rd. It seems that they are attempting to get approval for a project that is in conflict with the proposed FBC which would be detrimental to the look and feel our city center (as visioned by our residents). From what I learned in the proposal to the DRB, I am concerned that the development is not proposed with the FBC buffer zone and open space regulations. I hope that the city will do what's right and make sure this proposed development is in accordance with our soon-to-be new FBC for city center. Ford, Chris 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 − Supports the 20 ft. buffer strip as outlined in the new draft regulations article 8-8. Believes that having this buffer in place to protect existing T-3, abutting neighborhoods will go a long way towards citizens supporting the growth of a denser city center. It provides an essential transition. Germaine, Anita 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Presently, there is a project bbeing proposed by Black Bay on the corner of Hinesburg and Market St., on the land contiguous to the Iby Street neighbors. This is an area where City Center abuts and existing neighborhood. Water is a huge issue in City Center and has become an issue for Iby Street since development began. Tom DiPietro is aware of all of the issues, as we met in January 2014. So getting back to the Black Bay Project. The plan is eliminating mature trees (60- 90 ft trees), which would naturally serve as a buffer, and adding pavement to the lot line. This first project will set the tone for that entire eastern end of this project, so I think getting it right from a design, transition and stormwater point of view is critical Germaine, Anita 7/22/2014 10/14/2014 − Re-look at Article 8.02 Section 10 - prohibited materials; all types and form of vinyl siding or vinyl finishing products Brown, Leon 7/23/2014 10/14/2014 Policy I've been a resident for 50+ years. I would like to keep a buffer between my backyard & Market St. I live on Iby St and never had water and would like to keep it that way.Hallihan, M 7/25/2014 10/14/2014 Policy We have lived at Iby Street for nearly 50 years - as have a lot of families on this street. We are hoping and feel we deserve a large buffer zone between our boundries and the development of Market Street. So that the next generation can enjoy this lovely neighborhood. Thank you. Menard, Jim & Shirley 7/25/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Page 158. The section pertaining to glazing - is there a requirement that the glazing allow view into the building? Or does glazing include glass that does not allow viewing through it from the outside? Paquette, Bernie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 Technical Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response Page 139 and 264 (13.06). The landscaping regulations regarding minimum tree and other plantings looks minimal to me. I had hoped for some changes reflecting the following recoomendations. Zoning change requiring parking lots w> 28 spaces to have a min. of 15% of the interior to be landscaped islands VS what I believe is currently, a 10% requirement. 1b. Require landscaped Islands meet the size the Arborist determines is a necessary to reasonably expect the tree(s) planted in it to survive a duration equal to its normal life expectancy. 2. Require a larger % of canopy trees. Trees that can grow to provide large shades providing canopy's. (Filtered shade trees and full shade trees). 13.06b states (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. This seems vague (a major tree?) 3. Add or update performance standards for tree maintenance (Including addressing server lower branch pruning for other than health of the tree) of trees on commercial property. More specific requirements regarding tree maintenance and pruning (preventing aggressive pruning which defeats landscaping objectives). WHAT PREVENTS business from cutting branches off healthy trees such as Anchorage did, thus defeating the part of the purpose of planting trees that would normally grow to be large canopy trees? 4. Add or update tree ordinance goals to measure/evaluate it effectiveness and guiding tree planting and maintenance. Paquette, Bernie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 Both Page 296 (14.07). All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).Does this regulate screening on all four sides (two sides, front and back)? And does it regulate that the disposal unit be covered? Paquette, Bernie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 Existing Language Pg 296, 381. I see only two mentions of small trash receptacles as public amenities. Neither requires such amenities. Nor do I see any mention of ash receptacles nor recycling or composting receptacle requirements for business and or public park like spaces. Where will the public place trash when they (the public) are outside visiting stores, businesses, parks, parking lots? What requirements do businesses have to maintain a litter free store front year round? Will there be enforcement? Paquette, Bernie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 both We are disturbed by the current plans to have a parking lot installed right up to our back fence, part of the proposal currently under review, from Blackbay of Shelburne. Not only does this enroach on our privacy, a paltry planned 6' fence will not cut it for us, the plan includes removing our existing vinyl fence and replacing it will footings/retaining wall, which we find unacceptable. I state here for the record that our vinyl fence will stay exactly as it is. Parker, Les & Annie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 − With the felling of established 60-80' trees in this area, another of our concerns is where will the water go? Our back yard and basement is under constant threat from flooding, as is our adjacent neighbours properties. We are not convinced that the current plan by Blackbay takes into account any of the surface run-off or subterranean water seepage from their project will be diverted from our property. Parker, Les & Annie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 − We are somewhat distressed that this whole project is "sneaking under the wire" of the Form Based Codes, current under review by the City Council. Parker, Les & Annie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 − Sometime ago, we presented the City Council with a signed petition, asking for this particular are to be considered for "Green Space", to date we have had no response to this, is there any way to follow this up? There were 120+ signatures on the petition. Parker, Les & Annie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 − We look forward to having some input into Dumont Park and its proposed development, though how a contract can be giving without knowing what is envolved is a tad mystical to us. If you could explain what the planned outcome is for ingress and flow through the park at the least, this would be beneficial. Parker, Les & Annie 7/29/2014 10/14/2014 − My feedback: the document (SB LDR) is quite large, and I found it a challenge to read. As I was specifically interested in where thing stood with City Center, I was disappointed that some type of synopsis was not presented. I suspect most people who choose to look at the document will be a good bit intimidated at its complexity and length. My perspective: citizens would have been better served with an abridged version of the document (with link to the full document when needed), and an informative summary of where things stood with zoning and the new proposed City Center. Silverstein, Gerry 8/4/2014 10/14/2014 Technical Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response I appreciate all of your, and your predecessors' work on the city center over the years. It is an amazing opportunity for our city to thoughtfully create a unique city center. Until recently, it seemed that my vision for our city center was aligned with the committee's plan for it. A quaint downtown space with local shops, cafes, the community library, the elementary school, affordable housing, a town green, town offices, etc. The recent proprosal to buy Rick Marcotte Central School so that the developer could complete Phase I in which to place "nationally-recognized retailers" was incredibly disappointing. If I wanted to patronize nationally-recognized retailers, I could simply go across the street to the University Mall, or downtown Burlington, or to Williston. Why would I want the same in this beautiful space that is meant to have the feel of a special hometown? In this proposal, Phase II was suggested as a "could be...in the future" when in reality, Phase II is the only part that I want to see there. It would not be very responsible of us to sell the school for less than we would need to build a new one or improve the infrastructure at the other other two elementary schools to accomodate the additional students. In my opinion, we need to do our due diligence to ensure that this land is developed properly the first time. Even it that means waiting until we can pay for the development ourselves, rather than being beholden to a developer who probably does not really care if we ever get to Phase II anyhow. Simone, Amy 8/4/2014 10/14/2014 − The Form Base Codes, while initially a bit confusing, are starting to make sense the more I look at them. I would expect that the zones were created with the best interest of the space and uses in mind. As such, the zones appear to be in the right spots. Simone, Amy 8/4/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new FBC proposal for city center, I like the idea of FBCs, because it focuses on the way the buildings look, not on the specific use of the structure. However, the verbiage of FBC is very difficult to understand and envision. I can't tell from the language of FBC what center will look like and whether it will conform to the vision that was clearly stated by the residents during the multiple visioning sessions the city hosted over the past 3-4 years. And since FBCs is all about what things look like, I think graphics are essential for the average residents to properly comment on it. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Both So, I make these comments not really knowing whether the code accomplishes the vision. I attended almost every single visioning session over the past 4 years. I also attended the vast majority of the Planning Commission meetings during which FBC concepts were discussed and residents and business owners articulated their desires. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Overwhelmingly, the residents wanted a VERMONT-type city center which included a town green (similar to town greens throughout Vermont)….not just another 'anywhere USA downtown.' Residents talked about a central area for picknicking, children's play areas, farmer's market, a small pond, gazebo, and places to sit, read, visit with other, chat or eat. Moreover, they specifically said they did NOT want to compete with Burlington's Church Street, but rather wanted something unique to South Burlington....a unique SB identity...a sense of place. The consultant at the time offered a number of proposals, one of which was a tower from which one could see the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy I can't determine from the FBC language whether any of this is built into the code. It appears it is not. It appears that the resulting city center does not offer the uniqueness that the residents wanted. It also appears that there is no centrally located 'town green.' The green was to have been the main focus of city center. One of the proposals that was shown by the past consultant, and which residents liked, had municipal buildings (city hall, library, post office, etc) surround the town green. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response The current FBCs seems to focus on large multi-story commercial buildings; whereas multiple use buildings (residential space above shops) in the downtown area was the vision. Eliminating the need for cars was also desired. The city center was to be a walkable place where people didn't need cars; where they could live where they worked and shopped and a place where residents wanted to be......not just another shopping area. It was a place for the residents of SB to call their own....not just another place where out-of-towners come to shop. SB and the area already have these types of places (U- Mall and Taft's Corners, etc). City Center was not to be another shopping area, but a place for the residents to live, work, shop, and conduct business, recreate, enjoy music and the arts, and meet other South Burlingtonians. Having a "party street" was also one of the visions. I can't find any language in the FBCs that addresses these desires. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy So, I would request that graphics or photos of other places which embody the current SB FBC language be included and sent out for citizen comment. (The street typology is helpful, but not sufficient.) It is not realistic to expect the average person to read hundreds of pages of technical language and be able to understand and envision what that will look like on the ground. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Technical Two other key inclusions that I would like to see become essentials for any development in city center (and the rest of the city) are clear mandates that going forward we want only sustainable designed projects, and a requirement that new structures would use only renenwable energy sources and that all new structures would meet or exceed the highest energy efficiencies. As we face serious climate change issues, we must be responsible to future generations by planning appropriately now. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy I appreciate and thank all of the FBC committee members and the city staff and the consultants for all of their hard work on this project. They have been immersed in FBC for years, and may not realize that there still needs to be some translation done for the lay-person, who has not been schooled in Form-based code language. Please allow more time for this most important issue. It is not something to be rushed, as this will determine South Burlington's identity for the foreseeable future. Greco, Rosanne 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Technical We recommend the Planning Commission adopt one of two changes in the LDR to accomplish this: That the LDR offer prescriptive criteria (e.g., cost and available solar exposure) that would determine whether each building should be constructed to enable roof mounted solar energy generation, ensuring that the permits have addressed the results of the solar ready feasibility analysis. OR That all buildings be subject to review, before they are built, where there can be an opportunity for a city body/administrator to review the feasibility analysis and have a conversation with the developer or builder to actually “encourage” them to make the roof solar ready. We are concerned this might not happen if a developer is subject only to an administrative process that checks just to see if the study was done and submitted. We recommend for this approach that the solar ready feasibility analysis be completed and available to the DRB and the builder for consideration before the DRB provides the authorization necessary to proceed with construction. Don Cummings, South Burlington Energy Committee 8/7/2014 10/14/2014 Policy As to the draft language related to the Modification of Standards, 8.02 (B)(5)(b), the School Board is concerned that the School District will be held to unsuitable buidling standards and subject to inappropriate overview by the Development Review Board. That section states, in part, that "[i]n considering an application, the Board shall have the authority to modify or waive Build-to Line, Glazing, Frequency of Entrances, and Percentage of Building Frontage requirements within the Building Envelope Standards for the applicable T-Zone." Because school buildings serve a special purpose and must address unique concerns - including access and security issues and accountability to tax payers -- school buildings should be exempt from these standards. SB School Board 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy In addition, the draft proposal suggests that, in making a determination as to the school's application for modification of standards, the DRB would consider the "consistency of the design with an adopted….school building design policy." The DRB is not the appropriate body to determine whether the School District is in compliance with School District policies. Rather, that is the School Board's role. SB School Board 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response Further, the draft proposal suggests that, in making the determination, the DRB shall consider the "consistency of the project with the written purposes of the applicable T-Zone and Comprehensive Plan," and "advancement, where appropriate, of the project with design elements specifically encouraged within the applicable T-Zone." Again, allowing the DRB to measure these considerations in determining whether to waive standards for a school building provides the DRB with too much authority over the School District's functions, including the design and construction of new school buildings. A more appropriate paradigm is to rest authority over design and construction of a school building with the School Board, which is accountable to the public. Perhaps there are some standards that can be required by the City in its regulations, and perhaps some form of oversigh exercised by the DRB or some other city entity. Further discussions between the District's administration and the city planning office could assist in determining what those standards and oversight should be. SB School Board 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy For the time being, however, the draft code should exempt new school buildings from the requirements of the form- based coded, just as it is exempting modifications or expansions of existing school buildings pursuant to Article 8.02(B)(5)(c ) SB School Board 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy As to the Article 8.03, the School Board appreciates that the Planning Commission has somewhat strengthened the prohibitions against inappropriate uses within City Center. Nevertheless, this article does not go far enough in addressing the School Board's request that the Planning Commission adopt School Safety Overlay Districts in advance of or in conjunction with the adoption of the proposed amendments to the SB Land Development Regulations. We refer you to the November 11, 2013 Memorandum re: School Safety Overlay Districts from the South Burlington School Board and the December 10, 2013 Memorandum re: School Safety Zone to Superintendent David Young from Sean Toohey that were provided to the Planning Commission. In addition, we refer you tot he November 26, 2013 Planning Commission meeting where the Board presented its concerns tot he Planning Commission SB School Board 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy In short, the School Board believes that the amendments to the SB Land Development Regulations should not be adopted absent appropriate school safety overlay districts.SB School Board 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy An Executive Summary of the changes and more descriptors on the maps would have been helpful for those of us who did not have access to the larger diagrams and text.Sirvis, Barbara 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Technical One comment: I'm not yet convinced that Form-Based Codes is a good idea, but that seems to be a decision already made. I have confidence in the current Planning Commission, but as members change, I wonder if there will be adequate flexibility to allow for reasonable development. Will there be an option for appeal, or are the codes only applied within the restricted area? Sirvis, Barbara 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Technical I am hopeful there will be information sessions before the formal hearings and that South Burlington personnel will facilitate those sessions. In the preliminary sessions, I found the South Burlington personnel most approachable and helpful, but the consultants were off-putting and condescending at best and often displayed a total lack of understanding of Vermont culture. (The lead consultatn was quite convinced he knew Vermont because his child attended UVM. That, in and of itself, was enough to make clear that he thought he had the answers and was simply going through the paces of the hearings). All that said, I write with three concerns. The first concern is the size of "T-4" areas. Some adjacent residential areas have the potential to be devalued if the "T-4" area abuts too close. It is difficult at best to discern ont he map, but I would ask the Planning Commission to consider some sort of buffer between the larger structures of "T-4" and the adjacent residential areas. The area impacted by the proposal is also the area of the majority of affordable housing in South Burlington. The City Council's decision to support the F-35 has already affected many homes in this section of our town. I hope this plan will not further affect the adjacent residential areas and some consideration will be given to making sure property values are not negatively affected by this development. Sirvis, Barbara 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Both Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response A second concern is for the size of the City Center. While the drawings presented at the visioning meetings showed an area that would be "walkable" and create a sense of a friendly community space, recent news reports now give the impression of yet another area with larger "anchor stores." We have University Mall and downtown Burlington malls, both of which are under-utilized but more than adequate for the population of the Greater Burlington area. My question: is that really the vision for South Burlington? Yes, we want business opportunities, but are we going to remove any sense of residential and community in the entire northern section of South Burlington? The Trader Joe's development area was nicely done and enhanced an area already focused on business properties. Is there really enough consumer support and need for more large stores? With the change to Williston Road as a "complete street," the traffic will become even worse than it has already become as a result of that decision. (Note: There is virtually no bicycle traffic in those lanes. Is there any chance we could return to four lanes?) My third concern revolves around the recent proposal that would demolish Rick Marcotte School. Clearly, the School Board and the City Council were blind-sided by this proposal. I, too, was stunned to learn after the fact that demolition of Rick Marcotte School was part of some discussion. It feels like the intial process did not move in good faith. There is now way the consultants could not have known at some relatively-early point this was a potential outcome. They should have been honest and included this possiblity in the early discussions. For me, it is the biggest roadblock and feels like the public - and maybe the Town personnel - were duped. Sirvis, Barbara 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Both While only a proposal, the possible $7 million payment for the school will not pay for replacement costs. The taxpayers are generally supportive of the development of the City Center, but adding the cost for a new school was not in the deal. Some will say that Chamberlin School can absorb many of the students, but the City Council nullified that potential with its decision to support the F-35. Chamberlin will be within the boundaries of an area identified as not suitable for residential use. When the City Council reversed a previous decision to oppose the F-35, they put Chamberlin School in jeopardy. There is already an increase int he transfers to Rick Marcotte, and the planes have not yet arrived. Does the potential exist for the northern portion of South Burlington to lose both its elementary schools? Sirvis, Barbara 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 − I suggest the Planning Commission hold several public information sessions with adequate detail but not reading the "red- line" and thereby engage the South Burlington community to continue in the positive vein of the visioning process. I look forward to the eventual adoption of a true vision for all of South Burlington. Sirvis, Barbara 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Technical Pursuant to the request for comments on the City's website, we respectfully submit the following comments on the draft land use development regulation amendments. We note that the proposed amendment to Section 15.02A would not permit the use of Planned Unit Developments in any Transect Zones. It appears, however, that the Transect Zones are in the area of the City where dense, urban development is being encouraged. The inability to use PUDs in these zones would potentially require a developer of a multi-structure project to engage in a substantial subdivision of its property in order to undertake development of any significant scope. This will discourage such projects and make the city core more costly and cumbersome to develop-especially projects on larger lots. The requirement to subdivide for multi-structure projects will also potentially make it more difficult for owners to finance and insure these projects. For example, the due diligence for a lender to lend on one PUD project is substantially less than the due diligence if the same property is divided in multiple legal lots with their own legal descriptions, survey boundaries, party wall agreements, etc. Given the apparent goals of draft amendments to encourage redevelopment of the city core, we suggest a reconsideration of the elimination of PUDs for multi-structure projects in the Transect Zones. Sterns, Nathan 8/5/2014 10/14/2014 Policy I am writing on behalf of the Energy Committee to thank the Planning Commission for including language in the LDRs that states that “all buildings are encouraged to be solar ready Roof,” that defines what constitutes a solar ready roof, and that requires project applicants to prepare a ”solar ready roof analysis report” for all new buildings. We endorse these provisions in the draft regulations and recommend that they be adopted. However, we recommend an additional provision designed to ensure that the solar ready roof analysis report is available for consideration during any deliberations of the Development Review Board leading to the authorization permitting building construction. We suggest that it is necessary either to establish clearly defined criteria that would signal when the City expects buildings to be made solar ready or to ensure that the solar ready feasibility analysis is considered when any design options may be negotiated between the builder and the DRB. Don Cummings, South Burlington Energy Committee 8/7/2014 10/14/2014 Policy SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM‐BASED CODES COMMITTEE   MEETING MINUTES   31 JULY 2014  1 The  South Burlington Form‐Based Code Committee held a meeting on Thursday, 31 July 2014, at  12:00 p.m. at the South Burlington Municipal offices, 575 Dorset Street.    Members Present: Paul Engels, Michael Mittag, Mike Simoneau, Tim McKenzie, Martin Lalonde, Will  Raap, Bill Gilbert, Ted Riehle, Tim Duff, Evan Langfeldt, Deb Bell.    Also Participating: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, Cathyann LaRose, City Planner, Paul  Simon, White and Burke    1. Agenda: additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items    Mr. Simoneau noted that there was a quorum present.    Mr. Raap asked for clarification on agenda item 4. Mr. Simoneau suggested moving it up as the first  discussion, provided the discussion remained within the allotted time of 10 minutes.     2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda    There were no comments from the public.     3. Update on Status of City Wide Land Development Regulations     Mr. Conner gave a review of the current status of the plan for city wide Land Development  Regulations, beginning with a brief overview of the end of the Dreher Consulting contract. Some  items remain incomplete and the City will need to figure out what to finish and how.    Members discussed finishing City Center.    Members discussed next steps, including who or what Committee would decide what happens  next.     Mr. Conner indicated that this decision is a “front‐burner” issue.     Members reiterated that they hoped for an open discussion on this.     4. Review and provide comment on draft amendments to the Land Development  Regulations under review by the Planning Commission    Members reviewed notes from the July 3rd meeting, where no quorum was present.    Members summarized that in general they felt pretty good that there was not a great deal that was re‐ engineered.     Members discussed the following items:  SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM‐BASED CODES COMMITTEE   MEETING MINUTES   31 JULY 2014  2     1. Tim McKenzie recommended that in the T4, open space be addressed as a single 6% requirement  rather than having residential measured as a scaled s.f. per unit  2. Michael Mittag recommended that the definitions of “unit” be clarified in the FBC, as the term is  used to both represent a number of square feet (1,500) and also a residential dwelling unit  regardless of size.  3. Tim McKenzie recommended additional flexibility for the provision of one‐story buildings.  4. Will Raap confirmed his comment from the previous non‐quorum meeting that there should be  a. A statement made from the PC affirming that the FBC is intended to be a living document  that is regularly reviewed as conditions and needs change  b. Clarification within the FBC of the DRB’s intended limited role as discussed  5. Michael Mittag stated that he felt the DRB should not have the authority to extend a block  perimeter. The definitions of what forms a perimeter, such as a wetland of a certain size, can be  black and white.   6. Martin Lalonde stated that the DRB should have a more limited role in review of Civic Sites. He  added that the School Board would be reviewing the issue and making recommendations.  7. Bill Gilbert stated that there should be some method for a public recourse on applications  submitted for administrative approval. Ideas discussed included an optional administrative hearing,  a timeframe during which the administrative officer would forward public comments to the  applicant, and / or the possibility of encouraging an informal meeting between applicants and  neighbors. Several members discussed these as optional, not required.  8. Michael Mittag recommended that Mews NOT be exempted from façade standards for corner lots  9. Michael Simoneau and Michael Mittag recommended a clarification of when street types can be  adjusted by the DRB, to reference the specific modification standards contained within Article 11  and not just have a blanket waiver.  10. Mr. Mittag recommended a simplification of the Open Space standards describing which strips of  land do not count as open space. He recommended that the “qualifying open space”    These items were all discussed, but no consensus was reached nor was any motion made.     Ms. Bell asked for clarification regarding notification of abutters.     5. Upcoming Meetings   Members discussed the possibility of a meeting Thursday, August 8th, by phone to continue  review the City Center FBC draft. Mr. Simoneau said that an email would be circulated to consider  dates and times.     6. Adjourn  The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 PM.   SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM-BASED CODES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 14 AUGUST 2014 1 The South Burlington Form-Based Code Committee held a meeting on Thursday, 14 August 2014, at 12:00 p.m. at the South Burlington Municipal offices, 575 Dorset Street. No quorum was present. Members Present: Paul Engels, Michael Mittag, Mike Simoneau, Tim McKenzie, Will Raap, Ted Riehle. Also Participating: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Paul Simon, White and Burke; Larry Michaels, O’Brien Brothers Agency; Gene Beaudoin, Saxon Partners. 1. Agenda: additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items Mr. Simoneau noted that there was no quorum present, and therefore no formal meeting. Those in attendance elected to hold a discussion. Mr. Mittag said that he would like to add wastewater as a discussion on the agenda. Mr. Raap said he would like to have a discussion about what is the future, and would like to have a discu8ssion with the Planning Commission, looking at the list of projects. 2. Wastewater discussion Mr. Mittag said he was concerned about a shortfall on the shortfall described in staff’s February memo to Council. Mr. Riehle said that we need to be responsible, and that City Center is the priority. Mr. Mittag recommended that the Committee request of Council that City Center be reserved for 470,000 gallons per day. Mr. Raap asked whether it would make sense to look at the day when the facility reaches 80% capacity. He said it could be monitored annually until then as to where it is going, and then at that point reserve a number reflective of citywide interests at that time. Mr. Raap asked what the annual absorbing is annually. Mr. Conner said that he was preparing a report on growth for the Planning Commission, and that he would also contact Public Works regarding increase in flows. Mr. Mittag moved that this committee write to the City Council to request that Council allocate sufficient capacity, which has been set by the Department of Public Works and Planning & Zoning as 470,000. Mr. Riehle seconded. Mr. McKenzie said that he conceptually agrees, but wasn’t sure that the figure is exactly 470,000. Mr. Raap asked for the motion to be amended to look at the figures annually. Mr. Engels said he did not feel this was a Form Based Codes issue. SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM-BASED CODES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 14 AUGUST 2014 2 Mr. Simoneau called the question. 5 in favor, one abstention. As there was no quorum, the motion failed. Mr. Conner said that he would provide the motion and any letter prepared by Mr, Mittag to the Planning Commission as an indication of where several members of the FBCC were thinking. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda There were no comments from the public. 4. Review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations Mr. Conner stated that he would like to confirm with those present whether the items discussed at the last meeting represented a consensus or the thoughts of individuals. Specifically: 3. Tim McKenzie recommended additional flexibility for the provision of one-story buildings. 4. Will Raap confirmed his comment from the previous non-quorum meeting that there should be a. A statement made from the PC affirming that the FBC is intended to be a living document that is regularly reviewed as conditions and needs change b. Clarification within the FBC of the DRB’s intended limited role as discussed Mr. McKenzie stated that he was comfortable that Mr. Raap’s recommendation addressed his concern raised in #3. Members agreed with this recommendation. 5. Michael Mittag stated that he felt the DRB should not have the authority to extend a block perimeter. The definitions of what forms a perimeter, such as a wetland of a certain size, can be black and white. Members discussed this item and had various perspectives. Members agreed that at a minimum, this section needed to be tightened. 8. Michael Mittag recommended that Mews NOT be exempted from façade standards for corner lots Members reviewed this as well as through lots. They agreed that Mews should not be exempted, but stated that the corner lot standard for the secondary street (a relaxed standard for doors and windows, etc.) should apply and also should apply to secondary streets on through lots. 9. Michael Simoneau and Michael Mittag recommended a clarification of when street types can be adjusted by the DRB, to reference the specific modification standards contained within Article 11 and not just have a blanket waiver. Members agreed. Members confirmed that they agreed on all other items from the July 31st meeting notes. 5. Next steps / Communication with Planning Commission SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM-BASED CODES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 14 AUGUST 2014 3 Members stated that they were interested in seeing city-wide completion of the work. Mr. Conner stated that the Planning Commission would be looking at priorities at their next meeting, including possibly how to parse out the work to be done into elements that can be completed in a timely manner. Mr. Conner also stated that staff was keeping a master list of all projects – the “staff review committee matrix” so that none get lost. Members asked to have this sent to them. Mr. Conner said that the Staff Review Committee would be meeting to update this next week and would send it out to all FBCC members afterwards. From:Donna LebanTo:Ilona Blanchard; Paul ConnerCc:Kevin DornSubject:Re: 3D Concept for City Center Public CommentDate:Tuesday, October 07, 2014 2:40:28 PMAttachments:Article Architecture re Poundbury.pdf Ilona, The presentation is fantastic. The streets and parks and pathways are a good basicrepresentation. And, there's nothing like an image to let people express what they like and don't like. I expectyou'll be hearing a lot of similar comments. Here are mine: The architecture and landscaping, as represented, is extremely sterile. SB needs to offer a better architectural and landscape vision than this. I know that it is quite difficult to create a presentation of this type from scratch, and that acertain amount of uniformity is inevitable in the presentation. The question is, how do wekeep the final development from looking like this. This vision is not at all what I had hoped tosee. Here are the basic problems: 1. This looks like what would happen if one developer built the whole thing, using onearchitect with a limited design vocabulary.2. Buildings are much too similar in footprint, and repeated along the street. Reminded meof Farrell St development, which is a very poor example to replicate.3. Materials and design of the buildings are too uniform and lacking in visually interestingelements. 4. Streets look sterile. This shows how important art and detailed visual imagery is inmaking a streetscape. Of course, this will come in time, but you need to start with apallet that encourages it. 5. Small setbacks at the street level of buildings on the main thoroughfare are critical tocreating visually interesting outdoor streetscapes. The flat facade buildings shown wouldbe examples of what NOT TO DO. 6. There are no smaller scale, interesting spaces shown between the buildings. Apresentation of this type would be critical in showing how interesting mews and creativeuse of space between buildings can make it a more inviting environment.7. Landscaping shows nothing special or interesting. 8. Cars seem dominate the streets separated by curbs from sidewalks, rather than showingstreets as friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. This is a good start and a worthwhile exercise. It will encourage people to express what theydon't like, since that is easier for most people to do than say what they want. I think it would be good to emphasize diversity of design, and having many differentdevelopers and architects involved in creating the buildings. I also believe it would be useful to emphasize that while all buildings must be built withdurable materials, the buildings should not all look the same. I'm attaching an article from Architect Magazine, which is pertinent and interesting. This isabout a planned town called Poundbury in England. While I am not proposing this style ofarchitecture, it seems that many things were done right, and its doesn't look sterile orinhospitable. There are a few signature buildings, which is a valuable lesson in what createsan interesting urban landscape. A lot of very similar looking buildings do not a good urbanlandscape make. Possibilities for what City Center could become!View this email in your browser 3D Concept for City Center Released! The City Council, on October 6th, hosted the world premiere of a new, digital, 3D model of what the heart of City Center could become. At the City's request, Weimann-Lamphere Architects and Lincoln Brown Illustrations prepared this independent vision for how the area could be developed based on the draft Form Based Codes. Copyright © 2014 City of South Burlington, All rights reserved.You are receiving this e-mail because you have expressed an interest the reconstruction of Market Street and/orthe future of City Center, South Burlington Our mailing address is: City of South Burlington575 Dorset StSouth Burlington, VT 05403 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences The role of architectural design in creating urban environments has never been discussed incommunity forums. I think its time we started talking about it. Donna Leban Donna Leban Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802 862-1901 officewww.lightspacedesign.biz On 10/7/2014 10:21 AM, Ilona Blanchard wrote: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  23 SEPTEMBER 2014    1    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 September  2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.  MEMBERS PRESENT – J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B.  Gagnon, B. Benton  ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, B. Bouchard, T.  McKenzie, R. Greco, J. Nick, L. Michaels, S. Dopp, S. Hanley, K. Epstein, E. Landfeldt   1. Agenda – Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:  No changes were made to the agenda.  2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda:  No issues were raised.  3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report:  Mr. Riehle directed attention to an article in Mother Earth News that includes Burlington,  Vermont as a place where core values prevail.  Ms. Louisos: Attended one day of the American Planners Association meeting.  Mr. Conner: The city hosted a Garden Street planning workshop attended by about 40 people.   The aim was to determine the character of the street.  At the next Commission meeting,  members will see a draft purpose/need statement.   Also attended the Planners Association meeting.  Topics included sharing of resources,  and public engagement.  They are looking at pedestrian/bike most used routes.   The Chamberlin area visioning project is ramping up.  The Planning Commission will be  asked to provide a member of one of the committees.   A team is doing a 3‐D model of what City Center will look like.  This should be done  within a few weeks.   Distributed information about a Planning & Zoning forum being put on by the Vermont  League of Cities and Towns.  4. Discuss Wastewater Allocation Recommendation to City Council; Consideration of  Letter of Transmission to Accompany Recommendation:    2    Ms. Louisos distributed a copy of the draft letter.  Mr. Gagnon said he would add the Commission’s objective at the end, something to the effect  that the Commission understands that the 470,000 gpd figure will change, but the  Commission’s objective is to have adequate capacity for the area.  Ms. Harrington moved to approve the letter with Mr. Gagnon’s addition.  Ms. Quest seconded.  Mr. McKenzie questioned the 470,000 gpd figure.  Ms. Louisos said it came from a staff memo.   Mr. Conner stressed that it is a very rough estimate of what a 20 year usage in the form based  codes area could be.  Mr. McKenzie said he worked out numbers from their property and the school property,  assuming full development, and came up with about 275,000 gpd.  This also assumes some  development on Mary Street.  Mr. Gagnon asked if the 470,000 gpd includes what is there now.  Mr. Conner said it does not.   He again stressed that this is a rough estimate.  Ms. Hanley, representing the Tilley Drive/Fletcher Allen project, expressed concern that their  interests are outside the City Center/form based codes area and questioned doing a reserve at  all.    Ms. Louisos said the city can’t keep expanding the Sewage Treatment Plant.  The concern is  with the huge investment in City Center and the TIF District that there be adequate capacity.   Mr. Gagnon said the number in the existing ordinance is not adequate for City Center, and the  Commission wants to inform the Council that there is a “shortage in the system” and that more  needs to be set aside.  Mr. Conner noted that there is a requirement under state law that a municipality must  demonstrate they have a reserve of wastewater capacity if they have a “new town center”  designation, which South Burlington has.  Ms. Hanley felt that making a recommendation for a reserve for a 20‐year buildout seemed  excessive as projects can change almost daily.  Ms. Harrington said the number can always be  changed.  She cited the effort to make City Center more attractive to developers as the city  can’t pay for the TIF district without development.  Ms. Hanley said that 350 gpd is not sufficient for all the development outside of City Center.  Mr. Michaels estimated that a hotel and 42 condos uses about 100,000 gpd over 20 years.    3    Mr. Nick said the Commission should have more stable numbers before it goes to the City  Council.  He said he could see a scenario where the market could reply by using all the  remaining gpd.  Mr. Gagnon said the Commission is purely advisory to the Council.  He noted the Sewage  Treatment Plant was recently upgraded, and the debt won’t be paid off for a long time.  If  development occurred quickly, the city would have to go to the voters to expand the plant  before the debt is paid, and the voters might or might not approve that.  Mr. Langfeldt said it would make sense to have the Public Works Director present for this  discussion.  Ms. Louisos said the Commission has already done that.  Ms. Harrington noted a  memo the Commission received from Mr. Rabidoux.  Ms. Greco said this was already presented  to the City Council.  Mr. Simoneau said the Commission is already on record to the Council that they allocate  470,000 gpd.  He felt the Commission should be asking the Council to do a study as to what the  viable number is for City Center.  Mr. Bouchard said it sounds to him like the Commission is determining that City Center takes  precedence over “private applicants.”  Mr. Riehle said the City Council has determined that City  Center is a priority.  Mr. Gagnon added that there may be many developers in that area.  Ms. Hanley said the city needs to maintain the viability of other areas as well.  She felt that  “private sector data” is missing from this consideration.  Mr. Michaels said he talked with Justin Rabidoux who did not support this number.  He felt it  was important to get him back to the Commission to discuss this.  Mr. Conner noted that staff  has not made a recommendation as to what an appropriate reserve should be.  Mr. Michaels said the 470,000 gpd number is not based on a specific study.  He suggested  taking away that number and just asking the Council to study it.  He added that he believed that  part of the impetus for going to the Council with this number is an attempt to control growth  elsewhere in the city.  He felt that needs to be discussed as a separate issue.  Mr. Nick agreed.  Mr. Simoneau said the Commission doesn’t know what the number should be.  He felt they  could still reach the goal without that number.  Ms. Quest said the aim is to plan ahead so something doesn’t “rise up and bite us.”  Ms. Calcagni recommended a motion that would indicate the Commission wants to allocate a  number for City Center.  She felt recommending a number before there is a study doesn’t make  sense.    4    Ms. Harrington then withdrew her previous motion and Ms. Louisos then moved that the  Commission send the draft letter to the Council, replacing introductory sentence referring to  the prior vote with “The Commission passed the following motion (6‐1)” and replacing the last  line of the imbedded motion with: “…to up the allocation to what is adequate.”  Further to add  a 6th bullet point to make sure the numbers are refined, and further to add language to  recognize that any number is preliminary, and that the Commission’s goal is to assure adequate  capacity.  Further to add that the Commission feels this is an urgent matter and should be  addressed in a timely manner.  Mr. Riehle seconded.  Motion passed 6‐1.  5. Overview of the Georgetown University Energy Prize:  Mr. Epstein reviewed the city’s entry into a competition sponsored by Georgetown University.   The prize is $5,000,000 to be used for energy efficiency for the community as a whole.  Each entrant is submitting a plan of what they will do in the next two years.  There are about 50  competitors.  The top 10 will be asked to submit a report on how their efforts succeeded.   Things to be considered include: innovation, potential for replication elsewhere in the country,  future performance (things that will have an impact down the road), reaching a diverse  population, educating the community, education in the schools, etc.  Commercial, industrial and transportation efforts are not included, only municipal, electric,  natural gas, residential and schools.  Mr. Epstein said suggested uses for the $5,000,000, should the city win, would include solar in  the schools, transportation, rec path systems, retrofits, a loan fund for energy projects, etc.  The application is due on 10 November.  It will be presented to the City Council for approval on  20 October.  Mr. Epstein added that the City Manager and School District are very excited about  this, and there is a team of leaders in each school.  The Energy Committee is also looking for a  business partner.  Mr. Epstein said the most relevant thing for the Planning Commission is planning for the future.   Mr. Conner noted there are already a number of things done including: form based codes, a  street code, creating more sustainable environments (not having to get into a car to run  errands), etc.  Mr. Epstein asked the Commission for a letter supporting the application with a statement that  the Commission will work to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that addresses energy.  Mr. Conner  and Ms. Louisos agreed to write such a letter.  Ms. Benton left the meeting at this point.    5    6. Review Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:  a. Initial review of request of Tim McKenzie to add a portion of a parcel presently  zoned Industrial‐Open Space District to the SEQ‐Neighborhood Residential District;  Hinesburg Road:  Mr. Conner noted there is a wetland/stream that cuts this piece off.  Mr. McKenzie added it is  also cut off by a 200 foot buffer.  There is a person who wants to build a single family home and  needs three acres.    Mr. Conner showed what the request would result in.  Mr. Riehle moved to proceed with this request as part of the current round of amendments to  the City Council.  Ms. Harrington seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.  b. Initial review of a request of Ralph Deslauriers to add a portion of a parcel  presently zoned R‐12 to form based codes T4 District; Quarry Hill Road:  Mr. Conner showed the area on the map.  He noted it could be developed as a residence or  commercial.  Both are allowed.  There is also discussion of a road connection potential that  would take traffic off Spear Street.  Mr. Riehle moved to add this to the current round of LDR amendments.  Ms. Harrington  seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.  c. Review of public input provided on the draft LDRs:  Mr. Conner said this is still being put together.  7. Other Business:  a. Review upcoming meeting schedule:  Mr. Conner noted the next Commission meeting will include the Garden Street Purpose and  Need Statement, the 3‐D video of what City Center might look like, and other items.  8. Minutes of 9 September 2014:  Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 9 September 2014 as written.  Mr. Gagnon  seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.  As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned  by common consent at 9:30 p.m.       _______________________________, Clerk