Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/12/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 May 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, C. Shaw, J. Weith, B. Shearer, S. Dopp, M. Janswold, D. Cummings 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 reports: Mr. Gagnon: Demolition is complete on Picard Circle. Demolition has begun on the south side of Dumont. The north side will be done next week. Contractors for the other 2 projects have been recommended to the Burlington City Council which will act at their next meeting. That work will begin in early June. Ms. Harrington: Attended the branding meetings. Ms. Louisos: Received feedback on how Planning Commission meetings are run. She noted the rules and guidelines on the back of the Agenda which indicate that Commissioners discuss an issue first then open discussion to the public. Members of the public should not “call out” comments but should raise their hands and be recognized before speaking. Attended the School Board meeting and had a good discussion regarding school properties (e.g., how properties are zoned). Mr. Conner: There is a draft resulting from the branding session on Twitter. The first community meeting related to the Chamberlin/Airport study will be at 6:30 on 27 May at Chamberlin School. This will include a free lasagna dinner. The committee feels they will need more meetings and have now agreed to meet monthly. 4. Initial Consideration of zoning change request for increased lot coverage in the C-1, C-1 Auto, and C-2 zoning districts: Mr. Weith and Mr. Shearer presented the change request. Mr. Weith said they would propose to change the total lot coverage in the C-1, C-1 Auto and C-2 zones from 70% to 90%. He said that considering where South Burlington and these districts are located within the district, the proposal has a lot of good attributes. It concentrates denser development in the core, encourages compact development surrounded by countryside, and discourages sprawl. The current zoning creates more of a “suburban pattern.” Mr. Weith noted that City Center zoning will allow 90% lot coverage, and downtown Burlington allows 100%. Mr. Shearer said that in 2012 he bought Lewis Motors and moved the Volkswagen part of the dealership off the property as there was already a lack of space. Car companies are producing more and more models, and dealers are being required to buy more of these vehicles, thus taking up more of the available storage and display areas. He noted that his property has a space ideal for storage and display, but they can’t use it because of the coverage limitation. He felt they could use that area and still have the property looking good. Mr. Shearer added that the change would be in keeping with the form based code and would encourage the redevelopment of older commercial properties. Mr. Gagnon said he wasn’t sure increasing coverage to provide more parking meets objectives such as reducing sprawl. Ms. Louisos suggested that some “grass pavers” might help before there is any long‐term action. Mr. Conner said that wouldn’t work because a parking area of any kind is considered “coverage” by the State. The pavers could be considered toward a credit for stormwater, however. Ms. Louisos said she is excited about expanding form based code to this area, but the Commission is now focusing on City Center, and she was leery about changing the zoning of one piece of property without considering the whole area. Mr. Shearer noted that it is not only car dealerships that are having this issue. Nursing homes, the Magic Hat and others are spilling out of their parking lots as well. Mr. Conner noted that in City Center the Commission has substantially increased lot coverage, but it has also asked for high quality open space. He also noted that C-1-, C-1 Auto and C-2 are very large zoning districts. He showed a map with these districts defined. Ms. Dopp said she found 90% quite alarming, but she was sympathetic to the specific case. She felt with pollution problems in Lake Champlain, creating more impervious surface was not wise. Mr. Shaw noted there is a stormwater treatment project directly behind this area which could more than offset the additional coverage. Mr. Shearer added there is a lot of land for stormwater mitigation. Mr. Weith said that any additional coverage would have to meet all of the other standards (landscaping, etc.). Mr. Gagnon suggested the Commission finish up the work it is engaged in before taking on anything new. He wanted to know how this proposal would fit into the form based code for the rest of the city. He also wanted to avoid an “unintended consequence” of a blanket 90% coverage. 5. Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee Quarterly Report and Discussion: Ms. Quest read the subcommittee report which included meetings with developers, getting people together to resurrect the Marceau Orchard (there is now a deal for cider), and “growing connections” which brings together people with land and those who want to grow something but don’t have the land. Ms. Quest said the subcommittee wants to remain a Planning Commission committee until and Comprehensive Plan and LDRs are completed since a number of changes being made were recommendations from Sus Ag. After that, they would be open to reconsidering where they are going. Ms. Louisos noted that the subcommittee was created in 2013 with the following specific charges: 1. To identify the most valuable and productive farmland to conserve 2. To review and revise the boundaries of the Natural Resource Protection District in the LDRs to include more priority farmland where feasible. A few months later, the City Council reviewed the matrix and recommended the 18 items be given to the Sus Ag Subcommittee. The Planning Commission agreed with this. Ms. Louisos noted that some of the 18 items are not directly related to Planning Commission work. Mr. Gagnon noted that the Commission’s original tasking is almost done. He wondered if the Commission can put together a list of some of the ongoing things and get them done. He felt a plan is needed to accomplish more. Ms. Louisos noted that the City Council had a concern that some of the things involved “implementation” instead of “informing” the Planning Commission. Ms. Quest said she wasn’t sure that there is a desire on other levels to take the goals seriously. Mr. Gagnon said if there are specific things the Commission wants in time for consideration for the Comprehensive Plan, these things should be done right away. If there are things the Commission doesn’t think are appropriate to work on, he had no problem with telling the City Council this. But he felt there had to be a specific plan for everything on the list. Ms. Louisos suggested that she and Ms. Quest go through the list and come back to the Commission with their thoughts. Ms. LaRose showed a matrix that had been created with possible dates for completion. She felt this would be a good place to start. She noted that one of the early tasks was to see whether Natural Resource Protection zones jibed with areas identified by the Sustainable Agriculture Interim Zoning Committee. Mr. Conner suggested that Commission approach it from the perspective of reviewing the work list and considering what is most important to the work of the Planning Commission, not necessarily what are the most important tasks overall; those could then be discussed with the Council. Members agreed. Ms. Louisos and Ms. Quest agreed to report back 2 meetings from tonight. 6. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the LDRs, including draft City Center Form Based Code, and draft City Center Official Map: a. Consideration of remaining outstanding items: · Primary and secondary streets: Mr. Conner showed a map, including a possible route for secondary streets. He stressed that this hasn’t been studied in significant detail but is just a concept. Mr. Riehle questioned whether the street accessing San Remo Drive from the residential neighborhood might be desired by the residents. Mr. Conner said the Commission had agreed to have this as a secondary street. Mr. Conner then showed a map with primary, secondary and planned streets. Ms. Louisos suggested asking the Williston Road consultants to look at a possible better connection to Williston Road through the hotel instead of via Mary Street. Members agreed this would be a straighter shot. Ms. Louisos said it would also make block lengths more even. She stressed she wasn’t lobbying to change it, just to look at it. Mr. Gagnon said he was comfortable with where it is. Mr. Shaw noted the potential for a “festival street” in that area. Ms. Louisos said it is important to have all the connections available for that. Ms. Louisos asked what would happen if a developer wanted another primary street. Mr. Conner said that can always be done. b. Possible exemptions to standards for door standards: Mr. Conner said he asked architects for feedback on this. The feedback was that there are circumstances when there should be buildings that don’t meet the standards. This shouldn’t be thought of as a waiver but as a different way to meet the standard (e.g., a “grand entrance” for a hotel). The architects suggested tools that could be codified such as “alternative compliance standards.” Members liked this idea, and Mr. Conner agreed to draft some language for it. c. Rooftop/sustainability incentives/requirements: The list of options would include: 1. Solar ready roof 2. LEED certification or any other energy-efficiency measure 3. Green roof 4. Rooftop open space Mr. Gagnon said he would add to the list the opportunity to contribute to a fund for sustainability throughout the city. Mr. Conner said one suggestion from the architects was replacing LEED certification with compliance with Vermont Stretch Energy Codes. He said he hasn’t researched this thoroughly as yet. Mr. Cummings noted that LEED addresses many things, but the intent of the Energy Committee was to focus on energy. He added that it is anticipated that the Vermont Base Energy Code for residences will be adopted in December (the commercial code was adopted in March, 2015), and either that or the Vermont Stretch Energy Code would work. He felt that LEED can scare people with all its requirements. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission’s intent was to provide different options. He felt the Vermont Stretch Energy Code could be added. If a developer wanted to choose LEED, there would nothing to stop that. Mr. Conner said that some of the options could be combined (e.g., half solar, half open space) if the roof space is large enough. There may also be a circumstance where it doesn’t make sense to use any of the options (e.g., a very small building surrounded by very tall buildings). Mr. Cummings said he would be concerned with “an easy out” which could result in having more solar arrays in green fields. Ms. Calcagni felt this needs more thought in terms of quantifying the options. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to put the options in front of the task force. Ms. Louisos said there should at least be a “place holder,” so it’s not a shock a year from now. d. Parking/Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Mr. Conner said there are a lot of ways to look at this. Form Based Code is moving in the direction of dropping minimum parking space requirements from 4 or 5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. to 2 spaces. There could be a maximum number of spaces or this number could be exceeded if certain other standards are met. They key, he said, is to look at transportation management as a whole. Mr. Conner noted that some retailers have high standards (5 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft.) and won’t build unless those standards are met. The Commission could create incentives to have less parking or could have penalties for exceeding the maximum. There could also be standards that involve a parking garage. Mr. Conner said that with residential development, the maximum is 2 parking spaces. There is no minimum. He noted that in some places, tenants pay extra for a parking space or can choose not to have one. He also noted that the street types anticipate on-street parking, which is not offered a lot throughout the city. Mr. Conner said that in the next few meetings, the Commission will see a TIF policy. He explained that a large parking lot returns nothing to the city; a parking garage saves a lot of space where a building can be put. Mr. Gagnon asked if steps have been taken to develop a TDM as recommended in the report. Mr. Conner said “baby steps” have been taken. b. Review of May 1, 2015 draft Ms. Louisos suggested a work session to look at everything in the draft and to tie up loose ends. Members agreed. Mr. Conner will poll members as to an acceptable day/time. 7. Consideration of possible street name: Preserve Road: Ms. Louisos noted the request is to change “Marsh Road” to Preserve Road. This is located in South Village near the wooded area. Members had no issues with the change. Ms. Harrington moved to approve Preserve Road. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: a. Draft Amendments to Shelburne Zoning Regulations: Mr. Conner said these are minor amendments to do with baseball fields. Staff had no issues with them. b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Ms. LaRose asked if members would prefer to see a red line version off the 2012 version or a clean one based on what was seen at the last meeting. Members opted for the latter. Mr. Conner suggested members work on the Comprehensive Plan at the next meeting and deal with LDRs at a special meeting and/or on 9 June. Ms. LaRose noted there have been requests to see the Comprehensive Plan. She asked how members would like to deal with this. Mr. Conner suggested posting it and indicating it is a draft for public comment. Mr. Gagnon suggested doing this after the next meeting when it should be 90% complete. 9. Minutes of 14 April, 28 April and 4 May Ms. Louisos noted that in the Minutes of 4 May, page 2, near the bottom, there should be an indication that “members then thought all the streets on that map should be primary streets.” In the Minutes of 14 April, page 4, large paragraph, the sentence should read: “lot frontage buildout drops to 50% from 70%.” Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 14 April 28 April and 4 May as written and/or amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: May 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting See below for discussion of items on this week’s agenda. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 4. Initial consideration of zoning change request to increase lot coverage in the C-1, C-1 Auto, and C-2 Zoning Districts, Joe Weith, White + Burke (7:15 pm) See enclosed request and memo. 5. Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee quarterly report & discussion (7:30 pm) Sophie Quest will provide an update on the work of the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee. Enclosed for your reference are a report from the SusAg subcommittee and a summary of their work tasks, followed by a collection of documents: the initial charge of the subcommittee & PC minutes of that approval; the chart of tasks presented to the City Council and the minutes of that meeting, and the minutes of the Commission minutes assigning the additional tasks. 6. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations, including draft City Center Form Based Code, and draft City Center Official Map (8:00 pm) a. Consideration of remaining outstanding items b. Review of May 1, 2015 draft See enclosed memo 7. Consideration of possible new street name: Preserve Road (8:55 pm) South Village Communities has requested a change in a road name. Staff has reviewed the proposed new road name and has no concerns. See the enclosed request. 2 8. Other Business (9:00 pm) a. Draft Amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaw Enclosed, for your review, are draft amendments to the Shelburne Zoning Bylaw. The Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a hearing on May 28th. As always, the Commission may elect to provide input. The amendments are summarized as follows: “Allow for installation of additional signs within certain municipal athletic facilities, namely those located behind the Shelburne Municipal Complex and at the Turtle Lane Baseball fields site.” b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule The next regularly scheduled meeting is May 26th. The Comprehensive Plan is slated to be a principal subject for discussion. The Commission is recommended to evaluate progress on the Land Development Regulations from this meeting and determine how it wishes to proceed towards completion. 9. Minutes 10. Adjourn M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission; Paul Connor, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Joe Weith, Senior Project Manager Date: March 25, 2015 Re: South Burlington Land Development Regulations – Proposed Amendments On behalf of Bill Shearer, owner of several commercial properties in South Burlington, we respectfully request the Planning Commission consider changes to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations to allow for higher total lot coverages in the C1, C1-Auto and C2 Districts. We recommend that maximum total lot coverage in these districts be increased to 90% (currently 70%). Higher total lot coverages will promote more efficient use of land in these areas of the City where growth is encouraged, help foster redevelopment, further the Districts’ stated purpose of encouraging commercial uses “in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area”, and help discourage the spread of suburban sprawl into the more rural areas of the county. Rational Suburban density pattern versus urban compact density pattern: The current maximum of 70% total lot coverage represents a traditional suburban density pattern as opposed to a denser and more urban, compact central business district pattern of development. The current standard goes against the stated purpose of the C1 and C1-Auto Districts which is to encourage the location of commercial uses, including automobile sales and service, in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. By comparison, higher lot coverages are allowed in other areas of the City and region where compact, commercial centers are strongly promoted. In the City’s Central District, for example, maximum lot coverage is 90%. Maximum lot coverage in downtown Burlington is 100%. Even in Burlington’s Pine Street corridor, which is zoned “Enterprise – Light Manufacturing”, maximum lot coverage is 80%. Encourage redevelopment of older commercial properties: Many of the properties in the C1, C1-Auto and C2 Districts were initially developed 30 – 50 years ago when South Page 2 of 3 Burlington was growing rapidly as a suburban community. Some of these properties have buildings and parking lots that are outdated, and should be redeveloped and used in a more efficient manner. By allowing a higher density of development, there will be more economic incentive for landowners and developers to redevelop this area of the City. Provide opportunity for currently constrained businesses to expand and prosper: Higher lot coverage would provide an opportunity for businesses that are currently maxed in terms of total lot coverage to expand their operations, thereby contributing more to the local economy. The auto sales and service industry is a good example. Trends in this industry over the last 5 – 7 years have pressured dealers to provide more inventory on site (due to dealership consolidation) and more area devoted to customer service (e.g., manufacturer requirements to provide larger fleet of customer loaner cars). The result is a need to expand covered area in order to meet the demands of the industry, and several properties are already maxed out at 70%. This issue is particularly relevant in the C1- Auto district where the stated purpose is “to recognize the existence of several automobile sales and services facilities in this area of the City and allow for their continued operation and improvement….” Allowing higher lot coverages will help promote their continued operation and improvement. Promote business efficiency and less traffic on Shelburne Road: As stated above, some of the auto dealerships currently existing in the C1, C1-Auto and C2 Districts are maxed at 70% total lot coverage. With no ability to expand area for vehicle display and storage, these dealerships are forced to store inventory off-site. Driving vehicles back and forth between the dealerships and off-site storage facilities creates negative impacts for both the businesses and the community. For the dealerships, off-site storage increases operational costs in the form of increased labor to drive vehicles back and forth, and higher costs to lease and maintain an off-site facility. For the community, multiple daily trips between the dealership and off-site storage facility adds traffic to Shelburne Road. By raising allowable lot coverage, auto dealerships can expand the area upon which to store and display vehicles, thereby reducing the need for off-site storage. The result is lower operating costs for the businesses and less traffic on Shelburne Road. Aesthetics and natural resources will still be protected: Even at higher lot coverage densities, aesthetics and natural resources will still be protected through other provisions in the land development regulations. For example, the front yard coverage maximum of 30% will still apply, thereby protecting the aesthetics of the Shelburne Road corridor by requiring a green buffer along this heavily traveled arterial. Similarly, the City’s stormwater overlay district will continue to require all development to comply with rigorous stormwater management standards. Finally, all other existing provisions designed to enhance aesthetics, encourage landscaping, screen parking and protect natural features will remain in effect. Page 3 of 3 Conclusion Allowing a maximum 90% total lot coverage in the C1, C1-Auto and C2 Districts will provide an incentive for property and business owners to redevelop their properties in a more efficient manner that is more compact and representative of a central business district. Encouraging well planned development that is denser and more compact in these areas of South Burlington will also help discourage the spread of lower density sprawl to other, more rural areas of Chittenden County. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Request for Zoning Change – Lot Coverage along Shelburne Road DATE: May 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting The city received a request from Joe Weith of White + Burke on behalf of Bill Shearer to consider increasing the maximum lot coverage in the Commercial 1, Commercial 1-Auto, and Commercial 2 Zoning Districts from 70% to 90%. See the attached request. Pursuant to the Policy on Public Requests for Amendments, staff performed an initial examination of the request. A brief analysis: As noted, presently the lot coverage maximum is 70% in these districts. These districts include virtually all of the land along Shelburne Road, as well as the eastern portion of Farrell Street, Fayette Drive, and sections of Williston Road (including the area proposed to be moved to T4 in the FBC). The principal features that guide the scale and scope of development in these areas are use, lot coverage, building coverage, residential density, front yard lot coverage, height, and parking. The first four in that list are not waivable by the DRB, but the others are. Recommendation: Staff, in consultation with the chair, does see some merit in the request, but recommends that the issue be looked at in the context of the regulations for that district as a whole. In the FBC district, for example, lot coverage is increased, but standards for Open Space are proposed to be in place and buildings have clear standards around windows & door placement. Staff further recommends that the Commission, once it has completed the bulk of its work on the current round of Amendments and the Comprehensive Plan (anticipated this summer), review its full project list, including this request, and develop a timeline for review. The Commission, finally, may wish to look at this question in pieces. The request presently relates to three (3) different zoning districts with different stated purposes, overall size, conditions, and lot sizes. Considering the question in pieces may help to expedite review. 2 Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Report 5-12-15 Accomplishments since last report: 1. Many meetings with developers encouraging them to imagine their current and future development to be inclusive of food production. Larry Michaels, Jeff Nick, Joe Larkin, South Village, UVM Medical Center. Looking at PUD Agricultural nodes. 2. Letter to landowners and responses-looking at possible agricultural uses for their land. 3. Resurrection of Marceau Orchard off 116 by Larkin Family. 4. Planning for experiments growing food underneath solar fields. 5. Presentations: Pollinator Gardens; No Mow Lawns. 6. Growing Connections – a program introducing people who have extra yard space and people who are looking for yard space for a garden. 7. Being part of a nation wide food revolution. 8. Work with Underwood Task Force and Common Roots to create both a student farm and community gardens in the prime soil there. Part of the Master List of Tasks from the Staff Matrix of 11-1-2013 that are ongoing: SA-13-02 Create/maintain a Task Force to conserve land and maintain in profitable farming. SA-13-03 Form relationships with landowners. SA-13-11 Regulation Changes: Definitions and Uses. SA-13-14 Regulation Changes SA-13-19 Edible Landscaping. Lecture and garden tours. SA-13-23 Expand Backyard Chicken Ordinance to cover small livestock. SA-13-32 Continue Task Force to prioritize and further Action Plan. It was very difficult to pick out a few of these tasks from the whole. Most of them are related to the above list and ongoing. I'll also send here the entire list – because all are so related and are part of our work. Master List of Tasks for Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee of Planning Commission From Staff Matrix of 11-1-2013, Work Update of 11/18/14 SA-13-01 Identify most valuable and productive farmlands to conserve Ongoing SA-13-02 Create/maintain a Task Force to conserve and maintain in profitable farming Ongoing SA-13-03 Form relationships with landowners Ongoing SA-13-04 Form relationships w/VT Land Trust, VT Housing & Conservation Board, VT Land Link SA-13-05 Identify potential investors Ongoing SA-13-06 Work with the Vermont Beginning Farmer program Ongoing SA-13-07 Work with key food system actors-farm to school, the farmer's market, restaurants, Healthy Living, others to provide new farmer access to markets Ongoing SA-13-08 Review and revise the boundaries of the Natural Resource Protection District in the LDRs to include more priority farmland where feasible. Done SA-13-10 Adopt a wastewater allocation ordinance. Ongoing SA-13-11 Regulation Changes: Definitions and Uses. Establish a Farmland Leasing Program. Ongoing connection to UVM Extension SA-13-12 Use city land for food production Ongoing (Underwood?) SA-13-13 Use other lands in city for food production Ongoing SA-13-14 Regulation Changes Ongoing SA-13-15 Inventory and designate public land suitable for Community Gardens. Ongoing SA-13-16 Offer incentives for developments that include community gardens and/or allow residents to have home gardens on common land. Part of future Comprehensive Plan SA-13-17 Provide no cost water to community gardens Ongoing SA-13-18 Establish composting areas in association with community gardens Ongoing SA-13-19 Edible Landscaping. Lecture and garden tour (so far, ongoing) SA-13-20 Work with the Vermont Community Garden Network on community gardening opportunities Ongoing SA-13-21 Regulation changes: Definitions and Uses. Ongoing SA-13-22 Encourage gardening and local food consumption Ongoing SA-13-23 Expand Backyard Chicken Ordinance to cover other small livestock Part of future Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. SA-13-24 Strengthen language in LDRs to protect topsoil during construction so that yards are more suitable for gardening. SA-13-25 Maintain and expand the Farm to School program and Farmers' Market Ongoing SA-13-26 Continue to work with Healthy Living and other food vending establishments to ensure local healthy food for all people Ongoing SA-13-27 Work with UVM Master Gardeners to increase knowledge and experience in home gardening. Ongoing SA-13-30 Work with Farmers' Market and local farmers to identify a location and space for indoor and outdoor activities. Ongoing SA-13-32 Continue Task Force to prioritize and further Action Plan. Ongoing Note-11/18/14: Sus/Ag Subcommittee has met monthly since its inception. Fall/Spring -2014, we have 3 UVM interns. Their projects: 1. reaching out to landlords and giving gardening/leasing information; 2. Developing an agricultural work/learning program for Big Picture students, together with Common Roots. DRAFT 9/10/2013 Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee Subcommittee Charge: The Planning Commission is forming a sustainable agriculture subcommittee to assist in the review and development of some of the recommendations issued by the Sustainable Agriculture/ Food Security Task Force in their April 11, 2013 final report titled “South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture / Food Security Action Plan Final Report.” 1.Identify the most valuable and productive farmlands to conserve. 2.Review and revise the boundaries of the Natural Resource Protection District in the LDRs to include more priority farmland where feasible. The subcommittee may also be asked to weigh in on other related items. The working group should meet at an agreed upon schedule such that they will report back to the Planning Commission by September 24, 2013. Subcommittee Members: Jessica Hyman: Director of state Community Garden organization Carol McQuillan: Director of Common Roots Addison Raap: Businessman, works for South Village Will Raap: Founder of Intervale, associated with SoVillage Greg Soll: farmer for Common Roots Kindle Loomis: Director of SB Farmers' Market Allan Strong: Asst. Dean, Rubenstein School, UVM Sarah Dopp: Head of SB Land Trust Rosanne Greco: City Councilor Louise Murphy: SB Librarian Sophie Quest: PC member/member of previous Sus/Ag Task Force/student at UVM College of Agri- culture SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 SEPTEMBER 2013 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 September 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, S. Quest, T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon (via phone) Also Present: C. LaRose, City Planner; E. Goldberg 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. Announcements & Staff Report: Ms. Harrington: Advised that the two amendments to the LDRs had passed at the City Council last week. Ms. LaRose: There will be an update from the Affordable Housing Subcommittee at the next meeting. Mr. Riehle: Raised the issue of going beyond a certain building height because of firefighting concerns/limits. He said that if going higher in certain areas is important, it would make sense to chat with the Fire Chief to see what can be done to service higher buildings. 4. Ratify Action to Establish Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee: a. Review & Consider Approval of Scope of Work b. Review proposed subcommittee membership, including additional member consideration The addition of Betty Goldberg and Vince Bolduc to the Subcommittee was noted. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the charge of the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee with the caveat that after the 24th of September there will be follow-up regarding items 1 & 2 and committee members, including Betty Goldberg and Vince Bolduc. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider Approval of Potential Municipal Planning Grant Application Concept: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 SEPTEMBER 2013 2 Ms. Louisos explained the municipal planning grant program in which a community can get up to $20,000 for a specific planning project. She noted that Mr. Conner recommended asking for $20,000 to look at the area around the Airport. Ms. Quest said she disagreed with this because she felt that hotels in that area are a “done deal.” She felt the money should go to Paul Dreher for more time on form based codes. Ms. Louisos said Mr. Conner felt there is no way the city could get more money for a current planning activity. Ms. Harrington said that regardless of what happens, there has to be discussion about planning around the Airport. Mr. Gagnon felt that the Airport’s Master Plan should be considered in this project. Ms. LaRose noted the Airport also owns significant land on Williston Road which should also be considered. Ms. Harrington moved to support submittal of the grant application as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Ms. Quest abstaining. 6. Discuss Possible Working Group to Research Options Related to Use of Transfer of Development Rights within the City’s LDRs: Ms. Louisos noted that the proposed T-4 and T-5 have no density limits as of now. She questioned what density limits there would be if the city wanted to give density bonuses for Affordable Housing and use of TDRs. Ms. LaRose noted that several interested people held an unofficial meeting today on the TDR issue. These included Bill Gilbert, Larry Michaels, Mike Simoneau and Eric Farrell. They have reached out to Paul Dreher, but the concern is to get Mr. Dreher to finish what he is contracted to do. Ms. LaRose also noted that staff could serve as a go-between with the legal team. Mr. Riehle wanted to assure that whatever is decided is “two-sided” and questioned getting TDR credits for “a swamp.” Ms. Calcagni said it seems odd to talk of imposing density limits so you can transfer in density. Ms. Louisos expressed concern with a “closet committee.” She felt this is a very important issue for the city and deserves more than a “back door discussion.” Ms. LaRose said that if the Planning Commission establishes the group, it will be a Planning Commission subcommittee and recommended it include Planning Commission members. Ms. Harrington expressed interest in being on that committee. Other suggestions for membership include Will Rapp, Rosanne Greco, one of the Auclair sisters or another landowner. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 SEPTEMBER 2013 3 Ms. Harrington moved to form a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to study the implications of expanding the TDR program city-wide and to make a recommendation back to the Planning Commission. The Committee will include Will Rapp, Eric Farrell, Bill Gilbert, Rosanne Greco, Larry Michaels, Ms. Harrington and up to three landowners who have TDRs they can’t use or who have used TDRs. The subcommittee shall meet in the evenings. Mr. Riehle seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Follow-up of Joint Planning Commission-Form Based Codes Committee Meeting & Consider Formal Recommendation to City Council regarding Format/ Schedule of City-Wide LDRs: Ms. Louisos noted that the Form Based Codes Committee feels the form based codes model is the best way to deal with the rest of the city. Ms. Harrington said it seemed Paul Dreher had an answer to all concerns. Mr. Riehle said there seemed to be some agreement, but he felt there could be other members added to the Form Based Codes Committee from other parts of the city (e.g., Queen City Park). He felt a more diverse group would be a benefit. Ms. LaRose noted that the next Form Based Codes Committee meeting has an agenda item regarding density, formal recommendations on density and other caps in certain zones and a new PUD concept. Ms. Harrington asked if there is validity to the statement that form based codes work doesn’t have to be completed by 23 February. Ms. LaRose said it depends on what you are looking to accomplish. There has to be a set of regulations warned by that day or new developments will go by the existing regulations. Directions to the Committee were to get something done by the February deadline, and that “something” is the City Center. That is also on the Committee’s agenda, specifically the boundaries of the City Center. Mr. Gagnon asked if there are any known issues with the LDRs. Ms. LaRose said there are some, a few of which are quick fixes (e.g., setbacks from roads when the city wants buildings up to the road; small subdivisions; coverage limitations which don’t define what the open area should be comprised of). Staff could work on putting together some of the “quick fixes” on these items. Mr. Gagnon suggested working on form based codes for City Center, fixing/tweaking the LDRs for immediate concerns, and then doing form based codes for other areas of the city at a later time. Ms. Louisos questioned the wisdom of letting the consultant go and losing that valuable resource. Mr. Gagnon said he didn’t want to do something in a hurry that would have “unintended SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 SEPTEMBER 2013 4 consequences.” Ms. LaRose said one problem is that no one is ready to build anything in the City Center, so there is no way to judge how form based codes will work. It will be at least 3 years before Market Street is paved. Ms. Louisos suggested getting City Center done, doing new PUDs for the whole city, revamping the sub-committee, and recommending extending interim zoning to the areas where the new code doesn’t apply. Ms. Quest said she didn’t think the Open Space Committee understands the time frame and that things can’t be put of for months. Ms. LaRose said she felt they can get everything done by October. Ms. Harrington felt it will be easier to write a codes for an existing neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon said 23 different codes still take time. Ms. Louisos said Paul Dreher felt a code can easily be adapted from one neighborhood to another. Ms. Louisos felt a formal recommendation to the City Council may be premature if the Commission doesn’t know about City Center. A discussion of City Center boundaries needs to be part of any recommendation to the Council. 8. Review and Provide Input to Draft FY2015-2024 Capital Improvement Program: Members agreed to postpone this item until Mr. Conner returns. 9. Other Business: A. Verizon Wireless Joy Drive PSB Request Members agreed to delay this item until the next meeting as no information was available. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ______________________________- Clerk F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Staff Review Committee\A.Staff Review Committee Matrix.xlsx Staff Review Committee template 11/1/2013 Status Key: S1 - At Staff Review Committe, A - Just arrived at MainCommittee Assigned, P - In process, F - Final review stage, S2- Back at SRC, C - At City Council. Main Committee Recommendation - move forward, table, reject. Tracking # Date Reviewed by SRC Source Project Report Recommendation Page # in report Main Comm. Assigned Timeline to report back to SRC intial review Add. Committees to Provide Comments Timeline for each Cmte Does it go somewhere else before final CC review for decision? Comp Plan/LDR/Strate gy/Other Critical to FBC LDR or Plug in Later Timeline to complete the work Satus Main Comm. Recommendation Staff Review Committee Notes Housing: AH-13-01 5/22/2013 AH Committee Definition of Affordable Housing p. 8 PC complete EC 6/27 8/21/2013 FBC LDR Critical to FBC LDR Early September IP SRC created AH-13-02 5/22/2013 AH Committee Inclusionary Zoning p. 87 PC complete 8/21/2013 FBC LDR Critical to FBC LDR Early September IP PC established subcommittee on 7/9, with deadline of 9/3; deadline extension likely AH-13-03 5/22/2013 AH Committee changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit language p. 80 PC complete 8/21/2013 FBC LDR Critical to FBC LDR Aug. 2013 IP PC reviewed on 6/25. Agreed to address in summer of 2013. For PC review on 9/5. AH-13-04 5/22/2013 AH Committee Housing Replacement Ordinance p. 95 PC complete 8/21/2013 LDR plug in Following IZ completion IP PC notes: consider having PC subcommittee work on this. Include in Comprehensive Plan as policy. Confirm with City Council. AH-13-05 5/22/2013 AH Committee changes to Density Bonus language and incentives p. 84 PC complete 8/21/2013 FBC comp plan critical to FBC LDR Early September IP PC established subcommittee on 7/9, with deadline of 9/3. AH-13-06 5/22/2013 AH Committee Comp Plan language changes p. 65 PC complete 8/21/2013 comp Plan Other End of September IP PC reviewed on 6/25 and 8/13 and voted to include most in draft comp plan. AH-13-07 5/22/2013 AH Committee Housing Trust Fund p. 97 CC strategy Other 1 year +S1 PC note: may be relevant for Inclusionary zoning discussion AH-13-08 5/22/2013 AH Committee Housing programs (Housing Committee?)p. 100 CC EC Strategy Other 1 year +S1 AH-13-09 5/22/2013 AH Committee Equal treatment of Housing language p. 73 PC 6/25/2013 8/21/2013 FBC LDR Critical to FBC LDR Aug. 2013 IP PC reviewed on 6/25. Agreed to address in summer of 2013. AH-13-10 5/22/2013 AH Committee Building Types p.77 FBC 6/25/2013 PC, EC 8/21/2013 FBC LDR Critical to FBC LDR Aug. 2013 S1 SusAg/Food Security: 5/22/2013 SusAg: Conserve Farmland Category S1 SA-13-01 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Identify most valuable and productive farmlands to conserve p. 21-25, p. 41-44, p. 54 PC 7/9/2013 OS TBD no strategy no TBD IP Commission discussed on 7/9. Would like more information about size before determining next steps SA-13-02 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Create/maintain a Task Force to conserve and maintain in profitable farming p. 54 CC S1 TBD after SA-13-01 SA-13-03 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Form relationships with landowners p. 55 CC S1 TBD after SA-13-01 SA-13-04 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Form relationships w/VT Land Trust, VT Housing & Conservation Board, VT Land Link p. 55 CC S1 TBD after SA-13-01 SA-13-05 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Identify potential investors p. 55 CC S1 TBD after SA-13-01 SA-13-06 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Work with the Vermont Beginning Farmer program p. 55 CC S1 Recommend outside group SA-13-07 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Work with key food system actors - farm to school, the farmers' market, restaurants, Healthy Living, other to provide new farmer access to markets p. 55 CC S1 Recommend outside group SA-13-08 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Review and revise the boundaries of the Natural Resource Protection District in the LDRs to include more priority farmland where feasible p.70 PC 7/9/2013 NRC/RCA TBD FBC Technical Review LDR/Comp Plan Critical to FBC LDR IP Commission discussed on 7/9 and 8/13. Formed subcommittee to address. SA-13-09 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Review and expand the Transfer of Development Rights provisions in the LDRs p. 70 PC 7/9/2013 NRC TBD FBC Technical Review LDR Critical to FBC LDR IP Commission discussed on 7/9 and 8/13. Formed subcommittee to address. SA-13-10 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Adopt a wastewater allocation ordinance p. 71-74 DPW Project Team 7/17/13 (Justin)PC/NRC other Sept. 2013 S1 Staff Task Force SA-13-11 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Regulation changes: Definitions and Uses p. 65-69 PC 7/9/2013 TBD LDR S1 PC to determine which changes critical to FBC or plug in 5/22/2013 SusAg: Establish a Farmland Leasing Program Category S1 SA-13-12 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Use city land for food production p. 55 CC NRC, Red Rocks, RLA S1 Staff recommends interim procedure be developed. As management plans are developed for City owned land, be considered as part of plan. SA-13-13 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Use other lands in city for food production p. 55 CC S1 Recommend outside group SA-13-14 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Regulation changes:CC S1 See SA-13-11 5/22/2013 SusAg: Expand City-Run Community Gardens Program Category S1 SA-13-15 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Inventory and designate public land suitable for community gardens p. 55 RLA Oct-13 NRC strategy Feb. 2014 S1 SA-13-16 5/22/2013 SusAg/Food Sec Task Force Offer incentives for developments that include community gardens and /or allow residents to have home gardens on common land p. 55 CC PC plug in S1 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 November 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; M. Simoneau and members of the Form Based Codes Committee; L. Williams and members of the Open Space Committee; P. Nowak, R. Greco B. Goldberg, S. Dopp 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Quest: At the last City Council meeting, members decided the farmer would not rent the Underwood property again. City committees will decide what to do with the property Mr. Gagnon: The City Center Task Force has met and discussed potential financing for a Library and other municipal buildings. Ms. Harrington: Attended the TDR sub-committee meeting along with Mr. Riehle and Mr. Conner. There was discussion regarding expanding the TDR program city-wide. Mr. Conner: The city has hired Jim Barlow as in-house City Attorney to complement Stitzel & Page. Mr. Barlow previously worked with VLCT for 9 years. 4. Presentation & Initial Discussion: City Center Form Based Codes Approved by Form Based Codes Committee: Mr. Simoneau showed the area identified as “City Center.” He then introduced committees who were present and noted a lot of diversity in the group. Mr. Simoneau noted that Form Based Codes focuses more on form rather than use. The Committee determined what uses they wanted to see in City Center and then considered how 2 to “marry” those uses with streets, streetscapes, etc. They also considered what uses they wanted to happen in various parts of the city center. Mr. Simoneau showed the area of the most intense development, near Market Street. He also indicated a “festival street” which would include infrastructure to accommodate events and pedestrian gatherings. The Market Street environment would embrace autos, pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Simoneau noted the committee spent time articulating buildings: how much glass, how many doors, how high ceilings would be, etc. The different areas of City Center include a T-5 area, with the highest use and most activity, a T-4 area which would be more office use with possible residential use, and a T-3 area which is mostly residential and light commercial use. It is the Committee’s hope that this code enhances sustainable development in the City Center. If a developer comes in with an application that addresses all particulars, this would create an “entitlement” so the applicant would not have to go through the DRB process. Mr. Simoneau noted that developers are partners with the community in this effort. With regard to non-conformities, Mr. Simoneau noted that once you change the code, you make much of the community non-conforming. The question is how to create some comfort with this. Mr. Simoneau said the committee feels that what they are proposing encourages changes to occur. The Committee also discussed various transportation options they wanted to see. They spent time with Recreation/Leisure Arts, Energy, Open Space and Affordable Housing Committees. Mr. Simoneau said the committee’s recommendations are consensus recommendations, if not unanimous. Mr. Gagnon emphasized that the city and developers are partners in this effort and cited the TIF financing district as evidence of this. If City Center is not built out, the city won’t get the needed tax revenues. With regard to structured parking, the code says it must be a minimum of 25 feet back from the road. The existing structure doesn’t meet that requirement, and there is a question as to whether they could add levels to it. Mr. Simoneau said the committee hadn’t thought much about that. 3 Mr. Gagnon said that regarding the T-3 areas, with respect to secondary structures, the code shows garages behind the primary structure. In driving through the T-3 area, or if this is extended to other areas of the city, Mr. Gagnon questioned why, with small lots, this is a requirement as it eats up very limited property. He saw no problem with a garage next to a house, close to the road. Mr. Simoneau said the T-3 area in City Center is pretty modest. The committee is committed to streetscapes that are pedestrian friendly, and garages in front create a lot of curb cuts. With garages in the rear, you can have one common curb cut. The intent is not to be heavy handed with non-conformity, so change is invited. It was noted that T-3 areas would be different outside of City Center. Ms. Louisos said if there were an alley behind houses, this would mean garages couldn’t face the alleys. Ms. Harrington added that by doing that, you increase the amount of impervious surface by taking more pavement to get to the garage. Mr. Conner noted that compared to current regulations, houses are moved right up to the front, so there is not a lot of green space in front. Mr. Gagnon said the Open Space Committee had a vision of a park closer to Market St. He suggested the possibility of a park adjacent to a new City Hall. He suggested that rather than show a specific location for green space, they indicate that “somewhere” within a given box, there will be green space. Ms. Harrington asked who makes determinations when there is wording that says “but are not limited to.” Ms. Harrington also asked what defined a “church.” Mr. Conner said there is case law on that issue. It falls under “places of worship” and that language would probably be used instead of the word “church.” Ms. Harrington said if there is an administrator giving an OK rather than a Board, she wanted it to be airtight, with clear, concise language. She also asked that language be gender neutral and more “plain.” Ms. Calcagni noted places where “encourage” is used. She asked how people would be encouraged. Ms. Louisos asked about the conversation to come up with exemptions allowing one story, for example. Mr. Simoneau said it’s an accommodation. The questioned what it would take to get the ball rolling in City Center. What would happen if a “big box” shows up. How could this be integrated with smaller stores. 4 They had input from developers and felt they wanted to make some accommodations if the “home run anchor” shows up. Committee members said they wanted to accommodate an anchor that might want to come in. There are restrictions, such as only one of these per block. Ms. Harrington said that at the workshops, people were told that when you make exemptions, you weaken the code. She had an issue with putting an exemption into the code because it goes against the purpose of the code. A committee member said he understood that point. He envisioned a pharmacy on a corner. It would not be 2 stories but can have the appearance of being 2 stories. Ms. Harrington asked how you keep people interested in moving down Market St. Is there is a 60-foot span of building. A committee member said the glazing standard would remain in effect. You can also put the anchor at the end of the street, so people are moving toward it. Another member said that with doors every 30 feet, it would limit what you could have, namely stores of 3-4,000 sq. ft. Mr. Simoneau said they are committed to an ambiance and a sense of place. He felt this won’t get started with a 3,000 sq. ft. store. You have to make an accommodation or 2 to get what you eventually want. He said it won’t happen without an anchor. There has to be a magnet for traffic and enthusiasm. Ms. Louisos asked if there are any 3-D models. Mr. Simoneau said they thought of that, but they are expensive. It was noted that the single limiting factor in City Center is parking, and they need some building mass to figure that out. Mr. Simoneau felt a 3-D model would be a great tool. Ms. Louisos noted all of this has to be incorporated into the rest of the code. She asked if the committee spent time on this or whether it is left to the Planning Commission. Mr. Simoneau said that with more time, they would have attempted more of that. Mr. Riehle questioned how open space will be incorporated, if there is a conflict. Ms. Greco asked about outreach. Mr. Conner explained how this will be advertized on the website, to property owners in the area and one or 2 streets away, smaller posters, large posters in places like City Hall, Library, Umall, etc. He also explained the format for workshops. Mr. LaLonde noted the presence of Central School in this area. He said the School District is in full support of what the Committee has done. The School Board is concerned, however, with prohibiting certain uses in the area that they feel could potentially be harmful to children. They 5 have met with Mr. Conner and the City Manager regarding a “safety zone overlay” to prohibit uses the School Board feels are inappropriate near schools. 5. Presentation and initial discussion: Open Space Committee Recommendations for City Center Area: Ms. Williams explained the make-up of the committee. The Committee believes “City Center” to be an urban center, so the focus is on public spaces. They suggest a public green of at least 2 acres fronting on Market St. They realize this is not compatible with what the Form Based Codes Committee is recommending. The 5 major recommendations of the Open Space Committee are: a) urban open space should be integrated into the underlying fabric of City Center via a variety of green spaces, paths, etc. b) the community vision of integrated civic and green urban open space should be maintained with a centrally located, publicly owned green square on Market Street. Dumont Park should be left undeveloped. Stormwater should be managed. There should be playgrounds, smaller parks. Mature trees should be conserved. c) The Comprehensive Plan should be updated to more specifically address urban space, interconnected open space, access for all, plan for downtown civic buildings, and the ability for public/private partnerships to happen d) separate open space types should be defined for City Center by transept zones e) City Center open space areas should be clearly identified Open space areas can include: resource conservation areas, working lands, parks and recreation areas and civic spaces. Ms. Williams showed a chart of types of open space in T-4 and T-5 areas. These are needed to modify the environment, act as stormwater retention areas and wildlife habitat. Parks and recreation paths provide for recreation, increase property values, allow for community gardens and allow people to mingle. Civic gathering spaces can host large events and draw people “downtown.” Ms. Williams cited resources in the City center including waterways, forest (e.g., Dumont Park), prime ag soil, Central School’s open field, etc. She also showed the TIF application with concept plans for interconnected green spaces. She said the Open Space Committee supports this vision. 6 Ms. Williams said that the Committee is concerned that there is no planned green on Market Street. The smaller park/civic area is off Market Street behind a block of T-5 buildings. Pedestrian paths are also not shown and the plan doesn’t specifically address all the potential forms of open space. There is no open space standard for T-3 and T-4. The 5% open space requirement for T-5 actually reduces what is now required. The Open Space Committee’s vision includes a central green (with public buildings, a farm market, festival walk, etc.), a “greenway” the length of of Tributary 3, a boardwalk/physical exercise installation, transitions/gradients, no great distance between open spaces, the ability for seniors and children to move easily, lots of places to sit and socialize, a “sense of life,” and the incorporation of community gardens. Mr. Gagnon said he agrees with green space near any civic facility. He wasn’t sure that where it’s shown now will end up being the “center.” He questioned whether there is a need to wait to see where the civic buildings will be. Mr. Conner said as there is likely to be some level of public responsibility, they can’t be sure that it’s in the best interest of the community to identify what the committee is interested in. Mr.. Conner stressed that this is private land. As the city talks with the owners of the land, they should not be tied to one spot. Ms. Dopp noted that a precise grid of streets is also not yet determined. It was noted that the original design failed because it was not flexible. South Burlington Realty has 18 acres to develop. Getting 4 of those acres for a park is a challenge. Ms. Quest said she thought the public buildings were “a given.” Ms. Nowak said they still have to be fiscally responsible. The land will be quite expensive, and the TIF opportunity is limited as to what it can be used for. She asked people to keep in mind that the taxpayers will have to come up with the money for many of the things being recommended. Ms. Greco said she is very optimistic, and she felt the community is creative enough to accomplish the vision without “breaking the bank.” Mr. Simoneau noted the Police Department went to Gregory Drive because Dorset Street was too expensive.. Mr. Simoneau also observed that there are a number of visions being presented, and there is a need to “get something together.” Mr. Conner asked where affordable housing comes into City Center. Ms. LaRose said there were two tiers: 7 1. City-wide 2. Waiting to see if there are density maximums in City Center because many of the tools the Affordable Housing Committee was thinking of would not apply without density maximums. (Ms. LaRose noted there are now no density maximums recommended in City Center.) Ms. Calcagni said that inclusionary zoning would then by the committee’s recommendation. Ms. LaRose noted the committee didn’t want density maximums just for the sake of offering density bonuses. 6. Report on and affirm, if needed, City Council request for Sustainable Agriculture Sub-Committee to undertake additional tasks: Ms. Louisos noted that at the Council meeting last Monday, there was discussion of the Underwood property and of the staff matrix and the recommendations sent to the Council. Members thought there was more work that could be done at the sub-committee level. Ms. Quest said there are on-going tasks, and the sub-committee is happy to take them on. Mr. Conner said he didn’t think any time-line had been assigned, and the Planning Commission might ask for a proposed schedule from the sub-committee. Mr. Gagnon recommended periodic updates. Ms. Quest suggested the end of February/beginning of March. Ms. Harrington moved to assign the Sustainable Agriculture Sub-Committee of the Planning Commission the items discussed at the City Council at its last meeting, and to expect a progress report every three months, the first one being in the March time frame. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 8 October 2013: Members agreed to take up the minutes at the next meeting. 8. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted an upcoming workshop regarding protection of data. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ________________________________ 8 Clerk