Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/09/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 FEBRUARY 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 February 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; S. Dopp, D. Leban 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: Ms. Dopp asked about the upcoming ballot item regarding use of Open Space Fund money for open space maintenance/upkeep. Ms. Louisos stated that the Planning Commission had not been involved in this ballot item and suggested she contact the City Council directly with any questions. Ms. Leban asked if the Commission has addressed east-west roads in the Southeast Quadrant and how they cross wildlife corridors. Ms. Louisos said this was discussed when doing the Comprehensive Plan, but in the “big context.” Ms. Harrington said the Comprehensive Plan does include language to redo studies before roads are built to consider impact on natural resources. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: She, Ms. Quest and Mr. Klugo attended the City Council meeting and heard the UMall presentation by Todd Finard. The big news is that the Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan with no additional changes. There was also a work session on the LDRs. There may be things that Council would like the Commission to look at in the future. Mr. Conner: Listed questions raised by Councilors with the LDRs related to open space criteria (specifically emphasis on trees), drive-thrus in the City Center, solar ready roofs, materials for use in City Center, and tree planting standards. Discussion at the Council will continue on 17 February. The same situation as with the Comprehensive Plan will occur with any changes the Council makes to the LDRs. The Commission will have to determine the changes are in keeping with state statute. Ms. LaRose noted the ballot item for a bond for projects related to open space. Money would be replaced by not more than 50% each year of the open space fund. There is a project list which includes the Underwood property, Wheeler Nature Park and Red Rocks Park. Some projects may be funded ahead of available funding which is why there is a bond item. Information on this will be presented at the pre-Town Meeting on 29 February. Mr. Conner: Lindsey Britt has been hired as the new Development Review Planner. She will begin work on 1 March. 4. Review Conceptual Plans for State Funded Sidewalk Connection on Hinesburg Road & Tilley Drive: Mr. Rabidoux noted the city received 2 grants to fund a 30+ foot segment of sidewalk on Hinesburg Road (a State road). He showed an overhead of the location. It is a $180,000 project which it is hoped will be in the 2017 construction season. The sidewalk will be 5 feet wide concrete. No crosswalks are planned, and the city was told if they asked for crosswalks, the project would probably not get done at this time. Mr. Rabidoux said he felt that building this sidewalk will strengthen the cause for a full signalized intersection. Mr. Klugo noted that business appears to be booming for the hospital’s locations in that area, and it is not safe. Mr. Rabidoux suggested that the Planning Commission could possibly have some weight in support of additional protection and control in the area. Mr. Gagnon said a lot of study would be required for a crosswalk as this is a high-speed area. He felt it would have to be signalized for safety. Mr. Conner noted that because of funding issues, the city looks at “incremental improvements.” He said this project brings the city closer to a solution. Members favored having staff draft a letter regarding pedestrian safety. Mr. Gagnon moved to endorse the conceptual alignment of the sidewalk connection on Hinesburg Road to Tilley Drive as presented. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to request Mr. Rabidoux and staff to prepare a letter requesting that the State of Vermont do a study regarding pedestrian crossing at the Hinesburg Road/Tilley Drive location. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider requests to allow personal instruction study use in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District: Mr. Conner noted there have been 2 requests in the past year. The original thought was to tie this into the South Village request. Staff feels that the request seems to be consistent with what are now allowed uses and with the intent of the district. They were surprised it wasn’t an allowed use. The question is whether there should be a size restriction. Staff is recommending a 3000 to 5000 sq. ft. size limitation. They feel this should meet neighborhood needs. Ms. Harrington felt this would be a ‘personal service’ use. Mr. Conner said staff feels the closest appropriate designation is ‘personal instruction’ use. He added that business changes are occurring faster than zoning can keep up. Members favored allow the use and suggested a 3000 sq. ft. limitation. Mr. Conner said staff will come back with examples of what now exists in the city. He noted that this would become part of the next round of amendments. 6. Discuss how the Commission would like to interface with City committees for future projects: Mr. Gagnon cited the importance of knowing what all committees are working on and for the committees to know what other committees are doing. Ms. LaRose suggested the Commission decide which projects they want to do and staff can see what kind of help can be gotten from other groups. Alternatively, committees can come to the Commission with something they want to work on. Mr. Conner stressed the importance of avoiding overlapping which leads to conflict among committees Ms. Leban suggested a matrix for people in the city to see what committees are working on. She noted there is very little interaction with the Bike/Ped Committee when roads are built. Ms. Harrington suggested having committee chairs come to the Commission each year to report on what they are doing. Members agreed that they would like to hear from the Natural Resources, Energy, Bike/Ped, and Recreation/Leisure Arts Committees. In order to give committees time to get things together, members agreed to do this no earlier than April. Ms. LaRose agreed to put something together for the various committees. 7. Minutes of 12 January and 26 January 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 12 and 26 January 2016 as written. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 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: February 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting 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. Review Conceptual Plans for State Funded Sidewalk Connection on Hinesburg Road to Tilley Drive, Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works (7:15 pm) See attached memo & files 5. Consider requests to allow personal instruction studio use in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial (SEQ-VC) district (7:35 pm) See attached requests. Staff recommends that the Commission consider these requests and will bring a recommendation to the Commission at the meeting Tuesday. 6. Discuss how the Commission would like to interface with City committees for future projects (7:55 pm) See attached memo 7. Minutes (8:25 pm) 8. Adjourn (8:30 pm) Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.comDESIGNED BY:PROJECT LEADER:DRAWN BY:PLOT DATE:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NAME:PROJECT NUMBER:FILE NAME:SHEET OF STP SDWK (10) - STP BP14 (6)SOUTH BURLINGTONARDHWHARJANUARY 201615045 -CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT055 9CENTERLINE DATASTATION TO STATION Δ R T L10+00.00 10+08.43 S 44°44'52" EPC = 10+08.43 PT = 10+57.02 6° 57' 38" 400.00' 24.33' 48.59'10+57.02 11+64.09 S 37°47'13" EPC = 11+64.09 PRC = 14+71.37 22° 00' 27" 800.00' 155.56' 307.28'PRC = 14+71.37 PRC = 15+25.16 15° 24' 34" 200.00' 27.06' 53.79'PRC = 15+25.16 PT = 16+96.47 32° 43' 07" 300.00' 88.06' 171.31'PT = 16+96.47 17+30.00 S 01°31'47" WRIGHT-OF-WAYPROPERTY LINEEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING WATER LINE WITH HYDRANT AND VALVEOVERHEAD UTILITY LINE WITH POLE AND GUY WIREEXISTING GROUND CONTOUREXISTING STORM PIPEEXISTING SEWER FORCE MAINEXISTING MAILBOXEXISTING SIGNSEXISTING LIGHT POLESURVEY CONTROL POINTCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDEXISTING TREESEDGE OF EXISTING TREES / SHRUBSLIMIT OF FILLEDGE OF WETLANDP:\2015\15045\DWG\15045-PRESENTATION.dwg, 1/29/2016 9:28:49 AM, 1:1 1 Paul Conner From:dmeans <means.davidlee@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:37 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:Fitness Options Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Paul,    Fitness Options Personal Training Studio LLC, a provider of personal training/small group instruction/physical therapy  and massage therapy located at 1050 Hinesburg Rd, S.B., is interested in moving to the new development on the other  side of Hinesburg Rd.     Our current location is zoned for "health and instruction" and we would like to pursue the same zoning permit across  the road from us.  We understand such a request is already in process from another source and would like to ensure  that the zoning be amended so that we can continue in our discussions with the developer.      Thank you for your consideration and assistance.     David Means  Shaun O'Connor  Co‐Owners Fitness Options LLC  Tyler Barnes Maddox Noah Holdings, LLC — 35 San Remo Drive, South Burlington, VT 05403— Phone: 802-356-2388 — E-Mail: tyler@crossfittt.com — Web: www.crossfittt.com Date: 5/21/2015 City of South Burlington Planning Commission C/O: Mr. Paul Connors, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to present to the City of South Burlington Planning Commission for their consideration a proposal to grant CrossFit TT – a South Burlington-based performance athletic-training studio – permission to operate within the SEQ VC district located at the corner of Hinesburg Road and Fox Lane (approximate) as a Personal Instruction facility, in a new 5000-7400 sq. ft (approximate) facility built exclusively for this purpose. Based on conversations with Mr. Paul Connor, Director of Zoning and Planning, and Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer - Department of Planning and Zoning, it is my understanding that this would involve the planning commission either: • Granting CFTT an exception to the current zoning regulations governing the Southeast Quadrant’s Village Commercial District approximately located at the corner of Hinesburg Road and Fox Run Lane to allow for CrossFit TT’s operation of a Personal Instruction facility, or; • Amending the zoning regulations for the SEQ VC district in such a fashion as to afford CFTT permission to operate their Personal Instruction (or similar applicable use as determined by the DRB) business as a Personal Instruction within the district. If the commission were to afford either request, CrossFit TT would plan to work with a local developer to construct and purchase a new facility in the SEQ VC that would accommodate it’s needs, and adhere to the zoning regulations of the district. To help facilitate such discussions, I’ve compiled some information about our business, our customer base, and the proposed project (see attached). I’ve also taken the liberty of highlighting how our business would compliment the district’s goal of serving the localized population. It is my hope that this information will both: 1. Illustrate how Personal Instruction businesses stand to compliment the underlying intent behind the district’s regulations; 2. Expedite a response to my query. I appreciate that these decisions are complicated, and may require appreciable deliberation; I respect any process that that the commission must follow in arriving at these decisions. To assist the committee in these deliberations, I’ve tried to anticipate some of the questions that the committee may have, and have assembled some facts and findings that may proactively address some of the queries. I stand ready to provide the committee with any additional information they may require to arrive at a conclusion. 2 A lifelong resident of the City of South Burlington, I’m proud to call South Burlington home to both my family and business. If able to permit my request, the Planning Commission would allow me to continue to do so for the balance of my professional career. I’m personally grateful for any consideration the committee is able to give to this issue. Thanks in advance for your time. I hope to be able to discuss this issue with the committee further soon. Tyler Barnes Owner, CEO – Maddox Noah Holdings, LLC; 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Committee Collaboration DATE: February 4, 2016 As you continue you through setting your work priorities for the upcoming year, we encourage you to take a closer look at the collaborative opportunities with existing City Committees, including the Natural Resources Committee, Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee, the Energy Committee, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. These committees have historically been an advisory body to the Planning Commission, Development Review Board, and the City Council. However, the relationship has not always been clear or most efficiently and effectively utilized. Each has or is working on mission statements and goals to better define the scope of their interests and influence. Each of these committees strives to set work plans and projects for themselves, much as the Planning Commission is doing for itself. As each is at a different stage in doing so, Staff recommends that the Commission begin to consider the best way to coordinate projects between committees, such that the Planning Commission may receive input on priority projects and assistance in drafting regulations as appropriate, and that the committees may potentially see action taken on projects related to a desired change in regulatory language. If it is the desire of the Planning Commission, Staff will begin to set up a schedule of meetings with each of these committees, and other groups as directed. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 12, 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 January 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, D. Leban, B. Milizia 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. Conner: Interviews are being conducted for the development review position. The City Council has warned the second public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan for 1 February. The City Council has approved a draft budget for FY 17. It will go to the voters in March. The City Council has approved doing electric permits locally. 4. Review Changes to Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan made by the City Council and prepare analysis report pursuant to 24VSA Section 4385(b): Mr. Conner explained that the Planning Commission must review the changes made by the City Council and prepare a report on their consistency with state-wide planning goals. Members briefly discussed whether they wished to respond to the City Council’s changes, irrespective of their consistency with state-wide planning goals. They determined that they did not. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 12, 2016 2 Members felt there were no changes that were not consistent with state planning goals. Mr. Riehle moved to send a report affirming that changes made by the City Council to the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan were consistent with state planning goals. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program: review and submit candidate recommended projects to the City Council: Mr. Conner directed attention to the prioritized list of what the CCRPC can provide help for. The list indicated the status of projects that are already underway. Mr. Riehle suggested adding something regarding potential waterfront development. Mr. Conner said that might fit in with the Phase 2 of master planning with a “node” for waterfront as well. Mr. Riehle suggested adding waterfront development to #3. Mr. Conner then explained the funding time-lines for the TIF. Market Street is likely to be the first TIF project to be voted on since it is already 90% funded. Ms. Leban asked if the Bike/Ped Committee can get copies of reports on #5 since they did not know this was happening. Mr. Conner said it is a “pre-scoping” with a basic cost analysis and any wetland or utility issues…anything to make it a more viable project for funding. Mr. Riehle asked if the city potentially gets more funding because it is a “growth community.” Mr Conner said it does to the extent that the city is supporting the goals of the RPC. Ms. Milizia asked how the Natural Resources Committee can get involved in some of these studies. Ms. Louisos said that is the Commission’s intent, to decide whether to “farm out” some things to other committees. Ms. Quest then moved to approve the recommended list and forward it to the City Council with additions as discussed. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued Discussion of Planning & Work Priorities for 2016-2017: Mr. Gagnon advocated to get done what is already started before taking on anything new. Mr. Conner said that 50-70% of the work for next year probably falls into that category. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 12, 2016 3 Mr. Gagnon asked if there is a mechanism in place to be sure information gets shared. He felt that since these issues are going through public comment, if there is no coordination and the public has made comments, there could be issues. He suggested the Commission get status reports from each of the other committees. He also felt it might be good to ask each committee what it is working on for the coming year. Mr. Chittenden noted that at UVM each standing committee has to produce a report of what they did for the year. Ms. Louisos said she will be doing that for the Planning Commission. Mr. Klugo said the Commission needs to meet with the DRB and see if any issues come out of that meeting. He also noted the need to consider how to pay for some of the things the city wants. He suggested the possibility of an industrial piece, though not necessarily on the top of the list. Ms. Louisos asked when the city will hear form the RPC regarding grants. Mr. Conner said by April. Ms. Louisos said those projects will then be for the second half of the year, and the Commission should reconsider the list when those grants are known. Mr. Conner encouraged the Commission to tell staff what it wants to accomplish, and staff can take it from there. Mr. Klugo suggested spending 25% of the time on long-range projects, 25% on things they can get done, and 50% on “continuing” things. Mr. Conner noted there are 3 kinds of projects: those based on geography, topics, and tools. Mr. Klugo suggested that some “irreversible” things might also be a grouping. Mr. Conner encouraged the Commission to think of what it would like to accomplish 6 months, one year, and two years from now. He stressed that there are no “rights” or “wrongs.” 7. Other Business: A. Summary and discussion of joint meeting with City Council on Draft LDRs and Official Map: Mr. Conner said the City Council will be discussing the LDRs on 1 February. The Commission can discuss whether it wants to provide any guidance. Mr. Klugo suggested deferring that discussion to the next meeting. Members agreed. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 12, 2016 4 8. Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 JANUARY 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Jeffers, T. McKenzie, T. Chittenden 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: Ms. Jeffers noted that a much scaled down plan for a “village commercial” area in South Village has been submitted. She said many people in South Village want a market and a café but not “open” commercial. She asked if there is a possibility of moving this forward. Ms. Louisos said it is on the Commission’s list. The Commission has been focused on the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs and can now plan upcoming tasks. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to hear support from the residents. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Riehle: Distributed an article from the New Yorker regarding “How Trees Calm Us Down.” Mr. Klugo: Attended the UMall presentation. Ms. LaRose said she also attended and found it very complimentary to South Burlington staff and city boards. Mr. Klugo noted that “place making” is different from what was presented across the road. Mr. McKenzie said the Form Based Code Committee saw UMall as a very important anchor to City Center. He was also very impressed by Todd Finard’s presentation. Mr. Conner: Cited a lot of efforts at the gateway to City Center with a lot of energy happening. The City Manager is working on a time for Todd Finard to present to the City Council, possibly this Monday. The City Council will have a work session on LDRs and a second public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on Monday, 1 February. 4. Review December 21 meeting of City Council regarding Draft LDRs and Official Map: 2 Ms. Quest was pleased the Council was not changing things. Ms. Louisos noted there was not much public comment, possibly because the Commission had so much comment. Mr. McKenzie asked whether his questions regarding a Master Plan type tool would be discussed by the Council. Mr. Conner noted that the Commission has made it a first priority to address those issues, and has recommended that the Council move ahead with the draft FBC as is and have such a tool be added in the not too distant future. Ms. Quest asked if the consultant has been hired. Mr. Conner said they are in the final stages of that process. 5. Continued Discussion of Planning & Work Priorities for 2016-17: Ms. Louisos briefly reviewed thoughts from the last meeting. Mr. Gagnon asked about permit fees and the South Village request. Mr. Conner said the Commission could ask the City Council to look at permit fees. The topic was brought up by Councilors at the budget presentations, so the Council aware. Mr. Conner then directed attention to the Commission’s list of possible projects. He noted that LDR Clean-up, as an item, will always be a “work in progress.” With regard to TDR Connections, staff will be brining something to the Commission in the near future. Natural Resource Standards are 70% completed. There is still a fair amount of work to do, especially on the part of staff and the consultant, specifically how to measure some of the standards. Staff might bring some options to the Commission which could entail parts of 3 or more meetings (not consecutively). Mr. Conner stressed that the Commission can decide on a priority that does not have funding. It could help staff “ramp up” for the next funding opportunity. Ms. Quest said she though Sustainable Ag and Food Hubs could be knocked off in 15-20 minutes. Mr. Conner noted that over the next 3-4 months, the Commission already has 70% of its “band width” prioritized. After that, it is more wide open. If some project(s) get funding by the RPC, the Commission could add them at that time. Mr. Klugo felt the Commission should address things that are “irreversible,” so a chance isn’t missed. Mr. Macdonald felt that Shelburne Rd. and the waterfront are in the “irreversible” category. Mr. Riehle asked if there are committees in place that could continue/begin some of the work. He said it was very helpful when committees brought their findings to the Commission. Mr. Conner said the Commission could invite committees or their representatives to come in and talk about a specific 3 project. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to hear from the Bike/Ped Committee as there are several things on the “new projects” list that relate to them. Mr. Klugo suggested a South Village Committee of residents that could bring to the Commission what they want for their area. Mr. Riehle said it would be nice to have a sub-committee start work on business parks/industrial zoning. Ms. LaRose cautioned members that even if work goes to a sub-committee, there is still staff time involved. It was noted that there is currently a Chamberlin/Airport Neighborhood Committee. Ms. Harrington represents the Commission on that committee. They will be reporting to the Commission at some point. Mr. Conner said they are slated to wrap up their work at the end of June. This will probably get onto the Commission calendar after the start of the third quarter. With regard to Post Adoption Form Based Code adjustments, Mr. Conner said that potential is ongoing. It would become a high priority when someone comes to the Commission with a specific concern. Mr. Gagnon asked if changes to the Form Based Code require public hearings, warnings, etc. Mr. Conner said they do. He suggested late spring for the next round of amendments. Mr. Klugo suggested a possible sub-committee for this. It was noted that there is now no committee working specifically on affordable housing though there is a newly appointed committee to address a “housing trust.” Ms. Louisos noted there is funding for a Master Plan/PUD Standards consultant. Mr. Conner asked how far the Commission would want to go with this….City Center? Other large properties? Redevelopment projects? The grant for this is approximately $20,000, and the total in the proposed FY17 for all consultant work is $60,000, most of which is the “match” for the RPC projects the city has applied for. There may be $10,000-20,000 not previously assigned. Mr. Gagnon felt they could do the City Center Master Planning plus the start of one more project. If the city gets more RPC funding, they could add Shelburne Rd. and the waterfront. Mr. Klugo cited his reluctance to address Mr. McKenzie’s concerns when the issue is one of cost, not something that can’t be done. He noted that the Form Based Code hasn’t been tested yet. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see it as lowering the bar. Mr. Gagnon said he saw it as supporting creativity. Mr. Riehle, who served on the Form Based Code Committee, said there is a need to be fluid. There are situations the Committee didn’t think of. He felt a Master Plan was a great idea. He noted the city is seeing more and more creative development. Mr. Macdonald said he saw Master Planning as a way to reward creativity. Ms. Harrington said she agreed with Mr. Klugo. Mr. Conner said he has spoken with a number of property owners in City Center. Some are presenting major visions of re-development. In order to make that work, they see some things on which they need a “tweak.” It may be a difference between being able to move forward in a timely manner and being delayed. Mr. Klugo said he would want them to tell the Commission what the challenges are rather than having a Master Planning tool. Mr. Conner said that one “master planning tool” could be a legislative 4 process for property owners to make a case for an alteration. Mr. Chittenden suggested calling it an “exception process for larger scale projects.” Mr. Conner suggested “alternative” instead of “exception.” Mr. Conner noted that UMall is talking about adding 600,000 square feet. They have said they might not be able to meet every letter of the regulations. Mr. Klugo felt that creativity shouldn’t be limited based on the scale of the project. Ms. LaRose said this is 60-70% “exploratory. You can’t know the “fix” until you know the problems. Commissioners discuss the areas in terms of “risk” of development in the nearer term under current regulations. Mr. Conner was asked to enumerate some areas that involve this “risk”: a. K-Mark Plaza (which is currently empty) b. City Center (where the clock/TIF is ticking) c. Hill Farm (where there will be a development proposal) d. Industrial area (which has its own risks) Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission told the City Council they would look at some kind of flexibility with regard to City Center. Ms. LaRose noted that there is no Form Based Code beyond City Center. So the time-line for things outside City Center is different from things within City Center. Mr. Riehle asked if there are zoning issues outside City Center. Mr. Conner said that in some ways, traditional zoning has been written in a manner “protects against the bad, but doesn’t necessarily promote the good.” Mr. Conner explained that UMall is in the Form Based Code district, but not now in the TIF district. He further explained the history of this. There may be a recommendation made to the Planning Commission/City Council to add UMall to the TIF district in the near future. Members prepared an initial outline their potential priorities as follows: • City Center • Shelburne Road • Agriculture • Waterfront • Hill Property • O’Brien Property 5 • Business Parks There was a brief discussion of the risks involved in each of the options. Mr. Conner and Ms. LaRose stressed that progress in City Center is a top priority for the City Council. Ms. Louisos felt the next step should be to collect information on issues that people have with City Center and determine which could be “tweaked” and which might require Master Planning. Mr. Klugo described this work as having a “part A” and a “part B.” Part A is having underlying regulations, and part B is having a tool for creativity. Mr. Conner suggested doing the “creative tool” first for City Center. Mr. Gagnon suggested doing “part B of City Center, then part A open space/undeveloped, then part A redevelopment (e.g., K-Mart Plaza). Mr. Conner suggested doing part B of City Center with the consultant and if there is money left, part A open space (Hill Farm and O’Brien). If additional funding is granted, part A of redevelopment can be next. Ms. Louisos noted the Hill Farm people have been to the Commission and are not happy with some of the zoning, and that the Planning Commission has made changes to the Future Land Use Map. Ms. LaRose said the existing regulations and the Planning Commission goals are the furthest apart there. Mr. Klugo asked if the Form Based Code could be applied to K-Mart as a “stop-gap.” Mr. Conner said there are questions: street network, T4 of T5, etc. There would also have to be assurance that there is no issue of spot zoning. Mr. Conner added that the breadth of what can happen there is very wide. Mr. Conner felt staff had a place to start and suggested having staff flesh this out for the next meeting. He also said they would find a night for South Village to come in as well as some other “tweaking” things. Mr. Conner noted that 8 March has been suggested as a possible joint meeting with the DRB. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk