Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/11/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 July 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, M. Kane, Consultants; S. Dopp 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: Ms. Dopp expressed concern with an informational meeting held at UVM yesterday at which developers received an RFP for potential development of the Edland and Martin parcels of UVM land. Ms. LaRose showed these parcels on an overhead photo. Ms. Dopp said the proposals are due by 18 August. The South Burlington Land Trust is trying to figure out what to do about this as the properties involve land which slopes down to Potash Brook, which could be a runoff issue, an active wildlife corridor, and a dysfunctional intersection. The Edland property also contains a unique sand dune from the Pleisticene era. Ms. Dopp also noted that the Vermont Land Trust is reluctant to think of buying the property(s) because the money would be going from one state entity to another. Ms. Louisos said the can put the city in a bad position with developers putting money into a proposal without contacting the city. Ms. Ostby noted that at a recent meeting, the City Manager said that UVM is experimenting with this process, and if it works, they would do it again. Mr. Klugo said the process is not unusual, and it does not mean the city doesn’t get to determine what goes on that land. Mr. Gagnon added that people issue RFPs all the time to study something they may or may not move forward on. He added that since zoning changes are required in order to develop those properties, that would involve full public hearings. Ms. Dopp noted there is a parcel between the 2 properties that has been sold, and cited the need to know what the new owner is planning. Ms. LaRose offered that the PUD agenda item on the night’s meeting may discuss rezoning needs across the City, which may or may not include UVM lands irrespective of the RFP. The Board agreed that no immediate proactive action was needed and they would wait on staff or University proposals. 4. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Ostby: Attended the Affordable Housing Committee meeting. The Committee is disappointed that the Larkin project on Shelburne Rd. does not have an affordable housing element. They discussed ways for committees to get involved earlier on in the process. The Committee is also going to ask the Planning Commission to make inclusionary zoning a city-wide policy. In a separate issue, the Committee has concerns with congregate care facilities which wouldn’t fall under the “replacement policy” because they are not under the residential category in the City’s zoning. Mr. Klugo: Attended the New England Chapter of AIA conference on the environment. The balance of the time was spend on what communities are ignoring, specifically water resources, and what can be done to minimize the use of untreated water. Ms. LaRose: Noted that Mr. Conner is attending a GIS conference. She also advised that the new Development Review Planner begins work on Monday. 5. Continued Review of PUD and Master Plan Project, Phase II: Ms. Murray advised that they have met twice with staff to consider what might be appropriate in various places. This initiated the discussion of underlying zoning. Ms. Murray then showed a chart of “triggers.” She said they went with 10 acres as a minimum, but said they might want to look at more. Mr. Kane noted that there is not much land available and showed a map indicating parcels of 10 acres or more and 30 acres or more. Most of that land is in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), and much of it cannot be developed. If you eliminate the SEQ for “floating zones” there is not much land left in the city. This suggests that most projects will involve infill. The Commission will also have to consider which elements of the PUD process to consider, since it probably won’t be possible to do them all. Mr. Klugo said not a lot of 30-acre projects are likely to happen. Ms. LaRose said they may have to reduce some expectations because of things that won’t fit into the smaller areas. Ms. Ostby said that other committees would like to provide early input. There is a feeling, for example, that seniors don’t necessarily want to live in a high-rise. Ms. Murray said they did discuss having different types of housing. She cited the Simpson Diversity Index which is tool to provide diversification of housing. She also stressed the need to remember that there is an economic piece attached to this, including the big impediment of land costs. Mr. Kane cited the need for “context” in addition to form. Without there, you don’t have an attractive place to be. Mr. Klugo added that it can take 20- 25 years to get to “context.” Ms. Murray noted the importance of having a park in a neighborhood. Ms. Kane said if you draw a circle around schools, shops, etc, where the circles intersect is where you would want to build homes for “context.” Ms. LaRose noted that “minimum density” is a new concept. She asked members what their thoughts are. Ms. Murray said that the “maximum” could become the “minimum.” Ms. Ostby said it’s “an alarm” for her. Ms. Louisos said she would consider each district separately. Mr. Klugo said that what you are protecting against is “lost opportunity.” Mr. Kane said that with protecting the SEQ, there is not much space to build in the rest of the city. He said they have heard a lot from staff about the “underdevelopment” of lots, which is a lost opportunity and lost taxes for the city. Mr. Klugo said they need not to preclude the “highest and best use.” Ms. Louisos said she is not opposed to this, but she wants to be sure “we’re not paving over the city.” They have to be clear where they want this to happen. She suggested the IA district might move more into the “rural” category. Mr. Klugo said he would like to know the percentage of land in the city that can be developed. Ms. Ostby raised the question of how long residents tend to stay in denser housing. Ms. Dopp noted Mayfair Park where people “stay forever” and pass the houses down to their children. It was also noted the many residents of Larkin Terrace, which is being torn down on Shelburne Road, have lived there since the project was built. Ms. Murray noted that things are changing with “millennials” who are not moving far from the urban area. They are looking at town houses, duplexes, each with its own entrance. Mr. Klugo said they should want people to move in order to get new, young families in. The problem is that people are not moving. Ms. Ostby was concerned that people in denser, multi‐family housing might not have a “commitment” to the community. Mr. Klugo said that people in his single family neighborhood have shown little commitment to the community. Mr. Klugo said he would suggest working around “nodes.” He felt that was one of the most important things the Commission can do. He stressed that what was lost in the Cider Mill development was the ability for infill. It would be nice to have some of those development rights preserved now to build to greater density. Members then looked at a chart of PUD Land Use Allocations by type and a map of conservation areas. Ms. LaRose said the SEQ has to be treated differently. She also cited the concern with missing something. There are actually 2 densities in the SEQ: the regular density and the density with TDRs. She questioned what the minimum density actually is. She said that if you require the maximum density, you will be requiring someone to buy TDRs, and that may or may not be legal. Ms. Dopp said the character of the SEQ will change if there are concentrations of clusters of homes. Ms. LaRose said that is what can happen now. She reminded members that the city avoided downzoning the now protected land in the SEQ by allowing that density to be purchased and used elsewhere. If you change that now, you are further down‐valuing those people’s properties. Ms. Dopp said she wished that density could be used outside the SEQ. She also felt that density should be based on the buildable portion of the land. Mr. Klugo said you are then reducing the value of the land those people own. Mr. Klugo said that the city lacks a “regulating” plan, something between the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs. He added that he was comfortable with minimum densities, but they would first have to re-look at zoning districts. Ms. LaRose felt zoning districts were mostly right, but they may be right for part of the district and not for another part. She felt major changes may be needed to the zoning map before they can finalize the PUD chart. She acknowledged this will take time, but it is important. Ms. LaRose also noted there are no standards for commercial density, and something is needed as they are not seeing good mixed use development. The question was raised as to what happens when people have a level of expectation of what can happen near them. Disclosure at closings was stressed by Mr. Klugo and Mr. Gagnon as was “buyer beware.” Mr. Kane said the real problem occurs when there is a new adjacent subdivision. Ms. LaRose said what works best is when people have fair and reliable expectations. Mr. Klugo said that in his time on the DRB, when developers were pushed to be more creative, the city got a much better plan. 6. Review and Consider Approval of Proposed Street Names in the O’Brien Family Partnership Neighborhood and rename Western Portion of Eldridge Street to O’Brien Farm Road: Members felt this was a much better proposal than the previous one. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the street names as delineated on accompanying documents. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Minutes of 27 June 2017: Ms. Ostby asked to revise the minutes as follows: p.2, Section 4 (end) revise to read: Ms. Ostby asked what the local response should be regarding the U.S. decision to leave the Paris agreement. P.3, Section 5 revise to read: 1. Ms. Ostby asked if there is information about the level of long term commitment to the South Burlington community by those who live in apartments and multi-family homes, or do they feel that residence is a more short term living arrangement so are less inclined to become an active community member. Has this been studied in South Burlington? 2. Ms. Ostby asked where in the Comprehensive Plan it states that it is City’s goal to reduce the proportion of single family homes. 3. Ms. Ostby quoted Objection 4 “Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and moderate‐income housing, emphasizing both smaller and single family homes and apartments. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the minutes of 27 June with the above changes. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed 4-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. _________________________________ Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Meeting Memo To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Sharon Murray, AICP Front Porch Community Planning & Design Date: July 7, 2017 Re: PUD Project, Phase II— Progress Report; PUD Siting Considerations __________________________________________________________ Housekeeping Amendments: Staff continue to evaluate current LDR provisions, including existing exceptions, waivers and modifications, with regard to how these support, or may undermine, current zoning district requirements and new planned development provisions. Recent work sessions have focused on proposed PUD types in relation to underlying zoning districts, including allowed uses and densities of development by district, as specified or calculated from current lot size, building and lot coverage, and height requirements. This work has also informed related discussions regarding potential zoning district amendments that may be needed. Subdivision/Master Plan Review: Initial drafts of these sections are in progress, based on the considerations and outline presented at our May meeting. PUD Siting and Density Considerations: We’d like to spend most of our time with you on Tuesday focusing on a discussion of the most appropriate locations for siting (allowing or mandating) different types of planned development. Currently, PUDs are tied to underlying zoning districts, including related requirements that generally control allowed uses, and the maximum allowed density of development (e.g., maximum dwelling units/acre). PUD provisions allow for the transfer of development density from one portion of a site to another, but do not allow for density transfers between zoning districts, or an increase in the overall density of development. As proposed, different PUD types at minimum need to be differentiated by zoning district – not all forms of planned development are appropriate in all zoning districts. As recommended in the Phase I Report, planned unit development has been proposed as a “floating zone,” currently defined under the LDRs as: Floating zone. An unmapped zoning district. Requirements are contained in the relevant article. The floating zone is fixed on the map only when an application for development, meeting the zone requirements, is approved. Under a floating zone, planned unit development would be “triggered” (allowed or mandated) as specified in the regulations – e.g., based on a combination of underlying zoning district designations, a minimum lot size requirement, and/or other context or locational factors (e.g., presence of a significant resource, or location on an arterial or transit route). Related options include defining separate density and development standards for PUDs that supersede or replace underlying zoning; or continuing to define PUDs as allowed modifications to underlying zoning, designed to promote or achieve specified forms of planned development. As noted, based on earlier feedback from the PC, we’ve been working with staff to define PUD types in relation to underlying zoning district requirements (allowed uses, densities). To date this has been based on the following considerations, or working assumptions:  Minimum acreage requirements are typically specified for certain types of PUD, as required to achieve planned forms of development. For example, traditional neighborhood, neighborhood, neighborhood commercial, or transit-oriented developments that include a commercial core are often 30-40 acres or more, to achieve the density and mix of uses and housing types that will support associated commercial and transit development. Within a New England context 10-15 acres is more typically specified as a minimum. A 10-acre minimum is consistent with current LDR PUD and master plan requirements (though smaller PUDs are allowed).  “Infill” and “redevelopment” PUDs may fall below minimum acreage requirements, and include some, put not all of the components of one of the other types. In this case, the context of the development is an especially important consideration. The standards should ensure that a proposed PUD complements, supplements or supports the surrounding neighborhood – e.g., by adding to the diversity of housing types available within walking distance of an existing commercial center, or by incorporating densities of development and pedestrian connections to serve a nearby transit stop.  The underlying zoning district(s) should establish the minimum density allowed (e.g., based on minimum lot size requirements, maximum building height, building and lot coverage requirements). As such, PUDs that require higher densities of development are not appropriate in lower density (e.g., R1 or R2) zoning districts.  For some types of PUD, higher densities of development are required – e.g., for a “walkable” pedestrian-friendly development (a traditional neighborhood development) a minimum density of 4 DUs/acre is typically required; while the density to support fixed route bus transit (transit-oriented development) is generally around 7-8 units/acre. These minimums have also been used to screen PUD types by zoning district. Where allowed, the minimum density would be that required by PUD type or zoning district, whichever is greater.  Higher densities of development should be allowed where appropriate to encourage or require the most efficient use of land, given that developable land is a finite resource, and in increasingly short supply. As proposed, additional density (e.g., up to 50% increase) would be allowed by right within a PUD, to either encourage planned development or to help offset the costs of mandated planned development—within limits set by design and site constraints.  PUDs should also relate to uses allowed within the underlying district – PUDs that include multifamily dwellings or commercial uses should be allowed only in districts that allow these uses.  Other context or locational factors may also serve as triggers—e.g., neighborhood commercial should be located only on arterials, or at key intersections, as needed to support the commercial components of development. Transit-oriented development should be located only on existing or planned transit routes or within ½ mile of an existing or planned transit stop. Based on these considerations, we’ve developed the following initial recommendations for the allocation of PUD types by zoning district, and other associated PUD triggers or requirements for your review and discussion on Tuesday. We’ll bring some maps to help illustrate how these might be applied on the ground, and I’ve also attached some parcel info, derived from the city’s grant list during the Phase I study. Conservation Planned Agricultural Planned Residential Campus TND NCD TOD Context Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban PUD “Focus” Resource Protection Agricultural Enterprise Residential Institutional/ Industrial Center Neighborhood Center Neighborhood Commercial Transit Center PUD Context (“Shed”) Res: ¼ mile --- Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Res: ¼ mile Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Minimum Acreage 10 Acres 10 Acres 10 Acres 10 Acres 10 [30?] Acres 10 [30?] Acres 10 [30?] Acres Minimum Density District District District District 4 DU/Acre or District 4 DU/Acre or District 8 DU/Acre or District Zoning Districts R1-L, [R2?)], [SEQ-NRT?] I-A, I-O, IC, [SEQ-NR?] R1, R2 MU, I-A, I-O, IC R1-PRD R4, R7, R12 [SEQ-VC, VR?] AR, C1-LR C1-R12, C1-R15, C2, R7-NC, SW Transit Overlay C1-R12, C1-R15, C2 Other Protected Resource (farmland, lakeshore, etc) Arterial/ Major Intersection Transit Route ½ mi from transit stop Properties 30+ Acres JJJ SOUTH BURLINGTON HINESBURG RD M 30 TECHNOLOGY PARK CAMPUS LLC COMMUNITY DR C 31.13 LANDRUM MEADOWLAND DR C 31.26 LANG WILLIAM R & GAIL S DORSET ST R2 31.7 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES LLC HINESBURG RD M 31.74 HYMAN NOAH E DORSET ST R2 33 JEWETT JOHN G & SUSAN R AUTUMN HILL RD R2 33.16 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC MARKET ST C 33.6 LONG CAROLYN E REVOCABLE TRUST SPEAR ST R2 34.35 JJJ SOUTH BURLINGTON DORSET ST M 35.48 WILSON ADAM CHEESE FACTORY RD F 37.85 SOUTHLAND ENTERPRISES INC FAYETTE RD C 38.22 BURLINGTON PROPERTIES LTD C 38.55 O'BRIEN HOME FARM LLC KENNEDY DR M 38.55 DEMERS TRAMPAS DORSET ST R2 44 ISHAM ILA M ESTATE DORSET ST R2 45 LARKIN JOHN HINESBURG RD R2 45 DORSET EAST ASSOCIATES LLC DORSET ST M 45.48 SBRC PROPERTIES LLC MEADOWLAND DR M 45.99 DOPP SARAH CHEESE FACTORY RD R2 46.19 WILSON ADAM CHEESE FACTORY RD F 46.67 JOHN LARKIN INC DUBOIS DR C 53.41 UNIVERSITY MALL LLC DORSET ST C 56 JOHN LARKIN INC HINESBURG RD M 56.3 WINDJAMMER HOSPITALITY GROUP WILLISTON RD C 57.56 SHELBURNE SHIPYARD POOR FARM RD M 70 O'BRIEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OLD FARM RD F 80.01 FARRELL DAVID M TRUSTEE SHELBURNE RD R2 109.9 835 HINESBURG RD LLC HINESBURG RD M 113 GREEN ACRES INC HINESBURG RD M 147 SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES LLC SPEAR ST C 242 BELTER JOHN H JR & JOYCE N ETHAN ALLEN DR F 270.91 JAM GOLF LLC DORSET ST C 297.6 AUCLAIR ERNEST N TRUST HINESBURG RD F 320 BURLINGTON CITY OF AIRPORT DR C 736.2 10+ Acres Total Acres % Tot #% Acreage Parcels 87 4149 100.0%100.0% Commercial 31 1923 35.6%46.3% Res 2 (> 6 Acres)34 723 39.1%17.4% Misc 17 747 19.5%18.0% Farm 5 755 5.7%18.2% 30+ Acres Total Acres % Tot #% Acreage Parcels 35 3407 100.0%100.0% Commercial 11 1616 31.4%47.4% Res 2 (> 6 Acres)9 422 25.7%12.4% Misc 10 614 28.6%18.0% Farm 5 755 14.3%22.2% 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: O’Brien Neighborhood Street Names, proposed change of western portion of Eldridge Street DATE: July 11, 2017 Commission meeting The Commission at its last meeting reviewed a series of potential street names for the O’Brien Family planned neighborhood off Kennedy Drive and asked staff to look into options to simplify the number of named streets where a street continues along a generally straight path. Staff reviewed the attached concept that was discussed at the PC meeting internally with the Fire Department and Public Works Department and externally with the developer. All have found to be acceptable. Notably, this concept includes the renaming of the western portion of Eldridge Street between Hinesburg Road and the planned park (the 90+ degree turn in the road) to O’Brien Farm Road, and having that new road name continue in a northeasterly direction. Staff has confirmed that NO buildings have a street address on this portion of Eldridge Street, making this change more straightforward. The attached concept also eliminates the prior proposal to have Two Brothers Drive have a different name as it approaches Kennedy Drive (Generations Way). Under this current concept the entire street would be Two Brothers Drive. Staff recommends that the Commission, if satisfied, approve the street names on the attached plan and the change to the portion of Eldridge Street as outlined above: • Laurentide Lane • Ledge Way • Split Rock Court • Two Brothers Drive • O’Brien Farm Road SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 June 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Conner asked to add a request from the Affordable Housing Committee to Other Business. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos advised that the City Council passed the amendments to the LDRs at their last meeting. The Council has asked the Commission to require that DRB members also be residents of South Burlington. Mr. Riehle expressed disappointment that there is no requirement to replace the affordable housing being lost in the new Larkin development on Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner: The Recreation Department is doing “Bites and Bikes” again this year at the Park. The first one is on 6 July. More than a dozen food trucks will be participating. City Fest will be on 12 August, 5-9 p.m., and will include fireworks. At a Press Conference today, it was announced that the city has reduced electric costs by $450,000.00 (6%) thanks to the efforts of the Energy Committee. He noted that Councilor chair Helen Riehle also announced that the solar array at the Landfill will be on line soon. City savings from that will be re-invested for energy efficiency. 2 The City Council has approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Burlington regarding an agreement that there will be no additional buyout of homes in the Airport area. Last week, Mr. Conner gave a presentation to the South Burlington Business Association regarding Williston Road efforts, Tilley Drive, transportation studies, etc. At a “Downtown” workshop a few weeks ago, there was a good presentation by Joe Minicozzi on how communities should look at development in terms of what kind of development returns positive value to a community and what kind does not. Mr. Conner suggested an evening when members can view that presentation. He noted that one thing emphasized by Mr. Minicozzi was the exponential value to the community of multiple story buildings. He also suggested looking at how the tax system encourages more “temporary” buildings since a lower quality building pays less in taxes. A new DRB Planner, Marla Keene, has been hired. She has an engineering background and has worked a lot with engineers and developers. Ms. Ostby asked what the local response should be regarding the Paris agreement. Mr. Conner said the Council has asked the Energy Committee to come in and discuss that. 5. Continued Review of Proposed Housing Replacement Requirement in Land Development Regulations: Mr. Riehle said he felt $60,000 seemed low to him, but it was not a “deal breaker.” He also felt the proposed regulations posed a lot of work to “police.” Mr. Conner said there are discussions ongoing with Champlain Housing Trust about their possible involvement in that effort. It would probably involve the same process used when grants are applied for. Regulations could say “…as approved by the City Council.” Mr. Gagnon suggested a possible RFP with a list by which a proposal would be evaluated. Ms. Ostby said the language regarding affordability for only the first owner needs to be clarified. Mr. Conner agreed and said John Simson will be part of that discussion. Ms. Ostby said she would like to find a way to make it a preference to replace a single family home with another single family home.. She was also concerned with the land purchased by the Airport and felt the Airport should be required to replace those homes retroactively. She 3 also suggested the possibility of a credit if someone adds appropriate housing where it doesn’t currently exist. Mr. Klugo noted a lot of communities are investing in “land banks” whereby the community buys land for redevelopment. Mr. Klugo also noted that many people are moving back to cities to avoid the care of single family homes, and not as many people want single family homes anymore. He added that South Burlington has an “artificially low vacancy rate” due to Act 250. Homes are bought up quickly in the city. Mr. Conner said there are not many places in the city where someone would take down a home and build something commercial in its place. He cited mixed use areas where a developer can do commercial and/or residential. Mr. Conner also noted the requirement is to replace the same number of bedrooms, so a 3-bedroom house in not replaced by a studio unit. Mr. Gagnon reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan’s goals promote more compact development, not sprawl. He suggested the possibility of a smaller percentage of single family homes and more multi-family units. Mr. Klugo added that Act 250 and state regulations discourage developers from building single family homes. Ms. Ostby questioned whether people who move into multi-family homes are as “committed” to the community as those who move into single family homes. Mr. Klugo cited residents of single family homes in his neighborhood who do not vote, don’t maintain their property, and show no commitment to the community. Mr. Conner said the price point for single family homes is so high that people won’t buy them. He suggested the possibility of making a recommendation to the Affordable Housing Trust as to how money should be used. He also recommended making a clear statement as to what the Commission wants to see in the Chamberlin neighborhood. Ms. LaRose reminded members that nowhere in the Comprehensive Plan does it say to promote single family housing above other types of housing. Nor does it say the opposite. The Plan does speak to more “compact” development with “mixed” housing types. Mr. Conner said the next step is for staff to clean up the technicalities. These amendments will be in the next round presented to the City Council, sooner rather than later. 4 6. Review draft basic form standards (setbacks, heights, doors, glazing, parking, landscaping, etc.) for properties in the Shelburne Road corridor and C-1-R-12, and C-1-AIR zoning districts: Ms. LaRose noted new language regarding landscaping under #5. There is an issue of people meeting the required budget but still not having enough landscaping. One problem is that most landscaping is being used for screening of adjacent properties which doesn’t leave money for other landscaping. Regulations will now say that landscaping should be for both and stresses “visibility” of landscaping. For buildings set back 50 feet or more (e.g., Good Will), 50% of the landscaping would have to be up front. There is also a new “urban overlay district.” This was indicated on the map and includes a small area near the Airport. Mr. Klugo suggested an additional area near the Rye property, Oak Creek Village, and wherever a commercial district extends. Mr. Conner felt that was a good idea and noted there are a couple of zoning districts there, one of which has design review standards. Ms. LaRose said they have met with some development professionals in the area. They like some of the perks (saves having to go to the DRB for setback waivers). There is some hesitation regarding glazing percentage and doors on the street. Mr. Klugo said the new energy standards will pose a challenge to meet the glazing requirements. Mr. Conner said they have to be careful not to put people between “a rock and a hard place.” Mr. Klugo also noted that a door is only part of an entry (e.g., an awning). He felt a building needs to say “here’s the entry,” not just check a box. Ms. LaRose said they are trying to walk a line between “quick fixes” and more detailed regulations. Ms. Ostby asked about scenic views. Mr. Conner said based on mapped areas there is only a scenic view in one area from above a third story. Everything below that, he believed, has no discernable view. He said he would be happy to further look into this. He also noted the consequences of losing creativity when people are concerned with height waivers. Ms. LaRose noted the views protected are “public scenic views,” not private. Mr. Conner noted there was discussion regarding minimum heights of buildings. If the city wants more density, he asked if this should be considered. He recommended a minimum of 2 stories. Mr. Klugo suggested there could be a single story building between “nodes.” He also cited an area where 2 stories would not be enough. He felt that variations would add to 5 interest. He would prefer a well-designed one story building to a “2-story box.” He also felt that the wider the street, the taller the building could be. Members preferred a “quick fix” now and coming back later for more discussion. Mr. Riehle was OK with a 2-story building at corners. Mr. Gagnon felt there are corners where 3-5 stories would work. He was fine with 1-4 stories in between Mr. Klugo said “in between” should never be taller than what is at the corners. He recommended 1-3 stories in the middle and 3-5 at the corners. Mr. Gagnon said he can live with 2-4 at the corners with 2 elsewhere. Mr. Klugo added that with “elsewhere” 3 stories maximum but no higher than what is at the corner. Ms. Louisos was nervous about limiting to 2 stories. If a corner building is now one story, would that limit what goes next to it to one story? Ms. Ostby questioned the 10-foot setback. Ms. Louisos said the right-of-way may not be at the road. Ms. LaRose asked about a maximum setback for non-corners. Mr. Klugo said he would want a maximum setback for landscaping. Members were OK with no maximum setback. Mr. Conner suggested one more thing, not for discussion at this meeting: the possibility of eliminating all minimum parking requirements for development along Shelburne Road. 7. Review and consider approval of proposed street names in the O’Brien Family Partnership Neighborhood: Laurentide Lane, Ledge Way, Split Rock Court, Two Brothers Drive, O’Brien Farm Road, Generations Way: Members were concerned with a continuing street having two names. After discussion, Mr. Conner said staff will come back with a proposed naming plan. Members agreed to defer action until then. 8. Minutes of 13 June 2017 Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 13 June 2017 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business 6 a. Notice of Wetland Permit application, Spear Street: Mr. Conner said this is just an advisory item. b. Request from Affordable Housing Committee: The Committee has asked for a Commission members to be a liaison to the Committee. Ms. Ostby said she would be interested. Mr. Klugo moved to appoint Ms. Ostby as liaison to the Affordable Housing committee. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:15 p.m. ______________________________Clerk