Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/28/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 November 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; Northfield Bank representatives 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: The applicant for item #5 on the agenda requested a continuance to a future meeting. Members agreed to consider this in the sequence of agenda items. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby: The Affordable Housing Committee will be meeting with the City Manager regarding potential waivers of impact fees for affordable housing. The Committee is also trying to identify areas of the city that would be a priority for affordable housing. They are also looking into a state law which allows only one “downtown” type of designated area in a community. Mr. Conner: The Municipal Planning Grant application to the state for designing undergrounding in City Center was fully funded. At its next meeting, the City Council will consider the first reading of a proposal to adopt the Land Development Regulations as an Ordinance. This would add to enforcement potential, particularly for smaller zoning violations. There will be no Planning Commission meeting on 26 December. The City’s website has been updated to make it more welcoming. It now includes each completed report and what the Commission is currently working on. Ms. Louisos: Suggested a joint meeting with the DRB for the 5th Tuesday in January (30 January 2018). Members were receptive to this idea. 5. Request for Boundary Line Determination – Isham Parcel: Ms. Louisos noted that the interested parties could not attend this meeting. Mr. Conner suggested rescheduling for the next meeting. Mr. Macdonald moved to continue the boundary line determination request for the Isham parcel to 12 December 2017. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Zoning Amendment Request – Materials in the Form Based Codes District: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of a written request relating to Section 8.07, “prohibited materials,” specifically vinyl siding. Mr. Conner explained that a few months ago, staff became aware that Northfield Bank had replaced the vinyl siding on 2 of its branches. The regulations say that only “normal repairs” can be done to a building; any new building cannot use a prohibited material. Staff felt that this situation fell in the middle and was not clear in the regulations and that it should be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gagnon noted that when people are replacing something that is prohibited, it is a chance to get what the city wants. Mr. Mittag agreed. Mr. Klugo said there is the issue of keeping a building looking good, and he was on the site of having a building maintained. He said he would feel differently if the building had been replaced. Mr. Macdonald said the buildings look good, and he felt using the vinyl siding was OK since it was pre-existing. Mr. Gagnon said if this applies to only a few buildings in City Center, he would agree with Mr. Klugo and Mr. MacDonald. Mr. Klugo expressed further concern that vinyl siding would be allowed on 2 sides of the building; he felt it should go away entirely in City Center. He questioned why the front façade should be different from the rest of the building and suggested revisiting that wording as it doesn’t make sense. Ms. Ostby said there may be some circumstances where it wouldn’t be visible, but those would be the exceptions. Mr. Conner acknowledged that it is hard to administer anything that says “except where….” Mr. Klugo said he was in favor of allowing replacement “in kind” to prevent deterioration of a building. He also questioned the meaning of “repair.” Mr. Mittag felt this situation was clearly not an “alteration,” and the 35% rule would not apply. Ms. Ostby read from the regulations indicating that the purpose of the code was to get ride of the prohibited materials, including vinyl. However, what follows is confusing. Mr. Klugo said that because of the unclear language, he would give this situation “a pass.” Mr. Mittag expressed concern with setting a precedent and beginning to undo the Form Based Code. Mr. Conner reminded members that if they want to make a change, they have to go through the whole process. He also acknowledged that if the goal is to eliminate prohibited materials, building owners may choose not to upgrade their buildings. Mr. Klugo noted that there are “ugly” buildings which use permitted materials. These buildings look good with prohibited materials. He suggested that they consider what Northfield did as “a repair” and then change the language of Section 8.07 to what the Commission wants. The project manager for Northfield’s replacement project reviewed the history of the project. He noted that when they explained the project to staff, they were told that there was no permit required to change the color from yellow to gray. They could have changed the color by painting it, but that would have created a maintenance issue, so they didn’t elect to do that. He also noted that they did not replace all of the vinyl, just the slats. He felt that using wood would also create a maintenance issue, and hardy plank is three times the cost and would have required replacing all of the trim as well. He stressed that they tried to provide the best solution for the bank. Mr. Conner asked members where they would like this issue to be in 6 months. Mr. Gagnon said he would like uniformity on all sides of the building with a conforming material. He had no issue with vinyl. Mr. Riehle said he agreed with uniformity on all sides. Mr. Klugo agreed with uniformity, but when alterations are done, he was OK with “replacement in kind.” Ms. Ostby agreed with Mr. Klugo. She felt that many of these buildings will be around for a long time and need to be kept up. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Klugo and Ms. Ostby. He felt that all sides of a building should be of an allowable material but not necessarily the same material. Mr. Mittag agreed with Mr. MacDonald about allowable materials but not necessarily the same material. He was concerned with allowing in-kind replacement. Ms. Louisos was OK with replacing vinyl with vinyl but not replacing other prohibited materials with “in kind” materials. Mr. Conner noted that very minor repairs to a prohibited material are allows (e.g., replacing a small chip of stucco). Ms. Ostby said she would want a building upgraded with a change in tenant/ownership. Mr. Conner suggested “use” in stead of tenant/owner. Ms. Ostby said she wouldn’t want to see an established business carrying a financial burden by forcing an upgrade. Mr. Riehle questioned prohibiting stucco and noted that in Europe stucco buildings look very attractive. Mr. Klugo suggested revisiting the list of prohibited materials. Ms. Louisos asked if Commissioners would agree to an amendment that would extend the list of prohibited materials to all sides of a building, and also allow vinyl siding to he replaced with vinyl siding on a building. This replacement would not apply to other materials on the prohibited materials list. Members agreed that this made sense. Mr. Conner said staff will come back with language based on allowing replacement of vinyl with vinyl as long as there are no alterations and also not allowing a prohibited material on any side of a building so that all sides of the building are conforming. 7. Continued Review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Urban Design Overlay District: Mr. Conner showed some visuals to illustrate the language of the regulations. He said the city will contract with a design firm to provide some good illustrative examples. Mr. Klugo felt this was a great first step. He also cited the difference between an “urban” and a “suburban” entrance. b. Building Heights in C1-R15 and C1-Auto District to Complement Urban Design Standards: Mr. Conner noted that both of these zones allow 15 units per acre. That means buildings of 4 stories. However, there is a 35-foot height limit, which would not allow for 4 stories. To simplify the situation, staff is recommending that on Shelburne Road, north of IDX, buildings could potentially be 5 stories as long as they are not adjacent to an R4 neighborhood. This would not apply south of IDX because zoning is at 7 units/acre at this time. Ms. Ostby suggested some “scenic nodes” along the way so people don’t just drive by rows of 5‐story buildings. Mr. Conner stressed that it will be a long time before the areas is built out with 5-story buildings. Ms. Ostby suggested identifying scenic nodes in advance, and then letting height do what it does. Mr. Klugo noted that view corridors can be determined by where the east-west streets are. Ms. Ostby felt there aren’t enough of those streets north of IDX that offer a view. Mr. Klugo noted that buildings can be oriented to accommodate a view. Ms. Louisos reminded members that this is where the city has said it wants dense development, and the Commission shouldn’t do anything to lost that potential. Mr. Conner said he felt that what they were looking for was “a sense of distance,” not a specific view. Mr. Klugo suggested requiring major circulation to be east- west within a development property. Members asked staff to look at opportunities for these “openings” and indicated that the draft language was in the right direction. 8. Initial review of Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program requests. Ms. Ostby was concerned that Swift Street Extension seemed to be a “fait accompli.” She thought it was going to be discussed. Mr. Klugo cited the list of hurdles before that street could happen. Mr. Conner noted that if/when the Hill Farm property is developed, a road connection will be required pursuant to the present regulations. What kind of road is to be decided. He reminded members that the City Council chose to leave Swift St. Extension on the Comprehensive Plan map when the subject was brought to them during adoption. Ms. Louisos noted there are people in the community who don’t want that road extended and hope the Commission will come to that conclusion. Mr. Mittag said it was put on the map when other roads didn’t exist. Ms. Louisos noted that many other roads have been taken off the map. Mr. Conner cited future challenges without the extension of Swift Street. Mr. Riehle said he would like to revisit east-west roads, not only that one. He felt that discussion should happen soon. Mr. Conner asked members to think about taking on this and other big projects given their existing work list. 9. Introduction to Chief Sustainability Officer Role: Mr. Conner said this is a natural evolution of all the work the Commission and the city have done (e.g., Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Utility, etc.). He noted that in August, the Council signed onto the Vermont Climate Accord. Creating the Chief Sustainability Officer position puts a framework around what the city already does and how it measures what it does. It also helps with internal evaluation. The Regional Planning Commission has been asked to help with some sustainability efforts. They may be able to help with this but would likely have to move something else would have off the work list for this year, such as the “wildlife zoning” project. Mr. Conner added that South Burlington is a very dynamic community with a lot happening, with the challenge of which projects to do first. He stressed the support of both the Energy Committee and the City Council in these efforts. 10. Meeting Minutes of 14 November 2017: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 14 November 2017 with the correction of a misspelling on p. 3. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: a. Application for Certificate of Public Good, Verizon Wireless, 366 Dorset Street: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of a letter from Green Mountain Suites. She noted the Commission had decided not to take action because they were replacing something that was already there. Mr. Klugo noted that what is being proposed is markedly different from what was there, and he wouldn’t that installed where they are planning to install it. Mr. Conner noted that the applicant will be applying for a Certificate of Public Good after 60 days. This is a pre-application notice. South Burlington Realty owns the property. Mr. Conner noted they did remove the barbed wire fence at the city’s request. He also reminded members that this project is exempt from local regulations. Mr. Klugo noted a similar project on Joy Drive where they made the dishes smaller. He suggested the same thing might happen here. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to have that conversation with the applicant prior to the Public Service Board process. b. Letter from South Burlington Land Trust: Members felt they would like to know the status as there is no actual request that has been made. Mr. Conner said UVM put out an RFP for someone to do a plan for the property. They selected a candidate. He stressed that there has been no formal request for a zoning change to the property. Part of the property is zoned Institutional/Agriculture. Mr. Conner suggested they could remove the specific references to UVM so that another higher educational activity could go there. He recommended that members keep this in mind but not take it up until there is an actual request. Members agreed to hold onto the letter until there is a request and consider it at that time. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:36 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission December 12, 2017 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: November 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Continued review of Request for Boundary Line determination – Isham parcel, 1225 Dorset Street (7:20 pm) See enclosed updated memo and maps per the Commission’s request. 6. Zoning amendment request – Materials in the Form Based Codes district (7:45 pm) See enclosed request and staff memo 7. Continued review of draft amendments to Land Development Regulations (8:05 pm) a. Urban Design Overlay District b. Building heights in C1-R15, C1-R12, and C1-Auto District to complement Urban Design standards See updated materials, enclosed 8. Preview – 2018 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program requests (8:45 pm) See enclosed staff memo 9. Introduction to Chief Sustainability Officer Role & measurable indicators (8:55 pm) See enclosures! 10. Minutes (9:10 pm) 11. Other business (9:12 pm) a. Letter regarding planned wireless telecommunications facility, 366 Dorset Street 12. Adjourn (9:15 pm) 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: Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries for 1225 Dorset Street DATE: November 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting At the last Planning Commission meeting (November 14th), the Planning Commission considered a request for a zoning boundary line interpretation at 1225 Dorset Street. See the memo in that meeting’s packet for the initial staff analysis. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff was asked to follow up on two aspects of the request. These, and the responses, are below: 1. Determine the format of the decision to be issued by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission is recommended to have this decision be issued in writing, with findings & conclusions, and a formal vote of the Commission. Staff will prepare an outline of this for the Commission to modify and take action on at this or a subsequent meeting. 2. Perform a short analysis of the history of planning / mapping for this property Staff was asked to look into our files to help determine how this property came to be wholly contained within the SEQ-Natural Resources Protection District. In the past week we took a look at our files relative to this property and general Southeast Quadrant planning. As you know, there is a LONG history of planning in this part of the City. While we can provide the Commission with any and all reports & documents from over the years, we’ve tried to pick out some key pages of documents that illustrate what the Commission was looking for. First, a brief history of planning in the SEQ: Prior to 1990, the entire SEQ was one zoning district. Properties under 50 acres in size could be developed at a density of one unit per 10 acres, and parcels over 50 acres in size could be developed at a density of two units per acre. Following significant planning efforts & studies in the late 1980s, a new plan & zoning system was established. Density was limited to 1.2 dwelling units per acre, and these could be moved from mapped “restricted” to “development” areas. Limited development was allowed in restricted areas. In the mid 2000s, a second round of extensive studies were completed, which led to the current plan & zoning, which has “sending” districts (Natural Resource Protection, principally) and “receiving” areas (including the Neighborhood Residential Village Residential, and Village Commercial). Enclosed maps We have enclosed several maps for the Commission’s consideration: 1. Maps from the 1989 Southeast Quadrant Planning study: a. Potential “Development Based Plan” (one of three concepts, all which are essentially the same for this particular parcel) b. Potential “Official Map” 2. Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map early 1990s to 2006 3. Southeast Quadrant Goals-Based Plan (part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan from early 1990s to 2006) 4. Southeast Quadrant Goals Based Development Areas 2001 (provided to PC as part of later zoning update) 5. 2002 South Burlington Open Space strategy map of woodland and forest cover areas 6. 2004 Official Map 7. Southeast Quadrant rezoning concept, circa 2005 8. Adopted SEQ zoning map, 2006 ( 9. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Maps: a. Current Land Use b. Future Land Use 10. Current South Burlington Zoning Map, 2017 City of South Burlington Southeast Quadrant Rezoning Concept Major Roads 0' 250' 500' 1000' 1500' Future Roads S w i f t S w i f t S t r e e t D o r s e t S t r e e tH i n e s b u r g R o a d M u d d yB r o o kW i l l i s t o n S h e l b u r n e I n t e r s t a t e 8 9 N o w l a n d F a r m R o a d C h e e s e F a c t o r y R o a d V a n S i c k l e n R dS p e a r S t r e e t S t r e e t E x t e n s i o n City Woods The Western Reserve R4 54.22 ac R4 36.95 ac R4 65.30 ac R4 69.00 ac R4 112.0 ac R4 67.50 ac R4 25.10 ac R4 65.37 ac R4 41.48 ac R4 11.54 ac R4 140.71 ac R4 39.88 ac R4 44.70 ac R4 15.45 ac R4 5.15 ac R7 50.12 ac R7 2.3 ac R4 28.94 ac R4 75.67 ac R4 86.50 ac VC-R 160.40 ac R-7 33.70 ac R-7 26.35 ac VC-R 32.0 ac Park 26.69 ac Park 17.00 ac 6.33 ac 1.23 ac VC 17.22 ac R4 136.57 ac R4 37.75 ac R4 49.44 ac 448.16 ac The Central Reserve 700.0 ac The Eastern Reserve 446.30 ac R4 11.84 ac BURLINGTON BURLINGTONESSEX JUNCTION Shelburne Bay COLCHESTER WINOOSKI SHEL B U R N E ESSEX WILLISTONS H E L B U R N E R DDORSETSTS WIFT ST WILLISTON RD SPEARSTHIN ESB UR G R D89 189 Map 1 Current Land Use Comprehensive Plan City of South Burlington, VT February 1, 2016 Document Path: P:\Planning&Zoning\Planning\ComprehensivePlanMaps\ComprehensivePlan_2015\Map1_CurrrentLandUse.mxd 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions Land Use Commercial/Industrial Condos/Apartments Low Density Residential Public/Institutional Transportation/Utilities Agricultural Use Active Agricultural Small Scale Agriculture Farmers Market Community Garden Open Space/Farmland/Very Low Density Residential COLCHESTER WINOOSKI SHEL B U R N E ESSEX WILLISTONBURLINGTON BURLINGTONESSEX JUNCTION Shelburne Bay S H E L B U R N E R DDORSETSTS WIFT ST WILLISTON RD SPEARSTHIN ES B U R G R D 89 189 Map 11 Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan City of South Burlington, VT February 1, 2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Future Use of Land Categories Planning Underway Very Low Intensity - Principally Open Space Lower Intensity - Principally Residential Medium Intensity - Residential to Mixed-Use Medium to Higher Intensity - Principally Non-Residential Medium to Higher Intensity - Mixed Use Streams Waterbody Document Path: P:\Planning&Zoning\Planning\ComprehensivePlanMaps\ComprehensivePlan_2015\Map11_FutureLandUse.mxd Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions §¨¦89 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 R1-PRDR1-PRD R1-L R1 - L V South Burlington, Vermont ¹ 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Data Disclaimer: Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions Note: Parcel line data is provided for informational purposes only. The City reserves the right to update the Official Zoning Map with new parcel data as it becomes available. Transect Zone 1 Disclaimer: The T1 Transect Zone depicts stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer areas on the Official Zoning Map. Stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer areas are shown for illustrative purposes only. Depicted stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer boundaries are approximate. The diagram should not be construed as showing all stream buffers, wetland, and wetland buffer areas, nor the precise locations of such stream buffers, wetland, or wetland buffer areas. Stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer delineation for permitting purposes must be determined in accordance with Article 10 and 12 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, as applicable. Effective April 11, 2016 Zoning Map P:\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\ZoningMap\2016\ZoningMap_Effective_2016_04_11.mxd Zoning Districts Residential Districts Residential 1 Residential 1 - Residential 2 Residential 4 Residential 7 Res 7-Neighborhood Commercial Residential 12 Lakeshore Neighborhood Queen City Park Form Based Code Districts Transect Zone 1 Transect Zone 3 Transect Zone 3 Plus Transect Zone 4 Transect Zone 5 Municipal & Institutional Municipal Park & Recreation Interstate Highway Overlay Institutional & Agricultural-North Institutional & Agricultural-South Southeast Quadrant Subdistricts Natural Resource Protection Neighborhood Residential North Neighborhood Residential Neighborhood Residential Transition Village Commercial Village Residential Commercial Districts Commercial 1 - Residential 12 Commercial 1 - Limited Retail Commercial 1 - Residential 15 Commercial 1 - Airport j j j j j j j j j Commercial 1 - Automobile Commercial 2 Swift Street Allen Road Industrial and Airport Districts Mixed Industrial & Commerical o o o o o oAirport Airport Industrial ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (Industrial & Open Space Districts Districts Districts 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: Request to allow replacement of vinyl siding in the Form Based Code District DATE: November 14, 2017 Commission meeting Enclosed is a letter form Susan Turcotte of Industrial Four requesting that the City allow for the replacement of vinyl siding on a building within the Form Based Codes District. Specifically, the request is to allow a non-conforming siding material (vinyl in this case) to be replaced in its entirety on a building. Vinyl is a prohibited material for any façade facing a street or park in the Form Based Codes district. Applicable standard: 8.07 Prohibited Materials The following is a list of materials that are strictly forbidden as exterior finish materials, on all sides facing a street right-of-way, public right-of-way, pedestrian passages or public civic space, in all City Center districts: A. All types and form of vinyl siding or vinyl finishing products. B. External Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) C. Stucco D. Plywood (excluding Marine Grade plywood) E. Chain-link fence F. T1-11 G. Concrete block, cinder block H. Tar paper I. Tyvek or equivalent Background This request was initiated this fall after Northfield Saving Bank elected to renovate the exterior of their two buildings in South Burlington (Shelburne Road and Williston Road). In both cases, the building siding was replaced in its entirety without receipt of zoning permits. Both the old and the new siding are vinyl. One of these building is located within the City Center Form Based Codes district. Staff sent a letter to Northfield Saving Bank indicating that they had undertaken renovations without a permit and asked for them to apply for approval. It was at that time that this subject came up. Staff indicated to the applicant that it would likely not consider the replacement, in its entirety, of vinyl siding to be in conformance with the regulations. Staff offered the applicant the option of either requesting a modification to the standards to the Planning Commission, or receiving a formal determination from staff and having the option to appeal the decision to the DRB. The applicant elected to seek an amendment from the Planning Commission, at least initially. Options and Alternatives As with all zoning amendment requests, the purpose of this initial review is for the Commission to determine if it wishes to take up the request or not, and if so, on what general timeline. Options for the Commission include taking no action, considering a change in the shorter term, or taking the request under advisement for the future. There are multiple buildings in the City Center Form Based Codes district with vinyl siding. Staff encourages the Commission to keep that in mind as it considers the request. As this is principally a design issue, staff is not providing a specific recommendation for how the Commission should proceed; we’d like to invite the Commission to share its thoughts first on this matter. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 Article 10 Overlay Districts Staff note: All of the text below is new, including the existence of section 10.06. Changes shown in purple below include staff updates made after the September 12th meeting of the Planning Commission. Changes shown in red reflect those made per the direction of the Commission at the October 24th and November 14th meetings. This draft is for discussion purposes only. A clean redlined draft, including chapter context, will be presented prior to any warning of a public hearing. 10.06 Urban Design Overlay District A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This Overlay aids the City’s vision for the Southwest quadrant, which is to enable infill and conversion development, encourage pedestrian movement, serve local and regional shopping and employment needs, and make use of existing public transportation. The City strongly envisions that the quadrant will also provide safe and inviting access to adjacent neighborhoods. B. Comprehensive Plan. This section implements the community desires established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan desires that new development will occur in subject corridors. The corridors subject to the Urban Design Overlay District are encouraged within the Plan to use public transportation services, inspire pedestrian movement, and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas. More specifically yet, the Plan advocates for the creation of one or more nodes of concentrated development and public activity in these areas. C. Applicability. This section shall be implemented in accordance with the geography(ies) shown on the Overlay Districts Map contained in these Regulations. (1) New construction. In the case of proposed expansions to existing buildings, only the portion of the building being added or rehabilitation per (2) below shall be subject to compliance with these standards. Portions of an existing building not being modified may remain as is provided alterations do not increase the degree of nonconformity. (2) Substantial Rehabilitation (a) Authority to Continue. Nonconforming structures may be continued provided conditions in this Section are met. (b) Repair and Alterations. Repair and alterations may be performed on any nonconforming structure, provided they comply with the Code and with the following: (a) When the total area of alterations to the primary building façade, or to the building façade that is parallel to and oriented to the street, exceeds 35% of the total areas of such building façade, the alterations shall comply with the entry and glazing standards described. For the purposes of this subsection, window and window casing replacement, painting, adding or removal of siding, and other similar changes shall not be considered alterations. For multi-tenant buildings, the standard shall apply separately for each tenant area where that tenant gross floor area exceeds 10,000 square feet. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 (b) Structural alterations involving the replacement, relocation, removal, or other similar changes to more than 50% of all load bearing wall / pillar elements of a building shall require compliance with all standards within these Regulations. (3) Nodes. These regulations recognize that some areas of a corridor serve or will serve as important connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is desired and, where noted, required and permitted. Site design and buildings within designated nodes shall provide a welcoming and safe street presence for all users. Nodes are listed as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’, and are mapped and regulated accordingly. D. Standards. Except where noted herein, the underlying dimensional standards, use, and other standards of the Zoning District shall still apply. (1) Entries. Subject properties must have at least one entry facing the primary road in the corridor. Any such entry shall: (a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations. (b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. Front entries shall be a focal point of the front façade and shall be an easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticos, overhangs, recesses/projections, decorative front doors and side lights, or emphasis through varied color or special materials. This does not preclude additional principal entry doors. (c) Shall have a direct, separated walkway of at least 8 feet in width to the primary road. This may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a pedestrian-oriented access. (2) Glazing. Windows are key to the overall design of a building and the relationship between its exterior and interior. (a) For all properties in the Urban Overlay District, a minimum of 75% of glazing shall be transparent. (b) In non-residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7 vertical feet. (c) For residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 5 vertical feet. (3) Dimensional Standards Height Minimum (Maximums per underlying zoning district) Glazing Features Setback from ROW Designated Primary Node 2 stories First stories shall have a minimum of 60% glazing across the width of the building facade on primary street; 40% minimum glazing across width of the façade facing the secondary street. Must have significant architectural feature at corner of building. See illustrative examples located ***** Minimum 20 feet South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 Designated Secondary Node Appearance of two stories at minimum. Buildings less than 6k sf gfa may be one story. First stories shall have a minimum of 60% glazing across the width of the building facade on primary street; 40% minimum glazing across width of the façade facing the secondary street. Must have significant architectural feature at corner of building. See illustrative examples located **** Minimum 20 feet All other properties No height minimums First stories shall have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width of the building facade Minimum 20 feet (4) Landscaping Projects within the Urban Design Overlay District shall meet minimum landscaping requirements as per Section 13.06 of these Regulations. Projects are also subject to the following supplemental standards: (a) Landscaping which is required elsewhere in these Regulations to serve as a buffer between properties shall not count towards the minimum landscaping budget. (b) For buildings which are set back 50 feet or more from the front property line, at least 50% of the required landscaping shall be installed between the front building line and the front property line. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 Urban Overlay District Nodes; Overall Map Please note that these are best viewed interactively. We’ll bring the interactive maps for discussion at the November 14th meeting. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 Urban Overlay District Nodes; Detailed location maps from north to south South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 Williston Road: South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 EXAMPLES OF CORNER FACADES OR BUILDING FOCUS Illustrative for focus only; other elements may not apply. We will likely work up commissioned graphics in place of photographs for this component. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 28, 2017 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Heights in C1-R15 and C1-Auto Zoning Districts DATE: November 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Please note: this item was continued from the November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting for lack of time. This memo is very similar to the memo sent for that meeting, with some minor amendments. At a joint meeting with the Development Review Board in 2015, the DRB asked the Planning Commission to consider some adjustments along Shelburne Road; the DRB stated that they had continually received requests for height and setback waivers and felt that the stated purpose and intentions for the area did not match the existing regulatory text. The Commission agreed that there was a disconnect and agreed to take up the issue, subsequently directing staff to bring ideas that could provide a ‘quick fix’ to these two issues. The direction was to promote a semi-urban environment, where the building setback and heights restrictions were less restrictive than more rural or suburban parts of the City, while also requiring simple adjustments to building facades and placement to further the stated goal. Over the course of the last year, the Commission held several productive discussions of these issues. The scope was widened to include a small portion of Williston Road nearest Kennedy Drive, which is in a very similar zoning district. Nodes were designated to promote increased building presence at key intersections. The related urban overlay text is the result of specific guidance from these discussions. The Commission discussed building heights over the course of several meetings, primarily with regard to appropriate heights, and whether there were any necessary variations at corners, along the primary road, or further setback. As a result, the revised draft of the Urban Overlay District no longer includes specifications for maximum height limits within the overlay. As presented at the last October meeting and given due consideration of Commissioner feedback, the draft recognizes that maximum height limits are best tied to the underlying zoning district rather than the corridor/overlay district. The design standards for the overlay district are appropriate for buildings which are set close to the street and for which an enhanced pedestrian environment is enriched, while the height considerations may be appropriate for more than just the first 140 feet of depth on these corridors. The Commission also indicated a belief that the 35 foot height restrictions in the C1-R15 (15 units per acre in density, the greatest in the City outside of the City Center FBC area) and C1-Auto districts do not reflect the intended purpose or desired densities of the districts. The current height limitations for the C1-R15 and C1-Auto are defined only by feet. For historical context, the Planning Commission several years ago discussed and established height limitations by stories for low density districts. Staff recalls that the Commission intended to return to more dense zones, 2 acknowledging that they are very different than the lower density residential neighborhoods and should be considered separately. Staff has prepared a slideshow of examples to be viewed at the meeting. Current height regulations Zoning Map showing C1-R15 and C1-Auto: 3 Based on commissioner feedback, staff includes for your feedback amendments to height limitations. Please note the subsequent limitations which would apply based on proximity to existing residential neighborhoods: District Land Use Maximum site coverage: Maximum Building Height Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Accessory Principal (flat) Principal (pitched) Total Stories C1 Multi- family 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 All other uses 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 C1-Auto Multi- family 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 All other uses 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 (a) No building shall be more than 1 story taller than the shortest R4 building on adjacent property. The portion of the building greater than this may increase by 1 story for each 75’ of separation, up to allowable maximum. (b) Stories of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District are defined as per Section 8.06(F) of these Regulations. (c) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District. (d) First story floor-to-floor height shall not exceed 20 feet. Upper stories shall not exceed 14 feet in floor-to-floor height. 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: Initial Discussion: FY ‘19 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program projects DATE: November 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Again this year the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission is seeking input on possible transportation planning-related projects they should undertake in their next fiscal year in support of South Burlington. Over the last few years, the City has been the beneficiary of several projects, many of which are presently underway. Staff’s initial recommendation this year is to focus first on completing existing projects, and then to seek assistance in two larger-scale transportation-land use projects. Below please find a brief status report on the currently-approved projects (in order of ongoing to completed), followed by staff’s initial recommendations for FY 2019. Staff is eager to gather Commissioners’ input on what should be included in our requests next year. The Commission will be asked to vote on a set of recommendations to City Council at its first December meeting, so that Council may take action in January in advance of the CCRPC’s deadline. The goal for this evening is to hear feedback on the potential projects highlighted by staff and gather input on any potential projects that you’d like to have staff look into before the action at the next meeting. Status of Current UPWP Projects: 1. Kimball Ave / Kennedy Drive / Tilley Drive / Old Farm Road / Hinesburg Road Network Analysis – Phases II + III Description: Analysis of anticipated future transportation needs – vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle – in the northeastern portion of the City. Phase II has involved developing alternatives for meeting future transportation needs along with public input and involvement. Phase III will be to develop and cost out specific improvements to be undertaken, so that they can get into the City’s CIP and into the State traffic impact fee system Status: The Planning Commission received a presentation on Phase II concepts and ideas in the summer of 2017; the feedback is being reviewed and refined concepts will be shared with the PC this winter. Phase III is anticipated to continue into the next fiscal year. 2. Williston Road Network Analysis Phase II 2 Description: Analysis of the medium to longer-term transportation improvements – with a focus on multi-modal transportation and transportation demand management – to align with the FBC and TIF plans for the area. Status: This study was completed in the summer of 2017; the City has several action steps to follow up with over the coming months. 3. Traffic Overlay District Regulations Update Description: Project is to overhaul the City’s Traffic Regulations to better support transportation improvements and overall transportation demand management. Status: Presentation of concepts given to Planning Commission provided in summer 2017; work in developing first draft underway. Expected to be completed in current fiscal year. 4. Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance Update Description: Project is to update the City’s Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance, aligning it with the City’s annual Capital Improvement Program and accounting for all forms of transportation. Status: Presentation of concepts given to Planning Commission provided in summer 2017; work in developing first draft underway. Expected to be completed in current fiscal year. 5. I-89 Exit 14 Bicycle & Pedestrian crossing study Description: Study feasibility and alternatives for improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure crossing over I-89 in the vicinity of Exist 14 (Williston Road) Status: Phase I of this project is wrapping up and is expected to be completed in the next couple of months. 6. Sidewalk/Shared Use Path gaps scoping Description: undertake first stage of planning (“scoping”) of 4 identified recreation path / sidewalk connections within the Capital Improvement Plan. Status: Four sites – Allen Road (western end), Hinesburg Rd from Williston Rd to Kennedy Drive, Spear Street from the US Forest Service building south, and Fayette Road – are currently being scoped. Expected presentation to Planning Commission of findings in the early spring of 2018 and completion by the end of the fiscal year. 7. Dorset Street Adaptive Signal Control / Williston & Dorset Street Signals analysis Description: These are two separate projects to look at signal systems, intersections, and technology along this corridor. Status: This project is formally underway. Data gathering is being completed and recommendations will be provided over the coming months for use of this system. 8. Develop River Corridor Plans for applicable South Burlington waterways 3 Description: Following completion of studies in recent years to determine the meandering paths of rivers, river corridor plans determine how to allow for these waterbodies to properly flow within those identified areas. Likely to become a requirement of FEMA All-Hazard Mitigation Plans in the future in order to maintain eligibility for disaster recovery and mitigation grants. Status: Initial review meeting took place in late summer 2017. Parties working on their respective pieces. 9. Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Mapping Summary: Using all of the information and priority-setting that the Bicycle-Pedestrian Committee has developed over the past year-plus, prepare a coordinated map of how gaps in the present infrastructure will be closed and direct guidance to the development review process on what should be provided to the City at the time of development for parcels along proposed routes. Status: Kick-off scheduled for November 2017. 10. Wildlife Zoning / Sustainability Summary: The City received CCRPC staff support for completing wildlife / natural resources standards update in the Land Development Regulations. Staff has since communicated with the CCRPC about using this allotted time to assist the City with sustainability data collection & measurement related to the City’s commitment to the Vermont Climate Alliance. This project could kick off in the New Year. Status: Kick-off potential in early 2018 Initial Potential FY 2019 UPWP project applications: As noted above, Staff’s initial recommendation is to focus on first completing the project list above. 1. Multi-site pedestrian crossings scoping Summary: This project would scope out three intersection-level bicycle / pedestrian improvements: (a) adding a refuge island and crosswalk across Williston Road near Pillsbury Manor, (b) adding a crosswalk and improving the refuge on Kennedy Drive at Twin Oaks Drive, (c) examining vehicle lane assignments at Williston Road / Kennedy Dr and Williston Road / Hinesburg Rd to determine if bicycle lanes can be continued to the intersections. Source(s): Champlain Neighborhood Study, Bike Ped Committee 2. City Center Parking & Movement Plan, Phase I Summary: This project would get the City started into how to management parking & movement of people (employee transportation) in City Center. Building on the broad Transportation Demand Management Options work from 2015, this would begin to establish what the City will need to do both physically and systematically to manage parking and to maximize efficiency in the coming years as City Center builds out. Source(s): Comprehensive Plan 4 3. Swift Street Extension connection Summary: This project would be to work with property owners to design the general characteristics of the planned roadway connection between Swift Street Extension and Hinesburg Road, including possible improvements along the existing section of Swift Street extension to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and keep vehicle travel speeds at an appropriately slow speed. Source: Comprehensive Plan 4. Land Value of Development / Return on Investment Summary: This project would involve a analysis of the City’s existing development to examine where the City’s strongest performing (value per acres) types of development exist, to initiate a broader discussion about future development, capital investments, and the long-term impacts of public infrastructure. Source: Vermont Downtown Conference / Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce speaker series; Comprehensive Plan 5. Exit 14 Bike Ped Crossing Phase II – Scoping Summary: This project would pick up where Phase I finished and scope a preferred layout and orientation for a bike-ped crossing over the I-89 at Exit 14. Source: Comprehensive Plan; Phase I study 6. Williston Road / Dorset Street lane assignments Summary: This project would examine in greater detail the proposed lane re-assignments at the Dorset Street / Williston Road intersection, to include changing the westbound orientation to straighten out the “jog” that exists and improve overall traffic flow Source: Williston Road Network Study 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com September 15, 2017 Kevin Dorn, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 re: Chief Sustainability Officer Dear Kevin, Per our discussions this summer, enclosed please find a proposed “job description” for the position of Chief Sustainability Officer. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to serve the community in this capacity, and am excited by the opportunities this function will open up for South Burlington. The job description itself was prepared using best practices and samples from several of the resources that the City has engaged over the years, including parts such as ICMA and ICLEI Communities. It was then tailored to the specific needs of our community. We have some spent time this summer exploring the ways in which the City may best develop and implement an overall plan for sustainability. In very broad terms, the term Sustainable Development was defined as early as 1987 as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Commission Report, 1987). I see this position, and the City Council’s recent action in support of the Climate Change accord, as an opportunity to bring together the many tremendous efforts already underway in the City, attach measured performance indicators across multiple venues, determine our areas of strength and need, and deploy an implementation plan. Importantly, we’re looking at this effort as being one that operates on a City-wide basis, across all relevant departments, and one that is data and outcome driven. We have begun work into how best to meet these goals and are exploring partnerships and opportunities to do so. One group, STAR Communities, has developed a comprehensive evaluation matrix based on its work with 60+ cities and towns across the country and is affiliating with organizations such as ICMA and the National League of Cities. They have developed a Framework of Sustainability that breaks this very broad term into multiple categories such as affordable housing, water quality, health systems, local economy, and civic engagement. We are communicating with New England communities who are members to determine fit. Below is the sample STAR Communities Framework, to give a flavor: 2 I look forward to working with you, the City’s Departments, the City’s Committees, and our community partners on this effort, and will be developing a resources proposal for you in the coming weeks. Sincerely, Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington – Planning & Zoning CHIEF SUSTAIBILITY OFFICER Reports To: City Manager Department: Planning & Zoning JOB SUMMARY: (What is done and why.) Administrative, professional, and supervisory work in developing, implementing and managing a coordinated sustainability plan that balances environmental and ecological integrity with economic prosperity and social/cultural vibrancy; performs related duties as required. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: (Majority of duties, but not meant to be all-inclusive nor prevent other duties from being assigned as necessary.) 1. Provides vision and leadership in the development and implementation of a sustainability plan and sustainability programs for the City; 2. Manages he City’s sustainability program and recommends and implements necessary changes or modifications as needed to increase effectiveness; 3. Manages and prioritizes the City’s sustainability initiatives and ensures on-going progress of program efforts; 4. Works across all City departments and partner agencies to identify, recommend and implement sustainability initiatives based on their impact, technical feasibility and return on investment; 5. Establish annual performance targets; analyze, monitor and report on progress in meeting these goals and their effectiveness. 6. Represents the City when working with outside agencies on matters relating to the City’s sustainability efforts; 7. Serves as a City spokesperson on sustainability issues and represents the City in meetings with representatives of private and public entities 8. Develops and maintains the annual budget for the sustainability programs; 9. Actively researches, applies for and coordinates work associated with applicable grant funding; 10. Serve as a catalyst to further integrate sustainability and environmental values into how the City conducts business; 11. Identifies and addresses barriers to the success of the sustainability programs; 12. Increases awareness of sustainability initiatives through participation in civic, neighborhood and professional group activities. 13. Assists City departments to reduce environmental impacts from operations and improve environmental performance. 14. Coordinates with City commissions & committees and outside partner organizations in the development and implementation of the City’s sustainability plan. KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE: (Minimum education, experience, technical and communication skill levels and licenses/certificates normally required to perform the duties of this position.) This position is performed by the Director of Planning & Zoning and includes the knowledge and experience required of that title. SUPERVISED BY: Supervision is received from the City Manager. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 NOVEMBER 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 November 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner, S. Chaney, R. Hamlin 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Ostby provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Agenda item #6 was postponed until a future meeting. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: An audience member expressed concern with how Cider Mill 2 has changed and that the wetlands are being used to calculate density. She was also concerned with the narrowing of streets and did not agree with connecting neighborhoods because she felt it creates more traffic. She asked how these things could be changed. Mr. Conner explained the process by which the Commission could take this up as a project in their next work plan. Ms. Ostby added that zoning changes require a complex process. Mr. MacDonald stressed that the land in Cider Mill 2 is privately owned. Mr. Conner also stressed that when there is a project in front of the DRB, issues have to be talked about within the DRB process. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. MacDonald: Attended the “Smart Cities” seminar. Discussions included self-driving cars. Mr. Conner said there are 2 technologies involved: a car than can sense what is around it and a car that can get information about what is ahead. Technology will bring those 2 together. The city of Tampa will be having “autonomous buses” going back and forth. Mr. Conner noted that in thinking about City Center, not as much parking may be needed in the future. Mr. 2 MacDonald said there is also a reversal of the “to the suburbs” tend of the 70’s with people now moving back to the urban core. Ms. Ostby: Attended the Affordable Housing Committee meeting. The Committee is still discussing the replacement of affordable housing. There was discussion about waiving impact fees for affordable housing which South Burlington does not do. The Committee agreed to consider that. Mr. Conner: The groundbreaking for the first large building in City Center (Cathedral Square) has taken place. There will be 39 mostly affordable units. Spent a day with the Energy Committee at a climate alliance conference. He will present a briefing on the Williston Road project to the City Council next Monday. The city has received an $800,000 grant for this. There will also be a public hearing on the amendment to allow radio/TV studios in the I-O district. Ms. Ostby asked whether a pedestrian bridge over I-89 could be on the November ballot. Mr. Conner said that will take big funding sources including a nationally competitive grant. A lot of work is needed to get to that point. 5. Request for Boundary Line Determination in Isham Parcel: Mr. Conner explained that where there is uncertainty about a boundary, the Planning Commission can make that determination. He showed a map indicating the location of the property in question (just off Park Road near the water tower). Mr. Hamlin, representing the Isham Estate, said they are requesting determination of the zoning boundaries as he believes there is no Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map in the current regulations. He noted that the golf course has an easement to use the center portion of this property. The Estate is questioning whether a portion of the parcel could be residential. He indicated that portion and noted his belief that there is a logical connection to residential developments above and below it and the potential for road connections. Mr. Hamlin also noted that this is the only parcel where the NRP does not follow a natural feature. Mr. Riehle felt the rule was clear. He added that he might feel differently if only a portion of the property fell within the SEQ. Mr. Klugo agreed and felt there would have to be a separate process to make a change. Mr. Conner said the map appears to show the property entirely in the NRP zone with the zoning following the property line. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Riehle. Mr. Hamlin noted 3 nearby developments have dead-ended streets much greater than 200 feet in length and are substandard streets. He also said the plan for this area was historically residential. Change happened with the golf course when this property was erroneously 3 considered part of the golf course. Mr. Klugo said he would not disagree with that and believed there was some intent there. However, there is a legal map with a boundary. Mr. Hamlin disagreed that there is a legal zoning map. He said there is no “Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map.” There is a “Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map” incorporated into the City Official Map. He then showed where he thought roads should connect and where a developable area should be. He noted that the city is taxing the parcel as an R-2 parcel. Mr. Conner noted that the R-2 designation is a taxation designation which means there is a house on more than 6 acres of land. Mr. Hamlin said they are paying $16,000 a year in taxes. Mr. Klugo asked I there are any maps showing a different designation. Mr. Conner said he is not aware of any. Mr. Conner said the Commission has 30 days in which to determine where the boundary is. Mr. Riehle asked when the properties to the north and south were developed. Ms. LaRose said in the 90’s to the south, much earlier to the north. Mr. Conner added that the NRP zone dates to 2006. Mr. Conner said he would like to speak with the City Attorney as to whether the Commission should have a written decision or just a verbal motion. Mr. Klugo said he would like to know what the zoning maps showed when the properties to the north and south were developed. Mr. Riehle said he was concerned with tampering with the NRP. Mr. Klugo said he was too, but he wanted answers to some questions. Mr. Hamlin said he could provide maps all the way back to the 90’s. Mr. Klugo moved to continue to a meeting within 30 days as determined by staff. Mr. MacDonald seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-3 and was deemed to have failed. Mr. Conner said the Commission has 2 possible paths: interpretation of intention or request for a legislative change. He noted this is a significant piece of land to make a determination of “intent” rather than have a full amendment process. Mr. Hamlin felt there is a middle ground of determining that there was an error in including areas outside the golf course in the NRP. Members agreed to put the item on the next agenda and have Mr. Conner come back with pertinent information. 6. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: 4 a. Urban Design Overlay District: Ms. LaRose presented revised language based on feedback from the last meeting. The word “dominant” regarding front entrances was changed to “focal point.” Mr. Klugo suggested having pictures of ‘what could happen’ to create an image for discussion. Ms. LaRose agreed to do that. b. Building Heights in C1-R15 and C1-Auto District to complement Urban Design Standards: Mr. MacDonald felt the language seemed vague. Mr. Riehle suggested examples here as well. Mr. MacDonald said he was fine with the intent but wanted more specificity. Ms. Ostby was concerned with expressing a vision for the road. Mr. LaRose suggested expanding the purpose statement to incorporate that. She also stressed that Shelburne Road will always be a state highway and also the entranceway to South Burlington. The city can determine what is seen along the road. Mr. Conner showed examples of streetscape plans which could be possible within state-owned land. She also showed a “commercial boulevard” concept which would be possible within state-owned land. Ms. LaRose noted that the minimum setback has been changed from 10 feet to 20 feet. Members agreed to hold off on the height discussion until there is a full Commission present. c. Staff status update on the following: Housing Replacement Standards, Form Based Code adjustments, Parking standards, Bicycle Parking amendments: Mr. Conner noted that staff received a first draft of a legal review regarding housing replacement. He will be meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee and the Commission’s representative to that committee to work on something that legal counsel will be comfortable with. Mr. Conner said staff will be coming back to the Commission with some ideas regarding elimination of “minimum parking” and establishment of “maximum parking” standards. Discussion of Form Based Code adjustments and Bicycle Parking amendments was postponed until the next meeting. 5 7. Commission 6-month Check-in on Annual Work Plan Progress: Ms. LaRose noted the review does not include the previous meeting or this current meeting. Mr. Conner reviewed what the Commission has accomplished and the status of other projects that he been begun. He also indicated what has not been addressed (e.g., managing larger projects). Mr. Conner noted there will be meetings with property owners in the Tilley Drive/Community Drive area. Mr. MacDonald asked about a crosswalk in that location. Mr. Conner said that since there is now a sidewalk, the city may be able to make a case for a crosswalk. They may first put a pedestrian counter there. Mr. Conner noted the state has approved a crosswalk at Hayes/Eldridge. Staff is trying to coordinate a meeting of the Commission with the DRB. Ms. Louisos is working on “river corridor” standards which may not need any amendments. Scoping for bike paths is now underway. The Commission will soon be seeing information on where streets can and can’t be in City Center. Scenic views project will be getting started very soon. Mr. Conner said he would like for the Commission to be further ahead but he still felt they could get most of the work plan accomplished….pending other big projects taken on. 8. PUD Development/Master Plan Project Update: a. Review of Landowner Feedback Ms. LaRose said the intent was to get feedback on market trends, etc., and she felt the meetings went well. She noted feedback that came from Chris Snyder who noted that Finney Crossing is no longer being defined as “retail.” Level of detail was a concern, and landowners felt building footprints shouldn’t be required. They also felt they shouldn’t have to address “small stuff” (accessory structures, specific amenities, etc.) at this stage. They stressed the need for flexibility to respond to the market dynamic. 6 Mr. Conner noted the development community is very concerned with “predictability” from concept all the way through. They did not want the city to change the “big picture” part way through. They wanted “vested rights” throughout. Ms. LaRose noted that the consultants also had their eyes opened to such things as barriers to affordability. The consultants will next be meeting with various committees to see how their concerns may be appropriate to various types of PUDs. Mr. Conner noted the problem now with an application to amend a Master Plan. Mr. Klugo questioned whether master plans should be in the purview of the DRB or the Planning Commission. Ms. LaRose said there is state legislation addressing that. Mr. Klugo cited the problem of legislating a “form” that may happen over time and has happened that way in the past. He cited the importance of “building amenities first.” Mr. Conner said the question is how to facilitate that. Ms. LaRose said amenities will be different in different places, and the city has to be clear as to what it wants in the way of amenities. Mr. Snyder said “location first.” You can build a basic building in the right spot and people will line up to get to it. If you build a spectacular building in a bad spot, no one will come. Ms. LaRose noted that the consultants are also at work considering a form of “performance zoning.” This would involve a list of options with a point value for each. The developer would be told how many points a project needed and could choose how to get to that number. 9. Introduction to Chief Sustainability Officer Role and Measurable Indicators: Due to the late hour, members agreed to postpone this discussion to the next meeting. 10. Minutes of 24 October 2017: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 24 October 2017 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:15 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk