Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/26/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 JUNE 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 June 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon,T. Riehle, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; F. von Turkovich; E. von Turkovich, P. Smiar, M. Hamlin, R. Greco, S. Dopp, S. Dooley, J. Simson, W. Daumer, B. Sirvis, T. Haas, K. Ryder, D. Leban, L. Ravin, additional visitors 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: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: There were no public comments. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby: The Affordable Housing Committee is working on inclusionary zoning. They were also informed that the Maple Leaf Hotel is now scheduled for demolition, removing another source of affordable housing. Mr. Conner: Groundbreaking for Market Street will take place on Thursday, 28 June, 11 a.m. at the Central School entrance. Last night the City Council hosted a presentation regarding the proposed new City Hall/Library/Community Center which will possibly be on the November ballot. Art Klugo spoke regarding the Comprehensive Plan. All documents are being scanned as part of a tremendous project. This meeting is being video-recorded. 5. Presentation and Initial Review of Request to change Edlund Property on Spear Street zoning from Institutional Agriculture South to a district that allows residential development: Ms. Louisos explained the process for considering zoning changes and outlined the Commission’s alternative. No decision will be made at this meeting as a number of Commission members are not present. Mr. von Turkovich indicated that they would speak in general terms and answer questions. They would then try to mesh into the zoning request process and come back with a full presentation. He then identified the parcel in question on the map and also adjoining parcels owned by UVM. Part of the plan would be to connect all the parcels. The property identified as 150 Swift St. is the area they had been looking to building housing previously. They then learned that the Edlund parcel might be for sale by UVM. They now have an agreement to purchase the property contingent upon a zoning change. Mr. von Turkovich said he felt the city should consider their plan because of the type of development they envision. Mr. von Turkovich noted that UVM could build housing today (without a zoning change) on the Martin parcels, which are part of this agreement, but they do not want to do that and instead are pursing partnerships. Housing for the Edlund parcel would be in the interior of the parcel, screened from any view, and not up to the street, Mr. von Turkovich said. It would allow for connectivity to bike paths, etc. There would also be appropriate strategies put in place for the protection of the Potash Brook basin. Mr. von Turkovich asked the Commission to allow them to have a deeper engagement with staff to discuss their ideas and also to have a complete discussion with other city committees (i.e., Natural Resources, Affordable Housing, Parks/Recreation, Rec Path, etc.). They have already spoken with the South Burlington Land Trust. VHB would put together reports and studies so the Commission can see all the details of the site. Mr. Riehle asked what would be developed on the Martin property. Mr. von Turkovich said none of the preliminary planning would have development on that property initially. Ms. Ostby noted there is already some UVM land zoned R-4 and suggested utilizing that land instead of going through this process. Mr. von Turkovich said that is very productive agricultural land that serves the needs of a farm. Ms. Ostby said she is talking about the land south of Swift St., rather than the land north-east of the intersection. Mr. von Turkovich said that land had not been discussed. Mr. von Turkovich noted that the interior of the Edlund property is where stuff from the building of the Interstate was “dumped” and that there are aerial photos of the property without trees in the center from the mid-Century. Mr. Gagnon ask about the allowable density of the 2 parcels. Mr. Conner said in the PRD, if there is less than 5 acres, the allowable density is one per acre; if it is more than 5 acres, the density is 5 per acre. Mr. Conner listed some of the allowed uses in the Institutional-Agricultural South District. Mr. Gagnon noted that the IA district included Group Quarters, and asked if the applicant would look at a density constraint with the surrounding properties. Mr. von Turkovich said they would. Mr. Riehle asked if it is an “all or none” situation or whether they would develop only 150 Spear. Mr. Von Turkovich said the “master plan” is to develop Edlund. Martin would be held. 150 Spear would go to UVM. He noted that the center parcels between 150 Swift and the Martin parcel along Swift street are separately owned by others. Ms. Ostby noted that the Commission’s workplan includes discussion of UVM property and asked how much time the applicant is willing to give to this. Mr. von Turkovich said they can be patient and would work with staff and committees before coming back to the Commission. They want to move ahead and come back later in the summer with a fuller presentation. They are hoping for a decision before the end of the year. Ms. Ostby said it seems to her like a “spot zoning” request. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is in the process of re-doing the PUD regulations and questioned whether this proposal would coincide with that work. Mr. von Turkovich said they would hope to interact with that ordinance. Ms. Dopp cited several “position papers” written by UVM students in the Rubenstein School which should feed into a full discussion of this request. Ms. Greco said the proposal goes against the Comprehensive Plan and the city’s vision and would do irreparable harm to the environment. She cited the need for full public awareness. Ms. Ostby reiterated that today, without a zoning change, UVM could build dormitories on that land. Mr. Daumer asked what UVM expects for a monetary point of view as “affordability.” Mr. von Turkovich said the University expects a “meaningful affordability,” and they would work with the city in good faith on affordability. Mr. Simson, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, explained what “affordability” means in terms of housing for households with an annual income in the $55,000-80,000 range. He felt this could be a real benefit to the city if the developer plans housing in that range. Ms. Dooley noted she is on the Affordable Housing Committee but is also a member of the Land Trust. She cited the “competing needs” in the community for conservation and for affordable housing. Ms. Sirvis said her big fear is that what would happen here is the same clear cutting that occurred on the O’Brien property. Mr. Haas cautioned not to push the “visual envelope” too much; it’s a matter of “what’s behind the curtain.” Ms. Louisos said the Commission is very aware of all the concerns that have been raised. Ms. Ostby said she would like to hear from UVM directly as to why they are not using land already zoned for housing. Mr. Riehle added that he would like to see a map of all the UVM zoned lands. Ms. Ryder asked what a person with the indicated income range can afford. Ms. Dooley said she would provide a link to that information. 6. Overview of the Role of the Official Map and Proposed Steps for FY2019 Update: Mr. Conner explained that the Official Map is a special strong too for communities outlined in State Statutes regarding future public infrastructure (e.g., roads, water towers, fire stations, etc.). The affect is that any infrastructure indicated on the map must be incorporated in any development plan. If a developer chooses not to do that, the city has the right to acquire that property. If the city chooses not to acquire the property, the plan goes back to the DRB without that issue. There is language that addresses the possibility of a small change (e.g., moving a proposed road a few feet). Mr. Gagnon asked if the proposed infrastructure is taken off the map if the city doesn’t buy the property. Mr. Conner said there could be circumstances where it might remain (e.g., a different type of configuration that would be compatible with the development that takes place). Mr. Conner noted that the Official Map has been successfully used in the community for roadways and rec paths. He said the City Attorney could be asked to come in and provide more detail. Ms. Ostby asked about adding solar facilities and scenic views. Mr. Conner didn’t feel the Official Map was the place for those considerations. Ms. LaRose added the things on the Official Map are tied to specific geography. She noted the Map was used in the case of the Underwood property and the O’Brien neighborhood development (for road connections). Ms. LaRose cautioned that anything that is put on the Official Map should be very well researched and thought out as you don’t want to take away value from the property and there is always a cost to the city. Mr. Conner added there has to be a very clear “public purpose.” Ms. Ostby suggested a draft first if east-west roads are left on the Map. Mr. Gagnon said you can’t do that as the Official Map has to be approved by the City Council after which it is official city policy. Mr. Conner noted that a city road shown through the Hort Farm could come off the map as it is not in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Update on various grant-funded projects: Mr. Conner updated grant-funded projects as follows: a. Traffic Overlay District & Transportation Impact Fees The city is working with RSG and are close to a proposal as to when there needs to be a traffic study (including more specificity regarding a project) so the developer’s share of the cost can be known. It also encouraged multi-modal transportation. b. Williston Road Network Study implementation: One piece of the 2-piece study is underway for the Williston Road Streetscape. There have been meetings with property owners. The other piece of the study is attached to the Official Map and involves how City Center can be more precisely calibrated for different types of streets. c. Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping: The first public meeting on this project will be held on 1 July. Scoping is now being done for Fayette Road, the West end of Allen Road, Hinesburg Road between Williston Rd. and Kennedy Drive, and all of Spear Street. Consultants are now working on options. Ms. LaRose noted they are also looking at replacing the crossing where the bridge washed out. Last week, the project team had a meeting to kick that off. The map has always shown a bike-ped option there. This will be a joint project with the Town of Williston which will be striping bike lanes to the bridge. d. Tilley Drive/Kimball Ave Land Use/Network Study: The city is working with RPC to outline the next steps which include talking with property owners. 8. Update on Open Space Categorizations for the Land Development Regulations: Ms. LaRose said staff has met with both Natural Resources and Parks/Rec Committees who are excited about participating in this project. There will be a small group including members of each committee. 9. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on Planning Commission FY19 Work Plan: Mr. Conner advised that staff had acted on the changes requested by the Commission. They also added reserving time for things that come within the Commission’s realm of responsibility. Mr. Gagnon cited the need to address some concerns before they become issues/problems (e.g., air b&b’s). Mr. Conner noted that the City Council Chair has asked for quarterly updates on the work plan. A member of the Natural Resources Committee said they would like to be involved in the scenic views discussion. Mr. Gagnon suggested meeting regularly with committees to hear what they are working and to tell them what the Commission needs. Ms. Ostby then moved to adopt the work plan as presented and discussed. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Minutes of 12 June 2018: Mr. Riehle noted that on p. 3, third paragraph from the bottom, the recommendation came from Mr. Klugo. Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the Minutes of 12 June as amended. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the City Council has warned a public hearing for the amendments sent by the Commission. Council members had expressed concern with the potential for residential development close to the Interstate ramps. A “tweak” had been added to “except residential uses.” The Commission will be able to weigh in on that. Ms. Ostby asked about the noise report done for Chamberlin School. Mr. Conner said he would try to get a copy of it. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:32 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission July 24, 2018 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: June 26, 2018 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. Presentation and Initial Review of Request to change Edlund Property on Spear Street (south of I-89) zoning from Institutional- Agricultural South to a district that allows residential development; Frank von Turkovich (7:15 pm) See attached memo & request 6. Overview of the role of the Official Map & project steps for FY 2019 update (7:50 pm) See attached memo & current official Map 7. Update on various grant-funded projects (8:20 pm) a. Traffic Overlay District & Transportation Impact Fees b. Williston Road Network Study implementation c. Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping d. Tilley Drive / Kimball Ave Land Use / Network study e. Others Staff will provide the Commission with an update on these at the meeting. 8. Update on Open Space Categorizations for the Land Development Regulations (8:35 pm) Staff will provide the Commission with an update on these at the meeting. 9. Continued Discussion and possible action on Planning Commission FY 2019 Work Plan (8:40 pm) See enclosed draft workplan. It includes the updates requested by the Commission as well as one “new” item, which is a small amount of reserved time for “other” projects that might come up. Examples would include PSB applications, things like the recent Private Aviation Facilities, Council requests, etc. 10. Meeting minutes (9:00 pm) 11. Other business (9:02 pm) 12. Adjourn (9:04 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: Initial consideration of zoning change request from Institutional-Agricultural South to one that would allow residential uses, Edlund Property, Spear Street DATE: June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed please find a request from Frank von Turkovich and Richard Cate for the Commission to consider a zoning change at the Edlund Property currently owned by the University of Vermont along Spear street, immediately south of I-89. Mr. von Turkovich will attend Tuesday’s meeting to provide the Commission with an overview of the proposal and respond to Commissioners’ initial questions. Initial staff analysis: Current conditions & land ownership: The chart and map below highlights the subject property (in red) and other nearby properties that are related in ownership and/or potential transactions. Edlund and Nearby Properties Edlund Martin 150 Swift Eastwoods Color outline on map Red Blue Yellow Green Current Ownership UVM UVM von Turkovich UVM Proposed Future Ownership von Tukovich von Tukovich n/a n/a Current Zoning Institutional Agriultural- South Residential 1- Planned Residential Development Residential 1- Planned Residential Development Institutional Agriultural- South Requested zoning Residential [not specified]n/a n/a n/a Other ---Conserved Current Zoning Overview The Edlund property is currently zoned Institutional Agricultural-South. Among the allowable uses in this district: [summarized, for full list please see Appendix C of the LDRs] • Educational Facilities, plus uses in support of the educational mission: o Group Quarters [ie, student housing], o General offices, o Medical offices, o Cultural facilities, o Places of worship • Dwellings for Farm Employees • Community Center • Food hub • Social Services • Group & Residential Care Homes • Research Facilities or Laboratories • Agriculture (exempt from local regulation) Analysis: The subject property located in an area of the City that is nearby to UVM and along a transportation route. In any consideration of the zoning for this parcel, the Commission will need to look at the wider context of the area and what the City’s Plan Comprehensive Plan and overall intent for this area calls for. In the Comprehensive Plan, this property is located in the transition area between “Lower-Intensity – Principally Residential” and “Very Low Intensity – Principally Open Space.” If the Commission elects to take up a more detailed review of the zoning for this parcel and the area, staff would recommend that it be taken up in the context of the Commission’s Master Plan & Planned United Development project. The subject property, and nearby related properties, have potential to serve as a candidate Planned Unit Development project focused on compact development and resource conservation. Staff recommendation Staff recommends that at this first meeting, the Commission receive the presentation from Mr. von Turkovich and raise any initial questions that Commissioners have. Staff would then recommend scheduling a second discussion to be held once everyone has had a chance to digest the initial presentation. At that time, the Commission could then decide whether to take up the project in FY 2019 and if so, in what manner. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: Official Map Elements and Timeline DATE: June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting The Official Map is one of the City’s key tools used to plan for future public infrastructure in the community. South Burlington has had an official map in place since the 1990s. State Statute lays out the role, function, and procedures for Official Maps. The majority of the City’s Official Map – aside from the City Center area – dates from 2004. And while these do not expire, there are updates and changed conditions in the community since that time. There are several studies and large projects which could, and in some cases really should, contribute to the next major update of the Official Map. These include: • Review of East West Roads Study o Presentation of 2007 EW roads analysis; candidate project for future UPWP • Parks Gap Analysis • Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure • Rezoning of some PRD zones (Farrell Estate and O’Brien) • Remove unnecessary or undesirable infrastructure from current Map There are also some smaller pieces which should be updated. These include: • Remove built areas • Include in map display those that were approved and adopted by City Council (City center and O’Brien Farm development) • Check 12B against Hinesburg Road development (John Fay Drive) • Comprehensive Plan • Declutter- remove unnecessary information and layers Official Map      Amendments Adopted June 20, 2017  Effective July 10, 2017          CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONCITY OF BURLINGTONBlock StandardsAppicability Non-Exempt INTERSTATE 89W H IT E S T DORSET STHINESBURG RDA S P E N D R R U T H S T G A R D E N S T PATCHEN RDMIDAS DRMARY STM A R K E T S T WILLISTON RD I B Y S T SAN REMO DRLegend Form Based Code Area (346 acres) Existing Road Parcels Existing Streets Planned Streets Planned Recreation Path Planned Street Right of Way Parks Tax Parcel Boundary E \\PWSERVER\GISdata\Planning&Zoning\Planning\OfficialMap\OfficialMap2017\OfficialMap_2017.mxd exported by:mbrumberg On 6/30/2017 City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning - Official Map (Form Based Code Area)Effective July 10, 2017 *Approximate locations of proposed roads, to be used for planning purposes only. Please refer to original studies for exact road centerlines. 0 700 1,400350 Feet Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/201812345678910L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N1 I‐89 Bike / Ped Crossing Scoping project for bike/ped bridge InputFunded and underway 2017‐201860% PC Role Complete .5 to 1 15 to 30CCRPC Consultants, staff project team01. Bringing City Center AliveOpportunity OrientedY1 City Center guidance & directionProvide guidance on design / planning priorities in City Center in support of the City Council; includes UPWP work to evaluate parking and movement (approved spring '18)Prioritize City Center guidance & development ongoing and as neededPrioritization ongoing and as neededCouncil & Commission priorityongoing ongoing 1 to 4 100 to 20001. Bringing City Center AliveOpportunity Orientedy1Zoning Amendments‐ Initial requestsInitial requests from the public to consider amendments; determination of next actionAlways mindful of impact on work planPerform initial Reviews, decide what to do with eachInitial reviews per policyN/A ongoing 12 to 24 5 to 5007. Community EngagementOpportunity Orientedy1 Planning Commissioner itemsWould set aside time for Commissioners to bring new or different ideas to the Commission not specifically related to a project in the annual work planJessica: ongoing N/A 1 to 4 2007. Community EngagementOpportunity Orientedy1 Meet with DRB Annual meetings with DRB Planned for Jan 2019 Annual annual Met in FY 18 1 to 2 4 to 1207. Community EngagementOpportunity OrientedY1Provide input to Capital Improvement ProgramAnnual Capital Improvement Plan  Input Annual100% Input provided for 2018 0 to 1 8Prepared annually by City Manager Staff06. Walking the walkAffordable & Community Strongy1 Williston Road Network Study(1) set/ revise location of planned supporting streets, (2) revise FBC & Official Map to match, (3) possibly revise how buildings and streets are related in the FBCPrioritize for completion in FY 19AdoptionPart of overall City Center efforts80%Detailed review of proposed streets underway following completion of consultant work in FY 182 to 3 40 to 60CCRPC Consultants, staff project team01. Bringing City Center AliveWalkabley1Master Plan / Planned Unit Developments (& related)Would set new standards for most new large scale development, including revised Master Plan thresholds & procedures and PUDTypes. Includes (1) creating clear Master Plan process, thresholds, & benefits, (2) creating 4‐8 Planned Unit Development types with clear review criteria & standards for development, (3) clean‐up of related LDR language ‐ subdivisions, PUDs, Site Plan, building heights, etc., and (4) significant public outreachBring to completion in early FY 19; likely small residuals and cleanups will followAdopt Master Plan & up to 4 PUD typesFunded using City Funds; Highly anticipated by array of stake‐holders. 75%Master Plan detailed outline presented to PC & side‐by‐side of PUDs/Master Plans/Subdivisions delivered10 to 15 200 to 250City Consultants; support committees (housing, recreation & parks, NRC)02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseAffordable & Community StrongY1Transportation Overlay District UpdateReplace the existing traffic overlay district that sets a cap on rush‐hour vehicle trips along major roadways with new tools to encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modes. Includes providing consultants & project team with broad direction for desired outcomesComplete project started in 2016Adoption Funded 2017‐2018 65%Detailed consult outline being reviewed by Staff2 to 3 40 to 60CCRPC Consultants, staff project team03. Transportation, SmartlyWalkableY1 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N111213141516171819201 Traffic Impact Fee UpdateReplace the existing ordinance with new tools to encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modesComplete project started in 2016Recommendation to CouncilFunded 2017‐2018 65%Detailed consult outline being reviewed by Staff2 30 to 40CCRPC Consultants, staff project team, Council03. Transportation, SmartlyOpportunity OrientedY1Tilley / Kimball / Community Drive Transportation & Land Use StudyIterative development of a transportation & land use plan for this part of the City: (1) presentation of current conditions and anticipated amount of development; (2) review and approve Purpose & Need; (3) discuss future transportation / land use scenarios to study; (4) review recommended approach & projects; (5) set table for future project to update zoning to reflect priorities and coordinate with transportation planComplete project started in 2016Review existing conditions, approve purpose and need, provide feedback on scenarios and recommended next stepsPhase II funded 2017, Phase III funded 201850%Project team reviewing PC feedback; developing review plan with PC and landowners1.5 to 6 60 to 10003. Transportation, SmartlyOpportunity OrientedY1Fixes to zoning and LDRs per PUD projectDevelopment of PUD regulations has highlighted areas for adjustments to underlying zoning as well as technical and policy adjustments to the LDRs in support of PUD provisionsConnected to the PUD projectMost fixes; excepting those listed as next steps in staff memo50%Ongoing in parallel to Master Plan/PUD project440City Consultants; P&Z team10. Foundations of zoningClean & Greeny1Wildlife / natural resources standardsWould establish more clear review criteria for conservation of wildlife, landscape, natural resource standards on individual parcels. Project was 50% completed in 2010Could pick back up with guided assistance from NRC. Would tie in nicely with PUD standards. Jessica: continue work with support from NRCCCRPC set aside hours in FY19 to do work50% 3 to 4 50 to 7009. Conserving Natural ResourcesClean & Greeny1 Scoping of 4 Bike / Ped ProjectsPrepare scoping studies of four city‐led projects identified by the Bike Ped CommitteeSmall project for PC: review Purpose & Need, host final presentationPurpose & Need and preferred alternatives approvedFunded 2017‐2018 40%Existing conditions complete; community workshop July 25th1 10 to 1603. Transportation, SmartlyWalkableY1Updates to LDRs to promote affordable housingWould examine and implement various zoning tools to promote housing, such as bonuses, inclusionary zoning, cottage housing, accessory units, etc.This is largely being taken on by the Affordable Housing Committee; PC to reserve time for review and possible adoptionadoption 30%Currently in progress by AHC3 to 6 40 to 150Affordable Housing Committee05. Supporting AffordabilityAffordable & Community StrongY1 Scenic ViewsEstablish scenic view protection overlays, including a methodology, analysis of priorities, and standards for foreground, middle ground, and backgroundlets get 1‐2 done!Adoption of 1‐3 scenic views, steps toward additional protectionsCommission priority 15%Staff has initiated work at Wheeler Nature Park; developing baseline for PC to review3 to 7 40 to 100 NRC?09. Conserving Natural ResourcesClean & Greeny1 Airport Noise Compatibility PlanProvide input on draft Airport Noise Compatibility Plan when it is complete small but important project for the CityProvide inputAirport to release draft plan in FY 190% Airport developing plan 1 to 1.5 20 to 3004. Strong NeighborhoodsAffordable & Community Strongy1Scoping of 4 Bike / Ped Projects‐ CrossingsPrepare scoping studies of four city‐led projects identified by the Bike Ped Committee‐ UPWP 2019Prioritize for reviewPC to review and approve purpose and need statementFunded 2018‐2019 0% 0.5 10 to 1603. Transportation, SmartlyWalkableY1Projects that Arise through the yearReserving time for other projects that fall within the PC's area of responsibility0% 3 to 5 30 to 4007. Community EngagementY2 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N2122232425262728JL: At least the medium size, including the bike‐ped ‐‐ MO: Please do not update until East/West Road study complete.  Combine 23 with 26?  2 Update City‐Wide Official MapUpdate the official map from its current 2004 edition. Smaller project would be to align with Comprehensive Plan, medium project would incorporate bike‐ped committee recommendations, larger project would be to streets & public spaces citywide. Includes review of East‐West RoadsPrioritize for completion in FY 19. Official Map was last updated in 2004 and is out of date.Completion & AdoptionNeeds update to be consistent with other City Planning Documents and reflect Comp Plan goals30%Initial staff assessment begun. 4 to 10 30 to 100 Advisory city committees02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseOpportunity OrientedDM: Delegate to NRC 2 Redefine Open Space citywideWould replace the lot coverage standards citywide with intentional open space, similarly to how the FBC has done this. Ties into the PUD project for larger parcels, and has some of the work completed from the 2014 open space report.Prioritize for completion in FY 19Adoption 25%PC reviewed staff updates in April; directed to see advisory committees3 to 5 80 to 12004. Strong NeighborhoodsClean & Green3Organizing for managing larger projects, including developing a policy for support committees providing draft policiesDevelopment of Commission policies and procedures for how to farm projects out to Committees of the CityBring to completion in early FY 19Policy adoption 75% 2 20 to 40 08. Capacity Building Opportunity Oriented3 River Corridor StandardsWould update the City's stream buffer requirements to be consistent with river corridor planningPBC ‐ looks like there won't be much hereAdopt any changesFunded 2017‐2018 40%Project team met. Standards to be sent to river corridors person at State0 to 1 10 to 20CCRPC staff & staff project team (CCRPC, stormwater, P & Z, commissioner?); NRC role?08. Capacity BuildingClean & Green3Parking Standards outside City CenterWould re‐evaluate parking requirements Citywide. Could be a smaller project to do an overall reduction of requirements, or a larger project that looks at how to incentivize changes. Could include Park & RidesOversized parking requirements are placing unwanted restrictions on redevelopment; PC gave staff direction to reach out to developers with concepts; staff has been doing soAdoption of new stds30%Initial discussion with PC complete; Staff has begun to discuss w/ development community at PC Request2 to 3 30 to 4003. Transportation, SmartlyWalkable3Gap and future needs Analysis Parks, TransportationWould determine future park space needed throughout the city and how to access it for the coming decades. Some of this baseline work was done in the 2014 Open Space reportPerhaps Rec & Parks could look at this as part of the Official Map updateSeek funding source10% ? ?Recreation & Parks, Bike‐Ped?04. Strong Neighborhoods3 Full review of UVM PropertiesWould consider possible amendments to the I/A zoning district in conjunction with UVM for right‐sizing the zoning for all of their landsPrioritize for completion in FY 19. Have contacted UVM; awaiting response week of June 3rdAdopt adjusted zoning map and related table of uses; relate to PUD typesWould be an opportunity to address multiple subjects at once5%Staff has had very early and broad conversations with representatives from UVM3 to 6 20 to 3502. Sustainable, Quality Land UseOpportunity Oriented3 Waterfront developmentWould work with property owners to plan the conditions for a future mixed‐use waterfront area along the lake.Jessica: begin work0% 3 to 7 70 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land Use3 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N293031323334353637JL: Maybe after PUD Master Plan project is over, so feedback would include that work?Evaluate FBC 2.5 years into adoption. How's it going, what have we seenWould be a focused look and gathering feedback on FBCPrioritize for proactive assessmentOutreach, assessment, and fixes as neededCouncil & Commission priorityunofficially: 10% Staff is collecting notes and feedback as they come up from both developers and review staff2 to 7 10 to 40All P&Z staff; City Project Management staff01. Bringing City Center AliveOpportunity OrientedLinking City's efforts togetherCoordinate committee & staff work. This is underway with the Leadership committee & upgraded CIP/Budget process.Staff is pursing this work as an integrated element of overall effortsUnderway 2 40 to 80 08. Capacity Building Opportunity OrientedOpen Space AcquisitionContinually review opportunities for open space acquisitionJessica: discuss, make planN/A 1 15 to 2009. Conserving Natural ResourcesShelburne Road‐ Nodes of activityWould examine the Shelburne Road corridor to create intentional centers of activity and places in between that are less built‐up. Shelburne Road Form standards, underway, helps set the baseline for this.80%Work largely completed as part of Urban overlay standards; 6 to 8 80 to 15002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseMO: Questions pertaining to AH "Inclusionary Zoning" connects to this topic; DM: Combine with #36 (TDR review)Transferable Development Rights clarificationsClarifications to the TDR program as it operates in the SEQMuch of the work has been done by our Legal Counsel; this is just a legal tidy‐upAdoption 75% 1 to 2 8 to 16 Legal Counsel10. Foundations of zoningClean & GreenMO: Cottage/Infill will discuss this.R4 District front setback standardsWould evaluate and possibly lower front setback standards in the R4 districtCL‐ would like to see this prioritized to enable existing neighborhoods to 70% No change 1 10 to 1504. Strong NeighborhoodsWalkableFootprint LotsExamine how to address footprint lot incongruity in the LDRsConsider and possible adoptCommission added per DRB request50%PC reviewed concept in January, asked staff to look at with Attorney1 to 207. Community EngagementOpportunity OrientedTR: "read" robert Frost poemFence heights in residential districts, SEQ, and CC FBCRevise fence standards City‐wide40% 2 10 to 2004. Strong NeighborhoodsAffordable & Community StrongChamberlin Neighborhood / Airport Plan amendmentDevelop an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on the Chamberlin report, neighborhood meetings, City Council, etc.Prioritize in FY2019 Adoption 35%No recent action; Chamberlin report long complete.8 to 14 80 to 24004. Strong NeighborhoodsAffordable & Community Strong4 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N38394041424344Agricultural Enterprise Use (if applicable)(1) Create a new use category for agricultural businesses at a large scale; (2) look at in context of TDRs & add Non‐residential uses to TDRs; (3) examine neighborhood impactsEngaging project. Unclear of current pressing need.30% 8 30 to 4002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseOpportunity OrientedDefining density & housing unitsWould consider changing the definition of density. Today, a housing unit is a housing unit, regardless of size or configuration. Could be examined as bulk, or other methods30% 1.5 to 3 12 to 1805. Supporting AffordabilityJL: Move to small project list because largely staff driven? ‐‐ MO: Cottage Housing considerations might as Clean up of LDRs ‐ remove public works standards & put into a bookWould remove public works standards (street construction, turn radii, etc.) from the LDRs and create as a DPW policy bookThis can be done largely by staff in the background; would not involve significant policy changes25% 1 30 to 4010. Foundations of zoningMO: Also ‐ any "density bonus" allowable needs to be clarified as part of the statements so clear to the community.Review "purpose" statements of each zoning district; possible consolidation of districtsWould do a clean‐up of each of the "purpose statements" to assure that the regulations are framing the reasons for the existence of each zoning district clearly, and assess where zoning districts may be outdatedPurpose statements: on the "nice to do list"; consolidation of zoning districts more important20%Presented initial concept of consolidation to PC in Sept. Review again in early Nov. 5 40 to 5002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseMO: Understand CANOPY vs SOLAR offset.  Is it better for neighborhoods with heavy canopy to remove trees to generate more solar ‐ can the City support/helpRenewable Energy Siting ‐ CCRPC & Plan amendmentProvide feedback to the CCRPC on renewable energy siting; consider updating the Comp PlanCould do all plan work simultaneously‐ would like consume a full fiscal year20% 2 to 10 16 to 40Led by CCRPC, can get feedback from Energy & NRC02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseClean & GreenMO: Yes!  Again, pertains to Inclusionary Zoning questionReview TDR programWould evaluate the TDR program, including possibly (1) making areas outside the SEQ eligible as receiving areas and/or (2) prioritizing sending areasWork previously done by committee. Triaging projects, this doesn't seem to pre‐empt others ahead on this list.15% 4 to 8 40 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseIntensities and Densities in various districts, including density increases allowable through PUDsExamine appropriate intensities & densities in various districts. May be folded into 2 other projects: PUDs for larger properties, and examination of the definition of "unit" citywide15% ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use5 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N454647484950515253Family / Affordability Goals Plan amendmentExplore establishing clear goals & objectives for young families in South BurlingtonPBC ‐ If comp plan is being revised up for Chamberlin, then this should be done tooadoptionrelate to Chamberlin Plan Amendment10% 1 to 2 16 to 5005. Supporting AffordabilityAffordable & Community StrongTR: Broken record.PROACTIVE Short and Long Term ResilienceBroad review of the City's policies to assure that they are promoting long term resilience and sustainabilityJessica: begin discussion, tie to Hazard Mitigation Plan 5% ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land UsePublic and private investments Review how to maximize the combination of these efforts. A piece of this will be addressed as part of the PUD project5%08. Capacity BuildingAgricultural lands & soils planningWould set criteria for which portions of a parcel would need to be retained base on soil types, and would consider requirements for soil aeration post development.Jessica: discuss, make plan5% 3 to 5 30 to 4009. Conserving Natural ResourcesTR: as with any business decision;what is the net gain?Cost / benefit of developmentAnalysis of City's existing development related to cost of infrastructureSoft kick‐off for this work for PC in 2019; introduction of conceptsIntroductionCCRPC will refine scope; possible funding and project scope in FY200% 2 30 to 50 work by CCRPC staff 06. Walking the walkAffordable & Community StrongReview Temporary use & structuresWould review the City's regulations regarding the number, frequency, and allowance for various kinds of temporary structures & usesSmall project; staff would insert during smaller meeting0%Review initial draft early 20181 to 3 25 to 3510. Foundations of zoningMO: Is there anything we can do to encourage City Center "Industrial" to make way for commercial/mixed use? (San Remo)Industrial Zoning & NeedsWould look comprehensively at how the City is planning for space for future industrial areas as areas that aren't near housing are limited in the City. Ties somewhat into the Tilley Drive project, but only somewhat0% 6 to 8 70 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseTR: Always been a critic of swamp land considered in the formulaMaximum Density Calculation and Undeveloped Land Would consider removing undevelopable land from maximum density on parcels. Would likely involve an examination of underlying density to assure right‐sizing in affected areasThis is being done as part of PUDS, at least for that kind of developmentJessica: discuss, make plan0% 6 to 10 40 to 8002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseMO: Can this be combined with Scenic Views?Historic preservation language Would establish requirements related to alterations to historic structures0% ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use6 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N545556575859606162Consider no parking on front lawns‐Would require vehicles to park in designated parking areas on a parcel. Project would likely involve defining how much of a lot can be devoted to such uses.0% 1 to 2 12 to 1804. Strong NeighborhoodsTR: big issuedwhen a project infringes on neighborhoodExamine tree requirements in IHO‐Would consider requiring more substantial vegetated buffers in the Interstate Overlay District, and also whether a project's landscaping budget can be used for this buffering0% 1 to 2 12 to 1809. Conserving Natural ResourcesClarify regulations regarding construction or reconstruction of homes in the SEQ‐NRP districtWould review the criteria by which homes & properties are reviewed and approved in the SEQ‐Natural Resource Protection district to assure consistency with the intent of the district0% 2 to 4 20 to 3009. Conserving Natural ResourcesSoutheast Quadrant ‐ Quantifying StandardsWould evaluate SEQ design standards to assure they are measurable0% 2 to 6 30 to 4010. Foundations of zoningDM: Combine with #35 (temporary uses)Limit number of trailers on a property Would place a limitation on the number of movable structures on a lot0% 1 to 2 12 to 1810. Foundations of zoningMO: Ties to Cottage/infill AHCClarify the number of single family homes permitted on a private right‐of‐way or road;Would re‐evaluate current restrictions limiting private roadways to the lesser of: (a) 3 lots, (b) 5 single family homes, and (c) 10 housing units total.0% 2 to 4 30 to 4010. Foundations of zoningClarify standards for fencing of Stormwater facilitiesWould provide additional guidance as to whether stormwater areas should be fenced, or not fenced.0% 0.5 2 to 410. Foundations of zoningPlacement of cell towersWould develop standards for cell tower placement. "Towers", generally , will be addressed as part of a clean‐up of heights in the PUD project.0% 2 to 3 20 to 3010. Foundations of zoningIntentionally work with large property owners on their plansWould have staff and the PC engage proactively with large property owners prior to any project plansOngoing even outside of PC involvement3 to 4 25 to 4002. Sustainable, Quality Land Use7 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update6/22/20181L M N O P Q R S T X AA AD AE AF ALCommissioner Notes (2018)PC PriorityProject Description Staff NotesFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18FY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursPotential & Confirmed ResourcesThemes Comp Plan Goals Y/N6364656667Comprehensive Plan progress check‐inWould be an annual check‐in of the Comprehensive Plan and development and review of indicators of success. Could also, as a larger project, include review of all strategies and assignment of responsibility / timelinesCould do all plan work simultaneously‐ would like consume a full fiscal yearJessica: annual 1.5 to 2.5 20 to 30 08. Capacity BuildingTR: combine with 48".road trip or plane trip" to look down on city and see how we like the design Focus of Development in the city.Broad review of the City's policies to assure that they are promoting development in planned areas for growth & developmentPBC ‐ I think we should build in a short "test" before starting any project ‐ does it meet this and the other key planning goals?Jessica: ongoing ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseDesign ‐ small & bigHigh quality of buildings; planned unity developments; large parcel planning; business parks; coordination with smaller development projectscan this be integrated into all that we do/02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseVon Turkovitz request Consider rezoning of Edlund Tract per requestCould be combined with the UVM lands consideration07. Community EngagementAirBnBs / short term dwellingsWould take up the subject of short term rental regulationPerhaps the Affordable Housing Committee would consider this topic07. Community Engagement8 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 JUNE 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; A. Strong, R. Jeffers, A. Hart, R. Greco, S. Dopp, other members of the public 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: No changes were made to the Agenda. 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 spoke of the impressive group of people on the Affordable Housing Committee. They are working now on language for inclusionary zoning. Mr. Conner: There will be a presentation regarding land value and related issues at a Special City Council meeting at Magic Hat on 18 July. Red Rocks Park will open on 18 June. SOBU Night Out will begin on 28 June and will be held every other Thursday evening. The official opening of City Center Park is 25 July. The groundbreaking for Market Street will be held on 28 June. The City Council has approved a “penny for parks” ballot item for the August ballot. Voting will begin on 29 June. 5. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: 2 a. Establish new category: “limited neighborhood commercial,” permissible in certain residential zoning districts b. Eliminate maximum setback requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District c. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 district d. Permit buildings of up to five stories in the Form Based Code T4 District e. Establish an architectural Gateway Area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 district f. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts g. Minor technical corrections Mr. Mittag moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner noted there had been a few “legal edits” to the language regarding the “limited neighborhood commercial” use and other areas since the Commission last saw the amendments. Mr. Conner explained that in the T4 district, current language allows 4 stories with an architectural feature 14 feet above that. The amendment to allow a 5th story requires that the 5th story be set back 12 feet. He recommended a small adjustment to clarify that the architectural feature does not have to be set back 12 feet. Ms. Greco expressed concern with pulling back on landscaping. Ms. Louisos explained that landscaping is not being reduced, but the bonding amount for landscaping is being reduced. The amount of required landscaping will remain the same. Mr. Strong asked if there are criteria for the “small scale commercial use.” Mr. Conner said there are specific criteria including: uses, architectural features, location of the commercial use at least half a mile from any other building, a Master Plan for the development in which the use will occur, a maximum of 6000 sq. ft of which one single use cannot be more than 5000 sq. ft. There was no further public comment. Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Discussion of draft Amendments of the Land Development Regulations, possible approval of the Amendments and associated Report, and submittal to City Council for consideration: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Amendments to the Land Development Regulations with the changes as noted and associated Report, and to submit them to the City Council for consideration. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Determine whether to include consideration of request to change zoning of parcel at 1255 Dorset Street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential on the Commission’s FY2019 Work Plan: 3 Ms. Louisos reviewed the history and explained the Commission’s police and procedure for such request. She noted that the Commission has 3 options: not to take up the request, to take up the request, or to evaluate whether to add it to the work plan. Mr. Klugo said he would be looking to consider a broader concept, not just this property. Mr. Macdonald noted the Commission had noted the broader context. He felt that at some time the Commission will have to discuss the entire Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Klugo said there are some very challenging parcels coming up, and he would be very hesitant not to include this property in those discussions. Ms. Ostby said anything can be brought up in the future. She felt this issue was “part of the past,” and it “didn’t seem to fit.” Mr. Riehle said where it fits is that it is part of the SEQ. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see any topic in the proposed work plan where this discussion would fit. Mr. Klugo said it may not be in this year’s work plan, but the Commission should leave itself the flexibility to look at it in the future. He added that it is not just about zoning but also involves connectivity, etc. Mr. Hart, attorney working with the Isham family regarding this property, felt this request is commensurate with what the Commission is already looking at. The request is for a parcel owned by one party, and he felt it was a fairness issue. He said that if you treat comparable properties equally, this “jumps off the page as not being treated equally.” Ms. Ostby felt this was a “spot zoning” issue. A member of the public felt this would involve rezoning a natural resource area and that there was no ambiguity as to whether there was a mistake made in the zoning. Mr. Riehle then moved not to take up this project. Mr. Mittag seconded. Mr. Macdonald felt this was part of a future discussion. The applicant noted that there was a misconception that the golf course was the entire parcel, and that isn’t the case. The golf course lease is only for the piece down the center. That may have been the reason for the current zoning. He also noted that there were rights-of-way set aside by previous developments to insure connectivity. Ms. Greco said a lot of people who live near that property bought their homes because of the location and the belief that the land would remain natural. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission had receive communications from members of the public to that effect. Mr. Klugo noted that the Commission can’t just rezone a property. It is a very long, public process. The Commission then voted on the motion which passed 5-1 with Mr. Klugo opposing. Mr. Klugo indicated his vote was based on the issue of procedure. 8. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on Planning Commission FY2019 Work Plan: Mr. Riehle suggested the possibility of extra meeting when scheduled meetings are cancelled due to the weather. Other members felt that makes sense. 4 Mr. Conner stressed staff limitations and noted there are some items that require more intensive attention than others. Members considered the time allotted to requested zoning changes and suggested these might be done twice a year at a pre-determined time. Mr. Klugo raised the potential to leverage subcommittees and other city committees to ease the Commission’s work load. Mr. Conner noted that the inclusionary zoning piece being considered by the Affordable Housing Committee will take up a big piece of time. Ms. LaRose noted she had met with the Natural Resources Committee regarding open space and the Committee’s work plan. They are committed to working on Planning Commission projects 50% of their time and would like a “heads up” on those projects. Ms. LaRose will be meeting this week with the Bike/Ped Committee and next week with Parks/Recreation and will have the same discussion with them. In discussion zoning requests, Mr. Conner noted the importance of staff bringing all of the “unintended consequences” to the forefront. Ms. Louisos felt that discussion of the Official Map should have committee input. Mr. Conner said some things are “no brainers”; some things committees have been working on; things such as east-west roads are very complex. Members agreed to add Affordable Housing as a priority item and to combine east-west roads and the official map and a secondary level. Staff was asked to re-organize the work plan by project priority. Mr. Conner will present a work plan for action at the next meeting. 9. Review Commission Policy on Initial Consideration of Zoning Amendments: Mr. Macdonald felt that if there is preliminary work done, it will reduce the time the Commission needs. Mr. Conner noted that most requests come from a developer or land owner. Mr. Klugo said he would advocate to hear requests a couple of times a year rather than on an “as received” basis, and to allocate time for each discussion. Members were OK with hearing requests twice a year. They also agreed to a 2-step process: a pre- meeting with staff prior to a full Commission hearing. They suggested a check-list be created to be sure everything is considered. Commissioners asked staff to bring back a draft policy that reflects these concepts. 10. Vermont Transportation Board request to municipalities for feedback on regulation of private aircraft facilities: Mr. Conner explained that there are an increasing number of private aircraft facilities, and they are moving closer to municipal areas. There is also very little guidance in how to address these uses. 5 Ideally, the state would like municipalities to say what they do and don’t want. Mr. Conner noted that South Burlington does not address this issue at all. Mr. Klugo said he felt this was a safety issue and that to delay in addressing it would make it more complicated to deal with. He suggested that staff come back with ideas on how to address it. Members agreed. 11. Meeting Minutes of 22 May 2018: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 22 May as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12. Other Business a. Pre-application notice of Green Mountain Power to relocate and rebuild a substation, 5 and 7 Shamrock Road: Mr. Conner noted that screening is proposed on the north side. There is a single-family home south of the site. It is eligible for Airport buyout. Discussions are being held with the owners. Mr. Klugo suggested asking for more landscaping. Other members agreed. b. Draft Amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission: Mr. Conner noted most of the changes involve downtown Burlington. No comments were made. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:56 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk