Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/09/2019 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 APRIL 2019 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 April 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair (by phone for first part of meeting); B. Gagnon, Acting Chair for first part of meeting; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; D. Marshall, D. Kerwin, L. Nadeau, D. Seff, P. Truder 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon 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: Noted that the Affordable Housing Committee is focusing on Inclusionary Zoning. She asked that members serving on the Form Based Code Committee attend the regional workshop meeting (30 April, 6 p.m.) to provide input. Mr. Riehle: Attended the South Burlington Land Trust Annual Meeting. He noted presentations by the Nature Conservancy and the South Burlington Tracking Project (tracking different wildlife in various parts of the city). Mr. Conner’s staff report was presented to members in written form. 5. Review and discuss Commission feedback on Interim Zoning application #IZ-19-01, seeking approval from the City Council to subdivide a 2.0 acre lot with a single family home into four lots, each with single family homes, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall said they are trying to understand the Planning Commission’s thinking. He noted that in the past, applications would go to the City Council with plans that were consistent with where Interim Zoning was going. They are now trying to understand the Commission’s different work items to see whether what the Kerwins want to do can be modified to be in line with that work or whether they should hold off or modify the application. Mr. Marshall then provided a brief overview of the proposed project. He noted that the density is 4 units per acre with the potential for up to 8. He said that what they are proposing is consistent with most recent development patterns in the area. Ms. Ostby said her thinking was that this type of parcel may be have more opportunities for the owners because of new PUD concepts. Mr. Riehle agreed. He noted that just south of the Kerwin property there are 3 homes on a similar lot. He didn’t see any other rationale for preventing the Kerwin request other than the potential for more density. Mr. Marshall noted that the Kerwins wish to sell the existing home and utilize the development potential of the back area. He asked whether anything the Commission is working on would preclude this. Ms. Ostby noted there is no current PUD work looing at parcels of less than 4 acres, but that doesn’t take into account what Interim Zoning may come up with. Mr. Klugo said the pattern of development has been established, and this application is consistent with that pattern. He didn’t see why the Commission would hold it up. The Commission’s PUD work doesn’t change this kind of development. Ms. Truder, who lives on the west side of Highland Terrace, noted there is no city water out there, and every home would have to drill a well. Mr. Klugo said that would be a study for the developer to do. Mr. Kerwin said there isn’t room for 20 dwelling units on the west side of Highland Terrace. The second lot north of the Kerwin property has 3 houses on it, similar to what they want to do. The only other properties are immediately north and south of his, and they are smaller than his property. Mr. Kerwin noted that many years ago someone wanted to build 40 or 50 homes on the east side of the road but were not allowed to because of the water situation. Mr. Gagnon noted receipt of a letter from Mark Abrams expressing his concerns. It will be part of the minutes. 6. Review draft elements of Subdivision/PUD/Master Plan project: a. Review Planned Unit Development Chapter Outline b. Commissioner Q&A on definitions, functionality, and regulatory environment of natural resources under consideration to prepare for review of draft regulations at upcoming meeting: Mr. Conner noted that a section for Energy Efficiency has been added to the outline per request of Ms. Ostby at the last meeting. Further, following discussion with Ms. Louisos, members of the Energy Committee will attend the first meeting in May. Ms. Ostby said it would be good to have an understanding of composting which will be required in 2020. Mr. Conner said that the next meeting will focus on natural resources conservation. Staff has been drafting language for this. Ms. LaRose added that they want to be sure that when the Commission discusses policy, they understand the date and have all the data they need. She also noted that the Regional Planning Commission is working on providing information on what other communities are doing. She felt the Commission can be provided with more information regarding best practices, what sort of wildlife habitat is attractive, etc. (Ms. Louisos arrived at this point in the meeting and assumed the Chair.) Ms. Louisos noted that the State is working on river corridors in 2019 and recommended using the 2019 data from the mapping. Mr. Conner encouraged members to look for things that are not covered but to keep in mind that the language is in a very early stage. Mr. Nadeau asked if this information will be on the website. Mr. Conner said the website crashed last week and is being corrected. This information will be there when things are back to normal. Mr. Gagnon noted that the consultants will be at the next meeting to help with the discussion. 7. Overall PUD/Master Plan/Subdivision project status report: Mr. Conner noted that street types, housing and building types, and open space types have been completed. Staff is working on underlying zoning and Form Based Code amendments. Mr. Conner also noted that staff is trying to schedule a joint meeting with the City Council and two Interim Zoning committees for a “here’s where we’re at” discussion and to identify any major policy changes. Mr. Mittag asked if there is reasonable confidence the schedule can be adhered to. Mr. Conner said for each component to get in place, it is ambitious, which is why staff is monitoring it. He also noted that the deadline can also be changed, if needed. 8. Staff Update on re-alignment of Underlying Zoning Districts: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He showed the existing zoning map of the area and noted there are now 7 different zoning districts in that area. Staff is proposing the following districts: a. All land owned by the city would be designated as Parks/Recreation b. The C-1/R-12 district that was almost eliminated when Form Based Codes were created, would become C-1/R-15 c. The 3 single family houses would be put into the R-4 district to the north (Ms. Ostby felt they don’t feel like R‐4. Mr. Conner said staff could look at something more transitional) d. The C-1 Airport district would remain as is. Regarding the 3 houses, Mr. Gagnon said he would like them to stay in a residential district as they are the gateway to a residential district and he didn’t want to see a big commercial use there. Mr. Klugo felt it was a perfect area for 2 or 3-story apartments. Mr. Conner questioned whether the district immediately below that could also have some transitional residential. Mr. Klugo said that restricting residential use is counter to future use which will be more mixed use. Mr. Conner said mixed use is a consideration, but they should hold off on this until the new F-35 mapping is available. Mr. Conner then addressed the areas at Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive, Kimball Avenue/Kennedy Drive, and the C-2 districts at the end of Shelburne Road, behind City Hall, Patchen Road across from the landfill, and similar areas. Staff is proposing to zone these as Neighborhood Commercial districts. Mr. Klugo asked if Form Based Code elements would apply there. Ms. LaRose said possibly with building types. Mr. Gagnon said he liked what the Commission did on Shelburne Rd. with “nodes.” Mr. Klugo felt a TDR option would be great and might get something done with those parcels. Mr. Conner noted there is some multi-family housing nearby, and a noise generator would not be a good idea. Mr. Conner then addressed the property north of Old Farm Road. It is currently zoned C-1, Limited Retail. It is also surrounded by a number of different districts. Mr. Klugo felt the north side of Kimball Avenue should be a transitional area as different things are happening on each side of Kimball. Mr. Riehle felt the whole south side of Kimball should be Residential. Mr. MacDonald noted the corner will be commercial/residential mixed use. Ms. LaRose said a PUD does allow for a commercial component in the context of the residential around it. She didn’t think there will be a start up subdivision in this location. Ms. Ostby felt there is a need for land for businesses and wanted to leave the zoning as it is. She was OK if residential is a component of that. Mr. Conner stressed that today you can’t cross zoning lines. The purpose of a PUD is to create a well-though out neighborhood. Mr. Conner then addressed the Hill Farm property and one property south of that. They are now zoned Industrial-Open Space, but it is unknown where the IZ Open Space Committee will land regarding the property. Mr. Mittag said there is a wildlife corridor between the 2 properties. Mr. Conner noted there are 120 acres, so there could be multiple uses. If it is not all prioritized for conservation, there will have to be a zoning designation. Mr. Mittag felt the northeast corner could have dense housing and the rest be conservation. 9. City Council direction on short term Transfer of Development Rights Bylaw Amendments: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted the applicant has appealed the Environmental Court decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. The City Council would like to correct the regulations to match the enabling laws, and the City Attorney is working on that. It will eventually go to the IZ TDR Committee and will come to the Planning Commission in the future. Mr. Seff, resident and attorney for the neighbors who brought the case to the Superior Court, advised that the neighbors have filed a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court regarding elements of the TDR process that the Superior Court did not find illegal. He felt the City Council should hold off until the Supreme Court has handed down its decision. Ms. Louisos said she would speak with the City Council Chair to relay this discussion held at this meeting. 10. Review and consider approval of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Grant Application: Mr. Conner noted this is the same application that was not funded in the last round of grants. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the grant application as presented. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Minutes of 12 March 2019 Mr. Mittag clarified his comment regarding population to note that there are now 7 billion people worldwide today and that number is expected to be 9 billion by 2050. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 12 March 2019 with the clarification. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:41 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: April 9, 2019 Planning Commission meeting Commissioners – Following the cancellation of the March 26th meeting due to the conflicting schedules with the School District event, staff worked with Jessica and Bernie to set a new agenda for this meeting. Some of the items are the same as previously planned, others have been reshuffled to different meetings. See below for details on this week’s meeting. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm) Starting this week, we’re going to try putting the Staff report right in here. Feedback welcome! New announcements: Multi-community conservation district: The City Council last week received a presentation from Project Manager Ashley Parker on a fledgling multi-community conservation district. From the draft mission statement: “First and foremost, this partnership between the City of South Burlington, Town of Williston, Town of Shelburne, Town of Hinesburg, the Town of St. George, and the Town of Charlotte seeks to conserve, restore, and enhance natural resources within and across our municipal boundaries. More specifically, the partnership aims to increase the amount of connected conserved land, improve water quality in streams and rivers flowing into Lake Champlain, protect agricultural land, and prevent the fragmentation of wildlife habitat and riparian corridors. In order to meet its mission, this group will use various tools, including: purchase of land and rights in land, upland habitat restoration, wetland and stream restoration, community outreach, land use planning, and the sharing of knowledge and experience.” No action was requested of Council just yet but the proposed partnership was received enthusiastically. E-Bicycle & E-Scooter share: The Council last week received a presentation from Gotcha Bikes, staff, and the CCRPC on Year 2 of the Bike Share program. In a nutshell, this year the bicycle fleet will be transformed to be entirely electric-assist bikes and increased in number from about 105 to 200. In addition, the Council gave the go-ahead for a one-year pilot on an e-scooter sharing program. Over the next couple of months, usage guidelines and ordinances will be updated. Ewing Property Conservation contribution: The City has been working with the Ewing family for quite some time on a conservation effort in both Shelburne and South Burlington. As part of that effort, The Nature Conservancy is acquiring approximately 45 acres of land on the north side of Shelburne Pond for permanent conservation. It’s a key parcel in the overall linkage of habitat areas in that area, and is located directly adjacent (to the south) of Aulcair parcel C which was part of the multi-party acquisition last fall. Of the 45 acres, approximately 8-9 are in South Burlington. The City Council last week agreed to contribute $20,000 to this effort, which will be paired with the Town of Shelburne’s $80,000 contribution. This action was announced under “Other Business” following an executive session and will be ratified with formal action on April 15th. From last meeting: Conservation Funding Award: Staff last week presented to the VT Housing and Conservation Board in support of a $350,000 grant application for conservation on Parcel A of last year’s Auclair purchase. We were thrilled to learn that VHCB granted the award later that same day! As you may recall, the Auclair parcels were purchased by entities whose goal is to conserve the overwhelming majority of the land. The City was a significant contributor to this, and the work began immediately after the acquisition to obtain permanent conservation funds. This grant was a big step in that direction and an excellent collaborative effort between the VT Land Trust (the applicant), the farm leasing the land (Bread and Butter) and the City. Form Based Codes Subcommittee: Art, Duncan, or Ted will elaborate on this at the meeting, but the newly formed FBC subcommittee had their first meeting on Monday 3/18 and will meet again on Friday 3/29. To date there have been requests or letters of support from 3 private entities, P & Z staff, the City Manager’s office (as an applicant), and the DRB. Staff will be letting other active developers in the City Center FBC district know that there is a venue for topics that they have seen come up as well. BTV Airport Master Plan public workshop 3/27: There will be a public workshop on the Airport’s Master Plan from 5-7 on Wednesday 3/27 at the Airport. The Master Plan, like our Comprehensive Plan, is the overall guiding document and spells out the big picture of where the airport is focusing efforts for the future. It’s a 30-year plan and is updated every 10 years. Energy / Climate change: Staff has been working with Lou Bresee and with the Energy Committee to advance several energy efficiency projects in the city. Headed towards construction this fiscal year are swapping out street lights on Dorset Street for LEDs, upgrading lighting in the Police Station to LEDs, and installing a piece of equipment into the City’s police cars that will allow them to run of the car’s battery for some of their station time. Projects for next fiscal year are under development. Digitization of DRB files update: Through the great work of our part-time assistance, we’ve been working our way through the streets alphabetically. As of last week, we completed Shelburne Road, as well as all of the sign permits. We anticipate installing a workstation in our office area in the near future for use by researchers. It’s been a great project thus far and has really helped us in our research into properties! 5. Review and discuss Commission feedback on Interim Zoning application #IZ-19-01, seeking approval from the City Council to subdivide a 2.0 acre lot with a single family home into four lots, each with single family homes, 1420 Hinesburg Road (7:10 pm) At the February 26th meeting, the Planning Commission was asked to provide feedback to the City Council as they considered the 4-lot subdivision described above under Interim Zoning. On March 6th, the City Council held their continued hearing. The applicant attended and asked the Council to be able to hear from the PC directly your thoughts and guidance. The Council accepted the request and continued their hearing to next month in order to allow the applicant to attend a meeting of yours and discuss/hear directly. To refresh your memory, we’ve attached the proposed IZ subdivision request. 6. Review draft elements of Subdivision / PUD / Master Plan project: (7:25 pm) a. Review Planned Unit Development Chapter Outline (7:25 pm) Enclosed with your packed is the PUD chapter outline. This was on your agenda at the last meeting we the PC didn’t quite get to it, so Jessica asked that it go up front. Please review and let us know if there’s anything that is not covered under PUDs before our consultant gets going on them. Staff didn’t flag anything that is missing. At the last meeting Monica asked that Energy Efficiency be added as a potential subject. We’ve noted that. Other ideas welcome. Thanks! b. Commissioner Q&A on definitions, functionality, and regulatory environment of natural resources under consideration to prepare for review of draft regulations at upcoming meeting (7:35 pm) See attached memo from staff. 7. Overall Planned Unit Development / Master Plan / Subdivision project status report (8:00 pm) Enclosed with your packet is an updated overall project schedule, with the FBC subcommittee work added. As always, this is subject to change. Appropriately, important work on natural resources has modified the timeline, but other elements such as parking, building and street types have moved ahead in the schedule. Not action is required, but we’re happy to answer Commissioners’ questions. 8. Staff update on re-alignment of Underlying Zoning Districts (8:10 pm) Staff is working on the re-alignment of underlying zoning districts and will have an update at the meeting, if not before. 9. City Council direction on short-term Transfer of Development Rights bylaw amendments (8:25 pm) The City Council last month met and had a short discussion about next steps with the Transfer of Development Rights bylaw that the Environmental Court found did not match State Statutory enabling legislation. The Council elected to pursue corrective action on the bylaw to make it comply with the State Law parallel to and independently of the bigger- picture review of TDRs being pursued under Interim Zoning. The Council has asked the City Attorney to develop a first draft, to gather feedback from the TDR IZ committee, and then to have the Planning Commission consider it. We’ll keep the PC in the loop throughout and provide an update at this meeting. 10. Report from Committee Liaisons: (8:30 pm) a. Transferable Development Rights IZ Committee, Michael Mittag (8:30 pm) b. Open Space IZ Committee, Bernie Gagnon (8:40 pm) c. Affordable Housing Committee, Monica Ostby (8:50 pm) 11. Review and consider approval of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Grant application (9:00 pm) Round 2 of the funding for EV charging stations is out. The City was unsuccessful in the first round but we received feedback and are proposing a second attempt at it. 12. Meeting Minutes (9:05 pm) 13. Other business (9:07 pm) 14. Adjourn (9:08 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 Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: April 23, 2019 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 (7:02 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm) Staff report: Green Mountain Transit NextGen Plan: Green Mountain Transit (formerly CCTA) has been developing an update to its region-wide transit plan. Over the past month, a series of public meetings have been held to gather feedback on proposed changes to the system and routes. Notably for us in South Burlington: • For ease of use, major routes are being linked together (example: the Essex route to Burlington and Shelburne Road route to Burlington are proposed to be combined into a single line called the “Blue Line - Essex / Shelburne”) • The South Burlington circulator and College Street shuttle are proposed to be combined into a single route, providing frequent service from the waterfront to the Airport and areas in between, including Kennedy & Dorset Street • Timing of schedules are being evened out to provide more regular service on weekends and throughout the day, with a little less emphasis on peak hours) Based on community input, the proposed routes are being revised from what is presently on the NextGen website. Airport Noise Exposure Maps Update: Staff checked in with the Airport regarding the status of the Noise Exposure Maps that will include the anticipated F-35 aircraft. The draft maps are new scheduled to be ready at the end of May and released to the public at that time. City Center Parking & Movement Analysis: Staff is continuing to work with the CCRPC and Stantec on an assessment of current conditions, future needs, and parking & movement recommendations for City Center. We’re presently gathering build-out projections for the consulting team and completing additional parking counts of current conditions around City Center to have an understanding of present-day use of the parking. Committee Leadership, Work Plans; and Committee Fall Conference: Staff liaisons for all committees in the City have recently met a few times to revamp the committee coordination & training programs we’ve done over the past couple of years. We are working towards a leadership meeting to be held at the end of May (for chairs, vice chairs, and staff), and the a committee-wide (ie, all members) evening “conference” in the fall. This will include time for committees to interact with the City Council and, training sessions on a variety of topics, and likely a “poster session” whereby committees can share what they’ve been working on with one another and what their work plans are for the next year. In May, we’ll be gathering feedback from committee / commission / board members on what kinds of training would be of interest to you! Annual Committee Appointments: A quick reminder that with spring upon us, annual advertisements for appointments to all committees will be going out. Interviews before Council are expected to take place in May. Staff will reach out to individuals whose terms are up on the Commission to let you know and invite you to apply for another term! New Public Outreach Tool: We’re excited to share that the City has partnered with Champlain College and Consensus AI on a citizen data pilot program to help our community members engage with the City. Read more about it in the April 4th Other Paper article! Future Street Name Outreach: With planning & design well underway for the new City Hall / Library building on Market Street, we’re also working on the new formal street to enter into the Middle School property. That new street will need a name, of course! We have a request from the City Manager’s office to make use of the new public outreach tool – described above – to help with the naming of the new street. The final decision will of course rest with the Planning Commission as always, but we thought this would be a great way to both involve the community and help with the roll-out of the new Consensus mobile app. The new app is expected to be released in early June. We would anticipate that we would have the results from the community by the end of summer, to forward to the Planning Commission in early September. 5. Land Development Regulations: Review initial drafts of Subdivision Standards, Environmental Protection Standards, and River Corridor Standards, Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design, Emily Nosse-Leirer, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (7:15 pm) See the attached staff memo and documents. 6. Report from Committee Liaisons: (8:50 pm) a. Transferable Development Rights IZ Committee, Michael Mittag (8:40 pm) b. Open Space IZ Committee, Bernie Gagnon (8:50 pm) c. Form Based Codes Subcommittee, Art Klugo (8:50 pm) 7. Meeting Minutes (9:05 pm) 8. Other business (9:07 pm) 9. Adjourn (9:08 pm) PUD Article: Working Outline [draft 1/14/19] South Burlington PUD Project, Phase II Authority and Purpose  Statutory Reference – § 4417 (Planned Unit Development)  Intent – Relevant comp plan, statutory references – flexibility w/in defined parameters PUD Types  Listing/Brief Descriptions – Conservation, TND, NCD, Infill, Redevelopment [other?] ▪ Table: PUD Type(s) by Zoning District Applicability  Single or multiple [contiguous?] parcels  Mandatory – PUD Type by District (for subdivision of parcels=5+ acres [other?]); mixed use development on single parcel/lot (current)?  Elective – Infill, Redevelopment; parcels <5 acres  Exceptions Review Procedures  Application Requirements (ref master plan, subdivision, site plan provisions) o PUD Type (may vary by type) – plans, supporting documentation o Requested Modifications/Waivers o Scoring Worksheet o Plan/Pattern Book – Design Specifications, Typicals  PUD Review Process o Pre-Application Meetings – neighborhood, staff; required report (ref master plan) o Coordination/Sequence of Review ▪ Master Plan (all PUDs w/ noted exceptions – e.g., infill?) ▪ Subdivision Plan (major subdivisions) ▪ Site Plan? (no subdivision)  PUD Scoring – Calculations, Minimum Score  Amendments – Minor, Major General Standards (Applicable to All PUDs)  Comp Plan Conformance (plan policies, maps; as defined in Ch. 117)  Context (ref Master Plan, Subdivision, Site Plan Standards) o Zoning District(s) o Existing Conditions o PUD Type o Compatibility – complementary pattern, density, uses, forms o Boundary/Transition Zones  Connectivity (ref Master Plan, Subdivision, Site Plan Standards) o Pedestrian Shed (¼ mile), Transit Shed (½ mile) o Street Types (ref street types, standards) ▪ Table: Street Types by PUD Type o Block, Intersection Standards  Density – ref District, PUD Type o Calculations – Total Land Area, Density Transfers – to be assigned per use allocation area based on buildable area o Residential (DU or DU SF/ Acre); Nonresidential (FAR or GSF/Acre); Mixed Use (ratio of residential GSF tp nonresidential GSF?) – or regulate via allowed building types o Min (Zoning District Max or TOD), Max by Right (+50%), Bonus (+50%) o Allowed bonuses (affordable housing, LEED certification, public amenities, etc.?)  Design – Modifications, Waivers o Ref PUD Types/Tables (below) o Dimensional Standards – lot area, width/frontage(?), setbacks, coverage; building height/stories (ref in relation to allowed building types) o Parking Standards – minimum parking requirements? o Infrastructure Standards – streets, bike/ped, low impact development, etc. o Open Space Standards – District, PUD Type o Encroachments – setbacks, wetlands, surface waters, floodplains, other?  Uses – ref District, PUD Type o Land Use Allocations (ref master plan) – undevelopable, residential, nonresidential, surface parking, open space, renewable energy ▪ Table: Land Use Allocations by PUD Type o Allowed Uses – District, PUD Type o Conditional uses allowed as permitted uses? (current) o Housing Mix – Minimum by PUD Type  Building Types/Forms – to be defined o Building Types by Use Category (residential, nonresidential, other) o Building Types by PUD Type ▪ Table: Building Types by Use Category/PUD Type  Open Space (ref subdivision, site plan standards) o Minimum Requirements by PUD Type ▪ Table: Open Space Types by PUD Type Legal Documentation (ref Master Plan, Subdivision, Site Plan)  Management Agreement(s), Development Agreement, Dedications, Sureties PUD Table(s)/Graphics (develop template w/ Mark) – Tie to scoring worksheet  Purpose  Context – Rural, Suburban, Urban; Zoning District(s)  Defining Characteristics  Land Use Allocation  Density/Intensity (min/max)  Allowed Uses  Design Standards/Elements o Existing Conditions o Connectivity –Streets/Street Types, Bike, Ped, Transit o Blocks, Lots o Building Types, Height, Orientation o Parking o Open/Civic Space Types o Other? 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: Resource Elements DATE: April 9, 2018 Planning Commission meeting We’ve asked Commissioners to utilize the online MapViewer in understanding potential impacts to various natural resources in the City. The MapViewer, assembled with the help of the regional planning commission (CCRPC) staff has continually evolved as we strived to make sure that labels matched up in the map with the data they are sourced from. We understand that the data and their sources can be overwhelming and confusing- they certainly have been to us! As such, we’ve put together a matrix which includes data sources, information about the data, and any known features (does it already contain a buffer?) or limitations (incomplete or done through modeling vs field verification). We hope that this information can help as you continue to spend independent time understanding what each resource is, how it is mapped, and where it exists in South Burlington. Please note that the MapViewer has a new url: http://ccrpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3e15d51b0e694f08a07e2f3907a02b 7f The goal for this item on the evening of the 9th will be to answer any questions you have about the resources, where they are found, how they are mapped. It is not intended at this time to be a policy discussion of how they should be regulated. If you have no questions, we need not use the full time allocated to this. We also previously asked you to work on assignments of resources in order to help us understand any relative value you may have across the lot of them. We’ve since worked through another tool which we think will help you to help us understand your thoughts on each resource in a way that would not require you to commit each resource to a predefined category. Those who already sent something, thank you. Those that did not do not need to do anything at this time. We’ll send something new to you sometime next week for the meeting on the 23rd. Staff recently met with the consulting team, a CCRPC representative, and leadership of the Planning Commission and Open Space Interim Zoning Committee to discuss how to best utilize the resources available and share information and progress. 2 We will be sharing with you draft language related to the resources/Chapter 12 rewrite with the help of the CCRPC early next week so that you have it well in advance of the Planning Commission’s April 23rd meeting. LAYER TOPICS Map Layer Data Source Sub layer 1 Sub layer 2 Data Description Notes Stream or River Centerline VT Hydrography Dataset ----Line layer showing streams and rivers No buffers or widths, just centerlines Surface Water ----Includes major rivers and ponds Minor Stream 50 ft buffer Unnamed streams and brooks from VT Hydrography Database ----Includes stream and 50 foot buffer to either side of centerline SB LDRs currently regulate 50 foot buffer to either side of centerline Muddy Brook/Potash Brook 100 ft buffer VT Hydrography Dataset, buffered by CCRPC from stream centerline ----Includes 100 foot buffer to either side of centerline SB LDRs currently regulate 100 foot horizontal from centerline of stream (Ch 12) Winooski River 100 ft buffer VT Hydrography Dataset, buffered by CCRPC from edge of waterway ----Winooski River's 100 ft buffer on South Burlington side SB LDRs currently regulate 100 foot horizontal line from edge of channel (Ch12) Lakeshore Setback Areas: 100' setback Directly from ANR Atlas ----Includes 100 foot buffer measured from high water elevation of Lake Champlain Lakeshore Setback Areas: 250' setback Directly from ANR Atlas ----Includes 250 foot buffer measured from high water elevation of Lake Champlain River Corridor: Small Streams 50 ft Setback Directly from ANR Atlas .5-2 Sq Mi .25-.5 Sq Mi Streams with watersheds between .5 and 2 sq miles not included in river corridors; has standardized meander belt measured 50 feet from the top of the stream bank; SBLDRs currently regulate minor streams from centerline (see above). River corridors measure from top of bank Draft River Corridor (2019)Directly from ANR Atlas ---- Updates 2015 River Corridor file with field-based stream geomorphic assessment data. ANR views the draft River Corridor data as best available data for Act 250 and is fine to use for town plan maps. For specific A250 projects, they ground truth the map with a site visit by a river scientist River Corridor (January 2015)Directly from ANR Atlas ---- Includes rivers and streams with watersheds over 2 sq. miles; includes meander belts defined using geomorphic assessment rather than a standard or consistent buffer 500 year Flood Area FEMA ---- Special Flood Hazard Area or 100 year flood FEMA ---- Addresses expected inundation areas from uncommon storm events; Not mapped for all VT; does not address fluvial erosion hazards SBLDRs currently regulate land within 150 ft horizontal distance from high water SB LDRs do not currently regulate river corridors beyond the standard setbacks for rivers and brooks and flood areas SBLDRs currently regulate mapped FEMA floodplains in Ch 10 Element List Surface Waters and Wetlands LAYER TOPICS Map Layer Data Source Sub layer 1 Sub layer 2 Data Description Notes Surface Waters and Wetlands Class II Wetland (VSWI)Vermont State Wetlands Inventory ---- Wetland 50 ft. Buffer CCRPC added buffer to VSWI layer ----50 foot buffer around wetland polygons Groundwater Source Protection Area ANR ---- Consists of the geographic location of the Source Protection Areas for active and inactive Public Community and Non- Transient Non-Community groundwater sources. The source locations are drawn from the State Drinking Water database (SDWIS). The water sources are wells and springs that predate regulations developed in the 1970s to new sources under review now. Newly added to mapviewer April 2019. http://geodata.vermont.gov/datasets/VTANR: :ground-water-spa Potential Class 2 Wetlands State DEC Wetlands Advisory Layer/ ANR ----Non-jurisdictional wetlands completed by various consulting services Includes Class 3 wetlands Advisory only; field delineation would be needed to verify presence of wetland/wetland classes Surface Water Source Protection Area Directly from ANR Atlas Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 is isolation area around point of intake. Zone 2 is primary recharge area. Slope: 15-20%As named Slope : Greater than 20%, Less than 25%As named Slope: 25%+As named Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Statewide layer from VCGI Rare species are generally considered to be those with 20 or fewer populations statewide; uncommon species are considered those with more than 20 but 80 or fewer populations statewide For more info: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder20 16/Documents/ComponentAbstracts/RareSpecies ComponentAbstract.pdf Biofinder Riparian Wildlife Connectivity ANR Biofinder Includes all non-developed cover classes within the Surface Waters and Riparian Area (A1) dataset. Developed land classes were filtered-out from the surface waters dataset to create the riparian connectivity component For more info: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder20 16/Documents/ComponentAbstracts/RiparianWildli feConnectivityComponentAbstract.pdf Biofinder Forest Blocks ANR Biofinder- Interior Forest Blocks and Connectivity Forest Blocks Contains both interior forest blocks and connectivity forest blocks. See abstracts: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder2016/Document s/ComponentAbstracts/InteriorForestComponentAbstract.pdf and https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder2016/Document s/ComponentAbstracts/ConnectivityBlocksComponentAbstract. pdf This forest block data is at a statewide scale and misses a lot of what some might consider important forested blocks. We're continuing to look at a variety of data layers to help with this, including tree canopy and Forested Land Use Cover. This data layer is likely the least informative for SB scale. This layer is also subjective, worked through modeling by ANR staff. See component abstracts for more info, SB LDRs regulate Class II and Class III wetlands and 50 foot buffers in Ch 12; incursions only permitted in association with a State Wetland Permit and additional criteria Surface Waters and Wetlands Slope Wildlife Habitat USGS digital elevation model Page 2 of 4 LAYER TOPICS Map Layer Data Source Sub layer 1 Sub layer 2 Data Description Notes Surface Waters and Wetlands Biofinder Surface Waters & Riparian Areas ANR Biofinder Contains duplicate information already delineated in other layers. Based on a GIS model and not field data. Includes all rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds – all aquatic habitats in Vermont. Also includes the valley bottoms in which rivers and streams flow. Specifically, the valley bottoms are the areas of alluvial soils (soils deposited by flowing water) through which rivers and streams migrate over time and where seasonal river or stream flooding is expected. Also includes a band of riparian habitat adjacent to all rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds or to the valley bottom. For detailed info: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFin der2016/Documents/ComponentAbstracts/Su rfaceWatersandRiparianAreasComponentAbs tract.pdf Significant Natural Communities Statewide layer from VCGI S1 and S2 (rare) A natural community is an interacting assemblage of plants and animals, their physical environment, and the natural processes that affect them. Inventories for rare communities are more complete than for uncommon and common communities. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department uses a ranking scheme that is part of the national Natural Heritage methodology to describe the relative rarity of natural community types in Vermont. According to ANR, " Statewide natural community inventories are on-going and therefore our knowledge of natural community locations is incomplete. A field assessment is always needed to identify whether rare natural communities occur on a site. " For more info: https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder20 16/Documents/ComponentAbstracts/RareNaturalC ommunitiesComponentAbstract.pdf Draft Land Cover UVM Spatial Analysis Lab for ANR Please note: draft not fully reviewed by ANR; note that all land is assigned. Again, we're hoping to just pull the Forested classification hereAgricultural Land Enrolled in the State Current Use Program VT Dept of Taxes 2017 Data Incomplete; some parcel IDs in tax base don't match local ids Primary Agricultural Soils (Statewide Importance)NRCS Primary Agricultural Soils (Prime)NRCS Open Space IZ Committee Tab Forested Areas (Source: DM)Hand drawn Hand drawn sketch traced from aerial photo by Duncan Murdoch, member IZ Open Space Committee Good for big picture viewing, comparison of resources, but subjective and not available for regulatory enforcement. Open Space Priority Areas 2002 Open Space Plan Parcels over Four Acres Paul Conner Parcels over four acres with less than 10% impervious cover Several land classifications; CCRPC will be pulling 'Forest' out in order to toggle on/off Highest priority and priority are assigned based on state goals Agriculture Wildlife Habitat Page 3 of 4 LAYER TOPICS Map Layer Data Source Sub layer 1 Sub layer 2 Data Description Notes Surface Waters and Wetlands Conserved Land by Type of Conservation Paul Conner Sorted by known: permit requirements which restrict development; publicly owned with parks or conservation designation; regulatory restriction on development; Third party conservation ownership or easement Can vary widely as to the degree of 'protection' and conservation. Should be used only for general information and careful attention should be paid to the subclasses. * For many of these standards, state rules also apply. The extent of state regulations does vary however, with some only applying in the case of Act 250 review thresholds (broadly, 10 units, 10 acres) Page 4 of 4 PUD/Master Plan / Subdivision Project Planning Commission Schedule Working Document Working Project Schedule - PUD/MP/Subdivision Project 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-28 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30 Component Element Subdivision Process and Administration ● Lotting (size, layout, frontage)● Connections (blocks & perimeters)● Traffic Impact ● Natural Resources ○○● Conformance with Plan Objectives ● Cross connections & transportation access ● Street types ● Planned Common Open Space ● Transferable Development Rights ● Master Plan Master Plan outline ● Process and Administration ● Project Phasing ● Land Use Allocations ● General layout requirements ● Build-out budgets (lot coverage, traffic, parking)● Site Plan Process and Administration ● Site Access ● Building layout (placement, form)● Circulation - vehicles, pedestrians, bikes ● Parking standards ● Site-specific open space (amounts)○● Delineated natural resources ○● Other elements if not in subdivision or PUD Underlying Zoning Districts Purpose Statements ● Alignment / consolidation of zoning districts ● Inclusionary Zoning requirements ● Tidy-up of LDRs ● Planned Unit Developments PUD outline ◊ Process & Administration ◊● Land Use Allocations by PUD type ● Street Types ○ Building Types Open Space Types ● Flexibility from standards ◊● Performance Zoning & Bonus Criteria ◊● Infill PUDs ◊● Form Based Code Amendments ●● Graphics, layouts, etc.◊● Testing of PUD Standards Public Outreach ❶❷ LEGEND ●Commission completion ○Commission provide to committee ◊Consultant Draft Delivered ❶Coordination meeting of Council, PC, and IZ Committees ❷Planning Commission Public Outreach on Full Draft Under Review by a Committee Staff / Consultant Work Planning Commission Previously Complete February March April May July August SeptemberJuneJanuary 4/5/2019 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 MARCH 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 March 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, K. Van Woert, A. Chalnik, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon 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: Ms. Van Woert expressed concern with the city’s striving for “connectivity” of neighborhoods and felt that it resulted in a threat to wildlife corridors. She asked the Commission to reconsider that. She also felt the wildlife corridors are being mowed at the wrong time of year. She asked the Commission to “consider the big picture” and noted so much of the Southeast Quadrant is “a patchwork.” 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner: The City Council re-elected the same slate of officers following the 5 March vote. Will meet with the Bike/Ped Committee tomorrow. Is working with the Dog Park Committee to find a piece of land that will work. 5. Review Draft Elements of Subdivision/PUD/Master Plan Project: a. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas: Ms. Murray said they are trying to wrap up the resource/conservation section. The subdivision regulations are almost completely drafted now. Regarding resource protection, they are looking at regulatory options including the following: a. State data, maps including the Vermont Natural Resource Atlas, Biofinder, local studies and inventories. Ms. Murray stressed that all maps have to be verified. b. Legal actions including the Vermont Planning & Development Act 24VSA, Chapter 117, regulatory takings (both federal and state, with clearly stated public interests, identification 2 of resources for protection/conservation, a direct nexus/link between regulatory protections and project impacts, and viable economic use of land), and the JAM Golf decision which requires clearly stated public policies, resources identified for protection/conservation, and clear guidance for applicants and the DRB. Mr. Klugo questioned how property rights play into this and cited the need for balance with conservation. Ms. Murray said Vermont mostly relies on Federal law. A landowner has to have economic use of his/her land, even if it is a wetland (when there is no other option for the landowner). Ms. LaRose raised the question of what it means to “protect.” She suggested there may be a “bucket” of all resources and that all of those resources may not be treated the same. Ms. Murray said that in zoning, you have to regulate resources specifically. There are also regulations for zoning districts (e.g., general standards, overlay districts). Ms. Murray said that the focus for this meeting is on subdivision regulations and PUDs, recognizing the developability of the land and the need to address resources on that property. Ms. Murray then noted that “primary conservation areas” are legally definable and include floodplains, wetlands, very steep slopes, etc. They are typically deducted from the total parcel acreage and she recommend that this be the case in South Burlington. Mr. Klugo noted a recent development on a steep slope in the City of Burlington which was accomplished by canterlevering out. Ms. Murray said this is allowed in Burlington but not in many other places. Secondary conservation areas include more extensive “open space” resources and vary in significance, vulnerability, function and available documentation. Examples include farmland, forest land, wildlife habitats, scenic areas. They must be clearly defined community conservation priorities. The regulations may specify a minimum percentage of total SCA acreage to be retained as open space. Mr. Macdonald asked if there would be a ranking of these resources. Mr. Gagnon said that is up to the Commission. Ms. Murray said her suggestion is “yes.” Mr. Klugo asked whether mitigation is allowed for both primary and secondary conservation areas. Ms. Murray said it is. Mr. Conner added that fewer circumstances allow for mitigation in primary areas than in secondary areas. They are also much more specific. Ms. Murray said it is also the intent to define “building lots.” Ms. Murray then differentiated between “subdivision regulations” and PUD regulations. She noted that subdivision regulations regulate the pattern of development, density, streets, blocks, lots, intended use. They are tied to underlying zoning district standards (minimum lot area, frontage, width of setbacks, maximum allowable density and maximum building lot coverage requirements etc.). The resource protection objectives for subdivision regulations will be written to avoid/minimize resource 3 fragmentation, maintain contiguous open space, provide long-term conservation management (e.g., deed restrictions, management plans, single/common ownership, etc.). The intention is also to introduce building envelopes. Mr. Mittag noted that in some places the number of times you can subdivide a property is limited. Ms. Murray then showed a plan representing a conventional subdivision and one representing a subdivision focusing on conservation. The latter indicates sensitive areas and easement or deed restrictions. The proposed Conservation PUD would modify the underlying zoning to separate density from lot size requirements. Typically, they conserve 70% of the land. Mr. Gagnon noted this means having a higher density on the rest of the land. Ms. Murray said that is often not popular. She also stressed the need to clearly identify what you want to protect in the regulations. Ms. Murray then showed a development potential from “Growing Greener” (by Randall Arendt) indicating where houses are to be placed, trails, etc. Mr. Riehle questioned whether this puts more onus on the DRB. Mr. Gagnon said the more specific the regulations are, the better for the DRB. Ms. LaRose said the DRB would still have to make some calls regarding “encroachments.” Mr. Conner added that the intent is to have additional guidance to the applicant and to the DRB about what else is needed (e.g., street connections.). One question is at what stage would the applicant have to provide specific information. Ms. Murray then outlined the next steps as follows” a. Defining primary and secondary conservation areas b. Creating resource protection strategies c. Addressing conservation PUD considerations (e.g., mandatory vs. elective, thresholds and triggers in acreage, etc.) Ms. LaRose directed attention to the staff memo and noted that the subdivision regulations are in an early state. She also noted that some things are difficult to regulate because the data is not there. Regarding buildable/developable area, Mis LaRose asked whether for the purpose of a simple subdivision (not a PUD) members would find that resources should be discounted from the buildable area and thus discounted from the density calculation. Ms. Murray said that most buildable areas exclude things that are hazards such as surface waters, floodplains and very steep slopes. Mr. Klugo said he would keep the underlying density but take out the primary conservation areas from it. He also noted that a PUD provides more flexibility and more creativity. Ms. Ostby asked how much more expensive is the PUD route than the simple subdivision. Ms. Murray said it is a little more expensive. She also stressed that you can’t remove all the value from the land, but 4 you can reduce it. Mr. Klugo said he would hesitate to go down that road given all the recent case law. Mr. Conner added that were the Commission to go down this path, each parcel would wind up being different, with different features. Mr. Riehle said he didn’t feel a swampland deserved a full TDR. Ms. LaRose said everything seems to be density based, and that should not happen. She asked members to talk about design and how resources are used. If something can support 10 units, it should have 10 unites; if can support only 2 units, that what it should have. Mr. Klugo also noted that the fewer units you build, the more expensive those units become. He also said he is struggling with the fact that you can get 20 units with a PUD but only 10 with a subdivision. Ms. LaRose said in a subdivision you have no standards. If you want more units, there have to be standards. Mr. Klugo said he is on board with everything except stripping away density. Ms. Ostby asked why not have everything be a PUD. Ms. Murray said that then you have no underlying standards to modify. She said the Commission can said that if 50% or more of the land is in a primary conservation area you MUST have a Conservation PUD. Mr. Klugo said that if you allow the subdivision part, you will get more of what is going on on Dorset Street now. Ms. LaRose noted that almost nobody ever come in for a simple subdivision. In a straw vote 4 of the six members felt that in a simple subdivision both resources and density should be discounted. Members then considered the following proposed PUD requirements: a. For larger parcels, except in the City Center Form Based Code District, at the last meeting members had discussed reducing the draft 5 acre minimum lot size for a PUD to 4 or more acres. This should be reviewed in relation to the definitions of “minor” and “major” subdivisions. Currently, all PUDs are considered “major” subdivisions b. There would be specified types of PUDs depending on the zoning district (e.g., the SEQ). This is still under discussion. c. Whether to require site plan or subdivision review for multiple principal structures on a lot. d. Whether to require a PUD if 50% or more of the total tract area is included in a primary or secondary conservation area. e. Making a PUD elective for smaller parcels, including infill development Ms. Ostby suggested lowering the threshold to fewer than 4 acres. Mr. Conner said that raises the question of having a minimum size to accomplish the objectives of a PUD. At 4 acres, you can build a cohesive neighborhood. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with a “domino effect” of the 3-acre parcels. Ms. Murray noted the bulk of standards will be under the subdivision regulations. Ms. LaRose added that she felt those standards would address the possible “domino effect.” She also noted that if you set the minimum too low, you can’t get fit in some of the desirable elements. 5 Mr. Klugo questioned how to manage the 9-unit developments that a skirting Act 250. Ms. LaRose said not one of those developments was under 4 acres. Mr. Gagnon suggested setting a 4-acre minimum with anything under that being optional. Commissioners agreed. Ms. Murray said anything under 4 acres must be as Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner questioned whether that should be with 50% primary/secondary conservation areas. Mr. Gagnon felt that if all the conservation area was secondary, it shouldn’t have to be a Conservation PUD. Ms. Chalnik asked how something such as riparian areas got downgraded from primary to secondary. Ms. Murray reviewed the history and stressed that “hazard areas” are still primary. Mr. Riehle and Mr. Mittag felt some secondary areas should be primary. Ms. Ostby asked what this would do to the 1.2 coverage. Mr. Klugo asked how you could still maintain the economic value of the land. Mr. Conner suggested members consider other planning tools, noting that there is still the issue of maintaining walkable neighborhoods. Ms. LaRose said that members should consider what it means to make something secondary. You don’t just put a parking lot on it. Ms. Murray again stressed the need to be sensitive to legal issues and economic value. Mr. Klugo said that by nature development is disruptive to the planet. The question is how to have development and conservation. Mr. Mittag also noted the probability of having millions more people in the coming year. Mr. Klugo said you can manage compromises in the secondary bucket that you can’t do in the primary bucket. If everything goes in the primary, there can be no compromise. Mr. Gagnon asked that at the next meeting Mr. Conner show the impacts of different layers of secondary conservation. He felt there should be a primary list that is unbendable. A member of the audience expressed concern with maximizing density in smaller areas. Mr. Klugo said if you push all development to where you can have only a 10-story building, and you can’t have a 10- story building, you eliminate the economic value of the land. Ms. Ostby asked that there be a chapter heading for “energy efficiency.” 6. Reports from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Transferable Development Rights: Mr. Mittag said the Committee has asked the Planning Commission to develop a registry of TDRs (what lands they apply to). They are developing 3 proposals: fix TDRs and make them workable, dispense with 6 them altogether, create a TDR “bank” and have the city buy them over time with open space money (or something else) and sell them or retire them. Mr. Klugo asked how the committee’s work is impacted by the Court decision. Mr. Mittag said it isn’t. They feel the TDR regulations can be fixed. They are getting counsel from the City Attorney on this. Mr. Conner noted the City Council has not yet had a discussion regarding that Court decision. He also stressed that the decision did not eliminate the concept of TDRs. Mr. Klugo said he would pause the work of the TDR committee until there is a determination of how to address the Court judgment. b. Open Space: Mr. Gagnon said the committee has a list of evaluation criteria and scoring criteria for open space. They will look to see how that is impacted by the mapping. They will then ask for public input. 7. Discuss adoption schedule for amendments to the Land Development Regulations: singular sets or multiple sets: Mr. Conner asked if members wanted to see the whole PUD package or individual packages. Mr. Gagnon said his gut feeling was to move things along and not hold back something that was finished. 8. Confirm postponement of initial review of LDR amendment requests until completion of Interim Zoning projects: Members confirmed that this was their wish. 9. Meeting Minutes of 26 February 2019 Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 26 February as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Macdonald abstaining. 10. Other Business No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:08 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk R – 2019 - A RESOLUTION FOR THE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington is applying for funding as provided for in the FY 2019 Budget Act and may receive an award of funds under said provisions; and WHEREAS, the South Burlington Energy Committee supports an application for funds and has worked with the City staff to develop an application for grant funding to install electric vehicle chargers in the Community Center at 180 Market Street (Library, Senior Center, and City Hall) parking lot; and WHEREAS, the South Burlington Planning Commission recommends applying for said Grant (signature: Jessica Louisos, Planning Commission Chair, ____________________________________ ); and WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development may offer a Grant Agreement to the City of South Burlington for said funding; and WHEREAS, The City Council has secured local funds for the match portion of the electric vehicle charging station (one of six chargers) as part of the 180 Market Street 2018 debt authorization. Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1. That the City Council of South Burlington approves of entering into and agreeing to the requirements and obligations of this grant program including a commitment to match funds of 15% of total project cost; 2a. That Kevin Dorn, City Manager, is hereby designated to serve as the Municipal/Authorizing Official (M/AO) and to execute the Grant Agreement and other such Documents as may be necessary to secure these funds. 2b. That Thomas Hubbard, Deputy City Manager, is hereby designated to serve as an alternate Municipal/ Authorizing Official (M/AO) and to execute the Grant Agreement and other such Documents as may be necessary to secure these funds. 2c. That Ilona Blanchard, Project Director, is hereby designated as the Grant Administrator, with the overall Administrative responsibility for the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment grant activities related to the application, and subsequent Grant Agreement provisions. APPROVED this _____ day of ______________ , 2019. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Dave Kaufman