Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/25/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 FEBRUARY 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 February 2014, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; M. Simoneau, B. Maynes, S. Dopp 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: Ms. Dopp noted that at a recent meeting the South Burlington Land Trust had a dialog between citizens and Green Mountain Power regarding tree cutting on Swift Street. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Conner updated members regarding Form Based Codes. The Planning Commission asked for written feedback on street types. Feedback has been received from the Stormwater Department. Highway and Fire Department comments are coming. Mr. Conner also noted that staff is working with Paul Dreher on pieces of the puzzle including minor amendments, incongruities, etc. These will come to the Planning Commission. 4. Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District Presentation: Mr. Conner introduced Ilona Blanchard, City Project Director. Ms. Blanchard noted that TIF relies on a sense of place, so design is important. Revenue projections are based on a conservative model that uses historical growth and averages future assessed value. The margin on revenue is very slim. Less development in the TIF district would result in fewer projects; more development would result in more ability to build public projects. Approved potential projects for the TIF district include: Stormwater street restoration Dumont Park Central green Market Street Garden Street Williston Road streetscape Parking garage A pedestrian/bike bridge Community Center/City Hall/Library facility Ms. Blanchard showed the area where development would be located. There would be 741,400 sq. ft. of development involved in the TIF district itself plus an environmental assessment area and area ouside the environmental assessment area for a total of approximately 1,200,000 sq. ft. On land owned by South Burlington Realty, both commercial and residential development is possible. A total of approximately 75,000 sq. ft. would be non-taxable (potential municipal) development. There are very few properties projected to “tear down and redevelop.” Ms. Blanchard noted that to come up with projections, a market study was done which looked at historical rates. About 27,000 sq. ft. of retail is absorbed annually. South Burlington has 1/3 of the County’s retail but only 26% of production in the past 18 years. About 34,000 sq. ft. of office space is absorbed annually. Residential use is estimated at 1200 sq. ft. per unit. In total, this would result in $56,000,000 in annual revenue. Ms. Blanchard noted there are years when revenues don’t match payments. Revenue is needed to cover the bond plus interest plus any rolling of capital. If development can be compressed into 10 years, there would be no years in which revenues don’t match payment. Ms. Blanchard concluded by saying that the TIF district is dependent on the private sector. More committed private development equals more building projects. Ms. Dopp asked how much control the people of the city will have over the realization of the vision. Ms. Blanchard said if the city can offer incentives through the TIF process, that can happen. Mr. Conner added that staff is working to bring in a panel of people with familiarity with development to respond to economic questions. 5. Consider Modification of Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee membership: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of this item from the last meeting’s discussion. Ms. Harrington moved to take the motion to modify the Sustainable Agriculture Committee membership from the table. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. A friendly amendment changed the designation to the South Burlington Land Trust. In the vote that followed, the amended motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Riehle voting against. 6. Update on Transferable Development Rights Subcommittee work and recommendation: The Committee is recommending expansion of receiving areas to other areas of the city to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. This would not include the City Center area (as there is no density limit, there would be no incentive to increase density). Specific receiving areas have not been identified by the subcommittee. Ms. Louisos said that both recommendations of the subcommittee make sense to her. Other members agreed. Mr. Riehle moved to not have TDRs in the City Center/form based codes area. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner suggested that staff get input from Paul Dreher regarding potential receiving areas and pass this along to the TDR subcommittee and the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle moved to accept Mr. Conner’s proposal. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Update on Affordable Housing/Trust Fund Subcommittee Work and Recommendations: Ms. Calcagni said the money in the trust fund would be for those below 80% or lower income level. The committee is close to having specific recommendation. Ms. Calcagni also noted the committee is talking about inclusionary zoning, specifically in the City Center. It is hoped that they will complete work by the end of April. Ms. Louisos asked if there are concepts everyone on the committee agrees with that could be put out for public comment. Ms. Calcagni said she is OK with the. Some on the committee might not be. Ms. Louisos asked if anyone on the committee is completely opposed to inclusionary zoning. Ms. Calcagni said it is a question of whether to wait for it/spring it on people. Mr. Conner said they should be as up front as possible that this is on the table. Ms. Louisos suggested language...”...something we’re strongly considering which is not in the code right now...” Ms. LaRose stressed that details can make or break developments. She also noted there can be a distinction made between the TIF boundary and the City Center boundary. Mr. Gagnon suggested having a “place holder,” and stressed that the committee should get it right rather than fast. 8. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: A. Discuss Private Open Space concepts for City Center Form Based Code B. Continue Review of City Center Form Based Code Ms. LaRose noted that staff is close to having language for private open space. The thought is to have different standards for T4 and T5 and to treat open space differently on small and large parcels. There is a pallet of open space options, and staff is working on minor tweaks to this. Ms. LaRose noted that the Open Space Committee addressed 4 components of open space: 1. Resource conservation (e.g., buffers) 2. Working lands/urban foot/forest 3. Parks/recreation 4. Civic space (not necessarily green) Ms. LaRose said there could be combination of any of these in a given area. There is also the possibility of certain amenities qualifying as open space. For a development that doesn’t have open space potential on the lot, there is a possible “buyout option) to provide money to go into a fund for public open space. Mr. Simoneau felt there has to be a way to simplify this. Everything else in the code is so precise. He felt the buyout option concept was OK, if everyone does it. Members felt the basic pallet was OK. Staff will come back with more details. 9. Minutes of 7 December, 10 December, 14 December, 14 January, 25 January: [Click here for Minutes of December 5 2013] [Click here for Minutes of January 28 2014] It was noted that in the minutes of 14 December, near the bottom of the page, the line should read “could be attached.” In the same minutes on p. 4, members agreed to use the language “large building height exemptions.” In the minutes of 25 January, Ms. Harrington noted it was she would asked about the opportunities for students. Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes as written and/or amended. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Proposed Change in Membership New Membership: Common Roots representative, South Village representative, Land Trust representative, Community Gardens representative, Planning Commission representative, UVM representative, Rosanne Greco, Betty Goldberg, Heidi Auclair (9) [Actual people at this time: Common Roots: Carol McQuillan, Kindall Loomis, Greg Soll, Jimmy Beesy and other possible farmers. South Village: Will Raap, Reese Baker. Land Trust: Sarah Dopp. Community Gardens: Jess Hymen and South Burlington Community Garden members. Planning Commission: Sophie Quest (Chair). UVM: Allan Strong. Rosanne Greco, Betty Goldberg, Heidi Auclair.] 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC INPUT MEETING ON DRAFT CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODES 7 DECEMBER 2013 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public input meeting on Saturday, 7 December 2013, at 2:00 p.m., at the South Burlington Community Library, Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; S. Quest, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; P. Dreher, Consultant; M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, P. Engels, D. Leban, G. Silverstein, T. & E. Branch, T.Waller, L Alexander, L. Dumont, S. Clark, J. Jewitt, T. Hayes, T. Lawler, W. Rapp, A. Moore, L. Williams, A. Germain, G. & L. Michaels, R. Hubbard, C. Ford 1. Background and General Information: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the Form Based Codes Committee. He noted that the Planning Commission will take public comments and make adjustments to the recommendations, then forward this to the City Council for their action. Mr. Dreher then reviewed the nature of form based codes and the transect concept (see minutes of 5 December, 2 p.m. meeting for details). He showed the location of the various “T” districts in the City Center. Mr. Conner pointed out the city-owned land, including 2 parks, major roads, and Central School (which is owned by the School District). He stressed that the map shows what is allowed to happen on private land. Mr. Dreher then explained the specific characteristics of the three “T” districts in City Center and what can potentially happen in them. He also showed the various types of streets (e.g., “support streets”) and their characteristics (see Notes of 5 December, 2 p.m. meeting). Mr. Conner noted that a city task force has been looking at the feasibility of the city buying land for civic building(s) and now have a recommendation to bring to the City Council. Mr. Gagnon, who served on that task force, said the recommendation is a combined facility for a City Hall, Library, and Recreation Center. Ms. Hayes asked about the potential size of a support street such as Mary Street. Mr. Dreher said Mary Street would not change in the near time-frame. The value of the land will increase. Ms. Hayes said they are zoned as a dead end street, and asked if that would change. Mr. Conner said they are not “zoned” as a dead end. There is some private land at the end of the street. He said he would look into that. Ms. Hayes said she would like the street to stay as dead end for the safety of children in the neighborhood A member of the audience asked if the state is involved with the planning for Route 2. Mr. Conner explained there was a traffic study done for the whole area that set maximum traffic and performance standards. Any major development will be subject to Act 250 review, which is a state review. The road is city owned as far as Ace Hardware. Because it is a state highway, the state and federal entities are always involved in planning. 2 An audience member asked if form based codes would replace existing zoning. Mr. Conner said it would and would be tied in with other zoning “tools.” In response to a question about bike paths, Mr. Conner explained the design process for Market Street which involved 4 committees. There will be 11-foot travel lanes for vehicles, two 8-foot parking lanes, 2 21-foot pedestrian/bicycle lanes. There are specific characteristics for other streets as well. Mr. Conner noted that the Public Works Department has been asked to look at streets to see what works at existing widths. Mr. Silverstein asked about the speed limit on Market Street. Mr. Conner said it is 35 mph. The lower it could be is 25 mph. Mr. Silverstein said he felt it was bad to put cyclists and pedestrians in the same space. He also noted that cyclists can maintain a 25 mph speed but no more. Mr. Conner said the intent is to create an environment on Market Street where drivers don’t want to go as much as 25 mph. Mr. Dreher added that you have to design a road to a target speed, but you can then parking, etc., that affects that “design speed.” 2. Public Comment: Ms. Hayes: Wants to keep Mary Street dead end. Mr. Silverstein: Uneasy with the idea that landowners will make individual decision as to what kind of buildings to put up. Didn’t want to see a “string of 6-story buildings.” Ms. Louisos noted that with the current zoning, you could have a 12-story building. Mr. Silverstein said he would like to know what City Center will look like when it’s done, and he didn’t think people will under this system. Mr. Conner said the code tries to set some commonality (length of blocks, prohibited materials, glazing on the first floor, etc.) but allows for architectural flexibility. Mr. Engels added that the committee was charged to create a livable, walkable downtown. He felt the beauty of form based codes is that it doesn’t lead to suburban sprawl. Ms. Alexander: Felt three stories was tall enough. She liked retail on the first floor and housing above. She presumed that what exists now would stay. Mr. Conner said it would be a “non- conformity” and would be grandfathered. There is a threshold at which a change must get closer to the code. A complete teardown/rebuild would have to conform to the new regulations. Ms. Leban: Was pleased that vinyl siding isn’t allowed. Would like more coherence in appearance in T-5. Mr. Ford: Questioned a transition from Iby Street to City Center. Was concerned that the transition be gradual. Was also concerned about water issues, which is already a problem. Mr. Hubbard: Supported the idea of a vibrant place to gather. Felt there are pitfalls to getting there. Wanted an appropriate mix of commercial and residential to make the vibrancy work, especially in evenings and weekends. Wanted a place for a farmers’ market. Felt a post 3 office would be good. Noted the amount of ‘pass-thru’ traffic in the city, and felt you have to “bleed traffic” off main thoroughfares. Ms. Williams: Excited about City Center but worried about not getting a central public green. Felt public buildings would generate activity and also that a public green would help with stormwater issues. Was concerned that there are no “bike lanes” and that cyclists share space with pedestrians. Thinks Trader Joe’s is a great addition to the city. Mr. Leavens: Felt there should be a “high point” with a scenic view to draw people to City Center. Was concerned that the Airport is not considered in the City Center plan. Questioned whether a T-3 designation will change the value of his home. Mr. Conner noted the city was successful in getting a grant to work on planning in the Airport area. Resident: Believes the Library should be part of City Center. Resident: Excited by the concept of “back lanes.” Resident: Encouraged publishing information in The Other Paper as things move forward. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ____________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 DECEMBER 2013 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 December 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T.Riehle, S. Quest, B. Benton, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C.LaRose, City Planner; S. Dopp, J. Kochman, J. & S. Jewett, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Gagnon: Has been attending the City Center task force meetings related to potential city facilities in City Center. Last week, the task force agreed to recommend that a City Hall, Library and Recreation Center be combined in one facility. This recommendation will be presented to the City Council after the new year. Mr. Conner: Met with the City Manager and Public Works direction and UVM people for their quarter meeting. UVM is beginning their 2016 Master Plan and have put out a request for information for more student housing. They want 60-70% of undergraduate students to be housed on campus. One area they are looking at is partly in South Burlington. UVM will be on the agenda for the second Planning Commission meeting in January. The City received the municipal planning grant for the Airport area in the amount of $17,000. (One of only 3 Chittenden County communities to receive funding). Phase I of the study will be a collaborative effort with the neighborhood. The City has a new ½ of a ½ time person, Jen Le, to help with administrative things and pressure relief. 4. Discuss Potential ‘”tools” available for identifying and creating opportunities for acquisition of civic and green spaces in the City Center area: Ms. LaRose enumerated the “tools” as follows: A. Official City Map B. Formal recommendation, policy statement and finance ordinances and Comprehensive Plan C. Zoning map (not recommended as it creates legal issues) 2 Mr. Gagnon asked if they can show a desire for open space, without pinning down the specific space. Mr. Conner said staff has learned the strengths/challenges of official maps in recent years. He noted a recent problem in Hinesburg when they did not specifically identify the parcel the town wanted for a park. Ms. LaRose noted any course of action will involve a purchase. There is nothing the Planning Commission can adopt that would make it easier. The “power comes with the money.” Ms. LaRose also noted that another tool the city has is the “open space strategy” which has not been updated recently. This could be reinforced. There is a section that gives priority to open space in urban areas. That Natural Resources Committee used a “scorecard” to weight open spaces in urban areas. Ms.Quest asked what the TIF does. Ms. LaRose said it lists what can be done. It is not prioritized, though it could be if it is tied to the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Conner then enumerated the categories of “tools” as follows” A. How to get money: includes impact fees, open space fund, TIF, etc. B. Financial Prioritization: via the Capital Improvement Plan C. Land Use Decisions: land use map, Comprehensive Plan, plans/maps developed by the city. Ms. LaRose said you can identify in all policy statements that you really want a piece of land. If the owner doesn’t want to provide it, the city can’t get it. That power comes from the Official City Map. Mr. Conner noted that there are regular meetings on all aspects of City Center. He said staff has heard the Commission’s priorities, and will come back with an idea as to how to implement them. Mr. Riehle said he was not convinced the public spaces have to be in the “high rent district.” He asked how a possible site can be determined. Mr. Conner said one possibility is linking together different types of green space. The more flexible, the better it is. He suggested at a January meeting that the Commission discuss some characteristics of the space. Ms. LaRose asked the Commission to consider whether this should/why it doesn’t appear on a zoning map, and whether to make a statement on this “head-on.” Mr. Simoneau asked how large a site is needed for the proposed civic building. He felt they might be talking about 6 or 7 acres with green space and parking. He asked if there would be merit to engaging some land use planners with the experience to indicate the kind of traffic the facility might generate, costs for different kinds of spaces in City Center, etc. Mr. Conner noted that with the TIF district, the more land that is taxable the better. Mr. McKenzie said his sketch gets the city 5 acres (building, green space, parking, stormwater management) which is about 25% of the land owned by South Burlington Realty. Mr. Jewitt asked about underground parking. Mr. McKenzie said the water table is too high. Mr. Conner suggested there may 3 be ways to minimize space devoted to parking, pipes, etc. Mr. Gagnon noted that one recommendation of the task force is to engage in discussion with the School District for the sharing of space. 5. Discuss Overall City Center Draft Form Based Code Review Timeline: Mr. Conner said staff came up with 7 items and one more work piece. He noted the Council was unanimous in wanting to see a complete product from the Planning Commission that represents what the Commission and community want. This overrides any deadline. He then enumerated the 7 items yet to be addressed: A. Technical fixes B. Questions from the public/policy questions c. Question of affordable housing D. Open space E. TDRs F. “Sewing together” the development review process G. Street type standards One question is whether an updated Comprehensive Plan is needed to institute form based codes. Mr. Conner said staff’s thinking is that the current plan is broad enough to accommodate form based codes with the exception of any “inclusionary zoning” which, by state law, must be specifically designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jewett felt the city would be on very shaky grounds if they didn’t fix the Comprehensive Plan before imposing new zoning. He felt the Plan is very defective and needs repair. Ms. LaRose said if there is anything in the Plan that is contradictory, staff would recommend an update before adopting the draft code. So far, they haven’t found anything, with the exception of “inclusionary zoning.” 6. Discuss Next Steps Concerning Responses from Open Space Committee and Affordable Housing members on requests regarding draft City Center Form Based Codes: Ms. Louisos felt that for TDR transfers for inclusionary zoning it would be good to have one package, rather than coming back 6 months from now with changes. Mr. Conner agreed it would be hard to bring in something later that substantially changes the rules. At a minimum, there should be some kind of “place holder” while the Commission is considering a draft. This could later be refined. Regarding Affordable Housing, Mr. Conner noted the sub-committee is interested in looking at inclusionary zoning and that it be “moderate” affordable housing. Their final report includes a set of inclusionary zoning standards. Mr.Conner felt the City Center piece might be easier to sort out than elsewhere in the city. He felt there can be more detail on this at the Saturday session. 7. Identify needs/requests of staff in advance of upcoming Planning Commission work session: Mr. Conner said the Commission will be given more questions to answer on Saturday regarding affordable housing and open space. He said the aim is to get the “big issues” out of the way and prioritize the “little things.” 4 There are 214 comments to date on the draft code. Mr. Gagnon suggested consolidating these, eliminating duplications, etc. Mr. Conner said staff will eliminate the technical ones and then hit the biggest ones. Mr. Gagnon suggested staff provide some background information on the issues (e.g., what other communities have, how the Form Based Codes Committee came up with a recommendation, etc.). Ms. LaRose noted the Design Review Committee also has some input they would like to give the Commission. 8. Minutes of 12. November 2013: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 12 November 2013 as written. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted receipt of draft by-law amendment from the Town of Williston. He didn’t see any conflict with South Burlington in these. Members took no action. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. _____________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 DECEMBER 2013 1   The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Saturday, 14 December 2013, at  12:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.    Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, B. Benton, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon    Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; M. Simoneau, P. Dreher (by  phone)    1. Other Business & Announcements:    Planning Commission members discussed the draft ‘messy map,’ having previously requested that the  colors be adjusted to show the T4 and T5 zones in colors other than shades of green and blue. The new  draft includes the reds and oranges requested by the Planning Commission.     Members next discussed the boundaries of the ‘City Center’ area as shown on the map; those areas  which would be subject to the draft code under consideration at this time. After substantial discussion,  members agreed to remove the section designated for T3 zoning in the Patchen Road/White Street  area. They asked that the map be amended to leave out the areas north of White Street on the eastern  side of Patchen Road.     Members discussed maximum building heights in T4 and T3 zones. Members were curious if there is a  working definition of “story.”     Members discussed the heights allowed within a story, and agreed that there should be a maximum of  ten feet allowed for second floor heights in the T3.     Members reviewed the Design Review Committee’s comments on the draft Form Based Code. They  agreed that the code should reflect that properties which currently have housing units, but less than the  minimum densities required should be permitted to increase their density, even if doing so still does not  reach the minimum required. The example was discussed of a single family home converting to a duplex  in a zone with a minimum density of 4 units per acre. Members unanimously agreed that this should be  permitted by the code.     Mr. Simoneau asked how density would be determined with mixed use in T‐3.  Mr. Conner said the  concept is there would be no waste of space with one home on a piece of land precluding anything  further there in the future.    Ms. Louisos questioned having garages at a 90 degree angle.  Mr. Conner said the intent is to modify  what has been built in past years where most of what you see is garages.  He compared this to historic  parts of Burlington where most of what you see is houses.  Mr. Gagnon commented that on a ¼‐acre lot  you don’t have room for a garage.  Ms. Louisos suggested possibly having homes adjacent to an alley  with garages off the alley.  Mr. Conner said that is one option that was intended to be included, and  would confirm that it can take place. Ms. Harrington wanted to be sure garages were attached to houses  so there was direct access.  The concept of an 8‐foot setback for garages was suggested.  Ms. Benton  was OK with this as long as garages weren’t “sticking out.”  Ms. Louisos suggested a possible limit of a  one‐car garage. Members agreed to pursue this as an additional option.  Mr. Conner suggested saying  2 garages don’t count as part of a “building,” so you don’t get 4‐car garages.  Ms. Benton was concerned  with crime in “alleys.”  Mr. Conner noted that the South Village “alleys” don’t have that kind of  atmosphere. Ms. Harrington suggested a clarification on fronts and sides in this section. Members  agreed.    T‐4 Discussion:    Mr. Gagnon noted that several attendees at the Library meeting were concerned with building heights  in T‐4 and T‐5.  He said he looked at Burlington and Winooski, and most buildings were 2 stories with  some 3‐stories on Church Street.  Six story buildings were big and wide.  The Sheraton is only 3 stories in  front.  He suggested a maximum of 4 stories in T‐5 and 3 in T‐4.      Mr. Conner noted that at present in the City Center area, buildings can be up to 115 feet, which would  be 9‐10 stories, with a green roof structure.  Outside of that district there is a 35‐foot maximum with a  possible waiver if the proposed height doesn’t affect a scenic public view.    Ms. Louisos noted that Brattleboro downtown is wonderful and has some very tall buildings, some more  than 5 stories.  Ms. Calcagni liked the flexibility of 6 stories.  She said that with open space, you have to  go up.  Ms. Benton said it wasn’t “the end of the world” to go that high.  Ms. Louisos felt that 4 stories in  T‐4 may be too high.    Ms. Calcagni said there may be a perception that all you’ll get are 6‐story buildings, and that may not  happen.    Ms. Quest said South Burlington is not a small town, and she felt 6 stories was in keeping.    Mr. Conner noted there are about 24 buildings in South Burlington that today have 4 stories.    Mr. Simoneau was skeptical about how many 6‐story buildings you would see.  He said it is a big risk for  a developer to build the extra 2 floors, and it would take a big retail tenant to take that risk.  He also felt  the 6‐stories would be part of the dynamic the committee was looking for.  He suggested the same  parameters might also be considered in the K‐Mart property.    Ms. Benton felt it was the style of the building that was more critical than the height.    Members agreed to leave the height recommendations as presented.    Regarding glazing, Ms. Harrington noted that the text says “windows should be taller than wide,” but  the illustration is the opposite of that.  She noted this requirement would preclude someone in T‐3  having a bay window in their home.    Mr. Simoneau said the glazing requirements were to encourage walking, browsing, etc., in T‐5.  In T‐4,  glazing could accommodate office uses on the ground floor.    Ms. Harrington questioned whether they should care about the orientation of glazing if it meets the  percentage.  Mr. Conner said they are trying to give the impression it is not a long distance to walk (I.e.,  more up/down than wide).  Ms. Benton liked the vertical windows on the upper floors.  Mr. Conner  didn’t think there were glazing requirements for the upper floors.  Mr. Dreher said there are not  3 currently glazing standards above the first floor.  They could put in a 30% standard.  Ms. Benton said she  was interested in the character of glazing, multiple vertical windows as opposed to the “70’s style.”  She  asked if that is possible.  Mr. Dreher said they can do the 30% and make them vertical.  Ms. Quest  suggested windows be closer together to be better looking.  Mr. Dreher felt they shouldn’t be so limiting  as to discourage creativity.    Ms. Harrington asked how to discourage several buildings of the same style.  Mr. Dreher said that is hard  to do.  Ms. LaRose said the Commission can utilize people who are architects who were on the Form  Based Codes Committee.    Mr. Riehle noted that in T‐3, there is a 4‐unit minimum per acre but no maximum.  He asked about a  half‐acre lot.  Mr. Dreher said the maximum is 2 per lot.    Ms. LaRose asked if a 10‐acre lot is required to have 40 units because the zoning is 4 per acre.  Mr.  Dreher noted City Center land values are very high; it is a valuable place.  Ms. Louisos asked how  commercial fits into that.  Mr. Dreher said that language needs to be cleared up.    Mr. Conner showed a picture of what T‐3 could allow from Mr. Shenk, who had provided it to the FBC  Committee.  Ms. Benton felt it did not look bad next to single family homes.      Members then reviewed the list of prohibited materials, including vinyl siding, stucco, plywood, chain  link fences, concrete block, cinderblock, tie back, tar paper.  It was suggested that the Design Review  Committee look at this.  Mr. Conner noted there is an opportunity for exceptions that would have to go  through the DRB.    Members then considered the one‐story “big box” possibility.  Ms. Harrington noted there could be 7 of  these in T‐5, and there could be one in every block in City Center if you include T‐4.  Mr. Conner noted  the draft states there can’t be more than one per block.  Mr. Gagnon said there could be something like  the new development on Rt. 2A in Williston.  You could have a 10,000 sq. ft. building with a smaller  store every 50 feet.  He said you won’t get a “Best Buy” with a requirement for a door every 50 feet, but  you could get a Best Buy behind other buildings.    Mr. Simoneau said he would like to see an anchor in there tomorrow.  He felt Pier One is not quite an  anchor, but it’s close.  He said most of the committee felt the residential development would happen  first.  Ms. Calcagni said she sees U Mall as an anchor.  Mr. Simoneau said they are looking for one at the  other end as well.    Ms. Louisos said you could have every block with one building with a door every 50 feet and only one  story.  Mr. Conner noted Pier One is 2 stories.  He cited the compromise with Trader Joe’s, which has the  appearance of two stories.    Ms. Harrington suggested talking out the single story in T‐4 and said a building has to “give the  appearance” of two stories.  She added that she was not a fan of the entrances every 50 feet.  She felt it  should stay at 30 feet.    Mr. Simoneau asked how the differences with the Form Based Codes Committee can be reconciled.  Ms.  Louisos said the Commission would let the Committee know the changes and ask them to respond.    4 Members agreed that there should be no “as of right” exceptions in T‐4.    Members also felt there should be no one‐story buildings in T‐5 and only with mitigation in T‐4.    Mr. Simoneau said they might want to consider a maximum number of exceptions in T‐4 or T‐5, and  when that number is achieved, a request for an exception would have to go to the DRB.  This would still  allow for submission of a plan.  Ms. LaRose noted that the Design Review people felt one‐story building  exceptions should be for smaller buildings.    Mr. Conner noted the “challenge of a second story use.”  Either there is an economic model that allows  a second story use, or that business is out.    Ms. LaRose suggested members think about the difference between Market Street and the side streets  and whether there should be different expectations for each.  She thought there was a big range  between “yes” and “no.”    Mr. Simoneau cautioned the Commission not to operate “in a silo.”  He noted there is a question as to  whether some ideas fit “in the real world.”  There is also a question of whether some things will impact  the revenue needed to generate the TIF.    Regarding building heights, Mr. Conner asked whether the Commission would want more information  on the economics to proceed.  Ms. Calcagni said she can see limited exceptions but would like to hear  someone’s defense of heights.  Mr. Gagnon said he had no issue with the “perception of a second floor.”   He would not waive the door standard.  Mr. Conner reminded members that these standards would  apply to Williston Road, Dorset St., and San Remo Drive as well.  Ms. Calcagni suggested maybe having  them just apply to Market St.  Ms. LaRose asked what the Commission would be OK with replacing  Burger King with.  Mr. Conner noted they could say there would be no one‐story buildings adjacent to or  opposite each other.    Ms. Louisos suggested inviting Tim Duff in to talk to this issue.  He is not a land owner and is an  architect.  Mr. Conner said Tim might not be able to speak to the financing angle, but suggested he could  be part of a small group of people to provide input on this. The Commission discussed gathering this and  other questions they may have and hosting a meeting with people invited to provide information. Mr.  Conner said that he could work on this.     As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30  p.m.             _________________________________       Clerk  SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 JANUARY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 January 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Benton, G. Calcagni Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Barlow, City Attorney; S. Dopp, J. Russell, M. Lalonde. E. Fitzgerald, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, P. Nowak, J. Benoit, E. Goldberg, T. McKenzie Executive Session: Ms. Harrington moved to enter executive session to discuss documents provided by Legal Counsel which are accepted from access to public records, with Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, and Jim Barlow, Legal Counsel. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: 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: Mr. Conner: The City Center Task Force gave its final report to the City Council at Saturday’s meeting. The report received very positive comments. Work continues on amending Paul Dreher’s contract. Jim Barlow has been hired as Legal Counsel. 5. Discuss School Safety Overlay District Proposed by South Burlington School Board: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission had asked for an opinion from legal counsel. Mr. Russell said there should be a “happy medium” somewhere. City Center is based on raising tax revenue based on dense use. He felt the School District’s concerns could be handled by “controlling” rather than “eliminating” certain uses. He questioned whether there could be a viable City Center if certain uses were eliminated. He also didn’t want to see a lot of “unintended consequences” and felt there were other tools to get the same result. Mr. Simoneau asked if the School District’s proposal is legal. Ms. Louisos said the opinion is that there are some things proposed that could have ramifications to the city. Mr. Russell said he has helped negotiate the Airport garage and the Circ Highway and would be willing to volunteer to help. Mr. Riehle asked about the reasoning behind the areas around the schools. He noted the areas around Marcotte School, the High School and the Middle School are very broad. Chamberlin is not. 2 Mr. Lalonde, member of the School Board, said they looked at walking patterns, classes held outside the school, etc. Chamberlin is all residential, so there is not so much of a threat. And the uses they are concerned about are not allowed there. The School Board’s main concern is with uses (e.g., bars selling alcohol during school hours) that could result in impaired driving. Ms. Quest suggested the Commission wait to make a decision until the issues in Court can be settled. In the meantime, the Commission could be thinking of a plan where everyone wins. Mr. Simoneau agreed. He said everyone wants children to be safe and for the City Center to succeed. Mr. Russell said the economics of City Center are such that you won’t see a small bar. He questioned whether the school district would oppose a drug store which sells Class 2 drugs. Ms. Harrington said the question is where you draw the line. She saw the possibility of a “domino effect.” Mr. Lalonde said there is no data regarding drug stores, but there is data for methadone clinics, pain clinics, etc. Ms. Calcagni said the hope is that City Center would become a transportation hub and people could take public transportation rather than drive there to drink. Members agreed that it makes sense to wait for the Court ruling before considering a decision. 6. Review and consider approval of proposed FY2014 mid-year adjustment and FY2015 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program project request: Mr. Conner noted this year the Regional Planning Commission has an open invitation for input as to what projects it should undertake. There is a match component for these projects and the city would propose an “in kind” match rather than cash in most cases. A list of 6 proposals developed by a team of staff was presented for consideration. He noted each had been previously discussed through the Capital Improvement Plan or at community meetings. Ms. Quest said she would support all 6. She asked about adding the missing sidewalk on a portion of Spear St. Mr. Conner read from the C.I.P. regarding that proposed work. Ms. Louisos said she would like to see a sidewalk on Patchen Rd. to the Winooski line. Mr. Conner noted that is already in the works with a Burlington project on the current S. D. Ireland property. Mr. Riehle questioned the increased investment in CCTA and noted that the buses he sees have 2, 3, or 4 riders at best. He felt there is a stigma about riding on the bus and that there shouldn’t be more buses until people figure out how to fill the buses. Mr. Conner said that one of the proposed projects would examine when there is a “breaking point” under the current transportation system. If there is no advance planning, the answer could be something like an enlarged Exit 14, which would cost everyone money. Mr. Riehle asked about the overhaul of the traffic overlay district. Mr. Conner explained the nature of the traffic overlay district and how many peak hour trip ends there can be. What staff is finding is that it’s a “blunt instrument” and not a very creative tool (e.g., no credit is given for busing employees to the mall). The hope is to replace this with something more creative. The current system has precluded any new restaurants in that area and most buildings taller than one story. The hope is to replace “can’t have” with “can have if…” Ms. Nowak cited the importance of thinking outside the box and said it was fortunate to have Regional Planning working with the city to do that. 3 Ms. Harrington moved to approve the submission of all 6 suggested projects to the City Council for approval. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continue Review of draft City Center Form Based Code: a. Discuss Application Review Process Mr. Conner noted that staff had worked on the details of how this would function. He noted there are places for Planning Commission discussion on policy decisions. Staff looked at where DRB review would be required and how an applicant might meet a deadline for notification, etc., for a plan that doesn’t go to the DRB. Ms. Louisos noted the public now believes that if something large is going in, there is a public review and not an administrative review “behind closed doors.” Mr. Conner said anything like a site plan decision would have to be posted on the property. He added that with administrative review, there is a 30-day period for a decision after the administrator makes a decision. Ms. Quest felt neighbors should be aware of what is in the works. Mr. Conner noted that the Form Based Codes Committee is looking to draft a “black-white” decision process. Ms. Louisos felt it doesn’t seem transparent not to have a time period in which a person could give input. Mr. McKenzie said the concept is that with Form Based Code you don’t care what goes into a building; if the building meets the standards, they’re good with it. Ms. Greco felt you can still “surprise” residents. Ms. Nowak questioned whether the city really wants Form Based Code for the whole city. People may want more say in other places. Ms. Dopp asked where public amenities fit into the review process. Mr. Simoneau said there has to be 5% of square footage for public amenities when you exceed 50,000 sq. ft. Mr. Conner said there could be a pallet of option and specified lighting, benches, etc. Mr. McKenzie said it’s OK with him if the public doesn’t want Form Based Codes, but to wind up with a “hybrid” isn’t the way to go. He said the committee worked hard to meet the expectations of the community, and it isn’t right to take pieces of it. When parameters are set, the developer has to live within them. Mr. Simoneau noted that the Town of Williston has set parameters. There is a menu of options to satisfy a requirement. Ms. Harrington asked if any other community with Form Based Code utilizes a DRB. Mr. Conner said Mr. Dreher has noted that anything larger than 40,000 sq. ft. goes to the DRB. Ms. Nowak asked people to keep in mind what has already been accomplished. Only 2 places in Vermont have Form Based Codes: Newport, which was already built, and Huntington which has 2 general stores. Neither is like South Burlington. Mr. Conner added that South Burlington is somewhat unique in New England. Mr. Conner noted that an application would be deemed complete when the Fire Department and Public Works input have been received. Members agreed to continue this discussion at the work session on Saturday, 25 January, 1 p.m. 4 8. Discuss Scope of City-Wide Regulation/Code update for Dreher Designs contract: a. Consideration of elements of the current Regulations to be excluded from contract b. Consideration of geographic areas to be excluded and/or have limited revisions Mr. Conner directed attention to the list of topics proposed not to be included in Mr. Dreher’s scope of work. Members agreed with the list. Mr. Conner then asked about geographic areas that may be excluded. These could include the Airport/Chamberlin area and other areas where a separate, robust planning process is planned or may be warranted. Ms. Quest suggested the Southeast Quadrant which also has separate ideas. Members agreed with both of these. Mr. Simoneau urged taking time to do this correctly. Ms. Nowak said people need to see what this would be outside of a limited area. Mr. Simoneau said the code can be customized to go with the “DNA” of a specific area, but the aim is to have one code for the whole city. Ms. Louisos suggested possibly excluding the Lakeshore area. Members asked to have Mr. Dreher provide a first draft of this area and the Commission can see from there. Mr. Conner said the flood plain areas would be excluded as no development is allowed there. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  25 JANUARY 2014  1  The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Saturday, 25 January 2014, at  1:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.  Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Benton, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B.  Gagnon  Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Dreher,  Consultant (via phone); M. Simoneau, P. Engels, R. Greco  Members continued their review of the recommendations of the Form Based Codes Committee  as follows:  Ms. Quest said she wanted to be sure that City Center was not all “big box stores.”  Mr. Conner  noted the Commission had said they wanted to hear from someone who can talk to the  economics of this.  He suggested they could do this at the end of their review of the Form Based  Codes Committee’s report.  Mr. Simoneau said he didn’t recall the Committee’s actual vote on that, but he did recall an  interest in being able to accommodate an “anchor.”  He liked the idea of the Commission  making a list of their concerns.  Mr. Engels added that with the requirement for a 2‐story  building and doors every 36 feet, there would never be a “big box.”   Ms. Harrington suggested  asking Paul Dreher about that.  Mr. Simoneau said that looking at the language in T5 for exceptions (i.e., 24 foot building  height, doors every 50 feet or less, glazing standards, etc.), you’re not looking at a “monolith.”   He felt the standards should be consistent with everything that is in the City Center.  Members then discussed the concerns of Iby Street residents about water being displaced into  the neighborhood.  Mr. Conner noted that the Stormwater people met with residents on those  concerns.  Ms. LaRose will check with Stormwater people as to what happened.  Mr. Gagnon  had no problem with the Form Based Codes Committee not addressing stormwater as it is  adequately addressed elsewhere.    Mr. Conner said there is a state standard whenever you disturb an acre or more.  The draft city  standard under development lowers that to half an acre.  If you disturb that much you must  meet the standard and not worsen any existing condition.  The issue now is to deal with  problems that are not the fault of any new development. He noted that Ilona Blanchard and her  group are discussing with property owners for a joint stormwater concept for City Center  instead of each property dealing with individually.    2  Mr. Riehle asked if it is possible that a system could be put in that would allow for underground  parking or a large building.  Mr. Gagnon said the issue is still to manage the water.  Stormwater  systems treat only surface water.    Ms. Louisos agreed with Mr. Gagnon that dealing with stormwater is not a function of the Form  Based Code. Members agreed but noted that the draft stormwater standards are under  development.  Members then considered the T3 area.  Ms. Louisos felt it was pretty intensive and that  residents would want what’s next to them to look more like them.  Ms. Benton felt buildings  should be a maximum of 2 stories and that 2.5 stories was too high.  Mr. Engels suggested that  strip could be made a T1.  He questioned whether this would even be an issue if stormwater  concerns are addressed.  In considering the Interstate overlay, traffic overlay, transit overlay, and landscaping  requirements, Mr. Conner noted there are no buildings allowed within 100 feet of the  Interstate.  He said that Paul Dreher is OK with leaving that requirement in.  Mr. Conner also  noted that the traffic overlay may be replaced later on, but recommended it be left in for now.  Regarding landscaping, requirements are in a section of the LDRs that include street trees, etc.   The initial draft of the Code exempts that entire section, but upon further review, there are  certain elements such as private property landscaping minimums, where staff and Paul Dreher  think there may be an opportunity to open up the landscaping requirement to include other  amenities, such as benches.  Members were OK with keeping those requirements.  Regarding Mary Street, Ms. Quest said she would like it to remain closed at the end.  She said  most of the houses are owned by a developer and are rented.  It is a place for affordable  housing, and saw no reason to open it.  Mr. Gagnon noted that Form Based Codes does not  relate to the opening and closing of streets.  That is the province of the City Council.  Mr.  Gagnon added that there will be traffic studies done for different buildings.  Mary Street could  be evaluated at that time, and people on the street could weigh in then.  Mr. Conner said it is  the official city map that relates to opening/closing of streets.  There is no clear intent in the  Form Based Code to connect or open Mary Street.  Ms. Louisos noted that even under current  zoning, Mary Street is zoned for quite dense development, and the people who live there know  the potential.  She added that Mary Street people don’t disagree with the zoning.  They just  don’t want a change to T4 until the neighborhood changes.  They don’t want traffic “zooming  by” now.  Ms. Greco said she didn’t want to promote one goal (City Center) at the expense of another  (affordable housing).  There is also the issue of sacrificing a neighborhood for a city center.  She    3  noted that people in the Airport area want to close off their streets because they have become  thoroughfares and Airport parking areas and this has destroyed their neighborhood.  Mr. Gagnon said he would show only existing streets on the map and let the future take care of  where additional street go.  Mr. Simoneau said they have to also be aware of placement of  infrastructure.  Mr. Conner felt this was a good topic for an “official map discussion.”  Members then considered glazing standards:  Mr. Gagnon said the reasons for glazing are to break up large areas of buildings, and in that  case he didn’t care if you can see through the glass or not.  He didn’t think the Commission  should dictate this and that the standard should be open enough to allow for different uses for  different reasons.   Mr. Conner noted that Paul Dreher is working on glazing standards for upper floors.  Mr. Simoneau said there could be some very creative glass (e.g., stained glass) and that  shouldn’t be precluded.  Mr. Gagnon suggested something like 80% glazing with 50% of it being see‐thru.  Mr. Conner  said the reality is that retailers will do what they want to do (e.g., open and close blinds,  curtains, etc.).  Mr. Engels suggested talking to Paul Dreher about this as there are reasons for  the numbers.  Corner building standards were then discussed:  Mr. Conner said the glazing standards say “on its principal façade,” and the question with a  corner building is which façade is this.  Staff’s suggestion is that if the building corners on 2  major streets, the standard should be on both sides.  If it is a major and a minor street corner,  the standard should be only on the major street.  There could be a list of street types that  would be used for this purpose.  Mr. Conner added that for a building on 2 minor streets, they  could look at what faces the streets.  If it’s housing, the windows should face the houses.  Ms. Benton said she wanted glazing on minor streets because you want people to go there too.   Mr. Conner said they could say all streets except alleys.  Members then considered civic building review criteria:  Ms. Louisos noted that civic buildings are exempt from the building envelop standards.  Mr.  Conner added that glazing, setbacks, and heights would also not apply.  Mr. Gagnon asked a civic building wouldn’t have to meet all the standards.  Mr. Riehle said you  might it set back to accommodate a flagpole.  Ms. Louisos cited the fountain in Burlington’s City    4  Hall Park.  She said they wouldn’t want a civic building to look like all other buildings.  Mr.  Conner also noted the desire to have some creativity.  City Hall could have a “grand entrance.”  Ms. Benton noted that city halls often have a very tall first floor and asked if that would be  precluded.  Mr. Conner said it isn’t clear if a taller first floor would count as two floors.  Mr. Simoneau said in the end they might want to exempt civic buildings from standards.  Mr.  Gagnon said they don’t want it completely out of context.  Mr. Riehle said they also have to  take security issues into consideration.  Members then considered “Step Back”/Flexibility:  Mr. Riehle raised the question of inhibiting something like an atrium with an outside seating  restaurant.  At this point, a call was placed to Paul Dreher and members asked specific questions of him:  Ms. Louisos asked if there is a way to limit the possibility of having a box store on every block.   Mr. Dreher said you could limit it to every other block.  He said the intent was to accommodate  an anchor store in City Center.  Mr. Conner noted a major property owner said it was not the  intent to have a big box on every block.  Mr. Gagnon said it is not known how this will build out,  and you have to be fair.  If you say every other block, you could lock someone out.  Mr. Dreher  said that’s OK.  The first one was first, and zoning rights aren’t always equal.  He added that it is  in nobody’s interest to have one story buildings, so he wouldn’t worry so much about it.  Mr. Conner noted the regulations also apply to the Williston Road area (both sides), including  Staples Plaza, where one‐story buildings have been the history.  Mr. Dreher said that in no way  is he an advocate for one‐story buildings.  Ms. Louisos then asked about glazing standards and whether glass has to be see‐thru or can be  blocked out.  She asked Mr. Dreher for a clear definition.  Mr. Dreher said the intent is not to  have glass blocked out but for there to be transparency.  He said he would do some research on  a definition so that streets feel “walkable.”  Mr. Conner asked if Mr. Dreher was leaning toward  all glazing being see‐thru or some percentage.  Mr. Dreher said it is not always practical, and he  would see what other codes say.  Ms. Louisos then asked whether windows should be taller rather than wider.  Mr. Dreher said  the language needs to be adjusted to accommodate store‐front type windows.  Ms. Louisos said  they also want to require horizontal and vertical breaks for upper story windows.  Ms. Louisos then noted that the Commission suggests having a final map that shows only  existing streets and zoning districts, not potential streets. Mr. Dreher felt that makes sense.    5  Ms. Louisos then asked about exemptions for civic buildings and whether they should be  exempt from all regulations.  Mr. Dreher said purists exempt them across the board.  He would  like to do some thinking about that since it could include things such as schools.  Ms. Louisos  suggested a possible list of criteria for a civic building to meet.  With regard to building setbacks, Ms. Louisos asked whether there should be more leniency for  secondary frontages.  Mr. Dreher said the streetscape can “fall apart” when you do that.  Mr.  Riehle said they might not relax the standard for a whole building but for something like a  garden or plaza.  Mr. Dreher said he would model that.  He was not necessarily stuck on 12 feet.   A different setback made sense for public spaces.  Following the call with Mr. Dreher, members considered the possibility of limiting big buildings  in T5 to 2.  Mr. Simoneau noted this could preclude a drugstore from the area.  Mr. Gagnon said  he liked the idea of one or 2 to have some flexibility.  Mr. Conner noted there could be a movie  theater which really doesn’t allow for a use above it.  Mr. Riehle suggested one in the T5 area  and possibly more in T4.    A poll of members found that only Mr. Gagnon wanted one in the T5.   Other members were OK with a limited number in T4.  Ms. Harrington felt that even there the  building should appear to be 2 stories.  Mr. Gagnon noted there are already a lot of one story  buildings in the City Center area and asked if the Commission wanted to make them all non‐ conforming.  Mr. Conner noted the number of one‐story buildings on the Burger King block.  Mr. Conner asked what if someone wants to build a very small building.  Ms. LaRose noted the  Design Review Committee felt that much more in keeping with a downtown.  Mr. Engels said  that at $1,500,000 an acre, you won’t see that.  Mr. Simoneau stressed the importance of keeping options open, especially in light of the TIF  district.  Members then voted on whether to allow large buildings, about one every thousand feet, with  the visual appearance of 2 stories, in T4.  The vote was 5‐2 in favor, with Ms. Benton and Ms.  Quest voting against.  Members then concurred on removing the exemption for meeting door standards for buildings  with 20,000 sq. ft.  Members then considered the question of electronic charging stations:  Ms. Calcagni noted the state is doing some work on this.  Mr. Gagnon had no problem in T5.   Mr. Conner said one problem is there is no standardization with cars on which side the pump is  on.  This could be a safety issue.  He suggested exempting them from regulations but not  requiring them yet.  Mr. Simoneau asked if this would be an encouraged amenity, and who    6  would pay for it.  He suggested it could be encouraged rather than required.  Mr. Conner said  the regulations could say this is not considered a gas station.  Mr. Gagnon said someone  ultimately has to pay for that power.  Mr. Conner said you will begin to see them in office buildings and places where people will be  stopping for 20 minutes.  When it becomes economically viable, there will be more.  He felt  they have to consider this is not a “service station” use.  Members then considered light access:  Mr. Engels asked if buildings are very tall, will they block out the light.  Mr. Conner noted that  buildings over 4 stories have to be set back.  Members discussed whether to require or to  “encourage” solar in all buildings.  The suggestion was to encourage all buildings to be solar  ready.  Members asked that Mr. Conner provide a list of “shoulds” from the current regulations to see  if any ought to be “shalls.”  As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned  at 5:05 p.m.        _______________________________   Clerk         - 1 - SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  5 DECEMBER 2013  PUBLIC INPUT MEETING ON FORM BASED CODES  COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY CENTER    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public input meeting on Thursday, 5 December  2013, at 2:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.    Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest [Note: No quorum for this meeting]    Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Dreher and J. Black,  Consultants; M. Simoneau, P. Engels, T. McKenzie, M. Mittag, D. Jacobowitz,  R. Neuer, R. Agne, B.  Servis, A. Hogan, H. Tremblay, S. McIntyre, J. Kochman, J. Russell, S. Dooley, M. Emery, B. Shearer, B.  Camplengi, P. Steinman, B. Balon, F. Johnson, A. Germain, S. Bove, D. Leban, T. Hess, S. Dopp, B. Phelan,  N. Masuda    1. Introduction:    Mr. Conner explained that the purpose of the meeting was to gather public input regarding the  proposed form based codes plan for City Center.     2. Presentation by Paul Dreher, Consultant:    Mr. Dreher explained that Form Based Codes is a system that tries to regulate an environment not by  use but by form.  It advocates for a vibrant public realm with the steadfast belief that if you have the  right form, the right uses will be there.    Mr. Dreher then explained transect zones (“T zones”) which range from T‐1 (raw land) through T‐5, a  built up downtown.  With regard the City Center, the T‐5 zone would be the most dense.  It would be  surrounded by T‐4, slightly less dense streets off the main (Market) street.  The T‐3 areas would be  adjacent to and part of the existing neighborhoods.  There would be no abrupt transitions.    Mr. Neuer asked if T‐5 includes the desire for mini‐parks, alleys, etc.  Mr. Dreher said it is whatever the  city wants it to be.  In City Center, 5% of T‐5 would be “open” space.    Mr. Dreher then addressed street types and qualities of the streets.  Streets range from “neighborhood”  to “destination” to “alleys,” etc.  Each designation has its own set of criteria and design standards.  Mr.  Dreher referred to Garden Street, which is designated as a “support street,” consisting of commercial  activity, walking, cycling, outdoor seating, on‐street parking, etc.  Good sidewalk dimensions and bike  accommodations are typical of support streets.    “Commercial and delivery” streets will be able to handle trucks and would be constructed   with a wider turn radius.     Mr. Dreher then outlined the defining qualities of each of the T zones in City Center:     T‐5: entrances to buildings 30‐36 feet apart, 80% glazing on the ground floor, 2 or more stories  - 2 - (up to 6), wider sidewalks     T‐4: less glass (40%), doors further apart, 2‐story minimum up to 4 stories, less sidewalk     T‐3: almost all free‐standing buildings, less ground floor glazing, less sidewalk capacity, minimum  1.5 stories, maximum 2.5 stories.  In T‐3+, the maximum would be 3.5 stories.    There is an exception that would allow for one one‐story building on a block in T‐5 and T‐4.  No two one‐ story buildings could be contiguous.      In T‐3 and T‐3+, all housing units must have a doorway to the street.    An audience member asked why form based code was decided on.  Mr. Dreher said typical codes don’t  pay attention to how things look.  Form based codes create a predictable outcome.  He noted that  everywhere it’s been used, there have been very positive results.  Mr. Conner noted that most uses are  already allowed in the area now.    Ms. Dopp asked about an affordable housing option.  Mr. Dreher noted that T‐4 and T‐5 have no  maximum density.  He felt a certain percentage of affordable housing could be required.  This could be  in the standard as “inclusionary zoning.”    An audience member asked how you encourage less vehicle and more pedestrian traffic.  Mr. Conner  said elements of the code create a place where people enjoy walking.  He noted the city has been  approved for a TIF district, one piece of which is envisioned to be a parking garage.      Ms. Kochman noted the Open Space Committee has been envisioning a central green of 2‐4 acres with  civic buildings around it and linked to other green spaces with a walkway.     An audience member asked what will happen with Williston Road, Hinesburg Road, etc.  Mr. Conner said  there is a concept for a street north of Williston Rd. to relieve some of the traffic on that street.  The  goal will be to eliminate some of the curb cuts, so there isn’t a driveway every 20 feet.    A member of the audience noted that traffic east of the City Center area is “a mess” since the road was  reconfigured to be only 2 lanes.    Ms. Emery asked about potential development along the brook.  Mr. Conner said there can be no  buildings there.  Ms. Emery also asked about the time‐line for city approval.  Ms. Louisos said the  Planning Commission has been working through this and trying to work on a short‐term basis.  Ideally,  by the time interim zoning expires in February, they will have a plan to submit to the City Council.  Mr.  Conner stressed that the Council wants it done right rather than rushing through it.    Ms. Emery asked who pays for what.  Mr. Conner explained how the TIF district works.  He noted the  public would have to vote on all planned projects.    Ms. Dooley asked how Staples Plaza would look if it were to develop under form based codes.  Mr.  Dreher said buildings would be closer to the street with probably less parking.    Ms. Dooley asked if there is a limit on lot coverage.  Mr. Dreher said not in T‐4.  He added that a  - 3 - “downtown” needs to be more dense so “green fields” can stay green.      A member of the audience asked if there is “leeway” for someone who wants to do something different.   Mr. Dreher said this is a “prescript” scenario, but years from now the city could change it.    An audience member asked what the city owns in the City Center.  Mr. Conner indicated the 2 parks,  certain roads, and Central School (which is owned by the School District).  There is no land owned by the  city at this time. Mr. Conner added that there is a city committee looking into the potential for putting  municipal building(s) in City Center.    An audience member asked if the city will buy the strip next to Dumont Park that people now believe  the city owns..  Mr. Conner said he didn’t know.  There has been discussion as to the city’s role in public  spaces.  He stressed that the city does not own that piece of land.  A resident of the area said their  preference is for it to remain green.     3. Public Comment:    a. Steve Bove:  In the section of T‐3 as you come down Market St., the land is very wet.  If it is  built on, it may impact residents behind it.  Lately, water has been getting into basements, and this  never used to happen.    b. Anita Germain: The development of Healthy Living, Midas, etc., started that water coming into  basements.  They are also getting water in Mayfair Park, Price Chopper, etc.      Ms. Germain also felt the recent paving of Market Street was “illegal” as there was  no permit to do this.    c. Jennifer Kochman ‐ She has a vision of a central green with civic buildings around it, then shops and  residential uses with interconnected green spaces.  She hoped that vision can be reconciled with form  based codes and is economically feasible.    d. Meghen Emery ‐ Spaces need to be attractive and there should be places for children to play.  She  wanted to see mixed socio‐economic inclusion and urban gardens.    e. Heather Tremblay (representing University Mall) ‐  The Mall supports form based codes and asked  that the city remember the Mall does exist.  They will become non‐conforming and want to be able to  grow and thrive.  Ms. McIntyre noted the minimum 2‐story buildings, doorways every 30 feet, etc.,  works well for the Mall now.    f. Resident ‐ Take into consideration the impact on property owners.  Questioned what will become  of Mary Street, which is now a quiet residential street with kids playing.  Residents want to be part of  the discussion of what happens to that street.    g. Tim Hess: Cited the need to be careful not to just create thoroughfares to get from one place to  another.  Supported centralized parking that fits with everything else and is close to shops.    h. Donna Leban: Disappointed the “bicycle boulevard” does not include a bicycle lane in either  direction.  Felt sharrows don’t work.  Wanted bicycles on the street instead of parking.    - 4 - i. Roy Neuer:  Agreed with Ms. Leban.  Need more emphasis on separated pedestrian and bike  areas.  Cars backing out are very dangerous to bikers.    j. Michael Mittag: Noted this issue was one on which there was not unanimity on the Form Based  Codes Committee.    k. Barbara Servis: There was discussion in August about bike paths that would go from Mayfair  Park to City Center without having to go on roads.  She felt the changes to Williston Road are not safe  for bicyclists.  Mr. Neuer noted this recommendation was considered but not adopted.  The question  involves the landowners giving up land for these uses.  The current plan was a compromise.    l. Sarah Dopp:  Agreed with a central green.  The area shouldn’t be only for commerce.     m. Mike Simoneau: Appreciated comments on pedestrian paths and felt all of that can be  accommodated with the plan.  For these things to happen, there are a lot of variables such as  public/private partnerships, the TIF district, etc.    n. Naomi Masuder: Wants green space, pedestrian paths, etc.    o. Steven Bove: Remember residents have been there a long time.  Asked to “ease into” the downtown  area tastefully.    p. Brenda Phelan: There is so much flexibility it could be a “mish mash.”  Mr. Dreher noted the  current zoning cares nothing about form.  Historically, what is proposed here works.    q. Sandra Dooley: Shared the desire for civic buildings and noted the committee is meeting tonight  on this and will report by the end of the month.    r. Tim McKenzie: Stressed that this is a “map” not a “zoning plan.”  It tells you what can occur in  certain places, and does not have site plan specificity.    s. Roy Neuer:  Wanted to see things like statues, fountains, things for kids, etc.    t. Anita Germain: Felt the committee got it wrong with heights in City Center.  Thinks the Planning  Commission should re‐look at this.  Mr. McKenzie disagreed and noted Market St. has 11‐foot travel  lanes, 8 feet of parking and is a wide street with amenities.  Mr. Simoneau noted the buildings on  Church St. in Burlington were conceived that way.  He also felt the proposed buildings on Market St. will  be different than what is on 2‐A in Williston.    u. Mike Mittag: Felt there should have been discussion of what the Form Based Codes Committee could  and couldn’t do.  He said he shared the “village green” concept, but stressed this is private land and the  city can’t designate it to be one thing or another without buying the land, and that land is very  expensive.    As there was no further comment, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.    ______________________________  Clerk  1 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  5 DECEMBER 2013  PUBLIC INPUT ON FORM BASED CODES COMMITTEE  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY CENTER    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public input meeting on Thursday, 5 December  2013, at 7:00 p.m., at Central School, Williston Road.    Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, S. Quest, T. Harrington    Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Dreher, Consultant;  M. Simoneau, P. Engels, T. McKenzie, Form Based Codes Committee; H. Riehle, J. Dinklage, R. & A.  Cusson, C. Stanley, T. Duff, A. & L. Parker, T. King     1. Introductions and Background:    Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the form based codes initiative, and Mr. Dreher explained how a  form based code differs from traditional zoning (for details, see Minutes of 7 December 2013, 2 p.m.  meeting).    Mr. Conner also reviewed some of the tools that are available to bring about the plan that is ultimately  decided upon.  These include:      1. The Open Space Fund (one cent on the tax rate)      2. The TIF District, which allows the city to pay for substantial infrastructure      3. The Official City Map, which lays out future roads, green spaces, etc.      4. The citizens and City Council working together (e.g., a committee now working to  determine the viability and nature of public spaces such as City Hall, Library, Recreation Center, in City  Center)    Mr. Conner also showed the roads and two parks in City Center which are owned by the city.  The rest of  the land is privately owned, with the exception of Central School, which is owned by the School District  (tax payers).  Mr. Conner stressed that you cannot make private land undevelopable.    Mr. Conner then showed an area of federally and state mandated green space, which is not buildable  because of wetland issues.    Mr. Dreher noted that each street in City Center promotes pedestrianism and walkability.  There are also  building envelope standards that indicate what is allowed there.  (For specifics on T‐3‐, T‐4 and T‐5  standards, see Minutes of 7 December 2013, 2 p.m. meeting).    Public input was then solicited.    1. John Dinklage ‐ Felt the committee had done a terrific job.  2   2. An Iby Street resident ‐ Expressed concern with water issues.  Residents are already getting water in  their basements.  Ms. Louisos noted the Stormwater Department is aware of the problems and there  will soon by a neighborhood meeting with residents on the issue.  Mr. Dinklage noted that Mayfair Park  has also seen serious water issues in recent years.    3. Mr. Parker ‐ Felt South Burlington should buy the piece of land adjacent to Iby Street.    4. A resident ‐ Asked if there can be “T‐zone creep” once lines are established.  Mr. Conner noted that all  parcels in a “T” area are complete parcels.    5. A resident ‐ Questioned the adequacy of a tree every 50 feet in the T‐3 zone.  Mr. Dreher said that is a  guideline, but there can be more.  Ms. Riehle felt 50 feet was too far apart for Market Street.  She  suggested 20 or 30 feet.    6. A resident ‐ Asked about people cutting down trees.  Mr. Conner said if a tree is in the public right‐of‐ way, it can’t be cut down.  If it’s on private land, it can.  There are also special rules for condo  developments.    7. Ms. Stanley ‐ Asked about a buffer for those who live on Iby Street.  Mr. Conner noted that on the  rear property line there is at least a 20‐foot area where there can be no building.  There can be  landscaping and an access drive.  The intent is that there will be “robust” landscaping.    8. A resident ‐ Asked if there are elements of the LDRs that will remain, such as insuring that a street is  built as it should be.  Mr. Conner said staff is working on enumerating what is kept in the LDRs.  Mr.  Dinklage said he would like to see a draft of LDRs to respond to since people will want to see that some  things remain.    9. Ms. Riehle ‐ When and where would there be discussion regarding the “civic center piece” and a park  in the middle of it?  This is not on the map.  Mr. Engels said it doesn’t get on their map as it is not part of  their charge.  It would have to be on the Official City Map.  Mr. Conner added that ultimately it’s more  than one map.  There is nothing to prohibit a Library from being anywhere.  Ms. Riehle asked if there is  anything in form based codes to determine what a library should look like.  Mr. Conner said that  municipal buildings are generally exempt and usually have their own public process.  Places of worship  are also exempt.  Mr. Engels noted that property values in City Center are $1.2 to $1.5 million and acre.   A 4‐5 acre library would cost many millions just for the land.    10. Mr. Duff ‐ Noted that at this evening’s City Center task force meeting, a decision was made to  recommend to the City Council that there be a combined City Hall/Library/and Recreation Center in City  Center.  Mr. Simoneau applauded the timeliness of this decision and felt it was good to get something  out there for the City Council to consider.    Ms. Louisos noted there would be another open forum on Saturday, 2 p.m., at the Library.  The Planning  Commission will also hold its regular meeting on Tuesday evening and will have a long work session on  Saturday, 14 December, from Noon to 5 p.m. to consider the public comments from the input meetings.    As there were no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55  p.m.  3            ______________________________       Clerk    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  28 JANUARY 2014  1  The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 January 2014, at  7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.  Members Present: J. Loisos, Chair; T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, T. Harrington, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, B. Benton  Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Ravin, Dean T. Vogelmann, J. Davis, UVM; S.  Dopp, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, R. Maynes  1. Agenda Review:  No changes were made to the Agenda.  2. Open to the Public for Items not related to the Agenda:  No issues were raised.  3. Planning Commission Announcements & Staff Report:  Mr. Riehle: Was part of a sub‐committee for the Open Space Committee which toured the  community trying to identify visual corridors.  There will be a report by Larry Michaels soon.    Was concerned that his comments regarding transportation/buses may have been  misinterpreted.  He was trying to get more people to ride the buses.  Ms. Quest:  Will provide a report on last night Sustainable Agriculture Committee meeting.  Ms. Harrington:  The TDR committee is reviewing pinpointed topics and will come back with something  soon.  4. Update on University of Vermont Miller Farm Draft Master Plan:  Mr. Conner reminded members that 3 years ago UVM was invited in to talk to the Commission about  their agriculture plans.  Staff continues to meet with UVM people and had a presentation on the future  of the Miller Farm and part of the Hort Farm.  Staff felt this was a good time for that presentation to be  made to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Ravin said UVM wants to strengthen the agricultural and educational uses of the two farms in South  Burlington.  The Miller Farm is predominantly for horses, cows and other animals, and there has been an  update on the Master Plan for that farm.  Dean Vogelmannn of the College of Agriculture, said there have been many changes since the last time  they were at the Planning Commission.  They have created new models on how a land grant operates.   He noted that very few colleges have a farm so close to the campus, and this presents a wonderful  opportunity for education.    2  The College has been doing a lot of visioning.  The “bad news” is that if they want to change everything,  they are looking at a $30,000,000 price ticket.  The “good news” is they don’t have to do it all at once.  Dean Vogelmann then showed a concept of what the Farm might look like 30 years down the road.  In  the short term, they want to do some renovations which will entail deconstructing some of the barns.   The aim is to create a better education program for students working with large animals in a pre‐vet  program.  They also envision a research barn.  Dean Vogelmann showed a picture of the solar panels on the horse barn.  The panels can power several  homes, and the goal is to make the entire site energy neutral.  There was also a picture of the goats that  now “mow down” the invasive species.  Mr. Gagnon asked if there is any thought to including research on anaerobic digesters.  Dean Vogelmann  said they have a person on staff who is a specialist in that area.  The goal is to make smaller digesters to  use at this facility.  Mr. Gagnon asked about stormwater and agricultural runoff.  Dean Vogelmann said the have a  collaboration with the Rubenstein regarding runoff.  They would like to have certain plants that will  “mine things out of the soil” (e.g., phosphorus).  He felt there is a lot of opportunity for creative things  to be done.  Mr. Riehle asked if there are any plans for development of the land north and south of the farms or  whether they will stay in agriculture.  Dean Vogelmann replied that right  now they are being told they  can use the lands for agriculture.  He did not know about 20 years down the road.  Mr. Riehle then asked whether any thought has been given to opportunities to students as rebuilding  occurs (e.g., electrical work).  Dean Vogelmann said they have hired engineering students to work on  “energy neutrality.”  They will also need to interface with social scientists regarding what the public is  thinking.  5. Review Planning Commission Proposed Projects for 2014:  Mr. Conner reviewed current and planned projects that involve Planning Commission input and action  as follows:  a. Complete review of draft City Center/Form Based Codes  b. Complete stormwater/low impact development regulations update  c. Complete Comprehensive Plan update  d. Provide direction to the city‐wide regulation updates, including:  1. Affordable housing  2. TDRs  3. Future land use  4. Style of writing report  e. Revise draft city‐wide regulations  f. Initiate Chamberlin/Airport neighborhood plan    3  g. Initiate Traffic Overlay District overhaul  Mr. Conner then reviewed a list of additional projects underway that may include Planning Commission  involvement in 2014, including:  a. Complete Official City Map  b. Review Williston Road Transportation‐land use analysis  c. Review Impact fee Ordinance update  d. Review Wastewater‐Stormwater Ordinance update  e. Review Dumont Park project Purpose and Need Statement  f. Review Garden Street project Purpose and Need Statement  Members asked for clarification on the Official Map and what the “may” meant. Mr. Conner confirmed  that the Official Map is the responsibility of the Planning Commission; the may was looking at overall  timing.  5. Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes:  Mr. Conner briefly reviewed and confirmed the decisions made by the Commission at Saturday’s  meeting and those of the previous work sessions, including single/two story buildings, glazing, window  height/width, civic buildings, frontage requirements, electric changing stations, solar readiness, the  review process, garages, basic heights, etc.  Mr. Simoneau noted that San Remo Drive has its own “DNA.”  He asked whether it has a separate  designation, whether it will be customized, or whether it will be given a separate consideration.  He also  wanted to know if the committee is safe with the language that deals with non‐conformities so what is  being considered is not an encumbrance to the area.  Mr. Conner directed attention to comments from University Mall.  They have very long‐term leases with  some tenants that guarantee nothing more than a one‐story structure can be in front of them.  Mr. Conner noted that there still has to be discussion on open space and the T3 area, where no  decisions have been made.  He also noted that Paul Dreher has been asked to prepare standards for  upper stories of buildings.  Ms. Quest reminded staff of the Commission’s desire for input on economics, including the TIF and how  it works.  Mr. Conner then reviewed his research on “shoulds” vs. “shalls.”  He noted that “should” shows up in a  lot of purpose statements, which are not regulatory, and he recommended leaving them there.    Access between parking lots across property lines is “encouraged.”  He suggested the Commission may  want to look at that and make it more of a requirement.  Mr. Simoneau felt there are times when it  doesn’t make sense.    4  Under accessory structures, Mr. Conner noted that “may” just gives options.  They could say “shall not  disrupt parking for neighboring residents.”  They could also add “shall” regarding home occupations.  Mr. Conner suggested dealing with language regarding non‐conformities at a later date.  Language regarding Marcotte School says, “…should be consisting with South Burlington School District  policy.”  Mr. Gagnon noted that if it was decided to move the school, the standards would not be  applicable and there would have to be new standards.  Mr. Conner noted that since this is a commercial  district, schools are allowed.  The thought is, however, to make it a municipal district as the other school  districts are.  There has been no input from the School Board on this as yet.  Under the definition of a “unit,” language reads that micro‐units are allowed and encouraged.  The  suggestion of staff is the strike that for now.  Regarding LEED certification, LEED silver is encouraged for new construction.  To the extent possible, all  structures are encouraged to be solar ready.  Mr. Conner noted that there are new state requirements.   Ms. Quest suggested hearing what the new requirements are.  Mr. Conner said the city can’t issue a c/o  until the applicant proves they have handed in documents to the state.  Mr. Gagnon added that there  are also Act 250 requirements regarding energy efficiency.  He also felt it would be better to say “LEED  standard equivalent” instead of certified because of the expense of becoming certified.  Mr. Riehle  added that it should say “buildings” instead of “structures” because fences are considered a structure.   Mr. Gagnon said they should also use “encouraged” because of the possible economics involved.  Following the discussion, members felt they need another “extra” meeting, possibly on a weekday  evening.  Members will indicate when they are available.  6. Other Business:  Ms. Quest noted the Sustainable Agriculture subcommittee would like to reconstitute its committee.  As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17  p.m.         ______________________________  Clerk