Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/08/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 JULY 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, B. Benson, S. Quest, T. Harrington ALSO PARTI: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S Dopp, J. Nick, R. Greco 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions, or changes to the order of Agenda items: 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 Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Quest: Advised that the City Council has decided to have a consultant and task force look into the Underwood property. Mr. Conner: a) On last night’s Steering Committee agenda there was a proposal from Gene Beaudoin for a development concept in City Center utilizing Central School land. He has offered to talk to the Commission about the proposal. This was brand new to both boards, and both the City Council and School Board members posed questions. Mr. Beaudoin asked the School Board to move up their master planning. The development proposal would include a new city Library and a parking garage. b) Fletcher Allen has submitted a Certificate of Need for the purchase of existing buildings on Tilley Drive and about 40 additional acres of land in that area for future expansion. Staff is beginning to talk about related transportation issues with Public Works, et al. Mr. Riehle asked if Fletcher Allen would pay taxes on the property. Mr. Conner said he believed medical facilities such as these have a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). c) The city has been notified that it has been awarded a grant of $573,000 from the Regional Planning Commission. This includes funding for the Chamberlin/Airport neighborhood planning study, a scoping study to connect gaps in sidewalks, an update of the Traffic overlay District, a study of Williston Road/Dorset Street future transportation solutions, scoping for stormwater improvements to improve water quality and exploration and work on deploying active signal controls. d) An RFP was done for design of Garden Street, and a contract has been signed with Stantac. e) The Legislature has passed changes to the open meeting law requiring minutes to be posted within 5 days. Electronic meetings must be so identified on the Agenda, and there must be an indication of why an executive session is needed. Mr. Conner said South Burlington is “ahead of the curve” on most of these requirements. 4. Update on City Center Form Based Codes Public Outreach to Date: Mr. Conner said the city has done a direct mailing to property owners and an e-mail notice to all committees. A copy is posted at the Library. There will be a full page ad in The Other Paper, and he and Ms. Louisos will appear on CCTV on 22 July in a live call-in show. The Form Based Code Committee had an initial discussion and was largely comfortable with the document. 6. Status Report on City-Wide Land Development Regulation Updates: Mr. Conner advised that Paul Dreher has provided a series of T‐3’s after a meeting with the Form Based Codes Committee. Mr. Dreher has proposed 3 or 4 more such areas in addition to what is in the draft today. These include the Orchards, Mayfair Park, and East Woods, and a special designation for Queen City Park. The Committee felt Form Based Codes should be for residential only. Staff is waiting for language from Mr. Dreher. There was a brief discussion of TDR’s. Mr Dreher suggested a few areas might have a cap and them be allowed TDR’s. The Committee felt this could “punish” some areas. The thinking is to have a cap with the ability to buy an additional story or such in all T-4s. 6. Discussion of potential future uses of land for the Hill Farm with property owner Jeff Nick of J. L. Davis Realty: Mr. Nick showed the area on the map and described it as a unique property. The property owners have not aggressively tried to develop the property to date as the zoning designation (Industrial-Open Space) never made sense. They have talked to a lot of commercial people over the years. Someone might want to locate a corporate headquarters there, and some of the property could be sold off. Mr. Nick then showed an area of wetland that would not be developed. He noted that residents of the Village at Dorset Park would prefer residential development, and Mr. Nick felt a residential component would make sense here. He showed where residences might be located. Mr. Conner then showed the location of city-owned land, including the piece which surrounds the Village at Dorset Park. Mr. Nick said they would like to see a mix of uses for the area. Mr. Conner noted that current zoning requires that 50% of the land be open space. He said there have been “mixed results” of development in the general area, but it winds up being very “patchy” open space with development very spread out. Housing is currently allowed at one per 3 acres, which, Mr. Conner said, may have been related to addressing existing conditions at the time rather than future housing. Mr. Nick then showed one development concept which included the extension of Swift Street. Members asked him not to go too close to the Wheeler Natural Area with any development. Mr. Riehle expressed concern with maintaining the view corridor. Mr. Nick said they are also trying to leave room for a potential Interstate ramp. They also might include some services (e.g., a deli) in the commercial buildings. Mr. Conner said the acreage leaves a lot of room for a number of uses and any number of configurations. He showed a slide of the existing house and golf course development and the water tower. Mr. Riehle said he would compromise on parking to preserve views. Ms. Louisos said she has heard a lot of negative feedback on the long, narrow buildings across the street from this development which block the views. Mr. Nick said their current thinking is 1/3 residential and 2/3 commercial. They would prefer to move on something sooner rather than later. Mr. Gagnon noted the city’s concern with building orientation to take advantage of solar. Mr. Conner summed up the discussion and cited the importance of having every space “with a purpose.” Mr. Nick expressed concern with not being able to develop the ridge line. Mr. Riehle said he wanted to maintain some view corridor, even though he realizes the whole ridge line can’t be kept open. Mr. Conner recommended that staff stay in close contact with Mr. Nick and that he stay in contact with the Commission as plans develop. 7. Discuss preliminary outline of work plan for the Chamberlin Neighborhood- Burlington International Airport Planning Project: Mr. Conner reviewed the history, citing a lot of changes in the neighborhood in recent years. There is a lot of support for a neighborhood plan and a future vision. The likelihood is that the future will see both the Airport and a neighborhood; the question is how to have a neighborhood that can thrive. The planning grant outlines a broad set of objectives, including: a. Building a good relationship among the neighborhood, airport, and all stakeholders b. Strengthening the neighborhood c. Retaining affordability of housing in the area d. Developing a community-based vision/strategy for the area, including, potentially: 1. Noise strategies that will inform the Airport’s planning 2. Looking at land use inside and outside the 65 dnl area 3. Strategies for a transportation system, including looking at different users such as people coming to and from the airport; area residents; and travelers between Colchester and Williston Road 4. Possible future amenities: parks, garden opportunities streetscapes, etc. e. Exploring the relationship to City Center, such as the ability to walk there from the neighborhood Mr. Conner noted that staff had discussed with the City Council about a 2-tier oversight for the project: a group responsible for project management (staff level plus consultants) and a volunteer policy oversight committee responsible for policy development, public input, etc. This could be a committee reporting to the Planning Commission and chosen by the Commission. This could potentially include one or 2 Commission members, one or 2 Airport Commissioners, possibly people from the School District, and a group of residents, geographically located. Mr. Conner said he met with Regional Planning Commission people today and discussed possibly doing the development of the scope of work in stages to insure that it is a very “grass roots” project. Mr. Conner noted that the Municipal Planning Grant of $17,000 must be spent by next May. He saw no issue with this. Ms. Greco noted that if the F35s come, the majority of people affected will be in Winooski. Mr. Conner said the grants were specifically to focus on the Chamberlin neighborhood. 8. Other Business: a. Review Upcoming meeting schedule: Mr. Conner advised that Larry Michaels has been invited to the next meeting. Future meetings will include discussion of waste water and the Open Space report. 9. Review Minutes of: 11 February, 25 February, 11 March, 25 March, 8 April, 22 April, 29 April,10 June, 24 June 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 11 February as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Calcagni noted that in the Minutes of 25 February, p. 5, item #7, the figure should read 80%. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 25 February as amended. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 11 March as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 25 March as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Calcagni noted that in the Minutes of 8 April, p. 2, #5, paragraph 1, the figures should read 80-120%. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 8 April as amended. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that in the Minutes of 22 April, p. 5, paragraph, the figure should again read 80‐120% and the work “further” could be changed to “specifically.” Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 22 April as amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was agreed in the minutes of 29 April to remove line 1 on page 2, paragraph 6. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 29 April as amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 10 June as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 24 June as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:22 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.   SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  11 FEBRUARY 2014    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 February  2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.  Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, S. Quest, B. Benton, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni  Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, S. Dopp, M.  Emery  1. Agenda:  A request from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee was added prior to #4 on the  Agenda.  2. Open to the Public for items not related to the Agenda:  No issues were raised.  3. Planning Commissioner Announcements & Staff Report:  Ms. Quest: Met with members of the Energy Committee.  They have suggested changes to  the Comprehensive Plan which have been given to Ilona Blanchard.  Mr. Conner said he had  received them as well and will share them with the Commission when it is back on the agenda.  Ms. Harrington:  There is a TDR sub‐committee meeting next week.  Mr. Conner: There is now a signed, amended contract with Paul Dreher to finish City Center  and the rest of the city.    The Supreme Court review of the School District/Howard Center issue is ongoing.   Legal briefs have been submitted.    An application at Sketch Plan level has been received for a housing proposal at  the end of Market Street on the south side.  It is for town homes.  It was submitted under the  current regulations.  There are groupings of 4 housing units of three buildings each.  If they  submit a preliminary plat, it would fall under the regulations in force at that time.    The City Council decided not to warn a hearing on the continuation of Interim  Zoning.  It will expire at the end of the day on 21 February 2014.  4. Request from Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee:    2    Ms. Quest read the request to alter the membership of the subcommittee.  The subcommittee  wants to be able to make decision without a quorum present, since some members are away  for winter and farmers are busy in the summer.  The alternative would be to have a “group  membership” (e.g., Land Trust, Common Roots, etc.) with a different member of the group  being able to represent the group at a given meeting.  Mr. Gagnon had no problem as long as dissenting opinions are presented to the Commission.  Ms. Louisos had no issue if everyone who attends a meeting can be part of a decision.  Mr. Conner cited the state’s Open Meeting Law which requires a decision to be made by a  majority of the “appointed members.”  A meeting at which half of the members are not  presented didn’t take place, according to law.    Ms. Benton said she favored the second option.  Ms. Harrington moved to change the membership of the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee  to one representative each from Common Roots, Community Gardens, UVM, South Village  Farm, and South Burlington Land Trust, with the understanding that any large land owners and  concerned citizens be invited to provide input.  Mr. Gagnon seconded the motion with the  addition of three named members: Heidi Auclair, Betty Goldberg, and Roseann Greco with  Sophie Quest as Planning Commission representative.    After a brief discussion, Ms. Harrington moved to table the motion until the next meeting.  Mr.  Gagnon seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.  5. Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes:  a. Public Comment:  There was no public comment.  b. Work Session:  Regarding the strip of land near Iby Street, Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure the Commission  should pursue this since they are moving ahead under the current regulations.  Mr. Gagnon felt  they will have to come to some conclusion as it’s in T‐3 and is a “loose end.”  He felt the line  could be moved to remove the piece from City Center.    Mr. Conner updated the Commission that he is working on finding someone to speak to the  economics of the city center area.  3    The Commission then began discussion of “special exceptions.”  Mr. Conner noted the current  draft includes special exceptions and an appeals section.  It gives guidance as to how these  would take place and gives the DRB the authority to modify things within the code.  Mr. Conner noted that Paul Dreher has said it is not the intention to give the DRB “full rein”  regarding exceptions.  Mr. Dreher is prepared to refine the circumstances under which the DRB  would have the authority to modify the standards.    Mr. Gagnon asked why deviations would be allowed.  Mr. Calcagni said it is impossible to  predict every deviation.  She felt a bit of flexibility is a good thing.  Mr. Gagnon noted the DRB  would be limited to discussing only the deviation.  He felt this would have to be very well  defined.  Mr. Conner noted there could be a natural resources restraint or unique site conditions or  handicapped parking issues.  Mr. Simoneau suggested the Commission might identify some things the committee hadn’t  thought of.  He stressed they didn’t want to see a carte blanche to go to the DRB at any time.  Ms. Benton wanted to go only with the code.  Ms. Calcagni would allow exceptions for a good  reason.  Mr. Gagnon didn’t want to see the building envelope standard modified.    Mr. Conner noted there could be a request for a modification for a central public plaza.  Mr. Conner then updated members on Open Space Standards.  He noted there had been a  meeting earlier today with consultants to work through ideas/solutions on how to meet the  intent of the code as well as refine some open space standards as to when they do/do not  apply.  There are also opportunities to think creatively (e.g., landscaping, art, rooftop garden,  unique street pattern).  The hope is to have a concept in the next few weeks.  Regarding TDR’s, Ms. Louisos noted the Commission will wait for the report from the TDR  subcommittee.  Ms. Harrington noted that previous members wanted to expand the receiving  areas to other places in the city.  There are still questions to be answered.  Ms. Louisos said there is a similar situation with affordable housing.  Ms. Calcagni said the  subcommittee is working on a Trust Fund.   They are also discussing inclusionary zoning.  There  seems to be hesitation about rushing into something.  Mr. Gagnon said there is no affordable  housing language in form based codes.  Mr. Conner noted the Commission wanted to adjust  language as to what constitutes “affordable housing.”  Mr. Gagnon asked if they can finish the  code without those standards.  Mr. Conner said they can decide whether to have a requirement  of an incentive for affordable housing.  He stressed that any discussion of this should be as  open as possible.  4    Mr. Conner then reviewed the chart of street types, including standards (lane widths, etc.),  turning lanes, target speeds, on‐street parking, tree spacing, stormwater management, etc.   Mr. Gagnon asked about emergency access as well as public works access.  Mr. Conner said  there have been initial discussions with the Fire Department and Public Works.  There are  issues of space for fire vehicles on narrow streets.   The Fire Dept. is pleased with the  connectivity of streets.  Mr. Conner noted the more complex a street is, the more the cost to  maintain it goes up.  He also noted the Fire Department would look at tree spacing for room to  swing a ladder around.  There are very specific standards for this.  Members then considered paving vs. non‐paving of paths.  Mr. Gagnon suggested the  possibility of permeable road surfaces.  Mr. Conner stressed that they don’t want to discourage  creativity. He also noted that the city won’t take over a road until it is determined that it is  maintainable.  Ms. Harrington suggested that for flexibility, the wording should read “surface width” instead of  “pavement width.”  Ms. Benton said they should specify that all lights be downcasting.  Mr. Conner said there is a  drawing which shows what is allowable .  Signs can be illuminated from the ground up.  Ms. Louisos raised the question of uniformity of light poles/fixtures.  It was suggested that  there could be a design review element if a fixture type is no longer available.  Mr. Gagnon asked about benches, planters, bike racks, etc. in the right‐of‐way.  Mr. Conner will  check with Public Work for their recommendations.  Mr. Conner raised the question of where bike lanes would be required.  He suggested the  arborist look at this, specifically with regard to tree types.  There might be some kind of bike  parking facility as in Williston.  Mr. Simoneau noted that Williston provides a menu of choices  to select from.  Ms. Louisos then enumerated the things to be worked on including: street types, economics,  approval process (DRB or not), the T‐4 area on San Remo Drive, non‐conformities.  Members then considered whether to have a special meeting to continue the work.  They  agreed that the next meeting will be the regularly scheduled meeting on 25 February.  6. Meeting Minutes:  Mr. Conner said staff had not had time to review minutes.  7. Other Business:  5    Mr. Conner noted that the City of Winooski has sent an update of their Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Conner also noted the City Council had a brief discussion of lighting policies.  The  suggestion is for the Planning Commission to look at a city‐wide lighting policy when there is  time.  Ms. Louisos noted the Energy Committee is having an “energy party” next Tuesday.  This does  conflict with the City Council meeting, but there will be another similar event on Saturday, 15  February.  As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned  at 9:40 p.m.         _______________________________, Clerk            SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 FEBRUARY 2014 1 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 2 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. 3 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 at 60% 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. 4 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: 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. 5 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 11 MARCH 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 March 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Barritt, P. Nowak, R. Maynes, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, P. Engels, A. Cosak, P. Nowak 1. Agenda: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the Public for Items Not Related to the Agenda: Mr. Barritt spoke to the need of a process at the DRB for what energy standard a building should have to meet or exceed. The goal would be to improve energy efficiency in the city. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Calcagni: There is renewed interest on the Affordable Housing Committee to hammer out details. They have been hampered by vacations, etc., but are looking to the Commission for a hard and fast deadline. Members agreed to look at this under Other Business. Ms. Quest: Attended the Efficiency Vermont meeting last night. There is a push to invest in renewables. Mr. Conner: The next Commission meeting will feature a panel to address the economics of development, including mixed use, market economics, etc. The panel will include a local developer, commercial real estate person, and a mixed use developer in Winooski. Questions from the Commission for the panel to respond to will be solicited to in advance of the meeting. Ms. Louisos suggested asking Ilona Blanchard to attend as well to respond to TIF questions. 4. Land Development Regulations Amendment Request – Self storage in Mixed Commercial Industrial District: Members agreed to postpone this item as the applicants were not notified that the item would be discussed tonight. 5. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: a. Discuss review City Center Form Based Code map area b. Review draft Private Open Space concepts for City Center Form Based Code c. Status update on amendments requested of Paul Dreher d. Review of above may also include other elements of City Center form Based Code 2 Mr. Conner indicated three single family homes on Village Green. He noted the parcel behind Price Chopper is designated T3, and everything else around it is T-3+. He said staff’s recommendation is that this parcel be T3+ as well. Members agreed it should be consistent with the designation to the south. Mr. Conner also indicated an area near Staples where staff recommends the boundary follow the property line. Members agreed. Mr. Conner then showed the T1 area of 15 acres to be green, wetland or wetland buffer. He showed a piece of land not included in the 15 acres that is also largely wet. Staff suggests removing the T1 designation and showing it as T4. The wetland standards will continue to be in effect, but because this is not an exact drawing, it can create confusion. Mr. Conner recommended this be consistent throughout the city. Mr. Gagnon was concerned that giving it a designation might send the message that something will be built on it. Mr. Simoneau said he supported staff’s desire to be uniform throughout the city since there are already tools in place to address concerns that may arise. Mr. Conner suggested there could be both designations with a note that where there is a conflict, the regulations will apply. He would have to run this idea by the City Attorney. Mr. McKenzie noted that the federal money to build Market St. is tied to having the 15 areas of open space. Mr. Riehle said he supports staff’s recommendation. Mr. Gagnon asked if it can be shown as T1 with an indication that boundaries are approximate. Mr. Conner replied that if the boundaries are not right, what should they be. He didn’t want that to be a staff decision. It was suggested that the designation could be T4 with “crosshatching” to indicate that it is wetland. Mr. Conner noted that there are other wetlands in City Center which have not been delineated. Members agreed to have staff run various ideas by the City Attorney. Mr. Conner then indicated a small green area on the map. He said Paul Dreher suggests it could be a “green connection.” Mr. Conner said staff feels you shouldn’t represent something as a park on land that isn’t owned by the city. Members agreed to remove the “green” and make it “orange.” Mr. Conner showed two parcels owned by the Sheraton. He suggested these be added as T4. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner then indicated 100 acres that goes back to Patchen Road. There is a portion of this that is zoned Commercial-1, R-12, the same as Williston Road. Mr. Conner pointed to a tiny triangle which is part of the Quarry Ridge housing development but is zoned C-1. The recommendation is to rezone it R- 4, the same as the housing development. Mr. Conner indicated another parcel which would still be under the old zoning and said this could be awkward. The recommendation is that it be in the T4 district. Mr. Gagnon asked why it couldn’t be T3. Mr. Conner said it has been zoned as Commercial at least since the mid-1970’s and it would be a significant downzoning to go to a T3. Members were OK with making it T4. Mr. Conner then noted three parcels which are zoned C-1, R-12 (the Rotisserie, The Other Paper, and Holiday Video). They are not proposed to be in the code. Staff recommends they be T4. The type of 3 issue exists near Staples next to where Quarry Hill went in. Staff also recommends this be T4. Members were OK with both of these. For an area near Green Mountain Suites and the electric substation, staff recommends following parcel lines and making it T4. He showed where the line goes through The Pines. The recommendation is to move the line and have it all be T4. Members were OK with this. On the U-Mall property behind Hannaford, Mr. Conner showed an area zoned R-4. Staff has no problem with it becoming T4. It is mostly ravine and wetland. Members were OK with leaving it as T4 and crosshatching it leaving open the option for Mr. Conner to come back with any issues raised by the City Attorney. Mr. Conner noted that staff has spoken with the Superintendent of School’s office. Under Form Based Codes, Central School becomes a “school only” designation. Staff is waiting for input as to what designation the School Board wants. Mr. Conner showed an area where it is unclear if the existing boundary is inside the T5 line. Staff feels the boundary should be a straight line across. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner noted that staff has received information from the Open Space consultant regarding specifics of open space areas. About 20% of Market Street area is designated as open space. Mr. Conner distributed a map of a City Center “pedestrian shed.” There is a question as to how best to address privately owned open space. There is also a question as to whether open space should occur on a small property or whether the owner should provide it elsewhere. Mr. Conner noted there is also a question as to what is reasonable to provide the space the public has been talking about and still not precluding what is envisioned by the landowner. With regard to residential area open space, Mr. Conner noted that this may not be open to the public (as with the Farrell property). There is a question as to whether balconies would count for some of the residential open space. Mr. Riehle said he would have to be convinced about that. Members considered whether commercial open space (e.g., places for employees to eat lunch) should be both visually and physically available to the public. Members felt that 75% should contribute to the public realm. On the residential property, 50% should be “common space.” Mr. Conner said staff will test these out to see how they match with existing space. In T3, the recommendation is that 25% must be unpaved. Staff recommends adding a stipulation for common open space of 100 sq. ft. per unit. There could be a lesser percentage with a larger building. With respect to qualifying open space, members considered what a “plaza” might be. Mr. Conner said minimum size is typically half an acre, rectangular, with 20% unpaved. T3 could allow everything that T5 allows but the recommendation is for a more limited pallet. 4 Ms. Louisos said she felt T3 should include a “park.” She didn’t want every alley being considered as open space. Mr. Conner noted there was talk about off-site open space, possibly making a wetland area more accessible (e.g., with a boardwalk). He suggested this could be a contribution to open space calculations, making it an “enhancement.” Mr. Maynes asked if it would make sense to take down a forest area to create open space. Ms. Dopp said the forest could be valuable as a natural resource. With regard to the amendments requested of Paul Dreher, Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Dreher recommends the following: a. 75% of glazing be “see-through” and 25% not have to be b. With regard to garage doors in T3, Mr. Dreher drafted something for a single garage with a note that it may not be what a T3 should be. Mr. Simoneau said that not to allow garage doors to be oriented to the street would be onerous. It would also require more pavement to have them in the rear. He felt they should continue to be allowed as they normally are and not preclude them being oriented to the street. Ms. Louisos noted garages can also face an alley. Members liked the language as currently written. c. Civic buildings would be exempt from standards such as glazing and could be built further back as is common with public buildings. d. With regard to what happens in T3 if someone decides on a bakery on the first floor and 2 units above it, Mr. Draher suggested that 1500 sq. ft. be considered “a unit.” This would not discourage a mixed use building. 6. Minutes of 28 January and 11 February 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 28 January with a spelling correction. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to table the minutes of 11 February. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted there will be a panel presentation on 25 March focusing on economic issues related to development. The meeting of 8 April will include discussion of the Official City Map, city-wide standards, style of writing, and remaining Form Based Codes issues. Other conversations that need to happen include: street type issues, affordable housing and a full red- line version of the code. With regard to inclusionary zoning, Mr. Conner noted that before there is a requirement in the regulations for inclusionary zoning, there must be a statement to that purpose in the 5 Comprehensive Plan, which there currently is not. He felt inclusionary zoning could be added later, if desired. Members discussed the possibility of a special meeting, possibly on the 5th Tuesday in April. Mr. Conner said this could work out well. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ____________________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 MARCH 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 March 2014, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, T. Harrington, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; Panel Members: J. Dousevicz, A. Burns, L. Williams; M. Simoneau, A. Germain, F. & J. Kochman, S. Dopp, B. Maynes, T. McKenzie, T. Duff, L. Michaels, D. Leban 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: A brief report form the Open Space Committee representative was added under Other Business. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: No announcements were made. 4. Update from Sustainable Agriculture Sub-Committee: Ms. Quest said the Sub-Committee continues to discuss a possible Spear Street agricultural corridor, possibly small farms and orchards. They are also working on recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan and on a recommendation to the Planning Commission to assess the sewage capacity for City Center and Southeast Quadrant plans. Ms. Louisos noted that staff is already working on the sewage capacity issue. 5. Panel Discussion – Development, Economics, and City Center: Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission wanted to be sure the city produces the best plan for City Center. Several weeks ago, they heard a presentation regarding the TIF District, and this meeting features a panel of economic experts in the field of development. Ms. Louisos then invited panel members to introduce themselves: Andy Burnes: Mr. Burnes is President of Halkeen Real Estate Management Company in Massachusetts. The company developed the Winooski project in 2004 and has been active in the project through 2011. They focus on housing, both affordable and mixed use, and their efforts stretch from New England to Miami. They also do urban redevelopment projects. Jed Dousevicz: Mr. Dousevicz specializes in commercial real estate. Larry Williams: Mr. Williams is a principal in Redstone, local management company, with over one million square feet of space. They are in the process of a downtown Burlington development parallel to 2 what could happen in City Center and face some of the same issues. They are also in the running for a downtown Montpelier development. They have just finished 72 units in downtown Winooski and hope for a second phase later in the spring. Mr. Riehle said he wished these experts had been involved in the Form Based Codes Committee discussion. He asked where South Burlington could go wrong in trying to get the City Center development going. Mr. Williams said he felt the city is working in the right place and that Form Based Codes is the right way to do it. He noted that the City of Burlington just changed a 50-50 (residential-commercial) regulations because nobody could make that work. Now Burlington is seeing plans for projects. He urged the South Burlington to put rules in place that allow people to do something. Mr. Burnes said the market will dictate what works. There needs to be flexibility to allow the market to avail itself of what will work. He noted that his company was ravaged by the fall in the market. They were committed to 250 condos but built only 70 or so. They were also driven by a TIF that didn’t allow for flexibility. He noted that there is now a very strong residential market in the Greater Burlington area. Mr. Riehle said they city wants a place where the community would come. He asked if that’s possible in this one complex. Mr. Dousevicz said if you try to force too much, it won’t work. He cautioned against having only structured parking. He felt that any retail planning should have eye-level/sight-level parking. Mr. Williams felt the key is density; the more compact, the better, including buildings closer to the street. He felt this would be hard to accomplish without structured parking. He felt this is where the TIF should be deployed. Mr. Gagnon noted that discussions have focused around square footage, building heights, etc. he asked whether multi-story (residential above commercial) is good for development or whether it is limiting. He also asked whether banning one-story buildings is good. Mr. Williams said his vision is a dense area with a major artery and smaller arteries. He wouldn’t allow one story buildings and he wouldn’t go above 5 stories (the economics don’t go much beyond that). Mr. Dousevicz said he prefers stand-alone congregate housing structures which create a sense that “this building is ours.” These are the people who will be walking to the retail/restaurants, etc. He felt it would take time to market the residential above commercial buildings. Mr. Burnes said they have had a great deal of trouble with retail below residential. A lot of the retail space has been vacant for a long time. He felt there is a place for retail in mixed projects, but you have to let the market dictate, and you need flexibility. He added that retail is changing, particularly with the internet. Mr. Burnes also said you have to think of how long development in the City Center will take. 3 He cautioned about getting locked into a specific footage of retail. He said “the easier it is to implement your vision, the better.” Ms. Louisos noted there are different zoning areas planned in the City Center. One area requires retail on the first floor. Most areas are more flexible. Mr. Williams said the city will find out if it was right or wrong in this. He asked if the landowner wants to develop this land. He noted that in Winooski the city bought the land and then developed it. Mr. Riehle noted that the owner hasn’t been asked that specifically, but he couldn’t see the city buying the land. He added he would like to one entity do the whole project instead of piecemeal. Mr. Williams said he felt it would go better being done piecemeal. Ms. LaRose noted that the City Center area has had 10 different boundaries in recent years. There are quite a few landowners now, especially in the developed areas which are ripe for redevelopment. City Center zoning is in many pieces (Williston Road, Dorset Street, San Remo Drive, etc.) with possibly hundreds of landowners. Ms. Blanchard noted the TIF district is 106 acres, some of which is undeveloped. She described some of the principal breakdowns and opportunities they present. Ms. Quest asked the panel how they would imagine all of this coming together. Mr. Burnes said that with the characteristics of the district, it will depend on how things thrive. He stressed that it’s a place many businesses want to be in. Mr. Dousevicz said the question is where it starts. Infrastructure is expensive and usually has to be done before there are tenants. He said it is a risk. Mr. Kochman said he thought City Center was going to be for municipal uses (City Hall, Library, etc.), and other things could follow. It would create a gathering place to which developers would be drawn. Mr. Dousevicz said there are some well-known retailers looking for space – large users. There is also a very high vacancy for commercial office space (14.5% vacancy). He felt the market will dictate what goes up. He added that putting up 50,000 sq. ft. of chopped up retail space is ridiculous. A member of the audience asked if there is a market for residential use. Mr. Williams said there is. The vacancy rate is about 1%, which drives up rents. They are seeing a lot of residential development now because interest rates are down. This will slow when rates go back up. He felt the City Center area could take 1,000 residential units. Ms. Harrington asked how many residential units you would have to build to make it financially viable with retail on the first floor. Mr. Williams said you have to build a little at a time (30 to 40 units), 1200 sq. ft. per unit. Land costs per unit are $4500. Ms. Harrington then asked if it is feasible to have 1500 sq. ft. single family starter homes. Mr. Burnes said the VHFA is trying to address that market. Resources to support that are difficult. He hoped that with more competition and more being built, costs will come down. He stressed that land costs are very high. Mr. Williams felt that a density bonus and lower infrastructure costs might help for smaller homes. 4 Ms. Calcagni noted there is an affordable housing group looking at inclusionary zoning. She asked if this is done in Winooski. Mr. Burnes said they had to do it because of TIF financing and a loan that required affordable housing. Mr. Williams added there was also a tax credit involved. But, he stressed, a 4, 6, or 8 unit development in South Burlington can’t do that. Mr. Williams also felt that the City of Burlington has suffered because of the inclusionary zoning. It means the numbers don’t work. Each affordable unit adds $100,000 to the costs. Without additional funding, that can’t happen. Mr. Simoneau asked if panel members would characterize “large stores” as anchors. Mr. Dousevicz said yes. Mr. Simoneau asked if they could be multi-story. Mr. Dousevicz said no. Mr. Simoneau asked what it would take to accommodate an anchor. Mr. Dousevicz said a large parking lot. He didn’t feel structured parking would work. Mr. Burnes noted that retail in the Winooski “rotary” is a disaster and was a mistake. He felt that “out front” parking can work, but for high peak areas structured parking is needed. He felt using the TIF for structured parking is good and has worked in Massachusetts. Ms. Greco questioned whether they can build a place people can afford to live, small homes without huge infrastructure. She said the dominating force shouldn’t be shopping but living and services. Mr. Williams said he thinks the city would want more density than single family detached houses. Mr. Burnes said the Winooski project created a sense of place. The Riverwalk has traffic on an amazing basis. He added that South Burlington’s challenge is the number of landowners; Winooski controlled its own destiny. Mr. Kochman cited an example in Rome where a large fast food place was “hidden” behind more quaint uses and suggested this could happen with a larger store in City Center. He felt the city should give up the idea of zoning for affordable housing as it’s either subsidized or doesn’t work. He felt it could be “encouraged” but not “mandated.” An audience member asked why an anchor store cares about having 4 floors above them. Mr. Dousevicz said they want to be the identity and also want to have higher ceilings. Mr. Duff suggested looking at an area in Hanover, New Hampshire. There is retail with commercial and residential above it. It also has structured parking. It is a transition between the urban downtown and a residential area. Ms. LaRose said raised the issue of “cost thresholds,” such as the need for elevators, steel vs. wood construction, financing cutoffs, etc. Mr. Williams said he wished it was that easy. He said that 5 stories and more has to be steel construction. Any multi-story needs elevators. There should be a minimum of 7-8,000 sq. ft. per floor minimum. Beyond that, it’s all design. He also cited extraordinary costs such as soils and approval process costs. He noted that in Winooski they had a permit in 75 days for a $15,000,000 project. 5 Mr. Burnes said they city would want to eliminate as many hurdles as possible. There will always be cycles in a large project, but the permitting process can “kill you.” He said they would never have touched the Winooski project without the permits already being in place. Mr. Burnes also said you can create value to the land and get owners on board. You get them to work together for you. Ms. Leban felt the city needs a very experienced developer to make things happen. Panel members agreed. Ms. Dopp asked about occupancy rate in Winooski. Mr. Burnes said they are full. Mr. Williams said they are also full. Mr. Burnes said the city may have a location for a big box store with more flexibility. Ms. Louisos asked if that could include 2 stories. Mr. Burnes said it could and he knew one that would be very interested. If you make the process easier, businesses will be more flexible. Smart retailers understand things are changing. Ms. Leban asked if there is a model near here with high-density housing. She cited areas in New York with 4 or 5 stories of one unit per floor. She said that is not what she is seeing proposed in South Burlington. She want to see an inviting walking environment with buildings that “make you comfortable.” Mr. Burnes said 4 or 5 stories are needed to get the density and the feel. Ms. Louisos described the characteristics of the T3, T4 and T5 areas and asked if that made sense. Mr. Burnes said “that’s your vision.” Mr. Williams felt it was reasonable. Ms. Louisos said there are height maximum per floor. Mr. Dousevicz said that won’t work. Mr. Williams asked why you would constrain a good design for an arbitrary height limit. Ms. Calcagni noted Forb Based Codes language encourages energy efficiency. She asked if the panel had experience with that. Mr. Williams said they’d done it when they could justify the cost, and they do it because it will reduce energy costs down the road. He added that to make roofs “solar ready,” the roofs have to be heavier, which is a higher cost. He stressed that he didn’t want to be told where to put his mechanicals on a roof. Commission members thanked the panel for their participation. 6. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes: a. Discuss style of writing Ms. LaRose said a decision has to be made soon on whether to form based codes is appropriate city- wide. She noted that certain pieces of it could be appropriate in some neighborhoods. There could also be dimensional standards or focus on a specific element of the code. There could also be a different style in a commercial neighborhood. She noted that a hybrid code is not unusual. The question is the review process and what can be reviewed administratively. 6 Mr. Gagnon felt form based codes make sense in City Center because there is a clean slate. City-wide, everything is built with existing neighborhoods. Changing that could cause a lot of non-compliance. Ms. LaRose noted they often get requests, such as a front deck, that the traditional code does not allow for. That could happen under form based codes. Mr. Gagnon felt that would be fine as long as you don’t make all the homes in Mayfair Park, etc., non-compliant. Ms. LaRose noted that Paul Dreher’s contract excludes the Airport area and Southeast Quadrant. Ms. LaRose also noted that the existing code does not always reflect what exists on the street. Ms. Dopp felt it is better to fix the problems than to have a clean sweep. Ms. Quest noted that Mr. Dreher said he needs a Comprehensive Plan before he can do anything. Ms. LaRose said there are some areas that are not defined…such as behind Windjammer. A member of the audience added there is a question of allowing storage units in the Commercial-Industrial area. It is allowed across the street. Ms. Calcagni said she didn’t think a corner grocery should be precluded and didn’t know how form based codes would deal with that. Mr. Simoneau suggested having Paul Dreher figure out what approach is best for the community. Ms. LaRose said they don’t want him spending time on something the city won’t like. Mr. Gagnon felt he should concentrate more on less developed neighborhoods where development is possible. Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure the city was ready for “any use anywhere.” Ms. LaRose suggested having Paul Dreher work on a messy map and then look at some specific areas (e.g., Shelburne Road). 7. Other Business: a. Update on Open Space Committee: Ms. Benton said she has been out of town a lot and is not up to speed on what the Committee is doing. She can no longer attend meetings. Ms. Louisos said she can possibly attend the next meeting. b. Upcoming Meetings: A special meeting on 29 April has not yet been finalized. Ms. Quest asked when the Commission will get to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. LaRose said some things would have to be updated if they are in the regulations (e.g., inclusionary zoning), but otherwise it’s not required that the Comprehensive Plan be done first. She noted that staff has been working on pieces of the Plan that need to be done (i.e., Police, Fire, etc.). Mr. Riehle said if there is nothing that conflicts with City Center and Form Based Codes, he felt the Comprehensive Plan should be done after those things. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  8 APRIL 2014    1    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 8 April  2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.  MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni  ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; M. Simoneau, S.  Dopp, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, B. Maynes, P. Engels, K. Nolan  1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:  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 Commissioner announcements & staff report:  Ms. Quest: UVM is forming a “sustainable committee”; they have received a Gold Award for  sustainability.  Mr. Conner:  City Hall renovations continue.  The Recreation Department has moved into their  new space downstairs.  The hope is to have a display area upstairs for ongoing projects.    Staff is working toward a full draft of the Form Based Code for the next  Commission meeting.  4. Debrief of March 25th panel and identify any recommended changes to draft City  Center FBC based on this discussion:  Ms. Quest asked about having retail on the first floor when there is no residential base.  Mr.  Conner said there is more flexibility than just retail; there can be commercial uses as well.  He  added that a successful downtown core exists when pedestrians feel comfortable walking to  the end, and residential uses are not very interesting to people.  Mr. McKenzie said one thing the FBC Committee wanted to leave room for is an anchor store at  the far end to draw traffic.  They were also not limited to retail on the ground floor and felt  commercial uses such as a stockbroker, doctor, service use, etc. would be appropriate.  Mr.  McKenzie added that at some point, the highest and best use will be retail; the question is how  to get there.  He noted that the office vacancy rate is now very high in the area.      2    Mr. Riehle asked if housing coming before commercial space could create “foot traffic.”  Mr.  McKenzie said it would as it creates a demand for things like coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. Mr.  Gagnon said the key point is to get some infrastructure in first and to make the permitting  process easier for developers.  Mr. McKenzie said it would be helpful if a developer could get a  permit when a project meets all the criteria, without having to go through a hearing process.  Ms. Quest asked about the possibility of civic buildings.  Mr. Conner said the TIF and other  things are working toward that.    Ms. Dopp noted that the upstairs spaces at Maple Tree Place are empty.  Mr. McKenzie said the  mixed use that he sees working best is an office building next to a building with retail on the  ground floor and residential above.  He also noted that new construction is 30% more  expensive than refurbishing older buildings.  Ms. Louisos said that the need for surface parking was mentioned a number of times.  Mr.  McKenzie said parking standards in Form Based Codes are below what a retailer would need  and probably below what a retailer would accept.  Mr. Conner noted that staff is working with the Regional Planning Commission and Campus  Traffic Management to look to and start to put in place a long‐term plan for transportation  management.  A shuttle bus service is one option being considered as well as leasable parking  spaces in an area.  Mr. McKenzie stressed that an “anchor store” is not a “big box” store; it would be about 12,000  to 30,000 sq. ft.  5. Update on Work of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, including development  of inclusionary zoning and other work:  Ms. Calcagni said the Committee has a complete Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which will be  voted on and will be ready for the red‐line FBC presentation.  They will then get back to work  on the potential for an affordable housing trust.  Basically, the Inclusionary Zoning requirement  is for developments of 12 units or more to have 15% of units affordable.  Units would be geared  to people earning 85‐100% of the median income.  Mr. Conner reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to  allow for inclusionary zoning.  6. Discuss potential parameters for City Center and public open space:  Mr. Conner reviewed what currently exists in the way of open space within a 5 to 8 minute  walking distance of the core of Market Street.  This includes J. C. Park, Dumont Port, 15 acres of    3    open space asked for by a federal assessment (Potash Brook, buffer, wetlands associated with  it, etc.), the potential Market Street stormwater facility.  Ms. Quest said she was confused about the official city map.  Mr. Conner explained that a  landowner is required to accommodate whatever is on the official city map.  If a plan for  development does not do this, the plan is denied.  The city then has 45 days in which to  purchase the property.  If the city does not purchase the property, the plan goes back to the  DRB with no restrictions.  Members then discussed the functions of open space including: a gathering spot, multi‐purpose  area, civic buildings.  Ms. Greco noted there was public comment about what people wanted  and that should be looked at again.  Mr. Maynes asked if Trader Joe’s and Pier I are in the TIF district.  Mr. Conner said they are the  first properties that would be eligible to generate money for the TIF.  Healthy Living predates  the TIF.  Mr. Maynes asked how much business would be required to generate money for a  $3,000,000 town green.  Mr. Conner said the CIP has an initial estimate of that, including  impact fees.    Mr. LaRose stressed that the Planning Commission is not in a position to decide whether there  should be a parking garage.  The City Council is the only one “writing checks.”  Members agreed that there should be public open space adjacent to civic buildings.  Mr. Conner then addressed the “framing” of open space.  He noted that some small spaces feel  large.  He noted an area in Boston that looks fine when it is full of people but looks empty  otherwise.  Both Swanton and Fair Haven have very large greens, and there is never anyone in  them.  Ms. Quest added that Maple Tree Place is smaller than downtown Burlington but is  usually empty so it looks larger.  Members felt that there should be open space adjacent to a street which could be closed for  event purposes.  Members agreed on the need for seating and for a “concentration of people.”  Ms. Dopp suggested a “spur path” to take people to Williston Road.  Mr. Riehle felt that the Civic Center area should have public amenities.  Mr. Conner noted that  Burlington is working on an outdoor seating area in conjunction with a pub.  Members then considered the appropriate size for open space.  They felt the heights of  surrounding buildings was a factor as well as the surrounding uses.  Mr. Gagnon suggested a  possible minimum size.  Ms. Louisos noted there had been a suggestion of space for ice skating.     4    Ms. LaRose said this can be a small area for families or a large area such as Providence has for  Friday night events.  Mr. Riehle said this is very expensive land and he questioned whether such  a space is affordable.  7. Discuss potential elements of City Center area Official Map amendments:  Mr. Conner cited the need for accuracy and the burden on a municipality to identify where  things should be.  He then reviewed specific areas as follows:  a. A parallel road to Williston Road on the north side: affected properties would  have to be clearly identified.  Mr. Conner showed a previous map with one  version of a road.  The current plan starts on a different property.  b. Mary Street: the concept is for a road next to the Double Tree.  Various  iterations affect different property owners.  c. An area where one block is larger than the maximum block perimeter.  Mr.  Conner asked whether that is OK or whether there should be a road cutting  across the property, possibly a rec path connecting to Dumont Park  d. Central green space: The City Attorney has said that if the public wants this,  there has to be a location determined for it.  There is a procedure to amend  this by City Council resolution if a different decision is later made.    8. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based  Code:  Mr. Conner said he had talked with Paul Dreher about uses that would new under FBC and  what would happen with an existing non‐conforming building where some uses are now not  allowed.  Mr. Dreher said this can be addressed.  The School Board has submitted a list of uses they would not want to see in City Center because  of the proximity to Central School.  These include: adult uses, junk yards, motor freight  terminals, Airport uses, bars/night clubs, bulk storage, cannabis dispensary, fraternity/sorority  house, manufacturing/research.  Mr. Riehle asked about a wine store.  Mr. Conner felt retailing might not be included.  Mr. Gagnon did not want to preclude a wine bar, which is a social gathering place.  Mr.  McKenzie said you can’t tell a hotel they can’t have a bar.  Mr. Simoneau said manufacturing and research with hazardous materials is another hornet’s  nest.  He questioned how you would define “hazardous material.”  Mr. Gagnon said there can  be hazardous materials in a dentist’s office.  He did not want to limit that.    5    Mr. Conner noted that “adult uses” and junk yards are prohibited city‐wide.  He suggested  continuing that prohibition in City Center and other wise allowing the code to dictate where  things go.  Mr. Gagnon suggested also prohibiting motor freight terminals in all T‐zones.  Staff  will take a crack at how to define and deal with “heavy truck traffic.”  9. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule for City Center and City‐Wide Form Based  Code:  Mr. Conner raised the possibility of a special meeting on 29 April at which Paul Dreher can  provide an idea of what the rest of the city might look like.  Ms. Louisos said the FBC Committee  should be invited to participate in that meeting.  There was also discussion of possibly changing the 13 May meeting to 6 May.  10. Continue Discussion of style of writing for city‐wide LDRs:  Ms. LaRose said Paul Dreher will drive around the city to see how many zones there might be  and what possible types of zoning.  Mr. Conner said there is a possibility of “transect” zones for  many industrial uses.  Mr. Connor stressed that regulations do not have to follow any one philosophical line.  Mr. Riehle asked about streetscapes.  Mr. Conner said the work from the fall workshops on that  can be folded in.  One question is how UVM land will be addressed.  11. Consider request by Burlington Electric Department to waive 45‐day notice period  for proposed 500 kw solar array at BTV:  Mr. Conner explained that regulation for the 45‐day warning period and the ability to waive  that.  He added that waiving this period does not limit the ability to provide input later.  Mr. Nolan of Burlington Electric said the Public Service Bureau may not hold a public hearing on  this application.  Everything will have to be filed with the application, and the PSB can approve  it from that submission.  Mr. Conner noted that the City Council could request a public hearing.    Mr. Gagnon said if the PSB has a public notification process, he was OK with the waiver.  Mr. Nolan noted the solar array would show 12 inches above the parking deck at its highest  point.  Mr. Riehle moved to grant the request to waive the 45‐day notice period for the proposed 500  kw solar array at BTV as presented.  Mr. Gagnon seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    6    Staff will prepare a letter to this effect.  12. Other Business:  No issues were raised.  As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned  at 9:40 p.m.    ____________________________  Clerk    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 APRIL 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Harrington, Acting Chair; T.Riehle, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, S. Dooley, B. Bull, E. Farrell, J. & F. Kochman, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, H. Tremblay, B. Etherton, Mr. Meyers, Mr. Pannu, G. Benoit 1. Agenda Review: Item 5c was moved to 5a. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: There were no announcements and no staff report. 4. Land Development Regulation Amendment Request - Self storage in Mixed Commercial- Industrial District: Ms. Quest moved to consider this request after a decision is made as to whether form based codes should go city-wide. Mr. Pannu expressed concern with deadlines as they had hoped to build soon due to limited construction time. Mr. Conner noted the Commission is meeting with Paul Dreher next week and could pose this question to him and possibly decide on whether to put it in the next round of updates. Mr. Meyers said they have the same concern with time. Mr. Gagnon noted that staff was to look at what other areas might be impacted and possibly whether to open this up to others, or whether there might be unintended consequences. Mr. Conner said he can have that for next week. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 5. Review “Redline” Draft Land Development Regulations, including: A. City Center Inclusionary Zoning Standards: Ms. Calcagni stressed that “affordable housing” is not the same as “low income housing.” Affordable housing addresses those earning between 80 and 100% of the median income. She also noted that in South Burlington, nearly one-third of homeowners and one-half of renters spend more than the SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 APRIL 2014 1 recommended 30% of their income on housing. The average home price in the city is $310,000, and the average condo price is $186,000. Some strategies that are typically used to get affordable housing include increased densities, bonuses, reduction in fees, and inclusionary zoning. Because there will be no density limits in the City Center, Ms. Calcagni said the Committee felt inclusionary zoning was the most effective way to get affordable housing there. The Committee then considered what inclusionary zoning should look like in the City Center. They decided that it would kick in with developments of 12 units or more, and that 15% of those units should be affordable to people in the 80-100% of median income. Further, they felt that 5% should be for those in the 80% range, 5% for those in the 80-100% range, and 5% for those in the 100-120% range. The Committee also thought that the affordable units should look similar to other units in architecture style and outward appearance. The units should also remain affordable in perpetuity. Partnerships with non-profit housing developers would be encouraged. The Committee then considered alternatives that might be due to financial hardship or physical site constraints. Developers could then build affordable units off-site for developments of equal or greater value. Payment in lieu of affordability would not be allowed. Developers could also get credit for 3 affordable units for every 2-bedroom units they provide. The developer would have to submit an application with the required information, and this would have to be verified by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Calcagni noted that all of the above criteria assume that the city will continue to make investments in City Center infrastructure, and the criteria are for City Center only. Ms. Quest asks what would happen if a person’s income goes up. Ms. Dooley said income is verified every year A unit could be reclassified as “not affordable” and the next available unit would then be reclassified as “affordable.” This would happen only if the resident’s income goes out of the affordable range. Commission members felt this would work only if all the units were identical, so that a “higher quality” unit didn’t become affordable while a unit of lesser quality would be sold/rented to those with a higher income. Mr. Etherton asked how to keep track of all of this after the development is finished and maybe sold to someone else.. Mr. Farrell said the regulations run with the land. Whoever owns the development inherits the regulations. He did acknowledge that there is a responsibility for the city administration in this as well. Mr. Simoneau commented that this proposed process is less onerous than Burlington’s ordinance. Mr. Farrell added that the bargain is that the city does the infrastructure investment and the property owners accept inclusionary zoning. Mr. Benoit noted that the Commission hasn’t voted on whether to do this. Mr. Conner said they will have to vote on what goes to public hearing and what goes to the City Council. 3 Mr. Conner noted that there is a tool from the state regarding “neighborhood development areas,” which would apply to City Center. The city can get benefits if they prove there are certain rules in place. This could allow a developer to be exempted from some Act 250 reviews. Mr. Riehle asked if the Committee was unanimous in its recommendation. Ms. Calcagni said it was, though one member was absent for the vote. Ms. Dooley noted the Committee is now working on a housing trust concept for those earning 70% of median income and below. B. City Center Form Based Code: Members considered the “red-line” copy of the code provided by staff. Mr. Conner said it includes all changes requested by the Commission and integrates work of other committees (e.g., Open Space, Affordable Housing, etc.). It sets out all basic standards then provides references to other chapters. Two pieces of “open space” are not included: what can be bought (e.g., a bench) and payment to district- type fund. Mr. Conner said staff recommends that all uses that are prohibited today remain prohibited for buildings that have not been converted to form based code. Ms. Harrington said Section 803b seems confusing to her. Mr. Conner said he would look at it. Ms. Harrington asked if outdoor café seating not in a public right-of-way would be considered “open space.” Mr. Conner said that was open for discussion. Mr. Riehle said this is a “gathering place,” and he was not adamant about taking it out. Ms. Benton felt it added to the “feel” of open space. Audience members generally opposed this. Mr. McKenzie noted that in section 814d, it says open space land must be “developable.” He asked about a gravel path through a wetland buffer which could be a nice public amenity. Mr. Conner said they could say “accessible public path” which could include gravel, woodchips, etc. Mr. McKenzie also felt that amenities in a development, such as a community garden, should count as “open space.” Mr. Benoit questioned what “habitable landscaping” means. Mr. Conner said he thought it was trying to reference a situation when there is a foot and a half of grass around a building which would not be considered “open space.” Mr. Kochman objected to a roof garden being considered “open space.” Ms. Kochman was concerned that the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee hadn’t yet made its report and felt this discussion was premature. Mr. Gagnon stressed that it will be impossible for everyone to get what they want. Ms. Dopp noted Bernie Paquette’s memo regarding trash receptacles. Mr. Conner said this is a very complex issue. 4 Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the bulk of the manual and the awkwardness of not having definitions with given articles. Mr. Conner said they are trying to work on readability. C. Stormwater Low Impact Development Standards: Mr. Conner noted this is exactly what the Planning Commission originally saw plus some “bits and pieces” that remove obstacles to low-impact development. He also noted that Tom DiPietro is getting equipment to measure soil compaction before making regulations. D. Additional Amendment Throughout LDRs: Mr. Conner noted some things were done for clarity. 6. Overview of Proposed Public Outreach Plan for the Draft Regulations: Ms. Harrington noted that next week the Commission is meeting with Paul Dreher regarding city-wide form based codes. Mr. Conner questioned how close the Commission is to releasing the form based code document to the public. Mr. Gagnon said he wanted to read it in detail and maybe make that decision at the April 29th meeting. Mr. Benoit noted that the Form Based Code Committee hasn’t discussed anything outside the City Center. Mr. Conner suggested public outreach include something big in the Other Paper, mailings to adjacent property owners, postings on Front Porch Forum, etc. Ms. Greco suggested making copies available at the Library, City Hall lobby, etc., possibly something less than the 360 page document. 7. Other Business: A. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner noted the special meeting on 29 April He suggested future meetings be determined at that time. B. Other: Ms. Dopp noted the approach of Green Up Day. Ms. Dopp also noted that roads in the Cider Mill are laid out with gravel, and the Clair Solar project is taking shape. It looks like it is up against backyards of houses. She also questioned the area of the wildlife corridor. Mr. Conner noted the developer is required to put in buffers. The wildlife corridor is between the berm and the trackers. 8. Minutes: No minutes were available for review. 5 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 29 APRIL 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEBMERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Dreher, Consultant; P. Nowak. L. Michaels, G. Beaudoin, P. Engels, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, W. Rapp, T. Duff, L. Ravin, M. Mittag, M. Simoneau, B. Nowak, P. Tompkins, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Quest asked to add a brief discussion of “solar ready roofs” to Other Business. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission Announcements & Staff Report: Ms. Louisos reported that the attended last night’s City Council meeting and reported on Commission activities in the past year. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council has warned a public hearing on the minor amendment to the impact fee ordinance regarding child care facilities. 4. Presentation & discussion with Paul Dreher: Mr. Dreher said the City Center process/thinking is translatable city-wide. “T” zones are universal and can be calibrated to different parts of the city. He said the process will be to look at different districts in the city to see how they might be improved. Mr. Dreher noted that on important thing the Form Based Codes Committee did related to non- conformities for which they did a “case by case scenario.” Language is being written for areas that don’t fall into the transect zones. Ms. Louisos asked where a non-“T” zone might be created. Mr. Dreher said he began with a conversation with John Illick regarding Technology Park and also could include the area behind the Airport and areas of Shelburne Road. He will run these by staff. Mr. Dreher said a non-“T” zone could happen piecemeal and allow for incremental development to occur. This differs from a PUD, which is all pre-planned. PUD standards are not typically concerned with the full range as in a transect zone. 2 One problem at Technology Park is that there is no residential space for visitors. Mr. Illick feels this would make the environment more healthy. Mr. Dreher said there can be standards that would have a T-5 right next to a T-1. Another idea being considered is a PUD centered on agrarian development. Mr. Dreher said he is trying to get the right percentage of each use (T-1 to T-5). This would tend to reduce the need for cars by making it possible to walk to work and services. If a developer sticks to the regulations, the plan would automatically be approved all the way through. Mr. Michaels asked if there will be another meeting where examples of this would be shown. Mr. Dreher said he is on a very tight schedule and suggested talking with staff. Mr. Rapp said the Committee needs to get going on this as there are only 2 months left in Mr. Dreher’s contract. Mr. Dreher noted there are very special things the DRB would still review. Ms. Harrington asked if there can’t be a T-3 next to a T-3. Mr. Dreher said they want the full mix of uses. He noted the Southeast Quadrant is “all houses and roads.” He is trying for a road network with a variety of uses so people don’t have to go to City Center for groceries and where there is the potential for employment. Ms. Harrington felt they didn’t want to set up competition for City Center. Mr. Dreher said there would be smaller groceries to serve the immediate population. Mr. McKenzie noted that even a small grocery store will generate truck traffic, and he questioned whether people want these trucks rumbling through their neighborhoods. Mr. Simoneau noted Burlington has some services in neighborhoods. They also did away with fixed percentages of uses in various neighborhoods as it was found to be onerous. Ms. Ravin noted the densities are much higher in Burlington. She asked if there are parameters for densities in South Burlington. She said what is there now wouldn’t support small groceries. Mr. Dreher said most neighborhoods in South Burlington create suburban sprawl, not density. What they are trying to get is multi-use with a grid street network. Mr. Michaels said that what happens will be dictated by the market. Ms. Harrington asked how quickly policy decisions need to be made. Mr. Dreher said he anticipates getting something to the Commission by the end of June. He felt he could come back for short meetings after that. He said he would make recommendations based on the 3 visioning sessions and meetings held in the city. Mr. Riehle said if Mr. Dreher could provide examples, it would help. Mr. Mittag asked if there will be a policy to prevent competition for City Center (e.g., K-Mart Plaza). Mr. Dreher said the use policy is very liberal in form based codes. He felt it might make sense to layer in some use constraints in various parts of the city. They might say “all uses are allowed except….: or “certain uses on certain street types are not allowed.” There could be a chart of allowed/disallowed uses, though he didn’t recommend that. Mr. Gagnon said he preferred more allowed uses and fewer disallowed. Mr. McKenzie noted there is a difference between liberal uses in an already built environment and a non-built one. Mr. Gagnon said he had no problem with a law office in a home. Mr. Riehle noted areas of Burlington where houses all became offices and totally changed neighborhoods. Regarding the map, Mr. Dreher said there might be more activity allowed at intersections, with some “nodes” along corridors where T-5 is not appropriate. In some pre-existing neighborhoods, there might be some small services (newspaper place, coffee shop, etc.). Ms. Greco noted there are no T-1 zones indicated. Mr. Dreher said that would represent a major downzoning to landowners, and there are some areas that are already protected. Ms. Tompkins asked if the Southeast Quadrant is off the record permanently. Ms. Louisos said it is for the next few months. Mr. Conner added that the next focus will be the Chamberlin area because the city has a grant for that work. With regard to TDRs, Ms. Louisos noted there was a sub-committee that looked into this. Mr. Conner said the task was to see how they could be incorporated. Mr. Dreher said that for TDRs to work there would have to be a density cap or height limits. He suggested having TDRs only in T-4 and T-5 areas. TDRs could result in having impact fees waived or reduced or having an expedited permitting process. A member of the audience felt that wasn’t enough to make the deal happen. Mr. Dreher said they would then probably have to have a density cap. Mr. Dreher noted the overall process would be similar to that of City Center, with limited review by the DRB. Places where there is consensus as to what should happen would have no review. Emerging vision areas could have some DRB review with very strict criteria. T-2 and T-3 zones would be automatic, if they are not proposing single or 2-family houses. The DRB might deal with street types, but would not have broad leeway. Mr. Conner asked if the regulations would create a lot for each principal building, and noted that subdivisions are reviewed by the DRB per State law). Mr. Dreher said they would. Mr. 4 Conner asked if the concept is then that what gets put in each lot could be administrative. Mr. Dreher agreed. Ms. Dopp asked about design review as she thought form based codes was about what “things look like.” Mr. Dreher said there would be enough in the way of visual standards to guarantee architectural quality. They can create “form standards” which have nothing to do with “taste.” Mr. Conner noted the Design Review Board occasionally provides feedback on a special question. They do deal with the City Center design district. Their role in the future is up for discussion. Ms. Quest asked if UVM land would be outside the form based code. Mr. Dreher noted that UVM is one of the largest landowners in the city. Public institutions are considered civic sites and are exempt from certain regulations in City Center. He felt that exempting large tracts of land is not a great idea. He suggested sitting down with UVM to assign T-zones and then hold them in compliance to that. They could identify some non- transect zones. Ms. Quest asked if it possible for them just to stay in the old zoning. Mr. Dreher felt that if they develop in a manner not compatible with form based codes, it could be a problem. Ms. Ravin asked “what is broken, what are they trying to fix?” Mr. Dreher said what UVM has on its land now may not be compatible with form based codes. Mr. Conner suggested making use of UVM’s Master Plan where there are built out elements and making suggestions for those. They can then look at the open lands and consider long-term things. Mr. Rapp felt they should be treated the same as other landowners. Ms. Ravin said there are some state regulations that make UVM different. Also, UVM can hold onto land for many years. She added that UVM welcomes the dialog but the more flexibility, the better. With regard to street typology, Mr. Dreher said he will have something to Mr. Conner this week. With regard to T-zones within existing neighborhoods, Mr. Conner asked the Commission if they would like Mr. Dreher to try to reflect what is there today. Ms. Louisos said yes. They have heard from people about preserving their neighborhoods. Commission members said they would like to see single family homes and some duplexes. Ms. Louisos asked if there can be a pallet of choices for a neighborhood. Mr. Dreher said absolutely. Ms. Greco noted people say they want something like Mayfair Park. Mr. Conner noted you couldn’t build Mayfair Park affordably today. 5 Mr. Dreher said he will attempt to augment the open space requirements to create a sense of place. Mr. Conner asked if allowing self-storage units in the I-O districts would create a conflict (there has been a request for this in the area near the Airport). Mr. Dreher said it would be no problem. 5. Other Business: a. Meeting Schedule: The next Planning Commission meeting is on 13 May. Several Commission members are not available on the 27th, so members were OK with having the following meeting on the 20th of May. b. Solar Ready Roofing: Ms. Quest asked that this be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Conner said there are substantial structural issues that relate to this according to the Fire Chief. He will add it to the next agenda. 6. Minutes: No minutes were presented for review. Ms. Dopp asked about sewage capacity in City Center. Members agreed to have that discussion after the form based code is put out for public comment. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. _____________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 JUNE 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 June 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Benton, S. Quest, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; G. Benoit, M. Simoneau, R. Greco, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the Public for Items Not Related to the Agenda: Ms. Greco updated the Commission on Colchester’s use of South Burlington’s Waste Water Treatment Plant. Colchester uses 350,000 gpd via an agreement that runs another 17 years. They are looking toward an agreement to extend that for an unspecified amount of time as they have no other options. Mr. Conner added that there are several entities in Colchester that have their own allocations as well. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: The Open Space Committee voted to approve the Open Space Report. It will come to the Planning Commission at a meeting to be determined. 4. Review Findings from Solar Read Roofs Task Force: Mr. Conner noted that the Task Force had been put together at Planning Commission request. He also noted that the group came to a conclusion very quickly: specifically, that “one size fits all” is a very difficult determination to make. A structural engineer noted that roof trusses come in sizes; when a building is designed, they use the one that meets the needs of the building. To be solar ready might require the next larger size and more cost, or may be at very little cost if there is capacity within a given size needed for a building. One idea that emerged is to have a requirement for applicants to perform an analysis or possibly have a 3rd party analysis. If the analysis says it makes sense, there could be incentives for solar installation. The Task Force was not in favor of a requirement for all buildings to be solar ready and preferred an “incentive.” 2 Mr. Benoit questioned what the incentives might be. Mr. Conner said the group wanted to meet again to discuss that. Mr. Conner noted that part of the discussion was that the science of this is changing so quickly that to require something today might result in something that is outdated very quickly. To require an “analysis” is always in order. One recommendation is to encourage the third party review at different points in the building design process. Ms. Benton said that could begin with street design. Mr. Conner added that it doesn’t make sense to give incentives for something developers will do anyway, and so developing incentives would need to be carefully approached. Members concurred with the Task Force continuing to meet on this issue. 5. Review Revised “red line” draft of Draft Land Development Regulations including: a. Review City Center and City-wide Street Types First Draft: Mr. Conner noted that Paul Dreher took all Commission comments and those of other committees and individuals plus comments from Public Works, Fire Department, etc. This draft largely incorporates those comments. It adds some street types that are not part of City Center. Ms. Louisos asked about pictures of what streets would look like. Mr. Conner responded that pictures proved more problematic than problem solving. He suggested the possibility of a resource guide in the office. Mr. Conner said a question is how to decide when an existing street needs to be upgraded. Under the draft, such things as sidewalks and/or rec paths, trees, lights, benches and green belt would all have to be done if a site is redeveloped. Things like road widening would have to be decided upon depending on the scale of a particular project. Mr. Riehle reviewed his concerns with certain road types especially rural roads with safety concerns for cyclists and walkers. He suggested a marked lane for those uses. Ms. Calcagni said her question is whether to require crosswalks. Mr. Conner noted that transect zones have a block length maximum. Market Street is proposed to have mid-block crossings. Those were not tackled in these regulations as there needs to be an analysis on a case-by-case basis. Ms. LaRose cited the cost ($26,000) of the signalized intersection for Trader Joe’s. Ms. Benton noted one problem is that you can’t see the lights when you push the traffic crossing buttons. 3 Mr. Riehle asked who will address City Center crosswalks. Mr. Conner said any signalized intersections should have crosswalks. Ms. Benton asked what a “ribbon sidewalk” is. Ms. LaRose said staff is trying to find out the answer to that and will report back. Ms. Louisos suggested there be an indication as to whether trees are required in a center median. Ms. LaRose said that will require the median to be a certain width. She said she will check to see how the trees in the Dorset St. median are doing and look into a standard for this. Ms. Quest asked why Mary Street is shown as a support street that will have commercial traffic. Mr. Conner said it probably won’t change until one owner owns it all. Under the current regulations, single family homes are not allowed; under Form Based codes they will be. Ms. LaRose stressed that what you put into a code is what CAN be there. It says that if there is redevelopment, this or that COULD happen. Mr. Riehle said Mary St. is a logical street to connect to the major City Center streets. Mr. Conner noted that Market Street is its own “street type.” It is not included in the current draft but could be. Ms. Greco asked if there is a “pedestrian only” street in City Center. Ms. LaRose said there is nothing that requires that. Mr. Conner added nothing precludes a street from being closed off during an event. There is also a grid requirement that will create a block pattern which would make it possible in the future to have a pedestrian only street. Members asked whether a wide “mew” could be a pedestrian street. Ms. LaRose said she would contact Mr. Dreher regarding that question. b. Review Revised Open Space “Qualifying Space” Standards: Ms. LaRose noted they are still talking with architects, etc., and haven’t gotten the Commission’s full guidance on some of this. Mr. Conner noted receipt of a new report on “urban tree canopy” which might be a tool to help assess open space credit. Members then had a brief discussion, with slide illustrations, of “parklets” such as Montpelier is doing. Ms. LaRose felt there is some potential for this on oversized streets such as San Remo Drive. Ms. Louisos suggested that 50% of wooded area or enhanced/recreation wetlands/stormwater treatment areas (but not both) could count for open space. Members agreed Mr. Conner noted that he, Mr. Belair and Ms. LaRose took this through a battery of projects and found some issues. They have done some modifications. 4 c. Discuss technical corrections to the Traffic Overlay District: Mr. Conner noted that in the confusion over the Methadone Clinic, uncertainty was created with the map and language. The draft regulations now point to the map. Members were ok with this change. d. Review Proposed Standards for Group Homes and Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing: Mr. Conner said staff worked with the City Attorney on this to make sure all legal requirements are met. A new standard was created: reasonable accommodation to allow people with special needs access to housing. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner said they want to be clear that DRB permits expire at a certain time. They now extend time to start work for 6 months to a year and then use Supreme Court language to determine when a project is considered “started.” Members were OK with this. 6. Other Business: a. Essex Junction Draft Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Conner said that the Village has a draft plan. South Burlington is an abutting municipality, but only via the Winooski River. He had no comments to recommend. b. Shelburne Draft Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Conner the town is warning a public hearing for an amendment that would address telecommunications facilities. c. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner said he is hoping for a formal “thumbs up” on the red line City Center draft for Form Based Codes at the 24 June meeting. That meeting might also include wastewater, if staff is able to prepare the items. 7. Minutes of 20 May 2014: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 20 May 2014 as written. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 JUNE 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 June 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, B. Benton, S. Quest, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, Planner; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; M. Simoneau, G. Benoit, L. Michaels, S. Dooley, R. Greco, E. Farrell, J. Simson 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: 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 Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. LaRose advised that the Form Based Code Committee will meet on Thursday at noon. 4. Discuss of Vermont Agency of Transportation 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Application to Apply for a Grant to build a new sidewalk on Hinesburg Road to extend the existing sidewalk along Hinesburg Road from its southern terminus south of Kennedy Drive 800 feet south to the Tilley Drive intersection: Mr. Rabidoux advised that a few years ago the city submitted a grant for a sidewalk to fill in the 800 foot sidewalk gap on Hinesburg Road up to the Tilley Drive complex. They received a partial award and are now applying to the Agency of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian program for the balance to construct the sidewalk. This is particularly important in light of the Medical Center’s new plans in the area. The application is due at the end of this week. Ms. Quest asked if the project will include a cross-walk. Mr. Rabidoux said the application does not include a cross-walk. He felt further development will result in a traffic signal and cross- walk in the future. Mr. Michaels asked how this would affect the other side of Hinesburg Road. Mr. Rabidoux said it would have no impact at all. As development continues on Hinesburg Road, there will probably be a need for a sidewalk on that side as well. Mr. Michaels said he supported a sidewalk/bike path on the other side as well and offered whatever help O’Brien Brother could provide by endorsing the application. 2 Ms. Harrington then moved that the Planning Commission support the proposal to the Agency of Transportation 2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program as presented. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Technical Presentation of the Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity and City Center Wastewater: Mr. Rabidoux reviewed the history and noted that the Airport Parkway Facility is the plant for the growth area of the city. It is a 3,300,000 gpd plant of which South Burlington owns 2,300,000 gpd. The remainder is owned by the Town of Colchester which also bears a share of the debt load for the facility. Of the city’s 2,300,000 gpd, the city uses about 1,700,000 today. In wetter months, that number goes up due to inflow and infiltration. Mr. Rabidoux noted that he and Paul Conner set out to see to what extent the remaining 600,000 gpd of capacity is a deterrent to growth in the city until the federal debt is paid off. They put together an estimate of what demand projected growth would put on the plant. Mr. Rabidoux stressed that Colchester doesn’t use a majority of its allotment, so the plant is not in jeopardy of reaching the point where the state would require planning for expansion. The thought is that in 20 years, if growth continues as anticipated, there will be demand on the 2,300,000 gpd. The numbers used to determine this are not of a full buildout by any means. Mr. Rabidoux said there is no indication that Colchester will want more than what they have contracted for now. Ms. Benton said she thought the growth estimate was too low. Ms. Greco said the concern of the consultant to the Sustainable Agriculture Committee was that the allotment would be used up when City Center was ready to be built and therefore it wouldn’t be able to be built. Mr. Rabidoux noted that getting permitting for additional sewer capacity in the Lake Champlain watershed will be difficult, and money might not be the biggest issue. He added that there is an argument for a higher capacity without physically expanding. Mr. Michaels said there is a question of whether City Center should hold the rest of the city hostage for 17 years. He felt if ground hasn’t been broken in 5 years, the amount being held for City Center should be reconsidered. Mr. Gagnon asked if an I & I study is being done. Mr. Rabidoux said they are considering looking into that. 6. Updated red-line draft of amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Review latest draft of amendments, including City Center Form Based Codes, Street Types, City Center Inclusionary Zoning, Stormwater Low Impact 3 Development Standards, and other amendments recently discussed by the Commission: Members reviewed the list of “bullets,” including: 1. Drive-thru’s: (not now allowed in City Center) – This amendment would allow them with some very strict qualifications, including a queuing study. Ms. Dooley said she thought the aim was to get people walking. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t automatically eliminate them and cited people with disabilities or with small children in cars during bad weather. Ms. Dopp felt there was no sense introducing them in City Center because of the land they take up and because of cars idling. Mr. Michaels noted that people leave cars idling and walk into establishments during winter. Ms. Louisos noted that with banks, drive- thru’s were a security issue protecting people walking in and out with money. Ms. LaRose noted that in Montreal, drive-thru’s use a lot less land because they are not the “main feature.” Members were OK with the language as drafted. 2. Second Story Definitions: Ms. LaRose said this section makes it clear what is a second story and how much of it is needed. Members were OK with the language as drafted. 3. Corner Lot: Ms. LaRose said they tried to add language for what to do if you can’t meet the standard. Members were OK with the language as drafted. 4. Inclusionary Zoning Members then considered Tim McKenzie’s comments regarding inclusionary zoning. He feels the best way to get affordable housing is the have more housing. He added that if inclusionary zoning does get passed, it should be as clear as possible. Mr. Simson noted that when the committee submitted the language, they also included a preamble justifying the need for affordable housing and stating that City Center was an appropriate place for it. It also pointed out that the cost of reducing costs for developer would be further reduced by city investment at a more-than-usual level. He also pointed out that the term “affordable housing” can be interpreted in many ways. The committee meant it to refer to “middle income” (80%) housing. 4 Mr. Michaels said you have to trust the process. If the city couldn’t do the infrastructure, and the private developers did it, there wouldn’t be inclusionary zoning. Mr. Simoneau said another scenario could be: if you went in on Garden Street soon and there isn’t much in the way of city investment in infrastructure, would you be subject to inclusionary zoning? He stressed the need for a “win-win” situation with all stakeholders at the table. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission will have to codify something, so there will have to be a level of trust. Mr. Michaels suggested having the City Attorney try to create language that works for everyone. Ms. Louisos noted the city is moving forward (e.g., the TIF, etc.), so this may all be moot. Ms. LaRose reminded the Commission that the entire document will be reviewed by the City Attorney once the Planning Commission votes to approve it. 5. Definitions: Ms. LaRose said the aim was to be as concise as possible. Members were OK with the language as presented. 6. Administrative Review: Ms. LaRose said there is a 30-day review period under state law. Sometimes, a review can take a lot of time (e.g., having to review a sewer line, etc.). This section was revised to require a complete check-off from Public Works, Fire, etc. before the review period clock starts. Members were OK with the language as presented. 7. Street Types: Ms. LaRose noted this section is not yet complete. The Commission could send the section to the public with comments. Mr. Gagnon said this is OK because it is preliminary public comment. Members agreed. b. Possible Action to Issue the Draft for Public Comment (recommend comment period of 25 June to 4 August): Mr. Gagnon moved that the Planning Commission issue the draft amendments as presented at this meeting for public comment from 25 June to 4 August 2014. Ms. Benton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5 8. Other Business: a. Town of Colchester Draft Zoning Amendments: Ms. Louisos said member comments could be made at the next meeting. b. Public Hearing Draft, FY15-24 Capital Improvement Plan: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission has already made comments on this. c. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Ms. Louisos noted that upcoming items include wastewater capacity and the future land use map. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk