Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/14/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 JULY 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 July 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Benton, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; A. Weinhagen, Hinesburg Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Murphy, Vermont Public Service Department; C. Gordon, P. Duane, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation; T. Chittenden, R. Greco, T. Duff, K. Epstein, L. Michaels, C. Snyder, T. Duff 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 asked the Commission to add a statement in the introduction to the Comprehensive Plan regarding climate change and to address this in various sections of the plan. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Gagnon: Updated members on the Airport demolition projects. The first contract is completed except for curbs and final inspection. Thirteen of the 20 houses in the third contract are down. Demolition of the 37 houses in the third contract will begin tomorrow. Projects are ahead of schedule and completion is anticipated in early fall. Ms. Louisos: Noted that Mr. Gagnon was a presenter at a recent engineering meeting, highlighting the amount of recycling of materials from the demolished homes. Mr. Conner: The Chamberlin Neighborhood Committee has met twice. The have agreed on 4 basic themes: affordability, community, land use, and noise. The next community meeting will be in the fall. The DRB has approved an interesting new project, a Tesla Supercharger station at Healthy Living. Work is progressing on updated graphics for the Form Based Code. Eric Knudsen, former DRB member, has been named a “Notable Person,” in the legal/development field. Mr. Conner, Council Chair Pat Nowak, and City Program Director Ilona Blanchard were interviewed on VPR’s Vermont Edition regarding City Center and the Chamberlin Neighborhood today. 4. Draft Land Development Regulations: a. Discussion of Basic vs. Stretch Vermont Residential and Commercial Energy Codes, applicability, and possible incentives or requirements in South Burlington: Ms. Louisos read a letter from Keith Epstein and other members of the city’s Energy Committee recommending that stretch energy codes be required for all new buildings and that there be three options for roofs of new buildings: solar ready, green roofs, amenity space on the roof. The letter cited economic as well as energy-saving advantages. Mr. Conner then introduced guests: Chris Gordon and Paul Duane of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Barry Murphy of the State of Vermont Public Service Department and Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning from the Town of Hinesburg. Mr. Murphy said that Vermont has become the first state to adopt the 2015 energy code including the stretch code. He explained the “point system” used in audits to evaluate energy use, etc. The State has not gone so far as to require solar, but people “must do something.” In addition, any residential building or series of residential buildings going through Act 250 will have to meet the stretch code. The situation is slightly different for commercial development. A question was posed as to what types of projects are subject to Act 250. Mr. Conner noted that any development of more than 9 housing units triggers an Act 250 review. In addition, any combination of 9 units by the same developer in the same general area or any addition to an existing development that had an Act 250 permit triggers an Act 250 review. On the commercial side, the criteria include a development of more than 10 acres or a development where there was already an Act 250 permit. Mr. Gordon said there are several ways to show compliance (e.g., windows, doors, etc.). He added that the “stretch code” is more stringent than the basic code. There is also a home energy rating in which a developer can work with Energy Vermont and get a score. The lower the score, the better. Another option for the base code is a software package that measures a development against a standard. Mr. Weinhagen noted that The Town of Hinesburg has been experimenting with energy standards in the code for many years (before there was a “stretch code”). He cited various codes and indicated how they had tried to implement them. They have recently backed away from certain aspects as new state codes were established. Their new zoning regulations include a “green building section” which, Mr. Weinhagen said, uses both a “stick” and a “carrot” approach with regard to compliance. In the “stick” category in Hinesburg, all new residential buildings must be Energy Star rated (which was the “gold standard” of the time); new non‐residential buildings have to fill out a LEED scorecard (they do not have to be LEED certified), and non-residential buildings under 6000 sq. ft. have to employ new technology regarding energy renewables or be LEED certified. “Carrots” included density increases which encouraged developers to reach for the maximum. When it was noted that people were more interest in efficiencies, the regulations were changed from “renewables” to a “Core Performance Standard.” This is still on the books in Hinesburg, despite the new “stretch codes.” Mr. Weinhagen noted that as time goes on, codes are getting more and more stringent. Hinesburg had, however, done some “back‐peddling” when developers said they could not provide affordable housing with the stricter codes. They tried to find a “middle ground,” but the Selectboard didn’t agree, so they have come back to just the base code. Mr. Conner explained that the “base code” applies to all new development and is a “self‐certification” system. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) cannot be given without the self-certification certificate for projects that are subject to COs. Mr. Duane noted that Public Service is updating the codes every three years. Mr. Conner asked what is the difference between the last “base code” and what is now the “base,” and between the “base code” and the “stretch code.” Mr. Murphy said in general between 7 and 12% increase (in efficiency standards) every three years. The difference between 2011 and 2015 is slightly less than that. Between 5% and 7% changes are around air sealing, insulation, etc. With the stretch code, it is up about another 5%. Mr. Murphy stressed that this is an efficiency percentage, not related to dollars. Mr. Murphy also stressed that once you put people into buildings, “all bets are off.” He added that there is a cost effective analysis available. The “stretch code” was found to be more cost effective than the base code. Mr. Conner then distributed an Economic Analysis Summary Result for New Single Family New Construction prepared by the State. Mr. Gagnon noted that the economics seem to be dependent on what kind of fuel is used. He suggested that depending on what kind of fuel is used, there might not be as stringent a code. Mr. Murphy added that there is also an efficiency when you deal with multi-family units because of shared walls, etc. Mr. Gagnon asked whether Act 250 standards apply to most anything in City Center. Mr. Conner noted there are different standards for City Center regarding Act 250. There is a higher threshold before you have to go to Act 250. Mr. Snyder noted that the cost per home under the “stretch code” is about $7500, which probably escalates to $10,000 when you add in managing the process. A developer has to wrap the outside of a home with insulation, and this also causes a problem with siding. Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Weinhagen whether the “carrot” worked in Hinesburg. Mr. Weinhagen said it did. All developers sought density bonuses or built smaller units to get the bonus. He said one should try to be sure that what they are trying to incentivize is easy to achieve and isn’t achievable elsewhere in the regulations. He said that overall the Hinesburg system has worked quite well, but noted that a community also needs to be prepared for what takes place if someone does not seek the carrots. Ms. Calcagni noted that the current regulations for Form Based Code don’t include a density bonus for density. Mr. Michaels said he wasn’t sure that reducing the base density to gain something was a good approach. He felt that smaller units, bigger buildings, and fewer walls works well. Mr. Snyder said he thought the current code has to be met, whether you are an Act 250 project or not, and you will get a more efficient building. He felt there has to be a way to address the huge users of energy, which are the older stock of homes. He said it is coming to a point where people won’t be able to buy homes; he said they are already seeing more and more renters. He added that he would challenge South Burlington and Efficiency Vermont to find a program to incentivize the upgrading of older homes. Mr. Murphy acknowledged that this is true, but he felt you can’t make people upgrade. Mr. Conner asked how the stretch code is different for commercial buildings (including non-residential and residential above 3 stories). Mr. Duane said the regulations are more stringent in the stretch code than the base code. Mr. Murphy added that the intent is for the code to be a living document; if it doesn’t work, it can be changed. Mr. Michaels said there is a government agency in one of their buildings which has said that they would do anything that has a payback in 5 years or less. And this is what they are doing with all their tenants. Ms. Louisos asked how South Burlington should decide between the base and stretch codes. Mr. Duane said he felt that what the city is doing in the way of research is what it is about. Mr. Murphy said the choice is between two good codes, or between a good code and a very good code, energy wise. Mr. Weinhagen said that in Hinesburg they have been cognizant of goals, but they have also considered fairness. He said “everyone should play by the same rules.” Mr. Conner asked if there is a cost analysis for multi-family housing. Mr. Murphy said there is something on the website. Mr. Snyder said they have looked at that. There is an advantage with a shared wall, probably about half the cost on a per unit basis, except for the end units which cost more. He added that from a developer’s standpoint, it is nice to have one code everywhere as it makes it easier to insure that they meet the code. Mr. Murphy said that if the Planning Commission requires all development to meet a code, they should think about the person who is building a smaller home and how much cost you are adding to that. Mr. Murphy said he would like to know people’s thoughts on providing a “menu of alternatives” to meet the goal (e.g., stretch or LEED, etc.). Mr. Weinhagen said what you would get is the lowest cost option. Ms. Greco asked about the incentive for doing both. Mr. Murphy cited the initial cost issue with solar. He said they are moving toward combining both, possibly in stages. He stressed that if you move too hard, too fast, you won’t get development. Builders won’t be able to afford to build, and people won’t be able to afford to buy. Mr. Weinhagen felt that applying the stretch code might be enough. Ms. LaRose asked about the administrative costs of dealing with base/stretch codes that don’t go to Act 250. She asked what kind of experienced human resources are needed to enforce the codes. Mr. Murphy said that is a very good question and he was not sure about local resources. Mr. Duane said that with any locally required code you may have to have a method to measure it by. Mr. Conner noted that today all they have to do is ask for a state form. But he was uncertain as to how a stretch code would work in that respect. He asked if they will all have to become solar experts or if there can be a “checkbox.” Mr. Duff said that if you’re dealing with a commercial building, there is a “commissioning report” at the end of the building process. Ms. LaRose noted that South Burlington does not issue a CO for a single family home, and it seems that certification is now being asked for before the home is built. Others acknowledged that this is an issue. Mr. Duff said that the preliminary stage of a development is a poor time to decide what you want to do with a building (regarding the benefits of solar, etc.). Ms. Louisos thanked the participants and suggested continuing the conversation at a later meeting. b. Discussion of draft alternate approval mechanism and standards for doorways in T4 district: Mr. Conner explained the goal is that a project would go to the DRB which would decide whether a plan is meeting the intent of the regulations. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the alternate approval mechanism and standards for doorways in the T4 district as presented. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. c. Review updated Table of Uses in the Form Based Code Area: Mr. .Conner said they have tweaked the “drive‐through” regulations to prohibit them in the T3 and T3+ districts which are largely residential. Ms. Quest moved to approve the updated Table of Uses in the Form Based Code area as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to postpone Item #5 on the agenda due to the late hour. They also felt it might be better to do that review when the new Planning Commission members are on board, hopefully at the next meeting. 5. Minutes of 23 July 2015: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 23 July 2015 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 9:30 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Base and Stretch Energy Codes and Standards in Vermont DATE: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting Earlier this spring, staff was requested by the Commission to review and explore a possible menu of options for the use of rooftops on new buildings and/or other methods of promoting energy efficiency. Among the options was the possibility of an enhanced energy requirement for the building. Staff has done some preliminary research on the subject of Vermont’s Residential and Commercial Building Energy Codes. Below are links to the handbooks for each, including on the Residential Side a summary of how the Base and Stretch Codes differ and their applicability: • Residential Building Energy Code Handbook • Commercial Building Energy Code Handbook We have invited a number of speakers to this meeting to help inform the Commission’s discussion of this topic. They include: • Barry Murphy, Energy Program Specialist with the Vermont Public Service Department • Paul Duane, Strategic Planning Manager with Efficiency Vermont • Chris Gordon, Program Manager with Efficiency Vermont • Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning with the Town of Hinesburg The methods and implantations for these two codes differ, as do their authorities. The invited speakers will be able to share more about this. Commissioners are encouraged to use this session as an opportunity to learn more about existing codes and requirements. Staff has not yet performed a detailed analysis on any authority for local adoption of standards. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Alternative Compliance of Doorways in FBC T4 District FIRST DRAFT DATE: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting Staff was asked to develop some language for the possible alternate compliance of Doorway standards in the T4 district, recognizing that high quality, interactive design may be accomplished in a method other than the regular spacing of doors. Below is a FIRST DRAFT of such an attempt. As noted below, the authority for any such alternate approval would be with the Development Review Board and not staff in this draft. Applicants could of course still gain an administrative approval for a building that meets the full Code. Commissioners are encouraged to review and provide comment. This is a FIRST DRAFT. The portion in italics below is added as possible emphasis to the Intent, but may prove to be redundant. ------------------------ Alternate Compliance for Doorways in T4 A. Authority. The Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for development that differs from the strict requirements of Section 8.13(C)(6) [T4 Urban Multi-Use District Building Envelope Standards, Entrances] subject to the standards and limitations below. B. Entrance standard intent. It is the intent of Section 8.13(C)(6)(a-e), in concert with other standards of Section 8.13, to establish a regular, consistently pedestrian-friendly environment in the applicable district. The presence of regular, operable, entryways is designed to foster a built pattern consisting of attractive, engaging, and interactive built forms. Users along a street are presented with an inviting street presence of the building and are engaged throughout its length. This section is also intended to support the viability of activities within adjacent buildings (existing or future) by creating a pedestrian environment where the user has reason and interest to walk the entire length of a building and engage with the next building rather than have an uninviting and unengaging environment where a user would turn around. C. Standards for review. In making its determination, the Development Review Board shall consider the following standards and design guidelines: 2 (1) The Board finds that the alterative design advances the specific objectives of the Central District of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that is equal or greater than the standard contained within the BES. (2) The Board finds that the alternative design advances the Purpose of the District as stated in these Land Development Regulations in a manner that is equal to or greater than the standard contained within the BES. (3) The Board finds that the alterative design advances the Intent of the standard as stated in this Section in a manner that is equal to or greater than the standard contained within the BES. (4) Any proposed alternative shall be incorporated along all facades of a building for which the entrance standards apply and shall be distributed along the entire façade in a manner which meets or exceeds the average frequency and maximum spacing as required by the BES. (5) Any proposed alternative shall be not be counted or calculated as meeting or contributing to any other required element or financial obligation of these Regulations. (6) Any proposed alternative shall service its function in all seasons. (7) Creative alternatives are encouraged. Any proposed alternatives, however, shall consist of original design elements. In the case of artwork, only Commissioned artwork shall be considered. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Revised FBC Table of Uses based on PC discussion DATE: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting Below please find a revised table of uses for the draft Form Based Codes district based on the Planning Commission’s discussion in June 2015. For ease of reading, we’ve proposed to put all of it in one place (previous uses prohibited in each T-zone were in their own BES, and then there was a separate chart for pre-existing buildings). Subsection C below is unchanged. Staff will go through this list with Commissioners at the meeting. ------------------------ 8.09 Uses Allowed and Changes of Use. A. General Provisions. Within the Transect Zones, all uses shall be allowed except as specified in Table 8-4, Table of Uses, these Land Development Regulations, other applicable city ordinances and regulations and by state statute or applicable state regulation. In Table 8-4 below (Transect Zone Table of Uses), where a use is not listed as prohibited within a specific Transect Zone, it is allowed in that Transect Zone pursuant to these Land Development Regulations. B. Nonconforming structures. Table 8-4, Transect Zone Table of Uses, indicates uses that are prohibited in each Transect Zone for structures that are not in full compliance with the applicable Building Envelope Standards. See also Section 8.11 for nonconformities. Table 8-4. Transect Zone Table of Uses Transect Zones Table of Uses Non-Conforming Structures, all Transect Zones T3/ T3+ T4 T5 Adult use Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Airport Uses Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Animal shelter Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Auto and/or motorcycle sales Prohibited 2 C. Changes of Use. Changes of Use within the Form Based Code shall require site plan approval if: (1) Changes are proposed to the Site Plan; or, (2) Except within the T5 District, the change in use will result in an increase of 75 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips or 25% of the total PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips for the subject property as defined within these regulations, whichever is greater. Auto and/or motorcycle service & repair Prohibited Auto rental, with optional private accessory car wash & fueling Prohibited Cannabis dispensary (cultivation only) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Car wash Prohibited Commercial kennel, veterinary hospital and/or pet day care Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Drive-through establishments, except financial institutions Prohibited Prohibited Drive-through financial institutions Prohibited in T3 and T3+ Prohibited Equipment service, repair, and/or rental Prohibited Junk yard Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Lumber and/or contractor’s yard Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Manufacturing / assembly from previously prepared materials & components Prohibited Mobile home, RV and/or boat sales, repair & service Prohibited Motor freight terminal Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Service Stations Prohibited Transportation services Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Warehousing & distribution Prohibited Wholesale establishments Prohibited Bottle redemption centers Prohibited Outdoor storage in connection with any permitted use, except for dumpsters which must be reviewed for adequate screening during the development approval process Prohibited Uses that require regular (1 trip weekday or greater) trips using 24,000 lb. vehicles Prohibited in T3 and T3+ Prohibited ALL OTHER USES SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  23 JUNE 2015  1      The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 June  2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Benton, B. Gagnon, S. Quest,  G. Calcagni    ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden,  S. Dopp, P. Nowak    1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:    A discussion of the meeting schedule was added to Other Business.    2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda:    No issues were raised.                                                      3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports:    Ms. Harrington:  noted there will be a walk through Dumont Park on Thursday evening.    Mr. Gagnon: Updated members on the demolition of houses in the Airport area.  There are 4  houses left to go on the Northern contract.  These should be done by next week.  The 3rd  contract began on the southern 20 houses; 5 are down.  Asbestos removal is being done under  the middle contract.  Demolition should begin on 6 July.    Ms. Louisos: Thanked Ms. Calcagni and Ms. Benton for their service to the Planning Commission  as this could be their last meeting.      Suggested a special meeting next Tuesday (a 5th Tuesday in June).    Mr. Conner:  Explained the appointment cycle for city boards and committees. He said the City  Council is likely to make appointments on 6 July.  Committee membership continues until the  Council takes action to replace a member.      SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  23 JUNE 2015  2      The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week on signs and their content.  The ruling said you cannot  distinguish “events” signs from any other type of sign.    The Chamberlin/Airport study committee will meet on Thursday evening.    4. Presentation and consideration of use of community vision and branding in the  Draft Comprehensive Plan, plus staff status update on Plan:    Mr. Conner reported that the Commission had asked staff to bring the pre‐amble to the recent  community branding before the group to determine whether it would be a good fit to include in  the vision statement or as a prologue to the Comprehensive Plan.    Ms. Quest felt the branding statement did not describe the “qualities that are the embodiment  of life in the Green Mountain State.”    Members felt that what is in the Comprehensive Plan more accurately describes their vision.    Mr. Conner noted the effort to identify neighborhoods/groupings of neighborhoods into 4 city  “areas”: City Center, Lakeshore, Gateway and Ridgeline.  He felt it was difficult to fit all the  areas of the city into those designations. That wasn’t necessarily the intent of the branding, to  apply to all parts of the city. Members felt City Center and Lakeshore were reasonable; the  others didn’t work as well in terms of land use areas of the city.  Mr. Gagnon felt the other 2  areas were more “linear” and harder to define.  Mr. Riehle liked the idea of identifying  neighborhoods rather than the 4 areas.      Ms. Benton commented that the city doesn’t have one “iconic building” to use in an identifying  way.    Ms. LaRose then updated members on the status of the Comprehensive Plan.  She noted that  the Regional Planning Commission has staff that will look at the plan.  Part of the package for  their review includes a matrix of 9 pages of questions.  Staff has been going through this matrix  and answering questions.  This opened their eyes to some items that need more strength or  documentation.    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  23 JUNE 2015  3      The first of these is the economic chapter and the need to discuss economic policy.  At present  the economic development chapter is very short with no details on what South Burlington  thinks is a strong economy.  Ms. LaRose said staff proposes spending some time answering the  question: What are the economic goals of the city?     Mr. Conner stressed that this is not an economic development plan, but it would lay the  foundations for such a plan.  He also noted that they could identify a location for types of  businesses that haven’t been invented yet.      Mr. Riehle said he would like to encourage diversity in businesses, not having one big business  (e.g. IBM) on which the city is relying.  He suggested emphasizing the medical business  development.    Members were OK with staff working on this.      Ms. LaRose said the Plan is also not strong on prioritization in a helpful way.  She wasn’t sure  how to get into that conversation.  Mr. Conner suggested the first thing cold be to work from a  solid document.  You can then prioritize by when you will take on some kinds of actions and  also indicate potential conflict points.    Mr. Gagnon suggested the completion of City Center as a top priority.  Mr. Conner noted that  the City Council has adopted that as a priority for city action as well.    Ms. LaRose cited a potential area of conflict:  One objective states that the majority of  development should be along transportation corridors.  There is also a reference to certain  types of business “campuses.”  She asked what if the “business campuses” don’t want to be  along a transportation corridor.    Mr. Riehle said he is concerned with safely connecting neighborhoods.  He noted that he no  longer bikes in South Burlington because it is too dangerous.    Ms. Dopp said she would like to see more specificity regarding solar, wind, locations of cell  towers, etc.  Ms. LaRose said there is a section on this near the end of the document, but it  doesn’t address cell towers.  SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  23 JUNE 2015  4      5. Continue Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Outreach Strategy:    Ms. Louisos noted that the City Council is OK with receiving any sections that represent a “final  document.”  She suggested that part of the public outreach might be a joint meeting with the  City Council.  Mr. Conner suggested this could be the “kickoff” to public outreach, followed by a  6‐week comment period.  Mr. Gagnon said he would also like to have some open public  meetings.    6. Draft Land Development Regulations:    a. SEQ‐Neighborhood Residential North/JAM Golf Amendments:    Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the JAM Golf agreement.  The new designation for  “development” area will be Neighborhood Residential North.  It will allow 4.67 units per acre  and will have slightly different public works standards.  A landscape buffer will serve as a  transition between this neighborhood and the Wheeler Nature Park.    Mr. Conner then showed a map of the new district.  He identified 3 areas in which only one‐ story homes will be allowed.    Ms. Louisos noted that the landscape buffer appears to be outside the property.  Mr. Conner  said there is a provision in the draft regulation that would allow the applicant to request the  ability to do this from the City Council.    Mr. Conner offered that these amendments could be included in the current round of updates.  Members were ok with this.    b. Review Table of Uses in the Form Base Code Area:    Mr. Conner noted that Form Base Code is a permissive form of zoning; a property can have any  use unless the Code specifically says it can’t be done. The question arises as to what would  happen to existing buildings that become non‐conforming in City Center.  Mr. Conner noted  there is a specific list of prohibited uses; the question is which uses should still be prohibited.    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  23 JUNE 2015  5      The uses that members wanted to prohibit included:    1. Airport uses  2. Auto, motorcycle, RV, and mobile home sales  3. Animal shelters (anything that involves animals being outdoors)  4. Commercial kennels  5. Cannabis cultivation (a cannabis dispensary would be allowed for  medical use; members discussed whether to prohibit general use as  this is being considered by the State.  Members asked to keep this on  the radar)   6. Equipment repair  7. Lumber/contractors’ yards   8. Taxi Company/Auto storage    Members were concerned with boat sales.  They were OK with small boats but were concerned  with displays of large boats.  Ms. Harrington noted that there could be an office where mobile  homes and large boats are sold without display.  Mr. Conner suggested that staff wrestle with  this before making a decision.    Uses that were previously prohibited but could now be permitted if they conform to the form  base code include:    1. Auto/motorcycle/service and repair  2. Car Wash  3. Equipment service/sales/rental  4. Warehousing/storage  5. Light manufacturing  6. Manufacturing and assembly from previously prepared materials    All other uses would be allowed.    c. Other member/staff items from draft LDRs:    Mr. Conner said staff is continuing to work on roof‐top issues and doorway issues.  He  suggested staff may be able to have something for the Commission to vote on next week, but  this may have only a partial legal review.    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  23 JUNE 2015  6      7. Other Business:    Members agreed to meet on 30 June.  Mr. Conner said staff wouldn’t have graphics available  for that meeting, and he wasn’t sure how far along the legal review will be.    8. Minutes of 9 June 2015:    Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 9 June 2015 as written.  Ms. Benton seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    Mr. Conner thanked Ms. Calcagni and Ms. Benton for their service to the Planning Commission  and to the other committees they had served on.    As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned  by common consent at 9:20 p.m.             ______________________________       Clerk