Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/10/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 MARCH 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 March 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Champlain Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest, T. Riehle ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; C. Shaw, T. McKenzie, S. Dopp, T. Chittenden 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. Dopp noted that the South Burlington Land Trust annual meeting and “pot luck” will be on Sunday, 29 March. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Riehle: Distributed an article regarding windows and signs. Mr. Conner: It appears the City/School Master Planning Task Force will be having a public meeting regarding options on 31 March. Last week staff met with consultants regarding long-term planning for Williston Road. It will be wise to have the consultants present to the Commission and to the City Council. The Underwood Task Force recommendations will be presented to the City Council on Monday. A second project in the TIF district has been approved by the DRB. It proposes 12 housing units at the east end of Market Street. Plans include protruding 5 feet into the city right-of-way which allows for usable porches on the fronts of buildings. The development will have a shared entryway with the adjacent property. Staff is working on a policy for evaluating projects in the TIF District. This will come to the Commission for feedback in April. South Village has had 2 community meetings regarding the proposal for a Village Commercial area. The Airport will begin removing houses in the next few months. Mr. Gagnon is the on-site consultant. The city is working with the Airport regarding communications and keeping the neighborhood apprised of what is happening. Planning and Zoning is level funded in the budget just approved by voters. 4. Draft Land Development Regulations: a. Input on draft City Center Form Based Code from Property owner/developer stakeholder group: Mr. McKenzie reminded members that the issue stakeholders have is how to define a “block.” He noted that the regulations require every street to have 70% building coverage and a 50-foot right-of-way. The most important issue for stakeholders is frontage and the fact that it creates a need for parking which the rest of the area can’t handle. He also noted that the 50-50 residential/commercial distribution creates a need for more parking than exists, so they have moved to a 75% residential/25% commercial split. Mr. McKenzie showed a plan which includes 2 potential parking garages. He didn’t know whether the TIF will support this. If the parking garages don’t happen, there will be a greater need for parking than can be achieved. A mixed use environment allows for less parking. Retail requires 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. (without the garages, the need would be for 4-6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.). Residential requires 1.5 spaces per unit (2 with the current regulations). Mr. McKenzie then proposed the following suggestions to solve the problems: 1. Have the frontage requirement apply only on primary streets 2. Allow for more street types than are being proposed (e.g., a private corporate drive) Mr. McKenzie noted that the question of street ownership creates a block length longer than what is required. There is also uncertainty as to how to deal with Commerce Square: if that area were to be totally rebuilt, they would have to have a city street right through the property. The same is true for the Central School property, which would diminish its value. 3. Use the “tier” language similar to what has been done for University Mall. This will allow for 70% building frontage on primary streets. Mr. Riehle asked if private streets would be privately maintained. Mr. McKenzie showed which streets could be private and privately maintained and which could become public and publicly maintained. Mr. Conner noted there are times when the city is comfortable with private streets. Issues arise with residential uses when residents assume their taxes should pay for street plowing, upkeep, etc. Ms. Louisos said the ownership of a street wouldn’t matter to her as long as the streetscape follows the code. Mr. Gagnon agreed streets shouldn’t have to be city-owned as long as they meet design standards. He had no problem with what is being recommended for T-4 and T-5. He does have a question on the perimeter block. Mr. McKenzie said he thinks the consultant is saying that at some point you get to a block on the perimeter where you can’t meet the standards…like the Price Chopper development. Mr. McKenzie said having frontage apply only to primary streets is critical. He said they have a list of secondary streets for circulation, and one of those would be a “private corporate drive.” Mr. Conner asked if any streets other than Market, Garden, Dorset and Williston Rd. would be primary streets. Mr. McKenzie said possibly San Remo Drive, but they’re not sure about that. Ms. Dopp asked what the characteristics of a corporate drive would be. Mr. McKenzie said something similar to University Mall. It could be made to look like a public street. The purpose would be to provide circulation. It would not require the frontage. Buildings could be put along it, but they wouldn’t have to be. Mr. Conner said he would like to have a conversation with the stakeholders’ consultant. He said ownership of the roads is less critical. The issue is the character of the street and how it is laid out. He would also like to consider what it means to have some secondary streets that don’t have to meet frontage requirements. Mr. McKenzie noted the stakeholders have offered to pay for Mr. Conner to have that conversation with their consultant. b. Review draft chapters of LDRs, including Article 18, Affordable Housing, and others: Mr. Conner noted that inclusionary zoning has had a legal review which was, for the most part, very complimentary. A few questions did arise: a. The draft regulations contemplate a difference between the affordable units and others. The City Attorney recommends some relationship between them (interior amenities, floor area, etc.). He would like to see something more specific (e.g., 30% less floor area). Mr. Conner noted that coming up with a number is tricky. Eric Farrell recommends that for every affordable unit, there could be at least one market rate unit of the same size. This would make it harder to “single out” the affordable unit residents. b. The affordable units must be made available concurrently with the market rate units to be sure the affordable units are built. Certificates of Occupancy are not issued by unit but by building, and there are no COs for single and 2-family houses. One suggestion is to say that no CO would be issued for a building until all buildings with affordable units are built. There could also be a requirement that any single family or 2-family homes that are built after the regulations are adopted and are part of the inclusionary requirement, would have to have a CO. The City Attorney is comfortable with that. c. The draft regulations include some incentives. The City Attorney wants to be sure developers can’t pay into a fund instead of building affordable units. He suggests if in the future a buyout is appropriate, that language be added. Until then, the language should be eliminated. d. There is a state law that requires incentives for inclusionary zoning. The City Attorney recommends there be no density requirement in City Center. With this in mind, an incentive might involve reduced application fees for inclusionary units. Members were ok with each of the suggestions. Ms. Quest said she would like to see the 1-for-1 sizing and a percentage of the overall. Mr. Conner will write something up and see how it looks both ways. 4. Other Business: a. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: The next meeting (24 March) will include the South Village proposal and some other proposals related to the “white areas” on the map. Future meetings will include a follow‐up from tonight’s meeting, the Williston Road discussion, discussion of TIF policy and how funds would be used. There is also the possibility of a special meeting in late March or early April. b. 45-day pre-application notice to Public Service Board: 2 megawatt solar array, South Burlington Landfill: Ms. Louisos noted that she is an abutter to this property. Mr. Conner said the Commission has 3 options: do nothing, provide comment to the PSB, or hold a public hearing. Members agreed to do nothing. 5. Review Minutes of 10 February 2015: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 10 February 2015 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 Paul Conner From:Tim McKenzie <tim@southburlingtonrealty.com> Sent:Friday, March 06, 2015 10:07 AM To:Paul Conner Subject:Cecil memo Attachments:Memorandum on Block Standards in South Burlington March 4.pdf; 15.0219_L1.1 SB City Center_Layout and Materials Plan_60sc.pdf Paul  See attached, I have included the lasted version of our master plan to help visualize the concept Steve mentions  regarding street frontage.  Tim    Timothy McKenzie  South Burlington Realty  PO Box 2204 S. Burlington 05407‐2204  Phone 863‐9039 x3  Cell 233‐5302    MEMORANDUM Date: March 5, 2015 To: Timothy McKenzie South Burlington Realty Prepared by: Steven G. Cecil AIA ASLA RE: Block Standards and Form-Based Codes in South Burlington We have prepared this memorandum to provide a professional planning and urban design perspective regarding a provision in the prospective Form Based Code being prepared by the City of South Burlington for its City Center District. Specifically, we have considered the prospective standards associated with block sizes and definitions. Context The City of South Burlington is advancing a zoning initiative that would apply a new Form Based Code for areas of the community. This initiative is, in part, intended to shape future development so that it is more closely aligned with traditional forms of city and town centers. The draft code includes special definitions and standards that address the scale, orientation, site layout, and other aspects of development on a district basis. Much of the land that would be subject to the zoning are large parcels that have not been subdivided, and do not have internal circulation networks and blocks defined by existing approved streets or ways. The draft zoning would provide for establishment of a publicly-owned network of internal streets that would create blocks that would be available for development. As part of the zoning, specific physical standards are associated with the size and configuration of the blocks. The zoning also includes requirements for minimum frontage, limited setbacks and other provisions for development. The zoning provides a menu of street types that could be used to define blocks. Some previous plans created by prospective developers of parcels in the area would appear to comply with the physical design implications of the block definition and dimensions. However, for practical reasons, other potential development that may fit South Burlington’s overall goals might not be able to comply with the requirements. We have particularly focused on the block standards and associated regulations for the T-4 and T-5 zoning designations within the draft City Center Form Based Code District. Relevant standards are as follows: 2 • Block edges: It appears that blocks are defined by streets, of which there are allowable street types for each district. • Block lengths 8.02(B)(1)(a and b): Block lengths in the Building Envelope Standards (BES) do not need to comply with maximums listed in the other sections, if the applicant offers a mid-block connection meeting certain street standards to be dedicated to the City. The connection would need to extend to an adjacent city street or to a property line, if a street does not exist. • Block perimeters 8.01(B)(1)(c): Block perimeters in the BES can be adjusted at the discretion of the Design Review Board (DRB) only under limited circumstances where there are barriers, but the DRB may require a path be installed and offered for dedication to the City along the edge of the barrier. • Alleys 8.02(B)(2): The creation of alleys is encouraged to minimize curb cuts; alleys are a particular Street Type. • Fronts and backs of buildings 8.02B)(3): The front of every building must face a public street. • Primary and Secondary Street determination 8.02(B)(12): Higher traffic volumes distinguish primary streets from secondary streets, except in certain conditions. • T-4 Block standards 8.08: These blocks have a maximum perimeter of 2800’, 700’ maximum length on any side of a block with 10% increase permitted based on a site requirements, and 300’ minimum length. • T-5 Block standards 8.09: These blocks have a maximum perimeter of 1600’, 400’ maximum length on any side of a block with 10% increase permitted based on a site requirements for a, no minimum length. • T-4 Street type 8.08: Allowable street types include Destination Street, Alley, Support Street, Neighborhood Street, Neighborhood Narrow, Neighborhood Street/Bike Boulevard, Lane, Mew, Commercial Street Avenue, Commercial Boulevard, Path. • Street definitions, illustration for T-5 districts, 8.09: Allowable street types include Destination Street, Alley, Support Street, Neighborhood Narrow Neighborhood Narrow. There are also references to certain streets being Primary Streets, and others being Secondary Streets, referenced to a Regulating Map. • Frontage requirements: Specific frontage requirements are associated with parcels and their relationship to public streets. 3 • T-4 Footprint restrictions 8.08: There are footprint restrictions in the T-4 zone that prohibit buildings with frontages of 100 feet or greater and footprints of 10,000 feet or greater from occurring within 1,000 linear feet of one another for one story buildings. • Parking screening 8.08 and 8.09: Parking must be screened from streets. Observations The following general observations reflect our experience in the planning and design of multiple use districts and retail and retail-oriented projects using a variety of regulatory standards and approaches, including Form Based Zoning. Block Types and Dimensions While the standards for block lengths appeals to a desire to have a pedestrian-scaled environment, observations of successful retail and mixed-use streets underlines the importance of creating continuous segments; frequent interruptions and crossings can actually be a deterrent to a vital, attractive pedestrian network. So, shorter blocks are not necessarily better than longer blocks where there is substantial building frontage. There are many other variables in the architecture, landscape, streetscape and use patterns that are also part of creating a successful composition. We have noted that the maximum block lengths along the T-5 district seem shorter than might be desirable, and the City should consider whether allowing longer lengths might beneficial. The types and dimensions of blocks envisioned in the T-4 and T-5 zones do not reflect adequate dimensions and variations in block types necessary to absorb feasible development for many contemporary uses that may be considered appropriate and desirable for the type of district South Burlington intends. Alterations in the standards could reflect traditional design principles, but provide more adequate area and proportions. The current zoning for the block sizes in the T-5 zone are consistent with retail uses that are relatively shallow in dimension, and presume the use of decked parking to allow compact blocks to occur. As long as these assumptions remain unchanged, the block sizes may be accomplishable. However, if the demand for the type of retail and business uses that can accommodate relatively shallow building depths is inadequate to fill the requisite frontage, then the block sizes will be insufficient. The T-4 block sizes effectively provide for larger format retail and commercial uses, and could accommodate the depths and proportions of common types of stores, theaters, and 4 businesses today. However, because of the parking needed to support larger format buildings and businesses, the block sizes are not likely to be adequate for many types of retail and business uses that are integral parts of of mixed-use town and city centers, such as grocery stores, for example. For the T-4 district, the limitations include a restriction on larger footprint retail uses so that only one single-story building with a frontage greater than 100 feet or 10,000 square feet or greater could effectively occur on any block. This will tend to result in the scattering of buildings rather than allowing them to be clustered, which is an option that would seem to be more in keeping with the purposes of the City Center zoning. We did note that the maximum block length in the T-5 district could be exceeded if a public alley is created at its mid-point. But, since we presume that a public alley would become the edge of a block, then this rule would mean that blocks could never exceed the maximum, because they would always be split into two blocks that are below the maximum. We have provided recommended revisions that would acknowledge the size and proportion of a range of building sizes and dimensions and can absorb adequate amount of parking, fully taking into account the opportunities for reduced parking footprints through shared parking, transit and bicycle and other goals that are incorporated into the City Center zoning initiative. Relationship of Streets, Blocks and Frontage Requirements As we understand the combination of standards, there is a fundamental inconsistency in the intent to orient buildings towards primary streets and the intent to create nearly continuous frontage (a minimum of 75% to 85%, depending on subdistrict). Under limited circumstances, a pattern of building-lined streets and blocks is practical for a district composed of a single system of primary streets flanked by single rows of blocks. This has been envisioned for the T-5 district. But this pattern cannot be duplicated within a larger district, where additional adjacent blocks are created, proceeding perpendicular to and away from the primary streets. This is a basic problem encountered when the T-5 areas are added to the T-4 blocks within an overall zoning framework that is reliant on overly restrictive block standards. This is the result of a geometric problem that occurs in large districts such as those contained in the South Burlington City Center zoning. This is due to the the proportions of buildings and parking areas wherever there is a significant amount of retail and commercial uses on a block. The economic and physical design conditions simply do not generate adequate building frontage to fill in blocks and create a large 5 number of pedestrian-oriented “main streets” within an extended, multiple block system. This is consistently the case, except in very dense urban locations that have substantial public transit and very high population densities, and extremely low parking ratios, like urbanized central districts in Cambridge, Boston or New York. As a result, the block and street pattern allowed by the City Center zoning will need to acknowledge that there will need to have some blocks with limited building frontage, served by streets that are largely vehicle access and service corridors (like alleys), and that will not have primary streets on any side. Public Ownership of Streets as Defined in the Zoning Regulations The zoning requires that streets defined in zoning be subject to an offer and subsequent transfer to public ownership is very problematic in the context of a Form Based Zoning mechanism, as well as presenting some basic financial and economic difficulties. In the draft zoning, certain requirements for blocks are directly related to the location and definition of the streets. If the streets are owned by the City, then any change in the future that the City might make - such as re-categorization of the street or the zoning requirements for that street – would alter the rights and conformance of the private property contained in the adjacent blocks. This creates significant uncertainty from a development perspective. The City cannot commit to limiting future changes to the street zoning status to facilitate planning and development, because zoning is a legislative matter. Similarly, the requirement that a block be created as a condition on any development is likely to entail the creation of non-conformances for pre-existing parcels of land and buildings – whether they are owned by the applicant or not. Similarly, zoning-compliant actions by one property owner could damage or eliminate the development potential of an adjacent property owner, leaving them with limited - or no ability - to create adjacent, buildable blocks. Another concern with transfer to public ownership is the limit it places on the flexibility that is needed in developing and modifying large development areas. As a practical matter, the initial location of internal streets and circulation networks may need to be adjusted in the future to better accommodate development than was provided in the initial, approved layout. If the streets are owned by the City, then the landowners can be prevented from proceeding with zoning code-compliant development because they no longer control the land. The owners cannot be certain that the City will make the necessary street changes needed to enhance development potential – even if all of the changes in the streets and blocks would fully meet the Form Based Code. 6 For these and other reasons, the standard practice in other communities would be appropriate for South Burlington. The City can establish the appropriate network of internal streets and ways through a combination of zoning, subdivision controls and site plan reviews that ensure that the public interests are met within private property. Additional Specific Notes We have noted a number of specific issues and questions as part of our review: • Primary, secondary streets, support streets – The reference to these streets does not seem to be consistently used or defined in the draft document we reviewed. • Relationship of frontage to street types – The relationship to the street types and certain other requirements, such as frontage, does not seem clear relative to the full array of streets referred to in the document (primary, secondary, support, and street types). • Definition of block – The definition of block boundaries is not entirely clear, and may pragmatically require further consideration of alleys or other types as potential block-defining elements. • Pedestrian passageways –If the goal for the district is to be a pedestrian oriented district, then the emphasis might be better placed on creating an attractive perimeter sidewalk network rather than splitting frontages to create even more direct links between cars and storefronts. A wider spacing – such as every 300 feet – may be a more appropriate method to ensure that walks are not excessive, but provide the focus on the sidewalk network as the primary pedestrian environment. Recommendations Block Types and Dimensions Array of Block Types As a practical matter, well designed and successful districts exhibit a broader array of block types than in the current draft zoning that recognize practical conditions. This includes a category of “edge blocks”, recognizing that there are many geometric irregularities at the edge of properties and districts that do not fit into any simple dimensional standard. Having tested actual block sizes in other similar circumstances for districts that exhibit the desirable characteristic of traditional town and city centers, we suggest the following: 7 • City Center/T4 Zone – These would be blocks in the zone that have frontage along Market Street. • City Center/T5 Zone - These would be the blocks that are within the T5 limits. • Perimeter Blocks – These would be any blocks where at least one side was the perimeter of any City Center zoning district. Block Dimensions We have undertaken evaluations of other similar development areas and have found that the following standards provide for the type of flexibility that is needed in promoting successful, traditional patterns of development: • City Center/T4 Zone - Maximum perimeter of 4000 linear feet, Maximum face length of 800 feet, and maximum block length without a mid-block pedestrian passage of 400 feet. Block may be permeated by access lanes for parking areas, pedestrian passages or off street parking. • City Center/T5 Zone – Maximum perimeter of 2400 linear feet, Maximum face length of 600 feet, and maximum block length without a mid-block pedestrian passage of 400 feet. Block may be permeated by access lanes for parking areas, pedestrian passages or off street parking. • Perimeter Blocks – No dimensional standard. Note that there is such a wide range of possible block sizes and dimensions that might reasonably be created, that there is no practical way of defining minimums or maximums. Furthermore, other standards can be used to ensure that the purposes of the zoning districts are met in terms of connectivity, urban design, and other considerations. Suggested Relationship of Streets, Blocks and Frontage Requirements Frontage requirements should be reconsidered so that the distribution of street types and street frontage continuity is both practical and enhanced. So, for example, large format retail or commercial buildings should be allowed to be closer together than 700 feet, even allowing adjacent frontages if it helps create a stronger and more continuous pedestrian experience. 8 Street Types, Approvals and Ownership Recommendations The City should complete zoning and subdivision standards for the City Center and apply appropriate, practical requirements for internal vehicle circulation, including integrated bicycle and pedestrian networks, including appropriate landscaping and other public interests. These should be applied as part of the site plan review and design approval process with the understanding that compliance with the standards allows for as-of-right development. Construction and maintenance responsibilities should be a condition of approvals. Changes in the internal circulation network would be subject to site plan reviews and site approvals, but would be permitted if the affected streets and blocks meet the corresponding zoning standards. Background of The Cecil Group The Cecil Group is a multi-disciplinary planning and design firm that focuses on the composition of New England communities, with a particular emphasis on land planning and urban design. The Cecil Group has prepared Form Based Codes and hybrid regulations for communities, and has undertaken the land planning and urban design of private sector development projects for various clients. They have established their expertise in innovative zoning methods and land use controls, and have served as peer review consultants for proposed mixed use projects for projects in village, town and city contexts. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 February 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton, S. Quest, T. Harrington ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Greco, M. Mittag, M. Janswold 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: Mr. Mittag asked about the minutes of the 30 May meeting of the Solar Ready Task Force. Mr. Conner said these should be on-line; if they are not, staff will get them online this week. 3. Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Louisos: Noted that she and Mr. Conner attended last night’s City Council meeting to report on what the Commission has been doing and its time-line for getting things to the Council. The Council recommended that if correspondence goes out from a sub-committee, it should go through the Planning Commission first. Ms. Quest: Attended the Underwood public hearing which was very well attended. Also went to a “better building design course, which was very inspiring. Ms. Harrington: Also attended the Underwood public hearing. Mr. Conner: Weekly committee meetings are on the city’s website and are posted every Friday. The Council made appointments to the Chamberlin/Airport Study Committee last night. They are now waiting for 2 City of Burlington appointments, one from the Mayor of Burlington and one from the Airport Commission. The Underwood committee has one more meeting. It will be facilitated by Mr. Conner and Ms. LaRose as Betsy Terry will not be applying for the full-time Recreation Department position. 2 4. Land Development Regulation Amendments: a. “General merchandise store” definition and overall discussion of commerce uses: Ms. Louisos directed attention to the map where various types of retail are allowed. Mr. Gagnon suggested that instead of “general merchandise” they use “retail sales” and differentiate between various sizes. Mr. Conner said yes, and noted that certain areas already do that, at least with very small retails sales of less than 3,000 and less than 5,000 s.f.. Members then discussed limiting the size of retail. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t limit retail size on Shelburne Road. Members then discussed whether to distinguish between “less than 5,000 sq. feet” or “more than 5,000 sq. ft.” in certain areas. They also considered limiting the maximum size and whether the market would dictate what happens. Members agreed to delete the “general merchandise” use category and just to use “retail sales.” This will be part of the next round of amendments. b. Review Draft Elements of City-wide Regulations Updates: Ms. Louisos felt there needs to be more work done on definitions of “block” and “block standards.” Members agreed to postpone this discussion for the present. Members asked about glazing standards. Ms. LaRose said there are 2 standards: how much glazing and how much of the glazing has to be transparent. Mr. Conner noted that 75% of glazing facing the street has to be transparent. Mr. Riehle asked what is accomplished by making glazing transparent as people can just pull down shades to protect merchandise from the sun. Mr. Conner said the question is whether it is “permanently non-transparent.” Mr. Gagnon said the idea is to make the environment inviting, to be able to look and see something. Ms. Louisos asked why there is a definition of “mid-block.” Mr. Conner said it relates to street types and creating a “mid-block” pedestrian access for an oversized block. Mr. Gagnon questioned the definition of “person.” Mr. Conner said he would look into it with the City Attorney. Mr. Gagnon said he is wrankled by defining a corporation as a “person.” He felt they could just refer to “statute definitions.” Ms. Louisos noted the definition of “street” doesn’t refer to street types. Ms. LaRose said they are working on that and will come back to the Commission with something. Mr. Conner added they may come in with a “private commercial street” definition. Ms. LaRose said they will also compare definitions to E-911 standards. 3 Regarding “multiple uses and multiple structures,” Ms. LaRose noted there can be issues with things like cross-easements that could cause a problem. She saw no harm in having two buildings on a lot as long as the dimensional standards are met. Mr. Conner showed an example of what they are trying to avoid. Members agreed. Mr. Conner recommended keeping the “planned Right of Way” setbacks along certain roads for potential road widening. Members agreed. Mr. Gagnon asked about a mechanism to secure land for potential new streets. He cited the Burger King property on Williston Rd. and noted this could be the last chance to get any land there. Mr. Conner said the city could potential either buy or require dedication of land. He would look into it with the Public Works people. The city should have something ready to implement; otherwise they won’t get anything. Ms. Harrington raised the possibility of a non-conforming building being “altered in stages so the owner won’t have to deal with the non-conformity. Mr. Conner will look into this. 5. Comprehensive Plan: a. Follow up on demographic forecasts: community goals and objectives: Ms. LaRose raised the question of whether the Commission wants any “big picture changes” based on the forecasts it heard. Mr. Gagnon felt they can consider that when they come to certain areas in the Plan and then do some tweaking. Mr. Conner stressed the need to catch the “big picture” items up front. 6. Other Business: a. PBS submittal: New Cingular Wireless de minimum modification to an existing wireless communications facility: 1270 Shelburne Road: Members wanted to know the specific changes. Mr. Conner said there would be three new panels, basically the same as what is now existing. Members were OK with that. 7. Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. 4 pcoming Meeting Schedule: The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on 24 February. Mr. Conner said there is a possibility the City/Schools Master Planning group will be meeting at that time. If so, the Planning Commission meeting will be rescheduled. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. _________________________________, Clerk