Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/26/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION 26 MAY 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 May 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, G. Calcagni, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, R. Greco, D. Zeller, L. Ravin, 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. Zeller asked whether the UVM Medical Center will be developed on Tilley Drive and whether the city has thought about traffic issues. Mr. Conner said the Medical Center has submitted a Certificate of Need for the possibility of doing three things: buying, the buildings they are now leasing; buying additional lots on Tilley Drive; purchasing undeveloped land near Tilley Drive. Regarding transportation, Mr. Conner said there is a working group including the Medical Center, Regional Planning Commission, and others looking at issues in that area including buses. In November, 2014, the Planning Commission submitted a request, supported by the City Council, for funding to do a long-term transportation analysis. This is pending at the Regional Planning Commission for funding. Ms. Zeller also asked about the advisability of the 18 wheelers that are going down her small, narrow road. Mr. Conner said that may be a Public Works issue and gave Ms. Zeller information to contact that office. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington: noted that the first public meeting for the Chamberlin/Airport Study Committee will be tomorrow night. Mr. Gagnon: Reported that Picard Circle demolition is complete, and Dumont Avenue is almost done. Work is proceeding on Henry Street after which it will move to Airport Parkway. Pre-construction meetings have been held for the second contract. That demolition is slated to begin in mid to late June. Mr. Conner: On Thursday evening, 6:30 p.m., the city will host a meeting with residents of East Terrace/Spear Street and property owners of rented properties in the area regarding transition issues with students moving into single family homes. Some items may come to the Planning Commission as a result of this meeting. Three Planning Commission terms (Mr. Gagnon, Ms. Benton, and Ms. Calcagni) are up this year. These members are welcome to re-apply. On Friday, Mr. Conner will attend the Vermont Planners Spring Workshop. The morning session will deal with communications; the afternoon will consist of a series of 6‐1/2 minute presentations on the theme of “villages and downtowns.” Mr. Conner said he is one of the presenters and will be presenting the 20 different projects going on South Burlington City Center at this time. The South Burlington DRB has won the award for the Vermont Citizens Board of the year. 4. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review: Ms. LaRose noted that staff has done some reorganization. The concern was that information on one issue would be in a number of places. They spent a lot of time connecting the texts with the objectives and strategies. The full list of strategies can be put in an appendix at the end. Ms. Louisos noted that the next Commission meeting will be devoted entirely to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. LaRose said staff will get it to the Commission a week in advance, including a red line version. This won’t be a final version that could be warned. Mr. Riehle said he would like to see a stronger word than “strive” throughout. Mr. Conner noted that a citizen took a shot at reducing the goals to 5 or 6 words and making them more “punchy.” Ms. Greco asked about input from the public. Mr. Conner said the Commission had talked about a workshop for public comment. The aim is to do this on the version that the Commission wants to put out. This can be discussed at the next meeting. a. Review Updated Draft Future Land Use Map: Ms. LaRose pointed out changes since the last time the Commission reviewed the map, including changes to the Rye property, showing all streams with a green buffer around them, etc. Members then considered the question of a Village Commercial area for South Village. Ms. Calcagni said the concept that was presented was a mixed use which was predominantly commercial. Ms. Harrington wasn’t comfortable having it on the map as the Commission hadn’t yet had a conversation about it. Mr. Gagnon noted this is a vision for the future and questioned how easy it would be to change at a later date. Mr. Conner said the Plan can be changed without much more effort than other land development regulations require, including Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The hope is to set a vision that takes time to get to. He added that if the Commission contemplates some kind of Village Commercial in that location, he advises putting it on the map so nobody will be surprised. Ms. Dopp felt this would be putting “the cart before the horse.” She also questioned the piece at the corner of Cheese Factory Rd. and Hinesburg Rd. and felt it doesn’t make sense to have a few houses there. Mr. Conner said it is zoned Village Residential. Mr. Riehle was concerned there would be a loss of a prime view corridor. Mr. Conner replied that the need is to meld the possibility of development and the maintaining of views. He felt this can be done. Ms. Louisos showed a piece along the stream on the Rye property that she felt the Commission wanted to be more green. Mr. Gagnon said he would rather show areas of higher density and get public comment. He felt it makes sense to have some development at the Cheese Factory Rd./Hinesburg Rd. intersection. Hinesburg Rd. is a major state road and it’s where the city wants development. Ms. Dopp felt it was on the map in error as the previous Director of Planning had said it would be gone. She also said this is where several towns that are rural in nature come together. Ms. Greco felt density should be along transit lines not necessarily major roads. Ms. Calcagni said she still maintains that the South Village plan helps to maintain some of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g., affordable housing and keeping people from having to get into cars to get a carton of milk). Mr. Gagnon agreed. Ms. Benton felt the plan that was described was “too much.” She liked the idea of some commercial there but of a lower density. Mr. Riehle said he would leave it as it is and get public opinion even though he personally prefers a lower density. Ms. Harrington agreed with Mr. Riehle. Ms. Ravin said the map may have something backwards near Spear and Swift Streets. Presently there are some single family homes shown in a low density area and an open area behind. She felt it might make sense to flip the 2 areas. Ms. Ravin also questioned the “low density” areas and noted that a number of UVM lands are zoned that way. She felt this should not be the case as these are “land banks” for UVM. This raised a “red flag” at UVM, and the request is to show a difference between very low density and conservation. She also noted that the corner where the Church is is shown as “green.” Mr. Riehle felt Ms. Ravin had a logical point. Ms. Dopp questioned whether UVM lands should be for development. Mr. Conner explained that the “green” areas encompass everything from open space to the Park which has 2 hockey rinks. The areas are “more green than building.” He added that the Landfill is also shown as “green.” Mr. Gagnon suggested using the term “primarily open space” instead of “conservation.” Mr. Conner said they will try to come up with better terminology. Ms. Ravin noted that Szymanski Park seems to have been left off the map. Mr. Conner said it will be put back in. Mr. Conner noted that the area where homes are being removed (near the Airport) is being left white at this time. He suggested leaving it without a designation for this plan. Mr. Conner noted there are many supporting plans to the document. These will be referenced, but the Plan will not repeat all the strategies in those plans. 5. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations, including draft City Center Form Based Code, and draft City Center Official Map: a. Discuss Commissioners Items on 1 May 2015 Draft: Ms. Louisos noted Appendix F in the back indicates what are the acceptable open space items. She said the Commission had talked about wooded areas. She didn’t think a wooded area was equivalent to the other types of high quality open space. She suggested a clause that if a “wooded area” is used, there should be some sort of path to it, so it becomes more usable. Members were OK with that. Members felt they would only count the enhanced area as open space. Ms. Louisos also questioned a rain garden as open space when it could serve as stormwater treatment. Mr. Conner suggested counting 50% to be consistent with other such designations. Ms. Louisos and Ms. LaRose will work on some wording for this. Ms. Louisos also suggested that the Central Districts that are being eliminated had a lot of things the Commission might want to look at (e.g. prohibited materials). Mr. Conner noted that a property owner felt the list was too restrictive. Ms. Benton asked why stucco is prohibited. Mr. Conner said it was on Paul Dreher’s list. b. Review Alternative Options Related to Affordable Housing Units per Commission Request: Mr. Conner noted that staff left 2 options so an applicant can pick one: 1. Have affordable units similar to other units so you can’t see a disparity – for each inclusionary unit provided, at least one non‐ inclusionary unit of the same approximate interior and exterior gross floor area shall be provided 2. The average gross area of all inclusionary units; however, shall not be less than 70% of the average gross floor area of the market rate units. Members felt they would like to get an opinion from members of the Affordable Housing Committee on this and directed Mr. Conner to contact them. c. Acknowledge Receipt of Additional Public Input: Mr. Conner noted receipt of information from Tim McKenzie which talks about both City Center and Central School properties. He suggested members review this and discuss it at the next meeting. d. Next Steps and Other Items as Necessary: Mr. Conner said staff is following up on all the things the Commission asked about. Information regarding a special meeting will be sent out in the next few days. 6. Consideration of possible new street name: Willowbrook Lane or Sheldon Lane: Mr. Riehle moved to approve Willowbrook Ln. Ms. Benton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: a. Draft Amendments to Colchester Regulations: Mr. Conner said no action is needed as this is just for information purposes. b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner will poll members regarding the setting for the special meeting. 8. Minutes of 12 May 2015: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 12 May 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 9:30 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: May 26, 2015 Planning Commission meeting See below for discussion of items on this week’s agenda. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 4. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review (7:20 pm) a. Review updated Draft Future Land Use Map See enclosed memo and draft map! b. Review draft section of State designations Enclosed find a brief, draft section regarding the City Center designations. The inclusion of a section and map such as this has become a required element to include in Comprehensive Plans. The map, which is being developed, will be based upon the existing designation map (enclosed) but will also show possible expansion areas in a fuzzy or bubble format. c. Staff update on overall draft plan progress See enclosed memo! d. General discussion of role of supporting plans Staff has been preparing the updates to the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that references supporting reports, and prospectively plans for future ones as well. In developing/reviewing the Comp Plan’s strategies, staff has focused on implementing those reports rather than repeating the strategies from those reports. In addition, staff wishes to confirm with the Commission that it’s appropriate to leave the Chamberlin neighborhood’s planning & objectives a little generic at this time given the neighborhood planning presently underway. 2 5. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations, including draft City Center Form Based Code, and draft City Center Official Map (7:50 pm) a. Discuss Commissioner’s items on May 1, 2015 Draft Commissioners at the last meeting requested time to share items they had come across in reviewing the May 1st draft. As staff develops a final draft for the public hearing over the next few weeks, Commissioners are encouraged to share these ideas and especially notations of areas where there is lack of clarity and/or items to be researched so that we can bring them back to you ASAP. b. Review alternative options related to Affordable Housing units per Commission request Earlier this spring, the Commission reviewed the affordable housing / inclusionary zoning language as commented on by the city’s legal counsel. The Commission asked staff to make some edits, including providing a couple of different options for language of how affordable units might relate in size / scale to market rate units. Those options & amendments are included in Article 18 of the May 1st draft and include some notes in the margins for your consideration. c. Acknowledge receipt of additional public input Additional public input has been provided by Tim McKenzie. Staff recommends that the Commission review. The Commission may wish to take this item up at a future meeting, but staff wanted to have this provided to you as quickly as possible. d. Next steps & other items as necessary 6. Consideration of possible new street name: Willowbrook Lane or Sheldon Lane(8:30 pm) See attached request. Staff will have a summary at the meeting if there are any difficulties with either name. 7. Other Business (8:40 pm) a. Draft Amendments to Colchester Regulations See enclosed amendments b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule 8. Minutes (8:45 pm) 9. Adjourn (8:50 pm) ³ COLCHESTER WINOOSKI SHEL B U R N E ESSEX WILLISTONBURLINGTON BURLINGTONESSEX JUNCTION Shelburne Bay Map 3 Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan City of South Burlington, VT DRAFT May 2015 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Future Use of Land Categories Very Low Intensity - Primarily Conservation Low Intensity - Primarily Residential Medium Intensity - Primarily Residential Higher Intensity - Primarily Mixed Use Medium-Higher Intensity - Primarily Non-Residential Interstate Streams Waterbody Document Path: P:\Planning&Zoning\Planning\ComprehensivePlanMaps\ComprehensivePlan_2015\Map3_FutureLandUse.mxd Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questionsDRAFT 1 Paul Conner From:Peter Kahn <peterskahn@live.com> Sent:Thursday, May 07, 2015 4:12 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:Willowbrook Street Names Hi Paul,     For the Willowbrook Development we would like to name the street:     1) Sheldon Lane or  2) Willowbrook Lane     Please let me know what the planning commission decides.     Thank you,      Peter Kahn  Willowbrook Homes  802‐734‐8124           TO: Chair of Planning Commission Milton Burlington Essex Town Essex Junction Winooski Westford South Hero South Burlington Charles Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC Department of Housing and Community Affairs FROM: Sarah H. Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: May 21, 2015 RE: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Revisions - Supplement # 37 Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, JUne 16th at 7 P.M. at the Colchester Police Department Community Room at 835 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering amendments of the Colchester Zoning Regulations. 1. Amend Section 2.03 District Boundaries to clarify Floodplain District boundaries; 2. Amend Section 212B to include reference to Section 6.03 and 7.04; 3. Amend Section 6.03 to clarify the Floodplain Regulations and allow floodproofing of structures to be done administratively through the building permit process, allow for the enlargement of residential structures that are floodproofed so long as the footprint is maintained or reduced, and allow for the rebuilding of sheds so long as they are wet-floodproofed; 4. Amend Section 7.03 to change the Shoreland District bounds to 250 feet from the mean watermark of Colchester Pond and Lake Champlain (delete Winooski & Lamoille Rivers), clarify tree cutting and replanting requirements, and add paths to permitted uses as long as they are meeting the set dimensional requirements for stairs; 5. Amend Section 7.04 Water Protection District to include a new Fluvial Erosion Hazard Overlay District that mimics the Shoreland District under Section 7.03 however only applies to the Winooski and Lamoille Rivers; 2 2 2 6. Amend Zoning Map to rezone parcels as codified in Appendix F herein: 25- 005003 R3 to GD1 and Portions of Parcel ID #41-035002 GD1 to R3 (per Zoning Map) These are a summary of the proposed changes. The existing and proposed regulations can be found at the Town Offices at 781 Blakely Road and may also be reviewed on-line at http://www.colchestervt.gov. MMMEEEMMMOOORRRAAANNNDDDUUUMMM TO: VT Department of Housing and Community Affairs FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: May 21, 2015 RE: Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendment Continuation Sheet Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 7 P.M. at the Colchester Police Department Community Room at 835 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering amendments of the Colchester Zoning Regulations: 1. Amend Section 2.03 District Boundaries to clarify Floodplain District boundaries; 2. Amend Section 212B to include reference to Section 6.03 and 7.04; 3. Amend Section 6.03 to clarify the Floodplain Regulations and allow floodproofing of structures to be done administratively through the building permit process, allow for the enlargement of residential structures that are floodproofed so long as the footprint is maintained or reduced, and allow for the rebuilding of sheds so long as they are wet-floodproofed; 4. Amend Section 7.03 to change the Shoreland District bounds to 250 feet from the mean watermark of Colchester Pond and Lake Champlain (delete Winooski & Lamoille Rivers), clarify tree cutting and replanting requirements, and add paths to permitted uses as long as they are meeting the set dimensional requirements for stairs; 5. Amend Section 7.04 Water Protection District to include a new Fluvial Erosion Hazard Overlay District that mimics the Shoreland District under Section 7.03 however only applies to the Winooski and Lamoille Rivers; 6. Amend Zoning Map to rezone parcels as codified in Appendix F herein: 25- 005003 R3 to GD1 and Portions of Parcel ID #41-035002 GD1 to R3 (per Zoning Map) 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed changes clarify the existing regulations and do not impact density or other housing related issues. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: The proposed changes will result in two minor rezonings. The first will allow a boundary line adjustment between two dis-similarly zoned parcels and the second will allow for a lot merger of two dis-similarly zoned developed parcels. No changes to density are anticipated. 2 2 2 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations not affect planned community facilities. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 May 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, C. Shaw, J. Weith, B. Shearer, S. Dopp, M. Janswold, D. Cummings 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 reports: Mr. Gagnon: Demolition is complete on Picard Circle. Demolition has begun on the south side of Dumont. The north side will be done next week. Contractors for the other 2 projects have been recommended to the Burlington City Council which will act at their next meeting. That work will begin in early June. Ms. Harrington: Attended the branding meetings. Ms. Louisos: Received feedback on how Planning Commission meetings are run. She noted the rules and guidelines on the back of the Agenda which indicate that Commissioners discuss an issue first then open discussion to the public. Members of the public should not “call out” comments but should raise their hands and be recognized before speaking. Attended the School Board meeting and had a good discussion regarding school properties (e.g., how properties are zoned). Mr. Conner: There is a draft resulting from the branding session on Twitter. The first community meeting related to the Chamberlin/Airport study will be at 6:30 on 27 May at Chamberlin School. This will include a free lasagna dinner. The committee feels they will need more meetings and have now agreed to meet monthly. 4. Initial Consideration of zoning change request for increased lot coverage in the C-1, C-1 Auto, and C-2 zoning districts: 2 Mr. Weith and Mr. Shearer presented the change request. Mr. Weith said they would propose to change the total lot coverage in the C-1, C-1 Auto and C-2 zones from 70% to 90%. He said that considering where South Burlington and these districts are located within the district, the proposal has a lot of good attributes. It concentrates denser development in the core, encourages compact development surrounded by countryside, and discourages sprawl. The current zoning creates more of a “suburban pattern.” Mr. Weith noted that City Center zoning will allow 90% lot coverage, and downtown Burlington allows 100%. Mr. Shearer said that in 2012 he bought Lewis Motors and moved the Volkswagen part of the dealership off the property as there was already a lack of space. Car companies are producing more and more models, and dealers are being required to buy more of these vehicles, thus taking up more of the available storage and display areas. He noted that his property has a space ideal for storage and display, but they can’t use it because of the coverage limitation. He felt they could use that area and still have the property looking good. Mr. Shearer added that the change would be in keeping with the form based code and would encourage the redevelopment of older commercial properties. Mr. Gagnon said he wasn’t sure increasing coverage to provide more parking meets objectives such as reducing sprawl. Ms. Louisos suggested that some “grass pavers” might help before there is any long- term action. Mr. Conner said that wouldn’t work because a parking area of any kind is considered “coverage” by the State. The pavers could be considered toward a credit for stormwater, however. Ms. Louisos said she is excited about expanding form based code to this area, but the Commission is now focusing on City Center, and she was leery about changing the zoning of one piece of property without considering the whole area. Mr. Shearer noted that it is not only car dealerships that are having this issue. Nursing homes, the Magic Hat and others are spilling out of their parking lots as well. Mr. Conner noted that in City Center the Commission has substantially increased lot coverage, but it has also asked for high quality open space. He also noted that C-1-, C-1 Auto and C-2 are very large zoning districts. He showed a map with these districts defined. Ms. Dopp said she found 90% quite alarming, but she was sympathetic to the specific case. She felt with pollution problems in Lake Champlain, creating more impervious surface was not wise. Mr. Shaw noted there is a stormwater treatment project directly behind this area which could more than offset the additional coverage. Mr. Shearer added there is a lot of land for stormwater mitigation. Mr. Weith said that any additional coverage would have to meet all of the other standards (landscaping, etc.). Mr. Gagnon suggested the Commission finish up the work it is engaged in before taking on anything new. He wanted to know how this proposal would fit into the form based code for the rest of the city. He also wanted to avoid an “unintended consequence” of a blanket 90% coverage. 5. Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee Quarterly Report and Discussion: 3 Ms. Quest read the subcommittee report which included meetings with developers, getting people together to resurrect the Marceau Orchard (there is now a deal for cider), and “growing connections” which brings together people with land and those who want to grow something but don’t have the land. Ms. Quest said the subcommittee wants to remain a Planning Commission committee until and Comprehensive Plan and LDRs are completed since a number of changes being made were recommendations from Sus Ag. After that, they would be open to reconsidering where they are going. Ms. Louisos noted that the subcommittee was created in 2013 with the following specific charges: 1. To identify the most valuable and productive farmland to conserve 2. To review and revise the boundaries of the Natural Resource Protection District in the LDRs to include more priority farmland where feasible. A few months later, the City Council reviewed the matrix and recommended the 18 items be given to the Sus Ag Subcommittee. The Planning Commission agreed with this. Ms. Louisos noted that some of the 18 items are not directly related to Planning Commission work. Mr. Gagnon noted that the Commission’s original tasking is almost done. He wondered if the Commission can put together a list of some of the ongoing things and get them done. He felt a plan is needed to accomplish more. Ms. Louisos noted that the City Council had a concern that some of the things involved “implementation” instead of “informing” the Planning Commission. Ms. Quest said she wasn’t sure that there is a desire on other levels to take the goals seriously. Mr. Gagnon said if there are specific things the Commission wants in time for consideration for the Comprehensive Plan, these things should be done right away. If there are things the Commission doesn’t think are appropriate to work on, he had no problem with telling the City Council this. But he felt there had to be a specific plan for everything on the list. Ms. Louisos suggested that she and Ms. Quest go through the list and come back to the Commission with their thoughts. Ms. LaRose showed a matrix that had been created with possible dates for completion. She felt this would be a good place to start. She noted that one of the early tasks was to see whether Natural Resource Protection zones jibed with areas identified by the Sustainable Agriculture Interim Zoning Committee. Mr. Conner suggested that Commission approach it from the perspective of reviewing the work list and considering what is most important to the work of the Planning Commission, not necessarily what are the most important tasks overall; those could then be discussed with the Council. Members agreed. 4 Ms. Louisos and Ms. Quest agreed to report back 2 meetings from tonight. 6. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the LDRs, including draft City Center Form Based Code, and draft City Center Official Map: a. Consideration of remaining outstanding items: • Primary and secondary streets: Mr. Conner showed a map, including a possible route for secondary streets. He stressed that this hasn’t been studied in significant detail but is just a concept. Mr. Riehle questioned whether the street accessing San Remo Drive from the residential neighborhood might be desired by the residents. Mr. Conner said the Commission had agreed to have this as a secondary street. Mr. Conner then showed a map with primary, secondary and planned streets. Ms. Louisos suggested asking the Williston Road consultants to look at a possible better connection to Williston Road through the hotel instead of via Mary Street. Members agreed this would be a straighter shot. Ms. Louisos said it would also make block lengths more even. She stressed she wasn’t lobbying to change it, just to look at it. Mr. Gagnon said he was comfortable with where it is. Mr. Shaw noted the potential for a “festival street” in that area. Ms. Louisos said it is important to have all the connections available for that. Ms. Louisos asked what would happen if a developer wanted another primary street. Mr. Conner said that can always be done. • Possible exemptions to standards for door standards: Mr. Conner said he asked architects for feedback on this. The feedback was that there are circumstances when there should be buildings that don’t meet the standards. This shouldn’t be thought of as a waiver but as a different way to meet the standard (e.g., a “grand entrance” for a hotel). The architects suggested tools that could be codified such as “alternative compliance standards.” Members liked this idea, and Mr. Conner agreed to draft some language for it. • Rooftop/sustainability incentives/requirements: The list of options would include: 1. Solar ready roof 2. LEED certification or any other energy-efficiency measure 3. Green roof 4. Rooftop open space 5 Mr. Gagnon said he would add to the list the opportunity to contribute to a fund for sustainability throughout the city. Mr. Conner said one suggestion from the architects was replacing LEED certification with compliance with Vermont Stretch Energy Codes. He said he hasn’t researched this thoroughly as yet. Mr. Cummings noted that LEED addresses many things, but the intent of the Energy Committee was to focus on energy. He added that it is anticipated that the Vermont Base Energy Code for residences will be adopted in December (the commercial code was adopted in March, 2015), and either that or the Vermont Stretch Energy Code would work. He felt that LEED can scare people with all its requirements. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission’s intent was to provide different options. He felt the Vermont Stretch Energy Code could be added. If a developer wanted to choose LEED, there would nothing to stop that. Mr. Conner said that some of the options could be combined (e.g., half solar, half open space) if the roof space is large enough. There may also be a circumstance where it doesn’t make sense to use any of the options (e.g., a very small building surrounded by very tall buildings). Mr. Cummings said he would be concerned with “an easy out” which could result in having more solar arrays in green fields. Ms. Calcagni felt this needs more thought in terms of quantifying the options. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to put the options in front of the task force. Ms. Louisos said there should at least be a “place holder,” so it’s not a shock a year from now. • Parking/Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Mr. Conner said there are a lot of ways to look at this. Form Based Code is moving in the direction of dropping minimum parking space requirements from 4 or 5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. to 2 spaces. There could be a maximum number of spaces or this number could be exceeded if certain other standards are met. They key, he said, is to look at transportation management as a whole. Mr. Conner noted that some retailers have high standards (5 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft.) and won’t build unless those standards are met. The Commission could create incentives to have less parking or could have penalties for exceeding the maximum. There could also be standards that involve a parking garage. Mr. Conner said that with residential development, the maximum is 2 parking spaces. There is no minimum. He noted that in some places, tenants pay extra for a parking space or can choose not to have one. He also noted that the street types anticipate on-street parking, which is not offered a lot throughout the city. 6 Mr. Conner said that in the next few meetings, the Commission will see a TIF policy. He explained that a large parking lot returns nothing to the city; a parking garage saves a lot of space where a building can be put. Mr. Gagnon asked if steps have been taken to develop a TDM as recommended in the report. Mr. Conner said “baby steps” have been taken. b. Review of May 1, 2015 draft Ms. Louisos suggested a work session to look at everything in the draft and to tie up loose ends. Members agreed. Mr. Conner will poll members as to an acceptable day/time. 7. Consideration of possible street name: Preserve Road: Ms. Louisos noted the request is to change “Marsh Road” to Preserve Road. This is located in South Village near the wooded area. Members had no issues with the change. Ms. Harrington moved to approve Preserve Road. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: a. Draft Amendments to Shelburne Zoning Regulations: Mr. Conner said these are minor amendments to do with baseball fields. Staff had no issues with them. b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Ms. LaRose asked if members would prefer to see a red line version off the 2012 version or a clean one based on what was seen at the last meeting. Members opted for the latter. Mr. Conner suggested members work on the Comprehensive Plan at the next meeting and deal with LDRs at a special meeting and/or on 9 June. Ms. LaRose noted there have been requests to see the Comprehensive Plan. She asked how members would like to deal with this. Mr. Conner suggested posting it and indicating it is a draft for public comment. Mr. Gagnon suggested doing this after the next meeting when it should be 90% complete. 9. Minutes of 14 April, 28 April and 4 May Ms. Louisos noted that in the Minutes of 4 May, page 2, near the bottom, there should be an indication that “members then thought all the streets on that map should be primary streets.” 7 In the Minutes of 14 April, page 4, large paragraph, the sentence should read: “lot frontage buildout drops to 50% from 70%.” Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 14 April 28 April and 4 May as written and/or amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk