Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/23/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 FEBRUARY 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 February 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Paquette, J. Kochman, B. Milizia, R. Agne 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: Ms. Quest: A number of towns are trying to get together to think about the future, as Resilient Communities. There was a 10-town pilot, and they now want all towns to be involved. It is being run by a private non-profit group with financing by FEMA. Mr. Conner said he would reach out and find out about it. Mr. Klugo: Attended the press conference regarding possible redevelopment with an all‐purpose arena. A video is now on the city’s website. Mr. Conner said this is a joint feasibility study with UVM to look at possible construction of a 5,000 seat multi-purpose arena for hockey, basketball, concerts, etc. in the City Center area. The results will be presented in august to the City Council and UVM Board of Trustees. Mr. Klugo said it could go on the Marcotte property or UMall property. UVM would repurpose Gutterson for student recreation. Mr. Conner said that the City Manager was very clear that the school’s due diligence is their purview, and there is no attempt to circumvent that. Mr. Conner also noted that City Manager had presented this as being done in line with “smart growth,” occurring where there is already infrastructure and where it fits into its surroundings. He also said that financing would not increase South Burlington property taxes. Ms. Kochman noted that the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee has been looking for indoor recreation facilities for a long time, and the city would have some indoor facilities as part of the plan. It would be in City Center where there is to be a mix of housing. Mr. Conner added that the facility would be owned by the city an envisioned at this time. The video was then shown to members. 4. Overview of the process, work and results of the Open Space Report regarding scenic views in the city as a foundation for future Commission work: Ms. Kochman noted that a group from the Open Space Committee drove around the city looking at scenic views and how some might be preserved or restored. They didn’t have a chance to discuss scenic views as part of the Committee’s report, but this was added as an attachment (page 19). Ms. Kochman directed attention to a map that catalogs scenic views. She also noted that is a form for evaluating and “scoring” scenic views. Essex/Jericho has done a scenic manual of this sort. A “roadside guide” was also done by the Champlain Valley Greenbelt Alliance. Ms. Kochman suggested the possibility of a citizens’ committee being formed before a consultant is hired. Mr. Conner explained how present South Burlington view corridor overlays work. The challenge is the need to be written with clear standards so an applicant, and the public, know the rules going in. The next step could be to have volunteers do the initial part of the analysis and then have the community deal with the qualitative part. Mr. Riehle noted that in some cases trees are obstructing views, and there is a need for “balance.” Mr. Conner noted that some trees have grown up near view areas and are not blocking views. Mr. Klugo suggested that on Green-Up Day people be asked to take pictures of the views they particularly like. Ms. Melizia stressed the importance of having people familiar with the community being active in the process. Mr. Agne showed a view of the Underwood property and noted that a consultant wanted to put “towers” on the property so that people could see the views. He added that there is also a concern with solar arrays blocking views. Mr. Conner said the timing would be up to the Planning Commission as would the kind of project they would like to have happen. Mr. Klugo said there are some areas that might be left as open space, where views change over the year. He suggested that some views are very important to protect; others could just be left as open space. Ms. Melizia said that when something is built there should be consideration for having it blend in with the environment. Mr. Conner said the next step is to determine what people are trying to accomplish and then find a method to do it. 5. Pursuant to 24 VSA Section 4442(b), review and prepare updated analysis report on changes to the draft Land Development Regulations made by the City Council for public hearing on 21 March 2016: Mr. Conner said that if the Council makes no changes on 21 March, the LDRs can be adopted then. The Planning Commission is required under Statute to evaluate whether the changes are in keeping with State planning goals and with the Comprehensive Plan and prepare a revised Report. Staff presented a draft report to this effect for the Commission’s consideration. Ms. Quest moved that the Planning Commission find that the changes made to the draft Land Development Regulations are in keeping with both State law and the city’s Comprehensive Plan, and to approve the report as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Discuss and possibly provide feedback to the City Council on changes to the draft Land Development Regulations warned for City Council public hearing on 21 March 2016: Ms. Harrington questioned the wording for “interesting plantings.” Mr. Klugo noted that with plantings, the key words are “thrills, spills and fills.” Mr. Klugo noted a recent Public Service Board decision to uphold a community’s opposition to a solar project based on specific standards in the community’s regulations. Ms. Quest then moved to find that the Commission has no issues with changes made to the draft Land Development Regulation by the City Council and warned for public hearing on 21 March 2016. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Staff summary and initial Commission discussion of additional unrelated amendment to the city’s Land Development Regulations identified by City Councilors as possible future considerations: Mr. Conner noted that the Council brought up a variety of unrelated items during its discussion of the LDRs. The Council was encouraged to think of these in 2 ways: things they would specifically change and “unrelated amendments” that would have to start at the Planning Commission level. Council members send e‐ mails separately, but the Council took no action on these. Staff did indicate to the Council that the items would be provided to the Commission. Mr. Conner then showed a chart of some Council members’ interests as follows: Ms. Riehle: view corridors, fill-in on big lots of older homes, number of trees with large canopies on new streets Mr. Chittenden: clarifying how and where a wholesale club might fit in with permitted uses across zones in the city Ms. Emery: requirements for accessory structures (specifically allowing tree-houses limited by size) There was no discussion on these items. 8. Update on the work of the Chamberlin Neighborhood/Airport Planning Committee (CNAPC): Ms. Harrington noted that the Committee was shown a slide show in conjunction with the Airport’s “reuse” plan for properties purchased. Members of the committee were asked to react to the ideas being presented. Specific areas of interest were Bike and Pedestrian Connectivity, Neighborhood Streets, and Airport Drive Reconstruction. The presentation focused on projects that are under consideration (e.g., White Street sidewalk on the north side, a relocated airport Drive), potential “overland paths,” crosswalks (especially on Williston Road), flashing beacons, warning painted on the road, and bike accommodations. There was discussion of existing conditions on residential streets, traffic calming, possible median refuge islands, curb extensions, welcome signs/banners, and public art. With regard the Airport Drive, a number of possibilities were suggested including the closing of certain streets, looping of streets, one-way streets, etc. Mr. Conner noted that some of these possibilities can be done on a trial basis. 9. Other Business: a. Proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance: No issues were raised. b. Commission scheduling and work plan update: No issues were raised. 10. Minutes of 20 October, 12 November, 24 November, 8 December 2015, and 26 January 2016 : Ms. Quest moved to approve the minutes of 20 October, 12 November, 24 November and 8 December 2015, and 26 January 2016 as presented. 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 8:58 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: February 23, 2016 Planning Commission meeting 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. Overview of the process, work, and results of the Open Space Report regarding scenic views in the City as a foundation for future Commission work (7:20 pm) The Commission recently identified moving forward with scenic view protection standards as a priority. As a first step towards doing this, a couple of members of the former Open Space Committee have been invited to attend and give an overview of the work that was done to develop an approach and a Scenic View Inventory Methodology for use when the City decides to undertake this project. We encourage you to review the applicable sections of the Open Space Report in advance of the meeting. The Report can be found here. Discussions of Scenic views are on pages 19-20 and B1-B10. 5. Pursuant to 24 VSA §4442(b), review and prepare updated analysis report on changes to the draft Land Development Regulations made by the City Council for public hearing March 21st (7:45 pm) See the attached memo from Cathyann LaRose and draft Report for your consideration. 6. Discuss and possibly provide feedback to City Council on changes to draft Land Development Regulations warned for City Council public hearing March 21st (8:00 pm) Separate from item #5, the Commission is welcome to provide feedback on the changes made by the City Council to the draft Land Development Regulations. A public hearing will be held on the full, revised set of amendments at the March 21st City Council meeting. 7. Staff summary and initial Commission discussion of additional unrelated amendments to the city’s Land Development Regulations identified by City Councilors for possible future consideration (8:15 pm) In reviewing the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations prepared by the Planning Commission, Councilors identified a handful of unrelated questions, ideas, and suggestions for future amendments for consideration by the City Council. As these are unrelated to amendments presently before the Council, these are considered and treated as a completely separate set of discussions and amendments from the current round. For any of these to be advanced, the Planning Commission would first need to consider, prepare language, warn and hold a public hearing, and submit the amendments to the City Council, just as with any other proposed changes to the LDRs. 2 The list of possible future changes for consideration were not voted upon for referral to the Commission but rather represent a list of items presented by each individual Councilor, compiled by staff, and by consensus of the Council shared with the Commission. No priority or timeline for action was provided. 8. Update on the work of the Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee, Tracey Harrington (8:30 pm) Commissioner Harrington will provide an update on the work of the CNAPC Committee. 9. Other business (8:55 pm) a. Proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance The Burlington Planning Commission is considering a amendments to their Comprehensive Development Ordinance. The amendments are described as follows: ZA-16-06 amends Appendix A- Use Table to permit animal boarding/kennel/shelter uses as a conditional use in the Downtown, Downtown Transition, Downtown Waterfront and Battery Street Transition zones. Criteria are aimed at lessening the potential for off-site impacts by requiring uses to be fully enclosed and subject to City licensure. The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this proposed amendment on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 7pm in Room 12 of City Hall, 149 Church Street. The amendments can be found on the City of Burlington’s Website. b. Commission scheduling and work plan update See the attached updated 10. Minutes (9:00 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:00 pm) Future Round of Amendments "Bucket" Helen Riehle 1) view corridors--I mentioned this last Monday 2) concern regarding in-fill on the big lots of older homes--I think if we go this route, we will radically change the nature of our current neighborhoods 3) generally the number of trees with large canopies for new streets and in particular parking lots and some of the envisioned public spaces within the city center are too small Tom Chittenden 1) The only thing that comes to mind is what I raised at the last meeting (and what I raised with Paul early last month) which has to do with 'clarifying' how and where a wholesale club fits in our permitted uses across the zones in our city. Meaghan Emery 1) 13.10 A.(1) General requirements for accessory structures and uses (p.72) (a) How to make it possible for families to build a tree house (limited in size, materials, and use) and not have it count as an accessory structure. (b) Where? How to encourage that residents' need for tranquility and business's need for public attendance/patronage do not conflict in mixed use areas (such as City Center but also homes abutting businesses on Williston Rd. or Rte. 7). 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Agenda 5: Statutory Review of City Council changes to draft Land Development Regulations DATE: February 18, 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a warned public hearing on proposed amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations on December 21, 2015. The Council continued discussion through several more meetings, February 1 and February 17, 2016. On the latter date they voted to warn a second public hearing to be held March 21, 2016. During the course of their discussions, the City Council made a few changes to the draft presented to them by the Planning Commission. These are each itemized below. Per 24 V.S.A. §4441, the Planning Commission is obligated to prepare an updated report which reflects how the amendments address, in summary, conformance with the Municipal Plan, its land uses, and impacts on future community facilities. A draft updated report addressing this consistency is attached for your consideration. As you may recall, the Commission approved a similar report in late 2015 when it approved and submitted the amendments to the LDRs to the City Council. The attached draft report is an update to this initial report, as required by State law. Note that this report does differ from the original report in that since the time of the original report, the City has adopted its new Comprehensive Plan. The original report made references to both the then-in-effect and then-draft Plans. The changes approved by the City Council for the March 21st Public hearing are enumerated below. A full copy of the updated Draft Land Development Regulations is available online at www.sburl.com/planning. All changes from the draft approved by the Planning Commission are highlighted in Yellow in that document.  Update Appendix F, Open Space Requirements The City Council inserted the following: 1. With regards to Streetfront Open Space, require planting of trees. The landscaping row now reads: Slight, gentle, and undulating berms from 1-3 feet in height are encouraged to block views of parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is required. Include canopy trees whose branches are above the average visual line of sight, located throughout the space, with no more than 40 feet between any two such trees or between a tree and the street or parking area. Landscaping should aim to distract from parking beyond, but should not create dense walls of shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly encouraged. 2 2. With regards to Outdoor Seating and Cafes, incorporate interesting patterns of plants. The landscaping row now reads as: For optional separated seating areas, use planting boxes of interesting patterns of plants, open fences of less than 3 feet in height, or decorative and moveable bollards with decorative chain connectors. 3. With Regards to Playgrounds, require shade. The landscaping row now reads as: Appropriate ground material- rubber or woodchips. Plantings for articulation of space encouraged. Flat paved or concrete area for wheeled toys encouraged. Paved areas including space for basketball or other sport courts are encouraged and may be counted towards minimum required area of qualifying open space. Shade shall be provided in consultation with the Recreation Director. 3. With Regards to Playgrounds, direct location. The location and access row now reads as: Accessible from Public Right-of-Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. Should be centrally located and visually accessible to the greatest extent practicable. 4. Change the word ‘Mew’ to be more explicit. This former column is now shown as ‘Pedestrian Pass’.  Amend all references in document from ‘Mew’ to ‘Pedestrian Pass’.  Amend document for small typographical, grammatical, or consistency corrections. The City Council amended the plan to reflect the following minor typographical or grammatical errors: 1. Subsection numbering correction Section 8.04 - subsections 1 + 2 repeat, should read 5 + 6 Section 8.04 2. Spelling correction - "nowithstanding" to "notwithstanding" Section 8.10 C Section 8.10 C 3. Correct section reference in 13.16 (change 13.12 to 13.16) Section 13.16 4. Correct section number 14.05(F)(2)(b) - subsection (iv) is repeated and corrected to (vii) Section 14.05 5. Add missing word to Section 14.05(F)(2)(b)(v): "The purpose of this meeting is to give residents the opportunity to provide input and feedback to the applicant." 6. Section 14.05Remove redundant and grammatically incorrect word from Section 15.12(J): "If it is reasonably foreseeable possible that the street will be extended beyond the proposed dead end to connect to new development at some point in the future, the applicant shall provide a plat showing the street area to be returned to adjacent property owners when the extension occurs." 7. Section 15.12 Overlay Map: Remove symbol for Stormwater Overlay District from the Map. The Overlay District is already proposed to be removed in this set of amendments, this minor map change has no effect as the district itself is slated to be removed. 8. Overlay Map. Correct typos in Article 11 - Street Types: "it" to "its", corrected spelling of "ownership" Article 11 - Street Type Graphics Next Steps Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the draft updated report on the changes. As these are all substantively minor changes, and do not conflict with the enabling statute, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the report. The Plan is scheduled for a second Public Hearing on March 21, 2016. If any changes are made after that date, the Planning Commission will review those changes in the same manner it has here. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Updated Amendment & Adoption Report City Council Public Hearing March 21, 2016, 7:00 pm In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following updated report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 10, 2015, at 7:00 pm; the South Burlington City Council held a public hearing on December 21, 2015 at 7:00 pm. Both hearings were held in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT. The City Council, having made changes to the draft Regulations, has scheduled a second public hearing for March 21st to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. City Center Regulations / Form Based Codes (i) Establish City Center Form Based Codes District to replace Central Districts 1-4, Design Overlay Districts 1-3, and portions of C1-R12 and R4 Districts (ii) Establish Inclusionary Housing requirements in the City Center Form Based Codes area (iii) Establish Street Typologies B. Low Impact Development Stormwater Standards C. Zoning District changes (in addition to City Center Form Based Code District): (i) Minor adjustment to boundary of Industrial-Open Space and SEQ-NR Districts. D. Residential and Commercial Stretch Energy Code E. Review Process and Administrative Authority, Development Review Process, and applicability of review standards (i) Administrative responsibilities & actions: technical review, traffic, minor applications, appeals, certifications of occupancy, (ii) PUD / Site Plan standards and review process; (iii) Plan approval and permit expiry modifications 2 F. Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing; Group Homes G. Definitions, Uses, and Minor Amendments, and Technical Corrections (i) General revisions to definitions (ii) Revisions / adjustments to table of uses (iii) Consolidate application submission requirements (iv) Minor / technical revisions: location of Traffic Overlay Zone 3; landscaping applicability in structured parking; duplicate and conflicting height standard in the SEQ; composting facilities; accessory structures on structures on through-lots, tree selection standards; parking for studio / 1 bedroom units Changes to the Draft Land Development Regulations proposed by the City Council for March 21 Public Hearing The changes proposed by the City Council for consideration as part of the draft Land Development Regulations are as follows:  Update Appendix F, Open Space Requirements The City Council inserted the following (in red underlined): 1. With regards to Streetfront Open Space, require planting of trees. The landscaping row now reads: Slight, gentle, and undulating berms from 1-3 feet in height are encouraged to block views of parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is required. Include canopy trees whose branches are above the average visual line of sight, located throughout the space, with no more than 40 feet between any two such trees or between a tree and the street or parking area. Landscaping should aim to distract from parking beyond, but should not create dense walls of shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly encouraged. 2. With regards to Outdoor Seating and Cafes, incorporate interesting patterns of plants. The landscaping row now reads as: For optional separated seating areas, use planting boxes of interesting patterns of plants, open fences of less than 3 feet in height, or decorative and moveable bollards with decorative chain connectors. 3. With Regards to Playgrounds, require shade. The landscaping row now reads as: Appropriate ground material- rubber or woodchips. Plantings for articulation of space encouraged. Flat paved or concrete area for wheeled toys encouraged. Paved areas including space for basketball or other sport courts are encouraged and may be counted towards minimum required area of qualifying open space. Shade shall be provided in consultation with the Recreation Director. 3. With Regards to Playgrounds, direct location. The location and access row now reads as: Accessible from Public Right-of-Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. Should be centrally located and visually accessible to the greatest extent practicable. 4. Change the word ‘Mew’ to be more explicit. This former column is now shown as ‘Pedestrian Pass’.  Amend all references in document from ‘Mew’ to ‘Pedestrian Pass’.  Amend document for small typographical, grammatical, or consistency corrections. The City Council amended the plan to reflect the following minor typographical or grammatical errors: 3 1. Subsection numbering correction Section 8.04 - subsections 1 + 2 repeat, should read 5 + 6 Section 8.04 2. Spelling correction - "nowithstanding" to "notwithstanding" Section 8.10 C Section 8.10 C 3. Correct section reference in 13.16 (change 13.12 to 13.16) Section 13.16 4. Correct section number 14.05(F)(2)(b) - subsection (iv) is repeated and corrected to (vii) Section 14.05 5. Add missing word to Section 14.05(F)(2)(b)(v): "The purpose of this meeting is to give residents the opportunity to provide input and feedback to the applicant." 6. Section 14.05Remove redundant and grammatically incorrect word from Section 15.12(J): "If it is reasonably foreseeable possible that the street will be extended beyond the proposed dead end to connect to new development at some point in the future, the applicant shall provide a plat showing the street area to be returned to adjacent property owners when the extension occurs." 7. Section 15.12 Overlay Map: Remove symbol for Stormwater Overlay District from the Map. The Overlay District is already proposed to be removed in this set of amendments, this minor map change has no effect as the district itself is slated to be removed. 8. Overlay Map. Correct typos in Article 11 - Street Types: "it" to "its", corrected spelling of "ownership" Article 11 - Street Type Graphics A Note Regarding the New Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission would like to note that at the time of their preparation and approval of the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations, a substantially revised and updated draft Comprehensive Plan was undergoing a parallel adoption process. The original Report therefore addressed both the existing and the then-draft Comprehensive Plan. The requirements of this Report, as spelled out in 24 VSA 4441(c), contemplate an analysis of how amendments to a bylaw conform to and are consistent with the municipal plan in effect. In that light, the Commission’s updated analysis now focuses on the current Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. In recognition of the draft Plan that was in the adoption process as well, though, the Commission adds a note as to how the proposed amendments discussed herein relate to that new policy document. Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: (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. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” 4 A. City Center Regulations / Form Based Codes (i) Establish City Center Form Based Codes District to replace Central Districts 1-4, Design Overlay Districts 1-3, and portions of C1-R12 and R4 Districts (ii) Establish Inclusionary Housing requirements in the City Center Form Based Codes area (iii) Establish Street Typologies Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw A new Form Based Codes District for the City Center area is proposed, including the areas previously zoned as Central Districts 1-4, Commercial 1-Residential 12, and some areas previously in the Residential 4. The FBC District consists of transect zones that allow for different levels of intensity of development: T1, T3, T3+, T4, and T5. The FBC District places an emphasis on walkable, mixed-use development. New buildings must be adjacent to streets and have minimums and maximums for various elements of the structure: heights, windows, doorways, street frontage. Review of development proposals is largely administrative. All uses not specifically prohibited are permitted. Parking requirement are lowered from current standards, and there are no maximum residential densities. Open Space requirements emphasize quality, usable space for tenants and/or the public. Within the FBC District, 15% of all housing units (in developments of 12+ units) are required to meet a scaled affordability criteria, one third each to 80%, 100%, and 120% of median household income. All new and redeveloped streets must select from and be constructed to street type standards, with typical cross-sections depicted. (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 Form Based Code closely aligns with the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • From the 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan includes an updated Central District chapter which further advances the objectives and recommendations of the 2011 Plan. The proposed FBC District is closely in keeping with the draft Plan. “Objective 40. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic, and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” “Strategy 102. Use design review and/or form-based coding to promote the development of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian-focused and highly functional environments.” “Strategy 4. Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovating approaches to preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing, including…. inclusionary zoning…” 5 “Strategy 5. Increase the supply of safe and affordable housing by allowing higher-density, mixed use and mixed-income development with City Center and transit corridors, allowing multi-unit housing within transitional zones between residential neighborhoods and commercial / industrial uses.” The proposed Regulation also strongly advances the availability of safe and affordable housing, through both the elimination of maximum residential density standards in all transect zones and the establishment of a 15% affordable housing requirement for all residential development over 12 units. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed Form Based Codes District implements the future land use and densities of the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use land shows this area as City Center Mixed Use, Commercial, and Medium Density residential, with a transition, as in the FBC, to low density. • 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan includes an updated future Land Use Map that aligns closely with the intent and requirements of the draft FBC District. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The Form Based Codes District is coupled together with draft amendments to the Official Map to provide for the planned road, bicycle, and pedestrian network. The District also specifically allows for and includes a review procedure for municipal facilities. B. Stormwater Low Impact Development Standards Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw This section would replace the Stormwater Overlay District, which has applied for all development in the Bartlett Brook watershed for the past several years, with a city-wide standard. The new city- wide standard would set a threshold of ½ acre of disturbance / development to trigger stormwater management requirements (lower than the state’s 1 acre, but above anything that would affect single family homes in nearly all cases) and require, where possible, the use of Low Impact Development Techniques (ie, soaking of water into the ground on-site) for typical rainfalls. Related amendments include allowances for cuts in curbing, swales in front yards, and significant reductions in the minimum size of street cul-de-sacs and other turn-arounds. (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 section advances the Comprehensive Plan’s natural resources goals by promoting and requiring greater attention to stormwater discharge. The proposed amendment will not have a direct impact on the availability of safe and affordable housing, but, alongside other stormwater efforts, is reducing flooding incidence in 6 the city and meeting’s the City’s long term MS4 requirements which carry a significant cost to taxpayers. • 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan includes sections dedicated entirely to stormwater and Surface & Groundwater Resources. “Objective 25. Protect and improve watershed, stream, and wetland system natural processes, specifically for stormwater treatment, riparian and aquatic habitat, and floodplain and river corridor protection.” (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. C. Zoning District changes (in addition to City Center Form Based Code District): (i) Minor adjustment to boundary of Industrial-Open Space and SEQ-NR Districts. Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw A minor adjustment to the Industrial-Open Space and SEQ-NR districts is proposed. It would re- designate a small piece of land that is presently zoned I/O and which is physically separated from the remainder of the district by a stream. The land would be re-designed SEQ-NR, which is the same residential zoning that exists to the east, south, and west of this small piece of land. • 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan is consistent with the current Plan in its balancing of goals, objectives, and strategies related to development, scenic views, and wildlife corridors. (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 amendments, taken together with the overall legal settlement and land exchange, clearly advance the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The I/O to SEQ-NR amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for encouraging preservation of residential areas and compatibility of new development with existing residential areas. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. See discussion above. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. D. Residential and Commercial Stretch Energy Code Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw 7 The proposed regulation would require all new development, residential and commercial, to comply with the State of Vermont’s Stretch Energy Code and Guidelines. (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 bylaw advances the Plan’s energy conservation goals and recommendations. The Plan also includes a significant chapter on affordable housing. Long term affordability is a functional of the total costs of a household. The State’s Stretch Energy Code and Guidelines provide a wide range of ways to meet the standards forth within them. • 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan includes several key objectives and strategies directly implemented by the draft bylaw: “Objective 22. Achieve a reduction of 20% in carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions from 2009 levels by 2020 through an increase in renewable energy production and reductions in energy use in the following sectors: transportation, commercial/industrial, residential, municipal/school.” “Strategy 48. Develop incentives for existing and new buildings to meet or exceed state energy building code, Energy Star, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.” “Strategy 51. Promote energy efficiency through well-designed buildings, siting and landscaping, and encourage increased demand-side management programs and the use of site-specific renewable energy resources.” (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. E. Review Process and Administrative Authority, Development Review Process, and applicability of review standards (i) Administrative responsibilities & actions: technical review, traffic, minor applications, appeals, certifications of occupancy, (ii) PUD / Site Plan standards and review process; (iii) Plan approval and permit expiry modifications Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed bylaw includes a number of modifications related to review process and authority. Briefly: 8 o Removes requirement that a DRB specifically approve underground parking; with the change, it would be treated as any other parking is treated. o Removes requirement that a DRB specifically approve bus shelters; with the change, it would be treated as any other parking is treated. o Consolidates the majority of application submittal requirements to a single table from being scattered throughout the LDRs. Included in the consolidation was an evaluation and refinement of what is needed for each type of application. o Allows traffic generation to be determined by the Administrative Officer where the Administrative Officer has authority to review the remainder of the project. o Allows for most applications in the Airport District (Terminal Area) to be reviewed as Site Plans (1 step) vs Planned Unit Developments (3 steps) except where required to be PUDs. This was previously an additional process requirement above those in most other districts. o Clarifies expiration of approvals. Zoning permits are proposed to be extended from 6 months to 1 year expiry from the date of issuance, with a more specific standard for when effort has been made to initiate. DRB and Administrative officer plan approvals continue to expire after six months unless a longer term has been approved or a 1-year extension has been granted. Subdivisions do not expire once fully recorded; this change is made to reflect state law. o Clarifies authority of the Administrative Officer and adds that the Administrative Officer may invoke technical review of projects. o Clarifies that appeals of the Administrative Officer follow state law. o Requires a post-construction C.O. for inclusionary single and two-family homes in the City Center Form Based Codes district to ensure they have been built when required. o Applies certain review criteria located in the Subdivision chapter to Site Plans where applicable. (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 amendments are consistent with the Plan’s goals of providing for diverse land uses and needs within the community. These amendments are focused on (1) compliance with State law and (2) assuring an efficient and effective development review process. • 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan specifically enumerates efficiency strategies: “Strategy 15. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of City regulations relating to permitting with an eye towards ways to eliminate outdated or duplicative requirements and to further streamline the process of obtaining needed permits with a specific focus on improving predictability of the process. Move as much of the permitting process online as is viable to improve customer access and service.” (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. 9 F. Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing; Group Homes Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw These amendments include two elements: o Matching the City’s Land Development Regulations with the Statutory enabling laws in 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 in terms of residential care and group homes being considered single family homes under certain circumstances. The current LDRs largely meet this, but this amendment would match the wording exactly. o Replacing a number of unclear categories of housing within the current regulations – such as group homes that are not covered under 24 VSA Chapter 117, community residences and shelters, and others – with a new standard for “reasonable accommodation to ensure reasonable access to housing.” This new standard would highlight and provide a process for the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board (as applicable) to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to housing in accordance with Federal and State Fair Housing laws. (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 amendments are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to promote access to safe housing for all. • 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The draft Plan addresses the need for access to housing in its first Goal: “Affordable and Community Rich… Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life.” (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. G. Definitions, Uses, and Minor Amendments, and Technical Corrections (i) General revisions to definitions (ii) Revisions / adjustments to table of uses (iii) Consolidate application submission requirements (iv) Minor / technical revisions: location of Traffic Overlay Zone 3; landscaping applicability in structured parking; duplicate and conflicting height standard in the SEQ; composting facilities; accessory structures on structures on through-lots, tree selection standards; parking for studio / 1 bedroom units Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw A number of amendments are proposed. These include: o Allows for self-storage facilities in the Mixed IC district, outside of the transit-served areas; 10 o Allows for warehousing & storage in the Commercial 2, and Airport Districts; o Allows for pet grooming associated with other pet facilities; o A general “clean-up” of definitions, refining terms and eliminating duplicate terms, adding new terms for newer land uses. A focus of the changes was to create greater consistency with the terms in the Table of Uses (Appendix C); o Clarifies that Traffic Overlay Zone 3 is defined as shown on the Overlay District Map, as is done with the other two Zones; o Codifies that landscaping is not required for structured parking; o Adds compost to current recycling and trash pickup areas in preparing for upcoming statewide composting requirements; o In a previous set of amendments, height standards in SEQ districts were adjusted. A second reference to the former height standards were not removed at the time. This cleans up that oversight; o Relocates the section of Affordable Housing density bonuses for ease of readability, adjusts definition of affordable housing for rental units to be 80% of the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area median income rather than 65% of county median income, consistent with state definitions; o Clarifies that accessory structures on lots that front on two parallel streets may have the accessory structure in the “front yards” of the secondary street. This would allow for an accessory structure to be placed in what would generally be considered the property’s “back yard” as is permitted elsewhere; o Updates the references to guidelines for the selection of tree species, and specifically allows the City Arborist to make recommendations; o Lowers minimum parking citywide for studio / 1 bedroom dwelling units from 2.25 per unit to 1.25 per unit. (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 amendments are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The uses, in particular, have been reviewed for consistency with both the existing and draft Plans. All other amendments have little to no impact on the Plan and are consistent with the goals. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. March April 3/8 Meeting •Sus Ag LDR Amendments •Scenic Views Work •Discussion of Master Planning/PUD. •Invite DRB 3/22 Meeting •Invite Natural Resources Recreation and Leisure Arts, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Committees May 4/12 Meeting •Continue discussion of master planning/PUD •Consider outstanding requests for changes 4/26 Meeting •Possiblly warn public hearing for LDR amendments June 5/10 Meeting •Initiate a prioritized project 5/24 Meeting •Check in with Chamberlin Neighborhood project Outstanding requests to the Planning Commission: •Consider request for zoning change at South Village •Consider request for personal instruction studio in SEQ-VC •Consider Bill Shearer request for changes to lot coverage in C1-Auto SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  20 OCTOBER 2015    1    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 October   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. Gagnon, S. Quest, D.  MacDonald, A. Klugo     ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; B. Paquette,  D. Leban, P. O’Brien, J. Kochman, S. Darnell, G. Berdie, A. Phelps, A. Vogler, T. Chittenden, H.  Cockburn, B. & F. Burkhart, S. Basiliere, M. Merrill, B. Serviss, P. Nowak, M. Emery, D. Adamson,  Other Members of the Public    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:    No announcements or reports were made.    4. Public Hearing on Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan:    Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of the preparation of the Plan and previous public input  sessions.  She noted that after this public hearing, the Planning Commission will deliberate and  consider the comments made by the public.  Mr. Gagnon directed attention to a matrix of  public comments received so far which has been posted on the website.    Ms. Louisos then invited public comment.    Ms. Leban: On p. 37, regarding higher density development, she felt there should be  planning for more compact schools     On p. 69, she expressed a concern with compliance    With regard to transportation issues, she felt roads shouldn’t roll over natural  areas and wetlands    2      There should be an updated map of bike/pedestrian paths.    There needs to be reference to those who commute to work on bicycles.    The 2001 study for the Swift Street Extension is outdated, and there is a question  of wetlands.  She felt the study didn’t take into account the intersections that are already  functioning poorly.      p. 125 – should include Dorset Street and the Wheeler view corridor    p. 174 – use bike/pedestrian planning to discourage vehicles having a negative  effect on the park.    Ms. Darnell: Concerned about the “red dot” on Spear Street in the South Village  neighborhood.  She felt this is a residential zone, and that South Village is marketed as a “green  community.”  She was concerned with building of apartments which had some unintended  results, including decreasing the amount of money for the farm, people not being able to work  effectively with FHA and units that are not owner‐occupied.  She noted that a survey showed a  majority of people would be OK with a bakery, but that would open the door to other retail.   70% of residents oppose changing the zoning to allow commercial.  She didn’t feel South Village  could support a business, and it would mean attracting other people to the neighborhood,  thereby increasing traffic, etc.  She would support a retail service up to 3000 sq. ft. that would  be related to the farm venture and would benefit the farm.    Ms. Vogler: Expressed concern that the information they are getting from the developer of  South Village is “propaganda” and isn’t revealing that there would be rental units above the  commercial/retail spaces.  She felt that in the existing rental units, people don’t obey the rules,  let kids and dogs run loose, etc.    Mr. O’Brien: Wanted to know if there is a use that South Village people would support.    Mr. Berdie:  Was the first resident to move into South Village, and there was no mention then  of commercial activity.  Concerned about increased traffic and parking issues and the negative  impact on the neighborhood.    Mr. O’Brien asked about process.  Ms. Louisos said the Commission will work through public  comments and then forward the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council for their process.  Ms.  Harrington added that any changes in zoning would require changes to the Land Development  Regulations (LDRs).  That would require a whole new series of hearings.      3    Mr. O’Brien: In the previous Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that these small commercial areas  were thought of in the past.  There are other “red dots” on Hinesburg Road, etc.  He felt there  should be similar areas on all the north/south routes to allow people to stop for milk, etc. on  the way home.  He said their concept is for a neighborhood store (bakery, little restaurant,  etc.).  He added that it was a mistake to roll out some “massive plans.”  He said they would go  to the residents and say there will be only an agreed upon set of uses.  He noted that the farm  struggles because of poor soils.    A resident: Asked if there would be apartments above the retail uses.    Mr. O’Brien: If it was up to him, there would not.  He envisioned a small office area, an art  studio, etc.  He also noted that with current zoning, they could build a 12‐plex in that location,  and they would be apartment units.    Mr. Cockburn: There are commercial uses 5 minutes away.  They are not needed in South  Village.  He felt that if commercial uses are allowed, the developer could put anything in there.    Mr. Merrill: Agreed with other South Village people.  Said that to change it now would be to  “bait and switch.”    Ms. Basiliere: Doesn’t agree with a lot of the uses the developer proposes.  Would prefer a  community center where some of those uses could happen (yoga studio, etc.).  She said that a  farmstand would be OK because there is a farm.      Mr. Conner explained state law regarding agriculture and what might be allowed.    Ms. Burkhart: Was concerned that the education section of the plan hasn’t been updated and  that it appears a land swap with the city and schools is a done deal.  She wanted a vote on  whether to transfer school property.    Ms. Nowak explained that at the last City Council meeting, the Council unanimously supported   that if there is to be any school land swap action, that it go to a public vote.    Mr. Adamson: Was concerned with the process, and that it is hard to track changes from the  old Comprehensive Plan to the new one.  Suggested a “track change of function” so people can  see this.      4    Resident: Stonehedge resident who works at the Airport.  Noted that the proposed rec  path along the security fence is likely to be opposed by the Air Guard (northwest side that  connects from the Dog Park to the sewage treatment plant).    Ms. Nowak noted the presence of 3 City Councilors at the meeting.  They do not intend to  weigh in on anything other than to make any needed clarifications.    Mr. Paquette: On p. 259, he suggested making the language strong to support lessening of  Airport noise impact and to take into account potential health issues.  He questioned whether  new zoning will take into consideration the noise levels and whether the city would allow new  housing in the noise zone.    Ms. Serviss: Asked the Commission to look seriously at bike/rec paths.  She felt complete  streets doesn’t work.  Bicyclists “run over” people on Williston Road walkways.  She asked the  Commission to think about pedestrians and do something safe for them.    Ms. Kochman: On p. 224, recreation also has a need for indoor activities.  She asked that  “recreation” be removed from the parentheses and put in the next sentence.    Ms. Louisos noted that the Education section of the plan is being rewritten by 2 Commission  members who served on the City/Schools Task Force.  She asked them for comment.    Mr. Klugo said their work is not quite ready for public comment.  Their intent is not to speak to  any specific recommendations but to the challenges being faced.  He noted that they did  submit something for Commission consideration today.  Mr. Conner said the Commission could  look at this and possibly post it on the website for public comment.  He suggested keeping the  public hearing open for such comments.    Ms. Louisos noted receipt of written comments from Shelly Rayback, Liz Robert, and Mike  Simoneau.    Mr. Conner said staff had fixed several minor grammatical errors and typos.  The Police and Fire  Departments did some minor updating.  There was also an update of transportation projects for  the city and additional language for indoor recreation facilities.  The next draft will include all of  these updates.    Mr. Burkhart: Ask that there be significant public notice when the Education Section is  available for comment.    5      Mr. Gagnon then moved to continue the public hearing until Tuesday 27 October at 7 p.m., for  the purpose of reviewing the Education section of the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Harrington  seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    5. Review  Feedback provided on draft Comprehensive Plan; discuss possible  amendments:    a. Technical corrections completed by staff:    This was already addressed.    b. Staff‐received changes based on prior Commission discussions:    This was previously addressed.    Mr. Gagnon suggested going through the education section so it can be posted on the website.    Mr. Klugo said they organized the section by 1) Existing Conditions, 2) Analysis, 3) Future Needs.    Mr. Gagnon felt it was a good job and maintained that this is an ongoing process and provides a  good indication of where things now stand.    Mr. Riehle questioned whether single family homes or apartment units would provide more  students for the schools.  Mr. Klugo said the issue is that after children in single family homes  have grown up and moved on, the older parents remain in the homes, and the single family  homes are no longer provided students to the school system.  Apartment units tend to have  more frequent turnover.  Mr. Conner said it is also a question of the number of bedrooms in a  unit.    Ms. LaRose said they want to present accurate numbers regarding school populations.    Mr. Conner stressed the need to acknowledge that there is a separately elected body that is  responsible for education, even though the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by the City Council.   He added that staff will do the edits and check on numbers with Superintendent Young, and  then post the draft on the website.      6    Ms. Harrington questioned “school population” and “school capacity” being such different  numbers.  Mr. Klugo said that it a concern of the School Certification people as more square  footage is now needed per student.  Mr. Conner said they will get wording for that.    c. Community Feedback:    Ms. Louisos asked if members felt there is anything that needs changing.    Mr. Gagnon cited the numerous comments and letters regarding the map and whether to show  potential zoning for South Village.      Ms. Quest asked Mr. Conner to check on what the farm would allow and what would be  allowed in a community center, which is an allowable use.  Mr. Conner thought it would be  more of a “for profit” vs. “not for profit” situation.  Ms. Quest asked if there is another zoning  that would allow some small commercial use that people seem to be OK with.  Mr. Conner said  the question is whether that could be in other locations such as Mayfair Park, the Orchards,  etc., or whether it should be somewhere more compact.    Ms. Harrington said she didn’t feel that people understood that there could be more density  there with what is now allowed.    Mr. Klugo said he is a strong supporter of mixed use; however, in this development, where the  developer is still in control, he felt the community needs to be built out as it is now approved.   He was not comfortable with an orange or red dot.  Until the community is built out, and the  residents have the upper hand, it should stay as it is.    Ms. LaRose encouraged members to look at the more specific language in the plan and ask  what is the “general intensity” they want and whether all red or yellow areas are the intensity.   Mr. Klugo acknowledged they are not, but they define the kinds of uses.  He felt there is no  need for a red dot, because it is already allowed in the yellow area.  He felt it was not part of  the disclosures to the people who bought into South Village.    Ms. Harrington didn’t favor the higher intensity and felt that multi‐units were not what that  area is for.  Ms. Louisos felt there should be more orange, if there are going to be more 10‐12  units buildings.  Mr. Klugo said that by changing the color, they would be giving the expectation  that the zoning will change to meet what the color allows.  He didn’t think it needs to be  anything but yellow in South Village.  Mr. Gagnon had no problem with all yellow.  Members  were OK with that.    7      Mr. Conner said they tried to connect green areas where they could.  One feedback was to  indicate some connections where they are not obvious.  She showed this on the map.  He  suggested connecting the green all the way to the Lake.  He also indicated an area near the  Cider Mill where the green area will have to be narrowed a bit.    Ms. Quest said she would like to boil down Mr. Paquette’s comments regarding reducing litter.   Mr. Klugo said there are costs involved in this, and he questioned how to promote that this is  something people should do without having to “pay to be clean.”  Mr. Conner suggested that  this should be in the quality of life objectives/strategies.    Mr. Conner noted he met with the Bike/Pedestrian Committee and made some changes; one  suggestion is to work on Patchen Road to slow things down.    Members then considered the “mix of housing” requirement in the Southeast Quadrant.  Mr.  Klugo said “requiring” is not appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan and suggested  “implementing” as an alternative.    Mr. Conner then noted the City Council has asked to meet with the Commission on 12  November.  Staff supports this date.  Members felt they would like to read through comments  to see if there is anything else they would like to address.   Mr. Gagnon suggested working on  the Top 5 concerns and focusing on the “big stuff” and letting staff do the little things.    Mr. Conner noted the Commission will need to see a draft with all the changes so they can vote  it out.       Mr. Conner said staff will flag what they think is critical.  He noted specifically a policy  statement around the acquisition of homes in the Chamberlin/Airport neighborhood, which will  not be addressed until the Chamberlin/Airport Committee finishes its work.    6. Other Business:    a. Upcoming Meetings:    Members agreed to a short meeting on 3 November with other meetings on 27 October, 10  November and 12 November (with the City Council).      8    7. Minutes of 22 September (Noon meeting), 22 September (7 p.m. meeting) and 3  October:    Ms. Quest moved to approve all minutes as presented.  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 10:05 p.m.             ___________________________________        Clerk        JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION  12 NOVEMBER 2015          The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Thursday,  12 November 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.  MEMBERS PRESENT: City Council: P. Nowak, Chair; H. Riehle, C. Shaw, M. Emery, T. Chittenden  Planning Commission: J. Louisos, Chair, D. Macdonald, B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Harrington, S.  Quest  ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City  Planner; J. Kochman, C. Snyder, B. Nowak   1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:  No changes were made to the Agenda.    2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda:  A member of the public expressed concern with balance on committees, specifically that a  person in the development profession would be on a board making development regulations.   He felt this was a conflict of interest.    3. Introductions and welcome:  Ms. Nowak stressed that this meeting was not a public hearing.  The Council may ask questions  of the Commission that will result in Commission members coming back with responses.  The  process going forward will also be addressed.    4. Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Report approv3ed by the Planning  Commission on 3 November 2015:  Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission had voted unanimously to pass the draft  Comprehensive Plan on to the Council.  She thanked current and past members as well as staff  for their work on the Plan.  This is a complete rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, the first since 2001.  It addresses State  requirements as well as community goals.  Ms. Louisos said the Commission tried to keep in  mind that the Comprehensive Plan is at “the 50,000 foot level.”  It can be used for seeking      JOINT CITY COUNCIL‐PLANNING COMMISSION  12 NOVEMBER 2015  PAGE 2    grant funding, at Act 250, for development, etc.  The document should not be construed as a  regulatory document.    Ms. Louisos then outlined the format of the Plan.  It begins with an Executive Summary then  presents the visions and goals.  The first major section is a community assessment, including  social infrastructure (population, housing, economy, community facilities, etc.), grey  infrastructure (transportation, public utilities, energy, etc.), blue infrastructure (water  resources) and green infrastructure (ecological, historic, cultural, recreation and agricultural  resources).  There are goals and strategies for each of these categories.    The community assessment is followed by a section on Achievements and Ongoing Actions.   Some things in this section may say “…continue to…” and are not necessarily action items.    The land use plan then follows and includes current and future land use planning.  It is divided  into planning areas which include: Central District, northwest, northeast, southwest, and  southeast districts, and some special multi‐district issues.    Ms. Nowak felt the way the plan is presented is excellent.  She particularly cited the color‐ coding and the ease of going through the plan.  She applauded the work that went into this and  also the input taken from the public.  Ms. Riehle commented that she found it enjoyable to  read.    Ms. Louisos noted that there are occasional “competing goods,” such as connecting roads.    Mr. Chittenden asked about comments from the Chittenden County Regional Planning  Commission (CCRPC).  Mr. Conner explained that state laws require a report on how the plan  addresses statewide planning goals and an evaluation of this by the CCRPC.  Mr. Conner also  noted that there was input from other agencies (e.g., CCTV, Stormwater Utility, etc.) as well.    Ms. Harrington then reviewed the public outreach including listening sessions with the public  (daytime, evening and weekend sessions), e‐mail and written comments (more than 250),  reports from other committees (e.g., Sustainable Agriculture, Recreation, Affordable Housing,  etc.).        JOINT CITY COUNCIL‐PLANNING COMMISSION  12 NOVEMBER 2015  PAGE 3    The goals of the Plan are stated in a format that begins: “Here and in the future, South  Burlington is…”  The goals are then divided into the following categories:    a. Affordable and community strong  b. Walkable  c. Green and clean  d. Opportunity oriented    There are specific objectives under each of these goals.    Ms. Nowak commented that she was on the State Environmental Board and saw many  Comprehensive Plans, but she never saw one done this way.  She thought it was excellent. Ms.  Louisos cited the work of the staff in accomplishing this.    Mr. Gagnon then reviewed the Future Land Use Map.  He noted that future land use is  identified in terms of intensity, not just density.  It looks at building heights, closeness to  roadways, design, etc.  The Map provides guidance to the Land Development Regulations  (LDRs).  Mr. Gagnon then reviewed the “color coding,” representing stages from very low  intensity (green) to very high intensity mainly non‐residential (red).  The Chamberlin/Airport  area has been left with no color as there is currently a committee working on a concept for the  future of that neighborhood. When their work is done, the area(s) will be appropriately  colored.    Ms. Harrington directed attention to the narratives that further define the various areas.    Mr. Gagnon then identified specific areas that the Commission focused on.  He also stressed the  “fuzziness” of the lines between areas, reflecting the fact that uses can “bleed.”    Ms. Nowak noted that an area of light red in South Village was removed.  Mr. Gagnon said a lot  of residents of that area did not want that higher density.      Regarding the education section, Mr. Conner noted that the State requires a section regarding  public schools (he read the state planning goal regarding education).          JOINT CITY COUNCILL‐PLANNING COMMISSION  12 NOVEMBER 2015  PAGE 4    Ms. Louisos noted the Commission got a lot of feedback on east‐west roads, especially the Swift  Street Extension.  Mr. Conner noted this road has been in the plan since at least 1996.  Ms.  Nowak asked how most roads in the city are built.  Mr. Conner said the overwhelming majority  are built by the private sector in conjunction with developments, though the city occasionally  initiates the building of a road.    Mr. Shaw asked about places where the Comprehensive Plan and Official City Map don’t line  up.  Mr. Conner said the Plan gives very broad guidance. The Map is a legal document that is an  accompaniment to the LDRs.  He then explained how the Official City Map can be used.    5. Discussion of Draft Comprehensive Plan:  Mr. Shaw asked what was added since the last draft.  Ms. Louisos and Mr. Conner indicated the  Education section, expansion to the “Compatibility” section to relate the plan to adjoining  communities, very fine editing, a few new strategies (city cleanliness, east‐west roads), some  scenic vistas (to the maps), and updated maps with more clarity.  Ms. LaRose stressed the amount of time the Commission spent dealing with recommendations  from the three interim zoning committees and other committees (e.g., Energy) as well.  Mr. Conner said the plan is now in the hands of the City Council.  Any changes are in the  Council’s province.  Ms. Kochman noted that the Recreation/Leisure Arts Committee will be reviewing some  changes that they are going to recommend.  Mr. Chittenden stressed that the Plan is a living document which can evolve over time.  Mr. Gagnon said the Commission plans to track all the comments it received and will revisit  some of the issues they feel need more work.  Mr. Conner then reviewed the history of revisions to the Plan over the years.  He said it is the  nature of a plan that it can actually be “out of date” before it is adopted.  The Plan tries to have  “broad enough shoulders” to be effective for several years.  6. Consider Council Review, public hearing, and adoption process & schedule:  Ms. Nowak noted the Council will have 2 public hearings, and there may be issues they will      JOINT CITY COUNCIL‐PLANNING COMMISSION  12 NOVEMBER 2015  PAGE 5    want to discuss with the Commission.  There could also be a work session with the staff. The  public can be present at any of these sessions.    Mr. Conner said the Council must hold 2 public hearings, the first one no sooner than 30 days  from now.  If after the second public hearing there are substantive changes, there will have to  be a third public hearing.  Any changes, other than typographical corrections, must be supplied  to the City Clerk and the Planning Commission.  The Commission must evaluate the changes in  light of State planning regulations.  Mr. Conner suggested that the Council gather all of its  comments into one document for the Planning Commission.  He suggested that changes be  made at the first public hearing and that the second public hearing be warned with those  changes.    7. Possible Warning of City Council Public Hearings on Draft 2016 Comprehensive  Plan:    Ms. Emery moved to warn the first public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan as presented to  the City Council for 15 December 2015, at 6:30 p.m.  Mr. Shaw seconded.  Motion passed  unanimously.    8. Draft Amendments to Land Development Regulations: update and status report  from Planning Commissioners:    Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission approved the draft LDRs on Tuesday, and they will be  coming to the Council.    Mr. Conner stressed that there are amendments related to the JM Golf land swap agreement  which will need to be completed by the end of December.  He said the Council can warn a  public hearing on just that section and recommended that they do this.    Mr. Conner said the Council will receive the draft LDRs at its upcoming Monday meeting.  They  can then decide when they would like a presentation from the Commission.              JOINT CITY COUNCIL‐PLANNING COMMISSION  12 NOVEMBER 2015  PAGE 6    9. Other Business:    Ms. Nowak asked for hard copies of the Comprehensive Plan as that will make it easier to  follow the color coding.    As there was no further business to come before the Council and Commission, Ms. Riehle  moved to adjourn.  Mr. Chittenden seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.  The meeting was  adjourned at 8:50 p.m.         ________________________________       Clerk     SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 DECEMBER 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 December 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. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Quest asked if a road is on the official city map, can a developer just build it. Mr. Conner explained that it would be part of a development project. Typically, something of that scale would go through a traffic study by the developer and probably an independent technical review. Mr. Conner added that when it is on the official city map, it is considered to be a policy of the city. He noted that the Swift St. Extension has been in every Comprehensive Plan since 1960. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos said she had advised the City Council that the Commission has received the final report from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee. Mr. Riehle distributed an article regarding making a living from small plots of land. Ms. Quest said she attended an energy-related event that included workshops on climate change. Ms. Harrington reported that at last night’s City Council meeting she provided the background regarding the J.M. Golf amendments. A question was raised regarding whether the 2011 vote was binding or non- binding. The Council is asking for guidance on this from the City Attorney and will take up the issue again on 21 December. Mr. Conner: attended a meeting last week regarding a possible homeless shelter in South Burlington. The City Council and School Board are hearing a discussion regarding the potential legalization of marijuana and what could happen if that legislation goes through including impacts on the real estate market (e.g., warehousing space). Will attend the Planners Workshop on Friday. The focus is on stormwater. 2 At last night’s City Council meeting, the Air Guard answered questions regarding noise and how various parties can work together on these issues. The City Council also had a presentation from the Chair of the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee regarding a park at Baycrest. Mr. Conner noted the Comprehensive Plan includes an objective for a park within a quarter mile of homes. Staff is looking to put a renewal of the New Town Center before the City Council, expanding the area to include UMall. This would allow TIF funds to be used on additional properties. The DRB has gotten large applications for development on Shelburne Road, one from Eric Farrell for 65 housing units and one from Larkin for housing units, an extended stay hotel and some commercial (with a parking garage). 4. Discuss Planning and Work Priorities for 2016-7: Members were asked to brainstorm whatever is on their minds so that at the next meeting the Commission can set its objectives for the next 18 months. The following ideas were presented: a. Official map/east-west roads b. Master Plan criteria c. View criteria d. Food hubs/farm stores e. South Village f. TDRs city-wide g. Neighborhood nodes h. Form based codes city-wide i. Areas that are “irreversible” (parks, open space; allowing for creative development; small parks, places to meet the changing demographics and needs of an urban area) Mr. Klugo cited the need to plan for the layout for this so there is an expectation of where there will be parks, etc. j. Transportation, interconnection of parks, etc.; multi-modal transportation k. Building along revers; erosion concerns; river corridor standards l. Permit fees (be competitive but not just “average” m. Revenue overall n. Redefine open space so that it is usable and quality, city-wide o. “what’s missing where?” p. Sustainable Agriculture items q. Address Act 250/master plan loopholes r. Solar farms planning/siting in green areas s. Usable open space 3 t. Redevelopment, how to allow greater densities outside of City Center; infill u. Business parks – dynamic mix of uses v. How to link all the city’s efforts together w. Proactive on future development of waterfront x. Consider redefining density by square footage instead of units y. Finish natural resource protective standards z. Meet with DRB regarding issues that arise in hearings aa. Update traffic overlay districts bb. Building heights in higher density areas cc. Industrial-open space: be sure there is space for “industry” dd. Form based code edits ee. Parking standards ff. Public/private investments gg. Affordable housing outside City Center hh. Shelburne Road issues Mr. Conner suggested ways to prioritize these considerations including: timing, relative size of the project, what’s related, reducing the tax burden, legal exposure, things already in the “hopper,” funding availability. Mr. Klugo questioned how to do the long-range, proactive things while focusing on the immediates. Mr. Conner felt that was a good discussion for the Commission to have. He added that staff issued an RFQ for “on call” planning services to be able to more effectively complete projects. Regarding requests for amendments to the LDRs from the community, it is up to the Commission as to how to schedule requests that come in and how to manage their time. 5. CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program projects: status reports on current projects and review proposed FY17 requests: Mr. Conner reminded the Commission that every year they come up with a list of grant requests for the Council to consider and approve. He said that he had spoken with the Regional Planning Commission regarding some potential ones for next year. He asked members to review the list and decide their priorities at the next meeting. One thing staff will be asking for is a revision of the impact fee ordinance. 6. Other Business: a. Upcoming Meetings: The next meeting is on 15 December with the City Council to address the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Louisos will work with staff on this. 4 7. Minutes of 20 October and 24 November 2015: It was noted that in the minutes of 20 October, p. 4, the name of the person from the Airport was Amanda Corrente. On the top of p. 6, it was noted that the amount of square footage required per child has changed. In the middle of that page, regarding South Village, the sentence should read “…residents have control of the HOA.” In the minutes of 24 November, p. 4, Ms. Louisos had noted that with regard to one-story buildings, there already are a few. It was also agreed to strike the last line in the second paragraph on p. 3. Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 20 October and 24 November as amended. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner reminded members that there is no meeting on 22 December. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be on 12 January 2016. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  26 JANUARY 2016    1    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 January    2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. Macdonald, A.  Klugo     ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Jeffers, T.  McKenzie, 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. Jeffers noted that a much scaled down plan for a “village commercial” area in South Village has  been submitted.  She said many people in South Village want a market and a café but not “open”  commercial.  She asked if there is a possibility of moving this forward.    Ms. Louisos said it is on the Commission’s list.  The Commission has been focused on the Comprehensive  Plan and LDRs and can now plan upcoming tasks.  Mr. Gagnon said he would like to hear support from  the residents.                                                      3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports:    Mr. Riehle: Distributed an article from the New Yorker regarding “How Trees Calm Us Down.”    Mr. Klugo: Attended the UMall presentation.  Ms. LaRose said she also attended and found it very  complimentary to South Burlington staff and city boards.  Mr. Klugo noted that “place making” is  different from what was presented across the road.  Mr. McKenzie said the Form Based Code  Committee saw UMall as a very important anchor to City Center.  He was also very impressed by Todd  Finard’s presentation.    Mr. Conner: Cited a lot of efforts at the gateway to City Center with a lot of energy happening.  The  City Manager is working on a time for Todd Finard to present to the City Council, possibly this Monday.     The City Council will have a work session on LDRs and a second public hearing on the  Comprehensive Plan on Monday, 1 February.    4. Review December 21 meeting of City Council regarding Draft LDRs and Official Map:    2      Ms. Quest was pleased the Council was not changing things.      Ms. Louisos noted there was not much public comment, possibly because the Commission had so much  comment.    Mr. McKenzie asked whether his questions regarding a Master Plan type tool would be discussed by the  Council.  Mr. Conner noted that the Commission has made it a first priority to address those issues, and  has recommended that the Council move ahead with the draft FBC as is and have such a tool be added  in the not too distant future.  Ms. Quest asked if the consultant has been hired.  Mr. Conner said they  are in the final stages of that process.    5. Continued Discussion of Planning & Work Priorities for 2016‐17:    Ms. Louisos briefly reviewed thoughts from the last meeting.      Mr. Gagnon asked about permit fees and the South Village request.  Mr. Conner said the Commission  could ask the City Council to look at permit fees.  The topic was brought up by Councilors at the budget  presentations, so the Council aware.    Mr. Conner then directed attention to the Commission’s list of possible projects.  He noted that LDR  Clean‐up, as an item, will always be a “work in progress.”  With regard to TDR Connections, staff will be  brining something to the Commission in the near future.  Natural Resource Standards are 70%  completed.  There is still a fair amount of work to do, especially on the part of staff and the consultant,  specifically how to measure some of the standards.  Staff might bring some options to the Commission  which could entail parts of 3 or more meetings (not consecutively).    Mr. Conner stressed that the Commission can decide on a priority that does not have funding.  It could  help staff “ramp up” for the next funding opportunity.    Ms. Quest said she though Sustainable Ag and Food Hubs could be knocked off in 15‐20 minutes.    Mr. Conner noted that over the next 3‐4 months, the Commission already has 70% of its “band width”  prioritized.  After that, it is more wide open.  If some project(s) get funding by the RPC, the Commission  could add them at that time.    Mr. Klugo felt the Commission should address things that are “irreversible,” so a chance isn’t missed.   Mr. Macdonald felt that Shelburne Rd. and the waterfront are in the “irreversible” category.    Mr. Riehle asked if there are committees in place that could continue/begin some of the work.  He said  it was very helpful when committees brought their findings to the Commission.  Mr. Conner said the  Commission could invite committees or their representatives to come in and talk about a specific    3    project.  Mr. Gagnon said he would like to hear from the Bike/Ped Committee as there are several things  on the “new projects” list that relate to them.  Mr. Klugo suggested a South Village Committee of  residents that could bring to the Commission what they want for their area.  Mr. Riehle said it would be  nice to have a sub‐committee start work on business parks/industrial zoning.  Ms. LaRose cautioned  members that even if work goes to a sub‐committee, there is still staff time involved.    It was noted that there is currently a Chamberlin/Airport Neighborhood Committee.  Ms. Harrington  represents the Commission on that committee.  They will be reporting to the Commission at some point.   Mr. Conner said they are slated to wrap up their work at the end of June.  This will probably get onto the  Commission calendar after the start of the third quarter.    With regard to Post Adoption Form Based Code adjustments, Mr. Conner said that potential is ongoing.   It would become a high priority when someone comes to the Commission with a specific concern.  Mr.  Gagnon asked if changes to the Form Based Code require public hearings, warnings, etc.  Mr. Conner  said they do.  He suggested late spring for the next round of amendments.  Mr. Klugo suggested a  possible sub‐committee for this.    It was noted that there is now no committee working specifically on affordable housing though there is  a newly appointed committee to address a “housing trust.”    Ms. Louisos noted there is funding for a Master Plan/PUD Standards consultant.  Mr. Conner asked how  far the Commission would want to go with this….City Center?  Other large properties?  Redevelopment  projects?  The grant for this is approximately $20,000, and the total in the proposed FY17 for all  consultant work is $60,000, most of which is the “match” for the RPC projects the city has applied for.   There may be $10,000‐20,000 not previously assigned.    Mr. Gagnon felt they could do the City Center Master Planning plus the start of one more project.  If the  city gets more RPC funding, they could add Shelburne Rd. and the waterfront.    Mr. Klugo cited his reluctance to address Mr. McKenzie’s concerns when the issue is one of cost, not  something that can’t be done.  He noted that the Form Based Code hasn’t been tested yet.  Ms. Louisos  said she didn’t see it as lowering the bar.  Mr. Gagnon said he saw it as supporting creativity.  Mr. Riehle,  who served on the Form Based Code Committee, said there is a need to be fluid.  There are situations  the Committee didn’t think of.  He felt a Master Plan was a great idea.  He noted the city is seeing more  and more creative development.  Mr. Macdonald said he saw Master Planning as a way to reward  creativity.  Ms. Harrington said she agreed with Mr. Klugo.    Mr. Conner said he has spoken with a number of property owners in City Center.  Some are presenting  major visions of re‐development.  In order to make that work, they see some things on which they need  a “tweak.”  It may be a difference between being able to move forward in a timely manner and being  delayed.  Mr. Klugo said he would want them to tell the Commission what the challenges are rather than  having a Master Planning tool.  Mr. Conner said that one “master planning tool” could be a legislative    4    process for property owners to make a case for an alteration.  Mr. Chittenden suggested calling it an  “exception process for larger scale projects.”  Mr. Conner suggested “alternative” instead of  “exception.”    Mr. Conner noted that UMall is talking about adding 600,000 square feet.  They have said they might not  be able to meet every letter of the regulations.    Mr. Klugo felt that creativity shouldn’t be limited based on the scale of the project.    Ms. LaRose said this is 60‐70% “exploratory.  You can’t know the “fix” until you know the problems.    Commissioners discuss the areas in terms of “risk” of development in the nearer term under current  regulations. Mr. Conner was asked to enumerate some areas that involve this “risk”:    a. K‐Mark Plaza (which is currently empty)  b. City Center (where the clock/TIF is ticking)  c. Hill Farm (where there will be a development proposal)  d. Industrial area (which has its own risks)    Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission told the City Council they would look at some kind of flexibility  with regard to City Center.      Ms. LaRose noted that there is no Form Based Code beyond City Center.  So the time‐line for things  outside City Center is different from things within City Center.    Mr. Riehle asked if there are zoning issues outside City Center.  Mr. Conner said that in some ways,  traditional zoning has been written in a manner “protects against the bad, but doesn’t necessarily  promote the good.”    Mr. Conner explained that UMall is in the Form Based Code district, but not now in the TIF district.  He  further explained the history of this.  There may be a recommendation made to the Planning  Commission/City Council to add UMall to the TIF district in the near future.    Members prepared an initial outline their potential priorities as follows:     City Center   Shelburne Road   Agriculture   Waterfront   Hill Property   O’Brien Property    5     Business Parks    There was a brief discussion of the risks involved in each of the options.  Mr. Conner and Ms. LaRose  stressed that progress in City Center is a top priority for the City Council.    Ms. Louisos felt the next step should be to collect information on issues that people have with City  Center and determine which could be “tweaked” and which might require Master Planning.    Mr. Klugo described this work as having a “part A” and a “part B.” Part A is having underlying  regulations, and part B is having a tool for creativity.    Mr. Conner suggested doing the “creative tool” first for City Center.  Mr. Gagnon suggested doing “part  B of City Center, then part A open space/undeveloped, then part A redevelopment (e.g., K‐Mart Plaza).     Mr. Conner suggested doing part B of City Center with the consultant and if there is money left, part A  open space (Hill Farm and O’Brien).  If additional funding is granted, part A of redevelopment can be  next.    Ms. Louisos noted the Hill Farm people have been to the Commission and are not happy with some of  the zoning, and that the Planning Commission has made changes to the Future Land Use Map.  Ms.  LaRose said the existing regulations and the Planning Commission goals are the furthest apart there.      Mr. Klugo asked if the Form Based Code could be applied to K‐Mart as a “stop‐gap.”  Mr. Conner said  there are questions: street network, T4 of T5, etc.  There would also have to be assurance that there is  no issue of spot zoning.    Mr. Conner added that the breadth of what can happen there is very wide.    Mr. Conner felt staff had a place to start and suggested having staff flesh this out for the next meeting.   He also said they would find a night for South Village to come in as well as some other “tweaking”  things.     Mr. Conner noted that 8 March has been suggested as a possible joint meeting with the DRB.    As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 10:00 p.m.             ___________________________________        Clerk