Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 05/23/2017
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 MAY 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 May 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Hilton, intern (via telephone); S. Murray 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Conner: Staff is interviewing candidates to replace Lindsey Britt. There are plans to put windows into the 2 other conference rooms in City Hall. 5. Presentation of initial findings on R4 Front Yard setback analysis: Mr. Hilton (via phone) explained that he used GIS data to measure setbacks from property lines on several streets in the city. Some of the results were: Baldwin Avenue: 27 properties measured (30 feet is the setback requirement from the right-of-way Average setback 27 feet 26% of setbacks were 30 feet or more 48% were 25-29 feet 19% were 20-24 feet 7% were less than 20 feet Homes in the area were built betwee4n 1954-57 (prior to current zoning standards) Sebring Road: 21 properties Average setback 33 feet 56% were 30 feet or more 10% were 25-29 feet 25% were 20-24 feet 13% were less than 20 feet Most homes were built between 1959 and 1968 Southview Drive: 13 properties Average setback 28 feet 46% were 30 feet or more 15% were 25-29 feet 31% were 20-24 feet Homes were built between 1955 and 1977 or 2002-2004 White Street: 56 properties were measured Average setback 31 feet 36% were 30 feet or more 23% were 25-29 feet 18% were 20-24 feet 23% were less than 20 feet The majority of homes were built between 1928 and 1972 Chamberlin Neighborhood: 345 properties Average setback 26 feet There are 2 setback rules in the neighborhood, 50 feet or 30 feet. A graph was shown indicating where properties fall within the neighborhood. The majority are 30 feet or more. On streets with a 30-foot setback rule, the average setback from the right-of-way is 27 feet. 28% are 30 feet or more; 23% are 25-29 feet; 28% are 20-24 feet, 16% are 15-19 feet; 5% are 0 to 14 feet. Mr. Conner noted that 50% of the homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming. On streets with a 50-foot setback rule (Airport Parkway and Patchen Road), the average setback is 26 feet on Airport Parkway and 21 feet on Patchen Road. Almost no homes have more than a 40-foot setback, and 30% of homes have less than 20 feet. Mr. Klugo asked if any consideration was given to the width of the lots. Mr. Conner noted that the Southeast Quadrant has a minimum depth to width ratio. Mr. Conner noted that at present all that can be done in the Chamberlin neighborhood is a 5-foot set of front steps. The CNAP Committee was concerned with having front porches to create more of a neighborhood feel. This made staff consider the goal of the 30-foot setback. It had been to create a feeling of openness, but Mr. Conner wasn’t sure that is as important a goal today. Mr. Klugo noted that in his neighborhood nobody uses their front porches. Mr. Conner responded that on Market Street, where there are no back yards, people use their front porches regularly. He suggested members think about this information. 6. Planned Unit Development and Master Plan Project: Phase II: Ms. Murray said they have done a detailed review of the LDRs regarding waivers, modifications, etc. She noted that Master Plans are not all that common, and South Burlington is one of the few communities that has a Master Plan provision. Under the current regulations, Master Plans are allowed for projects of 10 acres or more. Ms. Murray said they will be recommending Master Plans for all PUDs and for any project developed in phases. She noted this would not apply to the Form Based Code district as review is more of an administrative process. Ms. Murray then outlined the purpose of a Master Plan as follows: a. Outline overall scope of development b. Conform to specific Comprehensive Plan objectives c. Complement the surrounding area d. Establishes or retains site connectivity e. Incorporates significant site features and known site constraints f. Defines the overall mix. The review process for a Master Plan would include: a. Title report b. Base survey c. Context, site connectivity analysis map d. Existing conditions analysis map e. Land use allocation (distribution, mix of uses, mix of housing types) f. Density allocations (e.g., maximum building areas) g. Infrastructure capacity analysis, allocations (i.e., parking, traffic, stormwater, water, wastewater, other utilities) Mr. Klugo cited the need to have regulations in place so people “do the right thing for the community.” He noted that developers now build 9 units in order to avoid Act 250 review, and this is not always the best thing for the community. Mr. Conner added that the fewer the units, the less you can do with a development (e.g., open space). He questioned whether this PUD project is the way to address that issue or whether it should be another Planning Commission priority. Mr. Klugo asked what tools they can look at. Ms. Murray replied: underlying zoning, Form Based Code, master planning. Mr. Klugo said the question now is “who is driving the roads?” He felt that now it is the developers. Mr. Conner said the Official Map deals with this in part. Ms. Murray added that in the SEQ there are block and road standards. She recommended looking at grid/road plans as part of the Master Plan standard. They will be recommending stronger street standards. Mr. Klugo noted that depending on where a PUD is located, the focus may change. Ms. Murray said that’s who they have to look at both “centers and edges.” She noted they are also working on land allocations for different types of PUDs (residential, non-residential and open space). They also have to consider different types of housing. Ms. Murray then showed a chart of the potential percentage of land use for different developments within different types of PUDs. These included residential uses, non-residential uses (e.g., civic uses, commercial uses, mixed uses, agricultural enterprise), and open space (park space, resource land). One of the next steps will be to see where each of these types fits in the city. Mr. Klugo asked about building types. Ms. LaRose said that was not originally considered as part of this project. Ms. Murray noted they could allow increased density in some of the areas to compensate for additional cost, etc. She suggested a possible schedule of density bonuses for such things as affordable housing. Ms. LaRose noted they will continue to talk about how density is measured, especially non-residential density. They will also discuss how to define residential density and how to adjust the size of units. Ms. Murray said their recommendation is usually to “stick with the basics” and combine that with what kind of development/forms. Mr. Klugo stated that they will never solve the affordability issue through the zoning process. Mr. Conner said the Affordable Housing Committee is trying to address that and see what kind of tools can be applied. Mr. Klugo said they should be focusing on the “livability” of the community. Ms. Murray felt that exclusionary zoning will only push development “out.” Development has to be made easier for developers in order to get affordability. She felt that most developers don’t have the tools to manage affordability. She suggested Commission members reread the report of the original Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Conner noted their conclusion was the only affordable housing that will exist in the future is what already exists today. 7. Continued Discussion of Planning Commission Priorities for 2017-18: Mr. Gagnon questioned whether there is room left after all the things that members agreed they definitely want to do. Mr. Conner said “yes and no.” Some work could be sourced out to other committees in the city. Other projects could be “what to do next” so grants can be applied for in a timely manner. Mr. Klugo said they also have to be aware of things that pop up. Mr. Klugo also noted that the Commission is very thorough and doesn’t just say “yes” to something to get it off their plate. Mr. Conner said the City Council is aware of that and knows that when something comes to them it has been thoroughly vetted by the Commission. This is not always true in other communities. Mr. Conner noted that the issue of whether land use pattern matches the transportation pattern doesn’t have to happen this year; it could involve just setting up a “game plan” for next year. Mr. Klugo was concerned with the hours the Commission has to invest in addition to what other committees do. He noted they can spend a third of the year on one item. He didn’t see them getting through much of what was on the list. Mr. Conner said he would go through the list and see what can be “put off” or “pushed off.” He felt that in some cases, one Commission members might work with staff and then make a presentation to the rest of the Commission. A Commission member might also attend meetings of another committee and report back. Ms. Ostby suggested looking at “themes” for the year. Mr. Klugo suggested looking at things as they appear in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner noted that committees are being asked to define which element of the Comp Plan they are addressing in their work. Members considered themes such as: affordable housing, PUDs, sense of place. Mr. Conner said staff can see how to make the “scenic view” consideration happen. He also suggested letting the Energy Committee bring in whatever they want to consider. Ms. Ostby hoped they could deal with the “south facing homes” situation. Mr. Conner asked members to consider their expectations when they give a task to a committee. 8. Review Changes to LDRs and Official Map made by City Council; prepare Planning Commission reports and provide feedback as appropriate: Mr. Conner explained that the City Council had changed language back to the original Planning Commission report. Mr. MacDonald moved to approve the changes as recommended by staff and to find that reports do not need to be amended. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Minutes of 11 April and 9 May 2017: Mr. MacDonald moved to approve the Minutes of 11 April and 9 May 2017 as written. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Other Business: a. Notice of State Wetland Permit application, City of South Burlington – Market Street Mr. Conner said no action was needed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission June 13, 2017 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Meeting Packet for May 23, 2017 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Presentation of initial findings on R4 Front Yard setback analysis, Sean Hilton (7:15 pm) Sean Hilton, our Intern this past winter, will join the PC via videoconference to present his research and findings about setbacks in the Residential 4 District. At a Commission meeting this winter, PC members had asked about the possibility of reducing front yard setbacks in this district, to “right-size” the setbacks and allow some additional flexibility for decks, additions, etc. Sean will present his partial findings. Our summer intern, Lindsey Bramble, has picked up where Sean left off and is working her way through the various neighborhoods in the R4 District. 6. Planned Unit Development & Master Plan Project, Phase II: Sharon Murray & Mark Kane (7:25 pm) Please see the enclosed memo & materials from Sharon Murray 7. Continue discussion of Planning Commission priorities for 2017-2018 (8:15 pm) Commissioners will continue their discussion of priorities. Staff to prepare a compilation of Commissioners’ individual priorities in advance of the meeting. 8. Review changes to Land Development Regulations and Official Map made by City Council; prepare updated Planning Commission reports and provide feedback as appropriate (8:50 pm) See enclosed memo. 9. Meeting Minutes (8:54 pm) 10. Other Business (8:57 pm) a. Notice of State Wetland Permit application, City of South Burlington – Market Street 11. Adjourn (9:00 pm) Meeting Memo To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Sharon Murray, AICP Front Porch Community Planning & Design Date: May 18, 2017 Re: PUD Project, Phase II— Master Plan Considerations; PUD Land Use Allocations and Density/Intensity Measures (“Dials”) __________________________________________________________ Housekeeping Amendments: Staff are reviewing an detailed list of existing exceptions, waivers and modifications under the LDRs (related to district height, setback, coverage and density requirements and multiple uses/structures per lot) with regard to how these support, or may undermine, current zoning district requirements and new planned development provisions. We’ve asked staff to identify those sections of the regs that they’d like us to help update as part of this project. Subdivision/Master Plan Review: Attached is an outline of “master plan” considerations for your review – including a summary of current master plan provisions under the LDRs, related Phase I Report recommendations, and a discussion outline of proposed bylaw amendments. Please take a look at this outline in advance of our meeting, and let us know if you have any specific questions or concerns. I’ll be using this to draft associated bylaw amendments for your review at an upcoming meeting. PUD Use and Density Allocations: We’d like to spend most of our time with you on Tuesday focusing on a discussion of the proposed mix of uses by PUD type (land use allocations), and measures of the relative density or intensity of development (density allocations). These are two key components – represented by sliding scales or bars in the Phase I report – that distinguish each type of PUD and which, for purposes of regulation, need to be translated into more measurable development parameters. Attached is an initial “land use allocation table” that specifies a required mix of land uses for each PUD type by defining a minimum percentage of the total area for each use category – which would also be shown on an accompanying land use allocation (or sector) plan. A mix of housing types is also required within some PUDs, as reflected in the minimum percentage of land allocated to each housing type. The attached graphics from Mark and Liz help illustrate initial allocations by type – and relative densities of development for each. This table currently includes a 10-20% share of unallocated land that can be used in any category to incorporate some flexibility – e.g., to allow a developer to address current or anticipated market conditions, negotiated requests or neighborhood concerns. Initial allocations are based on a literature review and available models for these types of development, but allocations will need to be further refined for local use – e.g., through a review of representative master plans and discussions with local developers. As noted in the April meeting memo, there are also a number of ways to measure the density of residential and the intensity of nonresidential development within the context of a planned development. Some initial recommendations, for discussion on Tuesday: For planned development, continue to define development density based on the total land area, to include areas with existing development constraints given the ability to transfer density within the project area. Use standard density measures that may also be used to calculate associated infrastructure impacts, e.g., number of dwelling units (and/or bedrooms) for residential; gross floor area (and/or floor area ratios) for nonresidential; and the ratio of commercial to residential floor area for mixed use. Define the minimum density allowed as that established by the underlying zoning district(s) (e.g., based on minimum lot size requirements, maximum building height, building and lot coverage requirements). Allow density transfers/averaging across zoning districts for projects that involve land in more than one district. Also establish minimum required densities by PUD type as necessary – e.g., for a TND a minimum of 4-7 dwelling units/acre; for a TOD 8+ dwelling units/acre – as targeted or limited to specific zoning districts. Allow for higher densities of development (within defined limits–e.g., an added %) as an incentive to use or apply PUD provisions and/or in return (as an offset) for requiring planned development. Also provide a schedule of potential density bonuses for public amenities or benefits beyond those intended to serve the development (e.g., for public dedications of land, community facilities, public parking, transit facilities, offsite improvements, affordable housing, etc.). Allow modifications or waivers of zoning district requirements as needed to accommodate the planned pattern and density of development (e.g., to allow for smaller lots, zero lot line development, additional building stories, etc.). As you know, density increases can be controversial, and would have to be mitigated in large part through project layout and design, as reflected in associated standards – e.g., by specifying acceptable development forms, and by requiring transitional or buffer zones between areas of higher and lower density development. Allowed uses could also be more specifically defined or limited by PUD type to avoid or minimize potential use conflicts. Let us know what you think! Sharon PUD Land Use Allocations by Type * Allowed, but not required; --- Prohibited Notes Specific uses would include those allowed within the underlying zoning district, unless more explicitly defined by PUD type (an option). Civic uses typically include public/ municipal buildings and “community centers”–currently defined under the LDRs to include a building or structure used for recreational, social, educational, health, cultural or other similar activities. Civic spaces include developed open space (greens, plazas, pocket parks) – see open space typologies in LDRs, Open Space Study. Conservation Planned Agricultural Planned Residential Campus TND NCD TOD Context Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban PUD “Focus” Resource Protection Agricultural Enterprise Residential Institutional Center Park/ Community Center Commercial Center Transit Center PUD Context (“Shed”) Res: ¼ mile --- Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Res: ¼ mile Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Land Use Allocations Residential Uses Min: 15% Min: 0% Min: 65% Min: 0% Min: 70% Min: 50% Min: 40% Single, Two Family Min: 10% --- Min: 50% --- Min: 40% Min: 20% * Attached (Row, Town) * --- * * Min: 10% Min: 10% Min: 10% Multifamily --- --- * * Min: 10% Min: 10% Min: 10% Nonresidential Uses Min: 5% Min: 20% Min: 5% Min: 40% Min: 10% Min: 30% Min: 40% Civic Uses Min: 2% --- Min: 5% Min: 40% Min: 5% Min: 5% Min: 5% Commercial Uses --- --- --- * * * Mixed Uses --- * --- * * Min: 20% Min: 30% Ag Enterprises * Min: 20% * * --- --- --- Open Space Min: 70% Min: 60% Min: 20% Min: 40% Min: 10% Min: 10% Min: 10% Park/Civic Space Min: 2% * Min: 5% Min: 20% Min: 5% Min: 5% Min: 5% Resource Land Min: 65% Min: 60% * * --- --- --- Unallocated 10% 20% 10% 80% 10% 10% 10% Master Plans: Bylaw Considerations [5/23/17] LDRs (Current) 2.02 Definition: Master Plan: A plan intended to guide the arrangement of developed and undeveloped areas and streets within a land development project. 15.07 Master Plan Review and Approval Optional for any development involving 10 or more contiguous acres, except within Transect Zones Required for subdivisions or PUDs for: o Development of more than 10 dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant o Development of more than 10 units in a 5-year period in the R-1 District Review conducted after sketch plan review; may be combined with preliminary site plan or plat review –public hearing, separate findings required. Master plan findings are binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent preliminary site plan or plat applications. New application, including sketch plan review, is required for an amended master plan, or any preliminary site plan or plat that deviates from the master plan that involves: o An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units o An increase in total site coverage o A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways o Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space, or o A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends projected at total build-out The DRB may specify in findings or approvals certain minor land development activities (e.g., additions of decks, porches) that will not require further DRB action. City in its approvals shall maintain a record of criteria applicable to the project – e.g., residential density, FAR, total site coverage, required off-street parking, sewer capacity and the location and status of public amenities. ______________________________________________ Phase I Report Recommendations Master Plans A master plan provides the framework for subsequent development. Planned unit development in particular is intended as a form of “master-planned” development. Well-crafted master provisions within the LDRs are critical to establish or retain connectivity with surrounding areas, and to guide development constructed in phases. Currently there are few standards in the LDRs for the review of master plans, apart from submission requirements. Defining standards under the LDRs, and specifically for PUDs, can strengthen the foundation for more complex forms of phased development, clarify the rights of the developer, and afford the ability to modify or adjust plans in response to changing circumstances. Master Plan Recommendations: 18. Clarify the purpose and application of master plans within the LDRs, including associated standards of review, for major subdivisions and specifically for planned unit development. 19. Develop master plan design standards that address a diversity of PUD typologies (and transect-based subdivisions), and that also incorporate or dovetail with existing community design standards. 20. Establish stronger connectivity requirements for master plans – particularly for roads, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure. 21. Consider requiring, in association with a PUD master plan, the submission of a Master Plan Guide (or “Plan Book”) that defines critical design considerations particular to the site (e.g., stormwater manage- ment, wetland protection, etc.) and common design elements. This could include for example, typical lot configurations, street types, housing types, open space types, etc. specific to the PUD, governing subsequent phases of development. 22. Clarify the submission requirements for a phased review process, to include master plans that provide a more conceptual allocation of uses and density – to be defined more specifically under site plan or subdivision review for each phase of development, in conformance with the master plan and guide. 23. Review and update master plan amendment provisions to include amendments to the Master Plan Guide. Identify what elements can and cannot be amended, and the mechanisms by which amendments are addressed (administrative, DRB). 24. Review and clarify vested rights associated with master plan approval, particularly for phased development, to reasonably protect the interests of the developer under subsequent bylaw amendments. 25. Require PUD development and maintenance associations to coordinate PUD development, and the operation and maintenance of land and facilities held in common. 26. Review and clarify requirements for development agreements, e.g., with regard to cost-sharing arrangements under public-private partnerships), scheduling required improvements, infrastructure capacity allocation, etc.; and to ensure that any public dedications or accommodations to meet city needs are preserved through transitions of ownership. Master Plan Bylaw Amendments: Discussion Outline [5/23/17] Purpose – Establish an integrated framework for planned (unit) and other phased development, and associated project budgets (parameters) for each phase of development, to ensure project continuity that allows for limited development flexibility within defined parameters, and provides needed assurances for the developer, city and neighborhood that development at buildout will be consistent with the project as planned and approved. The intent of a master plan is to clearly document that a proposed development project: Conforms to specific Comp Plan objectives (location, type, density and intensity of development) Complements the surrounding area (development context) Establishes, extends or retains site connectivity (street, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, open space networks) Incorporates significant site features and known development constraints Defines the overall mix, arrangement and distribution of uses (land use allocations), including dedicated open and civic spaces Defines the minimum and maximum density of planned development, and associated impacts Establishes the location, capacity and scheduling of supporting infrastructure and facilities Allows some flexibility within defined parameters, to address changing market conditions Coordinates subsequent phases of development under the same or separate ownership, through project buildout. Applicability/Triggers – All planned development (all PUD types) All phased development (including but not limited to PUDs) Minimum project area – e.g., 10+ acres (may vary based on context, type of planned development) Zoning District – allowed or required within certain districts, prohibited within others (will also vary by type of planned developed) Review Process Pre-application meetings with staff, neighbors (e.g., at sketch or conceptual plan stage) Application requirements o Title Report – legal description, boundary, ownership, encumbrances o Base Survey o Context, Site Connectivity Analysis, Map o Existing Conditions Analysis, Map o Land Use Allocations – distribution, mix of uses (residential, commercial, mixed, civic, resource); mix of housing types o Density Allocations – e.g., maximum building area(s), planned residential density (unit/bedrooms by housing type), nonresidential density (gross floor area or FAR), mixed (ratio commercial to residential) o Infrastructure Capacity Analysis, Allocations (parking, traffic, stormwater, water, wastewater, other utilities) o Context Plan o Land Use/Density Allocation (Sector) Plan o Open Space and Recreation Plan o Multimodal Circulation and Parking Plan o Facilities and Infrastructure Plan o Timeline, Phasing Schedule o Master Plan Guidebook (plan book–street, housing, building , open space, inrastructure typicals) o Supporting Documents – legal, financial Continue to allow concurrent review (master plan, and Phase I preliminary site plan or plat review) Clarify vested rights, especially for projects that involve significant private investment Require negotiated development agreements for projects that involve public/ private partnerships Continue to allow for master plan modifications/adjustments within defined budgets or parameters, for each subsequent phase of development Require master plan amendments (or new master plans) for development phases that exceed defined parameters or significantly alter an approved master plan Master Plan Review Criteria Project conformance with purpose, intent – plan objectives, zoning district(s) Site Context – relationship to surrounding land uses, development patterns, transportation networks (e.g., within ¼ - ½ mile of project focal point or boundary); transition areas/buffers Site Connectivity– external, internal Existing Site Conditions – site features, constraints Conformance with LDRs (as applicable), official map Land Use/Density Allocations, Budgets – per underlying zoning Transportation/Circulation Network Infrastructure Capacity, Budgets – transportation, stormwater, water, wastewater) Development Phasing – concurrency requirements, impact fees Legal Documentation – association agreements, development agreements, etc. Assurances – vesting, performance bonds, etc. Specific to Planned Unit Development (by type) – Floating Zone(s) [Note: these will be addressed more specifically under separate PUD development standards] Conformance with PUD purpose/intent Density increases, transfers – allowed, required, incentive-based (bonuses) Transportation/Circulation Network – as required to achieve planned pattern of development Land Use/Density Allocations, Budget –in addition to or in lieu of underlying zoning Open Space–by type Development Forms – by type Modifications/waivers requested to achieve planned pattern, density of development Conservation Residential Min: 15%15% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min:70%70% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Planned Agriculture Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 20%20% Open Space Min: 60%60% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 20% Open Space Min: 60% Unallocated: 20% Residential Min: 15% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min:70% Unallocated: 10% Conservation Residential Min: 15%15% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min:70%70% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Planned Agriculture Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 20%20% Open Space Min: 60%60% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 20% Open Space Min: 60% Unallocated: 20% Residential Min: 15% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min:70% Unallocated: 10% Planned Residential Residential Min: 65%65% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min: 20%20% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Campus Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 40%40% Open Space Min: 40%40% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 65% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min: 20% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 40% Open Space Min: 40% Unallocated: 20% Planned Residential Residential Min: 65%65% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min: 20%20% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Campus Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 40%40% Open Space Min: 40%40% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 65% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min: 20% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 40% Open Space Min: 40% Unallocated: 20% Conservation Open 90 95 Baseline from Zoning 10 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 total 100 100 Planned Ag Baseline from Zoning 0 20 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 80 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning Conservation Open 90 95 Baseline from Zoning 10 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 total 100 100 Planned Ag Baseline from Zoning 0 20 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 80 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning Planned Res Baseline from Zoning 65 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 35 0 total 100 5 Campus Baseline from Zoning 0 40 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 60 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning Planned Res Baseline from Zoning 65 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 35 0 total 100 5 Campus Baseline from Zoning 0 40 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 60 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 1/4 MilePUD 1/4 MilePUD 1/2 Mile PUD PUD Typologies Land Allocation Residential Residential Residential Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Density Allocation PUD ShedConservation Planned Agriculture Planned Residential Campus TND Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 30 With PUD 20 5 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 40 NCD Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 70 With PUD 20 15 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning TND Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 30 With PUD 20 5 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 40 NCD Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 70 With PUD 20 15 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning TOD Density Baseline from Zoning 50 70 With PUD 10 20 Bonuses 5 10 total 65 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning TND Residential Min: 70%70% Non-Residential Min: 10%10% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% NCD Residential Min: 50%50% Non-Residential Min: 30%30% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Residential Min: 70% Non-Residential Min: 10% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 50% Non-Residential Min: 30% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% TND Residential Min: 70%70% Non-Residential Min: 10%10% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% NCD Residential Min: 50%50% Non-Residential Min: 30%30% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Residential Min: 70% Non-Residential Min: 10% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 50% Non-Residential Min: 30% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% TOD Residential Min: 40%40% Non-Residential Min: 40%40% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Residential Min: 40% Non-Residential Min: 40% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% 1/4 MilePUD 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile PUD 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile PUD TND NDC TOD PUD Typologies Land Allocation Residential Residential Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential PUD ShedDensity Allocation 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Minor changes by Council to LDR amendments DATE: May 23, 2017 Commission meeting Following the Commission’s approval of the amendments to the LDRs at it’s last meeting, it came to staff’s attention that two small changes that had recommended under the City’s legal review had unintentionally altered the meaning of the language. After consultation with the City’s legal counsel and Jessica, staff recommended that the City Council approve the warning of the draft amendments to the LDRs for a public hearing AND to include two minor changes that would return the language to the meaning that the Commission had previously discussed and determined. Under State law, if a City Council makes any changes to a proposed amendment, a copy of the proposed amendment must be delivered to the Planning Commission and the Commission must update its report. As the minor changes in this case are intended only to return the draft amendments to the language the Commission had previously intended to include, staff feels there is no change needed to the Report. If Commissioners agree, staff recommends that the Commission simply approve a motion indicating that the minor changes return the language to the Commission’s intent and therefore the changes have no effect on the Commission’s report. Below is the relevant excerpt from the staff memo to the City Council for their May 15th Meeting. The Council accepted staff’s recommendation: --------------------------------------------- Proposed Minor Changes Staff, the City’s Legal Counsel, and the Planning Commission chair discovered AFTER the Planning Commission’s hearing that two inadvertent changes were approved by the Commission. The City Council has the authority under 24 VSA 4442(b) to “may minor changes to the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal, but shall not do so less than14 days prior to the final public hearing.” All three parties recommend that the City Council make the following minor changes to the proposed amendments, as the draft language presented to the Commission following legal review had the potential to slightly alter the meaning: Minor Change 1, under affordable housing in the SEQ: Language warned for PC Hearing: Section 9.05(C)(3) In addition, the Development Review Board may allow a residential structures in SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC to have two additional dwelling units per structure, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per structure, if one or more of the units in the structure is an affordable unit. This provision shall not be interpreted to allow an increase in the total allowable number of units for the project as a whole. Language as approved 5/9/2017: Section 9.05(C)(3) In addition, the Development Review Board may allow a residential structure in SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC to have two additional dwelling units per structure, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per structure, if one or more of the units in the structure is an affordable unit. In the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts, the Development Review Board may allow no more than eight (8) additional dwelling units in any residential building that includes one or more housing units. This provision shall not be interpreted to allow an increase in the total allowable number of units for the project as a whole. Recommended minor change: Section 9.05(C)(3) In addition the Development Review Board may allow residential structures in SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC to have two additional dwelling units, up to a maximum of eight (8), if one or more of the units in the structure is an affordable unit. In the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub- districts, the Development Review Board may allow residential structures containing one or more affordable dwelling units to have two additional dwelling units, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per structure. This provision shall not be interpreted to allow an increase in the total allowable number of units for the project as a whole. Reason for request for minor change: The intent of the original amendment was simply a minor grammar correction. The recommended correction at the PC’s hearing unintentionally created a policy change, potentially allowing more units in a single structure than was intended. This minor change would make the grammatical correction while retaining the existing meaning under the current regulations. Minor Change 2, under Food Hub: Language as warned for PC hearing: Section 13.27(A)(3) Butchering or killing of livestock shall not be permitted within the designated food hub area. Language as approved 5/9/2017: Section 13.27(A)(3) Butchering or killing of livestock shall not be permitted. Recommended minor change: Section 13.27(A)(3) Butchering or killing of livestock shall not be permitted within the designated food hub area. Reason for request for minor change: The Planning Commission had intended to retain the additional wording for clarity. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 APRIL 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 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, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos noted she will be away for the meeting of 23 May. Mr. Conner: Received the draft annual work plan from CCRPC which includes all the large requested South Burlington projects for funding (including bike/ped, traffic impact fee, traffic management signal control). Items ranked lower in priority by the Commission were not funded (e.g., scenic views) and some of these can be accomplished by staff. City Hall updates continue, including new windows in the large conference room. Mr. Gagnon commented on the new LED message board. This summer, the wayfinding project in the parks will be wrapped up. There are also planned improvements in Red Rocks Park scheduled for the summer. 2 5. Continue review of possible amendments to LDRs and Official Map: a. End of trip bicycle pedestrian facilities: Ms. LaRose said staff is working on addressing what could be a large expense that could be triggered by a very small change in a site plan. The concept is to require only 50% of the bicycle requirement for the first small change, then 25% more for each additional change. The Bike/Ped Committee discussed that threshold at length. The felt that any pre-existing facility wouldn’t have to do the bike/ped upgrades unless there were a major renovation. Mr. Conner said that typically when people come in in for a site plan, some things are automatically triggered (e.g., lighting standards, bike rack, screening of dumpster, snow storage). The question is where to set the threshold for updating a bike rack. Mr. Gagnon felt that if there is no bike rack, the applicant should have to do it. If they have one that doesn’t meet the current standard, they have to update to the current standard. He asked how much that could cost. Mr. Conner said about $600-800 to purchase, plus installation and a pad. This could total $1,000-2,000. For a large company, it could be even more. Ms. LaRose noted there is currently an application to restripe handicapped spaces. Having to do all the upgrades could add the cost up to $20,000. Ms. Ostby asked if there could be a 2-year time-line. Mr. Gagnon said other towns have bought bike racks and resold them at cost. Ms. LaRose said the issue with that is storage. With a 2-year time-line, the difficulty is that when a Certificate of Occupancy is granted, it says that the applicant meets all the requirements. This could mean that they would never have to do the upgrades. Mr. Gagnon asked about the threshold for doing the 50%. Mr. Conner said it could be based on time or only those that exceed the criteria for administrative review, or only new construction. All of those options have their pros and cons. Mr. Klugo asked about the goal. He felt the 50% was well-intended but you could wind up with a mish-mash. Ms. Ostby suggested having everyone convert within 5 years. In the meantime, things could be bought in bulk and resold. A vendor could maintain the stock until it is requested. Ms. Louisos 3 asked if the city could mandate that. Mr. Conner said it couldn’t be mandated, but it could be an “opportunity.” He noted that the city isn’t set up for that, and it would have to be in the capital budget. It could not happen this year. Ms. Louisos recalled that the city did require a sign change within 5 years to make everyone conforming. Mr. Klugo said the reality is that if people don’t come in for a site plan change, you don’t get the bike rack. He felt the upgrades should be mandated in some way. Ms. Louisos noted that City Center has other bike rack requirements. Ms. LaRose said the next step would be to deal with shared public bike racks. Ms. Louisos suggested the Bike/Ped Committee come up with some kind of incentive plan. Mr. MacDonald suggested requiring the other 50% the second time an applicant comes in. Members agreed with that. b. Planned right-of-way: Williston Road, Garden Street, Market Street: Members briefly reviewed the standards and had not issues with what is proposed. c. Affordable housing in SEQ NRN & reference corrections: No issues were raised. d. Street Connections and cul de sac standard clarifications: No issues were raised. e. Clarification of uses permitted in the Municipal, Parks & Recreation, R-7, neighborhood commercial, and Institutional Ag Districts: No issues were raised. f. Allowance for front porches in R-4 District: 4 Mr. Klugo noted that on a recent trip to St. Augustine, he saw 8-foot front porches which made for a very nice look. Mr. Conner said the CNAPC Committee recommended a 12-foot porch related to the house and street. He showed drawings of how this could work. Mr. Klugo said he wanted to avoid a “big outdoor room” in the front of a house. Mr. Conner said the department’s intern is doing research on setbacks and what may be “correct” for a neighborhood. He explained how setbacks would work with various setbacks. Members were OK with this. g. Fence Heights in Residential Districts, SEQ and CC FBC: Mr. Kugo said he was concerned with the type of fencing, whether you can see through it, etc. The issue is how to accommodate both privacy and openness. He noted that an 8-foot fence is as high as the ceiling in the conference room and felt having 8-foot fences lined up on the street would not create openness. He suggested having fences lower in front of a house (maximum 3-feet with 50% opacity), 4-6 feet on the side of a house with 80% solid, and 6 feet toward the back yard with the first 3 feet being 100% solid, then adding in some lattice work. A fence would have to be set back at least 2 feet from the sidewalk to allow for plantings. For a house on a large piece of property, tall fences would be limited to the back of the building envelope. Mr. Conner noted most properties in the city don’t have building envelopes. Mr. Riehle liked the concept. He questioned whether this could preclude people from doing something creative. Mr. Klugo said the intent is not to cause that kind of problem. Mr. Conner suggested that if members want to go this way, to pull the proposed amendments and have staff work on language. Members agreed to pull the fencing amendments. Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of different opacity in different placed. He questioned the need for 6-foot with full opacity when there is a pool. He also questioned whether people might put in taller hedges to get around the fencing limitations. Mr. Klugo directed attention to notes where he began to address that. Ms. Ostby asked about a large side yard allowing a taller fence (to screen something like a hot tub). She also wanted to see a code that prevented PVC fencing. 5 Ms. LaRose felt the zoning administrator should review this as he’s the one who will have to deal with it. She also stressed that the goal is to make regulations that homeowners use more accessible to the homeowners. Mr. Conner added the need to be aware of cost concerns. h. Administration and Enforcement – streamline Planning Commission, DRB and advisory committee authorization, power and duties, and membership to refer to state law: Mr. Conner noted that the amendment requires all Planning Commission and advisory committee members to be South Burlington residents. i. Agricultural Use Amendments not related to Agricultural Enterprise: Ms. Lousos said the amendment clears up the ‘butchering” issue. Members were OK with the new language. j. Street connections in T-3 – Barrett Street to San Remo Drive: No issues were raised. k. Technical corrections: Mr. Conner noted that UVM’s concern with specific uses had been addressed in the Table. There is also clarification of allowing child care facilities in parks and municipal districts if those facilities are city-run. 6. Consider possible approval of Planning Commission Report on Draft Land Development Regulations and of City Map amendments and possible warning of public hearings on same: Ms. Ostby moved to approve the Planning Commission Report on Draft Land Development Regulations and City Map as discussed with the exception of Sect. 13.17 (Fences) and to set public hearings for 9 May 2017. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Begin consideration of Planning Commission Priorities for 2017: 6 Mr. Conner noted that Chairs and Vice Chairs of city committees have been meeting and discussing work plans, etc. There will be a discussion on how to meld these all together. The Committee Chairs want to know the Planning Commission’s priorities as well. Referring to the meeting packet, Mr. Conner noted that the first page under priorities is pretty firm, with funding. The question is how to prioritize within that group of projects. Mr. Riehle suggested looking at big properties in the city to be sure the zoning is OK before something happens that the city was not hoping for. Mr. Klugo suggested looking at long, medium and short term projects and being realistic about time and staff capacity. Mr. MacDonald asked about tasking other committees with some of the tasks. Mr. Conner said it has been suggested that committees leave a 10% buffer for addressing some Planning Commission needs. The same should be true for the Commission to address something a committee needs done. Mr. Klugo noted that in a lot of ways the Planning Commission is “reactionary.” He asked what staff is doing that might affect the Commission’s priorities. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 APRIL 2017 PAGE 7 Mr. Conner said the PUD project is the biggest thing they are working on. A question is how much of the details the Commission wants to work on. Ms. LaRose asked how the Commission would want to deal with discrete parts of a problem/issue as well as the bigger concepts. This can make a difference on how much time is spent on something. Mr. Gagnon suggested spending 60% of the Commission’s time on big issues, 25% on smaller things, and 15% on “stuff that comes in .” Mr. Gagnon also suggested each identify their top priorities and then have the Commission decide. Ms. LaRose suggested giving every project a “T-shirt size” (i.e., small, med, large). Mr. Klugo felt they need to understand the Commission’s capacity and also look at what they accomplished last year. Members agreed to come back with ideas which staff can then “intentionalize.” 7 Ms. Ostby felt they should consider combining affordable and single family housing, not just apartments that are stepping stones to people getting single family homes in other communities. Mr. Conner said they might want to consider reference to that in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gagnon said it would be helpful to understand what is in progress and the percentage of completion. Mr. Conner said there could be a status report every month. 8. Introduction in broad brush capital investment priorities for 2018-2027: Mr. Conner explained the interlocking set of 2 city budgets: the general expenses budget and the capital plan (e.g., fire trucks, culverts, etc.). He reviewed the budgeting process which begins in July and asked whether the Commission wants a role at the beginning of the process to give broad feedback regarding priorities for the city (e.g., bike paths). Mr. Klugo asked how much influence they could have in the CIP. Mr. Conner said there is a possible role, some broad guidance. Mr. Gagnon noted the CIP is a 10-year plan, a rolling document, less well defined further out. He felt the Commission has more influence further out, but might be able to give input on “tweaking” in earlier years. Mr. Klugo noted that a lot of streets bike paths, etc., are determined when a developer comes in with a pan. He felt the Commission is in a “reactionary mode.” Mr. Conner responded that there is now some “intentional” action (e.g., the Underwood property). Ms. Lousos felt the Comprehensive Plan is “intentional guidance.” Ms. LaRose said the problem is the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t put emphasis on one thing over another. 9. Minutes of 22 March and 28 March 2017: Ms. Ostby asked that in the minutes of 22 March her statement regarding single family residents being more permanent should begin “Ms. Ostby wondered if….” Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 22 March and 22 March as written and amended. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: 8 a. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, public hearing 18 April 2017: Mr. Gagnon noted there is an opportunity to look at changes from other communities to see if they relate to South Burlington. b. Dumont Park Wetland Notice: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:42 p.m. ______________________________Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 MAY 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 May 2017, 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, D. Macdonald, M. A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Swanson, D. Burke, T. Chittenden 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: Mr. Swanson noted that the Energy Committee met with people from the Regional Planning Commission. One issue that surfaced was addressing transportation issues via land use and trying to get Park and Ride and Intercept facilities. The issue is to get private land owners to set aside land. The Energy Committee also received a copy of a letter that went to the Planning Commission from CCRPC regarding the siting of solar. Mr. Swanson asked how the Energy Committee can be helpful with that in a productive way. Mr. Gagnon said that could be part of the Commission’s work plan discussion. Mr. Swanson noted a June deadline to submit something to CCRPC. Mr. MacDonald noted the State is also looking for input on this. Mr. Conner noted he will be attending a meeting tomorrow at CCRPC on this issue. 4. Public Hearing on possible amendments to Land Development Regulations: a. End-of-trip bicycle & pedestrian facilities b. Planned Rights of Way – Williston Road and Market Street c. Affordable housing in SEQ NRN and reference corrections d. Street connection & cul-de-sac standard clarifications 2 e. Clarification of uses permitted in the Municipal, Parks & Recreation, R7- Neighborhood, Commercial, and Institutional-Agricultural districts f. Allowance for front porches in the R4 District g. Administration & Enforcement – streamline Planning Commission, Development Review Board, and Advisory Committee authorization, powers & duties and membership to refer to State Law h. Agricultural Use Amendments not related to Agricultural Enterprise i. Street connections in T3 – Barrett Street to San Remo Drive j. Technical corrections Ms. Harrington moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Louisos asked for public comment on proposed LDR amendments. Mr. Swanson said he supported the bike facilities amendment. Mr. Conner outlined some “tweaks” recommended by the City Attorney. These include: a. Under bike facilities, Section B3: “adequate dedicated space” changed to “secure space. b. An omission added to the Tables c. On p. 18, the footnote was moved from the map to the General Standards (8.04(A) (5). d. Ms. LaRose suggested that they might want to clarify language on p. 3, Item C regarding long-term bicycle storage. Members preferred: “Building additions of more than 5000 gross square feet in area…” e. On p. 8, Section 15.12(d)(4)(b) the word “placement” was changed to “location and configuration.” There was no further public comment. Mr. Gagnon moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Public Hearing on possible amendments to Official Map: a. Addition of a planned right-0f-way along Market Street b. Addition of a planned street extending north from Barrett Street c. Change from planned street to planned recreation path between San Remo Drive and Barrett Street 3 Mr. Gagnon then moved to open the public hearing on the Official Map. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Louisos asked for public comment. There was none forthcoming. Mr. Gagnon moved to close the public hearing on the Official Map. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Consider possible modification to draft Land Development Regulations and Official Map and accompanying Planning Commission Reports: Members made no further modifications. 7. Consider possible approval of draft Land Development Regulations and Official Map and accompanying Planning Commission reports and submittal to City Council: Ms. Harrington moved to approve the draft Land Development Regulations and Official Map and accompanying Planning Commission reports as presented and with the changes made at this meeting and submit them to the City Council. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner said the amendments will be presented to the City Council on 15 May. The likely date for a City Council public hearing is 5 June or possibly 19 June. 8. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington advised that she will be moving out of the city in June. Mr. Riehle noted he had done a volunteer stint at a tree event in Burlington (“Branch Out Burlington”) at which people can purchase trees. He also attended the City Arts Center fundraiser and Bike/Ped meeting regarding the Interstate bridge. Mr. Riehle also noted the record number of bags collected on Green Up Day. Mr. Conner praised the work done by Sam Swanson on Green Up Day over the years. 4 Mr. Conner: This will be a summer of construction in the city and area including: Hinesburg Rd., Kennedy Drive, Market Street, stormwater projects, Williston Road to the Town of Williston, Essex 5 Corners, Airport taxiways, etc. Development review planner, Lindsey Britt, has moved on. Staff is taking applications; in the meantime, a Regional Planning Commission person is helping out one day a week. 9. Continued Discussion of Planning Commission priorities for 2017-2018: Mr. Conner explained the ranking/priority system on the spreadsheet provided. He noted that this prioritization can also help with determining planning grant applications for next year’s projects. He added that the biggest project is the Master Plan/PUD project which could be considered every other or every third meeting. Mr. Gagnon noted that with #1 and #2 rankings, just about all the Commission’s time is used up. He also noted that some City Council priorities can become Commission priorities. Ms. Louisos suggested that members indicate their “Top Ten” priorities. Mr. Gagnon added that projects that are partly done should be ranked closer to the top. Mr. Klugo suggested reviewing how the Commission did last year and what they accomplished so they can be realistic about planning ahead. He also suggested addressing some projects by Commission sub-committees. Mr. Conner said projects fall into 3 categories: what the Commission can work on; what can be delegated to other, what projects to initiate. One goal could be to get money for future project. This needs to be on the list so staff can know what to work on. Ms. Louisos suggested members each pick 15 things they would like to work on. Mr. Conner added and indicate what they would like to accomplish in the next 14 months. Mr. Conner suggested that since a lot of possibilities involve transportation, the Commission might want to create a sub-committee just to address transportation items. Members then briefly discussed how to “assign” projects to committees. Mr. Conner suggested some kind of tracking system for that and for items that committees bring to the Commission. 5 Members agreed they should tell committees why they want specific things done and where those things fit in the bigger picture. Mr. Conner noted that the next meeting of the committee chairs and vice chairs is on 25 May. He suggested that someone from the Commission be present. Mr. Gagnon agreed to be available. 10. Minutes: No minutes were presented. 11. Other Business a. Town of Shelburne Planning Commission public hearing on zoning amendments, 25 May, 7 p.m. No issues were raised. b. Green Mountain Power 45-day notice of intent to submit a petition to the Public Service board for a proposed substation, National Guard Road Mr. Conner said there are three options: provide comment, take no action, request a full public hearing. He said staff has looked at this issue. It involves building a substation behind the Belter property. There would be occasional maintenance. There will be an application to the DRB to subdivide off this piece of land. Ms. Louisos asked if the land falls in the flood plain. Mr. Conner said he would look into that. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. ______________________________Clerk 6