Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/14/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 NOVEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 November 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner, S. Chaney, R. Hamlin 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Ostby provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Agenda item #6 was postponed until a future meeting. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: An audience member expressed concern with how Cider Mill 2 has changed and that the wetlands are being used to calculate density. She was also concerned with the narrowing of streets and did not agree with connecting neighborhoods because she felt it creates more traffic. She asked how these things could be changed. Mr. Conner explained the process by which the Commission could take this up as a project in their next work plan. Ms. Ostby added that zoning changes require a complex process. Mr. MacDonald stressed that the land in Cider Mill 2 is privately owned. Mr. Conner also stressed that when there is a project in front of the DRB, issues have to be talked about within the DRB process. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. MacDonald: Attended the “Smart Cities” seminar. Discussions included self-driving cars. Mr. Conner said there are 2 technologies involved: a car than can sense what is around it and a car that can get information about what is ahead. Technology will bring those 2 together. The city of Tampa will be having “autonomous buses” going back and forth. Mr. Conner noted that in thinking about City Center, not as much parking may be needed in the future. Mr. MacDonald said there is also a reversal of the “to the suburbs” tend of the 70’s with people now moving back to the urban core. Ms. Ostby: Attended the Affordable Housing Committee meeting. The Committee is still discussing the replacement of affordable housing. There was discussion about waiving impact fees for affordable housing which South Burlington does not do. The Committee agreed to consider that. Mr. Conner: The groundbreaking for the first large building in City Center (Cathedral Square) has taken place. There will be 39 mostly affordable units. Spent a day with the Energy Committee at a climate alliance conference. He will present a briefing on the Williston Road project to the City Council next Monday. The city has received an $800,000 grant for this. There will also be a public hearing on the amendment to allow radio/TV studios in the I-O district. Ms. Ostby asked whether a pedestrian bridge over I-89 could be on the November ballot. Mr. Conner said that will take big funding sources including a nationally competitive grant. A lot of work is needed to get to that point. 5. Request for Boundary Line Determination in Isham Parcel: Mr. Conner explained that where there is uncertainty about a boundary, the Planning Commission can make that determination. He showed a map indicating the location of the property in question (just off Park Road near the water tower). Mr. Hamlin, representing the Isham Estate, said they are requesting determination of the zoning boundaries as he believes there is no Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map in the current regulations. He noted that the golf course has an easement to use the center portion of this property. The Estate is questioning whether a portion of the parcel could be residential. He indicated that portion and noted his belief that there is a logical connection to residential developments above and below it and the potential for road connections. Mr. Hamlin also noted that this is the only parcel where the NRP does not follow a natural feature. Mr. Riehle felt the rule was clear. He added that he might feel differently if only a portion of the property fell within the SEQ. Mr. Klugo agreed and felt there would have to be a separate process to make a change. Mr. Conner said the map appears to show the property entirely in the NRP zone with the zoning following the property line. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Riehle. Mr. Hamlin noted 3 nearby developments have dead-ended streets much greater than 200 feet in length and are substandard streets. He also said the plan for this area was historically residential. Change happened with the golf course when this property was erroneously considered part of the golf course. Mr. Klugo said he would not disagree with that and believed there was some intent there. However, there is a legal map with a boundary. Mr. Hamlin disagreed that there is a legal zoning map. He said there is no “Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map.” There is a “Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map” incorporated into the City Official Map. He then showed where he thought roads should connect and where a developable area should be. He noted that the city is taxing the parcel as an R-2 parcel. Mr. Conner noted that the R-2 designation is a taxation designation which means there is a house on more than 6 acres of land. Mr. Hamlin said they are paying $16,000 a year in taxes. Mr. Klugo asked if there are any maps showing a different designation. Mr. Conner said he is not aware of any. Mr. Conner said the Commission has 30 days in which to determine where the boundary is. Mr. Riehle asked when the properties to the north and south were developed. Ms. LaRose said in the 90’s to the south, much earlier to the north. Mr. Conner added that the NRP zone dates to 2006. Mr. Conner said he would like to speak with the City Attorney as to whether the Commission should have a written decision or just a verbal motion. Mr. Klugo said he would like to know what the zoning maps showed when the properties to the north and south were developed. Mr. Riehle said he was concerned with tampering with the NRP. Mr. Klugo said he was too, but he wanted answers to some questions. Mr. Hamlin said he could provide maps all the way back to the 90’s. Mr. Klugo moved to continue to a meeting within 30 days as determined by staff. Mr. MacDonald seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-3 and was deemed to have failed. Mr. Conner said the Commission has 2 possible paths: interpretation of intention or request for a legislative change. He noted this is a significant piece of land to make a determination of “intent” rather than have a full amendment process. Mr. Hamlin felt there is a middle ground of determining that there was an error in including areas outside the golf course in the NRP. Members agreed to put the item on the next agenda and have Mr. Conner come back with pertinent information. 6. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Urban Design Overlay District: Ms. LaRose presented revised language based on feedback from the last meeting. The word “dominant” regarding front entrances was changed to “focal point.” Mr. Klugo suggested having pictures of ‘what could happen’ to create an image for discussion. Ms. LaRose agreed to do that. b. Building Heights in C1-R15 and C1-Auto District to complement Urban Design Standards: Mr. MacDonald felt the language seemed vague. Mr. Riehle suggested examples here as well. Mr. MacDonald said he was fine with the intent but wanted more specificity. Ms. Ostby was concerned with expressing a vision for the road. Mr. LaRose suggested expanding the purpose statement to incorporate that. She also stressed that Shelburne Road will always be a state highway and also the entranceway to South Burlington. The city can determine what is seen along the road. Mr. Conner showed examples of streetscape plans which could be possible within state-owned land. She also showed a “commercial boulevard” concept which would be possible within state-owned land. Ms. LaRose noted that the minimum setback has been changed from 10 feet to 20 feet. Members agreed to hold off on the height discussion until there is a full Commission present. c. Staff status update on the following: Housing Replacement Standards, Form Based Code adjustments, Parking standards, Bicycle Parking amendments: Mr. Conner noted that staff received a first draft of a legal review regarding housing replacement. He will be meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee and the Commission’s representative to that committee to work on something that legal counsel will be comfortable with. Mr. Conner said staff will be coming back to the Commission with some ideas regarding elimination of “minimum parking” and establishment of “maximum parking” standards. Discussion of Form Based Code adjustments and Bicycle Parking amendments was postponed until the next meeting. 7. Commission 6-month Check-in on Annual Work Plan Progress: Ms. LaRose noted the review does not include the previous meeting or this current meeting. Mr. Conner reviewed what the Commission has accomplished and the status of other projects that he been begun. He also indicated what has not been addressed (e.g., managing larger projects). Mr. Conner noted there will be meetings with property owners in the Tilley Drive/Community Drive area. Mr. MacDonald asked about a crosswalk in that location. Mr. Conner said that since there is now a sidewalk, the city may be able to make a case for a crosswalk. They may first put a pedestrian counter there. Mr. Conner noted the state has approved a crosswalk at Hayes/Eldridge. Staff is trying to coordinate a meeting of the Commission with the DRB. Ms. Louisos is working on “river corridor” standards which may not need any amendments. Scoping for bike paths is now underway. The Commission will soon be seeing information on where streets can and can’t be in City Center. Scenic views project will be getting started very soon. Mr. Conner said he would like for the Commission to be further ahead but he still felt they could get most of the work plan accomplished….pending other big projects taken on. 8. PUD Development/Master Plan Project Update: a. Review of Landowner Feedback Ms. LaRose said the intent was to get feedback on market trends, etc., and she felt the meetings went well. She noted feedback that came from Chris Snyder who noted that Finney Crossing is no longer being defined as “retail.” Level of detail was a concern, and landowners felt building footprints shouldn’t be required. They also felt they shouldn’t have to address “small stuff” (accessory structures, specific amenities, etc.) at this stage. They stressed the need for flexibility to respond to the market dynamic. Mr. Conner noted the development community is very concerned with “predictability” from concept all the way through. They did not want the city to change the “big picture” part way through. They wanted “vested rights” throughout. Ms. LaRose noted that the consultants also had their eyes opened to such things as barriers to affordability. The consultants will next be meeting with various committees to see how their concerns may be appropriate to various types of PUDs. Mr. Conner noted the problem now with an application to amend a Master Plan. Mr. Klugo questioned whether master plans should be in the purview of the DRB or the Planning Commission. Ms. LaRose said there is state legislation addressing that. Mr. Klugo cited the problem of legislating a “form” that may happen over time and has happened that way in the past. He cited the importance of “building amenities first.” Mr. Conner said the question is how to facilitate that. Ms. LaRose said amenities will be different in different places, and the city has to be clear as to what it wants in the way of amenities. Mr. Snyder said “location first.” You can build a basic building in the right spot and people will line up to get to it. If you build a spectacular building in a bad spot, no one will come. Ms. LaRose noted that the consultants are also at work considering a form of “performance zoning.” This would involve a list of options with a point value for each. The developer would be told how many points a project needed and could choose how to get to that number. 9. Introduction to Chief Sustainability Officer Role and Measurable Indicators: Due to the late hour, members agreed to postpone this discussion to the next meeting. 10. Minutes of 24 October 2017: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 24 October 2017 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:15 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission on November 28, 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 Staff Memo DATE: November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting First and foremost, a big welcome to Michael Mittag as the PC’s newest member! 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. Request for Boundary Line determination – Isham parcel 1225 Dorset Street (7:20 pm) Enclosed please find the request regarding the boundary line determination at 1225 Dorset Street, a staff memo, and a map for context. 6. Zoning amendment request – Materials in the Form Based Codes district (7:35 pm) Enclosed please find a zoning amendment request and initial staff memo 7. Continued review of draft amendments to Land Development Regulations (7:50 pm) a. Urban Design Overlay District b. Building heights in C1-R15 and C1-Auto District to complement Urban Design standards c. Staff status update on the following: Housing Replacement Standards, Parking standards, Form Based Code adjustments, Bicycle Parking amendments See the enclosed memo and language from Cathyann LaRose on items (a) and (b). Staff will provide a verbal update on item (c) 8. Commission six-month check-in on annual work plan progress (8:20 pm) In your last meeting’s packet was a copy of the Commission’s work plan, with progress noted. Commissioners asked for some time at this meeting to review the status of projects overall. In advance of the meeting we’ll try to give you an overall estimate of what % of the current year of the work plan (in beige in the chart) has been accomplished so that you can evaluate success to date. 9. Planned Unit Development / Master Plan project update (8:35 pm) a. Review of landowner feedback b. Staff project status update Enclosed is the landowner feedback that had been provided on the PUD project a couple of meetings back. Commissioners asked for an opportunity to review this at a meeting. Staff will also provide an update on progress on the project with our consultants. 10. Introduction to Chief Sustainability Officer Role & measurable indicators (8:50 pm) Overview of this role and how it can support the Commission’s goals in the Comprehensive Plan 11. Meeting Minutes (9:10 pm) 12. Other Business (9:12 pm) a. Upcoming meetings & schedules b. Application for Certificate of Public Good, Verizon Wireless, 366 Dorset Street See the enclosed application and cover letter. Note that there is an updated cover letter. Staff discovered some inconsistencies in the original application and these have been modified. Staff also asked that barbed wire that had been planned be removed, which has also been done. 13. Adjourn (9:15 pm) 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: Request to allow replacement of vinyl siding in the Form Based Code District DATE: November 14, 2017 Commission meeting Enclosed is a letter form Susan Turcotte of Industrial Four requesting that the City allow for the replacement of vinyl siding on a building within the Form Based Codes District. Specifically, the request is to allow a non-conforming siding material (vinyl in this case) to be replaced in its entirety on a building. Vinyl is a prohibited material for any façade facing a street or park in the Form Based Codes district. Applicable standard: 8.07 Prohibited Materials The following is a list of materials that are strictly forbidden as exterior finish materials, on all sides facing a street right-of-way, public right-of-way, pedestrian passages or public civic space, in all City Center districts: A. All types and form of vinyl siding or vinyl finishing products. B. External Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) C. Stucco D. Plywood (excluding Marine Grade plywood) E. Chain-link fence F. T1-11 G. Concrete block, cinder block H. Tar paper I. Tyvek or equivalent Background This request was initiated this fall after Northfield Saving Bank elected to renovate the exterior of their two buildings in South Burlington (Shelburne Road and Williston Road). In both cases, the building siding was replaced in its entirety without receipt of zoning permits. Both the old and the new siding are vinyl. One of these building is located within the City Center Form Based Codes district. Staff sent a letter to Northfield Saving Bank indicating that they had undertaken renovations without a permit and asked for them to apply for approval. It was at that time that this subject came up. Staff indicated to the applicant that it would likely not consider the replacement, in its entirety, of vinyl siding to be in conformance with the regulations. Staff offered the applicant the option of either requesting a modification to the standards to the Planning Commission, or receiving a formal determination from staff and having the option to appeal the decision to the DRB. The applicant elected to seek an amendment from the Planning Commission, at least initially. Options and Alternatives As with all zoning amendment requests, the purpose of this initial review is for the Commission to determine if it wishes to take up the request or not, and if so, on what general timeline. Options for the Commission include taking no action, considering a change in the shorter term, or taking the request under advisement for the future. There are multiple buildings in the City Center Form Based Codes district with vinyl siding. Staff encourages the Commission to keep that in mind as it considers the request. As this is principally a design issue, staff is not providing a specific recommendation for how the Commission should proceed; we’d like to invite the Commission to share its thoughts first on this matter. DONALD L. HAMLIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Please reply to: ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS P.O. Box 9 136 Pearl Street Tel. (802) 878-3956 Essex Junction Essex Junction, Vermont Fax (802) 878-2679 Vermont 05453 E-mail: HamlinEngineers@dlhce.com WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SUBDIVISIONS LABORATORY ANALYSIS WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SKI LIFTS (WATER AND WASTE WATER) STREETS AND HIGHWAYS RECREATION AND INDUSTRIAL PLANNING LAND SURVEYING AIRPORTS SOIL BORINGS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Engineering – “The link between what we have and what we need” September 26, 2017 Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Ila M. Isham Estate, 1225 Dorset Street, Request for Zoning Boundary Definition Dear Mr. Conner: I am writing in accordance with the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Section 9.04 (D), Interpretation of Sub-District Boundaries. We request that the Planning Commission define the location of the zoning district boundaries for the Isham parcel located at 1225 Dorset Street. Please contact me if you have any questions or if you need any additional information. We look forward to meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss this matter. Respectfully, Richard F. Hamlin, P.E. Chief of Engineering c: Phil Shand Shawn Cheney 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: Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries for 1225 Dorset Street DATE: November 14, 2017 Commission meeting Enclosed with your packet is request on behalf of the Ila M. Isham Estate at 1225 Dorset Street for the Planning Commission to define the location of the zoning district boundaries for their property. Pursuant to the City’s Land Development Regulations, where uncertainty exists in the location of zoning district boundaries, the Planning Commission shall consider and make a determination on the location of such boundaries. Relevant portions of the Regulations are as follows: 3.03 District Boundaries A. Interpretation of District Boundaries (1) Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the Planning Commission shall determine the location, aided by the rules set forth in this section. Requests for interpretation of district boundaries of or within the Southeast Quadrant shall be subject to the provisions of Section 9.04(D) of these Regulations. (2) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the center lines of streets or highways shall be construed to follow such center lines. (3) Boundaries indicated as approximately following platted lot lines shall be construed to follow such lot lines. (4) Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines shall be construed to follow the center line of the railroad right-of-way. (5) Boundaries indicated as following shore lines shall be construed to follow such shore lines, and in the event of change in the shore line such boundaries shall be construed as moving with the actual shore line. (6) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the center lines of streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or other bodies of water shall be construed to follow such center lines. (7) Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of features indicated in subsections 1 through 4 above shall be so construed. Distances not specifically indicated on the Official Zoning Map or described under each zone shall be determined by the scale of the map. B. Interpretation by Planning Commission. Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are inconsistent with those shown on the Official Zoning Map, or in other circumstances not covered by subsections 1 through 7 above, the Planning Commission shall interpret the district boundaries. 9.04 Designation of SEQ Sub-Districts and SEQ Zoning Map D. Interpretation of Sub-District Boundaries. In any location where uncertainty exists regarding the exact boundaries of a sub-district as shown on the Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map, the affected property owner may submit a written request that the Planning Commission define the location of the boundary with respect to the subject property. The Planning Commission shall consider such request at a meeting of the Planning Commission held within 60 days of receipt of the written request. At the meeting, the Planning Commission shall provide an opportunity for persons, including municipal staff, officials, and consultants, to present information relevant to the determination of the boundary location. The Planning Commission has the authority to invoke technical review of any such submittals or to gain additional information. Within 30 days following such meeting, or any continuation thereof, the Planning Commission shall determine the boundary location, giving consideration to the original intent or purpose in designating such sub-district, as expressed in the Southeast Quadrant chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Subject Parcel The subject parcel at 1225 Dorset Street is located in the Southeast Quadrant. The enclosed map shows the property boundaries and mapped zoning boundaries. Staff has reviewed the parcel. Using the criteria above, it appears to staff that where the zoning lots lines follow the parcel boundaries, and thus should be construed to be matching those lines. Where the zoning boundaries do not match property boundaries, they extend significantly to the north and south. The entire property appears, therefore, to be located with the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection sub- district. Staff recommends that the Commission determine that the subject parcel is entirely located within the SEQ-NRP sub-district under the Land Development Regulations in effect as of July 11, 2017. 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Map Prepared 11.6.17 Parcel Boundary Natural Resource Protection Neighborhood Residential North Neighborhood Residential Municipal Village Residential Residential 1 Residential 2 Residential 4 Industrial & Open Space Institutional & Agricultural-South Park & Recreation South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 Article 10 Overlay Districts Staff note: All of the text below is new, including the existence of section 10.06. Changes shown in purple below include staff updates made after the September 12th meeting of the Planning Commission. Changes shown in red reflect those made per the direction of the Commission at the October 24th meeting. This draft is for discussion purposes only. A clean redlined draft, including chapter context, will be presented prior to any warning of a public hearing. 10.06 Urban Design Overlay District A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan. This section implements the community desires established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan desires that new development will occur in subject corridors. The corridors subject to the Urban Design Overlay District are encouraged within the Plan to use public transportation services, inspire pedestrian movement, and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas. More specifically yet, the Plan advocates for the creation of one or more nodes of concentrated development and public activity in these areas. C. Applicability. This section shall be implemented in accordance with the geography(ies) shown on the Overlay Districts Map contained in these Regulations. (1) New construction. In the case of proposed expansions to existing buildings, only the portion of the building being added or rehabilitation per (2) below shall be subject to compliance with these standards. Portions of an existing building not being modified may remain as is provided alterations do not increase the degree of nonconformity. (2) Substantial Rehabilitation (a) Authority to Continue. Nonconforming structures may be continued provided conditions in this Section are met. (b) Repair and Alterations. Repair and alterations may be performed on any nonconforming structure, provided they comply with the Code and with the following: (a) When the total area of alterations to the primary building façade, or to the building façade that is parallel to and oriented to the street, exceeds 35% of the total areas of such building façade, the alterations shall comply with the entry and glazing standards described. For the purposes of this subsection, window and window casing replacement, painting, adding or removal of siding, and other similar changes shall not be considered alterations. For multi-tenant buildings, the standard shall apply separately for each tenant area where that tenant gross floor area exceeds 10,000 square feet. (b) Structural alterations involving the replacement, relocation, removal, or other similar changes to more than 50% of all load bearing wall / pillar elements of a building shall require compliance with all standards within these Regulations. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 (3) Nodes. These regulations recognize that some areas of a corridor serve or will serve as important connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is desired and, where noted, required and permitted. Site design and buildings within designated nodes shall provide a welcoming and safe street presence for all users. Nodes are listed as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’, and are mapped and regulated accordingly. D. Standards. Except where noted herein, the underlying dimensional standards, use, and other standards of the Zoning District shall still apply. (1) Entries. Subject properties must have at least one entry facing the primary road in the corridor. Any such entry shall: (a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations. (b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. Front entries shall be a focal point of the front façade and shall be an easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticos, overhangs, recesses/projections, decorative front doors and side lights, or emphasis through varied color or special materials. This does not preclude additional principal entry doors. (c) Shall have a direct, separated walkway of at least 8 feet in width to the primary road. This may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a pedestrian-oriented access. (2) Glazing. Windows are key to the overall design of a building and the relationship between its exterior and interior. (a) For all properties in the Urban Overlay District, a minimum of 75% of glazing shall be transparent. (b) In non-residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7 vertical feet. (c) For residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 5 vertical feet. (3) Dimensional Standards Height Minimum (Maximums per underlying zoning district) Glazing Features Setback from ROW Designated Primary Node 2 stories First stories shall have a minimum of 60% glazing across the width of the building facade on primary street; 40% minimum glazing across width of the façade facing the secondary street. Must have significant architectural feature at corner of building. Minimum 20 feet Designated Secondary Node Appearance of two stories at minimum. Buildings less than 6k sf gfa First stories shall have a minimum of 60% glazing across the width of the building facade on primary street; 40% minimum glazing across width Must have significant architectural feature at corner of building. Minimum 20 feet South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 may be one story. of the façade facing the secondary street. All other properties No height minimums First stories shall have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width of the building facade Minimum 20 feet (4) Landscaping Projects within the Urban Design Overlay District shall meet minimum landscaping requirements as per Section 13.06 of these Regulations. Projects are also subject to the following supplemental standards: (a) Landscaping which is required elsewhere in these Regulations to serve as a buffer between properties shall not count towards the minimum landscaping budget. (b) For buildings which are set back 50 feet or more from the front property line, at least 50% of the required landscaping shall be installed between the front building line and the front property line. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 Urban Overlay District Nodes; Overall Map Please note that these are best viewed interactively. We’ll bring the interactive maps for discussion at the November 14th meeting. South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 Urban Overlay District Nodes; Detailed location maps from north to south South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 Williston Road: South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 South Burlington Planning Commission Urban Overlay District Text for discussion November 14, 2017 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Heights in C1-R15 and C1-Auto Zoning Districts DATE: November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting At a joint meeting with the Development Review Board in 2015, the DRB asked the Planning Commission to consider some adjustments along Shelburne Road. The DRB stated that they had continually received requests for height and setback waivers and felt that the stated purpose and intentions for the area did not match the existing regulatory text. The Planning Commission agreed that there was a disconnect and agreed to take up the issue, subsequently directing staff to bring ideas that could provide a ‘quick fix’ to these two issues. The direction was to promote a semi-urban environment, where the building setback and heights restrictions were less restrictive than more rural or suburban parts of the City, while also requiring simple adjustments to building facades and placement to further the stated goal. Over the course of the last year, the Commission held several productive discussions of these issues. The scope was widened to include a small portion of Williston Road nearest Kennedy Drive, which is in a very similar zoning district. Nodes were designated to promote increased building presence at key intersections. The related urban overlay text (enclosed) is the result of specific guidance from these discussions and concludes these productive conversations. The Commission discussed building heights over the course of several meetings, primarily with regard to appropriate heights, and whether there were any necessary variations at corners, along the primary road, or further setback. As a result, the attached revised draft of the Urban Overlay District no longer includes specifications for maximum height limits within the overlay. As presented at the last October meeting and given due consideration of Commissioner feedback, the draft recognizes that maximum height limits are best tied to the underlying zoning district rather than the corridor/overlay district. The design standards for the overlay district are appropriate for buildings which are set close to the street and for which an enhanced pedestrian environment is enriched, while the height considerations may be appropriate for more than just the first 140 feet of depth on these corridors. The Commission also indicated a belief that the 35 foot height restrictions in the C1-R15 (15 units per acre in density, the greatest in the City outside of the City Center FBC area) and C1-Auto districts do not reflect the intended purpose or desired densities of the districts. The current height limitations for the C1-R15 and C1-Auto are defined only by feet. For historical context, the Planning Commission several years ago discussed and established height limitations by stories for low density districts. Staff recalls that the Commission intended to return to more dense zones, acknowledging that they are very different than the lower density residential neighborhoods and should be considered separately. 2 Current height regulations Zoning Map showing C1-R15 and C1-Auto: 3 Based on commissioner feedback, staff proposed the following height limitations. Please note the subsequent limitations which would apply based on proximity to existing residential neighborhoods: District Land Use Maximum site coverage: Maximum Building Height Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Accessory Principal (flat) Principal (pitched) Total Stories C1 Multi- family 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 All other uses 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 C1-Auto Multi- family 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 All other uses 40% 70% 15 35 40 5 (a) No building shall be more than 1 story taller than the shortest R4 building on adjacent property. The portion of the building greater than this may increase by 1 story for each 75’ of separation, up to allowable maximum. (b) Stories of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District are defined as per Section 8.06(F) of these Regulations. (c) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District. (d) First story floor-to-floor height shall not exceed 20 feet. Upper stories shall not exceed 14 feet in floor-to-floor height. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Update on Status of PUD Phase II project DATE: September 26, 2017 Commission meeting The PUD Phase II project is really developing! Staff and the consulting team have been busy meeting with stakeholders and property owners, working on fixes to the underlying zoning and regulatory text, and continuing to develop text for Planning Commission review. Staff will present a full update at the September 26th PC meeting. This includes reiteration of some previous notes from the consulting team as well as a staff update on progress since. Stakeholder Meetings Staff and the consulting team met with four major landowners late this summer. These include Snyder Homes (Chris Snyder), University of Vermont Campus Planning, Hill Farm Estates (Jeff Nick), and O’Brien Brothers Agency (Evan Langfeldt and Andrew Gill). We’re working to schedule one or two more in order to assess other unique properties in the City. These meetings allowed us in part to update these landowners on the project and also to gather information on market trends, unique physical environments, and input on review processes. They were quite informative. I encourage you to read the attached Developer Meeting Notes for more information. It should be noted that the conversation with UVM was not intended to- and did not- specifically reflect on the land which was proposed for an RFP at the time of the meeting. Housekeeping Amendments Staff continues to evaluate current LDR provisions, including existing exceptions, waivers and modifications, with regard to how these support, or may undermine, current zoning district requirements and new planned development provisions. Recent work sessions have focused on proposed PUD types in relation to underlying zoning districts, including allowed uses and densities of development by district, as specified or calculated from current lot size, building and lot coverage, and height requirements. Subdivision/Master Plan Review Initial drafts of these sections are in progress, based on the considerations and outline presented at the May meeting. Zoning District Amendments and Consolidation Currently, PUDs are tied to underlying zoning districts. As recommended in the Phase I Report, planned unit development has been proposed as a “floating zone, fixed on the map only when an application for development, meeting the zone requirements, is approved. Under a floating zone, planned unit development would be “triggered” (allowed or mandated) as specified in the regulations. As we’ve been working to define PUD types in relation to underlying zoning district requirements, it becomes more important to ensure that the underlying zoning districts match the goals of the City as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff presented a basic first draft of this to the Planning Commission at its second August meeting. Work is ongoing, and we expect to have another draft for the Commission in October. Project Meetings Staff continues to have regular and productive meetings with the consulting team. Next Steps The consulting team will be scheduling meetings with City committees for updates and input. Staff will join them as they meet with Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, Recreation and Parks, Affordable Housing, and likely the Energy Committee in October and early November. The consulting team is continuing to work on text for Planning Commission review. At this time, we are hoping to bring something for your review in early November. Staff continues to work on housekeeping amendments and zoning district amendments and consolidation. Please see the attached listing of ongoing and future components, laid out as internal staff notes. Some of the elements therein will need further discussion to determine what is to be a part of this project, and what should be developed further or more holistically as part of a follow-up project. South Burlington PUD Project: Phase II: Developer Meeting Notes [8/2017, S. Murray] Meetings to date 7/27 Snyder Homes, Chris Snyder 7/27 University of Vermont Campus Planning, Lani Ravin, Claire Forbes 7/28 Hill Farm Estates, Jeff Nick 8/11 O’Brien Brothers Agency, Evan Langfeldt, Andrew Gill Master Plans  Master plans are typically developed in some form to support larger development proposals (for financing, permitting, etc.)—e.g., UVM has a campus master plan that guides their process; other developers also have prepared master plans in varying stages of review.  The level of detail that may be required is a concern – e.g., land use allocation areas (zones) are reasonable; building footprints should not be required. Should also not have to address small stuff (accessory structures, specific amenities/features) at this stage.  Flexibility over time is needed to respond to market dynamics; particularly for phased development.  Context/connections – connections (to adjoining properties, road network, in some cases transit routes) are already a consideration. Road connections are often an issue with neighbors—even when planned in advance. Adjoining uses are also considered to a lesser extent. UVM also noted concern that new roads, development will increase development pressure on remaining agricultural land.  Amenities – The phasing or scheduled development of planned amenities (e.g. parks, recreation facilities) depends on type, availability of financing, etc. – can’t all be frontloaded in the first phase of development.  Vesting/vested rights are really important – needed to secure financing for phased development, major infrastructure improvements. Ten years common – generally acceptable. Planned Development Types:  Generally more interest in “urban” forms of planned development (TND and NCD) – better match with current development projects – with the associated caution that mixed use development remains a challenge for financing, especially given shrinking retail market. Finney Crossing in Williston was noted as an example where the mixed use/retail component was scaled back from the original plan in relation to market conditions, given the difficulty in securing tenants for available space. Commercial space may sit vacant for many years.  Also general support for transit-oriented development (e.g., along existing, planned transit routes), associated densities – but concerns regarding the need for developer to “provide” (rather than physically accommodate) transit service – planned routes, stops need to be coordinated between the city and GMT. Providing a transit stop or pull off as part of a project design was less of a concern.  UVM expressed interest in the campus/office park form of planned development, but asked for more information (and time to provide more feedback). They noted the statutory limitations on city’s ability to regulate institutional uses, but also that land identified for potential sale would not necessarily be under UVM’s control.  It was noted that the SEQ represents a real reserve for housing development if zoning in this area is changed and/or forms of higher density planned development are allowed. Land Use Allocations:  Need to more specifically evaluate proposed allocations in relation to locally proposed development (e.g., proposed master plans).  General support for incorporating some flexibility – e.g., an % uncommitted allocation as a developer option, to apply in relation to changing market conditions – but no real feedback on specific percentages (generally the more flexibility the better).  Again, noted difficulty in developing, financing mixed use development, buildings – “nonresidential” component should be defined to allow for a variety of uses (not limited to retail).  Less support for specific allocations related to mix of housing types – tied to market conditions; consider additional incentives (v. mandates) for desired forms of housing—e.g., waive impact fees for higher than minimum required densities (given more efficient use of land).  Questions, some concerns regarding how civic spaces, uses will be defined in relation to required allocations – for example 5% may be high for civic space if based only total project/land area. General support for defining a “menu” of allowed forms of civic space by type. Also consider defining as a ratio (e.g., SF of civic space/DU or SF of nonresidential).  It was also noted that if new development is located near and connected to an existing park, this should be taken into consideration (e.g., with regard to required open space allocations).  Should consider allowing modifications of required land use allocations in relation to complementary existing or planned uses within the larger pedestrian or transit shed – may be especially important for infill or redevelopment. Density:  General support for a minimum density requirement, in concept– but would depend on how this is defined and applied (e.g., in relation to site constraints). Noted that development is often not built to allowed densities due to site constraints, neighbors – a minimum density provision could help.  Transfers of density (e.g., between zoning districts) should be allowed within a project area—not tied to zoning district boundaries.  Higher density forms of housing (townhouses, condos/apartments) are needed to support new housing development in the county, but density is not the only consideration – need to build to meet market demand.  Consumers continue to prefer new construction, attached two-car garages, convenient parking–but increasingly also walkability, easy access to transit, restaurants, services, recreational amenities (bike paths, parks, playgrounds).  Smaller single family homes are especially challenging given land prices, permitting/ infrastructure costs, available financing. Often more density is needed to make project numbers work.  Currently new single family dwellings are averaging around 2,000 -2,200 SF (at $300,000+); some as small as 1,600 SF (~ $300,000). “Small” multifamily units averaging around 600 to 900 SF.  Requiring alleys, rear-accessed and or recessed garages significantly increases costs and/or creates site challenges for higher density forms of housing. Underground and structured parking are also typically cost prohibitive. Should at minimum allow waivers to address site conditions (e.g., slopes); also allow first floor/pedestal parking, screened from the street.  According to one developer, the current market for townhomes and condos is currently 90% downsizing empty nesters, 10% new home buyers –downsizers support higher end condo/apartment development. Willing to accept forms of higher density housing in trade for maintenance services. SFD condo/footprint lots also increasingly popular – minimize yard maintenance requirements. Additional Considerations, Concerns:  Current zoning district designations do not necessarily support planned or proposed types of development in some locations. As noted I-A District – north and south are very different with regard to surrounding context—e.g., a TND form could be appropriate within areas of the I-A District. Also consider for portions of I-O district  The city needs to share in costs of infrastructure development, especially in support of larger development (citing City Center as an example) – should re-evaluate cumulative impact of infrastructure (especially fire code, road) and impact fee requirements.  Common areas, spaces need to be well sited and designed; many go unused (e.g., park at Maple Tree Place noted; scheduled for redesign). Allow for changes in use/programming of space to meet changing resident needs. E.g., some new developments now include indoor gym facilities, outdoor swimming pools for use of residents, guests. PUD Phase II Project Components Ongoing 1. Continue to adjust metrics and geographies of new PUD types 2. Continue to assess thresholds of requirement Ahead of new PUD Regulations: 1. Work on Master Plan Standards a. This should be ready to go regardless of PUD adoption. While they interact, the MP standards should be able to stand on their own. 2. Urban Design Overlay District (aka Shelburne Road) 3. Adjustments to Underlying Zoning a. District assignments b. Also look at uses and dimensional standards- several uses are listed as PUD only. What changes need to happen here so this is clean? 4. Parking Reductions 5. Consider how existing street typologies will play a role 6. Consider those items currently linked to PUD review; some may be best unlinked before or as part of the PUD language adoption. Ex- affordable housing seems to require PUD review per Sharon’s assessment. 7. Misc Organizational Amendments a. Article 3- p 3-8, structures requiring setbacks b. Table C-2 to include width and frontage requirements c. Others- staff has notes Concurrent with PUD Regulations 1. Open Space Standards City wide 2. SEQ updates 3. Clear requirements for projects which do not choose or qualify as PUD a. This will also require a limit on things which can be waived, as well as very clear (likely quantifiable) standards for when things can be waived. b. Must ensure that the site plan standards we’d seek for site plans are fully outlined in site plan regulations; carry over anything which exists in PUD standards which could/should apply to basic site plans. c. Must also ensure that subdivision standards can stand on their own; may also require a connection to PUD or master plan requirements. Or perhaps simplify or only allow in limited circumstances. Needs discussion. Need to consider if subdivisions can pre-empt PUD requirements. After Adoption of PUD regulations/Add-Ons 1. Height requirements city-wide 2. Examine all Conditional Use designations 3. Design book SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 OCTOBER 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 October 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; B. MiLizia, T. Barritt; B. Miller, F. Kochman, J. Kochman 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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 report: Ms. Louisos – Advised that the Commission has a new member, Michael Mittag. Mr. Riehle – Noted that the City of Burlington is doing protected bike lanes. He also asked about a possible discussion on the “developers’ notes” handout from the Planned Unit Development project. Mr. Conner said that discussion can happen at the next meeting or at a choosing of the Commission’s. Ms. Ostby – The Affordable Housing Committee is discussing identifying “target areas” for affordable housing. Mr. Conner – Noted that VTrans is a big funder of the Williston Rd. bike lane that is being completed. There was a grand opening last week. On 1 November, there will be a press conference regarding the ground-breaking for the new Cathedral Square Housing on Market St. 2 November will be the grand opening of the landfill solar field. It is already in use. Meetings are underway with the Regional Planning Commission regarding for the next 4 bike/ped projects. 2 The city has been awarded an $800,000 grant from the State for Phase I of the Williston Rd. streetcape and bike/ped project (Dorset Street to Midas Drive). This will be TIF eligible. 5. Presentation of Possible Amendment to Land Development Regulations regarding footprint lots: Mr. Kochman gave members a copy of an amendment he is proposing to the LDRs. He said the ordinance is so clear that he can’t accept findings that say “a subdivision is not a subdivision” even though “subdivision” is defined in the LDRs (he read that definition). He stressed that he wanted to solve the practical problem which began when banks got uncomfortable with PUDs and buyers in attached homes were make owners of the land under their homes. This accommodation was made without change to the regulations. Mr. Kochman noted the regulations say you cannot reduce a setback to less than 5 feet, which, he said, means you can’t do what has been being done. He felt it is fine if the developer intends to sell the house and the land underneath it, but the LDR language has to authorize this lawfully. The problem is you don’t want single family houses with only 3 inches between them. Mr. Klugo asked what the attorneys say. Mr. Kochman said the city’s attorneys disagree with him and cite a case from 1995 which they feel means the city can have footprint lots. Mr. Kochman disagreed with their interpretation. Ms. Ostby asked how the proposed language change would affect developers. Mr. Kochman said “not at all.” Adopting the language says that this is necessary to achieve the result. Mr. Klugo asked what is the issue with single family housing. Mr. Kochman said there is no rule governing single family housing within PUDs. The LDRs define a lot, but for purposes of the PUD regulations, we say it is not a lot. Mr. Klugo noted the residential units at the end of Market Street are rentals. He asked if they could be “condo-ized” in the future. Mr. Kochman said change from rental to ownership is exempt from regulations. Mr. Miller reported that Mr. Belair has said this process was adopted many years ago, and other communities have adopted it based on South Burlington’s use of it. Mr. Conner said the issue in question applies only when the developer wants the “ownership feature.” The legal opinion is that these are not “lots”; they are only “owned.” It is the “ownership structure” which is a form of ownership, not a lot. Mr. Klugo noted the regulations do not define a “footprint lot,” and he didn’t feel the Commission could do anything without such a definition. He also had an issue with possibly going against the City Attorney’s opinion which differs from Mr. Kochman’s. Mr. Conner said he would speak with the legal counsel about distributing their opinion to Commission members. Ms. LaRose reminded members that they are “knee-deep” in a PUD project. She urged them not to change any language or write any text until they have seen newly proposed language. Mr. Gagnon said 3 he would like to hear the consultant’s opinion. Ms. LaRose said they are identifying areas where PUDs are tied to other things, and PUDs could look very different in the future. Mr. Kochman said this issue bears on projects before the Board at almost every meeting. A PUD rewrite could take many months. He stressed that his proposed change would not affect units of housing that have already been approved. The appeal route is the only way to challenge an approval. Ms. Louisos suggested trying to have a joint meeting with the DRB in the near future. Mr. Klugo suggested the possibility of a Commission executive session on this issue. Members agreed to consider this request in light of the Commission’s work schedule. 6. Initial discussion of proposed amendments to the City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Conner noted that things have been “cropping up” that do not require massive fundamental changes. He then reviewed some of the issues as follows: a. The regulations say all buildings must be up against the street. A shed is a building, but the intention is not to have a shad up against the street. The proposed amendment would allow an accessory building to be built behind a principal building. b. Regarding buffer strips, there were two options between a T-4 and an existing single-family development, either a planted buffer at least 20 feet wide or a combination of an “alley” and a planted buffer (dense evergreens) of at least 8 in width. The amendment would add a “parking area” to include opaque screening from any vehicle or similar source. Members were OK with the overall intent. Staff will clean up the language. c. Regarding open space, there have been instances when a landowner has had an interest in “banking” open space. The regulations require that the open space would have to have been created before the building goes in. Qualifying open space must be within the Form Based Code district, but doesn’t have to be connected to the development. Offsite open space for non-residential development must be within 150 feet of the site with direct access. Members voiced no concerns with this amendment. d. Where open space is approved to be off-site, there have requests to allow a portion of landscaping budget may to be off-site. There are both pros and cons to this proposal. The “pro” is that the landscaping budget may be hard to fit on the site as greenery, and this insures it will be used nearby. The “con’” is that a large portion of the landscaping budget could be used off-site. Mr. Klugo felt the landscaping budget shouldn’t be used off-site; off- site plantings could be in addition to the required budget. Ms. Milizia noted that the City Arborist has said that sometimes a developer has to put in too much landscaping that becomes too crowded and results in plants dying. Mr. Klugo noted the budget doesn’t only have to be used for plantings; benches and other amenities can be counted. Mr. Conner noted that the new Cathedral Square development is putting more than half of its landscaping budget to a sculpture. There is a minimum that has to be plantings. Staff will come back with options. e. There are narrow, deep lots in the T-3 district, and the regulations say all units must face the street. There are 2 options to address this: for pre-existing lots, there can be one front- facing multi-family building (up to 6 units). Mr. Conner showed a rendering of this; the 4 second option is a 2-unit carriage house with one unit the back. Mr. Conner showed a rendering of this option. Mr. Klugo said the second option is very popular in “Harvard Row.” Mr. Conner said the rear unit would be limited to 2-1/2 stories while the front unit could be 3 stories. Mr. Klugo felt the rear unit should be subordinate to protect the feeling along the street. Members agreed that the front building should never be smaller than the rear one. Staff will come back with refined concepts. f. In the T-4 and T-5 districts, the regulations state that an accessory structure shall not exceed 500 sq. ft. and won’t be in front of the primary structure, a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. The amendment would eliminate a bike rack or benches from this standard. Mr. Klugo was troubled by the broad definition of “accessory structure.” He wouldn’t want a “pod” to be there for 6 months. He suggested allowing a structure that “sits on a foundation and is anchored” but not something that can be picked up and moved. Mr. Conner agreed to have staff reconsider “pods.” g. Window and glazing insets. Mr. Klugo said he opposes allowing deviations from the Form Based Code before it has been applied. He felt that in the end, the city wouldn’t get what it is trying to get. He said that if a developer is falling back on material issues, they’re looking for an easy way out. Ms. Ostby said that “creativity” is OK as long as the intention is met. Mr. Klugo noted that Form Based Code is meant to be “freeing,” but it is actually proscriptive. He added that the Administrative Officer is in the position of determining what is and is not “creative.” He did not want to unravel Form Based Code when there hasn’t been a building built yet. Mr. Gagnon agreed. Mr. Conner said that if the Commission wished, he could relay to the architect interested in the change present their perspective. Commissioners agreed. 7. Continued Review of Draft Urban Design Overlay District – Shelburne Road and Williston Road: Ms. LaRose noted some new text indicating that in the case of a proposed expansion to an existing building, only the portion of the building being added or rehabilitated would be subject to compliance with the standards. Alterations would have to comply with entry and glazing standards. Regarding a “principal entry,” it must be “dominant” and “recognizable” and can have features such as awnings, porticos, etc. Mr. Conner added that it must give the feel of being a principal entry, even if it isn’t the principal entry (he cited Trader Joe’s Dorset St. entry). Ms. Ostby asked about the issue of requiring more than one entry and dealing with security for retail establishments. Mr. Conner acknowledged this can be a sticking point for retailers. Mr. Klugo was concerned with limiting creativity and suggested replacing “dominant” with “focal point.” Ms. Ostby said it seems like they’re trying to create a New York or Boston, and this is not. She felt they are trying to force a design to address a traffic situation that isn’t going to be the case for a long time. She felt they need to consider what they are envisioning here. Ms. LaRose cited the feeling of “alienation” when you walk by a building without a door. 5 Ms. LaRose then noted the glazing requirements for corner buildings in primary and secondary “nodes.” There must be 60% glazing across the fronts of buildings in a primary node and 40% in a secondary node. There must also be a significant architectural feature at the corner of a building. Ms. LaRose showed an overhead photo of the area with an urban Design Overlay option. Mr. Conner said door and glass standards are the ones that would mostly be applicable here. Buildings would face the street. A building behind a building would not need to comply. Mr. Conner indicated an area where all buildings would have to be “corner” buildings. Regarding setbacks, members expressed concern with creating a pedestrian environment including potential seating. They wanted to be sure the setbacks included those potentials. Ms. LaRose said they have struggled to tie building heights to the corridor. The suggestion is that building heights would comply with those of the underlying zoning district. Ms. LaRose noted that the Farrell projects needed a heigh5t waiver for every building. Staff does want to explore heights in C-1/R- 12 and C-1 Auto districts. In order to get more density, height waivers are needed; minimizing the height waivers can also minimize creative design. Mr. Conner stressed that they would maintain protection for adjacent residential areas. Members were OK with having a height discussion. 8. Proposed Adjustment to Bike Parking Standards: Mr. Conner said they have gotten lots of feedback on the new bike standards. He noted that some bike racks that don’t meet the standard are very functional and could be allowed to remain as long as they are properly anchored to the ground. Others, which are identified in the regulations, would have to be replaced. Members voiced no objections to this. 9. Meeting Minutes of 12 and 29 September and 10 October 2017: Ms. Ostby noted that in the Minutes of 12 September, page 1, the sentence should read, “Ms. Dooley offered….” Ms. Louisos then moved to approve the Minutes of 12 and 29 September and 10 October 2017 as written or amended. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:34 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk