HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 09/10/2019South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, September 10, 2019
7:00 pm
South Burlington Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street
AGENDA:
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm)
5. Presentation and discussion of findings to date and next steps on City Center Parking & Movement
Plan project, Rick Bryant, Stantec (7:10 pm)
6. Update on Chair’s natural resources work group; consideration of possible assessment of forest
blocks, Jessica Louisos & Bernie Gagnon (7:45 pm)
7. Consider and possible approval of possible 2020 Municipal Planning Grant application for submittal
to City Council (8:15 pm)
8. Committee Liaison Reports: (8:20 pm)
(a) Affordable Housing, Monica Ostby
(b) Open Space Interim Zoning, Bernie Gagnon
(c) Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning, Michael Mittag
9. Meeting Minutes (8:40 pm)
10. Other business (8:42 pm)
11. Adjourn (8:45 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to
insure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to
call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e -mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
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
Cathyann LaRose, City Planner
SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo
DATE: September 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm)
Staff Report: Lots and lots going on! Everyone’s at full speed, both within P & Z and beyond:
The Development Review Board is in the process of reviewing a proposed FedEx Ground
distribution facility in Technology Park
Council Public Hearing on LDR Amendments September 16: The City Council has warned a
public hearing for each of the LDR amendments submitted by the Planning Commission for
Monday, September 16, 7:30 pm.
All committees symposium September 26: On Thursday September 26th in the evening, the
City will be hosting an all-committees symposium. Each Committee/Board will have a poster
board of projects being worked on and make a short presentation to the City Council. In
addition, there will be workshops & trainings on a host of different topics, and social time for
folks to get to know one another better. Save the date!
The City Council will be hosting a series of workshops and events next month on the subject
of addressing domestic violence. Details on dates coming soon.
Feedback on Possible Indoor Recreation Facility: A survey has gone out seeking input on a
possible public indoor recreation facility. As of this week, over 600 responses have been
received. Please share and encourage others to participate. There will be a public meeting
on Tuesday, September 17th as well (location TBD).
Airport Noise Compatibility Plan: The Airport will be holding its next Technical Advisory
Committee meeting on Sept 19th. We’ll know shortly whether this will feature the draft
Noise Compatibility Plan or whether it will be following that meeting.
5. Presentation and discussion of findings to date and next steps on City Center Parking &
Movement Plan project, Rick Bryant, Stantec (7:10 pm)
Staff have been working with Stantec on a City Center Parking and Movement Plan for the
past year or so. As background, the project proposal was submitted to the CCRPC by the
Planning Commission and City Council back in January 2018, and started up in FY 2019.
Stantec on Tuesday will present preliminary findings from the first phase of the project – an
assessment of current parking conditions in the City Center area and projections of future
overall need. In addition, they will present the outline of the remainder of the work – future
strategies for parking & ways in which people will be able to arrive, leave, and get from point
a to point b within City Center in the future – and will be seeking Commission feedback on
subject areas to make sure they cover during that phase of the work.
6. Update on Chair’s natural resources work group; consideration of possible assessment of
forest blocks, Jessica Louisos & Bernie Gagnon (7:45 pm)
The natural resource working group has continued to discuss a wholistic approach to natural
resource planning. The group has identified sources and methods for approaches to water
quality and hazards, and is nearing recommendations related to wildlife habitat and
agricultural sustainability and success. Recognizing that more professional assistance would
be needed to assess potential habitat blocks in the city, we’ve solicited a proposal for
assistance from Arrowood Environmental. The scope of that is attached. Jessica and Bernie
will be discussing at the meeting the goals of this study and what the outcome will inform.
We expect to discuss how these resources could be regulated as part of land development at
a future meeting.
7. Consider and possible approval of possible 2020 Municipal Planning Grant application for
submittal to City Council (8:15 pm)
See attached proposal recommendation from the Affordable Housing Committee.
8. Committee Liaison Reports: (8:20 pm)
a. Affordable Housing, Monica Ostby
b. Open Space Interim Zoning, Bernie Gagnon
c. Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning, Michael Mittag
9. Meeting Minutes (8:40 pm)
10. Other business (8:42 pm)
11. Adjourn (8:45 pm)
Concept Proposal & Cost Estimate for Habitat Block
Assessment, South Burlington, Vt.
August 29, 2019
Arrowwood Environmental (AE) is pleased to present a concept proposal and cost estimate for
identifying and conducting a habitat assessment and ranking of habitat blocks in the city of South
Burlington, Vermont. AE is a small, Vermont-based company that has been working with towns and
conservation organizations for the past 18 years to map and assess natural resources in Vermont. Our
team of professionals has extensive experience in botany, wildlife biology, wetland ecology, surface water
hydrology, remote sensing and geographic information systems. Using our expertise, we have conducted
natural resource assessments in over 20 cities and towns across the state, providing land managers and
regulatory officials with valuable information about significant natural communities, high functioning
wetlands and critical wildlife habitat.
This proposal was developed based on a request from the South Burlington Planning Office for an
analysis of “forest blocks” within the city for use as an aid in prioritizing regulatory and conservation
measures. The city of South Burlington retains only relatively small forest fragments, often adjacent to
supporting habitat in varying states of forest regeneration. We propose to perform a habitat assessment
that focuses on the forested areas, but extends to areas of these supporting habitat features beyond the
current forest edge that provide important and/or critical habitat requirements to the species utilizing the
forest habitats. Because forest and supporting habitat within South Burlington is relatively limited, in size
and scale, it is also important to consider connections between these habitat islands to provide wildlife
access to a variety of habitat elements to meet their biological needs such as food, water, shelter, mating
opportunities, etc.
In 2004 AE conducted an assessment of natural communities and wildlife habitat in the South
Burlington South-east Quadrant (SEQ). The 2004 project identified and evaluated key ecological
components within the SEQ, with a particular focus on intact forested areas. This current project will
utilize the findings of the 2004 work and extend identification of ecologically important forest habitat to
the remainder of South Burlington.
AE has developed a comprehensive methodology for conducting natural resource inventories on a
town-wide basis and has implemented this methodology for numerous towns in Vermont. This project
will utilize some of the concepts and tools employed in these inventories, but the desired project scope
and timeline limits the ability to conduct a full end-to-end assessment following our typical methodology.
None-the-less, we believe the approach is malleable and underlying scientific justification and technical
tools are appropriate at different scales and configurations.
This proposal is a conceptual approach. A complete methodology that is unique to the South
Burlington landscape will be developed in the course of the project. The budget and timeline included
here makes certain assumptions, but we expect it can provide a general framework within which
development of a habitat assessment methodology can be completed and applied to South Burlington
habitat blocks with some flexibility to allow input from City officials.
Task 1: Landscape & Existing Data Assessment
The initial Task will be to review existing natural resource and habitat mapping for the City of South
Burlington. This will include the 2004 SEQ assessment, Vt. F&W Forest Block mapping, South
Burlington’s Open Space Committee Class 1 and Class 2 forest mapping, and a wide variety of existing
landscape and species level natural resource spatial data. Included in Task 1 will be a windshield survey
of the forested and surrounding areas in South Burlington providing an opportunity for AE’s
investigators to view and consider the current condition of at least portions of South Burlington’s forest
lands and surroundings. Some brief on-foot visits to the forest interiors will be conducted as time and
public site access allows. This survey will take place from public rights-of-way and land with existing
public access only.
Task 2: Habitat Block Mapping
Task 2 will use information gathered in Task 1 to map habitat blocks within South Burlington.
Habitat mapping will be based on landcover characteristics and existing land use as identified in current
aerial imagery. Using existing community mapping as a foundation, potential habitat blocks will be
identified, and the surrounding area will be remotely assessed for specific land-cover types and features
such as wetlands, streams, early-succession forest and shrubland as well as forest stands based on
hardwood and softwood canopy composition. From this, boundaries of appropriate habitat blocks will
be delineated. In addition, this Task will explore, identify and delineate connecting habitat features
where wildlife passage between habitat blocks is available. Connecting habitat identification will utilize
established spatial modeling concepts and will aim to assign relative quality or value of an area for it’s
likely support as connectivity conduits between larger habitat blocks.
Task 3: Habitat Block Parameter Identification & Assessment
Task 3 will build on the mapping activities in Task 2 with a focus on identifying measurable
parameters within and around the habitat blocks that best evaluate for a block’s habitat quality. These
parameters will adhere to existing scientific consensus on habitat necessities and preferences for a
range of species guilds known to exist in north-western Vermont and the Champlain Valley.
The following parameters are being considered based on our past work and current natural resource
management science. This list will be refined and modified as the local landscape is evaluated. The
ability to assess for a particular parameter will be dependent on the available input components and the
available time to process and evaluate the data. These parameters provide a science-based assessment
that predicts, or is associated with the, quality of wildlife habitat within a habitat block. These
parameters have application for wide-ranging mammals, certain avian species, common and rare
species, and overall wildlife abundance.
• Availability of connections to other habitat blocks
• Quality of connections to other habitat blocks
• Horizontal forest diversity- relative measure of landscape change over the length and breadth
of a habitat block. This can measure cover type, canopy height, and other characteristics and
is a measure of structural vegetative diversity within a habitat block.
• Vertical forest diversity- relative measure of vertical cover density between the forest canopy
and ground.
• Canopy type and diversity- hardwood and softwood makeup of the forest block, and the
degree of variety or consistency across the block.
• Topographical diversity- land elevation changes and micro-topography within the habitat
block. This could also consider features known to influence wildlife activity such as ridgelines
and confined valleys.
• Wetlands and wetland types.
• Streams and riparian buffer conditions.
• Forest fragmentation- measure of intactness and compactness of the forested portions of a
habitat block.
• Size
• Sound Protection- natural and other features that limit auditory disturbance from human
activities within the block.
• Potential impacts from surrounding development and human incursion (trails, dogs, etc.)
• Core forest- amount of interior forest at least 300’ from existing edge/development/human
activity.
Task 4: Habitat Block Scoring and Ranking
The final Task will apply a scoring matrix to the parameters identified and evaluated in Task 3 based
on current scientific consensus for relative value to species-specific as well as general habitat needs in
the region. Each block will receive a habitat quality score and all blocks will be ranked against each
other providing a scaled comparison of available habitat blocks across the City. Some subjective
discussion of each block from the perspective of experienced wildlife biologists will be provided.
AE will provide recommendations for selecting or grading habitat blocks for prioritization in
conservation planning and regulatory protection as well as overall planning strategies for forested and
supporting habitat areas.
Timeline
We understand from discussions with the South Burlington Planning Staff that a maximum of 3 months
is desirable for delivery of findings. Although this is far more rapid than a typical natural resource
investigation of this sort, we expect to be able conduct our investigation and to provide results in that
timeframe. Additional investigation requiring a longer window of time to conduct more in-depth field
investigations may be merited and will be discussed in the Project recommendations. Based on our
conceptual analysis at this time, we propose the following Project timeline. Due to the holiday season,
this schedule is slightly longer than 3 months and we anticipate final deliverables in the first week of
2020.
Task 2019 2020
Sept Oct Nov Dec January
Approval & Contract Finalization
1 Landscape & Existing Data
2 Habitat Block Mapping
3 Habitat Parameter Assessment
4 Habitat Scoring/Ranking
5 Reporting & Deliverables
Budget
The following budget estimate is based on the work described in this proposal. AE typically invoices
on an hourly basis only for work completed. Other arrangements are available for consideration.
Hours Cost
Task 1. Landscape & Existing Data Assessment
Windshield Survey 24 $ 1,920.00
Existing Data Compilation & Review 8 $ 640.00
Habitat Quality and Target Species Identification 6 $ 480.00
Subtotal: 38 $ 3,040.00
Task 2. Habitat Block Mapping
Connecting Habitat Modeling 16 $ 1,280.00
Subtotal: 52 $ 4,160.00
Task 3. Habitat Block Parameter Identification & Assessment
Identify Habitat Parameters 6 $ 480.00
Subtotal: 6 $ 480.00
Task 4. Habitat Block Scoring and Ranking
Conduct Assessment Scoring & ranking 5 $ 400.00
Reporting 30 $ 2,400.00
Methodology Documentation 10 $ 800.00
Subtotal 45 $ 3,600.00
Task 5. Project Administration & Expenses
General Project Administration 6 $ 480.00
Admin Labor Subtotal: 3 $ 240.00
Mileage @$0.58 540 $ 313.20
Admin Subtotal: $ 553.20
Total Project Budget $11,833.20
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Affordable Housing Committee
Proposal Outline for State Planning Grant
We propose that the City partner with the Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity (GMHH) to
undertake a project to design a model duplex to be located on land in South Burlington owned
(optioned by) GMHH. The project would kick off with a well publicized public meeting featuring
Julie Campoli, a noted author and advocate for the middle income housing that is largely
missing from the market. We would then prepare and distribute an RFP to area architects to be
chosen to prepare the designs for a duplex to be located on the GMHH site. The RFP would ask
applicants to demonstrate their qualifications to design a duplex that meets specifications for a
duplex to be located on the GMHH site. The specifications would include:
• Energy efficient
• Attractive
• 3 Bedrooms per unit
• State of the art economical building materials
• Delivered at $250K per unit (w/o GMHH material and labor discounts)
• Replicable by developers anywhere in the State
A selection committee would select from the designs submitted. Members would potentially
include representatives from the City, GMHH, a housing non-profit, a retired architect. The City
and GMHH would contract with the selected designer and grant money would be made
available toward the cost of the design. The City and State would own rights to the design for
publicity and to be shared with housing non profits and local governments. An event would be
planned to publicize the design.
Budget
Kickoff event $500
RFP preparation $300
Architect Fee contribution $15,000
Closing event $500
Administration $1,000
Total $17,300
Timeline
Three to six months to completion to be ready for 2020 building season
Submitted by Public Art Selection Committee
Project: Conduct a Cultural Asset Mapping project as the first phase of developing a Cultural Plan
for the City of South Burlington. An asset mapping effort broadly can identify place defining cultural
characteristics, assets, and opportunities to allow for these resources to be integrated into our
communities planning and development efforts. (https://www.arts.gov/exploring-our-
town/project-type/asset-mapping)
The following is a summary that provides a viewpoint of cultural planning from the Massachusetts
Arts and Planning Toolkit - http://artsandplanning.mapc.org/cultural-planning/.
“Cultural planning is a place-based planning process that generates a vision and action plan
for strengthening and growing arts and culture assets. The planning process provides an
opportunity for jurisdictions to:
• expand and enhance artistic and cultural opportunities for the arts/creative community
and the broader community
• strengthen, leverage, and integrate artistic and cultural resources across all facets of
local government to creatively advance broader objectives in the areas of economic
prosperity, social equity, the environment, and cultural vitality.
Cultural plans may include goals and strategies that address topics including: social
cohesion; community engagement; arts and culture programming; services for the creative
community; cultural economic development; cultural facilities development; and funding
for arts and culture, including permanent or temporary public art and programming.”
The Cultural Plan that this would work toward informing, could either be a standalone plan or
integrated into the Comprehensive Plan.
Who will conduct the work: Consultant will be hired to work with the Public Arts Committee in
collaboration with other City representation as needed.
General budget: Need to obtain an estimate from Michelle Bailey, VT Arts Council and a confirm
with consultant if this moves forward.
Link to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan:
Goal: Affordable and Community Strong: Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our
residents and visitors
Objective: (pg 2-53 #16) Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good
quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive
manner.
Strategy: (pg 2-53 #36) Actively plan for public spaces throughout the City, including public open
spaces and public art, such that these spaces can be utilized daily and also for special community-
oriented events.
Which of the following statewide priorities does this project address?
This project could fall under the priority of creating a statewide model project. In the application
we would detail how this plan identify existing art and cultural assets and resources in the
community and how this information will be used in planning creating a vision for the creative
economy and inclusion for placemaking and public art.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
27 AUGUST 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 August 2019, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, A. Klugo, D. MacDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; R. Mahony, CCRPC; J. Simson, S. Dooley, P.
DiMichele
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: She and Mr. Conner were interviewed by WCAX regarding the proposed removal of
parking minimums.
Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. He noted that in addition to that report, the
Planning Department just got 1100 slides of aerial studies from the past which will be a good resource.
5. Presentation and discussion on proposed Inclusionary Zoning (Inc. Zon.) regulations submitted
by the Affordable Housing Committee:
Mr. Conner introduced Regina Mahony off the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, on
contract with the City to provide assistance on this project..
Mr. Simson noted that 500 communities in the U.S. have Inclusionary Zoning. It is a tool for economic
integration of affordable units into the market rate projects.
Mr. Simson then reviewed the need for housing in the area. He noted that only 35% of city employees
live in S. Burlington because even with a good job, they can’t afford a home.
Other factors contributing to need are: the low rental vacancy rate, residents paying too much for
housing, and the identification by the medical community of affordable housing as a top need in the
community.
2
The So. Burlington Comprehensive Plan lists among its goals that by 2025 there would be 1080 new
affordable housing units. The County is also falling short of its goals under “Building Homes Together”
of building 140 affordable homes a year. So far, only 92 a year are being built.
Mr. Klugo asked how South Burlington is doing as far as carrying the load in the County. Of those 140,
how many were expected in South Burlington.? He felt that the city should promote the face that the
city is doing more than its share and then continue to improve on its success.
Ms. Dooley said the 1080 number is intended to keep the proportion of affordable housing in South
Burlington level and prevent fewer affordable units being built. It is also the intent of the CCRPC to have
most new housing in the County built in growth areas which encompasses South Burlington.
Mr. Klugo noted that the goals are at the mercy of market conditions.
Mr. Simson said that one thing Inclusionary Zoning can do is to insure that when housing is produced,
there will be some affordable units. He noted that when Champlain Housing can build another
development in South Burlington, there will be some catching up.
Mr. Simson then identified the location the Committee has targeted for Inclusionary Zoning which
follows the lines of the Transit Overlay District plus a little bit of the O’Brien development (he showed
this on a map).
Mr. Simson then outlined the rules for the proposed Inclusionary Zoning as follows:
a. Inclusionary Zoning would be required for projects of 12 units or more
b. 15% of the units would have to be affordable. If units are rented, they would have
to go to people at or below 80% AMI; if units are sold, they would have to go to
people at or below 100% of AMI
c. For each inclusionary unit provided, the developer would get one additional market
rate unit. The parking requirement for Inclusionary units would be no greater than
1 space per unit.
d. The developer can either dedicate land to the city or construct Inclusionary Zoning
units off-site.
e. A person whose income increases after moving into an Inclusionary unit would not
have to move out, but if/when they do move out, the unit would have to be
affordable again to someone who meets the criteria.
f. The program would be overseen by the city, with an annual report.
Mr. Riehle asked if students would be included. Mr. Simson said there are regulations regarding the
number of people in a household. Mr. Conner added that there are also laws that don’t allow picking
and choosing by age, etc. Mr. Riehle asked if this would apply to UVM if they were to build housing.
Ms. Ostby said this is only for the Traffic Overlay District.
3
Mr. Klugo asked how the one to one bonus was decided on. Mr. Simson said it is easy to calculate, and
they also want to keep density at a reasonable level. Mr. Klugo said he felt they could create a
mechanism, with more bonus units, to create more units and thus bring prices down. They may also be
able to leverage TDR units and maybe build more affordable units.
Mr. Simson urged the Commission to proceed with what is proposed, then increase offsets, if they
choose via amendments.
Mr. Klugo said there are 2 problems to solve: affordability and increasing the number of units in order to
bring costs down. One-to-two would be his baseline, with more if TDRs are involved. Mr. Simson said
he is not opposed to that long-term.
Mr. Simson stressed that the affordable housing is aimed at the mid-range of earners who still cannot
find housing in the city.
Mr. Riehle said there is a misconception that South Burlington is a wealthy community; it actually ranks
20th out of 28 communities in the County for median income.
Ms. Mahoney stressed that this s just one of many tools to solve housing needs, and it won’t solve all
the problems. The attempt is to have an influence with 15% of the units being built. Mr. Simson added
that there is a large appetite for this nation-wide.
Mr. Conner said he would advocate to this Inclusionary Zoning city-wide, whether now or if the
Commission is not comfortable with now, then at the conclusion of Interim Zoning. At 80% of median
income, people almost always have a car. Mr. Simson said once the dust of Interim Zoning clears, he felt
any PUD in the city should have Inclusionary Zoning, and there would be some land available in the
Southeast Quadrant available for that. Mr. Conner recommended that when Interim Zoning ends, the
Committee take up the city-wide expansion of Inclusionary Zoning, from an equity point of view. Ms.
Simson noted that the City of Burlington is now forcing Inclusionary Housing into higher-end
neighborhoods with no “in lieu of.”
Mr. Klugo said he didn’t feel Inclusionary Zoning impacts the work that has to happen in Interim Zoning.
He was worried about splitting the process into 2 parts. He felt Inclusionary Zoning is completely
location-neutral. When Interim Zoning ends, people will know where to build. He felt it should be
warned for the whole city. Right now you can only build in a certain area, but when Interim Zoning
ends, this can apply everywhere. He added that this may actually reduce density because you are taking
away density bonuses.
Ms. Louisos was concerned that by only going for the Transit Overlay District, it could look like a “bait
and switch” when they expand to the whole city. Ms. Ostby said at present, it is an expansion of the
Form Based Code to the full Transit Overlay District, with the intent of going city-wide when Interim
Zoning is over. Ms. Louisos was OK with that explanation.
4
Mr. Klugo suggested the Committee’s report sound more positive and not focus on how goals are not
being met.
Mr. Klugo also explained that his struggle in all of this is that he didn’t feel the residential developer
should bear the full burden of affordable housing. It should be all development, including commercial.
It is the only way to get to the goal, and commercial developers reap the benefits of affordable housing
without contributing to it. Mr. Simson cited the issue of not having “home rule” in the state. Ms. Ostby
suggested doing it as an “impact fee.” Mr. Klugo said the Commission and Committee need those
answers.
Members generally favored heading toward a public hearing.
6. Review Updated Work Plan:
Members reviewed a chart of major projects being worked on. Mr. Conner suggested that the next
meeting will be a good time for updates and a discussion of what to do when.
Mr. Klugo said they need a list of what needs to happen to close Interim Zoning.
7. Introduction and discussion of possible FY 2020 Municipal Planning Grant:
Mr. Conner suggested going for something that isn’t directly a Planning Commission responsibility.
Members supported this. Some suggestions are: the Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership
Collaborative to advance regional coordination; under the Public Art Committee, a cultural asset
map/inventory; something from the Economic Development Committee (Mr. Conner hasn’t heard back
from them as yet); the next “regionalization” project.
The Commission need to make a decision on 10 September.
8. Discussion and Input to Capital Improvement Program:
Mr. Conner asked member for anything they would wish to add. Staff is looking at future partnering
regarding Hinesburg Road/Tilley Drive and/or Community Drive/Kimball Ave.
9. Preview of 26 September all-committee summit, possible assignment of volunteers:
Mr. Conner suggested a couple of presenters. Ms. Ostby offered to help.
10. Interim Zoning Updates:
No updates were presented.
11. Meeting Minutes of 13 August 2019:
5
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 13 August 2019 as written. Mr. Klugo seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
12. Other Business:
Mr. Conner noted that the Council has warned a pubic hearing on LDR amendments for 16 September.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:28 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk