►
From YouTube: Planning & Zoning Commission - July 11, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right,
all
right,
I'd
like
to
call
this
meeting
to
order
I'd
like
to
welcome
everyone
to
the
july
11
2022
special
meeting
of
the
burlington
planning
zoning
commission.
My
name
is
richard
parker,
I'm
the
chairman
of
pnz,
due
to
the
renovations
at
city
hall
chambers.
This
meeting
will
be
held
on
the
zoom
platform
and,
as
you've
just
heard,
conrad
say
it
is
being
recorded.
A
If
you
want
to
speak,
you
must
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
are
recognized.
The
commission
is
appointed
by
elected
officials
and
has
five
regular
members.
Two
extra
territorial
members
and
three
alternates
four
members
constitute
a
quorum.
If
five
members
are
present,
our
alternate
members
are
welcome
to
stay
and
listen.
However,
they
are
not
required
to
stay.
This
is
a
public
meeting.
So
if
you
would
like
to
speak
to
any
matter,
I
will
give
you
a
chance
now,
it's
time
for
our
roll
call,
I'm
gonna
call
everybody's
name.
Please
raise
your
hand.
B
A
All
right,
thank
you,
staff,
president
conrad
president
and
jamie
lawson
president
good
evening.
Thank
you.
A
A
Mr
phillip
walker
is
here
to
present
the
local
historic
overlay
design.
A
Our
mission
tonight
item
number
two
is
to
have
the
historic
overlay,
district
design,
standards
and
process
assessment
documents
reviewed
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
burlington,
mr
phillip,
walker
and
mr
keith
covington
are
to
present
the
local
historic
overlay,
lho
district
design
standards
and
ms
jamie
lawson
planning
director
will
present
the
process
assessment
recommendations.
A
A
Okay,
philip
glad
you're
here
we're
ready
for
your
brief
presentation.
C
C
You
yeah
that's
a
good
idea.
I
think
that'll
help
okay.
So
what
I
was
saying
is
that
keith
covington
who's
been
working
with
me
on
the
project,
isn't
able
to
attend
this.
He
has
another
previous
commitment,
but
anyway
I
guess
the
biggest
question
is
to
kind
of
start
into.
This
is
to
figure
out
how
you
want
me
to
approach
it,
because
if
I
recall
correctly
last
time,
you
know
when
we
had
the
previous
meeting
before
we
we
extended
into
this
one,
I
think
kind
of
went
through
the
document
you
know
fairly.
C
A
Actually,
the
the
rub
last
time
was
the
process
assessment
recommendations
that
jamie
wanted
to
add
at
the
last
minute,
and
there
was
some
objection
to
that.
So
that
was
the
that
was
the
biggest
rub.
I
think
most
of
us
have
had
sufficient
time
to
go
through
the
historic
overlay
design
and
and
see
you
know,
read
the
the
document.
Look
at
the
pictures.
A
I
I
I
kind
of
feel
like
you,
commissioners,
help
me
now.
We
feel
pretty
comfortable
with
the
historic
overlay
design
standards
that
we've
been
presented.
This
document
of
150
some
pages.
D
Pair,
if
you
don't
mind,
let
me
just
let
me
just
kind
of
set
the
stage
for
where
we
are
and
what
transpired
so,
the
the
I
think
there
was
just
some
clarification
from
the
last
meeting
on
a
couple
of
items
and
the
process
assessment
recommendations.
D
They
were
included
in
your
packet
from
the
last
meeting
and
have
been
recommended
throughout
the
process.
The
the
issue
was
in
our
consistency
statement.
We
did
not
include
that
text
in
the
language
of
the
consistency
statement,
so
we
have
we
have
added
in
and
I
can
go
to
the
consistency
statement
and
the
ordinance
if
you
want
to
just
show
you,
but
those
those
recommendations
have
not
changed.
They
have
been
part
of
the
process
for
the
process
assessment
document
and
essentially
what
that
is,
is
staff
went
through.
D
You
know
how
the
hpc
functions,
how
staff
functions
the
process
itself
and
made
some
suggestions
to
to
to
to
streamline
the
process,
to
make
it
more
user
friendly
friendly
to
make
it
more
efficient
and
more
modernized.
So
that's
essentially
the
process
side
of
things,
which
is
one
part
of
this
project
that
staff
did
and
then
the
second
thing
that
was
asked
upon
us
was
to
help
clarify
some
recommendations
that
differed
that
that
staff
had
that
differed
from
the
hpc,
so
you'll
see
on
this.
D
This
page,
that's
that's
shown
here
and
also
included
in
your
staff
report.
These
these
recommendations
that
are
in
red
are
recommendations
that
staff
has
provided
that
differ
from
the
hpc,
and
we
are
recommending
that
the
item
move
forward
with
these
recommendations,
but
certainly
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
can
can
can
recommend.
You
know
the
the
document
move
forward,
as
is
or
if
there's
particular
things
a
particular
aspects
of
those
recommendations.
D
You
can
you
can
pick
some
of
them
or
you
can
pick
all
of
them
so
that
that
kind
of
helps
to
clarify.
I
think
the
two
things
that
were
confusing
from
the
last
meeting
and
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
questions
and
and
and
help
to
clarify,
if
that's
needed
at
all,.
E
May
I
ask
a
question
exactly
jim
parker
go
ahead,
the
the
city
staff
has
made
recommendations
that
the
historical
association-
I
think
that's
what
they're
called
did
not
do
they
just
not
get
a
chance
to
vote
on
those.
Did
they
were
these
done
after
the
fact?
Why
haven't?
Why
didn't
they
approve
these.
D
Okay,
so
let
me
so
they
they
have
not
been
that
done
after
the
fact.
Let
me
share
my
screen.
If
I
can-
and
these
are,
there
are
just
some
differences
and
let
me
take
a
step
back
so
I'll
go
to
screen
two
here.
So
if
you
recall,
there's
different
types
of
work,
that
the
applicants
can
request
and
there's
three
different
categories
of
approvals
or
two
different
categories:
approval
and
one
not
so
when
you
cut
when
you
have
a
property
in
the
historic
preservation,
commission,
local,
historic
district
overlay,
the
fir.
D
If
something
falls
in
this
first
category,
it
requires
going
to
the
historic
preservation
commission
for
approval.
That's
a
major
coa,
the
minor
coas
and
the
minor
work
category,
which
is
the
second
category.
That's
where
staff
can
approve
something
administratively
and
then
the
third
category,
no
coa,
that's
general
maintenance
items.
So
there's
situations
and
you'll
see
them
on
the
following
pages,
where
the
hpc,
the
historic
preservation
commission,
made
a
recommendation
for
an
item
to
stay.
D
Let's
say
under
a
minor
work,
administrative
approval
and
staff
is
recommending
that
the
item
gets
switched
from
minor
coa
to
to
no
coa
general
maintenance
to
to
help
to
facilitate
projects
where
homeowners
can
can
do
improvements.
You
know
quicker
without
having
to
go
through
approval
process,
so
this
is
all
been
vetted
through
the
hpc.
D
There
are
just
about
10
different
items
where
staff
and
the
hpc
agree
that
their
needs
to
that
they
need
to
be
addressed
in
the
standards.
There's
just
a
difference
between
the
category
of
who
would
do
the
approval.
So
the
h
so,
for
example,
under
a4
staff,
is
recommending
that
chimney
caps
and
installation
of
roof
ventilators
when
they
are
visible
from
the
street
that
that
would
just
be
general
maintenance
and
the
hpc
is
is
suggesting
that
they
become
an
administrative
approval
under
the
next
page
and
they're
all
highlighted
under
this
sr.
D
Where
there's
a
where
there's
a
caveat
down
at
the
bottom
of
the
difference
between
these
two
sr2
staff,
recommend
the
replacement
of
windows
and
doors
and
removal
of
additions
and
replacement
of
garage
doors,
if
not
visible
from
the
street
under
a
minor
coa
and
the
hpc
is
recommending
that
that
have
to
go
to
the
hpc
for
a
meeting
for
approval,
same
thing
with
masonry,
foundations,
replacement
of
architectural
details
and
all
of
these
different
items-
and
this
section
deals
with
landscaping.
D
So
where-
and
some
of
these
are
just
clarification
in
language,
so
b1
really
there's
not
too
much
difference
between
what
the
hpc
was
recommending
and
what
staff
was
where
we're
caveating,
adding
some
language
regarding
the
recommended
plant
list,
which
is
in
the
back
of
the
report.
D
Item
number
this
item
here:
b2
removal
or
dead
or
diseased
trees
staff
is
recommending
that
be
general
maintenance.
Landscape
change
is
not
visible
from
the
street,
including
demolition
of
any
part
of
a
landscape
feature
that
would
fall
under
a
minor
coa,
that's
very
similar
to
what
the
hpc
had.
We
just
took
out
the
word
major
because
it
was
major
or
so
subjective.
D
Additional
removal
of
individual
plants
visible
from
the
street
staff,
is
recommending
that
be
a
minor
coa
and
then
there's
two
more
removal
of
healthy
trees
if
they
are
replaced
by
another
tree
on
the
recommended
plant
list,
staff
is
recommending
that
that
be
a
minor
work
and
the
hpc
is
recommending
that
that
be
a
major
work
and
then
the
last
item
was
dealing
with
deteriorated
accessory
buildings
that
are
not
original
to
the
site
or
otherwise.
D
E
D
E
G
Got
a
question
since
we're
on
this
section
sure:
can
you
go
back
to
the
landscaping
section
so,
like
one
of
them
staff
recommendation
number
eight
looks
at
item
b4
the
additional
removal
of
individual
plants
visible
from
the
street.
D
C
You
know
hey
jamie.
This
is
phil,
I'm
wondering
if
that
was
the
intent,
because
the
issues
addressed
in
other
other,
you
know
lines
here.
I
that
may
have
been
intended
to
remove
only
because
it's
like
maybe
kind
of
redundant
or
there's,
maybe
a
couple
of
categories
that
kind
of
cover
that
overall
issue
does
that
make
sense.
D
G
Yep,
okay:
it
is
that
somewhere
else,
then,
because
I'm
sitting
in
on
some
of
those
meetings
of
the
advisory
committee
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
landscaping
and
the
in
the
intention
I
got
was
every
time
somebody
buys
a
plant
and
puts
it
in
their
front
yard.
They
don't
need
to
go
to
the
city.
For
that
do
they.
I
mean
this.
I
know
loads
of
people
in
historic
district
that
are
at
lowe's
every
weekend,
they're
doing
their
seasonal
flower
beds.
D
G
D
As
those
are
all
captured
under
the
recommended
plant
list,
which
includes
trees
and
shrubs-
and
you
know,
we
want
to
encourage
homeowners
to
make
improvements
to
their
yard,
but
we
don't
want
them
to
have
our
our
suggestion.
Is
we
don't
want
them
to
have
to
come
to
the
hpc
or
to
come
staff
every
time
they
want
to
do
something
like
that.
So
that
item
be
that
on
that
item-
and
some
of
these
were
carried
over
from
the
original
standards
and
the
language
was
really
vague,
very
vague.
D
So
we
felt
like
with
some
of
these
modifications,
were
able
to
really
kind
of
capture
what
we
were
looking
for
and
make
it
clearer.
G
Okay
and
one
follow-up
question
trying
to
interpret
these,
it
seems
like
staff,
is
pushing
to
make
more
of
this
at
the
discretion
of
the
owner
with
less
review
and
oversight
seems
like
all
of
them.
Staff
recommendations
are
for
going
to
a
a
less
intensive
process.
D
With
with
adding
in
additional
clarity
and
additional
language,
we
were
able
to
take
something
that,
let's
say,
wasn't
addressed
or
would
have
been
part
of
a
major
coa
and
with
more
clarity
and
better
guidelines,
either
have
that
under
a
minor
work
or
in
some
cases,
no
coa,
and
so
we
did
shift
a
number
of
things
in
the
direction
of
more
user-friendly.
But
I
think,
with
better
guidelines
and
better
standards,
we
were
able
to
do
that.
G
Okay,
final
question:
the
the
hpc
I'm
intrigued
by
this
disa
disagreement
on
these
matters.
Do
they
have
a
statement
of
opinion
on
the
staff
recommendations
or
I
think
we
have
some
representatives
of
the
hpc
here.
I'm
just
curious
if
they're,
supportive
of
these
recommendations
or
perhaps
or
maybe
I'm
more
concerned,
if
they
have
strong
opposition
to
these
recommendations,.
D
Well,
I
see
brian
pennington
who's,
the
vice
chair
on
the
call
if
the
chair
would
like
to
hear
from
from
brian
I'm
sure
that
he
could
provide.
You
know
some
some
response
I
before
you
get
to
that,
though
I
just
wanted
to
also
mention.
There
were
two
other
bullet
points
or
three
other
bullet
points
that
were
included
in
the
staff
memo
to
also
be
clarification
from
your
last
from
your
last
meeting
and
those
were
captions
on
d12
and
edits
to
page
d71
and
pete
and
page
d66.
D
Here
would
you
like
to
hear
from
brian
pennington.
A
We
see
you
brian
unmute
yourself
and
see
if
you
can
address
some
of
these
issues.
H
Can
everyone
hear
me
now?
Yes,
I'm
brian
pennington,
I'm
the
vice
chair
of
the
historic
preservation.
Commission,
I
and
I
should
say
I'm
only
one
member
of
the
commission
and
I
did
not
participate
in
the
advisory
committee
meetings
on
this,
but
I
would
just
like
to
voice
my
support
for
moving
forward
with
these
staff
recommendations.
H
It
seems
to
me
one
thing:
the
consultants
and
the
commission
and
the
advisory
committee
have
done
is
to
create
a
document
and
a
process
that
is
much
more
organic.
It's
much
more
of
a
living
process
and
you
know
when
and
if
we
encounter
problems
with
any
of
these
items,
we
have
the
ability
to
go
back
and
revise
these
standards.
I
just
think
it's
I
I
would
be
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
this.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
brian
thank
you
for
joining
us,
helping
us
out
here
now
jamie.
Would
we
as
pnc
vote
to
approve
this
and
then
it
would
go
back
to
hpc
for
their
final
approval
or
no.
D
No,
no
so
this
is.
This
is
a
legislative
matter.
These
are
standards
that
address
the
the
two
historic
districts
and
your
landmarks.
So
so
these
this
document
would
you're
in
advisory
capacity.
You
would
be
making
a
recommendation
to
city
council
and
this
move.
This
would
move
forward
to
city
council
for
their
for
their
review
and
final
adoption.
A
Let's,
let's
hear
from
some
of
the
other
commissioners
how
you
feel
about
this,
mr
kirkpatrick.
E
G
I
agree
completely
very
well
done.
There
were
some
loose
ends
that
were
caught
at
the
last
meeting
with
some
of
this
process
stuff.
G
I
feel
it's
much
clearer
with
the
new
motion
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
had
support
from
the
hpc
member
from
brian
pennington
there,
thanks
brian
for
for
speaking
up
to
that,
and
so
I'm
very
much
supportive
of
moving
this
forward,
and
I
like
the
way
brian
framed
it,
and
I
hope
it
stays
that
way,
that
this
is
a
living
document
that
can
be
updated
regularly
and
not
wait.
20
years,
like
the
last
version.
F
Okay
option
two
approved
consistent:
I
moved
to
recommend
approval
of
the
process
assessment
document,
the
local
historic
overlay,
lho
district
design
standards
with
the
following
changes
to
be
incorporated.
Sr1A4
is
general
maintenance.
Sr2
826
is
minor,
coa
sr3834
is
minor,
coa
sr4
a39
is
minor
coa
star
5
b1
is
general
maintenance,
no
coa
in
lieu
of
hp,
cb1
sr6
b2
as
general
maintenance,
no
coa
in
lieu
of
hpc
b2
sr7
removal
of
the
word
major
in
b3
sr8
removal
of
b4
sr9
b6
as
a
minor
coa
sr10c14
as
a
general
maintenance.
F
No
coa
caption
on
d12
should
be
clarified
to
indicate
that
the
design
of
the
brick
in
filling
is
inappropriate.
Page
d71,
the
last
sentence
of
the
paragraph
under
the
heading
of
fences
and
walls,
states
fences
are
prohibited
in
glencoe
village.
It
should
be
revised
to
add
front
yard
to
the
beginning
of
this
sentence.
F
The
motion
is
based
upon
the
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
in
that
the
land
use
plan
calls
for
the
celebration,
encouragement,
support
and
rehabilitation
of
historic
buildings,
2
character
in
identity
goal,
1
calls
to
celebrate
burlington's,
unique
history
and
local
character,
section
2
character
and
identity
goal.
1
recommendation
1
calls
to
encourage
the
preservation
and
continued
use
of
historic
buildings,
districts,
landmarks
and
landscapes,
section
2
character
and
identity
goal.
1
recommendation
2
calls
to
support
the
historic
rehabilitation
efforts
of
private
property
owners.
G
G
I'd
like
to
make
two
comments
before
the
vote
first,
I
still
believe
it's
open-ended
on,
what's
going
to
happen
with
the
design
review
committee,
so
I
just
like
to
advocate
that
that
is
stays
on
the
front
burner.
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
the
design
review.
Committee.
Second
point
is
just
a
repeated
point.
I've
made
several
times,
especially
this
first
year,
have
a
mechanism
for
quicker
review
of
changes.
A
Okay
right,
thank
you,
ryan,
chairman.
E
B
Terry
parker
not
seeing
anyone
raise
their
hands.
If
anyone
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
can
you
please
indicate
so
by
in
the
chat
or
using
the
raised
hand,
feature
give
it
a
couple
seconds
here
and
see
if
anyone
pops
up
a
raised
hand.
A
Please
raise
your
hand
and
conrad
is
going
to
take.
Take.
B
A
D
It
looks
like
he
is
on
mute,
but
I
would
say
he.
B
C
E
D
It
sounds
like
his
connection
is
bad
but
I'll.
Let
you
know
that
we
are
we're
very
pleased
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
recommendation
and
we'll
be
moving
this
item
to
city
council
on
on
july
19th
for
the
for
a
discussion
only
and
then
subsequent
to
that
there
will
be
a
public
hearing
on
the
item.
That's
anticipated
in
august.
A
All
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
aye.