Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/26/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 AUGUST 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 August 2014, at 7:00 P.M., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, T. Harrington, S. Quest, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; R. Greco; S. Dopp; M. Mittag 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: No changes to the agenda were proposed. 2. Comments & Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items: Mr. Mittag asked whether this would be the correct time to share information regarding wastewater. Ms. Louisos said that item 4a would be the appropriate item. Ms. Greco said that under Interim Zoning, there had been a website called the “South Burlington Path to Sustainability” that was no longer there. She had posed the question to the City Council and received a response from the City manager, but wanted to know if the Commission knew what had happened. Mr. Conner said that the reports were on the city’s website and that the department was planning to make them easier to find. The Path website license expired. Ms. Greco said that it was the vision of a Path to Sustainability that she didn’t want to see lost. 3. Planning Commission announcements and Staff report: Ms. Quest attended the Georgetown University Energy Prize kick-off. Very positive, except that people said some disturbing things about the Planning Commission, that the Comp Plan wasn’t being completed, and that having the term “encourage” in a regulation without DRB approval would mean very little. Ms. Louisos attended the presentation before the City Council on the Open Meeting Law and shared information she learned about votes when members are participating by phone and about what constitutes a sub-committee. Mr. Conner provided updates on projects: a. The Underwood property RFP has been issued. b. Staff is continuing to meet with property owners, attorneys, residents, and engineers regarding the draft FBC for City Center and receiving good, tough questions c. Staff has met with Fletcher Allen & the CCRPC to discuss the proposed out-patient property acquisition and potential development d. Have been working to get the pieces in place for the Chamberlin neighborhood project and providing information on the Williston Road study e. Provided an update on the improvements to the building and grounds at City Hall 4. Discuss City Wastewater capacity and long range projections a. Public Input and information A letter from Mr. Mittag and several members of the FBC Committee was handed out. Ms. Dopp handout a map and letter from the South Burlington Land Trust. She said that they had taken a 2005 map and updated it, and added a position paper on wastewater. SBLT has general concerns about the SEQ and smart growth not being followed. The letter then zeroes in on wastewater. It reviews the February 2014 letter from staff to Council and then recommends amendments to the 2005 wastewater ordinance to prioritize City Center. Ms. Quest said she was struck by the Vince Bolduc poll that listed City Center as the #1 priority, followed by Open Space. Ms. Greco said that the Open Space Report referred to several local polls that said Open Space was highly wanted. Mr. Mittag said he was looking at development patterns and the applications since the end of IZ. City Center could happen more quickly than envisioned. Ms. Greco said that the SusAg committee had uncovered the wastewater issue as part of its report. As the city is paved over, the ability to implement the food production goal is reduced. She said she was also concerned that capacity will be allocated before City Center can be realized. b. Commission discussion and identification of key issues / objectives/ concerns Mr. Gagnon asked about the status of the various questions posed by the Commission. Mr. Conner said that the staff has contacted its consultant regarding INI and ability to increase flow without a plant expansion. Mr. Gagnon said it was important to recognize that regulations may become more stringent. Mr. Conner reported that staff had looked at a number of percentage growth rates. Historically, the city appears to have grown at an average of about 150 housing units per year, and that this would appear to be a better indicator than a percentage growth. Mr. Riehle said that with City Center, an uptick could be expected. Mr. Gagnon said that he did think a set aside would be useful, but in addition, understanding whether we could bond for an expansion before the previous bond is paid would be useful. Mr. Gagnon recommended that of the approximately 600,000 gallons per day available, 1/3 be allocated to City Center, 1/3 be allocated to outside City Center, and 1/3 be reserved and not touched until the others are exhausted. He said he wouldn’t do 470,000 GPD would would do more than 50, and would keep some in reserve. Mr. Mittag said that the payment of an TIF is on the taxpayers; is sewer capacity is gone, then that could be a problem. Ms. Louisos said that the PC has received input from residents outside of City Center posing the question “will the city hold us hostage” on wastewater. Need to be aware of these concerns. Ms. Quest said she thinks the city is behind, not ahead of ourselves. Right now it’s clear we’re in trouble. Maybe we won’t be in the future but we don’t know. People don’t want to deal with this issue because it’s too big. Mr. Riehle said that 591,000 gallons equaled about 2,800 homes. Clearly we need to set aside a number. How we determine that number is difficult; we shouldn’t just pull one out of a hat. Ms. Greco said that the other aspect is wanting open space. The PC has said it wants development along corridors and not elsewhere. If we don’t allocated for a Fletcher Allen, for example, it may not exist. We need a reserve. Mr. Riehle asked what the formal role of the Planning Commission is in this. Mr. Conner said that the ultimate responsibility is with the City Council. Certain items, such as the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning, and Subdivision Regulations, are required to start with the Planning Commission. Not so with an ordinance. The PC has the authority to undertake capacity studies and also under the city charter receive directives from the Council. Mr. Gagnon said that the Council would make Ordinance revisions; the Commission would only be recommending. Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City sewer ordinance be changed to allow for 200,000 GPD rather than the current 50,000. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Quest said she would want 470,000. Mr. Harrington offered a friendly amendment – to replace 200,000 GPD with “an increase from 50,000 GPD to a number closer to 470,000.” The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Riehle. Mr. Mittag said that the Commission should come up with a number. The Commission has a lot of respect. Mr. Riehle said he would prefer to go closer to 470,000. Ms. Louisos asked whether we should align the map with the allocation area, since the current area is only a small portion of the TIF district. She added that the number should be closer to 470,000. Ms. Harrington said the number should be closer to 470,000 than 200,000. Mr. Gagnon asked about the source of the 470,000. Mr. Conner said that it was a very rough estimate based on the TIF and his and Mr. Rabidoux’s guess as to the rest of the FBC district over 20 years. Ms. Louisos offered a friendly amendment to make the wastewater reserve area by the FBC district and to up the allocation to 470,000 which is out best estimate. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Riehle accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Conner read the motion aloud: “I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City Sewer Ordinance be changed to make the wastewater reserve area be the Form Based Codes area and to up the allocation to 470,000 GPD which is our best estimate. Ms. Greco said she thinks the Commission is doing a wise thing. Ms. Louisos called the question. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Discuss project prioritization and 2014-15 schedule a. Review project list including those previously identified and/or started and those recommended by completed studies or contracts Ms. Quest said that the Comprehensive Plan really needs to happen before much else. Ms. Harrington said there were several projects listed to happen before January. Is that realistic? Mr. Conner said that some of the items were more about setting the table, so potentially yes. Ms. Quest said that if the Comp Plan is to start in January, she’d like to be thinking about it earlier. Ms. Louisos suggested a meeting in between to get things started. Ms. LaRose discussed the issue of PUDs / Master plans. She said that there can be common elements between different types of PUD / Master Plans. She said that PUDs / Master Plans may be more urgent to address than other items on the list. Not necessarily a higher priority, but more urgent given the projects coming before the City. Mr. Riehle said he liked the idea of having a subcommittee work on this that draws from each of the involved committees – the IZ committees, energy, etc. to lend perspective and come up with tools that work in a variety of settings. Ms. Quest said that SusAg had connected UVM about an intern to assist with agricultural PUDs. Ms. Louisos said that perhaps the combined committee, as Mr. Riehle discussed, could gather some specifics from the types of things a SusAg intern would work on. Mr. Conner encouraged members to consider how much guidance they would want to give as this proceeds to any subcommittee. Mr. Conner reported that he had had conversions with Ms. Louisos and Mr. Simoneau concerning making use of volunteer energy and that they would be setting up a meeting in the near future. Ms. Louisos said that she would take this information to that meeting. Commissioners also discussed other items on the list. Mr. Conner noted that staff had taken a shot at prioritizing the list, but that the Commission should feel comfortable to adjust it. Ms. Louisos said that she felt very comfortable in being able to adjust and agreed with staff providing the recommendation. b. Identify and appoint working group(s) for shorter-term projects if appropriate. Mr. Conner said that staff had been meeting with many individuals and that a handful of critical, technical items have been raised that staff has been working on and through, including items such as how the block standards would be applied to specific development proposals, how existing PUDs would be treated under the code, how to address phased development in light of the frontage requirements, and how to address “site nonconformities” such as parking lots, etc. He said it would be very helpful to have a short‐term Task Force to help work through these items. Ms. Louisos said that this remained the #1 priority. Mr. Gagnon moved that a Task Force for City Center Technical Items be established. The Task Force would include Mr. Riehle from the Planning Commission, and consist of all members of the current Form Based Codes Committee who express an interest in serving to Mr. Conner once announced. The Task Force would have 4-6 weeks to complete. Mr. Riehle seconded. Members recommended Mr. Simoneau serve as chair should he agree to serve on the Task Force. Mr. Conner said that such a Task Force would have a quorum based on the number of people who agree to join. This would allow members of the FBCC who do not wish to serve on this group to be able to do so without problems of quorums. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Other business Mr. Conner announced two upcoming workshops from VLCT and that the Garden Street kick-off public workshop would be on September 10th. Ms. LaRose noted that the City has offered to cover entry fees for such items for PC members. 7. Minutes of 12 August 2014: Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 12 August 2014. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:42 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: City Center Wastewater Capacity Review DATE: August 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting At the Commission’s June 24th meeting, Justin Rabidoux (Public Works Director) presented the results of staff’s initial analysis of sewer plant capacity at the Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility. That analysis has previously been presented to the City Council in February 2014. Commissioners asked staff to follow up on several questions. Herein are the questions and responses: 1. What value/reduction in flow could be achieved from an INI study and project? The City has contacted the firm of Hoyle, Tanner, to help us with this assessment. 2. What would a FULL build out represent in terms of sewer demand for the entire AP sewer district. In 2010 and 2012, the City contracted with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission to undertake a full “build-out” analysis for the city. This analysis includes a number of assumptions, the primary one being “what is considered to be a full buildout?” Using the same assumptions that were built into that analysis (current zoning, mostly keeping existing development, etc.), we contacted the CCRPC again recently to help answer this question. NOTE 1: there are MANY assumptions that go into such a build-out analysis, not the least of which is a guess on the relative amount of residential and non-residential development (many districts allow for both). Staff is not terribly comfortable with the numbers below, because the variability is just so high. NOTE 2: It is extremely difficult to look at FULL build-out for a city. Cities are always evolving and changing. Communities in Vermont continue to evolve, change, growth, shrink, and grow again over their 250+ year history, and European and Asian cities have been continually evolving for thousands of years in some cases. NOTE 3: The figures below have NO timeline associated with them. Staff is seeking an estimate on the amount of additional flow year-to-year from the Sewer Department but as of this writing we don’t have it at hand. With those caveats, using our extremely rough numbers, there might be a demand under current zoning for something in the neighborhood of an additional 600,000 gallons in the Bartlett Bay WW treatment area and perhaps 2,800,000 gallons per day in the Airport Parkway WW treatment area. We have not compared these figures directly with plant capacity as they are well past the planning horizon for upgrades. 2 3. How much growth can reasonably be expected from Colchester for their 1 MGD sewer district. Staff recently met with staff from the Town of Colchester. The Town expects to make full use of their portion of the allocated sewer amount. 4. What if we used a flat percentage based growth rate instead of the analysis we did where we tried to assume reasonable growth in the district. What % should we use? Enclosed with this report are two charts showing different scenarios for future residential / population growth in South Burlington. NOTE: With the exception of the 2020 and 2030 population projections provided by the VT Agency of Commerce and Community Development, the future scenarios are NOT scientific projections; they are simply a series of percentage and unit counts that have been plugged in to the chart to show different possible trends. Population and Housing Total Scenarios depicts the City’s housing unit totals and population counts from 1980 to present, and then shows a variety of future scenarios. Housing Units per Year & Scenarios shows the number of housing units permitted each year back to 1970, and then shows potential future scenarios. Based on past trends, the city has averaged a little under 150 housing units added per year for the past 45 years, with significant variations up and down over time. We suspect, if we had the data, that the late 1960s would have been another “up- tick” but our readily available data is not complete on this. Based on the information in this charts, it appears as though a growth factor of an average number of units – around 150 – would be a more accurate depiction of the City’s growth over the past 45 years than a percentage rate (because 1.5% of the city’s 1970 housing units would be much less growth than 1.5% of today’s housing units, and there does not appear to be substantial evidence that we’re growing more quickly each year). 5. Can we get more permitted capacity w/out spending major $$ on an expansion, i.e. our hydraulic capacity is > than 3.3 MGD, yet that’s our permitted cap. The City has contacted the firm of Hoyle, Tanner, to help us with this assessment. Sources: Units Unit Scenarios‐ City of S. BurlingtonPopulation ‐ Census BureauPop. Projections ‐ VT Agency of Commerce and Community DevelopmentCity of South BurlingtonDepartment of Planning Zoning8/22/201405,00010,00015,00020,00025,000Population and Housing Unit Total ScenariosUnits to date1% Growth1.5% Growth2% Growth150 Units / YRActual Population CountLow Pop ProjectionHigh Pop ProjectionLinear (Units to date) Sources:Units Unit Scenarios ‐ City of S. BurlingtonCity of South BurlingtonDepartment of Planning Zoning8/21/2014050100150200250300350Year197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005200720092011201320152017201920212023202520272029203120332035Housing Units Per Year & ScenariosTo date1% Growth1.5% Growth2% Growth150 Units/Yr 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, City Planner Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Planning Commission Project Allocations Date: August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission began to review and consider a long list of projects identified for the PC’s review. Some of these items have been self-identified by the Commission, some are directives from City Council, some are legislative responsibilities and mandates, and yet others are those that have been identified by Staff, other City committees, or South Burlington stakeholders as important projects or needs for revisions. Staff has taken a more detailed examination of these items and offers the following known projects for review. The Planning Commission should discuss and possibly add any that are not listed herein. The Planning Commission should consider: • What mandates exist for the directive and whether there are any legal or legislative requirements for completion; • Who will undertake the work; • How detailed is the analysis or project, and how long will the project take; • Opportunity costs; • Staff involvement and division of staff time with other City projects Projects for consideration and discussion: A. City Center Code/LDRs Currently Under Review a. Addressing existing PUDs b. Addressing expectations for block standards in densely developed areas c. Clarifying non-conformity language d. Legal review e. Consideration of public comment The Planning Commission received the first draft of the draft regulations for City Center in November, 2013 from the City Council appointed Form Based Codes Committee, after more than a year’s worth of work, and several years of visioning and public outreach. The Planning Commission has worked through many of the policy issues as well as the finer details of enumerated standards. Staff has been working through a technical review to ensure that the standards are clear to both the 2 applicant and the City. Staff has met with several landowners and stakeholders and has identified several points where the language may not directly address possible scenarios. These are listed in items “a-c” above. The City’s legal counsel is also reviewing the document for clarity. Lastly, there has been considerable additional public comment on the draft language which is still being synthesized, and for which the Planning Commission may wish to address individually. Legal review is ongoing and there is not yet a definitive date for completion. Staff will keep the Planning Commission comprised of any updates. This project has been identified as a top City Council and Planning Commission priority, with related directives having been passed to Planning staff. Staff recommends that this remain the first priority for Staff time and Planning Commission meeting time. Status: Project significantly underway and striving towards completion. Scale of remaining work: Medium-large. The issues identified above are important and substantial sticking items that will need to be addressed in order for the final product to be viable, functional, and legally defensible. Recommended actions: The Planning Commission may wish to consider how to approach the subsects of the work left to be done, and whether to pursue assignment of tasks to sub-committees of the Planning Commission to address the items above, in particular the implementation of block standards, treatment of non-conforming site features, and function of existing PUDs. B. Chamberlin Neighborhood Project Last fall the City Council, supported by the Planning Commission, submitted grant applications to initiate a visioning and planning project for the Chamberlin neighborhood / Airport area. With the grants received and announcements received, this has been identified as a top priority project. While the City Council will be the lead body on the project, it is possible that some of the recommendations may be land-development related and as such will flow to the Planning Commission. We anticipate this to be a significant project in terms of staff time and commitment. Status: Kick-off expected in the late summer. Scale of remaining work: Large overall project for the community and staff, with expected medium-sized elements to be provided to the Planning Commission later in the process, possibly beginning in mid-2015. Recommended actions: No immediate action is needed. The Commission will likely be asked to appoint a member to the Project Steering Committee once established. Otherwise, simply an awareness of the scope and scale of the project and staff commitment to the effort is requested. C. LDR Updates Related to JAM Golf Settlement The City and JAM Golf continue to review and discuss amendments to the settlement agreement. At some point, likely in the near future, a revised settlement is anticipated, at which time the Commission will be asked to take up the draft amendments to the LDRs that it had reviewed last summer and move toward adoption. 3 Status: Initial draft LDRs prepared; likely to be modified at a date to be determined. Scale of remaining work: Relatively small but likely with a strict time-frame for completion Recommended actions: No immediate action is needed. The Commission will be asked to complete the amendments & related public hearings at a time to be determined. Staff will keep the Planning Commission comprised of any updates. D. Traffic Overlay District revisions Last fall the City Council, supported by the Planning Commission, submitted a successful grant application to replace and overhaul the City’s Traffic Overlay District, which presently places a “cap” on traffic (and therefore development) along certain key transportation corridors. The project is to replace that regulation with a more dynamic tool that may provide greater incentives for improvements to be made to the transportation system. That project is slated to be kicked off in the next 6 months. Status: Grant approved by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission; slated as a FY 2015 project. Scale of remaining work: Medium sized for the Planning Commission, with check-in points along the way similar to the Stormwater LID project; medium-plus sized for staff in working with the consultants and affected property owners. Recommended actions: No immediate action is needed. Staff will keep the Planning Commission comprised of any updates once the CCRPC is prepared to initiate. Otherwise, simply an awareness of the scope and scale of the project and staff commitment to the effort is requested. E. Replacement Standards for PUDs/Large Lot or Master Plan Development Standards One of the consistent themes in the discussion surrounding the impetus for a period of Interim Zoning was the need to address the planning for medium to large size lots, with substantial agreement that the current regulations for subdivisions, PUDs, and master planning were not implementing the Comprehensive Plan or the vision held by the City. Several property owners have waited through the process of IZ to try to ascertain where the City would lead. Several IZ committees have even addressed this issue in their respective reports. With the IZ period at an end, the City has not made any adjustments of significance to the regulations for addressing these types of projects in a holistic manner that incorporates substantial land, mixed uses, or multiple buildings (except to some degree in City Center). The City does, however, have recommendations for significant pieces of the puzzle developed as recommendations from each of the Interim Zoning Committees. What does the Planning Commission envision for these areas and this type of development? What is envisioned for master planning of large parcels? What is expected of low to medium density residential developments? How does the City wish to approach nodes of niche development, including technological or business centers, agricultural hubs, industrial areas, or the lakeshore? 4 Given the historical identification of this as a priority to stakeholders throughout the City, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider this for more near-term action. As Commissioners are aware, there are also several concepts for larger developments – including two recent presentations to the Commission, that are awaiting guidance as to how to proceed in a coordinated, comprehensive manner. Such standards could also apply to anticipated future project areas such as the Kmart plaza and other similar redevelopment sites. Status: Concepts previously identified and sought for inclusion in recent projects; were intended to be a part of city-wide overhaul. Elements of future Planned Development standards are in IZ Committee reports from all 4 committees. Scale of remaining work: Medium-large sized for the Planning Commission and staff Recommended actions: If the Planning Commission decides to pursue these issues, it should consider whether the individual elements should be taken separately, whether additional assistance through consulting or sub-committees would be of assistance, and most importantly, it may wish to consider the questions identified above for visioning of development of scale. As part of this, the Commission may also wish to see how this effort can line up with other priority elements of the City-Wide Land Development Regulations (whether as Form Based Codes or any other writing style). Additional note: Staff recommends the Commission look closely at this work item side- by-wide with Item H as together they represent the principal objectives that the City set forth to complete as part of the various elements of the Interim Zoning work, including Form Based Codes, Affordable Housing, Sustainable Agriculture, and Open Space. F. Official Map The development of the City Center Form Based Codes and the City-Wide Street Types ties directly into updates to the Official Map. The Official Map may have a role to play in the deployment of streets, recreation paths, parks, and other public infrastructure when and if the City has a specific interest in such infrastructure being installed. As envisioned in the Draft City Center FBC, for instance, street types would be supplemented and augmented by any additional bicycle facilities that are to form the city’s principal cycling network. Status: Draft pieces of the Official Map in various states of completion for City Center and elsewhere. Scale of remaining work: Medium sized for the Planning Commission and staff, and will likely be a part of any discussions around implementation of Block Standards as identified in Item A above. Recommended actions: The update to the Official Map may take place in two steps – city center and elsewhere. Staff recommends that whichever body is tasked with looking at Block Standards be asked to look at this as well. G. Comprehensive Plan 5 The current plan expires March 2016. In order to continue being eligible for several designations, funding sources, and additional zoning changes, the City must have an adopted and approved Comprehensive Plan. The City began substantial work on updating the content and refreshing the look of the Comprehensive Plan several years ago, and a draft is underway. However, this draft has been largely idle since the inception of Interim Zoning. Staff has been tasked with reviewing strategies, which has begun been has been placed below other items for the moment. The Planning Commission is the municipal body tasked with drafting and implementing the Comprehensive Plan. As such, Staff recommends that this be a critical item within the Planning Commission work, with time allocated accordingly. Status: As noted above, a fairly complete but not current draft exists. Each of the IZ committees developed language to insert. Review of strategies & overall goals & priorities for the City is needed, as are new elements required of plans such as flood hazard planning and new town center / neighborhood designation plans. Scale of remaining work: Medium-large for the Planning Commission and staff Recommended actions: Staff recommends the Planning Commission return to work on this document in earnest no later than January, 2015. H. Additional City Wide LDR Amendments a. Apply Street Types City Wide b. Article 12- Natural Resource Protection Standards c. Consider proposed text from Interim Zoning Committees, including Affordable Housing, Sustainable Agriculture, Open Space, and Form Based Codes d. Re-zoning (new districts and/or transect zones) and map work* e. Revised standards based on above f. Consider changes to Transfer of Development Rights in several areas of the City commensurate with districts** g. Housing Replacement Ordinance** h. Inclusionary / Affordable Housing Zoning – Considerations for City-Wide applicability* i. Scenic Overlay District** There are several items here which have been identified as being of varying levels of importance to various stakeholders, or which are generally related to work of other committees, or which have been recommended through reports of City Council Interim Zoning committees. Staff has put them together under one broad category but then also listed them out as smaller grouped items for ease of use. The Planning Commission should consider and assess the relative priority and urgency of these items with respect to any known or anticipated development possibilities, concerns or pressures in the City. It is possible that one or several of these items can be addressed ahead of others. Please feel free to break these out into separate lettered items if you wish. Status: As noted above, each item has been proposed by a group, report, or the Commission. Items have varying levels of completion from concept on paper to first drafts of language available for review. 6 Scale of remaining work: Medium sized for the Planning Commission and staff, and will likely be a part of any discussions around implementation of Block Standards as identified in Item A above. Recommended actions: Staff recommends that the Commission review the priority and relative urgency of these items. Given other statutory obligations or ongoing projects listed herein, staff recommends these be scheduled to begin after the above projects, priority-wise, perhaps in the summer of 2015. * Draft regulatory language exists in part for these but has either not been reviewed in detail or reviewed for applicability outside of a specific portion of the City ** No draft regulatory language exists for these items. I. Sewer Allocation Ordinance/Wastewater Capacity Approach The report of the Sustainable Agriculture included a recommendation for research of a sewer ordinance. Such an ordinance has also been previously discussed under the umbrella of City Center planning. The Planning Commission is holding a discussion on wastewater capacity at the August 26th meeting. Please see notes on this subject under that agenda item. Status: Under review by Commission Scale of remaining work: Small to large depending on scope of work Recommended actions: TBD depending on Commission discussion. J. Additional Current Projects The Commission has the charge to track and make decisions on a number of projects which will take up part of 1-2 meetings. In the coming months, these will likely include: • Briefing, and then review and approval of the Garden Street Purpose and Need Statement • Briefing, and then review and approval of the Dumont Park Purpose and Need Statement • Review and provide input on the FY 2016-2025 Capital Improvement Plan • Review and consider approval of Municipal Planning Grant application • Review and consider approval of proposed Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission project assistance list • Review Public Service Board submittals as they come in • Review Street Name requests as they come in K. Future Projects The list above does not attempt to capture all projects on the Planning Commission’s long range list; but rather focuses on items that have been raised as more immediate items. Many of those items would be listed in the Comprehensive Plan. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 August 2014, at 7:00 P.M., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, B. Benton, G. Calcagni, T. Harrington, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; J. Simson, J. Kochman, R. Greco, M. Emery 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: Item “c,” a brief discussion regarding Form Based Codes, was added to Other Business. 2. Comments & Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission announcements and Staff report: Mr. Conner: Updated members on the wastewater project by responding to 5 questions raised by the Commission: a. What value could be gained from an infiltration study? Mr. Conner said a consultant is looking into this. b. What would be the full build-out demand for Chamberlin, TIF, and Form Based Codes districts. Mr. Conner said they have a first draft of this information from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. c. How much growth can be expected from Colchester? Mr. Conner said a meeting has been set to discuss this. d. What would be the number if a flat growth percentage were used? Mr. Conner said they are trying to “tease out” trends. He will come back with some trend lines. e. Can we get more permitted capacity without a major upgrade? Mr. Conner said this question has been given to the consultant. Announced the Dumont project kickoff with Landworks. The Commission will get a briefing on this at the first September meeting. The Garden St. project has also had its kickoff with Stantec. There will be a public workshop on the evening of Wednesday, September 10th. For both of these projects, the Planning Commission will receive an initial briefing and later be asked to review and consider for approval the Purpose and Need statement following the public workshop. Alternatives will then be developed for the public to weigh in on, and later the City Council will be asked for sign off on a preferred alternative. City Hall improvements are beginning and will include stormwater, a new entry-way, signage and painting. 2 There will soon be an ad in the Other Paper for a group to work on the Underwood property. An RFP is also being issued. As a follow-up to last year’s project looking at ways to improvement stormwater management and promote low impact development in the city’s Land Development Regulations, staff have been examining options for new cul-de-sac standards. Three options have been identified: a cul de sac with an island, a cul de sac without an island, or no cul de sac. Last week these were tested with a field test using Public Work and Fire vehicles. Recommended new standards will be forthcoming to the Commission in the not too distant future. 4. Annual Reorganization Meeting: a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk Mr. Conner presided over the election of a Commission Chair. He opened the floor for nominations. Ms. Quest moved to re-elect the entire slate as it has been. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos presided over the meeting from this point. b. Establishment of regular meeting dates and times: Members agreed to continue the same meeting schedule. Ms. Harrington moved to meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7 p.m. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Review Draft Land Development Regulations Amendments, including City Center, Form Based Code, Low Impact Development Stormwater Standards, and others: a. Review public/committee/staff comments received during comment period Ms. LaRose said there has been a lot of feedback, and some people still want to comment. Some large property owners want to clarify some of their questions with the Commission before commenting. Some comments are very detailed; in order to deal with this, comments will be put on a spreadsheet. Ms. Quest said she has heard that a lot of people just don’t understand it. She suggested giving people a shorter version or pictures or something to make it clearer. Ms. LaRose noted the problem with trying to abridge the document; if you leave out something, people think you’re trying to hide things. Mr. Conner noted they have identified some funds to do a 3-D model to show what things could look like. They hope to have this by early October. Ms. Louisos expressed concern that people could see it and think that is what is going to happen. Ms. Calcagni said people are confused between City Center and Form Based Codes. Ms. Greco asked about the information gathered at the visioning sessions. She said it seems that Form Based Code is a code but the question is what it’s designing for. Mr. Riehle said it evolved into 3 something different from what those meetings revolved about. He added that property owners said some things were not do-able. Ms. Calcagni said Form Based Code dictates what buildings look like. The code doesn’t decide what goes into the buildings. Mr. Simson noted that a number of mid-size cities have Form Based Code. She suggested sampling these to see who they explain it to people. Ms. Kochman said part of the Open Space Committee report included what they liked about how things would be laid out. As far as she knew, that report hasn’t been reconciled with the Form Based Code. Mr. Conner said that for City Center, it has. Ms. Calcagni suggested a “frequently asked questions” sheet rather than summarizing the whole document. Ms. Louisos suggested adding an introduction as to what Form Based Code does and does not do. Ms. LaRose identified some “themes” from the comments, including: sustainability (energy, etc.), transportation, open space, recreation opportunities, tree removal. There is also a question of how PUDs will be treated. The question is how to have more than one building on a lot without a PUD. One person commented that it would be hard if you had to subdivide for every building. Ms. Harrington said it is hard to visualize what a percentage means. She thought pictures could help. Mr. Conner said it is hard to imagine a permutation of what every option could look like. Ms. LaRose noted the concerns of the School District. They hope to be exempt from Form Based Code. Mr. Conner said they are “sort of exempt.” There are some standards that may need to be addressed. Mr. Conner encouraged members to look at buildings built in the recent past (e.g., Trader Joe’s, NEFCU, buildings on Tilley Drive, Eye Laser), anything with more than 20 parking spaces. The problem is the more you require in a parking lot (e.g., islands), the bigger the lot gets. Ms. LaRose said another issue raised concerns non-conformities. At least 99% of already developed properties will be non-conforming, including U-Mall. That raised the question of what “non-conformity” is and what degree of conformity would be expected. Mr. Connor noted that historically, there are 3 types of non-conformity: use, structure, and lot size. Form Based Code gives some room for existing buildings. The question now is with non-building nonconformities: parking, open space, stormwater ponds, etc. He suggested the possibility of a short- term task force to wrestle with issues such as these. Ms. LaRose identified “blocks” as another issue being raised. How do you apply the block standard to already developed sections of the city? Standards require 700-foot long blocks. Who is required to create the block? Discussion on these and other issues will continue at subsequent meetings. 4 6. Initial discussion of upcoming projects, discuss strategy for prioritization: Mr. Conner distributed a draft of project/time-lines/committee(s) involved, etc. He identified those items assigned to the Commission and those that are top priorities. He also noted that members of the Form Based Code Committee would like to participate in the prioritization of these items. Ms. Quest felt that wastewater is a #1 priority. Ms. Greco suggested using people from the Interim Zoning Committees. Mr. Conner said this could be combined with others to get a broader view. Ms. Quest noted that Paul Dreher has said that the Comprehensive Plan must precede Form Based Code. Mr. Conner asked members to review the list and make their priorities. 7. Other Business: a. Williston Draft Amendments to Unified Development Bylaw: Mr. Conner noted receipt of the amendments and said staff hasn’t identified anything of concern to South Burlington. Mr. Riehle asked about impact fees. Mr. Conner noted that they have been charged with reviewing impact fees to line up with the CIP. There is also thought of a new “public facilities” impact fee. Mr. Conner noted that state law says you have to create exemptions for certain purposes (e.g., affordable housing, economic development). b. Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner said the hope is to have wastewater information back for the next meeting. He also wants to get the prioritization of projects started. There may also be a review of next year’s CIP. c. Form Based Code Committee: Mr. Riehle raised the question of the “dynamics” of the Form Based Code Committee and the question of what to do with the rest of the city. He suggested the committee might be more of an advisory board to the Commission. He noted the Committee is having trouble getting quorums. Mr. Conner suggested making their mission more specific. Ms. LaRose noted they are a City Council committee and the Council will have to be in the discussion. 8. Minutes of 22 July 2014: It was noted that on p. 1, in the information provided by Ms. Benton, there should be inclusion of “street construction with low curbs.” 5 Ms. Question moved to approve the Minutes of 22 July 2014 as amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:48 p.m. ________________________________, Clerk