Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/18/2014 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUITES 18 NOVEMBER 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 November 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Harrington, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, S. Quest, B. Benton ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; R. Mahony, CCRPC 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Quest: Attended an energy fair put on by the Energy Committee at the Lutheran Church Noted that at last night’s Council meeting, the City Council increased the wastewater allotment for City Center to 150,000 gallons per day. Ms. Quest asked about a public vote on City Center mentioned by Councilor Shaw. Mr. Conner said the public would vote on expenditures for the TIF. Ms. Blanchard added that before a vote can be had the city must submit a financing plan, which they hope to do in the coming summer followed by a special election . Mr. Conner: The Chamberlin neighborhood study is moving along. RFP for a consultant is out, and the ad for committee members will appear this week and next week in The Other Paper. The Committee will include a Planning Commission member. Staff asked the City Council for feedback on adjustments to the Impact Fee Ordinance. The first change would redesign the list of projects to align with the CIP. The second would create a public facilities impact fee for the Council to consider. The Council indicated support for staff to move forward with those. The committee for the Underwood property is set. Their site visit had to be rescheduled due to weather conditions. The city’s New Town Center designation is up for reapproval in 2015. Mr. Conner said staff will be preparing the re-approval documents. Staff is meeting with various groups regarding Fletcher Allen’s new outpatient plans in South Burlington. The hope is to be sure the city is ahead of the plans instead of coming up with solutions afterward. Mr. Riehle suggested a chart to track wastewater use/capacity. 4. Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee status report and consideration of public outreach: Ms. Quest reviewed the list of what the committee is working on. She noted there are 3 women from UVM who are working with them. The committee hopes to send a letter to landowners regarding use of land for agriculture. Mr. Gagnon questioned how to incorporate the items on the committee’s list into development. Mr. Conner said that to be required, they would have to be in the regulations. Today, he noted, many of these options can be done within the current regulations, but are not mandated. The current regulations regarding such things as livestock will need to be looked at, though, consistent with state law. 5. Consider Approval of City Center/Dumont Park Purpose & Need Statement: Ms. Blanchard said the park is being called City Center Park and will be formally re-named at some point. The Purpose and Need Statement includes 5 different needs: 1. Passive recreation needs (quality of use in the community) 2. Improved connections to surrounding areas; keep it a safe place 3. Enhance optics to enjoy natural features and showcase them 4. Protect natural resources 5. Create a park plan to enhance/improve on park features Mr. Riehle asked if the park will be ADA compliant. Ms. Blanchard said some parts will be. Mr. Riehle suggested some attractive lighting. He also suggested raising some of the paths so they can be accessible more of the year. Ms. Blanchard said there is a suggestion for boardwalks, bridges, etc.. The hope is to move as little soil as possible. Ms. Blanchard noted there will be a community meeting to outline alternatives. It will then go to the City Council for approval. Landworks is the lead consultant for the project with other consultants for various tasks. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Purpose & Need Statement for City Center Park, formerly known as Dumont Park. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Presentation of recently passed State Statutes regulating development: Ms. Mahony said a number of changes affect the Act 250 process and other areas of development: 1. Criteria 9L is changes from “rural growth areas” to “settlement patterns.” The aim is to control sprawl. If you are not in an “existing settlement,” you have to be efficient about the use and have to infill in strip development. Ms. Mahony showed a project in Colchester which is in the Act 250 process now and a Shelburne project where there is a question of whether it is “infill.”. She also noted that this criteria does not consider municipal zoning. Mr. Conner said there many be ways to refine a development so it can meet the criteria/code. Ms. Mahony said the business community is expecting a lot of litigation on this. 2. Criteria 5b relates to transportation demand management and requires a developer to be sure to plan for all forms of traffic. 3. The Legislature has passed an act that allows the state to collect transportation impact feed. VTrans can collect directly only after they create a transportation improvement area. Incoming projects pay for this based on trip ends. Fees can be reduced by such things as providing childcare in a facility and reducing trip ends. 4. The Vermont Shoreland Protection Act affects shoreland on Lake Champlain (and other bodies of water) and development within 250 feet of the Lake. The act does recognize existing property. Mr. Riehle asked if City Center would fall under Act 250. Mr. Conner said Market Street would and the Central School property probably would, but the New Town Center area probably would not because it has rules that guard against strip development. Mr. Riehle asked Ms. Mahony what a “growth area” means. He noted that the CCRPC has designated South Burlington as a “growth area.” Ms. Mahony said this is based on municipal zoning. She noted that 80% of development happens within areas meant for growth, which is only about 15% of the entire area of Chittenden County. She showed areas on the map that a planned for growth. Areas with municipal water and sewer are “primed” for growth, though maybe not at the same level of density. 7. Review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Status report of City Center FBC: Mr. Conner said staff is working on building frontage/façade language. They hope to give the Commission a full draft in the next 2 meetings. There will be a full legal review after that. The next big task will be setting a new version of a PUD. The city has applied for a grant on this to come up with rules that developers can plan for and still have flexibility for a changing market. b. Public Notice Requirement under the draft City Center FBC: Mr. Conner said he feels this is still a bit “wordy.” The process includes the following: 1. A required pre-application meeting with staff 2. A submission of everything that is required 3. Expanded notice to abutters 4. Invitation to an applicant-sponsored meeting (for a larger project) 5. Any significant changes would start the clock again Mr. Conner noted the Design Review Committee has voted to recommend a pre-application meeting involving design review, but the results would not be binding. Their recommendation will be provided to the Commission at an upcoming meeting. c. Draft Language for Dog Grooming Use: Mr. Conner said staff is recommending that pet grooming be included within the definitions of pet boarding, day care, and veterinary categories, as a follow up the Commission’s vote at the previous meeting. There may be some areas where only pet grooming is allowed, as there currently are. d. Review Categories of Uses Table of Uses that are either not defined, have vague definitions, or are outdated – specifically the topics of: warehousing, processing, storage and distribution; retail services and general merchandise stores; and manufacturing: Mr. Conner noted that warehousing and processing/storage have 2 definitions. Staff wants to come back with suggestions on how to do this better. One suggestion is to look at the “impact of a use” instead of the “nature of a use.” There is also the question of definitions regarding manufacturing (heavy vs. light industrial) and the nature of “a 21st century version of manufacturing.” Catering, for instance, falls under heavy manufacturing. With regard to retail sales, Mr. Conner noted that some areas allow retail sales, some allow the use in 3,000 sq. ft. or less, and some allow retail sales “excluding general merchandise (C-1, C-2, I-C, Swift Street District). The definition of “general merchandise,” however, says “See Retail Sales.” This would probably have very little weight. Mr. Conner suggested that members consider whether there is a planning goal here that is appropriate in some areas of the city and not in others, either as a type or a scale of use. Ms. Alenick (minute taker) said she recalled the discussion that took place in the creation of this regulation, that at the time the Commission was discussing people being able to pick up a quart of milk on their way home in some of these districts, but not to full their full shopping. Members determined that this item should be addressed and clarified in the near future and not necessarily wait until a full rezoning such as FBC extends to other parts of the City. 8. Other Business: a. Review upcoming meeting schedule: Members agreed not to meet during Thanksgiving week. The next Commission meeting will be on 9 December. 9. Minutes of 28 October 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 28 October 2014 as written. 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 9:15 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com To: Jessica Louisos, Chair Planning Commission From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director Subject: City Center Park (Dumont Park) Purpose & Need Statement Date: November 14, 2014 Background: This fall the City initiated public outreach for the City Center Park Project. This project includes enhancements to an existing wooded park – Dumont Park - located between the City Center TIF District and the Iby Street Barrett Street neighborhood. This park project includes assessing adjacent properties for inclusion into the park or constructing improvements that facilitate access to the park. The bulk of the protected wetlands to the north are among the areas under assessment. Dumont Park was acquired in 1975 using Land and Water Conservation Funds and thus how it may be developed is restricted to “passive” recreation uses. The project is in the “Project Definition Stage”. Public outreach meetings have been held: a public kick-off design workshop (in Dumont Park) and stakeholder meetings. From these meetings and a review of existing conditions the consultant team has drafted a Purpose and Need Statement. The purpose and need statement for a project is used to evaluate or “test” alternatives. Specifically, once alternatives are developed, the consultant team will ask “Does the alternative meet the Purpose & Need” for the project and document whether each alternative meets the purpose and need. Alternatives will also be evaluated using the matrix in the Local Transportation Facilities manual which include such items as cost, impact on natural and historic resources, utilities, and land/easement acquisition costs, etc. The purpose and need complements this matrix as the expression of the community needs and goal. Once alternatives are generated and tested they will be shared with the community for feedback, and a recommended alternative will be presented to the City Council to complete the project definition process. Attachments: • Draft City Center Park Project Purpose & Need Statement • Project Area Map and Website • The Project Development Process Recommendation: Review Purpose and Need and consider for approval. City Center Park Purpose and Need Statement Purpose The purpose of the City Center Park (encompassing the parcel commonly known as Dumont Park and adjacent areas) project is to plan, design and augment a centrally located, passive-use community park using principles of ecological and accessible design. The project is intended to cultivate and enhance the park’s natural setting and features as a contrast to the developing urban context that surrounds it. The goal is to serve the needs of local residents and workers, neighbors, visitors, and people of all ages who seek the benefits of passive recreation in a wooded environment, while maintaining the area’s water quality and wetland functions. Need 1. Provide passive recreational opportunities and design elements that enhance the use of the park and the health and well-being of city residents. Currently this area has the feel of a remnant woodland, with narrow worn trails being the only indicator of its use, and there is little awareness of its presence beyond the immediate neighborhood. There is a need for more clearly identified trails, seating, and entryways to better define this woodland area as a community park. It is also important to listen to and respect the concerns of abutting property owners with regard to its use and access, in balance with the needs of the community. 2. Improve connections to the surrounding area and make the park accessible and safe to all. Access into the site is not currently ADA compliant, in part due to topography and wetlands at the site’s perimeter, and access points are not defined. Accessible paths (with bridges/boardwalks as required) from marked entry points are needed to expand the use of the park to people of all ages and abilities. There is an identified need to connect existing neighborhoods to the south and future City Center development to the north with a path, which could potentially accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition to connecting existing and proposed paths, this new path should also connect to visitor parking, which should be provided within the City Center development. Proposed open space within the future downtown such as stormwater treatment areas should be incorporated into the park and park management where practical, as logical travel corridors between City Center and the primary park space. Personal safety and security within the park needs to be a focus of the final design. 3. Enhance opportunities to enjoy natural features within the park and support its educational potential. The site is home to a number of natural features, many of which lack appropriate awareness by visitors. Paths and overlooks should be located to bring these natural features (e.g. native trees and understory species, wetlands, etc.) into view, and educational programming opportunities should be supported with an interpretive/wayfinding sign system. 4. Improve the user experience of the park in a manner that protects any sensitive natural or cultural resources that may be present. The presence of Class II wetlands within and adjacent to the site dictate that any park improvements need to be responsive to the regulatory requirements for wetlands and their buffer zones, and wetland crossings and impacts need to be limited within these areas. The site is considered archeologically sensitive, and if artifacts are discovered through an archeological field survey, soil excavation may need to be avoided in those areas. Based on these factors and the fact that the original funding source for the purchase of the Dumont Parcel was from the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, the proposed recreational uses will continue to be “passive” in nature and soil excavation should be limited. In addition, Low Impact Design strategies should be employed for stormwater management in order to prevent increased flow into the wetlands or adjacent properties. 5. Improve the ecological health and diversity of the site. The land is overrun with a dense undergrowth of invasive species. As such, it will require a plan to enhance the natural ecology of the woodland and wetland areas and a management plan to support a healthy and dynamic natural park. Draft Public Notice Requirements under FBC South Burlington Planning Commission November 18, 2014 DRAFT SECTION ON SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS (2) Within the City Center Form Based Codes District / Transect Zones: (a) The Administrative Officer or Development Review Board shall review the site plan application, pursuant to Section 14.09. (b) For all applications, except those which meet one or more of the criteria listed in Section 14.09(B)(1-9), an application shall be deemed complete only after all the following actions have been completed by the applicant: (i) Participation in a pre-application meeting with City staff; (ii) Submission of all required information (see Appendix E); (iii) The applicant has demonstrated pDemonstration of proof of delivery of notification of adjoining landowners of the applications on a form with project description provided by the Administrative Officer in accordance with Section 17.06 of these Regulations, including at a minimum the following information: (I) A project description and contact information provided by the Administrative Officer; (II) A site plan for the property on a size no less than 11” x 17”, and; (III) Invitation to an applicant-sponsored informational and input meeting; (ivi) Posting of a notice of the proposed project on a form with project description provided by the Administrative Officer within view from the public right- of-way most nearly adjacent to the property for which the application is made; (v) Demonstration of proof of having held an applicant-sponsored information meeting, and summary notes from meeting. Such meeting shall consist, at a minimum, of: (I) Notice of said meeting no less than seven (7) days in advance to all parties required within this section; (II) Said meeting shall be held in an ADA-accessible public building in the City of South Burlington; (III) Said meeting shall be held at a time that is convenient to the public ( a weekday evening or Saturday), and; (IV) Said meeting shall include an overview of the project by the applicant, an opportunity for all members of the public in attendance to offer oral input, and acceptance of any written input; (iivi) The expiration of fifteen (15) days following receipt of the demonstrated proof of delivery of notification of adjoining landowners as described in this section,; and; Comment [PC1]: 6/17 adjustment to waive this notice requirement for very small projects, to be consistent with the current notice requirements for those small projects. Comment [PC2]: 10/29 added requirements to notice per PC meeting 10/28. Comment [PC3]: 10/29 Added requirement for community meeting per PC meeting 10/28 Draft Public Notice Requirements under FBC South Burlington Planning Commission November 18, 2014 (iv) Issuance of a written statement from the Department of Public Works and Fire Department regarding compliance with these regulations. (c) The applicant may make revisions to an application following initial submittal. (i) Where the Administrative Officer determines that the changes do not alter the overall description of the project, or that the changes reduce the scale of the project, no new notification and no new applicant-sponsored information and input meeting shall be required. The application shall, however, be considered newly-complete for the purposes of the Administrative Officer’s timeline for action pursuant to 24 VSA §4448. (ii) Where the Administrative Officer determines that the changes do alter the overall description of the project, all requirements of this section shall be met anew. (db) The Administrative Officer shall review the application against the site plan criteria in this Article 14, site plan and building envelope standard criteria in Article 8 and any other applicable standards in these Regulations, except as stated within this Article or within Article 8, City Center Form Based Code District. (ec) Where tasks, actions and responsibilities are assigned to the Development Review Board , such tasks, actions, authorities, and responsibilities shall be administered by the Administrative Officer unless specifically assigned to the Development Review Board within a Transect Zone. (df) If the Administrative Officer determines that the site plan and supporting material fail to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards, it she/he shall deny the site plan. However, if it she/he further determines that with a minor modification or modifications the site plan and supporting material would comply with applicable standards, the Administrative Officer may, in its her/his discretion, impose a condition or conditions requiring such modification or modifications and approve the site plan. For the purpose of this section, a minor modification is one that leaves no part of its implementation to the discretion of the applicant. (eg) Any appeal of the Administrative Officer’s action shall be done in accordance with the appeals process for Administrative Officer actions in these Regulations and applicable State Statutes. Comment [PC4]: 10/29. Clarification for revised applications. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 OCTOBER 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,28 October 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T.Riehle, S. Quest, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; D. Little, H. Soren, A. Klugo, S. Dopp 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Riehle: Attended the program at Dumont Park. Found it to be a gem. Ms. Louisos: Got an email from Keith Epstein who though it might be helpful to have a contact member for energy efficiency issues.. Mr. Conner: Staff has been looking at cul de sac standards and brought in a consultant to make recommendations. They did some field testing and hope to have new standards in the near future. The Underwood project is about to kick off. The City Council appointed a 9–member committee, and a consultant (Mark Kane) is on board. The first meeting will be a site visit. Todd Goodwin is leaving the city, and the Recreation Department will be an integral part of the Underwood discussion. 4. Initial review of request of Donna Little to allow pet grooming as an accessory use in the I-O District: Mr. Conner said this was added in the City Center area. He suggested it might be a good approach to put pet grooming as part of the pet day care definition. Mr Riehle asked where Ms Little’s business will be located. She said it will be at 1-045 Hinesburg Road, across from the entrance to Meadowlands. Mr. Riehle asked about noise. Ms. Little said it will be a u-shaped building with the animals confined in the middle. Ms. Quest moved to approve pet grooming as an accessory use in the I-O District, or wherever pet day care is allowed – with staff coming back to the Commission with a final recommendation. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Status Report and Commission discussion of City Comprehensive Plan Update: 2 Mr. Conner referred to an update in the meeting packets which includes thing the Commission felt need to go into the draft. Varying amounts of work are involved as well as addressing new elements required by the State. Mr. Gagnon asked about a time line. Mr. Conner said staff would pick up their end starting in early January. In terms of the Planning Commission, the big things may be future land use map and text and pulling together the work of the Interim Zoning committees. Mr. Gagnon suggested a schedule with some “milestones.” Ms. Quest suggested possibly having someone from each committee to help. 6. Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Conner said staff is going through things to me sure everything is “clean.” There are also questions being asked regarding the “one building on one property” regulation and how that would work with an existing PUD. There is also discussion regarding administrative review and how that could involve issues of neighbors. There may be things neighbors want that don’t relate to regulations, things that involve “conversation,” not “regulations.” The hope is not to lose that element. Mr. Conner noted that one idea is to have a commitment on the staff level that all plans be posted on-line. Another possible idea is to encourage or require the applicant to host a meeting in a public venue to which abutters would be invited. Ms. LaRose stressed that they don’t want to set up expectations that neighbors can require things that aren’t in the regulations. They also don’t want an expectation that staff would be at any or all of these meetings. Mr. Conner said the FBC Committee also thought about allowing the Administrative Officer to call a meeting, but that might lead to a question of “why a meeting for this application and not for another.” He also noted there are some places where there is a posting of the first draft of the plan on the property. This, however, could quickly get out of date or get “ratty” looking. Ms. Dopp questioned who constitutes an abutter. She felt there can be nearby neighbors who don’t get notified. She suggested something on a sign as to how to follow the progress of a plan. Ms. LaRose noted the Design Review Committee returned to the subject of one-story buildings. No changes have yet been presented. Ms. LaRose also noted they focus now is on the T-3 District, particularly with regard to a “purpose statement,” to see if the text actually relates to that. Mr. Conner said one question is whether 90% glazing on the first floor constitutes a residential “look.: He noted there is a requirement in T-3 that all units must have a door to the street. An option has been proposed for very narrow buildings to have 3 units having a “presence’ on the street (e.g., a balcony), but not necessarily a door. Ms. LaRose said that everyone on the first floor would still have to have a door to the street. Mr. Klugo asked if it is the intent that architecture should have a pitched roof. Mr. Conner said the Design Review Committee is looking at whether a flat roof would be OK. 3 7. Other Business A. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Members agreed to meet on 18 November instead of 11 November, which is a legal holiday, and to decide about a 25 November meeting on 18 November: B. 30 VSA Section248 pre-application notice - New England Clean Power Link Electric Transmission Project: Mr. Conner explained that this project is in the Lake from the Canadian border to Benson. He felt there is nothing specific for the Commission to say. Ms .Louisos said there is nothing she felt strongly about. 8. Minutes of 14 October 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 14 October 2014 as written. 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 8:30 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk