Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/28/2014 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 OCTOBER 2014 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: 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. 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 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. September 30, 2014 Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Paul and Ray; As you know, we plan to establish a luxury pet boarding and pet day care business at 1045 Hinesburg Road, in South Burlington’s Industrial/Open Space (I/O) Zoning District. The purpose of this letter is to ask the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department to allow pet grooming as an accessory use in the I/O Zoning District. Pet grooming is listed as a “permitted use” in all Non-Residential Zoning Districts except the Industrial/Open Space and Airport Districts. The I/O Zoning District permits as an accessory use retail and retail services to the general public for personal or household use, and you agreed that retail sales of pet-related products in our establishment will be allowed as an accessory use. However, you felt that retail services such as pet grooming as an accessory use would not be allowed. Pet grooming should be considered an accessory use of our building, as its purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building. We request further consideration to allow pet grooming as part of our services and an “accessory” to our primary pet boarding and pet day care use. Thank you. Sincerely, Donna Little Heather Soren Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa 802-598-8673 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: LDR Amendment request initial review – Initial review of request of Donna Little to allow pet grooming as an accessory use in the I/O District DATE: October 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting The city received a request from Donna Little to consider allowing pet grooming as an accessory use in the Industrial/Open Space district. See the attached request. Pursuant to the Policy on Public Requests for Amendments, staff performed an initial examination of the request. A brief analysis: At present, kennels, veterinary hospitals, and pet day care facilities are permitted in the I/O District. Pet Grooming was a new use added to the LDRs a couple of years ago, to create a category for a more “retail” operation that would be appropriate in areas such as Shelburne Road and City Center, where something like a full kennel may not be appropriate. Conceptually, a pet grooming facility would likely be a lesser intense use than the others allowed in the district, though possibly slightly higher traffic generator. In evaluating next steps, the Commission could choose to proceed with evaluation of the change as part of the current round of amendments to the LDRs, to consider it at a future time, or to indicate to the requestor that the request would not be advanced. Recommendation: Conceptually, staff is comfortable with such a proposed amendment. Should the Commission wish to proceed, we would look more closely as to the best approach, be it to add this as accessory use, add it to the definition of pet day or, or allow this as a permitted use in the I/O district. Draft Comprehensive Plan “to-do” list South Burlington Planning Commission First presented July 2013, Updated October 2014 Review and Insert Text edits to Comprehensive Plan Sustainable Agriculture Affordable Housing Open Space Form-Based Codes Inclusionary Zoning Additional inputs, such as energy, rec paths, classification of parks etc. Review and Amend Draft Objectives Sustainable Agriculture Affordable Housing Open Space Inclusionary Zoning Review and Revise Draft Strategies Determine final "approach" to Strategies Review all for consistency with approach Sustainable Agriculture Affordable Housing Inclusionary Zoning Open Space Form-Based Codes Review and Revise Future Land Use Map & Chapter Future Land Use Map Review Future land use Text Future Land Use Objectives & Strategies Address Flood Resiliency / Growth Center requirements under State Law Review / Address comments from CCRPC, including extraction of mineral resources Review Final Public Improvements List Review & Update Final Map Set Review "Top Goals" based on Interim Zoning Work Develop priorities for action or indicators for measurement Revisions / Prepare Executive Summary Final Draft for Public & Committee Comment Public Hearing date set & Analysis Reports Public Hearing Amendments post public hearing SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 OCTOBER 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 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, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; T. Duff, S. Roy, S. Dopp, R. Greco 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: Ms. Greco thanked members for taking on the sewer allocation issue.. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Louisos: Advised members that she presented the Commission’s letter regarding City Center sewer allocation to the City Council and responded to questions. The Council didn’t feel it was as urgent as the letter suggested and hoped the issue wouldn’t take away from the Commission’s other work. The Council then voted to have staff present a proposal to hire a consultant, “sooner rather than later” to look into the allocation. Mr. Conner noted that Shelburne is doing a similar kind of proposal and provided some information. Staff will probably include some options for the proposal when presented to Council. Mr. Conner: Noted the new system instituted this week for agendas and minutes. Following a meeting, the minutes will have all the attachments from the agenda packets. The plan is to go back in time so a topic can be researched all the way back. Members indicated some issues they had with the system, and Mr. Conner will look into these. Another city project is to codify all of the city’s ordinances. Those that are out of date will be repealed, some will be updated, others re-adopted etc. The Sign Ordinance is being updated to align with the City Center work of the City. There will be 2 events regarding Dumont Park: a 15 October meeting of stakeholders and committees, and a 18 October public workshop. 4. Viewing of City Center Digital 3D modeling prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere Architects: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the project. Mr. Duff and Mr. Roy then showed the 5-minute presentation. 2 Mr. Duff noted they are showing the connections through City Center to places like Central School, Mary Street, Dumont Park, etc. Some of these are pedestrian/bike connections only. Mr. Roy said he personally feels the school should remain because there will be a lot of residences in the built-out City Center. Ms. Dopp said she liked the connectivity of the three municipal buildings, even though they are separate buildings. Ms. Benton felt the playground should be more in the public view, not hidden away. She felt this was a safety issue. Ms. Dopp questioned how this view matches up with the public meetings and public input. Mr. Conner said it shows what is allowable under form based codes. Ms. Greco agreed this did not look like what the pubic had put on paper. Mr. Conner noted that the Market Street design is what was approved by the four committees last fall. Mr. Duff said they had looked at City Center from the point of view of what the city has control over, which is only an acre and a half. Ms. LaRose noted that one of the purposes of the visualization was to help people see what something could look like (e.g., a 5-story building next to a park, etc.). She also noted that the code has not yet been adopted. Mr. Conner then showed 6 still shots provided by Messrs. Duff and Roy. 5. Review and Consider Approval of Garden Street Purpose and Need Statement: Ms. Blanchard reviewed the location of Garden Street, including improvements that will be made to the intersections of Williston Rd./White Street/Midas Drive and Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road; Williston Road. The goals of the Garden Street project include: 1. Providing infrastructure for City Center 2. Providing comfortable and attractive public space as well as places where transportation occur 3. Improving transportation, connectivity in a multi-modal way; creating a grid system 4. Enhancing multi-modal traffic in City Center, and recognizing all modes (including bicycles) Ms. Blanchard noted that Commission approval is needed in order for the project to move forward. Ms. Louisos suggested clarifying the use of the word “green” in the second line. Mr. Gagnon suggested better language. 3 Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission approve the Purpose and Need Statement for Garden Street as written with the second line change to add “including green infrastructure” nd “along the adjacent Williston Road.” Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of Letter of Support and Summary of ongoing work to the Georgetown University Energy Prize: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. Ms. Quest noted that “food” considerations had been left out of the draft Comprehensive Plan Vision statement. Mr. Conner will check on that. Ms. Quest then moved to approve the Letter of Support for the Georgetown University Energy Prize. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Accept Resignation of Heidi Auclair from Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee; consider identification and appointment of new member: Ms. Quest recommended Rebecca Adams as a replacement for Ms. Auclair. Mr. Gagnon moved to accept the resignation of Heidi Auclair from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee and to appoint Rebecca Adams as her replacement. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Draft Amendments to Land Development Regulations: a. Review of pubic input provided on the draft LDRs Ms. LaRose noted the wide range of input. There was a lot of feedback from people on Iby Street related to a specific development proposal at Market Street/Hinesburg Road. Ms. Quest asked if there had been any decision from the School Board regarding the Saxon offer. Mr. Conner said the last he had heard the Board is planning public meetings to discuss the offer. Ms. Quest asked about incentives for “green” and “sustainability.” Mr. Conner said that becomes a long conversation; specifically, what happens if a developers provide solar or other “green” elements on their own? Would you want to give them a 50% break for something they are already going to do? Ms. LaRose noted some comments from Keith Epstein asking that there be no stormwater grates on the bike paths. Ms. Quest asked about PUDs in the City Center. Ms. LaRose said the intent was not to have them, but the more they look at it, this could be an issue. For one thing there could be a difficulty with financing if all the buildings are on their own lots. 4 Ms. Quest asked when form based codes will go into effect. Mr. Conner said they have been meeting weekly with property owners who have some great questions. They are also working on “readability.” The thought is that some pictures would go a long way to making things clearer, and they are looking for someone to do some simple drawings. Ms. LaRose added there is also an ongoing legal review. Ms. Benton asked if the legal review will address things like “encourage,” “shall,” “should,” etc. She also questioned who would “encourage” if there is no DRB review. Ms. Louisos questioned if there is something more the Commission should be doing regarding parks Ms. Benton felt it was not the number of parks but the quality. Ms. LaRose asked if the Commission would be OK with developers paying into an open space fund to buy central green space instead of providing their own open space. Mr. Gagnon cited the danger of being too specific and precluding the possibility of some really good creativity. Mr. Conner noted that they are wrestling with the question of how to get public input into an administrative review. He suggested the option for an “administrative hearing.” Members briefly discussed the question of landscaped islands and whether these should be 10% or 15% Mr. Conner noted there is an ongoing review of parking requirements and which are too many or too few. 9. Other Business: A. Review upcoming meeting schedule: Mr. Conner noted that the first November meeting is scheduled for Veterans Day, and the second November meeting is during Thanksgiving week. Members will make decisions about this at the next October meeting. 10. Minutes of 23 September 2014: Ms. Louisos asked that the word “indefinitely” be added to her comment that the city can’t keep expanding the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 September 2014 as amended. Ms. Benton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. _______________________________________ Clerk