Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/23/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 SEPTEMBER 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 September 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT – J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, B. Bouchard, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, J. Nick, L. Michaels, S. Dopp, S. Hanley, K. Epstein, E. Landfeldt 1. Agenda – Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Riehle directed attention to an article in Mother Earth News that includes Burlington, Vermont as a place where core values prevail. Ms. Louisos: Attended one day of the American Planners Association meeting. Mr. Conner: The city hosted a Garden Street planning workshop attended by about 40 people. The aim was to determine the character of the street. At the next Commission meeting, members will see a draft purpose/need statement. Also attended the Planners Association meeting. Topics included sharing of resources, and public engagement. They are looking at pedestrian/bike most used routes. The Chamberlin area visioning project is ramping up. The Planning Commission will be asked to provide a member of one of the committees. A team is doing a 3-D model of what City Center will look like. This should be done within a few weeks. Distributed information about a Planning & Zoning forum being put on by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. 4. Discuss Wastewater Allocation Recommendation to City Council; Consideration of Letter of Transmission to Accompany Recommendation: Ms. Louisos distributed a copy of the draft letter. Mr. Gagnon said he would add the Commission’s objective at the end, something to the effect that the Commission understands that the 470,000 gpd figure will change, but the Commission’s objective is to have adequate capacity for the area. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the letter with Mr. Gagnon’s addition. Ms. Quest seconded. Mr. McKenzie questioned the 470,000 gpd figure. Ms. Louisos said it came from a staff memo. Mr. Conner stressed that it is a very rough estimate of what a 20 year usage in the form based codes area could be. Mr. McKenzie said he worked out numbers from their property and the school property, assuming full development, and came up with about 275,000 gpd. This also assumes some development on Mary Street. Mr. Gagnon asked if the 470,000 gpd includes what is there now. Mr. Conner said it does not. He again stressed that this is a rough estimate. Ms. Hanley, representing the Tilley Drive/Fletcher Allen project, expressed concern that their interests are outside the City Center/form based codes area and questioned doing a reserve at all. Ms. Louisos said the city can’t keep expanding the Sewage Treatment Plant indefinitely. The concern is with the huge investment in City Center and the TIF District that there be adequate capacity. Mr. Gagnon said the number in the existing ordinance is not adequate for City Center, and the Commission wants to inform the Council that there is a “shortage in the system” and that more needs to be set aside. Mr. Conner noted that there is a requirement under state law that a municipality must demonstrate they have a reserve of wastewater capacity if they have a “new town center” designation, which South Burlington has. Ms. Hanley felt that making a recommendation for a reserve for a 20-year buildout seemed excessive as projects can change almost daily. Ms. Harrington said the number can always be changed. She cited the effort to make City Center more attractive to developers as the city can’t pay for the TIF district without development. Ms. Hanley said that 350 gpd is not sufficient for all the development outside of City Center. Mr. Michaels estimated that a hotel and 42 condos uses about 100,000 gpd over 20 years. Mr. Nick said the Commission should have more stable numbers before it goes to the City Council. He said he could see a scenario where the market could reply by using all the remaining gpd. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission is purely advisory to the Council. He noted the Sewage Treatment Plant was recently upgraded, and the debt won’t be paid off for a long time. If development occurred quickly, the city would have to go to the voters to expand the plant before the debt is paid, and the voters might or might not approve that. Mr. Langfeldt said it would make sense to have the Public Works Director present for this discussion. Ms. Louisos said the Commission has already done that. Ms. Harrington noted a memo the Commission received from Mr. Rabidoux. Ms. Greco said this was already presented to the City Council. Mr. Simoneau said the Commission is already on record to the Council that they allocate 470,000 gpd. He felt the Commission should be asking the Council to do a study as to what the viable number is for City Center. Mr. Bouchard said it sounds to him like the Commission is determining that City Center takes precedence over “private applicants.” Mr. Riehle said the City Council has determined that City Center is a priority. Mr. Gagnon added that there may be many developers in that area. Ms. Hanley said the city needs to maintain the viability of other areas as well. She felt that “private sector data” is missing from this consideration. Mr. Michaels said he talked with Justin Rabidoux who did not support this number. He felt it was important to get him back to the Commission to discuss this. Mr. Conner noted that staff has not made a recommendation as to what an appropriate reserve should be. Mr. Michaels said the 470,000 gpd number is not based on a specific study. He suggested taking away that number and just asking the Council to study it. He added that he believed that part of the impetus for going to the Council with this number is an attempt to control growth elsewhere in the city. He felt that needs to be discussed as a separate issue. Mr. Nick agreed. Mr. Simoneau said the Commission doesn’t know what the number should be. He felt they could still reach the goal without that number. Ms. Quest said the aim is to plan ahead so something doesn’t “rise up and bite us.” Ms. Calcagni recommended a motion that would indicate the Commission wants to allocate a number for City Center. She felt recommending a number before there is a study doesn’t make sense. Ms. Harrington then withdrew her previous motion and Ms. Louisos then moved that the Commission send the draft letter to the Council, replacing introductory sentence referring to the prior vote with “The Commission passed the following motion (6‐1)” and replacing the last line of the imbedded motion with: “…to up the allocation to what is adequate.” Further to add a 6th bullet point to make sure the numbers are refined, and further to add language to recognize that any number is preliminary, and that the Commission’s goal is to assure adequate capacity. Further to add that the Commission feels this is an urgent matter and should be addressed in a timely manner. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-1. 5. Overview of the Georgetown University Energy Prize: Mr. Epstein reviewed the city’s entry into a competition sponsored by Georgetown University. The prize is $5,000,000 to be used for energy efficiency for the community as a whole. Each entrant is submitting a plan of what they will do in the next two years. There are about 50 competitors. The top 10 will be asked to submit a report on how their efforts succeeded. Things to be considered include: innovation, potential for replication elsewhere in the country, future performance (things that will have an impact down the road), reaching a diverse population, educating the community, education in the schools, etc. Commercial, industrial and transportation efforts are not included, only municipal, electric, natural gas, residential and schools. Mr. Epstein said suggested uses for the $5,000,000, should the city win, would include solar in the schools, transportation, rec path systems, retrofits, a loan fund for energy projects, etc. The application is due on 10 November. It will be presented to the City Council for approval on 20 October. Mr. Epstein added that the City Manager and School District are very excited about this, and there is a team of leaders in each school. The Energy Committee is also looking for a business partner. Mr. Epstein said the most relevant thing for the Planning Commission is planning for the future. Mr. Conner noted there are already a number of things done including: form based codes, a street code, creating more sustainable environments (not having to get into a car to run errands), etc. Mr. Epstein asked the Commission for a letter supporting the application with a statement that the Commission will work to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that addresses energy. Mr. Conner and Ms. Louisos agreed to write such a letter. Ms. Benton left the meeting at this point. 6. Review Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Initial review of request of Tim McKenzie to add a portion of a parcel presently zoned Industrial-Open Space District to the SEQ- Neighborhood Residential District; Hinesburg Road: Mr. Conner noted there is a wetland/stream that cuts this piece off. Mr. McKenzie added it is also cut off by a 200 foot buffer. There is a person who wants to build a single family home and needs three acres. Mr. Conner showed what the request would result in. [Click here for Area Map and here for Email Request] Mr. Riehle moved to proceed with this request as part of the current round of amendments to the City Council. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Initial review of a request of Ralph Deslauriers to add a portion of a parcel presently zoned R-12 to form based codes T4 District; Quarry Hill Road: Mr. Conner showed the area on the map. He noted it could be developed as a residence or commercial. Both are allowed. There is also discussion of a road connection potential that would take traffic off Spear Street. [Click here for Base Code District Quarry Hill] Mr. Riehle moved to add this to the current round of LDR amendments. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. c. Review of public input provided on the draft LDRs: Mr. Conner said this is still being put together. 7. Other Business: a. Review upcoming meeting schedule: Mr. Conner noted the next Commission meeting will include the Garden Street Purpose and Need Statement, the 3-D video of what City Center might look like, and other items. 8. Minutes of 9 September 2014: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 9 September 2014 as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 8-9-2011 Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations Under State Statute, the Planning Commission is responsible for initiating amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations1. The purpose of this policy is to provide a clear, equitable process for the consideration of requests from the public. Amendments to the Land Development Regulations involve multiple steps, including research and evaluation by staff and the Planning Commission, the holding of warned public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council, and ultimately action by the City Council. In most cases, amendments are grouped together for consideration and action. General procedure for review of requests for amendments: 1. Any person wishing to submit a request is strongly encouraged to first meet with staff of the Department of Planning & Zoning. 2. All requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) must be provided in writing, via the Department of Planning and Zoning, for it to be considered by the Planning Commission. Requests may include amendment language or may be a concept for consideration. 3. Upon receipt of a request, staff shall inform the Planning Commission Chair. The Chair and staff will perform an initial screening of the request and will develop a recommendation for the Planning Commission’s consideration. 4. The Planning Commission shall, in a timely fashion, consider the request and take one of the following actions: a. Review the proposed amendment for possible inclusion it in the warning for the next public hearing on amendments to the LDRs; b. Table the request until related issues are undertaken assessed by the Commission via studies or other amendments; c. Decide not to pursue the requested amendment. 5. In determining its course of action, the following will be used as guidelines: a. Requests substantively related to an active or planned review of the Land Development Regulations should generally be heard commensurate with that process; b. Requests unrelated to an ongoing LDR review or amendment should be considered for their timeliness and in relation to existing work plans of the Commission. 6. Upon determination of the Planning Commission that an item will be considered for review, staff will prepare a brief report on the request for the amendment. The report will include a short analysis of the requested amendment’s consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, its relationship to the Commission’s work plan, and the anticipated staff time involved in undertaking any potential additional research on the topic. 1 24 VSA 4441 describes this process, and the exceptions thereto. 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 – Consider amendment to zoning district boundary – Industrial Open Space to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential, Hinesburg Road DATE: September 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting The city received a request from Tim McKenzie of South Burlington Realty to consider designating a portion of property owned by SB Realty from Industrial /Open Space to SEQ- Neighborhood Residential. See the attached request. Pursuant to the recently-adopted Policy on Public Requests for Amendments, staff performed an initial examination of the request. A brief analysis: The request is to take a small area presently designated I/O which geographically extends into the SEQ-NR area and have the zoning changed to match. Mr. McKenzie states that the property provides little utility for development in the I/O because it is cut off from the remainder of their property by a wetland. Staff has prepared a basic site conditions map, attached. Based on the natural resource information in the city’s dataset, staff concurs the that the subject piece of land is largely disconnected from the remainder of the parcel within the I/O. The effect of this change would be that it would then be potentially developed commensurate with any development on the adjancent SEQ-NR parcel. As you’ll see from the map, a road now named Wildflower lane connect towards the adjacent property. In determining 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: Staff supports the proposed amendment as the property is more closely related to the SEQ-NR area and housing than it would be to any industrial use. If the Commission wishes to include this with the current round of amendments, staff could do that. HINESBURG RD DUBOIS DRMARCY ST KNOLL CIR BUTLER DROAK CREEK DR MILL POND LNWHITEFACE STMOSS GLEN LNMOSS GLEN LN Disclaimer:The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies.Sources:2011 Parcel boundaries - South Burlington GIS2007 Roads - South Burlington GISOrthophotography - 2013.Wetlands and Streams - City of South BurlingtonPossible Wetland AreaZoning District Amendment Request011022033055FeetLegendStreamsParcel BoundaryÜMap Prepared Sept 19, 2014Approximate area of zoning change requestArea requested to bechanged from Industrial-Open Space to SEQ-NeighborhoodResidential From:Tim McKenzie To:Paul Conner Subject:Meadowlands Date:Friday, September 05, 2014 8:42:49 AM Attachments:Meadowlands.PDF Paul, See attached site plan, 1 acre piece in south west corner provides no utility because it is separated by a stream and wetlands from the rest of the lot but could be used for housing by our neighbor. We would like to be able to remove that one acre piece from the I/O district and add to neighboring district. Tim Timothy McKenzie South Burlington Realty PO Box 2204 S. Burlington 05407-2204 Phone 863-9039 x3 Cell 233-5302 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 – Consider amendment to zoning district boundary – R12 to T4 on Quarry Hill Road DATE: September 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting The city received a request from Ralph Deslauriers of Quarry Hill Club LLC to consider re- designating a portion of property presently zoned as R12 to the draft T4. See the attached request. Pursuant to the recently-adopted Policy on Public Requests for Amendments, staff performed an initial examination of the request. A brief analysis: In a recent discussion with staff reviewing the Draft Form Based Code, we collectively became aware that a parcel on Quarry Hill Road is split between two zoning districts (currently R12 and C1-R12). A line exists on our parcel data through the property indicating this demarcation, but it is not in fact a parcel line. Under the current draft City Center FBC, half of the parcel would come under the FBC and half would come under the current R12 zoning. In determining 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: Staff supports the proposed amendment. The Commission has previously sought to make sure that property lines, where possible, match the FBC district boundary. The R12 district, while predominantly residential, already allows for non-residential uses, and the scale of the R12 district is similar to that allowed by the T4. CITY O F S O U T H B U R L I N G T O N CITY O F B U R L I N G T O NDRDORSETST SHERR Y R D GARDEN STHINESB U R G R D COTTAGEGROVEAVEWHITE STPATCH E N R D WILLISTONRDPROUTY PKWYPINE STPINETREETERRDEANESTHOPKIN S S T HELEN AV SIMPSON CTSHEPARDLNLILACLNHEATHSTMIDAS DR SUNSET AVWOODLANDPLEXECUTIVEMARY STMARKET STGILBERT STMYERS CT CHARL E S S T IBYSTSPEAR S T ELSOM PKWY BARRETT STHAYDEN PKWY INTERSTATE 89 OBRIEN D R S L O C U M ST SAN RE M O D R EAST TE R R LegendForm Based Code Area (346 acres)Existing Road ParcelsProposed City Center ZoningTransect ZonesT-1 (28 acres)T-3 (8.4 acres)T-3+ (14 acres)T-4 (292 acres)T-5 (16 acres)Park/Civic (15 acres)EP:\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\FormBasedCode\FormBasedCode_Working.mxd exported by:smanley On 4/16/2014City of South BurlingtonPlanning & Zoning - Proposed City Center Zoning0 0.1 0.2 0.30.05MilesApril 16, 2014DDDrDraftDraftfrrrforforccccDisDDiscussiocussssssissisisissssssssssississssssssssssssususussusssssuuuusuususususususussssscunnnsionsionApriStream buffer and wetland areas, listed as T-1, are shown for illustrative purposes only. Depicted stream buffer and wetland boundaries are approximate. The diagram should not be construed as showing all stream buffers and wetland areas, nor the precise locations of such stream buffers and wetland areas. Wetland and stream buffer delineation for permitting purposes must be determined in accordance with Articles 10 and 12 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, as applicable. CommercialBoulevardSupport StreetNeighborhoodStreetSupport StreetNeighborhoodStreet / SupportStreetCommercialBoulevardSupport StreetSupport StreetNeighborhoodStreet BikeBoulevardNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetMarket StreetArea requested tobe amended fromR12 to T4 From:QUARRYHILLCLUB@aol.com To:Paul Conner Subject:Quarry Hill Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:52:42 PM Paul Conner Quarry Hill Subdivision Lot number 3 which abuts staples plaza is a 2.9 acre parcel and currently that lot is in two different zoning districts C-1 and R12 ( the line divides that lot almost in half). it would help if that lot was on one zone. We would like to be in Form Base Code District. Thank you Ralph E Deslauriers II Quarry Hill Club & Condos SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 SEPTEMBER 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 September 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; S. Quest, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Director; P. Nowak, L. Michaels 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Quest: At neighborhood picnic, everyone she talked to wanted City Center to be a place with municipal buildings and greens. Mr. Riehle: Gave members information on a project in Waterbury. Ms. Louisos: Has had questions from people regarding the motion made by the Commission on the sewer ordinance. She suggested sending a transmittal letter explaining the Commission’s thinking. Mr. Conner: a) The city is preparing a 3d digital “modeling” for City Center and what it could look like. b) The Garden Street “kick-off” will be held Wednesday, 7 p.m. c) Last week, staff participated in a site walk of Tilley Drive area in connection with the Fletcher Allen plans for the area. d) The group set up by the Commission to look at City Center/Form Based Code technical items will meet Wednesday morning. 4. Review Draft City Capital Improvement Plan for FY2016-2025; provide feedback: Mr. Conner said the goal is to project major expenditures for the city for the next 10 years for “physical” things. This avoids spikes in taxes. A project that will tie into this is the Impact Fee Ordinance, and the plan is to have that Ordinance tie directly into the C. I. P. 2 Mr. Gagnon asked if anything moved forward or backward. Mr. Conner said not yet; this is the stage to gather input to see if anything should be moved. Ms. Quest asked why Underwood Park isn’t on the C.I.P. Ms. Blanchard said some things in the Impact Fee Ordinance are out of date, and there is no specific reference to Underwood Park at this time. Mr. Riehle noted that on pages 9, 10, 20, 21, 49, 55, 58, and 60 there are items that refer to “safety” and “hazard.” He would like to Commission to be proactive and say that safety should come before anything else. Some of these items are not on the schedule until 2020. Mr. Riehle then moved to advance to 2017 projects deemed by Public Works to be deemed “unsafe” and “hazardous for bicyclists and pedestrians.” Mr. Gagnon seconded. Ms. Blanchard explained there is a process for at least partial federal and/or state funding that most of these projects qualify for. The city has to go through that process. Mr. Conner said he can give the Commission an update on projects that are in the process. In terms of city money, some of the projects are a few years out because City Center projects are “soaking up” large portions of funding for the next few years. Ms. Blanchard added there are a lot of resources going into the C.I.P. At some point, there will be a drop off on city resources, and it is not known what impact fees will produce in the future. Mr. Conner stressed that there is always a balance of resources. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-0. 5. Overview of Garden Street Design Project: Ms. Blanchard said the development process includes a Definition Phase (kickoff, existing conditions, workshops, statement of needs, alternative possibilities, recommendation to the City Council), a Permitting Phase and the actual construction. For Garden Street, there has been an assessment of existing conditions by the consultant. There have also been meeting with stakeholders, utilities, etc. The kick-off workshop will be tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at City Hall. This will be preceded by a walkabout on Midas Drive at 5:30 p.m. From these workshops, the consultant will bring a recommendation to the Planning Commission at about the first meeting in October. Ms. Blanchard then showed what land the city owns. She noted that the project will include connections at the White Street/Midas Drive/Williston Road and Hinesburg Road/Williston Road/Patchen Road intersections. The whole project area will be looked at. 3 Ms. Blanchard estimated that construction will be in 2016 at the earliest. Some parts of the street might be constructed by developers as part of other projects. 6. Overview of Dumont Park Design Project: Ms. Blanchard noted that Landworks has been chosen as the consultant, but the contract is not yet signed. Dumont Park will be a “City Center Park.” It was purchased with federal funds. Part of the project will be to evaluate surrounding pieces of land to incorporate into the park, including some wetlands that could otherwise not be developed. Ms. Blanchard then showed what the city does and does not own. She added that the time-line for Dumont Park is similar to that of Garden Street. 7. Consideration of Approval of 2015 Municipal Planning Grant Application: Mr. Conner discussed the memo provided to the Commission. He stated that after review and discussion with the VT Department of Housing and Community Development regarding which of the two options would be more competitive, staff is recommending the Planned Unit Development / Master Plan proposal. Ms. Quest moved to approve the Municipal Planning Grant Application as presented by staff. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion approved 4-0. 8. Other Business: Ms. Louisos noted a wetland permit in the Commission’s packet. Mr. Conner said this is just for the Commission’s information. Members agreed they would like to continue receiving these. 9. Minutes of 26 August 2014: Ms. Quest noted a missing “zero” on page 3. Ms. Quest then moved to approve the Minutes of 26 August 2014 as amended. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:40 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk