Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/24/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 MARCH 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 March 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Rooms, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Harrington, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest, T. Riehle, B. Benton ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; L. Michaels, S. Dopp, T. Chittenden, P. O’Brien, R. Greco, R. Jeffers, S. Roy, K. Fisk, S. Pouliot, N. Andrews, P. Wordelin, K. & K. Clark, J. Nick; other South Village residents NOTE: The meeting began in the Champlain Conference Room then moved to the large downstairs conference room due to the large audience. 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: Ms. Greco noted that the Underwood Report indicated that the city’s parklands were below the standard. Mr. Conner said he believed that was before the acquisition of the Underwood property but he would check on it. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Conner: a. Almost all members of the Open Space Committee & Consultants, and Market Street team went to the State House to receive Vermont Public Space awards for these two projects, a great honor. b. This Thursday, there will be a neighborhood meeting at Chamberlin School regard the removal of homes by the Airport and the Chamberlin neighborhood project. The new Library and Recreation Directors will also be introduced at that meeting. Mr. Gagnon noted there will also be meetings on 2 April at Noon and 7 p.m. regarding Airport demolition particulars. c. There will be a community meeting on 31 March to discuss the future of the South Burlington schools, 6:30 in the Middle School Cafeteria. 4. Consideration of request for zoning/plan amendment to allow for mixed uses at a portion of the South Village neighborhood area: Ms. Jeffers said the goal of South Village is to have a “walkable village.” She felt the proposal for a Village Commercial area would be fulfilling that vision. The plan is to have commercial uses on the first floor with residential above. Ms. Jeffers noted the CSA would like to be able to distribute food from a food hub in South Burlington, and right now that is not possible because of how the land is zoned. Such things as a bakery, pizza place, small daycare, etc., could also serve the neighborhood. Ms. Jeffers said they are not asking for more density with the upstairs apartments; they would just be moving density around. Proposed uses would include: educational support facilities (e.g., tutoring), personal instruction (e.g., music, yoga), car repair (in a facility that looks like a house), convenience store (3000 sq. ft.), general office, medical office, personal/business service (e.g., hair salon), standard restaurant (e.g., pub, fish & chips), retail food establishment, seasonal mobile food vendor. All would be “small businesses.” Ms. Jeffers noted the property was originally proposed as a school, and that is not likely to happen. Some of the concerns that neighbors have raised include: it would be developing undeveloped land (Ms. Jeffers noted the land is zoned to be developed), traffic (people coming from outside South Village to access shops and services), and on-street parking (Ms. Jeffers said spaces could be designated for “residential parking only.”) Ms. Jeffers then showed a site plan and indicated the existing solar array, the farm property line, possible location for a farm stand, and the lots being proposed for commercial uses. Ms. Harrington asked about an affordable housing component. Ms. Jeffers said they would meet the VHFA standards or have an appropriate affordable component. Mr. Conner explained how the affordable standards work in South Village, that they received a housing unit bonus with the original approval for including a certain number of affordable units. Mr. Roy said they would keep the buildings to 2 stories to balance with the other side of the street. There would also be a large green space in the center where a community event could take place. Mr. O’Brien noted that South Village has 180+ residents. He felt that those who were at this meeting represented the “anti” feelings and those at home were the “pro” commercial people. He then read from the Comprehensive Plan section that says a basic level of support services will be required in the Southeast Quadrant and that there would be sufficient population growth to warrant a small commercial zone. He also noted that there are small commercial areas on the other two major north/south roads. Ms. Quest said she’d been told there is not a commercial market now. Mr. O’Brien said they wouldn’t build all the uses now but would build a small place to sell what is grown on the farm. Ms. Quest felt that eventually people would come from afar and create more traffic. Mr. O’Brien said South Village has a much larger population area than the other 2 Village Commercial areas. Mr. Gagnon asked how many business spaces and how many apartment units they are considering. Mr. Roy showed a place for a general store, restaurant area, several business uses with 12-15 apartments upstairs. Members of the public then voiced their opinions and concerns as follows: a. We were told there would be a school there, then a pond, never this kind of development. Would not like to see the zoning change. b. Mr. Wordelin: Has been considering buying a home in South Village; after seeing these plans, they have not made an offer. c. Mr. Clark: Doesn’t object to some commercial, but not at this scale. It’s too big. It also cuts Phase I off from the farm. d. Mr. Pouliot: Agreed with Mr. Clark. Felt some commercial can be done with some controls. He didn’t agree with the residential aspect. e. A resident did not agree that the people who stayed home agree with the proposal. She felt it is too large. f. A resident expressed concern with a pub that would stay open late. She also noted residents have their own hair dressers, lawyers, doctors. Those uses would bring their own client base into the area and create more traffic. g. Mr. Andrews: Not opposed to the idea on a smaller scale. Felt they have been “treated shabbily” by the developers and that what they were told would happen is not what they are seeing. They were never told about apartments in the area. h. Ms. Greco: Noted that South Village has been written up as “a model” with open space, etc. She felt this plan deviates from that concept. She felt South Village needs a park and a dog park. i. Ms. Clark: loves South Village because of the farm. Feels a farm stand would be a huge asset. Felt they also need a community center. j. Ms. Dopp: Felt this is spot zoning on a “grand scale.” Felt the plan would draw people into the area. There is already pressure on the nature preserve which will get worse when the road goes in. Mr. Conner explained the test for spot zoning which this does not meet. Ms. Calcagni felt this was a great idea as it addresses the goals of sustainability, affordable housing, walkability, etc., and is what a neighborhood could become in the future. Ms. Harrington noted the Commission does not have specific language to consider and asked if members want to see a firm proposal. Mr. Gagnon said that what was presented hadn’t elicited a positive response from neighbors, and he would have to hear something positive before continuing. In terms of walkability and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, he did see some positives. He noted the zoning would now allow for a 12- plex, and what is being proposed wouldn’t look much different. Ms. Quest asked how the Commission can give residents the food hub there want and a community building without having Village Commercial zoning. Ms. Benton felt it was wrong to put this in the middle where it blocks views and the access to the farm which is what brought residents there. She felt some small commercial would be viable and does tie together a lot of what the Commission has been talking about, but the proposed scale is too big. Mr. Riehle felt there should be some aspect of commercial there: yoga studio, day care, etc. He added that if he lived there, he would prefer this proposal to a 12-plex. He said he’d like to hear more from the community. Mr. O’Brien asked what the process would be going forward. Ms. Harrington said the Commission will work with staff to put down language with a proposal that would ultimately come to the Commission. Mr. Conner added it is up to the developer as to what the next steps will be. He encouraged inviting the community to have further discussions with the developer. Ms. Harrington noted that because of the Commission’s heavy schedule, it would be June or July before they could consider this again. 5. Discuss Old Farm Road/Kennedy Drivee/Kimball Ave. area concepts for future land use and development and the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use chapter: Mr. Michaels showed a plan of the area. He noted that Phase I has been through 2 DRB hearings, and they will be coming in for Preliminary and Final Plat this summer. Mr. Michaels indicated an area of 15 single family lots which would have their own small park. There is also another 5-acre park with a trail system connecting to homes in the area and ultimately will lead to Old Farm Road. Housing will include single family, duplex, triplex, and apartment buildings, and there will be some new roads. They are looking at a continual “greenway” on Kennedy Drive. Mr. Michaels also showed the location of a potential hotel. He noted that Phase I can be accomplished with current zoning. Phase I will not connect to Old Farm Road; they will hold off on that until they have to do it. Mr. Michaels then showed the area where they would like to develop “a community.” It is currently zoned R‐1, but they don’t want to put big homes in there. He showed where they could put fairly dense smaller single family homes and maybe some duplex and triplex buildings. They would have some affordable housing and possibly some retail on Kimball Avenue. Mr. Riehle said he would like to see housing that is appropriate for young families, rather than apartments. Mr. Gagnon said he would need to see a traffic study, especially with how this would work on Kimball Avenue. Mr. Michaels noted the plan for this part of the project will require a zoning change. He suggested getting rid of the “R’s” and having a blank canvas to design something and build it incrementally. Mr. Conner noted the city has gotten funds to work on how to deal with large properties. The thought is to have a set of broad parameters so a developer could come in with a general concept and create the rules to go with it and enumerate the elements that would go into it. Members were OK with the direction of the plans they saw. 6. Discuss Hill Farm/Hinesburg Road area concepts for future land use and development and the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Chapter: Mr. Nick noted they bought the land a number of years ago. He indicated the location on the map. They are envisioning a number of uses including warehousing, corporate offices, single family homes near Dorset Park, mixed use/light commercial, and agriculture (an orchard). They are leaving room for Exit 12B, if that ever surfaces again. There is the potential for a hotel near this Exit. They are also including a bus loop and a potential parking structure. Mr. Roy said they don’t want to build something like what’s across the road (random buildings with parking in front). They envision nature paths through the wetland area and maintaining view corridors. Members liked the concept. Mr. Nick said they would like to start on the commercial portion sooner rather than later and may submit an application to the DRB for that portion under the current regulations. Mr. Conner suggested staff would probably want to come back to the Commission with a Comprehensive Plan draft map & text that is reflective of what is envisioned as a transition. He suggested this property could serve as a transition, rather than “a hard stop.” 7. Other Business: a. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Ms. Harrington noted the possibility of a special meeting on 4 May, which would include a joint meeting with the City Council. There is also the possibility of a special meeting in April. Staff will poll members to come up with a date. 8. Minutes of 27 January, 10 February and 10 March: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 27 January, 10 February and 10 March 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 9:50 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. VIEW 1Images are to help illustrate the approximate scale of possible development and are for discussion purposesVIEW 2VIEW 3VIEW 4VIEW 3VIEW 4VIEW 2VIEW 1Concept 1 (2 story street edge) 1 Paul Conner From:Betty Andrews <baandrews11@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:03 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:Feedback on proposed commercial zoning in South Village Mr. Conner,         I am a resident of South Village in South Burlington. My husband and I have owned our property here since 2012. In  place of being at tonight's meeting at which the proposal by SD Ireland for a change in zoning will be discussed, I am  sending you my feelings and reflections in email form.       As background you should know that we studied our options carefully before deciding to buy and build in Vermont,  and then South Village. We chose the site specifically because of the well planned community centered around a farm;  as well as what that implied in the style of living and goals we wanted to accomplish in our retirement. The impression  we always had throughout the decision and design process was that the land was so precious around us that homes  would be denser, and more energy efficient to leave a smaller footprint for buildings and more open space for all to  enjoy. This aligned well with our personal goals in downsizing. The concept of common land appealed to us, as did the  active participation in farming. Composting, and having a community chicken barn, and bee keepers living in the  community were active signs that this community had its goals in the right place ‐ for us, and the next generation of  residents. The solar panels at the entrance gave witness to all of the care, concern, and forward planning that had and  would take place in such a farm centered/agricultural community bordering the second largest city in Vermont. Anyone  we shared this information with became excited and wished they could replicate such a community where they lived.  Folks who have visited us have remarked how lucky we are to live in such an environment.       The plan to change the zoning to any kind of commercial zoning does not nor has it ever been part of the goals of this  community as I was led to believe, or believed them to be. In any piece of written material I can find the mention of uses  for the common land on "Lot 11"  have been 1) a soccer field for community use, and 2) a possible school building. I do  not understand how Common has come to mean Commercial in anyone's mind except possibly a developer who sees it  as an opportunity to make more money. There is also the problem of filling such small business spaces. A drive around  this area reveals all too many similar spaces unrented and vacant. This does not even address the parking issues, and  added traffic that we as residents would experience. How can commercial buildings in the center of this development  possible represent what this community is designed to be......a farm‐centered community?       Because of the reasons stated above, and others hopefully aired at tonight's meeting that will have a negative impact  on the value of living in South Village, I  am totally against having the zoning for this community changed to include even  light commercial activity. The essence South Village should be represented by what's at the center of it....a farm!    Sincerely,  Betty Ann Andrews  358 South Jefferson Road  South Burlington, VT  1 Paul Conner From:John/Nancy Calcagni <jncalcagni@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 22, 2015 8:50 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:Potential zoning change in South Village Dear Mr. Conner, Our home is at 22 Aiken Street in in South Village and we are concerned about the proposed change to the zoning of Lot 11, Lot 11A and Lot 11B to Village commercial. We believe that businesses such as a dentist office, insurance office, and law office will substantially increase traffic in our village. Our understanding when we decided to build here was that the emphasis was on community, sustainable agriculture, and creating an ecologically friendly development. We were aware that there would be an athletic field and might eventually be a cafe of some sort, a small shop for basic grocery items, and maybe a community center building. We feel that the scope of the commercial area as proposed is too large and will most likely generate a significant amount of traffic, changing the atmosphere of our residential village. Thank you for your consideration of our opinion. Nancy and John Calcagni 1 Paul Conner From:jkboyd08@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:02 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:South Village Paul,  I am emailing to share my opinion on the proposed zoning change for parcels 11 in South Village.  I recommend the  board not approve the request at this time and wait until some of the new residents of Phase 2 of development move in  and have a chance to weigh in on development in their back yard.      It is my opinion that no retail and services are needed in South Village other than Rhodes connected to a farm.  A CSA  stand, gardens and perhaps space for chickens are all needed out of the current plan.  Rather than retail what we need  desperately is a large dog park and playground.  With the potential for up to 600 dogs (2 per residence) and just as many  kids, we need space for play for both.  Because dogs are not permitted in the nature preserve and many people have  little to no yard, there is inadequate space for off leash play for animals and community playground space within walking  g distance with a stroller.      I worry that any retail space built will be or soon become vacant due to lack of demand.  That space would then be  turned into apartments and we will have too many people living in a space not designed for that density.      Let's continue the conversation in a few month and let the new residents weigh in as well.     Judith Boyd  380 South Jefferson Rd.       Sent from my iPhone  1 Paul Conner From:Nicholas Andrews <nandrews66@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:28 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:SD Ireland zoning change request for So Village Paul Thank you for the work that you and your commission do on behalf of the residents of So Burlington. This note refers to the Zoning change being requested by SD Ireland for additions and changes to the original plans for the So Village Community in So Burlington. I do intend to attend the meeting this evening, but thought it better to document my thoughts rather than take up the commission's time with more floor discussion. When I purchased a single family home in So Village early in 2012 there were many plans shown me and realty discussions about a farm, wetlands, the preserve, walking trails and a walkable family oriented community. During my initial dealings with SD Ireland I had no complaints, then I asked them to correct the lawn at my house and put in the lawn I was promised. That never happened. Halfway measures were attempted but the result was only marginally better, even after 100s of hours of my wife's and my time. Point being - I do not trust this company to do what they say they will do. Regarding the proposed rezoning of lots 11, 11a, and 11b, I have several issues and questions. Issue 1 - The increased density in phase one of this community (operative word community not sub-division). This community concept was represented as having mostly single family homes and a few duplex and triplex homes and one group of condominiums. To accommodate the contractor or government requirements the number of multiple unit dwellings and the new concept of multiple unit apartments has all of a sudden prevailed in phase 1, making the population much more dense. Now the contractor wants to move into phase 2 and rezone the three lots mentioned above for more apartments prior to building anything else in the second phase. Issue 2 - Changes already being made in phase 2 continue to move away from the original community concept with sidewalk access for all residents and more of a "subdivision" look and less of a farm community look which was the original concept we current residents were sold. As a personal sad note a beautiful healthy clump birch was ripped out of the ground this past wee in the phase 2 area. I am not a tree hugging nutcase, but this company will only do the right thing when someone is looking over their shoulder. Issue 3 - With the increased density what happens if all these additional units have pets and children. Where will be the places for them to walk run and play. If past experience continues then the preserve becomes the next part of the So Village concept to be swept aside to expedite the larger number of units and all of the related challenges and stress those additions bring to the village. Issue 4 - I believe that the large number of proposed units requested for lots 11, 11a, and 11b is too many and the commercial spaces proposed if not filled, will become vacant storefronts. Consequently, the next change will be a request to convert those into apartments. More density, more profits, less of a community. If the zoning change for lots 11, 11a, and 11b is proposed and considered then I strongly urge the commission to limit the scope to a much smaller footprint at least until the concept of that type of zone in this neighborhood proves economically viable (ie storefronts that are full and remain full) and environmentally consistent with current So Village and So Burlington land use expectations. While I personally do not favor the additional units/density at least the scope should be limited until proven. The plans can certainly be used to extend the buildings at a later date if the concept proves it's worth. What reassurances do we current owners have that once the zoning is changed the SD Ireland Co will do what they say they will do. My past experience with this company is that profit is the first driver if not the only driver. On a personal note - I paid nearly $8,200 in property taxes last year on .16 acres of land. I bought this home and pay those kind of taxes expecting that the beautiful preserve, the tree lined and walkable streets and the other amenities promised to me will not be removed piecemeal so this contractor can satisfy his profit need and then move on the next "sub-division". 2 Thank you again for the work you do and for representing we in the community who are, but a small voice against a powerful company. Nicholas W. Andrews 358 So Jefferson Rd So Burlington, Vt. 05403 (802)448-3526 nandrews66@gmail.com 1 Paul Conner From:Robert, Laurence S. <Laurence.Robert@ITS.UVM.EDU> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:51 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:Proposed Commercial zoning in South Village Community Mr Conner,     I am a resident of the South Village Community in South Burlington. My wife and I  moved back to Vermont from Florida  to get back to the land and raise our family with values that shows how important the land is to our livelihood. We  moved to South Village for the farm and the open space, not for convenience to a “strip mall”.  The proposed  development is not what was presented to us as a possibility of going in across the street from us, at no time during the  sale of our home was there discussion of a strip mall going in that space.     I attended the information meetings sponsored by SD Ireland in which they noted that there are only two other village  commercial areas in South Burlington; on Dorset Street at The Mill and on Hinesburg Road. These are all major north  south roads into Burlington. Comparing those two sites to a residential setting is absurd and should not be considered.       Laurence S Robert  160 Allen Road East  South Burlington, VT 05403        This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. From:Magburti@aol.com To:Paul Conner Subject:Zoning Change, South Village Date:Friday, March 20, 2015 11:55:24 AM Dear Mr. Conner, As residents of 12 Dewey Place in South Village, we are writing in regard to the property known as Lot 11, 11A and 11B within the South Village Community. We believe that changing the zoning to Village Commercial, as requested by the developer, will have a negative effect on the community due to the increased traffic . In our opinion, the size and scope of the current proposed project is too large. Thank you. Margaret and Ernest Burti ")ı ")ı ")ı ")ı ²· ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ")ı ")ı [¨[¨ Shelburne Bay ESSEX BURLINGTON SHELBURN E ESSEX JUNCTION WILLISTONWINOOSKI COLCHESTER 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Mile The accuracy of information presented is determined by itssources. Errors and omissions may exist. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by a registered surveyor. This map is notsufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. Thismap identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement forsurveyed information or engineering studies. Disclaimer§Data SourcesRoads: VCGI E911 Parcels: City of South BurlingtonAgricultural Activities: City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan City of South Burlington, VT DRAFT XXXX 2012 Map 1 Current Land Use Date July 2012 Agricultural Use ²·Farmers Market [¨Community Garden Land Use Commercial/Industrial Condos/Apartments Public/Institutional Transportation/Utilities ¡¿Small Scale Agriculture ")ı Active Agriculture Low Density Residential Open Space/Farmland/ Very Low Density Residential £¤2 £¤7 §¨¦89 ¬«116 ¬«11 6EAST TERRSAN REMO DRB ERAR D DR COMMERCE AV TILLEY DR KNOLL CIRMEADOWOOD DRAllen Rd East HIG HLAND TERRSTONEHEDGE DR WHITEFACE ST CABOT CT EAGLE DRVICTORY DRCOTTAGE GROVE AV SWIFT ST BRAND FARM DRHINESBURG RDHAWTHORNE CIR FAIRWAY DRFAYETTE RDLUPINE LN PETERSON TERRF OREST ST Sadie Ln TWIN OAKS TERR DUCHESS AVWEALTHY AVGREGOR Y DRNCO DR PARK RD QUAIL RUN CATKIN DRBUTLER DR BROWNELL WY COBBLESTONE CIR AIR PORT DR MILL POND LN BOWER ST SOMMERFIELD AVBROOKWOOD DR HELEN AV DOVER ST OBR IEN DRELDREDGE ST CLOVER ST DERBY CIRELSOM PKWYHADLEY RD AVIATIO N AVPHEASANT WY MIL LS AVGRANDVIEW DROAKWOOD DR AIRPO RT PK WY HAYDEN PKWYGREEN DOLPHIN DRBARRETT ST DORSET STSOUTH POINTE DRFARRELL STCIRC LE DRRIDGEWOOD DR COMMUNITY DROLD FARM RDINDIAN CRKBREWER PKWY WINDING BROOK DR FARRELL ST SPEAR STSPEAR STDORSET STHINESBURG RDCRI SPIN DR QUARRY HILL RDROYAL DR AUTUMN HILL RDJOY DR DUVAL ST VALLEY RDPATRICK ST IBY ST THOMPSON STHUMMINGBIR D LNELIZABETH ST LINDENWOOD DR GOLF COURSE RDOLD ORCHARD PK FALCON STDORSET STOLD SCHOOLHOUSE RDHIDDEN ME ADOW L NIDX DR TANGLEWOOD DRTIMBER LNWORCESTER STORCHARD RDMEADOW RDECONOMOU FARM RDVILLAG E GREEN DR KIRBY RD UPSWEPT LN South Jefferson RD WOODSIDE DR CHARLES STMYERS CTWINESAP LN Aiken StMEADOWLAND DR HOLBROOK RD GILBERT STBERKLEY STBOWDOI N STLANDFILL RD WEST VIEW DR NESTI DR CHEESEFACTORY LNALLEN RD MAYFAIR STDAVIS PKWYCORTLAND AV GREENING AV MARKET ST TUMBLEBROOK DR WOODBINE STMARY STEXECUTIVE DR WHITE PL WOODLAND PL FIELDSTONE DRMIDAS DRBACON ST SUNSET AV HANNAFORD DR EASTW OOD DRBRAEBURN ST KENN EDY DR CHEESEFACTORY RDHEATH ST HAYMAKE R LNOAK HILL DR SPRIN GHOUSE RD WORTH STKEARI LN LEDOUX TERR OVERLOOK DR CALKINS CTLILAC LN WRIGHT CTHOLMES RD EXT BEACON ST Frost StLYONS AV EXTDAIRY LN LAUREL HILL DR DOREY RD SWIFT ST VAN SICKLEN RDPUMP L NKITTY ST SHEPARD LN MAPLE AV NICKLAUS CIR MUDDY BR OOK LNLAKEVIE W LNSHUNPIKE RDPALMER CTLARCH RD PINE ST OAK CREEK DRFOX RUN LN BRIGHAM RD COMCAST WYCUSTOMS DR APPLE TREERUTH ST AIRPORT RDMAPLEWOOD DRSHAMROCK RDSIMPSON CT ADIRONDACK STBAY CT KAYLYNS WY BAY CREST DR DUBOIS DR CHELSEA CIR HOLMES RD CEDAR GLEN N GREEN MOUNTAIN DRKINSINGTON ST S BEACH R DHAYES AVMO UNTAIN VIEW BLVDDUMONT A VIRISH FARM RD ASP EN DR IMPERIAL DR NOWLAND FARM RD OLD CROSS RD HANOVER ST S HENRY CTCIDER MILL DR PLEASANT AV BLUFF CT HOPKI NS STPAVILION AVPROCTOR AV SHERRY RDSOUTHVIEW DR YANDOW DRDEBORAH DRHARBOR VIEW RD QUEEN CITY PK RD COUNT RY CLUB DR JONATHAN AVVALE DRCEDAR GLEN DR CEDAR CT DEANE ST RICHARD TERR SHAW AV MCINTOSH AV FOUR SI STERS RDJUNIPER DR BALDWIN AV KI MBALL AVBIRCH STCENTRAL AVMI LLH AM CT MARCY STNEWTON AVPINE TREE TERR SEBRING RD MIDLAND AV BA YBE RRY LN HARBOR RI DGE RDETHAN ALLEN DR LYNN AV SUGAR TR EE LNLEXIN GTO N GRN PROUTY PKWY WILLISTON RD NATIONAL GUARD AV BARTLETT BAY RD WHITE STPATCHEN RDHINESBURG RDSWIFT STSPEAR STLIME KILN RDSOUT H ST FAIRMONT STS PROSPECT STSHELBURNE RDSONGBIRD RD BARBER TERRBlackberry FLORAL DRPINNACLE DRANDERSON PKWY IRIS LNSUBURBAN SQ GREEN TREE DRPLTABORDEERFIELD DR CATKIN DRBUTLER DRARBOR RD VICTORIA DRDORSET HTSQUEENSBURY RDVALLEY RD G RD STONINGTON CIRSLOCUM CRA NWELL AV MOSS GLEN LN LEWIS RDCHICKADEEWHATLEY RDTechnology Park Way IRISH COVE RD LOGWOOD ST KIN DNESS CTW TWIN OAKS TERR TWIN BROOK CT COUNTRY CLUB DR EHemlock Ln SCOTSDALE RD Mansfield View Ln SANDALWOOD RDLAUREL HILL DRBLUE- STAR CINDA S TDELA-WAREPA RK SIDE RDMOSS GLEN LNWIN DSOR CTADAMS CT STANHOPE CLINTON ST LAUREL HILL DR EXTBIRCH WOODAUSTIN HOLT KAREN DRHICKORY N HENRY FLORAL DR MOCKINGBIRD LNLIME ROCK RD N TWIN OAKS TERRBLACK LANTERN LN CONCORD WOODCREST DR CHELMSFORD BEECHWOOD LNWeeping Willow Ln KENDRICK DR FOULSHAM HOLLOW RD MARYLAND ST CHARLESTON BRAND FARM DRBIRCH BARNSLEY HERMIT THRUSHLINCOLN BEDFORD ANDREWS AV WOOD-THRUSH CIR ARLINGTON Kingfisher Ct MIDDLESEX PICARD CIR LYONS AV PINE PHEASANT WYDEERFIELD DR§ 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles June 29, 2012 Surface Water - 2003 1:5000 Vermont Hydrography Dataset, VCGI.Future Use of Land - South Burlington Planning Commission 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. Future Use of Land Categories City boundary Stream / River Lakes / Ponds Undesignated Very Low Intensity, Primarily Conservation Low Intensity, Primarily Residential Medium Intensity, Primarily Residential Higher Intensity, Primarily Mixed Use Medium-Higher Intensity, Primarily Non-Residential Interstate Future Land UseMap 3 Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan City of South Burlington, VT Month?, 2012 Shelburne Bay BURLINGTON WINOOSKI COLCHESTER ESSEX ESSEX JUNCTION WILLISTONSHEL B U R N E Disclaimer Data Sources Date O’BRIEN HOME FARM | DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCALE: 1” = 100’ 03/24/2015 RESIDENTIAL PARKING PARKING MIXED-USE OFFICE / COMMERCIAL / RETAIL OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE MIXED-USE / COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIALVIEW CORRIDOR Last Updated March 20, 2015 March 3/24 PC Meeting •Comp Plan: Continued discussion of future land use map with invited guests •Updates on Chamberlin Neighborhood Planning April Special April Meeting •New Town Center approval •Comp Plan: Continued discussion of future land use map with invited guests •LDRs: Blocks & Streets/ Small Lots 4/14 PC Meeting •Continue blocks and streets •Definition of street and applicable street types; private streets; all buildings on a street •Legal Review: discuss any identified issues •Discuss SEQ-NRN LDR amendments •Review TIF Policy 4/28 PC Meeting •Comp Plan: review strategies •LDR: Possible date for clean draft for Commission consideration •Warn (city center) official map; warn LDR ammendments •Check in with CCRPC on Comp Plan review •Comp Plan: Discuss Committee recommendations not previously reviewed •Discuss May joint meeting with City Council; check on major goals and changes to LDRs and Comp Plan DRAFT Last Updated March 20, 2015 May 5/4 Possible Joint Meeting with City Council 5/12 Meeting •Comp Plan; review strategies as necessary, possibly redline version •Review public comment on clean draft of LDRs •Check in with Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee 5/26 Meeting •Comp Plan: review redline version June 6/9 Meeting •Discuss City Wide Official Map •Host Community Workshops on Draft Comp Plan •Hold warned public hearing on LDR amendments & Official Map (City Center) 6/23 Meeting •Comp plan: warn public hearing; formal submission to CCRPC •Check in with Chamberlin Neighborhood Project •Check in with Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee July 7/14 Meeting •Official Map (city wide): warn public hearing •Potential return to South Village request for re-zoning 7/28 Meeting •Kick off PUD Master Plan Project August Public Hearing on Comp Plan (for Council consideration in Oct, Public Hearing in November, possible adoption in December) DRAFT SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JANUARY 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 January 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, T. Harrington, S. Quest, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Nowak, T. McKenzie, M. Mittag, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, R. Jeffers 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: Ms. Nowak thanked members of the Planning Commission for their service. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements & Staff Report: Ms. Harrington: Attended the Dumont Park planning session. Ms. Quest: Attended the Energy Committee event. Ms. Louisos: Attended the Garden Street design meeting. It was well written up in The Other Paper with a copy of the most popular design. Mr. Conner: The Underhill property committee will meet on Thursday. The City Council approved the draft budget for FY16. The Commission will be getting different options for Garden Street and Dumont Park. These are also on the website. The City Council approved submittal of funding requests from the Planning Commission to the Regional Planning Commission (RPC). Several departments met with members of the Rotary which will be doing a “City Fest” this summer. This will be the kickoff for the city’s 150th birthday celebration with music, tours, fireworks, etc. 4. Presentation of Policy Concerns/questions related to draft City Center Form Based Code: Mr. McKenzie noted that a group of stakeholders in City Center gets together periodically. In their discussions, they have expressed concerns and confusions with some elements of the Form Based Code. 2 One area that has them bogged down is the street overlay as part of the Form Based Code. Concerns involve easements, etc. The state of the draft itself is concerning. It is hard to know where to look to find anything. They would like to make comments when the draft is easier to read. Specific concerns include: 1. Block length and what constitutes a block 2. What triggers a form based code review of a renovation 3. Is there a level of review that if something doesn’t conform, but everyone agrees it would be a good piece for City Center, to get that considered. Ms. Louisos said she thought there is a study looking at traffic. Mr. Conner said there is a 2-part study. The RPC hired VHB to look at traffic in City Center (including Williston Road, etc.). They are doing an analysis based on the total amount of development and how to avoid getting to a “breaking point.” Phase 2 will be in much more detail (where could an intersection be, etc.) This won’t get started until fall and will take about a year to complete. They will test various scenarios and what their impacts will be. Mr. Riehle asked what stakeholders want in the way of road configuration. Mr. McKenzie said they have no issues with existing roads (Market St., Garden Street, etc.). They question arises with imposing new roads where they now don’t exist and the possibility of having to subdivide property where a road is planned. Ms. Quest asked whether there would have to be a new study because of the Saxon Partners offer. Mr. Conner said the people doing the study are aware of the Saxon situation. The study looks at much more than one property. It looks at such things as Williston Road’s ability to serve and what would have to be done to deal with the number of driveways on that road. Mr. McKenzie said the biggest policy questions they are not clear on is what constitutes a block length. ( Is it a curb cut? Is it the city’s 50-foot right-of-way?) and at what level is it deemed that an existing property has to conform to the form based code (Is it square footage? Which they do not feel is a fair method). Mr. McKenzie added that they are willing to make recommendations, if the Commission will give then 2 to 3 weeks. Ms. Harrington said it is good to see an issue of “unintended consequences.” She noted the Commission hasn’t gotten any formal feedback from the Technical Review Committee, and they need that information to make an informed decision. Mr. Conner noted that some of the issues are more “policy” than “technical.” Ms. Louisos said she didn’t think the Commission ever had the block length discussion. She was under the impression that a block was defined by a fully functioning road. 3 Mr. Mittag said he didn’t think it was appropriate for a committee to rework the code. He felt the form based code committee should be reconvened for that. Mr. Gagnon said that ultimately the Commission finalizes the code and presents it to the City Council. Mr. Conner reviewed options for a “clean copy” of the code to give to Mr. McKenzie and others. He noted that depending on how a block gets measured, or how a non-conformity is handled, things will be written very differently. Mr. Gagnon said the question is how many more rounds of public comment they want to have before sending the code on to the City Council. He felt that at some point they have to move on, but he didn’t know if they were at that point yet. Mr. Conner noted there are grey areas regarding different people’s interpretation of the same language. Ms. Harrington said she is missing the Technical committee’s recommendations. Mr. Conner said they were empowered to review a standard that was thought to be clear. It is now determined not to be clear. The question is whether the Commission want the Technical Committee to tackle that. Ms. LaRose said the first question is what goal is the Commission trying to get to, and what help get there. She noted this discussion started in October and it is now January. That is how things spiral. Ms. Quest asked what they are really talking about. Mr. McKenzie said “new streets across existing properties.” Ms. LaRose noted it is very different when you put something on paper rather than dealing with it in theory. Ms. Louisos said she felt the Commission should answer the block question sooner rather than later. Ms. LaRose said staff considered various “street” types. It was clear that a “street” defined a block. What needs to be clear to property owners is whether they have to build a street or set aside property for a street. She didn’t feel that was clear in existing language. She felt the policy piece is not as clear as they had thought it was. Ms. Louisos felt the Commission had to give the Technical Committee more guidance. Mr. Mittag suggested Mr. McKenzie’s group write something clear that they would like to see and have the Technical committee debate it and say “yes” or “no.” Mr. Riehle felt Mr. McKenzie’s group should bring something to the Commission. Other members agreed. Mr. McKenzie said they need a cleaned up copy to see if there are any things that evoke broader issues. They would like to get this to their consultant to see if there are potential problems. Mr. Conner asked who the Commission wants to have make the first proposal. Mr. Gagnon said have Mr. McKenzie’s group make a proposal so the Commission can consider it and do the best job it can. With regard to the block issue, Mr. Conner said the problem arises when there is a property of less than 10 acres. It’s easy to plot blocks when there are 10 to 100 acres. With smaller lots the questions arise as to where you want streets, do you want more streets, and what about non-conforming lots. Ms. 4 Louisos said she thought there would be a “bullet point” list of where there would be blocks. Now it seems it’s not that easy. Mr. Conner asked if the Commission would want to look at a potential official may to see where roads would be. Mr. Gagnon said he would like something from the stakeholders to look at first. Ms. Louisos felt the issues are intertwined. The code can be very different if streets are not required in some places. Mr. Gagnon said he felt the Commission can define a block in the code. Ms. LaRose said there are properties that would have a very difficult time meeting that if you only define a block length. She added there are some property owners who don’t think they should have streets imposed on them at all. It is not clear if Mr. McKenzie wanted to build a building whether he would have to build out the whole block. Mr. McKenzie asked if a block can be defined by a driveway into a parking structure…or by something that looks like a block and functions as one (instead of a 50-foot right-of-way). Ms. LaRose said the question then is who owns that street, and who maintains it. And what does it look like? Ms. Greco said the main thing is what something is going to look like, which is the point of form based code. Mr. Conner noted that there is a plan for a TIF vote, possibly in June. To get something to the City Council in time for that, the Commission has to have something in hand by mid-March. Mr. McKenzie said he will have something to the Commission by the next two meetings. 4. Initial consideration of South Village Request for Zoning Amendment: Mr. Conner noted that there had been earlier discussions regarding the potential for a non-residential element to South Village. Now they are ready to talk about that. Ms. Jeffers said the development is turning out to be what people hoped it would be, including the agriculture piece. She showed a plan of what is there now. She also indicated a piece of land that they would like to see zoned as “Village Commercial.” It had been thought there would be a school there, but the residential community wants some commercial services, places they can walk or bike to. Such an area could also serve adjoining developments. Mr. Conner indicated the areas where there could now be a store. Mr. Riehle said he was very much in favor of such a commercial development where people could walk to buy a quart of milk. But he questioned whether this would open up a similar possibility in places where it might not be so appropriate. Mr. Gagnon said to him it would be a question of whether people who live there would support it and what it would look like. He would want it to fit aesthetically in the neighborhood. Mr. Conner said there can be restrictions on size and also some design criteria imposed. It was noted that South Village has its own aesthetic criteria. 5 Ms. Quest said she spoke to some neighbors who knew nothing about this plan. They had only been told about a possible school or community center. She questioned the traffic impact and also whether a 3- story building would be the end of the view corridor for Spear Street residents. Ms. Calcagni agreed with Mr. Riehle and felt people will look at walkability when they choose a neighborhood in which to live. Mr. Gagnon said he would favor moving this forward to see what people think. Mr. Conner said neighbors could get a letter inviting them to a discussion. He also reminded members that this will eventually be a much larger residential community. Ms. Greco felt a grocery store makes sense, but that a lawyer or dentist would bring traffic into the neighborhood. Ms. Louisos said it would be up to the Commission to define that. Members than considered when to hear the request. Ms. Jeffers said they could have a presentation within 6-8 weeks. Members agreed to table the request to consider their upcoming schedule. Mr. Riehle moved to table the discussion until the Commission schedule is considered. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. LaRose then reviewed the schedule as predicted through August. She didn’t feel the Commission would get ahead of schedule. She also reviewed public hearings and noted there are property owners who would like to come in and discuss redevelopment on lots that already have development. Mr. Gagnon suggested a presentation from South Village on 24 March which seems to be a “presentation meeting.” 5. Continue Review of Draft Comprehensive Plan: Ms. LaRose gave members a list of where conflicts appear. Some of these are only wordsmithing issues; others involve policy. 6. Other Business: a. Shelburne draft regulation amendments: Mr. Conner said the amendments are minor to South Burlington, though major to Shelburne. No issues were raised. 7. Review Minutes of 13 January 2015: It was noted that the figure of 65 acres should read 5 acres. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 January 2015 with the noted amendment. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 MARCH 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 March 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Champlain Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest, T. Riehle ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; C. Shaw, T. McKenzie, S. Dopp, T. Chittenden 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: Ms. Dopp noted that the South Burlington Land Trust annual meeting and “pot luck” will be on Sunday, 29 March. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Riehle: Distributed an article regarding windows and signs. Mr. Conner: It appears the City/School Master Planning Task Force will be having a public meeting regarding options on 31 March. Last week staff met with consultants regarding long-term planning for Williston Road. It will be wise to have the consultants present to the Commission and to the City Council. The Underwood Task Force recommendations will be presented to the City Council on Monday. A second project in the TIF district has been approved by the DRB. It proposes 12 housing units at the east end of Market Street. Plans include protruding 5 feet into the city right-of-way which allows for usable porches on the fronts of buildings. The development will have a shared entryway with the adjacent property. Staff is working on a policy for evaluating projects in the TIF District. This will come to the Commission for feedback in April. South Village has had 2 community meetings regarding the proposal for a Village Commercial area. The Airport will begin removing houses in the next few months. Mr. Gagnon is the on- site consultant. The city is working with the Airport regarding communications and keeping the neighborhood apprised of what is happening. Planning and Zoning is level funded in the budget just approved by voters. 2 4. Draft Land Development Regulations: a. Input on draft City Center Form Based Code from Property owner/developer stakeholder group: Mr. McKenzie reminded members that the issue stakeholders have is how to define a “block.” He noted that the regulations require every street to have 70% building coverage and a 50-foot right-of-way. The most important issue for stakeholders is frontage and the fact that it creates a need for parking which the rest of the area can’t handle. He also noted that the 50-50 residential/commercial distribution creates a need for more parking than exists, so they have moved to a 75% residential/25% commercial split. Mr. McKenzie showed a plan which includes 2 potential parking garages. He didn’t know whether the TIF will support this. If the parking garages don’t happen, there will be a greater need for parking than can be achieved. A mixed use environment allows for less parking. Retail requires 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. (without the garages, the need would be for 4-6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.). Residential requires 1.5 spaces per unit (2 with the current regulations). Mr. McKenzie then proposed the following suggestions to solve the problems: 1. Have the frontage requirement apply only on primary streets 2. Allow for more street types than are being proposed (e.g., a private corporate drive) Mr. McKenzie noted that the question of street ownership creates a block length longer than what is required. There is also uncertainty as to how to deal with Commerce Square: if that area were to be totally rebuilt, they would have to have a city street right through the property. The same is true for the Central School property, which would diminish its value. 3. Use the “tier” language similar to what has been done for University Mall. This will allow for 70% building frontage on primary streets. Mr. Riehle asked if private streets would be privately maintained. Mr. McKenzie showed which streets could be private and privately maintained and which could become public and publicly maintained. Mr. Conner noted there are times when the city is comfortable with private streets. Issues arise with residential uses when residents assume their taxes should pay for street plowing, upkeep, etc. Ms. Louisos said the ownership of a street wouldn’t matter to her as long as the streetscape follows the code. Mr. Gagnon agreed streets shouldn’t have to be city-owned as long as they meet design standards. He had no problem with what is being recommended for T-4 and T-5. He does have a question on the perimeter block. Mr. McKenzie said he thinks the consultant is saying that at some point you get to a block on the perimeter where you can’t meet the standards…like the Price Chopper development. Mr. McKenzie said having frontage apply only to primary streets is critical. He said they have a list of secondary streets for circulation, and one of those would be a “private corporate drive.” 3 Mr. Conner asked if any streets other than Market, Garden, Dorset and Williston Rd. would be primary streets. Mr. McKenzie said possibly San Remo Drive, but they’re not sure about that. Ms. Dopp asked what the characteristics of a corporate drive would be. Mr. McKenzie said something similar to University Mall. It could be made to look like a public street. The purpose would be to provide circulation. It would not require the frontage. Buildings could be put along it, but they wouldn’t have to be. Mr. Conner said he would like to have a conversation with the stakeholders’ consultant. He said ownership of the roads is less critical. The issue is the character of the street and how it is laid out. He would also like to consider what it means to have some secondary streets that don’t have to meet frontage requirements. Mr. McKenzie noted the stakeholders have offered to pay for Mr. Conner to have that conversation with their consultant. b. Review draft chapters of LDRs, including Article 18, Affordable Housing, and others: Mr. Conner noted that inclusionary zoning has had a legal review which was, for the most part, very complimentary. A few questions did arise: a. The draft regulations contemplate a difference between the affordable units and others. The City Attorney recommends some relationship between them (interior amenities, floor area, etc.). He would like to see something more specific (e.g., 30% less floor area). Mr. Conner noted that coming up with a number is tricky. Eric Farrell recommends that for every affordable unit, there could be at least one market rate unit of the same size. This would make it harder to “single out” the affordable unit residents. b. The affordable units must be made available concurrently with the market rate units to be sure the affordable units are built. Certificates of Occupancy are not issued by unit but by building, and there are no COs for single and 2-family houses. One suggestion is to say that no CO would be issued for a building until all buildings with affordable units are built. There could also be a requirement that any single family or 2-family homes that are built after the regulations are adopted and are part of the inclusionary requirement, would have to have a CO. The City Attorney is comfortable with that. c. The draft regulations include some incentives. The City Attorney wants to be sure developers can’t pay into a fund instead of building affordable units. He suggests if in the future a buyout is appropriate, that language be added. Until then, the language should be eliminated. d. There is a state law that requires incentives for inclusionary zoning. The City Attorney recommends there be no density requirement in City Center. With this in mind, an incentive might involve reduced application fees for inclusionary units. Members were ok with each of the suggestions. Ms. Quest said she would like to see the 1-for-1 sizing and a percentage of the overall. 4 Mr. Conner will write something up and see how it looks both ways. 4. Other Business: a. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: The next meeting (24 March) will include the South Village proposal and some other proposals related to the “white areas” on the map. Future meetings will include a follow-up from tonight’s meeting, the Williston Road discussion, discussion of TIF policy and how funds would be used. There is also the possibility of a special meeting in late March or early April. b. 45-day pre-application notice to Public Service Board: 2 megawatt solar array, South Burlington Landfill: Ms. Louisos noted that she is an abutter to this property. Mr. Conner said the Commission has 3 options: do nothing, provide comment to the PSB, or hold a public hearing. Members agreed to do nothing. 5. Review Minutes of 10 February 2015: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 10 February 2015 as written. 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 8:45 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUITES 24 FEBRUARY 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 February 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: Tracey Harrington, Vice-chair; S. Quest, B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items Ms. Harrington recommended that in light of the presence of a TV reporter, that the items of potential interest to the news channel, #6, then #5, be moved to before item #4 on the agenda. Commissioners agreed. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No comments. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Quest said that she had attended a well-done NOFA conference recently. Mr. Conner: Noted that the Underwood Task Force had voted on recommendations to make to the City Council and will likely be presenting to the Council on March 16th. Reminded members of the pre-town meeting budget presentations and candidate forums scheduled for March 2nd, and ********* 6. Follow-up on fall 3D video of City Center The 3D video of City Center produced in October 2014 was shown again to members. Members discussed feedback they had received and their thoughts on the concepts presented in the video. No actions were taken. 5. Land Development Regulations Amendments Members reviewed the most recent Building Envelope Standards for T3, T4, and T5 and provided feedback to staff. Members discussed reduction of parking standards for studio & 1 bedroom housing units city-wide. Members asked staff to prepare a draft that would reduce requirements to 1.25 parking spaces per such unit where there is reserved parking, or 1 space per unit where not reserved. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Members discussed demographics and overall trends. These will continue to be measured throughout the review process of the Plan. Mr. Conner proposed adding a new goal related to “a sense of SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUITES 24 FEBRUARY 2015 2 community.” Members agreed and asked staff to prepare such a goal. Mr. Conner proposed providing drafts of the plan by topic rather than by chapter for ease of use and ability to look at how different chapters relate to one another. Members agreed. 7. Other Business: A. Upcoming meeting schedule: Members discussed timing for review of the draft Land Development Regulations. Mr. Gagnon stated that his understanding was that the property owners stakeholder group would be providing their input within 1-2 meetings of the January meeting. Mr. Conner said that he understood they were working with a firm to prepare the input. Mr. Gagnon recommended that the Commission move ahead at the next meeting with a discussion of blocks and streets if no comments are received from the stakeholder group by that time. They would always have the opportunity to attend and participate or respond. Ms. Quest agreed. Mr. Conner said that he would contact Mr. McKenzie and ask for information in advance of the next packet. Mr. Gagnon suggested that if the input is not received by then, to have staff provide a draft of blocks and street standards for the Commission’s consideration. All members agreed. 8. Minutes No draft minutes were available. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. _____________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 February 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton, S. Quest, T. Harrington ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Greco, M. Mittag, M. Janswold 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: Mr. Mittag asked about the minutes of the 30 May meeting of the Solar Ready Task Force. Mr. Conner said these should be on-line; if they are not, staff will get them online this week. 3. Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Louisos: Noted that she and Mr. Conner attended last night’s City Council meeting to report on what the Commission has been doing and its time-line for getting things to the Council. The Council recommended that if correspondence goes out from a sub-committee, it should go through the Planning Commission first. Ms. Quest: Attended the Underwood public hearing which was very well attended. Also went to a “better building design course, which was very inspiring. Ms. Harrington: Also attended the Underwood public hearing. Mr. Conner: Weekly committee meetings are on the city’s website and are posted every Friday. The Council made appointments to the Chamberlin/Airport Study Committee last night. They are now waiting for 2 City of Burlington appointments, one from the Mayor of Burlington and one from the Airport Commission. The Underwood committee has one more meeting. It will be facilitated by Mr. Conner and Ms. LaRose as Betsy Terry will not be applying for the full-time Recreation Department position. 2 4. Land Development Regulation Amendments: a. “General merchandise store” definition and overall discussion of commerce uses: Ms. Louisos directed attention to the map where various types of retail are allowed. Mr. Gagnon suggested that instead of “general merchandise” they use “retail sales” and differentiate between various sizes. Mr. Conner said yes, and noted that certain areas already do that, at least with very small retails sales of less than 3,000 and less than 5,000 s.f.. Members then discussed limiting the size of retail. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t limit retail size on Shelburne Road. Members then discussed whether to distinguish between “less than 5,000 sq. feet” or “more than 5,000 sq. ft.” in certain areas. They also considered limiting the maximum size and whether the market would dictate what happens. Members agreed to delete the “general merchandise” use category and just to use “retail sales.” This will be part of the next round of amendments. b. Review Draft Elements of City-wide Regulations Updates: Ms. Louisos felt there needs to be more work done on definitions of “block” and “block standards.” Members agreed to postpone this discussion for the present. Members asked about glazing standards. Ms. LaRose said there are 2 standards: how much glazing and how much of the glazing has to be transparent. Mr. Conner noted that 75% of glazing facing the street has to be transparent. Mr. Riehle asked what is accomplished by making glazing transparent as people can just pull down shades to protect merchandise from the sun. Mr. Conner said the question is whether it is “permanently non-transparent.” Mr. Gagnon said the idea is to make the environment inviting, to be able to look and see something. Ms. Louisos asked why there is a definition of “mid-block.” Mr. Conner said it relates to street types and creating a “mid-block” pedestrian access for an oversized block. Mr. Gagnon questioned the definition of “person.” Mr. Conner said he would look into it with the City Attorney. Mr. Gagnon said he is wrankled by defining a corporation as a “person.” He felt they could just refer to “statute definitions.” Ms. Louisos noted the definition of “street” doesn’t refer to street types. Ms. LaRose said they are working on that and will come back to the Commission with something. Mr. Conner added they may come in with a “private commercial street” definition. Ms. LaRose said they will also compare definitions to E-911 standards. 3 Regarding “multiple uses and multiple structures,” Ms. LaRose noted there can be issues with things like cross-easements that could cause a problem. She saw no harm in having two buildings on a lot as long as the dimensional standards are met. Mr. Conner showed an example of what they are trying to avoid. Members agreed. Mr. Conner recommended keeping the “planned Right of Way” setbacks along certain roads for potential road widening. Members agreed. Mr. Gagnon asked about a mechanism to secure land for potential new streets. He cited the Burger King property on Williston Rd. and noted this could be the last chance to get any land there. Mr. Conner said the city could potential either buy or require dedication of land. He would look into it with the Public Works people. The city should have something ready to implement; otherwise they won’t get anything. Ms. Harrington raised the possibility of a non-conforming building being “altered in stages so the owner won’t have to deal with the non-conformity. Mr. Conner will look into this. 5. Comprehensive Plan: a. Follow up on demographic forecasts: community goals and objectives: Ms. LaRose raised the question of whether the Commission wants any “big picture changes” based on the forecasts it heard. Mr. Gagnon felt they can consider that when they come to certain areas in the Plan and then do some tweaking. Mr. Conner stressed the need to catch the “big picture” items up front. 6. Other Business: a. PBS submittal: New Cingular Wireless de minimum modification to an existing wireless communications facility: 1270 Shelburne Road: Members wanted to know the specific changes. Mr. Conner said there would be three new panels, basically the same as what is now existing. Members were OK with that. 7. Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. 4 pcoming Meeting Schedule: The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on 24 February. Mr. Conner said there is a possibility the City/Schools Master Planning group will be meeting at that time. If so, the Planning Commission meeting will be rescheduled. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. _________________________________, Clerk