Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/24/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 NOVEMBER 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 November 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, S. Dopp, S. Darnell 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 reports: Ms. Louisos: noted receipt of the draft Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Conner: The City Council has acknowledged receipt the draft LDRs and Official Map. There will be public hearings on 7 December 2015 for the JAM Golf- related amendments and on 21 December for the remainder of the documents. The ad for these hearings went into the paper last Thursday, which means the draft new regulations are now in effect pending the Council’s action. 4. Receive Final Report/Recommendations from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee; formal conclusion of the subcommittee’s work: Ms. Quest provided a brief summary of the Subcommittee’s final recommendations. She said the hope is this will eventually go to the City Council. Ms. Quest also noted that South Village would like permission for a “food hub” and hoped that can happen by spring, 2016. She asked if this can be in the next round of amendments. Mr. Conner said that is up to the Commission. He felt there is a window for something not too complicated. Ms. Darnell of South Village said they are investigating ways in which their farm can become more productive and are talking with the Intervale people to explore this. Mr. Conner said the timing of amendments would depend in part on everyone’s comfort level. If it were straightforward, it could be completed in the short term if Commissioners made it a priority, but if there is a lot of opposition, it could become an issue and the Commission may wish to take more time. He said if it fits under the state definition of a “farm,” there would be no issue. He said they can look at what the Town of Shelburne has done. He also noted a report done by the Vermont Law School regarding add-ons to agriculture that communities can do. Ms. Quest hoped there could be a “food committee” somewhere when the Council discusses committees again. Ms. Louisos thanked the subcommittee for all of their work. 5. Initial Discussion/framework for a City Center Form Based Code Master Permit Process: Mr. Conner suggested that before diving into the nuts and bolts, to step back and discuss the bigger picture – what the Commission hopes to achieve through flexibility. Ms. LaRose said they are trying to figure out what the Commission is most firm on, what the goals are, and whether regulations are the best way to achieve those goals. She suggested the possibility of changing a standard to achieve the same goal. One possible scenario Ms. LaRose presented related to lot coverage. The aim is to cover a certain percentage of a lot. What then happens when there are multiple lots next to each other? Can there be no lot line? Another scenario involved one-story buildings. Ms. LaRose noted the Commission was unanimous on not having one-story buildings. But if you’re looking at multiple buildings, does that make a difference. What if the one-story building is only a small percentage of a street line? Ms. LaRose said she felt there can be a consultant to work through some of this, but the Commission needs to determine if there are any “absolutes” or anything they would like to see in a mixed use environment. Also, what is the threshold for flexibility? Mr. Klugo asked how a multi-lot scenario in City Center would differ from any other multi-lot scenario. Mr. Conner said that in City Center, the regulations are crafted lot by lot. It is designed to be “black and white” to allow for administrative review. Mr. Klugo asked if two lots can be combined into one lot. Mr. Conner said they can, but the code is designed to meet each street requirement and is written through the lens of one property at a time. Ms. LaRose said there is a real opportunity for people with a large enough property to put together something that does meet the city’s vision. The question is how to make that happen. She felt it can be done, but there still has to be a standard for the DRB to follow, and it needs to be written as clearly as possible. Ms. LaRose said they have talked with property owners. For a building under 2000 sq. ft., a second story becomes very expensive. So there can be a value to a smaller building in an area of larger buildings. They have heard that artificial lot lines can be a problem as bankers want to see lot lines for financing purposes. Mr. Klugo asked if there can no longer be deviations from the code when it makes sense. Mr. Conner cited the doorway option with an alternate approach that can meet the intent. Deviations can be sent to the DRB with specific criteria or to the “legislative body” where rules get adopted for a specific project. Ms. LaRose said the risk of that is that you need to have a very good reason to make an exception. Mr. Klugo said you are talking about something that can be creative and be a benefit to the community. Ms. LaRose said there are things you can do in some cases to allow variety. Mr. Klugo said he thought it was too early to ask for exceptions to allow alternates right out of the gate, when you don’t know yet what you are going to get. Mr. Conner said maybe it doesn’t have to be 70% coverage on each street, but maybe an average of 70% on all streets. He suggested the possibility of a very urban street with something a little less urban around the corner. Ms. LaRose cited the importance of being open to a circumstance where a change makes a project better. Mr. Chittenden felt it was acceptable to think of things in a different way for larger piece of property and cited Act 250. Ms. Harrington noted that Act 250 is more stringent for larger properties and this would be less stringent. Mr. Gagnon did not agree and felt this is not “less than” but “different from.” Mr. Klugo said he would say: show us how you will meet the form based code and let us evaluate it; otherwise we may be missing something that is good. He felt other communities have embedded formulas in the code even for smaller projects. Mr. Conner noted it is in the Commission’s work plan to have adjustments to the code. He acknowledged they can’t envision every possible scenario. He suggested that a master plan could use the code as a base. Ms. Quest said she was confused as to why the form based code committee wasn’t dealing with this. She added that Eric Farrell liked the code because he knew just what to do. Ms. LaRose cited an area of Boston with one-story commercial buildings next to large churches, and the effect is wonderful. She added that a lot of form based codes have language that says: do this unless the Planning Director says otherwise. Mr. Conner cited a scenario which could involve buildings situated around a large plaza with a possible arts center in the middle. This would currently not be allowed. He stressed that this is not something being proposed, just an example. Mr. Klugo noted South Burlington has “skipped the organic process” of going from a “village center” to a “city center.” He said he would like to see what other communities are doing to handle similar situations. Ms. Louisos said she would be OK with a few “as a right” one‐story buildings, but for anything more, she would want something very stringent in the regulations. Mr. Klugo cited the Trader Joe’s building where there are shades drawn over some of the glass all of the time, so it might just as well have been masonry. Mr. Conner noted there is an RFP for “Planning Services to the City” for the next few years. Proposals are being reviewed now. Mr. Klugo said that about 70% of the City Center space will be residential, some apartments, some condos, etc. He asked how what is happening in South Village can be avoided…namely large “for lease” signs on the apartment buildings. Mr. Conner said he would check on that. Mr. Conner noted there has been no talk from the private sector about reducing open space or reducing affordable housing. What he is hearing is: allow creativity without lowering the bar. Members wanted to see what other communities are doing and the results, if possible. 6. Other Business: a. Public Service Board application: 45 day pre‐application for the City of South Burlington’s Proposed 1.8 MW Solar Array to be Located off Airport Parkway: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission does not have to respond. Mr. Klugo said his only concern is the fences around these arrays that affect animal migration. b. Town of Colchester Zoning Amendments (public hearing 15 December 2015): The Commission had no issues. c. Town of Shelburne subdivision amendments (public hearing 10 December 2015): The Commission had not issues. d. Upcoming Meetings: The next Commission meeting will be 8 December 2015 and will include the first pass at the CCRPC Planning Grants. The City Council presentation on the LDRs will be on 21 December. Mr. Conner suggested as many Commission members as possible attend. Members were OK with not holding a regular meeting on 22 December. 7. Minutes of 22 September (noon and evening meetings), 27 October, 3 November, and 10 November: It was noted that in the Minutes of 27 October, p. 3, “Pizzagalli building” should read “Pizzagalli Properties.” On p. 4 of the same minutes, the reference to Swift St. should read “Swift Street Extension.” In the Minutes of 10 November, p. 4, second paragraph from the top, members agreed to delete the sentence “Mr. Klugo said this would create a very stale environment” as it appeared to have no context. Ms. Quest then moved to approve all Minutes presented as written and/or amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:55 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: November 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. Receive Final Report / Recommendations from Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee; formal conclusion of the subcommittee’s work (7:15 pm) The SusAg subcommittee held its final meeting on November 4th. Enclosed are the final recommendations of the subcommittee. The recommendations were approved with 3 in favor, 0 against, and 2 abstentions. The subcommittee had previously noted that their membership was no longer full due to a couple of members having left and not being replaced due to the timeframe for the group. A series of recommended LDR amendments approved by the subcommittee in October are also included. 5. Initial discussion / framework for a City Center Form Based Code Master Permit process (7:35 pm) At the last meeting the Commission had discussed the concept of a Master Plan permit process for City Center. At this meeting, Commissioners are encouraged to spend some time looking at the question from a 50,000’ level. Staff encouraged you to take a fresh look through the draft Comprehensive Plan and FBC purpose statement and discuss the key “outcomes” that the City Center area is to achieve. From there, we can begin to consider the circumstances under which flexibility from the draft Code may be warranted, be they by looking at a large property as a whole for meeting a standards, exchanging a reduction in one standard for over-achieving in another, or considering where an alternate way of meeting an objective can be met. The goal for this meeting will be to set the table for more detailed discussions about specific flexibility and/or tools later. 6. Other Business (8:20 pm) a. Public Service Board application: 45-day pre-application for the City of South Burlington’s Proposed 1.8 MW Solar Array to be located off Airport Parkway b. Town of Colchester Zoning Amendments (public hearing Dec 15, 7 pm) 2 c. Town of Shelburne Subdivision amendments (public hearing Dec 10, 7 pm) d. Upcoming meetings The City Council has set December 21st (Monday) as their date for receiving the bulk of the LDR amendments and would like to have as many Commissioners there as possible. The Commission may wish to cancel the December 22 regular meeting of the Commission as is tradition. 7. Minutes (8:30 pm) Lots and lots! 8. Adjourn (8:30 pm) Final Recommendations and Report from the South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Presented to the South Burlington Planning Commission November 6, 2015 Background: In 2012 the city council of South Burlington voted to enter a period of interim zoning, creating four committees which were to work with consultants in preparing a report on each area. These committees were Open Space, Form Based Code for City Center, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security. The consultants' final reports were accepted by the committees and passed on to the city council in the spring of 2013. Each committee has followed a different path since that date. Open Space matters are still being discussed by the ongoing Natural Resources Committee. Form Based Code for City Center has become embedded in the Land Development Regulations being reviewed by the public and the city council as of November, 2015. The Affordable Housing committee requested that it become a standing committee and is waiting for the city council’s decision. The Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Task Force (known as Sus/Ag) became a subcommittee of the planning commission in September, 2013, and has been working on the master list of tasks compiled by the city staff from the recommendations found in the consultants' report. These tasks had been assigned to both the planning commission and the city council. In September 2013, the planning commission tasked the Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Subcommittee to work on two recommendations from the final report. In November 2013, the city council asked the Sus/Ag subcommittee to work on eighteen more recommendations from the final report. In September 2015, the planning commission requested that Sus/Ag complete work on their tasks and present their final recommendations after which the committee would be disbanded. It has not been made clear what the relationship will be between the city council and the Sus/Ag committee, nor who will work on the remaining uncompleted tasks. Rationale: Recent city surveys reveal that quality education and preservation of open space are two highest priorities for residents of South Burlington. However, there is an ever-growing number of citizens who are concerned about climate change and what climate disruption and dwindling reserves of fossil fuel may mean for the city's economy and sustainability. The members of the Sus/Ag committee understand the effects of climate disruption and fossil fuel depletion on food quality and availability. It is for that reason that they have been advocating and working for years to preserve land in SB, so that current and future residents will have access to locally grown affordable food. Unlike other areas of the country, Vermont still has open land for agriculture. More importantly, South Burlington, which is located in the most densely populated part of Vermont, still has arable land upon which farmers could grow enough food to feed a large number of SB and Chittenden county residents. Recommendations: I. Agricultural Node PUD: Sus/Ag recommends that the “Agricultural Node PUD” and other topical PUDs be a priority for city staff once work on the comprehensive plan and new LDRs are completed. The city already has been awarded a regional grant to hire a consultant to study this. This is an important piece of city planning especially for the southeast quadrant. Some developers in other quadrants have asked for this new kind of zoning for their land. II. Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Committee: Sus/Ag recommends that as the city council and staff review their committee structure, they consider establishing an overarching “Climate Change Action Committee” – with subcommittees on Food, Energy, Natural Resources, Transportation, Recreation, Bike/Ped, etc. While the overarching committee may need occasional staff assistance, the subcommittees would likely not need any staff assistance. A main focus would be public outreach and education. Having educational sessions before election days may increase voter turnout. III. Regional Food Council: Sus/Ag recommends forming a regional county Food Policy Council involving as many citizens as possible to discuss a 20 year plan for food security and food system education. IV. Medical Center Farm: Sus/Ag recommends that the city conduct follow up discussions with the University of Vermont Medical Center and the Medical Center nutritionist in regard to establishing a vegetable farm on the Tilley Drive properties – an area upon which the Medical Center is hoping to build. This might be in connection with the Intervale Center farm incubation program. This area could be used to grow food for both hospital staff and patients. Another innovative possibility for this area is the construction of wetlands to address wastewater needs. Handling wastewater on site will help prevent more toxins from entering Lake Champlain and the streams leading to it. Other institutions in the country are taking similar positive ecological actions. Moreover, by the time the UVM medical complex is ready for construction, there may be a shortage of wastewater treatment allocation and capacity. V. UVM lands: Sus/Ag recommends that the city continue to dialog with the University of Vermont in regard to making some of their properties on Spear Street available to their own students and graduates for incubator farms. The Intervale Center, with their years of experience in productive land use has expressed interest in working with UVM and South Burlington to grow more local food. VI. Farm/Food Education: Sus/Ag recommends continued educational programs in the city on subjects such as edible gardening, farmland protection, and assisting landowners in leasing their land to farmers. VII. Underwood Property: Sus/Ag recommends that the prime agricultural soil on the Underwood Property be managed by Common Roots to be used as a school farm for teaching, for growing food for residents, and for community gardens and orchards. Initiatives: 1. Researching and Soliciting Public Input on Interim Zoning Tasks: The Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Task Force, established during the Interim Zoning period, met from May 8, 2012 until July 13, 2014. In that time, they hired expert consultants to address the tasks assigned by the city council. The consultants conducted public hearings and meetings to gather input before producing their final report, which was presented to the planning commission on May 14, 2013. In additional to regulatory changes, the consultants recommended extensive public education and networking. Sus/Ag organizational subcommittee member, Common Roots, which is a non-profit organization begun by Carol McQuillen, a SB kindergarten teacher in collaboration with other local farm and education groups, has continued to bring attention to the criticality of quality locally grown food through multiple initiatives. Additionally, Vermont’s Farm to School program has also been active in our schools. Children who learn about growing and cooking vegetables in school share their enthusiasm with other family members. 2. Reviewing Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, including Form Based Code for City Center: Using the recommendations from the Sus/Ag final report, the Sus/Ag subcommittee reviewed the agricultural sections of these documents.. The planning commission and the staff continually receive and incorporate feedback related to sustainable agriculture as changes are made to these documents. 3. Advocating for Agricultural Node PUDs: On September 2013, Sus/Ag recommended that the planning commission discuss and plan a form based code for citywide use including an “Agricultural Node PUD” for planned communities and small farms. This recommendation was tabled, and was scheduled to be addressed in 2015. 4. Exploring Use of UVM Properties in South Burlington: From September 2013 to April 2014, Sus/Ag subcommittee member, Will Raap (the creator of the Intervale incubator farm program), met with a number of administrators, deans, and land-planners at UVM requesting that, with the help of the Intervale Center, they create incubator farms on some of their lands in South Burlington. This initiative was part of a larger plan for a Spear Street Agricultural Corridor, stretching from UVM lands north of Spear St, down past the Underwood Property, the Long Property, and South Village. In the spring of 2014, UVM stated that their dairy farm research program was more important to them than setting aside land for the young vegetable farmers they are training at UVM and for the Beginning Farmer Training Program under Continuing Education. At this time they want to use all of their land to produce hay and corn for their cows. Additionally, the owners of the Long Family Trust property, north of South Village, decided they were not yet ready to make decisions about the future of their land. 5. Identifying the Wastewater (Sewer) Allocation Problem: In early 2014, Sus/Ag began to discuss the wastewater allocation shortfall in the city, as identified in the Sus/Ag Final Report. Sus/Ag member, Rosanne Greco, drafted a number of useful informational papers on the subject. At the time, she was a member of the city council when the city staff first briefed the city council on wastewater allocations. The staff reported that there was not enough existing wastewater capacity to serve both the future city center and all of the developments planned in other areas of the city. Moreover, budgetary constraints prevent the future expansion of existing facilities or construction of a new sewage treatment plant at least for the next 17 years. The loan for the Airport Parkway Treatment facility will not be repaid until 2032. Sus/Ag brought this serious concern to the planning commission. There was a great deal of pushback from landowners and developers who wanted to continue building. In mid-2015, the city council increased the wastewater allocation for city center by a small amount. Unfortunately, the staff assessment of future wastewater needs (and the city council’s action to increase the wastewater allocation for city center) did not take into account a number of very large development projects that are currently being proposed by the University of Vermont Medical Center (which is planning a large out-patient project in South Burlington) and developers (which are planning hundreds of new housing units) all of which will compete with city center for a limited amount of wastewater capacity. 6. Stewardship of the Underwood Property: In May 2014, Sus/Ag worked unsuccessfully on getting harrowing and seeding of a cover crop on the city-owned Underwood Property. In 2015, Sus/Ag subcommittee member, Sophie Quest, was appointed a member of the task force planning the future of the Underwood property. The final plan from the consultants’ work, with input from the public, envisioned a small farm on the prime agricultural soil, as well as community gardens, and a community orchard, possibly involving student workers from the South Burlington schools. In the spring of 2015, organizational subcommittee member, Common Roots, entered into a contract with the city to plow the land and do some test farming. The South Burlington Land Trust, which is also an organization member of the Sus/Ag subcommittee, provided funding for this. Personnel changes in Common Roots have slowed down this project. It is hoped that a school farm will be started on the site in 2016. 7. Connecting with Landowners: In May 2014, Sus/Ag drafted a letter to landowners of five or more acres. This letter offered an educational session on making their land agriculturally productive. With the help of the Center for Sustainable Agriculture at UVM, landowners could learn about using their lands for growing fruit or nut trees, or about possibilities for leasing a few acres to young farmers, or conserving their land as open space or for agriculture, or how to get tax breaks for such use. Three interns from UVM participated in discussing and drafting this letter. The letter was approved by the planning commission and sent out in January 2015. In May 2015, the city council expressed a concern that this letter might cause someone who had entered a lease agreement with a farmer to sue the city. Actually, the letter resulted in a few inquiries regarding fruit and nut trees and beekeeping. A few landowners on contiguous parcels of land considered whether or not they would lease some of this land. The largest landowner in this group eventually decided that it would be troublesome and the project was dropped. (The legislators in Vermont at this time were considering a moratorium on new current use tax breaks.) Some landowners expressed interest in being invited to future educational sessions, similar to a session in 2012 presented by the UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture and Land for Good on leasing private land to farmers. This session was attended by a number of individuals who owned land outside of South Burlington. The landowners from South Burlington who attended were already leasing part of their land to farmers. 8. Networking with Developers: In the fall of 2014, Sus/Ag met with a number of South Burlington developers, and requested their consideration of agricultural projects for new developments, possibly employing an “Agricultural Node PUD.” The owner of EcoSolutions presented an innovative wastewater treatment option that could be used onsite in large new PUDs. This might help with South Burlington’s wastewater treatment capacity, as well as being an ecological project providing better models for diverting wastewater from lakes and streams. 9. Conducting Community Education: From October 2012 to November 2013, Sus/Ag subcommittee member, Louise Murphy, who at that time was also the director of the South Burlington Community Library, in cooperation with Sus/Ag, held monthly food system presentations, called “Food Revolution.” In 2014 and 2015, Sus/Ag presented a number of educational programs at the library. Topics included Permaculture, (which included a garden tour), gardeners sharing their land, planting pollinator gardens, and making private property productive (by planting fruit and nut trees or establishing vegetable gardens on the ground or in raised beds.) Sus/Ag also began a new community initiative called, “Growing Connections” which suggests that people who have more garden space than they need consider sharing it with people who have no land around their homes or condos or apartments. Sus/Ag’s “Edible Gardening” series at the South Burlington Community Library brought together gardeners who have or are creating productive gardens and people who are interested in doing this. The library programs have always been accompanied by a light dinner of locally produced foods, showing how delicious and nutritious SB-grown food is. Conclusion: During this period when the City has no official Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Committee, members of the past Sus/Ag group will continue to educate and advocate for “Growing Connections” and “Edible Gardening/Shrinking your Lawn”, among other similar efforts. Other like-minded groups, such as the South Burlington Community Gardeners and the Burlington Garden Club will also continue work on increasing the number of community gardens in South Burlington, maintaining a children's garden, a children's teaching garden and a food shelf garden in South Burlington's Wheeler Nature Park. Members of the Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Subcommittee will continue to serve in the city, encouraging and educating and collaborating with all who are concerned about our children’s future. In the not-too-distant future, Vermont may need to grow much more food than it does today. The members of the Sus/Ag group proudly join with others in Vermont and around the U.S. in working toward a food secure future. These words from Vermont’s Farm to Plate Strategic Plan summarize the need: “Our food system encompasses how food is produced, distributed, consumed and recycled. Access to affordable healthy food is central to public health, the economy, land conservation, environmental stewardship and our quality of life. Recognizing this, communities throughout the country are proactively planning for food systems that support local farmers, have positive impacts on the environment, and provide local access to healthy food.” “A variety of groups in Vermont are now undertaking food system planning initiatives, including local and regional food councils, community food security groups, regional 'foodhubs,' state government and nonprofit agricultural organizations. Vermont is one of the few states to have a comprehensive, 10-year state food system plan—the Farm to Plate Strategic Plan—prepared by the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund in response to legislation enacted in 2009. The goals of this initiative: increase economic development in Vermont's food and farm sector; create jobs in the food and farm economy; improve access to healthy local foods.” -- Farm to Plate Strategic Plan July 2013, Vol. I - “Sustaining Agriculture: Agriculture and Food System Planning.” Suggested changes in South Burlington Land Development Regulations- Recommended by the Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Subcommittee of the Planning Commission on October13, 2015. 1. Protecting topsoil during construction so that the soil is left in a good condition for gardening. In the LDRs 12.03 Stormwater Management - In Section B: Scope and Applicability, the requirement to follow the South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual applies to development in which one half acre or more of impervious surface is included. This does not protect the soils in smaller single home sites. This needs to be added somewhere in the LDRs. The requirements below from the LIDGM are excellent and include the stockpiling of top soil, to be replaced, possibly amended, after construction – enabling home owners to plant gardens on the site. “Soil Conservation and Amendments: Conserving and amending site soils are low impact development (LID) strategies that minimize stormwater related impacts commonly caused by construction activities. These practices include protecting native site soils for use in final site landscaping and amending impacted soils to restore pre-development characteristics that allow for the storage and infiltration of stormwater. Purpose: Conventional land development activities can significantly disturb native site soils and commonly include the removal of the upper, organically rich materials and compaction of the exposed sub-soils. These actions alter a site's hydrology and reduce the ability for precipitation to infiltrate into the underlying soils and groundwater table. As a result landscaped areas established within impacted soil can generate stormwater runoff at a rate significantly greater than pre-development conditions. Soil conservation and amendment techniques that maintain or restore organic soil content can be used to assist in maintaining pre-development hydrologic and water quality characteristics by improving onsite flow attenuation and infiltration. The implementation of these practices reduce the total runoff volume and flow rates that discharge from a site thereby reducing the demands placed on downstream stormwater infrastructure and the potential for erosion and surface flooding. Conditions Where Practice Applies Soil conservation and amendment practices are appropriate for a wide variety of new and redevelopment projects including residential, commercial, industrial and transportation land uses. These techniques reduce ongoing fertilization and irrigation needs and are appropriate on both flat and sloped surfaces. Design Criteria Site soil conservations efforts should start with limiting disturbance activities through practices such as site fingerprinting. In areas that are to be disturbed, existing topsoil should be removed, stockpiled and covered for later use. It is recommended within the Western Washington Stormwater Manual (2003) that the organic content of soil to be used in planting beds and to establish turf should be a minimum of 10% and 5% on a dry weight basis, respectively. Organically rich material, such as compost, can be tilled into impacted topsoil to achieve the desired organic content. In general, the non-compacted topsoil layer should be 8 inches to 12 inches deep and have a pH appropriate for the selected vegetation. Following tilling, the topsoil layer should be raked level, planted and mulched immediately. Caution should be used when incorporating soil amendments in the vicinity of existing trees and shrubs to avoid root damage. The boundaries of all areas that are to remain undisturbed should be clearly shown on construction drawings and identified onsite prior to construction activities. p. 44 Maintenance Soil conservation and amendment practices often result in improved plant growth. Periodic maintenance activities commonly include; replanting damaged vegetation, trimming and pruning established shrubs and trees and removing weeds and debris. Landscaped areas established in organically sufficient topsoil do not typically require fertilization and often need less irrigation than those areas established in impacted soil. Efforts should be taken to reduce excessive soil compaction in conserved and amended areas. Plans & Specifications Plans & specifications for soil conservation and amendment practices shall be in accordance with this guidance document and other reputable sources such as the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. At a minimum, the following 1. A site plan that identifies the location of the proposed soil conservation and amendment practice and disturbance limits (as applicable) 2. Proposed soil amendment specifications (as applicable) 3. Construction sequencing plan 4. Planting schedule” p. 45 Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. 2. Definitions and Uses Table. A. Urban Agriculture. The use of land and structures within or on the edge of an urban or suburban area to produce, process, and market food and fuel, primarily for local consumption. Characterized by intensive production methods on relatively small sites as compared to traditional farming. May include but not limited to: greenhouses; rooftop gardens; community gardens; backyard poultry, bees, or other livestock. This is included already in the definitions. We recommend that it be included in the Agricultural Section of the Uses Table, permitted in all districts, both residential and commercial.. (Would there be any place, perhaps in an ordinance to suggest suitability? For instance, not planting food plants next to streets that would throw off a lot of salt; or not having chickens in public spaces.) B. Food Hub: A facility that serves as a central location for, and that is operated by an entity that actively coordinates, the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution and/or marketing of local food in order to provide small to mid-size farmers and food producers wider access to institutional and retail markets, and to increase consumer access to local, fresh, healthy food. (Needs to have Definition added) We recommend that this be included in the Agricultural Section of the Uses Table, permitted in all districts, both residential and commercial. C. Edible Landscapes. The use of food-producing plants in the design of private and public outdoor space. (already in Definitions). We recommend that this be included in the Agricultural Section of the Uses Table, permitted in all districts, both residential and commercial. (Would there be any place, perhaps in an ordinance to suggest suitability? For instance, not planting food plants next to streets that would throw off a lot of salt; or not having chickens in public spaces.) D. Park: Any land owned by the public and open for use by the general public for active or passive recreation, urban agriculture, or as a refuge for wildlife. Recommended that we add “urban agriculture to this definition in order to include the teaching and food shelf gardens presently at Wheeler Park and the future school farm proposed for Underwood Park. Community Gardens At present South Burlington has only two sets of public Community Gardens available for residents, that at Wheeler Park and at Swift and Spear. Some condominium developments have community gardens for residents. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that community gardens be available to residents close to their homes. In general, Community Gardens in South Burlington and Burlington have waiting lists. The Burlington Urban Task Force of 2012 notes that: “Community gardens have many economic, social, and environmental benefits. They have been proven to improve the quality of life for people in the garden, provide a catalyst for neighborhood and community development, stimulate social interaction, encourage self-reliance, beautify neighborhoods, produce nutritious food, conserve resources, create opportunity for recreation, exercise, therapy, and education, reduce crime, preserve green space, create income opportunities and economic development, reduce city heat from streets and parking lots, and provide opportunities for intergenerational and cross-cultural connections.” South Burlington Draft Comprehensive Plan 9-10-15: “Objective 37: Enable, encourage, and incentivize agriculture and local food production dispersed throughout the city. Strategy 83: Where appropriate, actively use city-owned land for agricultural education, and for urban agriculture and local food production, including community gardens and leasing of land to commercial farmers. Strategy 84: Encourage new development, particularly residential or mixed-use projects that include homes without private yards, to create community garden space. Strategy 85: Distribute community gardens throughout the city so that garden are within walking or hiking distance for all city residents.” “SA-13-16 Offer incentives for developments that include community gardens and/or allow residents to have home gardens on common land.” Note: it was good to have a developer join us for discussion of this task. We discussed the present situation in SB society which can involve all of the adults in the family with long work hours. They often have no time for gardening and in the present economy, there is no strong need for it. Developers may offer community gardens as part of PUDs which are not being used. In the future, this situation may develop differently, with people needing and wanting to grow their own food. PUDs presently have a certain proportion of gardeners in each one, these people really want their own gardens. Is this a question to be included in the future consultant's report about PUDs in different types of neighborhoods, “nodes” - as Form Based Code goes citywide? One suggestion now is to include the questions asked of developers during the Interim Zoning period – these questions to be asked by DRB. Is there a way to make the open space required for each development to be accessible and soil-worthy for possible gardens when the request and need happen? Sus/Ag discussed the use of density bonuses for ensuring that gardens would be possible, but did not think this was useful. Education for future gardeners and future developers and the possibility of future necessary gardens appears more viable as incentives. If developers were to advertise garden space (as South Village advertised a farm on site), then people who found that desirable would buy a home there. (The possibility of legal marijuana or hemp coming to Vermont also might lead to more gardening!) IoSLYN L. W[scnsx ADMITITD IN VT, NHAND CO jw ils ch ek@P r im m e r. c o m TEL:802-223-2702' Frx:8O2-223-2628 PRIMMER PIPER GLESTON & CRAM pc 100 EAsr srArE srnntr I P.o. Box 1309 | MoNrrPeueç VT 05601-1309 November 13,2015 Mrs. Susan Hudson Vermont Public Service Board I 12 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05 620-27 0 I Re:to E to Rule 5.4021 Aì and 30 V.S.A. E iì- for the Citv of South Rurlinøton's 1-ß M\il Dear Mrs. Hudson Encore Redevelopment, LLC, on behalf of the City of South Burlington (the "City" or the "Petitioner"), is pleased to providi you with this 45-Day notice in advance of filing a petition for a Certificate of Public Good undei 30 V.S.A. $ 24S(i) with the Vermont Public Service Board ("Board" or "PSB"), for a 1.8 MW solar electric generation facility to be known as the "South Burlington Landfill Solar Project" (the .,project"). fnã City will be requesting approval to build and operate the Project on a capped and closed landirll owned Uy itre City, which is located off Airport Parkway in South Burlington, Vermont (the "Site"). This notice is provided in accordance with 30 VSA $$ 219a and 248 ("Section 219a" and "section 248", respectively) and Board Rule 5.402. Pursuant to Board Rule 5.402, the following letter includes information sufficient to understand the overall Project including the location of the faciliry a description of the proposed Project, construction plans and equipment to be used. This letter also describes the rights of the noticed parties to comment on the Project plans and participate in the Section 248 review process. I. 30 V.S.A. Section 248(il Petition and Notice The state permitting process for electric generation facilities requires the City to provide affected municipal -and regional planning commissions and municipal legislative bodies with plans for construction at least 45 days prior to filing the petition with the Public Service Board. The Petitioner has also provided this 45 day notice to: o The Department of Public Service; o The Agency of Natural Resources; o Adjoining landowners; and r The Public Service Board. Per Board Rule 5.402(A), recipients of this 45-Day Notice may fîle recommendations, if any, at least seven (7) days prior to the intended fîling date, which f,rling date is expected to be 45 days from the date of this notice no earlier than December 29,2015. Please send all recommendations during this 45-Day notice period to: 2206122.1 Vermont Public Service Board c/o Clerk of the Board l12 State Street Montpelieq VT 05 620-27 0I AND The City of South Burlington c/o Encore RedeveloPment, LLC Attn: Phillip Foy I l0 Main Street Second Floor, Suite 2E Burlington, VT 05401 Tel: (802) 861-3023 phi ll ip@ encoreredevelopment.com Affected municipal and regional planning commissions may also provide revised recommendations within 45 days of the dateón which the Petitioner files its petition with the Board, if the petition contains new or more detailed information that was not previously included in the original filing with the municipal and regional planning commissions pursuant to Section 248(Ð. Recommendations made to the Board pursuant to Section 248(Ð, or the lack of such recommendations' shall not preclude municipal and regional planning commissions from presenting evidence during technical hearings ifgranted party status. For additional information regarding this process, including your commission's right to participate in the Public Service Board proceeding, please refer to the "Citizen's Guide to the Vermont Public Service Board's Section 248 Process," which can found at http://psb.vermont. gov/statutesrulesandguidelines/guidel ines. II. Proiect DescriPtion The City is proposing a 1.8 MW AC project on a capped and closed landfill owned by the City, and locatedbffAirport párkway in South Burlington, VT. Additionally, this Project falls under the revised 30 V.S.A. g219a (mX2), whicil permits a net-metering system of 5 MW or less to be installed on a closed 1andfi|l. The facility will be in a net-metering group with net-metering credits flowing to accounts associated with City and the South Burlinglon School District. The proposed Project will occupy approximately I acres across the landfill, which has been capped and closéd since l992,and which has been wholly owned by South Burlington since that date. The Site is located in an industrial area and is located adjacent to the Chittenden Solid Waste District Environmental Depot, the Burlington International Airport, the Chittenden Bus Depot, the Chittenden Solid Waste District Offices, Interstate 89, and the South Burlington Public Works office complex. In summary, the Project will consist of: ¡ Between 5,000-8,000 solar panels installed on fixed, ballast-mounted racking systems across approximately I acres: o Coated with non-reflective glazing; o Sloped at a fixed angle between 20-30 degrees; and o Approximately six (6) feet offthe ground at their highest point' 2206122.1 . A 7 to I foot perimeter fence; r Gravel access lane and temporary staging area; ¡ A network of string inverters dispersed across the array that would be installed in protective conduit; o A 12,470 volt pad mounted transformer; and o Network upgrades associated with interconnection of the system into Green Mountain Power's existing 3-phase service along Airport Parkway. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit 2 - Proposed Equipment Specifications III. Site Selection and Consideration ofAlternatives The Vermont legislature passed Act99 allowing for projects up to 5 MW on closed landfills. Due to the size of Vermoniand the limited number of landfills that meet the applicable criteria, this site provides a unique and invaluable opportunity for the City to utilize an otherwise undevelopable piece of property while extracting considerable value to the City's ratepayers. IV. Construction & Transportation The City proposes to deliver materials for the Project via truck to a temporary construction staging area onsite near the eastern border of the Project Site, located offthe access drive to the wastewater treatment plan. Most all transportation activity will occur during the construction phase, which would last àpproximately three (3) months. Deliveries will be made via Airport Parkway and other state and local .oâdr, which are accustomed to the type of traffrc representative of the proposed daily material delivery. The Project is not expected to require oversize or overweight deliveries. Once operational, activity will consist of periodic visits for system maintenance. The Project is not expected to require oversize or overweight deliveries. Access to and from the Site will be restricted by perimeter fencing in order to secure the Site and prevent the public from entering the facility. All equþment associated with the Project will be installed in accordance with all applicable regulations and electrical codes. V. Preliminarv lmnact Assessment i. Aesthetics T. J. Boyle Associates performed a preliminary visual analysis of the proposed Project and determined that poténtial aesthetic impacts of the Project will not be considered unduly adverse. The Project will be locaied in an industrial arèa and therefore will have limited impact on aesthetics. The Site is surrounded by the Burlington International Airport to the east, the South Burlinglon Public Works complex and ihittenden Solid Waste offices to the south, and Chittenden Solid Waste District Environmental Depot to the north. The Project is bordered by Interstate 89 to the west, which is substantially screened by existing vegetation. While residential properties do abut the overall South Burlington parcel to the south, the surrounding industrial structures combined with existing vegetation will limit any potential aesthetic impacts. Potential visibility will be mostly limited to short portion of Airport Parkway and also from Landfill Road, the latter of which only accesses South Burlington Public Works and Chittenden Solid Waste 2206122.1 District facilities. Any views that may exist, will view the project within the context of the surrounding industrial development. T. J. Boyle Associates will complete a more detailed evaluation, including a report documenting the full analysisunder the Quechee Analysis, which will be included in the Petition along with any mitigation measures where warranted. ii. Environmental VHB conducted a natural resources assessment for an approximate 16.4-acre Study Area, which surrounds the proposed Project Site. No wetlands or any other natural resources were identified within the study boundary. The landfill's cap is an earthen composite of clay and topsoil and contains no synthetic membrane liner. Sufficient measures will be taken in the design, construction and operation of the Project, to ensure the landfill cap is not compromised, all while providing sufficient treatment for stormwater impacts. Construction impacts will be minimized by using silt fences for runoff and tracked vehicles that distribute their weight over a wider area. Addition of the solar array on the landf,rll also requires an amendment to the City's Cap Closure Permit issued by the Vermont Solid Waste Division (the "VSWD") as well as a Construction General Permit through the ANR Division of Conservation (the "DEC"). The City has already begun working with the VSW-D and DEC along with a civil engineering contractor, Sanborn Head, to ensure the project does not create undue impacts to the existing cap and water resources. A more detailed analysis of environmental and stormwater impacts, including the applicable permits, will be included with the Petition. iii. Interconnection The City has filed a 5.500 interconnection application with GMP, which will allow GMP to further evaluate potential impacts to the system. These results will be addressed in the Petition. VI. Conclusion The Project is not expected to result in undue adverse impacts to the applicable criteria. The City looks forwardto submitting the full Section 245(l) petition package, which will contain all of the information required by the PSB to evaluate the merits of the Project for potential award of a Certificate of Public Good, and inform others of the Project's impacts and value' The City intends to file a Section 248Q) Petition and supporting materials with the PSB soon after the expiration of the 45 day notice period- on approximately December 29,2015. It is the hope of the City thát the PSB will schedule any necessary hearings on the Petition later this fall and that a decision will be issued by early 20 16 so that the Project can be built in the summer of 2016 in order to capture maximum possible value of the 2016 production season. We look forward to receiving any input or suggestions you may have as we move through the Section 24SQ) process. Ifyou have any questions you may direct them to Encore by phone at802-861-3023 or by email at phillip@encoreredevelopment.com. yn 2206122.1 Exhibit I Preliminary Site Plan 2206122.1 :I s t i:'i: ì-¿ e, "a NOTFS 1, AER]AL PHOTOGMPH WAS OBIAINED FROIV IHE VERMONT CENTER FOR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (VCGI)WEBSITE IMAGE REPRESENTS AREA CONDÌT]ONS ON APRL 23. 2014 SOURCE SCALE 111200 2 THE APPROXIMTE LIMIT OF CAP AND MONITORING WELL LOCAT]ONS WERE PROVIDED BY HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOC ATES. INC. OF AURLINGTON, VERMONT ]N A FILE ÍITLED "Sß OCT 2014 DWG"ON MRCH 5. 2Ol5ANDGEOREFERENCED BYSANBORN.HEAD& ASSOCIATES. INC (SNBORN HilD). HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES. INC HAVE N¡ÆE NO REPRESENTATION REGARÐING THE ACCUMCY OR COMPLETENESS OF THIS INFORMATION THESE LOCAÍLONS SHOULDBE CONSIDEREDAPPROX]MTÉ /z-- CONCREf E MANHOLgCLEANOUT FOR I FACHATF FORCE MAIN þ 3 THE PROPOSED ARMY úYOUT, FENCE, AND EQUIPI¡ENT PÆ LOCAIIONS WERE PROVIDED TO SANBORN HgD BY SOLARC]ry OF SAN MA'TEO. CALIFORN]A ]N A FILE T]TLED"Soulh 8udûglonWLayoulR0.5 JF dlvg ONMARCH3l, 2015 \J},4 UTIL]TY POLES LOCATED ALONG AIRPORT PARKWAY WERE SURVEYED ON MARCH S. 2015 BY SANBORN IìEAD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE. :p \J:5. THE CUSS II WETLAND BOUNDARY WAS DELINEATED BY VANASSE HANGÊN BRUSTLIN, INC (VHB)AND PROVIDEDASASHAPEFILE T]TLED"WETLANDSHP"BYENCORE RFDtsVI I OPMLNÏ ON MARCH ]0. 20I5t MW-3 -x+/o',*",/z oç+I]m 6 THE EXISTING STREAI4 LOCATLON WAS ÌAKEN FROM THE VERI4ONT CENIËR FOR GEOGRAPHIC ]NFORMATlON {VCGI) WEBSITE.iffi 09 ffi IIIÊ APPROX1MATE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING ABANDONED CULVERT IS BASÈD ON A PLAN ËNTITLED 'SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDFILL CLOSURE-PHASED LANDFILL CLOSURE' ÐATED J ULY 14, 1990 AND PREPARED BY DUFRESN E'HENRY, lNC OF IVONTPÊLIER, VERMONT THE CULVERT WAS GEOREFERENCED BY SANAORN HEAD TO EXISTING S TE FFATIJRES AND SHOULD BE CONSÌDERED APPROXIMATE. ¡ üIûflItrlillllifllltr ¡tm t P as _è I ao a{ otÈa /ffir/m\\m\'m\ x trIllIutrtrm¡¡LEGEND:\¡'rffiI EBIûEImmIIIIÍ¡¡IIIIIIIII \Ill]]ìr1l11lì]]1l'!1'lì'I11M\ /ffi@1@\@\ffi\ P EXISTING OVERHEAD UTiLIT LINE APPROX]MTE LIMIT OF CAP EXISTING UfILI-IY POLÊ EXISTING GAS VENT LOCATION EXISTING MONITORING WELL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISfING R GHT.OF'WAY CLASS I]I WETDND AOUNDARY AS OEL]NEATED AY VHB APPROXIMTE IOCATION OF EXISTING STRAM APPROXIMTE LOCATION OF EXISTING AEANDONED CULVERI PROPOSED ELECTRIC IÑTERCONNECT L NE PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL MODULE PROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCE PROPOSED EQU]PMENI PAD PROPOSED S]AGINGARÊA (I O,60ACRES COMBINED) Åt: AY .""3 ì o'â ABANDONED CONCRETE MNHOLE -\+ APPROXÌMTE LOCATION OF PROPOSED LOCKABLE ACCESS GATE $ uwani *tÜ P I "F{I +^{r'¡ l (DAIVAGED) ffii IVW-8R LCW,1 EXISTING PVC GAS VENT (ñP){Þ'ÕtMWqD (DESTROYED) o"I PROPOSED ELECTRIC INTERCONNECT LINE [4W4S (DESTROYED)I í BURLINGTON /.INTERNAIIONAL AIRPORTABANDONED CONCRETE MNHOLE É PROPOSFD EOUIPMENfPAD ,t -'-ñ PROPOSED CHAIN L]NI( FENCE å PROPOSED PROJECÌ COMPONENT NFORMTION INVERÏER MODULE MOUNT NG METHOD NUMBER OF MODUIËS .IILT AZIMUfH SYSTEM SIZE (kw DC) (63) SOLECTRIA PVI 28TL POLY 310W GROUND (BALMSTED)7,163 20"180'2,220.53 \ \ú \è t\t\i 1 I I r I I I I ì ¡.i I ffi ffit)]]]r]mffi+ 90 tt.\ ROCK PILE(ro BE REi\4OVED) à\t:' r,Trr*rno'L ro,-¿ rrt/yl ,} ., MW-7D qöMWTS ( '! 1 É \i ll -"""" 4/O7/15 I¡OR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PRINTPROGRESS ta 7/t 5 SAT$BORTW T{EAD 80 80'160' GMPHICAL SCALE 40 DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: REVIEWED BY: PROJECT N¡GR: PIC: DATE: J. GRACE J. GRACE T. PETIT T. PËTIT B. BEAUDOIN APRIL 2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDFILL SOLAR PROJECT ENCORE REDEVELOPMENT SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERi\IONT PROJECT NUIVBER 3855.00 PROPOSED PV LAYOUT PLAN (wrTH AER¡AL)10F2 FIGURE NUMBER gr ı E! Ir å ¡¡ 3Zå::ii¡ ?1ã¡ qí \ .\ ìi APPROXIIVATE LOCATION OF INTERSTATE 89 , \ ,/ NoTEs rt 1 THE BASE I\iAP WAS DEVELOPED FRd THE FOLLOWNG SURVEY DAÍA MERGED BY SANBORN. HEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC' (SANBORN HEAD): \TOPOGMPHY AND SIÍE FEATURËS PREPARED USING GROUND SURVEYINGIECHNIOUES BY BUflON PROFESSIONAL UND SURVEYORS, P.C- OF BURLINGTON, VÊRIMONT. TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE FEATURES WERE DEVELOPED BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS ON FEBRUARY 17, 18, AND 19,2015. NORTH ORIENTATION WAS BASEÐ ON SURVEY GRADE REAL TIME KINÊMATIC GPS OBSERVATIONS I\¡ADE ON FEBRUARY 17' 2015. THEIRANSMININGBASEDSIATIONUSEDWASTHEUNIVERSITYOFVERIMONTCONTINUOUSLYOPERATING REFERENCESTATION. THERESULTAMHORIZONTALDATUI¡ISNAD83, THISREALIZATIONISCALLEDNADS3(2011)EPOCH 2O1O.O. GEOIDMODEL(GEOID12A), THERESULTINGORfHOÍ!4ETRICHEIGHTISNAVDSS{GEOID12A)' fHERE WERE SNOW DEPTHS OF APPROXIMATELY 18'TO 36' AI THE TIME OF THE SURVEYSI THEREFORE, THERE À¡AY BE SOMETOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES. UTILITIES, AND SÍRUCTURES THAI HAVE NOT BEEN CAPTURED' TOPOGMPHY AND SITE FEAÎURES PREPARED USING GROUND SURVEYING IECHNIQUES FORTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGToN,VERIMoNTBYDIEERNARDoASSocIATES'LLCoFBELLoWSFALLS.VERMoNT'THEDATAwASPRoVIDEDIN DIGITAL FORIVIAT BY HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOC¡AIES, INC. TO SANBORN HEAD ON FEBRUARY6,2015 INA FILE EÑTITLED "2925-1F,DWd, DATED DÊCEMBER 9,2011 AND REVISÉD JANUARY26,2O12. TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE FEATURES PROVIDED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2015"TO SANBORN HEAD BY HOYLE. TANNER 8 ASSOCIATES' ¡NC. IN DIGITAL FORIVAT IN A FILE ENTITLED '1O78f5TOPO&SITE,DWG"' BU¡LDING L c. 2. THE APPROXIIVATE LII\,IIT OF CAP AND I\4ONITORINGWELL LOCATIONS ÆRE PROVIDED 8Y HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES' INC' OF BURLINGTON. VERMONT IN A FILE ÍITLED "SB-OCT_2O14.DWG' ON ¡/IARCH 5, 2015 AND GEOREFEREÑCED BY SANEORN HAD. HOYLE, ÍANNER &ASSOCIATES, INC. HAVE [4ADÊ NO REPRESÉNÍATION REGARDING THÊ ACCURACY OR COIIIPLETENESS OFlHIS INFÕRMTION. THESE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXI¡/ATE' 3. THE PROPOSED ARMY LAYOUI, FËNCE, AND EOUIPMENT PAD LOCATIONS WÊRE PROVIDED TO SANBORN HEAD BY SOLARCIN OF SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA lN A FILE TIILED "Soulh Burlington Vl Layoul R0.5-JF dwg'ON MARCH 31' 2015 4. UT¡LIIY POLES LOCATED ALONG AIRPORT PARKWAY WERE SURVEYED ON MARCH 9, 201 5 BY SANBORN HEAD AND SHOULD AE CONSIDERED APPROXIfi'IATE. 5. THECLASSIIIWEÍTANDBOUNDARYWASDELINEATEDBYVANASSEHANGENERUSILIN.INC.(VHB)ANDPROVIDEDASASHAPEFILE IITLED VETLAND.SHP' BY ENCORE REDEWLOPMENT ON MRCH 30' 2015' 6 THE EXISTING STREA|V LOCATION WAS TAKEN FROfu1 THE VERIVONT CENTER FOR GEOGMPHIC INFORMAÍION (VCGDWEESITE. 7. THE APPROXIMAÍE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING ABANOONED CULVERT IS EASED ON A PLAN ENIIÍLED'SOUfH BTJRLINGTON LANDFILL CLOSURE-PHASED LANDFILL CLOSURE' DATED JULY 14. 1990 AND PREPARED BY DUFRESNE-HEÑRY, INC. OF MONTPELIER. VERI\4ON1. THE CULVERT WAS GEOREFERENCED BY SANBORN HEAD TO EXISTING SITE FEAÍURES AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMTE, BUILDING rt- WAS-TEWATER TREATMÊNI FACILITYi iv ¡l ' APPROXIM'TÊ LOCATION OF PROPOSED LOCKABLE ACCESSGATE T -4 MW.8R LEGEND: ----300----ö EXISTING $,FOOT CONÏOUR EXISTING 1-FOOT CONTOUR EXISTING INFERRED CONÍOUR EXISTING EDGE OF PAVED ROAD EXISTING EDGE OF GMVEL ROAD/PARKING AREA EXISTING OVERHEAD UÏILITY LINE APPROXIMIE LIMIT OF CAP EXISTING UTILITY POLE EXISTING FENCE APPROXIMTE EXISTING TREE BOUNDARY EXISTING GAS VENÍ LOCATION EXISTING IVOÑITORINGWÊLL APPROXIMTE LOCATION OF ÊXISTING RIGHÏ.OF-WAY CLASS III WETLANO BOUNDARYAS DELINEAIED BYVHB APPROXII\¡ATE LOCATION OF EXISIING STRAM APPROXIIVATE LOCATION OF EXISIING ABANDONED CULVERT PROPOSED ELECTRIC INTERCONNECT LINE PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL MODULE PROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCE PROPOSED EOUìPMENT PAD PROPOSED STAGING AREA (iO,60 ACRES COMBINÊD) MW-8 (DAIMAGED) I PROPOSED ELECTRIC INTERCONNECI LINE I I PROPOSED EOUIPMENTPAD I PROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCE \ \)BURLING'TON. INTERNAT¡ONAL( ntneonr +APPROXIMATE LOCAf ION OF AIRPORT PARKWAY $ r'aw-en 0 lÊEl PROPOSÊÐ PROJECT COMPONENT INFORII1ATION INVERTER I\4ODULE I\-lOUNTING MËfHOD NUI\,IBER OF MODULES TILT AZIMUfH SYSTEM SIZE (kw Dc) (63) SOLECTRIA PVI 28TL POLY 31OW GROUNÐ (BALLASTED)7.163 20'I 80'2,220.53 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 1/072 5 PROGRESS PRINT 4/07/15 MW-6D ë,¡tl l \* MW-3s ,/ t )t. ABANDONEO CONCRETE MNHOLE o + + i: LCW-1 EXISTING PVC GASVENT (TYP)IVW4D (DESTROYED)! I À¡w-4s t+ (DESTROYED)\l ABANDONED CONCRETE MNHOLE /.,// EXISÍING LANDF¡LL ACCESS ROAD i\ ô/MW-5l/I I I t I I I I I I I I SNOW STOCKPILE (EXISTING TOPOGMPHY INFERRED IN IHISAREA AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIIIIATE) i ROCK PILE (IO SE REMOVED) CONCRETE ALOCKS STRUClURES , I \t 1l SMEPER PILE PEN fffi CONCRETE ì'- ,MW.7Dry+,I I I I I I II I I I 0-¿)-(\ \t\rw-7s (DÊslRoYED) APPROXIMATE LæATION OF PROPOSED LOCKABLE ACCESS GAÏE RESIDENTIAL DROP.OFF AREA GARAGE ROAD SALT STOMGE BUILDING SHED -tl¡ r tt¡t ¡ SANBORN HEAD GMPHICAL SCALE ao'40'0 80'1 60' DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: REVIEWED BY: PROJECT MGR: Plc: DATE: J. GRACE J. GRACE T. PETIT T. PETIT B. BEAUDOIN APRIL 2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDFILL SOLAR PROJECT ENCORE REDEVELOPMENT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT PROJECT NU[4BER: 3855.00 PROPOSED PV LAYOUT PLAN (wrrH ExtslNG TOPOGRAPHY) FIGURE NUMBER: 20F2 OESCRIPTIdç; å éâ I EIs 4i ã g g: Exhibit 2 Preliminary Equipment SpecifÎcations 2206122.1 3.PH TRANSFORMERLESS STRING INVËRTERS PVI TATL PVI 2OTL PV'23TL PVI 28TL FEATURES .600or1000VDC . Best-¡n-class effic¡ency . Three-phase transformerless inverters . Quick and easy installation . Dual MPP tracking zones o Wide MPPT range . Lightwe¡ght, compact design . Modbus communications . User-interactive LCD . Wall mount configuration OPT¡ONS. lntegrated DC fused string combiner . DC arc-fault protection . Web-based monitoring $¿zñ Built fo'r the real world RENEWABLES # 3.PH TRANSFORMERLESS STRING INVERTERS Solectria Renewables' PVI 14T1, PVI 20T1, PVI 23T1, and PVI 28TL are compact, transformerless three-phase inverters with a dual MPP tracker. These inverters come standard with AC and DC disconnect, user-interactive LCD and 8-fuse string combiner. Its small and lightweight design make for quíck and easy instatlation and maintenance. These inverters include an enhanced DSP contro[, comprehens¡ve protection functions, and advanced thermaI design enabling highest reliabitity and uptime. They also come with a standard 10 yearwarranty with optíons for 15 and 20 years. $% "ñ SOLECTRIA "(ïÞ,"@ PVt 20Tt"PVt 14Tt PVI 23Tt pvt 28TL DC lnput Absolute Maximum 0pen Circuit Voltage Operating Voltage Range MPPT lnput Voltage Range MPP Trackers Maximum 0perating lnput Current Str¡ke Vottage 180-580 VDC 300-540 vDc 2x254 600 vDc 300 v 260-580 VDC 300-550 vDc 1000 vDc 300-900 vDc 480-800 vDc 2 with 4-fused inputs per tracker 2x354 2x27 A 500-800 vDc 2x32 A 330 V AC Oütput 208 VAC, 3-Ph 14 kW 394 57-63 Hz 20 kw )7a^ 59.3-6Q.5 Hz -72o/ol+70o/o 480 VAC, 3-Ph 23 kW 324 28 kW 394 oNo oô o .v 33 ô o .9 E .= Li = Ë g E .qo o OA 60 Hz 57-6j Hz Unity, )0.99 Nomina[ 0utput Voltage AC Voltage Range (Standard) Continuous 0utput Power (VAC) Continuous Output Current (VAC) Maximum Backfeed Current Nominal 0utput Frequency 0utput Frequency Range Power Factor Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) Efficiency Peak Efficiency CEC Efñciency lare Loss 96.9vo 96.0v. (4W 97.4v. 97.O"/" 98.4v. 98.OVo (2W lntegrãted String Combiner I Fused Positions (4 positions per MPPT)15 A (fuse by-pass avaitabte) Temperature Ambient Temperature Range Storage Temperature Range Relative Humidity (non-condensing) 13"F to +140'F (.25'C to +60'C) Derating occurs over +50oC -13oF to +140oF G25oC to +óooC) Derating occurs over +450C -2 2oF to +1 58oF C3 0"C to +70'C) o-95% Data Monitorlng 0pt¡onal SolrenView Web-based Monitoring 0ptional Revenue Grade Monitoring External Communicat¡on lnterface I ntegrated Exte rn a I RS485 Modbus RTU Testing & Certlficat¡ons Safety Listings & Certifications Testing Agency U L 77 47 I IEEE 7 5 47, IEEE 7 5 47.7, CS A C22.2# 1,07.7, FCC p a rt 1 5 B ETL csA Wãrranty Standa rd 0 ptional 10 year 15, 20 year; extended serv¡ce agreement Enclosufe AC/DC Disconnect Dimensions (HxWxD) Weight Enclosure Rating Enclosure Finish Standard, f ully-integrated 47.6 x27.4 x8.5 in. (7057 x 543 x 276 mm) 141 lbs (ó4 ks) 132 tbs (ó0 kg) Type 4 Polyester powder coated aluminum 39.4 x23.6 x9.7 in. (1000 x 600 x 230 mm) 122 tbs (55 ks) $%SOLECTRIA-4I$-RET{EWABLES www.solectria.com I inverters@solectria.com | 978.683.970O Mono Multi Solulions - TSM.P A14 THE UTILITY SOLUTION 15.7% MAX EFFICIENCY 305W MAX POWER OUTPUT PRODUCT WARRANTY IINEAR POWER WARRANTY Founded in 1992. Irino Solor {NYSE: TSL) hos esloblished ilself os o leoder ¡n the solor communiiy with ils verlicolly inlegroled business model. Our modules ond syslem solulionsprovide cleon solor power ¡n on grid ond off-grid res¡deniiol, commerciol, indusiriol ond utiliiy scole syslems. Wilh more thon 22 offices worlclwide. Trino Solor hos porfnerships w¡lh leoding instollers, distributors. ulililies ond developers in oll mcjor PV morkets. Trino Solor is commilled 1o drjv¡ng smorler energy choices. lrino Solor [imited ww w.lr¡n oso lo r. c om Module con beor snow loods up to 5400Po ond wind loods up to 2400Po Guoronteed power output O-+37" High performonce under low light conditions Cloudy doys, mornings ond even¡ngs Enhonced module durobility with 4.0mm thick tempered gloss Mo nufoctured occording to lnternotionol Quolity <rnd Environment Monogement System Stondords lS0900l, lSOl¿1001 MC4 photovoltoic connectors increose system reliobility tIN EAR PERFORMANCE WARRANTY 10 Yeor Product Worronly . 25 Yeqr Lineor Power Worronly TO YEAR 25 YEAR @ Ø @ ÎÎnasolor t00% 907" B0% ìo ! oo o Yeoß l5Smart Energy Together t0 Ítonl¡rno I TrinaSolar 20 25 TSM-PAl4 Utility Scqle Solor Module nrMtoN 3l DIMENSIONS OT PV MODUIE TSM-PAI4 941mm Et ECTRICA| DAÍA @ SIC lsM-285 TSM-290 TSM-295 TSM-300 PAI4 PAI4 PAI4 PAI4 Peok Powerwotls-Punx {Wp) 285 29O 295 300 Power Oulpul Toleronce-Pu"x (%) 0/+3 0/+3 0/+3 0/+3 Moximum Powervoltoge-VMp (V) 35.ó 3ó.1 36.6 3ó.9 Mox¡mum Power Currenl-lMpp (A) 8.02 8.04 8.07 8.ì3 Open Circuit Volloge-Voc (V) 44.7 44.9 45.2 45.3 Shorl Circu¡l Currentlsc (A) 8.50 8.53 8.55 8.ó0 Module Effìciency n- (%) 14.7 14.9 15.2 15..5 Volues ol Slondord fest Cond¡tìons SIC fAir Moss AMl.5, lrrodionce 1000Wm". Cell Temperolure 25'C). Power meosuremenl loleronce: !3% TSM-305 PAI4 305 ol+3 37.O 8.25 45.4 8.75 15.7 o o !ô3f E EI cI l(-) Er.EcTRrcAt DAIA @ NocT TsM-285 TsM-290 fsM-295PAI4 PAI4 PAI4 Moximum Power-PMAx (wp) 207 211 214 Moximum Power Volfoge-VMp (V) 32.1 32.ô 33.0 Mqx¡mum Power Current-luee {A) 6.46 6.47 6.48 open Circuil Volloge (V)-Voc (V) 40.7 40,9 41.2 Shorl Circuil Currenl (A)-lsc (A) 6.93 ' 6.97 7.00 NOCI:ìrrod¡once olBoowm'?, Ambient lemperoture 20'C, wind Speed lm/s. Power meosuremenl toleronce: 13% TSM-300 PAI4 2t8 33.3 ó.55 4l.3 7.O4 TSM-305 PAI4 221 33.4 6.62 41.4 7.17 B12mm Bock V¡ew E EI MECHANICAI. DATA Solor cells Cell orienlqtion Module dimens¡ons Weight Gloss Frome J-Box Cobles Conneclor Mullicrysloll¡ne l5ó x lsómm (ó inches) 72 cells (6 x 12J 1956 x 992 x 46mm (77 x 39.05 x l.8l inches) 27.óks (ó0.8 lb) High lronsporency solor gloss 4.0mm (0.1ó inches) Anodized olum¡n¡um olloy lP ó/ roted Pholovoltoic Technology coblè 4,0mm'? (0.00ó inches'?) l250mm {49.2 inchesl Originol MC4 @-I t-v cuRvEs or pv MoDUr.E TsM-290 pAr4 6. 3. 200Wm? 0.ú t0.Õ 20.ú 30.m 40.æ so.m TEMPERAIURE RAIINGS Nom¡nol Operoling Cell lemperoture (NOCT) Temperofure Coeffìcienl of Pus Temperolure Coef ficient of Voc Temperoture Coef flcient of lsc I 45"C (!2"C) -0.44%fc -o.33%t.c 0.046%/"c MAXIMUM RAlINGS Operot¡onol Temperof ure Mox¡mum Syslem Volìqge Mox Series Fuse Roting -40-+85"C r000v Dc(rEc)/ ó00v Dc(uL) l5A Voltoge(V) Averoge efficiency reduction of 4.5% ol 200W/m2 occord¡ng to EN ó0904-1. CERIITICATION WARRANTY l0 yeor Product Workmonsh¡p worronly 25 yeor L¡neor Power Worronly lPleose refer lo product worronly for deloìls) Ahú.é\ fe- (("@; is @ ,G)* .#å..rñ¡ v PACKAGING CONFIGURATION Modules per box: 24 pieces Modules per 40' contoiner: 528 pieces 9 ! I: lrlnasolor CAUTION: READ SAFETY AND INSfALLAIION INSfRUCIIONS SEFORE USING IHE PRODUCT. O 201 3 lr¡no Solor timiled. All righls reserved. Specifìcoìions included ¡n lhis dotosheet o¡e subject to chonge without nolice.Smart Energy Together II':r ì.-Iif,.lF¿;, rl-" . 3ï#î¡ qçe,gr1s**-..! -d.;.: '"'i i j :lil i: l'ti;', r::,i-: ,, ;l .jT'/: :ì;'r,- i,'r_;-_.1,_), .':;:.'lf i'.il: t,,,:, i i,i:':;' : i ir'ìl"l l1lrl!J i.ltlIt\ RBI Sslor Bockground Fomily owned ond operoted, we pride ourselves ¡n B0+ yeors of experience in commerciol design-build speciolty slruclures. RBI Solqr's unique design copobilities dnd multiple monufocturing focilities help us develop the mosl economicol, rel¡oble ond robust soluiions for ony structurol solor mounting chollenge. We ore committed lo toking single point responsibility for the entire project storting from the initiol design to complete instollotion of solor modules. Truss Solsr Rocking As o leoder in designing ond eng¡neering of speciohy solor structures, RBI Solor hos instqlled q wide voriely of truss solor rocking pro¡ects lhst con oplimize energy output while mointoining on orchitecturol oesthetic for high end focilities. We offer PV mounting solutions for qreqs such os wolkwoys, detention bosins ond porks. These solutions optinrize energy oulput while mointoining orchitecturol oesthetics. Speciolty Solor Rocking RBI Solor's speciolty rocking provides on economicolly vioble use to sites where troditionol rocking does not work due to one of or o combinolion of the following conditions: . High wind or snow looding ' Required cleoronce from grode . Contominoted soil/zero penelrolion zones ' Weok, compressible soils . Adverse environment conditions RBI SOLAR S]NGLE SOURCE PROV]DER $i,"tVti::e;ffi¡ _-ï]. DESIGN System clossified to UL 2703, with in-house desìgners ond engineers. Our focus :s to deliver the mosf effective ond effic¡ent rocking solution bosed upon the orroy loyout ond site condilions ENGINEERING Our :n-house engineers, licensed ond registereC in oll stotes, provide strucfurol colculotions opplying RBi proprietory wind tunnei onolysis ond focus on delivering oppropriote rocking ond {oundolion design bosed on existing soil conditions. MANUFACTURING M ultiple stote-of-the-ort mo nuf octu rin g f oci lities, olong with o verticolly integroted procurement ond monufocturing prolocol, ensures overoll quolity of product with reduced leod times for moleriol. INSTALLATION Single source responsibility, with in-house projecl monogemenl ond inslollolion crews. This opprooch reduces duplicotion o{ eiforts throughout the enterprise, focused on delivering proiects on time ond within budget. GROUND wIOUNT . ROOF tl[OUNT . SPECIALTY STRUCTURES e LANDFILL Rocking quesÌ¡ons? We ore here lo qnswe¿ Contocl us ot info@rbisolqr.com or cqll {513)242-2051 www. rbisolor. com ilk. TO: Chair of Planning Commission Milton Burlington Essex Town Essex Junction Winooski Westford South Hero South Burlington Charles Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC Department of Housing and Community Affairs FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: November 18, 2015 RE: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Revisions - Supplement # 38 Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 7 P.M. at the Colchester Police Department Community Room at 835 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering amendments of the Colchester Zoning Regulations. 1. Amend Section 2.07E to exempt fishing houses from permits; 2. Amend Section 2.09A(7) to allow accessory structures in front yards without proof of hardship; 3. Amend Section 2.12 to include digital application requirements for variance applications; 4. Amend Section 4.03 Table 1 to allow multi-family dwellings conditionally on the first floor of B Streets; 5. Amend Section 4.03 Table 2 subsection 2C to reduce the minimum height of buildings on A Streets to 2 stories and require that no more than 60% of the total frontage of A Streets be the minimum height; 6. Amend Section 4.03 Table 2 subsection 2C to reduce ground floor ceiling height and add a requirement for ground floor façade height; 7. Amend Section 4.03 Table 3 subsection 3C to increase the maximum height on B Streets; 8. Amend Section 4.03 Table 3 subsection 3C to reduce ground floor ceiling height; 2 2 2 9. Amend Section 4.03 Table 5 subsection 5B to require not more than 50% of B Streets frontage be multifamily in use and that the second story on an A or B Street must have an articulated vertical façade of 50% or greater in order to count for a second story; 10. Amend Section 4.03 Table 5 subsection 5D to clarify drive through locations; 11. Amend Section 4.03 Table 6 to clarify when linear buildings are required; 12. Amend Section 8.03 to clarify triggers for site plan review; 13. Amend Section 8.05D to include digital application requirements for site plan applications; 14. Amend Section 8.05F for digital record copies of site plan approvals; 15. Amend Section 8.05I for digital as-built requirements; 16. Amend Section 8.10 to include digital application requirements for conditional use applications; 17. Amend Section 11.03 to include digital application requirements for zoning, wastewater, and sign permits; 18. Amend Section 11.09 to include digital application requirements for appeals; 19. Amend Section 12.02 to strike “seasonal” from mobile food unit definition; 20. Amend Table A-1 Section 8.400 to strike “seasonal” from mobile food unit; 21. Amend Table A-1 Section 14.0 to clarify that PUDs are allowed in all buildable districts; 22. Amend TableA-2 notes to clarify front yards on private roads or drives; 23. Amend Appendix F to rezone portions of parcel ID#08-021003 from AGR to R2; 24. Amend Appendix G to update digital application requirements. These are a summary of the proposed changes. The existing and proposed regulations can be found at the Town Offices at 781 Blakely Road and may also be reviewed on-line at http://www.colchestervt.gov. MMMEEEMMMOOORRRAAANNNDDDUUUMMM TO: VT Department of Housing and Community Affairs FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: November 18, 2015 RE: Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendment Continuation Sheet Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 7 P.M. at the Colchester Police Department Community Room at 835 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering amendments of the Colchester Zoning Regulations: 1. Amend Section 2.07E to exempt fishing houses from permits; 2. Amend Section 2.09A(7) to allow accessory structures in front yards without proof of hardship; 3. Amend Section 2.12 to include digital application requirements for variance applications; 4. Amend Section 4.03 Table 1 to allow multi-family dwellings conditionally on the first floor of B Streets; 5. Amend Section 4.03 Table 2 subsection 2C to reduce the minimum height of buildings on A Streets to 2 stories and require that no more than 60% of the total frontage of A Streets be the minimum height; 6. Amend Section 4.03 Table 2 subsection 2C to reduce ground floor ceiling height and add a requirement for ground floor façade height; 7. Amend Section 4.03 Table 3 subsection 3C to increase the maximum height on B Streets; 8. Amend Section 4.03 Table 3 subsection 3C to reduce ground floor ceiling height; 9. Amend Section 4.03 Table 5 subsection 5B to require not more than 50% of B Streets frontage be multifamily in use and that the second story on an A or B Street must have an articulated vertical façade of 50% or greater in order to count for a second story; 10. Amend Section 4.03 Table 5 subsection 5D to clarify drive through locations; 11. Amend Section 4.03 Table 6 to clarify when linear buildings are required; 12. Amend Section 8.03 to clarify triggers for site plan review; 13. Amend Section 8.05D to include digital application requirements for site plan applications; 14. Amend Section 8.05F for digital record copies of site plan approvals; 15. Amend Section 8.05I for digital as-built requirements; 16. Amend Section 8.10 to include digital application requirements for conditional 2 2 2 use applications; 17. Amend Section 11.03 to include digital application requirements for zoning, wastewater, and sign permits; 18. Amend Section 11.09 to include digital application requirements for appeals; 19. Amend Section 12.02 to strike “seasonal” from mobile food unit definition; 20. Amend Table A-1 Section 8.400 to strike “seasonal” from mobile food unit; 21. Amend Table A-1 Section 14.0 to clarify that PUDs are allowed in all buildable districts; 22. Amend TableA-2 notes to clarify front yards on private roads or drives; 23. Amend Appendix F to rezone portions of parcel ID#08-021003 from AGR to R2; 24. Amend Appendix G to update digital application requirements. 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: The majority of the proposed changes relate to requirements for digital plan submittal and other minor clarifications of existing regulations. The Utilities and Services Chapter of the 2014 Colchester Town Plan states in the Vision: “The Town should endeavor to create and implement structural, operational, and regional options to optimize the transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and cost of Colchester’s government and public services.” Policy twenty of this chapter states: “The Town should maintain and enhance the overall high quality of services delivered to Colchester residents and businesses and constrain costs to tax payers.” The digitization of Colchester’s plans and applications will increase transparency as these documents are put on the web for public viewing and will serve to optimize the Planning and Zoning Department in the administration of the Zoning Regulations. The proposed changes to Section 4.03 of the Zoning Regulations will impact the Severance Corner Growth Center neighborhood only. In the Land Use Chapter of the 2014 Colchester Town Plan, the first policy for this neighborhood is: “Form based zoning should be implemented in the growth center to create higher densities and additional commercial development.” The proposed changes to Section 4.03 will implement the form based code and are intended to remove barriers to commercial development along the A and B streets. The change to conditionally allow multi-family dwellings on the first flood of B streets as well as the proposed height increase to B street buildings may allow for increased density within this neighborhood area. The majority of housing being built within the Severance Corners neighborhood meets the affordability definition for housing within the Greater Burlington MSA. Parcel 08-021003, also known as 83 Munson Road, is located in the Village neighborhood per the Land Use Chapter of the 2014 Colchester Town Plan. Policy two for this neighborhood states: “Opportunities for residential infill outside the Village core should be examined although care must be taken to preserve connectivity of natural resources, minimize impacts to agriculture, and not to expand the Village north or south into rural areas. The proposed rezoning of the property will be along the Bay Road frontage at the base of a hill and will mirror the R2 single-family lots on the opposite side of Bay Road. The agricultural fields at the top of the slope as well as the tributaries to Crooked Creek and associated 3 3 3 wetlands and floodplains will remain zoned agricultural. Care has been taken to preserve connectivity of natural resources and minimize impacts to agriculture while allowing for infill residential opportunities on smaller lots within an existing affordable neighborhood characterized by raised ranches. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: The proposed supplement will impact the Severance Corners neighborhood and Village neighborhood as enumerated in the Land Use Chapter of the 2014 Colchester Town Plan. The Severance Corners neighborhood is designated as a Growth Center on the Future Land Use Map whereas the Village neighborhood is designated as Village Mixed Use. As discussed above, the changes to the GD3 zoning of the Severance Corners neighborhood will allow for commercial infill as well as greater residential density. The Growth Center designation states: “This area calls for higher density, compact, well integrated, mixed use development and is intended to be the primary area for new development in Colchester.” The proposed changes Section 4.03 GD3 Zoning of the Colchester Zoning regulations is therefore compatible with the proposed future land use and density of the municipal plan. The rezoning of a portion of parcel 08-021003 at 83 Munson Road from AGR to 2 will serve mirror existing development on the north side of Bay Road. The Village Mixed Use description in the Land Use Chapter states: “Although Planned developemtn (PUD, PRD), multi-family and higher residential densities are to be encourages, lower densities such as R-1 and especially R-2 are also compatible in village missed use areas.” Given the proximity of the land to agricultural fields and the headwaters of Crooked Creek, the lower density of R-2 is appropriate and will allow infill that complements existing development. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations not affect planned community facilities as listed in the Capital Budget or as depicted on the Official Map. Town of Shelburne, Vermont CHARTERED 1763 P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482 Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number (802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550 INVITATION TO COMMENT ON ZONING AMENDMENTS TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING RE: SUBDIVISION BYLAW AMENDMENT DA: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 On Thursday, December 10, 2015, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment of Shelburne’s Subdivision Bylaw. The extent of the proposed changes is detailed in the attached memorandum. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. and take place in the Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. It is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments should be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. MEMORANDUM TO: RECIPENTS FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSAL TO MODIFY DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN SUBDIVISION BYLAWS DA: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 At its November 12 meeting, and at prior meetings, the Planning Commission discussed possible bylaw modifications that would modify five definitions contained in Article II (Definitions) of the bylaw: “Subdivision,” “Minor Subdivision,” “Major Subdivision,” “Redevelopment,” and “Resubdivision.” At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning Commission voted to warn a formal Public Hearing on the proposed changes and to conduct that hearing on Thursday, December 10, 2015. Staff was also directed to distribute the text of the proposed changes along with the bylaw change report as required by statute. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Under the proposal, the definition of “Subdivision” would be changed to make clear that subdivisions do not include condominium conversions that solely change the form of ownership of a parcel of land or a structure without new land development. The definition of “Minor Subdivision” and “Major Subdivision” would be changed to establish that certain subdivisions that receive approval under proposed Form Based Zoning Overlay District would be classified as Minor Subdivisions. The definition of “Redevelopment” would be modified to reflect recent changes in state statute governing stormwater management. And the definition of “Resubdivision” would be revised to complete a sentence with an omitted word. The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is attached. Language to be added to the bylaw is shown with underscore. Language to be removed is shown with strike through. BYLAW CHANGE REPORT A report prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) is also attached. This report describes how the proposal “Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan…” and “Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.” Proposed Amendments, Article II of Shelburne Subdivision bylaw (Definitions) Revised 11-12-15 and approved for hearing to be held 12-10-15 SUBDIVISION – Any land, vacant or improved, which is divided or proposed to be divided into two (2) or more lots, parcels, sites, or plots, or units for the purpose of offer, sale, lease, or development. The term includes amended subdivisions and resubdivisions. The term shall also include the development of a parcel of land as a shopping center complex, new multi-family housing project, elderly housing project, planned residential development, planned unit development, and industrial park development. The term does not include condominium conversions that solely change the form of ownership of a parcel of land or a structure without new land development. MINOR SUBDIVISION - Any land which is divided or proposed to be divided into nine (9) or fewer lots where such subdivision is reviewed and approved under Article XVII.A of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaw. Also, any land which is divided or proposed to be divided into residential subdivision containing less than four three (43) or fewer lots where such subdivision is not a planned unit development.or units. MAJOR SUBDIVISION - Any land which is divided or proposed to be divided into ten (10) or more lots, even where application has been reviewed and approved under Article XVII.A of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaw. Also any land which is divided or proposed to be divided into residential subdivision containing four (4) or more lots where such subdivision is not reviewed and approved under Article XVII.A of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaw. or units, orAlso any development requiring any new public street ,or extension of Town facilities such as water or wastewater lines. Also, any shopping complex, multi-family housing project, housing for the elderly project, or planned residential development and planned unit development. … REDEVELOPMENT – In the context of stormwater, any construction, alteration, or improvement exceeding [105,000] SF on previously developed land. RESUBDIVISION – Any change in a recorded plat, if such change affects any street layout on such plat, or area reserved thereon for public use, or any lot line, or if the change affects any map or plan legally recorded prior to the adoption of any subdivision regulation by the Town of Shelburne. … Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments Approved November 12, 2015, by Planning Commission in anticipation of Public Hearing to be held December 10, 2015 This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide(:) (A) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under §4444 of this title, (A)nd shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment. The Planning Commission proposal would modify five definitions contained in Article II (Definitions) of the bylaw: “Subdivision,” “Minor Subdivision,” “Major Subdivision,” “Redevelopment,” and “Resubdivision.” Purpose The Planning Commission has developed this proposal to make the document more consistent with the proposal to establish a form based zoning overlay district, to perform bylaw “housekeeping,” and to further to implement certain Comprehensive Plan policies relating to updating of the subdivision bylaws. Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. The definition of “Subdivision” would be changed to make clear that subdivisions do not include condominium conversions that solely change the form of ownership of a parcel of land or a structure without new land development. The definition of “Minor Subdivision” and “Major Subdivision” would be changed to establish that certain subdivisions that receive approval under proposed Form Based Zoning Overlay District would be classified as Minor Subdivisons. The definition of “Redevelopment” would be modified to reflect recent changes in state statute governing stormwater management. And the definition of “Resubdivision” would be revised to complete a sentence with an omitted word. Findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. To be “in conformance with” the Plan, the bylaw must: make progress toward attaining, or at least not interfere with, the goals and policies contained in the Plan; provide for proposed future land uses, densities, and intensities of development contained in the Plan; and carry out any specific proposals for community facilities, or other proposed actions contained in the Plan. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: GOAL: TO CREATE AN AREA SURROUNDING THE VILLAGE THAT CONTAINS PLEASANT, MODEST DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF SUB-REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES.  The Mixed Use Area: Along Shelburne Road north of Shelburne Village is a corridor which will contain a mixture of residential and commercial uses. This Mixed Use corridor may be broken up into clusters, separated by intervening areas of open land or public amenities. This area was the focus of Sustainable Development Assessment Team (SDAT) report prepared by a group sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, as well as of a Pilot Project completed by William Dennis of B. Dennis Town & Building Design. In the Mixed Use area, these qualities may be enhanced through the development of a Form Based Code. [The Planning Commission finds that the proposal would further this goal by making the Subdivision regulations more consistent with the proposal to establish a form based zoning overlay district. One purpose of the form based zoning proposal is more expedient review of what might be considered desirable development projects. The proposed changes to the definitions of Major and Minor Subdivision would reduce instances of duplicative and redundant regulatory reviews.] OBJECTIVE: In the Commercial/Industrial Area, promote policies that will encourage developers to build using form-based solutions that enhance the community. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Building on the recommendations contained in the SDAT and Pilot Project reports, actively explore the development of a Form Based Code for the Shelburne Road corridor, starting with the completion of a multi-day design charrette involving property owners, residents, and a range of design professionals. [Similarly, the Planning Commission finds the proposal would further the objective and recommended action above by making the Subdivision regulations more consistent with the form based zoning proposal. As noted above, one purpose of the form based zoning proposal is more expedient review of desirable development projects. The proposed changes to the definitions of Major and Minor Subdivision would reduce instances of duplicative and redundant regulatory reviews of such projects.] RECOMMENDED ACTION: Regularly review Shelburne’s Zoning and Subdivision regulations, Illicit discharge ordinance, and Public Works specifications to address stormwater priorities and objectives, including projects identified as part of Regional Stormwater Education Program (RSEP) activities, potential regulation of redevelopment proposals in stormwater “trouble spots”, and incorporation of open drainage system protocols into local public works practices. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to require that all development that disturbs one half acre or more of land provide and implement a storm water management plan that addresses run-off both during and after construction. These plans shall be consistent with the State’s current Stormwater Management Manual and other applicable laws. [The Planning Commission finds that the proposal would help further these recommended actions by making the Subdivision regulations more consistent with state regulations regarding stormwater management and specifically the jurisdiction over sites undergoing redevelopment. Areas of Shelburne lie within watersheds designated as impaired owing to stormwater pollution. The entire Town is located within the Lake Champlain basin and is facing significantly increased responsibility for stormwater pollution.] Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan The proposed amendments do not modify the allowable land uses or basic land development densities allowed under the existing zoning regulations. Thus, the Planning Commission finds that the subdivision amendment proposal that is the subject of this report would be compatible with the Town Plan due to the fact that the proposal would not change allowed land uses and densities. Findings regarding how the proposal carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment does not directly carry out specific proposals for any planned community facilities. In addition, the proposed amendment does not conflict with any specific proposals for planned community facilities. Complete list of affected sections Article II (Definitions) Definition of “Major Subdivision,” Definition of “Minor Subdivision,” Definition of “Subdivision” Definition of “Redevelopment,” Definition of “Resubdivision.” CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dean Pierce, hereby certify that this memorandum and enclosure were sent to the following people, via email, on November 16, 2015: Department of Housing and Community Affairs via Annina Seyler National Life Building, 6th Floor Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 South Burlington Planning Commission via Paul Conner, City Planner South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Williston Planning Commission via Ken Beliveau, Town Planner Williston, Vermont 05495 St. George Planning Commission via Planning Commission Chair Scott Baker St. George, VT 05495 Hinesburg Planning Commission via Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner Hinesburg, VT 05461 Charlotte Planning Commission via Jeannine McCrumb, Town Planner Charlotte, Vermont 05445 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, via Charles Baker, Executive Director / Regina Mahoney, Senior Planner Winooski, Vermont 05404 \ x \ ______________________ Date: __November 16, 2015______________ Dean Pierce SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 OCTOBER 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, P. Nowak, M. Emery, T. Barritt, M. Lalonde, E. Fitzgerald, S. Dopp, B. & F. Burkhardt, M. Ostby, N. Andrews 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 reports: Mr. Conner noted that the City Council approved the hiring of a full time development review person for Planning & Zoning. This will help staff properly communicate with developers, etc., and will free up some staff time. 4. Continued Public Hearing on Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan (Schools Section): Ms. Louisos stressed that the School Board makes decision regarding the schools, but it is the City Council which approves the Comprehensive Plan, which includes an Education section as required by the State. Mr. Lalonde then referred to his written comments which had been forwarded to the Planning Commission. He felt the draft of the Education section was generally fine, but there were a few issues of concern to the School Board. These include the places where the language gets into funding for schools. The issue is far more complicated than the 91 cents of every dollar of education property tax collected in the city going back to the school district. He suggested not referring to funding at all. Mr. Lalonde said the School Board also wants to remain flexible with regard to school property. He specifically noted that there is a road on the infrastructure map that cuts through the Central School property. The Board wants to keep that open in case the public doesn’t want that to happen. They also don’t want to tie up how that property can be used. Ms. Burkhardt said she felt the Education section was written more from the city point of view and suggested that City Center and “neighborhood schools” descriptions are in conflict. She also felt it 2 appeared that consolidation of schools was “in.” She also cited an apparent conflict between an increased overall population and a decrease in school population. She felt the land sizes of the schools might not be accurate. She then reviewed a list of specific language changes she would like to see made and gave a written copy of this to the Commission. Ms. Nowak advised that three members of the City Council were present. They were not seated together, nor did they intend to conduct any City Council business. Ms. Ostby noted that it appeared that references to “neighborhood schools” appeared to be removed. She felt that discussion needs to happen in the community and that removing it is premature. Mr. Barrett felt the language should read that the community needs to have discussions regarding schools due to changes in demographics, nothing more. Mr. Burkhardt felt that references to repurposing of school could be deleted as it might limit what could be done with the properties. Ms. Ostby felt the document was premature and that the city should have “patience” and allow things to happen. Ms. Louisos explained the time constraints and stressed that a new Comprehensive Plan needs to be in place by March. The Commission will wrap up its work (which has been ongoing for almost 5 years) and pass the document on to the City Council. The Council will then hold its own review and public hearings. She noted that the Chamberlin-Airport neighborhood section has also not been fully updated due to the ongoing work of the committee studying that area. She stressed that the city is constantly evolving. Ms. Quest asked when the School Board felt it would have things mapped out. Mr. Lalonde said they are considering working with partners and don’t know the timing. The very earliest there could be a public vote would be March, which would be too late for the Comprehensive Plan. He felt the proposed Plan does not bind the schools. Ms. Fitzgerald suggested possibly striking the 1998 information. Mr. Klugo said they felt that was a way to maintain the context of why the current facilities are not adequate (as with staffing and lower enrolments, etc.). He noted that the square footage references relate to the square footage assigned per pupil by the State Education Department. Mr. Burkhardt asked if that will continue to happen. Ms. Fitzgerald said it will. “Program square footage” is used in order, for example, to be ADA compliant. Mr. Barritt suggested adding affordable taxes to the ability of people to move to the city (Page 2-41). As there was no further public comment, Ms. Quest moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Review feedback provided on Draft Comprehensive Plan: discuss amendments: 3 a. Technical corrections completed by staff: Ms. LaRose noted that most of these were discussed last time. Members felt these looked fine. b. Staff Recommended Changes based on prior Commission discussions: Mr. Conner recommended removing the strategy that the city continue to support acquisition of homes (Airport area), as the Commission has previously decided not to address Airport issues pending the current work. Mr. Conner also noted that the project relating to changes at the Dorset Street/Market Street intersection was removed as there are no plans for this. Mr. Conner noted there was a recommendation from 2008 for a Kimball Avenue/Williston Road connection. This has been put in as a recommendation. He showed the map with this new road added. Mr. Klugo suggested just leaving a number in a circle, rather than showing an actual road location. Mr. Conner agreed. Mr. Conner also noted they had updated language to go along with what was done with the Draft Official City Map. With regard to comments made by the Regional Planning Commission that the section relating to “compatibility” with neighboring communities’ plans was “a little thin,” Mr. Conner said the Plan now shows how South Burlington lines up with other adjacent communities’ plans. He added there are a few differences in approach (notably in Shelburne), but similar goals. He also noted that the Regional Plan lines up very closely with what South Burlington has done. Mr. Conner then showed an area where the new Pizzagalli building is located and noted there should be a very thin red band there to indicate that level of development along Shelburne Road. The small orange/red dot in South Village has been removed, and there have been some minor changes in green areas. Members asked that staff try to show the stream buffer near the Village at Dorset Park. Mr. Riehle asked about the indicated rec path on Hinesburg Road and questioned its appropriateness on a 50 mph road. Mr. Conner said this would be defined as a path completely separated from the road. 4 Ms. Quest noted a rec path that should go all the way to the top of a road. She said it should be shown on the map as this is a very dangerous area. Mr. Conner agreed. Mr. Klugo cited the need to connect bike/rec path segments. Mr. Conner said there are questions as to which side of the road paths should be on. Mr. Barritt specifically noted the area near the proposed Grove Street housing development. Mr. Conner noted that the missing sidewalk will be connected as part of that development. Commissioners expressed that they were comfortable with the changes as discussed. c. Community Feedback: Ms. Quest noted that people who live in the area don’t want the Spear Street Extension. Mr. Riehle said it is an issue of east-west roads, but he felt it would become a cut-through. Mr. Klugo stressed that this is a plan for the community as a whole, not just one neighborhood. It’s a question of people having to drive in circles to get places. He would leave it on the map. Ms. Quest said Jeff Nick has said he would make the road as curvy as possible, so it’s not a straight shot. Ms. Louisos added that this road has been shown on plans for many years and that no changes to something like this should happen without review of the transportation impacts. Mr. Conner added that there was a comment that roadway design can be ecologically sensitive as well. Ms. LaRose noted that the Natural Resources Committee had suggested that as well. Members were OK with adding a statement to that effect. Ms. Quest then referred to some changes requested by the Energy Committee. She suggested taking out “where appropriate” in the visions and goals. Members agreed to leave it. Ms. Quest also asked to add a paragraph regarding making people more aware of energy. Members agreed to put in a shortened statement to that effect. Members also agreed to put in a reference to request 4a, but not 4b (from the Energy Committee’s requests). Mr. Klugo suggested making only the changes that fundamentally change what is being sent to the City Council. The others can be saved for a later update. Mr. Gagnon felt that one important thing missing was on page 2-47, regarding view shed management that was in the Open Space Committee report. Mr. Conner noted the city has 3 view protection corridors. The current plan has ~15 asterisks called “vistas.” The Open Space Committee created a method for how the city could determine critical views. There is a map of potential important views, if there were not things built in front of them. Ms. Louisos said it wouldn’t be bad to add this to the section on “quality of life.” Mr. Gagnon cited a good overview of view sheds on p. 2-103 and suggested adding a map so people can tie them together. Mr. Conner said there could be a strategy to update the map, as appropriate. Commissioners agreed. It was noted the Mr. Shaw had asked for some clarification of the 300 foot buffer zone. Mr. Conner showed the map from the Arrowwood study and explained where the 300 feet comes from. 5 Members then discussed how to respond to people who had provided input and suggested changes/additions to the Plan. They acknowledged that it was not possible to respond Individually to each person and suggested a general thank you on various media (The Other Paper, Front Porch Forum, the City’s website, etc.). Ms. Louisos said she would draft an appropriate statement to that effect. Mr. Andrews commented that staff has been super responsive to comments people have made. Mr. Klugo suggested the need for a glossary for terms that are close in meaning. He felt this could be done after the document goes to the City Council. Mr. Klugo expressed concern with the use of the word “monitor” in the strategy on p. 2-17. Mr. Conner noted the state has building codes for things other than single family homes and duplexes. This strategy applies to those two types of residences. Mr. Klugo felt the word could result in “unintended consequences” and suggested the word “study” instead. Members agreed to make that change. Mr. Klugo questioned the use of the word “safety” with regard to the Swift St. Extension. Mr. Conner cited Fire Department input regarding placement of hoses which would block the only intersection and not allow the passage of even emergency vehicles. Mr. Conner suggested adding “to enhance emergency vehicle responsiveness” to clarify the safety concern. Members agreed with this change. Ms. Louisos suggested adding a sentence to p. 2-84. She will send the language to Ms. LaRose. Members agreed. Regarding comments made by the School Board, members agreed to take out the references to school funding. With regard to comments about the road through the Central School property, Mr. Conner noted it is in the draft Form Based Code, and thus should to be in the Comprehensive Plan if the Commissioners wish to keep it in the Draft Code. Members agreed that the roadway was an important piece of the Code. Members agreed to all of the School Board comments except those regarding the road. Ms. Louisos questioned language in strategy 119. Mr. Conner said it should state that if development is to occur on the west side of the Vermont Railway, it should make use of public crossings (p. 3-28). Members agreed to this change. Mr. Macdonald questioned strategy 122 and noted that other than Red Rocks, all the other lakefront is privately owned. Mr. Conner noted the Red Rocks Management Plan talks about a possible boat mooring out there. Members also noted there is also the Farrell property to consider. No changes were made. Members felt they wanted to read through the comments from people related to education before making any changes, possibly via a future update to the Plan. Ms. Quest asked about “neighborhood 6 schools.” Mr. Klugo noted that only 1/3 of the children at Orchard School live in that neighborhood; Chamberlin has students bussed from as far as Cheese Factory Road, etc. Mr. Gagnon suggested “accessible schools” instead of “neighborhood schools.” 6. Other Business: a. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed to a very short meeting (which can be attended via telephone) on 3 November at 6:00 p.m. Subsequent meetings will be on 10 November (regular meeting) and 12 November (with the City Council). As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting for public input on the Comprehensive Plan on Saturday, 3 October 2015, at 9 a.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; S. Quest, T. Harrington, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; B. Paquette, other members of the public 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. Public Input Session: Draft Comprehensive Plan a. Brief Overview to Public of Draft Comprehensive Plan b. Receive Public Input on Draft Comprehensive Plan Ms. Louisos explained that the Comprehensive Plan is an overall vision of what the city wants to evolve to in the coming years. She noted that the city has an existing plan which legally has to be re-adopted every 5 years. What is being presented today is a full rewrite of a plan that has been in existence for a number of years. The Planning Commission received input from many groups, studies, public comments, etc. After 3 public input sessions, the Commission will go through the comments received from the public and possibly make changes. There will then be a formal public hearing. After the public hearing, the Commission can vote on whether to approve the plan and forward it to the City Council. The Council will then hold at least 2 public hearings. If any changes result from those hearings, additional hearings will be held. The deadline for approval of the Plan is early March. Ms. Louisos further explained that the Plan is used to guide city policies (Land Development Regulations), for grant applications, in Act 250 reviews, and by the Regional Planning Commission for County-wide planning. Ms. LaRose then provided an overview of the structure of the Plan, including the Vision and Goals, a Community Assessment (including population, employment, parks, community facilities, recreation, future needs/trends, objectives and strategies to meet the objectives, achievements/ongoing actions, social infrastructure, public utilities, water, transportation, ecological resources, etc.), and current and future land use, all of which relate to what South Burlington wants to be as a city. 2 Ms. Louisos then explained that the Goals of the Plan are divided into 4 sections, with the heading: Here and into the future South Burlington is: 1. Affordable and Community Rich 2. Walkable 3. Green & Clean 4. Opportunity Oriented Mr. Paquette felt that there should be more of a “clean aspect,” including litter prevention. Members of the audience agreed with prior concerns with the word “rich” in the first goal. Ms. LaRose then directed attention to the Future Land Use Map. She noted that this is a requirement of the State. Each color on the Map defines a type of development, from very low intensity (green) to low intensity (yellow), to medium-higher density (blue), to high density (red). She also noted an area that remains white. This is where planning is now underway involving the creation of a vision for Airport/Chamberlin neighborhood. Ms. LaRose then identified two areas that are different from what exists today: the “Hill Farm” area which is now entirely designated as commercial but which is being shown as more of a transition area with a mix of uses, with residential closer to the Village at Dorset Park. A resident then noted the small “red dot” in the area of South Village. She felt that to put commercial uses there would be “disruptive to the concept of South Village.” She felt there were so many empty locations in strip malls, that commercial use isn’t needed there. Mr. Gagnon said that with a goal of “walkability” the thought is to have a small store where people can walk to get a newspaper or ice cream cone or loaf of bread without having to get in their cars. Ms. Harrington noted that the current zoning does not allow for such a store. A resident asked about schools and felt the schools should stay the way they are. She felt one elementary school for the whole city would go against “walkability.” Ms. Louisos noted that things related to the schools are not dealt with by the Planning Commission. Ms. LaRose added that the Education Section of the Comprehensive Plan is currently being worked on by two Commission members who served on the City/Schools Task Force. What is in the existing plan is not up to date. A resident asked about extending Swift Street through the Village at Dorset Park. Ms. LaRose explained how streets get connected. She also noted that this particular connection has been on the Official City Map for 40 years. She also noted that if the adjoining property were to come in for development, residents of the Village at Dorset Park would be notified. Ms. Quest said as many people want the connection as don’t want it. She added that it doesn’t have to be a straight connection which would encourage speeding; it could be a pleasant windy road like Songbird. 3 Ms. LaRose explained that sometimes there are “competing goods,” and it’s hard to weigh one against the other. She stressed that city policy has typically been for road connections. Mr. Paquette felt it would be good to name some of the major streets on the Future Land Use Map. A resident asked about potential widening of Airport Parkway. Ms. LaRose said that would involve Airport property, and would require a lot of planning. It would be a long way off. Mr. Paquette felt that would reduce traffic on the side streets but would increase traffic on Kirby Road. A resident commented that more people are driving on White Street now because of the narrowing of Williston Road. Mr. Gagnon said that is another “competing good.” A resident asked about the potential for more mixed use around the Cider Mill. They would like less commercial there. Members discussed potentially changing the color on the future land use map to orange from the red. A resident asked if the Airport has any rights to the cemetery nearby. Ms. Harrington said it is on the “community facilities map,” which means it is owned by the city. Mr. Paquette asked what happens if someone wants to develop to match current zoning but not the new plan. Ms. LaRose said that is a tough situation. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission is working through the Land Development Regulations at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan. By and large, they match now. Ms. LaRose added that there is a statement that development should match the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Commission members noted they have a long list of things to do and they have to decide in what order to do them. As there were no more comments from the public and no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. ____________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 NOVEMBER 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 November 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. McKenzie, K. Braverman, S. Dopp, P. Engels, M. Simoneau, M. Lalonde, T. Chittenden, C. Snyder 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 reports: Mr. Conner reported that last night the Airport consultant presented the new noise exposure maps. Noise contours have changed, largely because F-16s are now using afterburners. The public comment period will run until 10 December 2015. 4. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Official Map: Mr. Gagnon moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner then reviewed the history of the LDRs and the process for this recent revision. He also noted that the Board has the option of closing or continuing the public hearing. After the hearing, the Board can make and changes it chooses and then can vote to pass the document on to the City Council. The City Council will review the document, then warn its own public hearing. Once they have warned their public hearing, those regulations are in effect. If the Council chooses to make changes, they have to seek input from the Planning Commission Mr. McKenzie noted one area that causes him concern: there is a change in the way density is allocated. In the past, density was limited. Form based code actually requires density (e.g., required number of stories in T4 and T5, etc.). Mr. McKenzie said that can create a level of development that is unachievable for property owners. Mr. McKenzie indicated a street between their property and the entrance to the former Chinese restaurant. With all the variables and the parking rate they would be comfortable with, there isn’t enough parking (90 spaces are permitted, which would leave them 89 short). And that’s without green space, stormwater management, etc. Another issue Mr. McKenzie noted concerns the “big block.” He showed the plan for the property owned by South Burlington Realty and said this is not achievable without a parking structure. Mr. McKenzie was also concerned that the requirement for 70% building frontage could encourage a “larger footprint in a smaller building.” A developer may have to make a building 3 stories instead of 4 or 5 to get the same square footage. He suggested limiting “primary streets” to Market Street and Garden Street. He also said that one way to achieve the 70% is to give credit for plazas, private drives, etc. Mr. McKenzie said that ultimately the “story of City Center is how we park cars.” The landscape architect working with South Burlington Realty commented that they have been focused on pedestrian connectivity between the buildings. It is a challenge, especially in the T5 zone not to think that the “leftover spaces” are what you used to use for green spaces. She said it is not ideal to have a bench in the middle of a parking area. One solution for this is to keep the 70% building coverage on primary streets but to allow connectivity credit and also credit that will accommodate parking spaces, something that could allow for double loaded parking spaces. Mr. McKenzie showed the area where the water table is too might to put parking under the building. Mr. Klugo noted this can be done, but at what cost. Mr. Brverman said he represents a group interested in a project in City Center. In reviewing the code they asked whether the Commission has given consideration to a “master planning provision” for multiple buildings on multiple lots. He felt you can get something much more creative while still maintaining the intent. Now, with one building on one lot, the regulations are very proscriptive. He asked whether 65% coverage could be considered for multiple buildings on multiple lots. Mr. Gagnon said he felt master planning is a good idea in general. He questioned whether there is a minimum number of buildings that would support master planning. Mr. Braverman said that in order to support a parking structure, you need multiple buildings. Mr. Conner then reviewed changes made to the LDRs since the document was released: a. Legal review clarifications, mostly on open space standards. Language has been added to provide more clarity (“atrium” has been added to T4 and T5; community gardens have been added to T4; open air farmer’s markets have been removed as they are addressed in another type of location; instead of “artistic sculpture,” they have used “commissioned sculpture”; there is also a clarification that seating can’t be made of resin and that all materials must be of high quality. b. Mr. Conner also noted that staff met with the owner near Quarry Hill Road (T4 zone), which highlighted landscape buffering language that states “where a T4 district abuts a non-transect district…” Staff is recommending that the language be more precise to state which types of zoning districts would warrant a buffer. He suggested R4 and R7. c. The city’s legal counsel noted that Wheeler Park had been shown as all park land on the Official Map. It should be adjusted to indicate the development area in the southwest corner resulting from the J.M. Golf settlement. Mr. Conner then showed images of what T3, T4 and T5 could look like. The city’s legal counsel suggests putting this in a separate folder of photos where it can be changed from time to time without amending the LDRs. Also, the photos are suggestive of what something could look like; they are not a mandate. Mr. Snyder noted there will have to be “tweaks” to the document and asked that the Commission consider a path to resolve those tweaks. As there was no further public comment, Mr. Gagnon moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Review feedback provided on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Official Map; discuss possible edits. Mr. Conner noted receipt of very positive feedback regarding several properties in City Center that could be combined. Staff would be very supportive of the Planning Commission prioritizing the development of a master planning tool that encourages creativity and flexibility. Mr. Conner acknowledged that the LDRs are mostly geared to one building on one site. He said it is hard to write in “flexibility” for more creative lot development. He felt they could come up with a tool for this in a few months. Mr. Gagnon suggested adding language to the LDRs to acknowledge this potential and get it into the document rather than going back and revisiting it. Mr. Klugo asked if there isn’t already a process for petitioning for options. Mr. Conner said options are very limited. Mr. Klugo felt this was potentially a very “stale environment.” Mr. Conner said the legal test now is whether an applicant can reasonably foresee whether an application they come in with will be approved or not. The City must keep this in mind as it develops any flexible standards. He also noted many people are interested in having the regulations in place. He suggested approving the document and having a #1 priority to address master planning so that 3 or 4 months from now it (and other potential changes) can be added to the code. Ms. LaRose said there were a few things raised tonight that the Commission could make a decision on (e.g., street frontage) should it choose to. Mr. Klugo said if there isn’t a different time period for a parallel path, the city will end up with something it doesn’t want. He added that he would have a hard time voting the document through without that. Ms. Louisos said she would have a hard time not moving it forward. Mr. Conner stressed that staff is prepared to make this a top priority, and there is funding to do that. Mr. Gagnon said he has 2 concerns: first, when the City Council warns it, it becomes the regulation, so that what the city will get in the short term could be a “black and white” development without flexibility. Secondly, the public might see a “bait and switch” if the Commission comes back with a “more flexible” option. Mr. Macdonald agreed. Mr. Gagnon suggested adding language that there is a “master planning tool” being worked on. Mr. Conner said that following a tool that doesn’t yet exist would be a problem. He also noted that if they delay enacting the new regulations, the existing regulations stay in effect. Mr. Klugo said he was willing to trust that the process takes place and will reluctant vote the document through. He felt it is better than what exists now. Mr. Conner said the Commission could make a statement of what it plans to do in the next few months. Mr. Gagnon said he would be comfortable with a statement of intent. Mr. Conner did note that if the City Council asks the Commission for more work on the Comprehensive Plan, that will have to take priority. Ms. LaRose said there could be a reserved subsection in the text that alerts people that something more may be coming (she noted other places where this occurs). Mr. Snyder noted that timing is important for the city as the clock for TIF funding is ticking. He asked if there is a way to make this happen quickly. Mr. Conner said they need to be sure the Commission is actually spending time working on this, not on whether or not to do it and to focus as quickly as possible on what “flexibility” means. Then language can be built around that. Mr. Gagnon asked what the process is if someone comes in and requests a change. Mr. Conner said the Commission decides how to handle it, then initiates the hearing process for a change. It is about a 3-month process at a minimum. Ms. Quest said she would like to change the definition of “park” to add “community agriculture” or “urban agriculture.” Members were OK with that. Mr. Klugo suggested a more “global” statement regarding seating, to achieve the most quality space possible. He noted there is some spectacular resin that would be great in a public space. Mr. Conner said staff is open to ideas as this is not their area of expertise. He agreed to take out the statement on resin. Mr. Klugo asked what tool the DRB has to be sure a road is put back to its previous standard after a developer does utility work. Mr. Conner said he would follow up with Public Works on that. Mr. Conner then distributed language for “tweaks” recommended by the City Attorney, one of these at the end of the goal-purpose statement and one for the purpose statement on open space. He also suggested language regarding the T4 area that abuts a residential area as follows: “Where a T4 district abuts an R4 or R7 district, the following standards shall apply…” Members were OK with these changes. Finally, on p. 152 “reserve” language was added as follows: “City Center Form Based Code Master Plan Approval reserved.” Mr. Klugo then moved to approve the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations with the amendments presented tonight and the Official Map and accompanying reports. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Other Business: Ms. Louisos reminded members of the joint meeting with the City Council on Thursday, 12 November, 7 p.m. 9. Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 November 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo (by telephone) ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; members of the public 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: Members of the public asked to speak to the education section as they felt the community hadn’t had the opportunity to discuss this section. Ms. Louisos noted that everything related to the Plan would fall under item 3 on the agenda. 3. Comprehensive Plan: Discuss possible edits and report: Ms. Louisos noted that the public hearing had been closed, and this meeting was intended to be a discussion among Commission members on the proposed draft. Mr. Gagnon added that the City Council will have several hearings with the opportunity for public comment. He asked for staff guidance regarding procedure. Mr. Conner noted that the public has the opportunity to provide input on all agenda items, and also noted that people who may have had other opinions may have chosen not to attend this meeting because they understood that the public hearing had been closed. Ultimately, the decision of how to proceed is up to the Planning Commission. Ms. Louisos asked the commissioners how they wished to proceed with new comments. Mr. Gagnon was OK with hearing public comment that represented something new that had not already been commented on. A member of the public expressed concern that there had been no response to their written comments. Ms. Louisos said the Commission can’t respond to every one of the hundreds of 2 people who provided comment. There will be an open letter in The Other Paper and on Front Porch Forum thanking people for their comments. Ms. Louisos said the Commission has to look at issues in a bigger context and has taken into accounts reports received from consultants, committees, etc. She noted that specifically the Swift Street Extension affects more than just those who live in the area. It is also on the list of things for the Commission to look at in more depth. She added that the road has been on the Official City Map for many years. Mr. Klugo asked how the City Council process affects what the Planning Commission does. Mr. Conner said that once the document is passed on to the City Council, it becomes their document. If they make any changes, they are required to have the Planning Commission review those changes for consistency with state law. Members agreed that there were issues they were not all completely satisfied with and that there will be “action items” to work on based on public comment. Mr. Klugo said he would not advocate for any changes to be made at this meeting. Mr. Klugo signed off at this point; he expressed support for the public to share input but was travelling and could not stay on the phone. Members then reviewed language regarding east-west streets. Ms. LaRose said that the Planning Commission provided direction at the last meeting to include language regarding consideration of ecological sensitivity as part of road connections. She read the proposed new language from the top of p. 2-60. She also read objective #18 which goes along with that language. A member of the public noted that “neighborhood schools” have been in the plan for many years, but the Commission pulled out that language at “the eleventh hour.” He said the public wants to discuss this. Another member of the public expressed concern that the proposed road cuts through Wheeler Park. Mr. Conner said the road does not cut through the Wheeler Natural Park area. Members of the public were concerned that the justification for that road comes from outdated studies (2001 and 2007). Mr. Conner explained that any road/transportation project that may affect a wetland, stream buffer, etc., has up to date local, state and federal evaluations as applicable. In addition, if it is a public sector project, there are steps that the municipality has to go through. 3 A member of the public asked what the rush is to get the Plan through. Ms. Harrington noted that the existing plan will expire in March. Mr. Conner explained the governing laws regarding having a current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Louisos said that with regard to the road, the Commission does not feel it is prudent to take it out of the plan without more significant consideration from a broad audience. A member of the public asked why there can’t be language that the education section hasn’t been completely vetted and the Planning Commission could work on it in the next few months. Members of the public spoke to the issue of removing the word “accessible” for school and reinserting “neighborhood.” People also noted that the language regarding the selling of Central School says this issue “was” the subject of public discussion. They felt there had been no public discussion on the possibility selling of the school. A member of the public spoke to the value of “small schools” for student achievement. She asked that the word “neighborhood” be left in. Ms. Harrington then moved that the sentence indicating the selling of Central School was the subject of public discussion be changed to read “will be” and end that sentence at the word “discourse” (p. 151, 3-9). Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Quest then moved to replace the word “accessible” with “neighborhood” on page 2-43. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Ms. Harrington suggested a friendly amendment to instead add the word “neighborhood” in the first line of the first paragraph under Primary and Secondary Schools on page 2-43, adding a semicolon after “life” and replacing “accessible schools” with “they” so as to not repeat the word ‘neighborhood’ twice in one sentence. Mr. Macdonald said that Mr. Klugo’s concern is that a large portion of the students in those schools are bussed in, so they are not strictly speaking “neighborhood schools.” Ms. Louisos also noted that the High School and Middle School are not neighborhood schools. Mr. Conner asked the Commission to consider whether they want to weigh in on the larger issue which is being discussed at the school district level. Ms. Harrington said she didn’t feel that one word will be “taking a stance” on the issue. Mr. Gagnon agreed and noted the Commission has no authority over what the School Board does. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0. 4 Ms. Quest asked whether there should be an objective to study all the east-west roads. Ms. LaRose asked whether that should apply to all transportation projects. She stressed that none of the plans mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan are “shovel ready.” Some aren’t even “study ready.” All will require more study. Mr. Gagnon felt the current language was fine; it says attention will be paid to traffic, ecology, etc. For any plan to go through, it has to undergo studies. Ms. Louisos suggested language for a new objective under transportation #2 indicating studies that have been done are being reviewed. Ms. Harrington then moved to add an objective stating that due to increased development and the desire to protect natural resources, analysis of planned east-west roads should be updated. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Members felt this should be a strategy, not an objective and agreed it should be at 2-64. This was added as a friendly amendment. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0. A member of the public was concerned with the sentence stating that the importance of road connections can’t be overstated. Members felt that as this relates to all roads, they wanted to leave it in. Members then reviewed changes made from the last meeting. It was noted that in 2-41, “school department” should read “school district.” Mr. Macdonald provided a handout to Commissioners with a handful of recommended changes. He suggested changes to 2-41, third paragraph, and 2-41, seventh paragraph. Mr. Gagnon moved to accept the changes proposed by Mr. Macdonald. Ms. Harrington seconded. Ms. Harrington questioned language related to Airport growth. Members agreed to change the wording to “changes to the Airport neighborhood.” This was added as a friendly amendment. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0. Ms. LaRose then gave members new e-mails that had been received. She noted a lot of feedback on the land use map and said it is hard to compress 50 zoning districts into 5 categories, even with the added text. To address this, a sentence is proposed to be added that indicates this is not meant to be a zoning map. She felt this was not a policy change but a clarification. She handed out the draft sentence. 5 Mr. Conner noted that the map of prior buildout potential has been corrected and reinserted. Ms. Harrington moved to incorporate changes to the future land use section as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner then explained the report and what it contains. He said it is nothing dramatically different from what the Commission has previously seen. An attempt was then made to contact Mr. Klugo to allow him to vote on sending the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. He could not be reached. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the 2015 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Report with the changes approved at this meeting, and to submit these to the City Council. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 4. Discuss Draft Plan Presentation of 12 November 2015: Ms. Louisos said she wanted to be sure the Council understands the collective work on the document, so she does not want to be the only presenter. Mr. Conner noted the City Council is considering this a “joint meeting,” so there should be as many Commission members there as possible. He said the City Council’s intention for the meeting is to get the presentation, ask any questions they may have, discuss the process, and possibly get an update on the LDRs. Ms. Louisos then said she would talk about the major changes, format, etc. She asked Ms. Harrington to talk about public outreach and Mr. Gagnon to handle the Future Land Use Map. She also asked staff to walk the Council through the process. All agreed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:40 p.m. ___________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (7 PM) 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 September 2015, at 7 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, T. Harington, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Barritt, P. Nowak, L. Bresee, H. Riehle, S. Dooley, J. Nick, S. Dopp M. Emery, N. Sunderland, J. Owen, other members of the public 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 Commission Announcements & Staff Report: Mr. Gagnon: The final house has come down in the Airport area, and they are now in clean-up mode. The final inspection will be next week. Mr. Conner: This afternoon he gave a presentation to the Burlington Garden Club regarding things going on in the city, especially City Center. 4. Public Input Session: Draft Comprehensive Plan a. Brief Overview to Public of Draft Comprehensive Plan Ms. Louisos said the Plan is a vision of how South Burlington wishes to evolve over the next 20 years. It is reviewed and re-adopted every five years. An official public hearing will be held on 20 October. The final document will then go to the City Council which has its own process, including two public hearings. The current plan expires on 9 March; a new plan has to be adopted prior to that. The Comprehensive Plan is used to guide city policies (Land Development Regulations, goals/objectives for future capital investment, grant writing, Act 250 review, etc.). Ms. Louisos noted that the Planning Commission has been working on the plan for more than 5 years, doing lots of research and getting input from other city committees (e.g., Open Space, Affordable Housing, Recreation and Leisure Arts, Sustainable Agriculture, Natural Resources, Energy, etc.). Virtually everything in the Plan has been rewritten. 2 Ms. LaRose then provided an overview of the structure of the Plan, including the Vision and Goals (how the plan will be used, planning history, process, etc.), a Community Assessment (including analysis and challenges, future needs/trends, objectives and strategies, achievements/ongoing actions, social infrastructure, public utilities, water, transportation, ecological resources, etc.), and current and future land use, all of which relate to what South Burlington wants to be as a city. The Plan includes goals, which are very broad; objectives, which are more specific but are not “action items”; and strategies, which are very specific, measurable action items. Ms. Louisos then explained that there are four principal Goals of the Plan, with the heading: “Here and into the future South Burlington is:” 1. Affordable and Community Rich (possibly to be changed to “strong”) 2. Walkable 3. Green & Clean 4. Opportunity Oriented Each section of the Plan explains where the city is now, then projects what might affect the future. Members of the audience preferred the word “strong” to “rich” in the first goal. Ms. Louisos then presented the Future Land Use Map. She explained how the map was put together and noted that it is purposely “blurred” at the edges because it represents general ideas. She also noted there is no designation for the area where the Chamberlin/Airport study is now being done. The map indicates areas for low intensity development (possibly agriculture), lower intensity mainly residential neighborhoods with some small businesses, medium intensity residential to mixed use (condos, medical park), medium to higher intensity (Airport, businesses), and higher intensity mixed use with efficient infrastructure where a majority of development should occur. Mr. Barritt asked if the map differs from today’s zoning. Mr. Conner said the map is largely reflective of zoning, but he noted a couple of areas near Hinesburg Road where there is a change that will require zoning to “catch up.” Mr. Bresee suggested eliminating a lot of the different districts and rolling them into the form based code. 3 Mr. Owen noted that a big issue in Charlotte was with solar arrays. He asked if South Burlington has given any thought to where these might be. Ms. Louisos explained that the City can’t control that as it is controlled by the Public Service board. They are supposed to look at the community’s Comprehensive Plan, but that doesn’t always mean they follow the plan. There are specific criteria in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan for where solar arrays are appropriate. Mr. Conner added that there is a new law that allows the municipality to adopt a by-law regarding setbacks, unless it’s “too restrictive”, in which case it would be thrown out. Ms. Sunderland asked if there are wildlife corridors. Ms. Louisos said there are, and the city has been working to preserve them. Mr. Conner indicated the 3 principal corridors identified as “wildlife corridors.” A member of the public asked that the “red dot” in the South Village Community be removed as he did not want to change the nature of that community. b. Receive Public Input on Draft Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Barritt asked if there are references to the form based code. Ms. Louisos said there are throughout the Plan. Ms. LaRose noted that the Education section is in the process of being written by 2 Commission members who also served on the City/School Task Force. It will be in the final document that goes to the City Council. Mr. Bresee said he had read the whole document and noted some technical and factual statements that need amending (e.g., there is no “Dorset Park”, statements regarding bike lanes on Spear Street are wrong, “pre-war period” doesn’t indicate which war). He asked how a there can be a “city policy to affect wages.” In Strategy #9, he felt the process should be streamlined for all housing, not only affordable housing. He also felt that there should be credit to developers who have funded 40% of the bike path, which continues to be city policy. Mr. Bresee also questioned whether Veterans Park should be considered a “neighborhood park.” He felt the Recreation Path section doesn’t match up with the map. Mr. Nick suggested that in Strategies 126 and 127 greater densities might be allowed without using TDRs (e.g., providing a park). Ms. Sunderland asked if the city can “invite” the F35s to come and talk off/land, so people can know what they really sound like. Ms. Nowak suggested asking the new Wing Commander at the Airport. She noted only a few F35s are flying, so there might be a problem, but she felt there was no harm in asking. 4 Mr. Barritt asked if there is a section on rental properties. Mr. Conner said there isn’t a specific section, just a bit of reference. 5. Review Draft Amendments to Land Development Regulations and Draft Official Map: a. Review Modifications Since Prior Drafts Mr. Conner noted changes relating to doorway standards, uses in pre-existing buildings, the “stretch” energy code section, flexibility on rooftops in the form based code (possibly allowing a shaded area for public use), and clarification that utility equipment must not face the street. Mr. Conner also noted they are 70% through the legal review. He also recommended that the Commission not include, at this time, changes to where warehousing is permitted in the City. Back in the spring, he said, the Commission had had a brief discussion about various different land uses, including warehousing. In reviewing the draft Comprehensive Plan, the Plan indicates that the Commission should pay careful attention to the placement of warehousing uses in the city due to truck traffic. Given this, he recommends that the Commission discuss this issue more fully before advance it. He was not aware of any formal requests to allow the use at this time. Mr. Conner also showed pictures that will appear in the regulations indicating the different types of open space that are possible. b. Discuss public hearing schedule for amendments: Members felt the public hearing for amendments should take place on a different night from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner suggested November 10 for the amendments and Official Map. 6. Review and Consider Approval of Planning Commission Reports on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Official Map: Mr. Conner noted there is a special section on the proposed Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential North District, where the JAM Golf-related land exchange is taking place. That section includes an acknowledgment that it doesn’t meet every element of the Comprehensive Plan but that it was a carefully considered, specific action of the voters of the city. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Planning Commission Reports on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Official Map. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Possible Vote to Warn Public Hearings on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and to the Official Map: 5 Ms. Quest moved to warn a public hearing on draft amendment to the Land Development Regulations and to the Official Map on 10 November. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Mr. Conner asked for permission to comb through the Regulation and ensure that the terms “right-of-way” and “street right-of-way” are correctly used. Members were ok with this. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Briefing on application by Dorset East Associates, LLC, to amend Act 250 LUP4C0948-EB (altered) and possible Commission feedback: Mr. Conner noted this was presented to the City Council last night. The Council asked that a letter from the previous City Planner indicating the city’s support of a similar request be withdrawn. Mr. Conner said he will attend the hearing. If something goes “awry,” the city can ask for a continuance and invoke party status. Mr. Riehle asked if the proposed open space can be used for solar panels. Mr. Conner said that would depend on how the third party conservation easement is written up. 9. Other Business: There was no other business. 10. Minutes of 8 September 2015: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 8 September 2015 as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ____________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (7 PM) 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting for public input on the Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday, 22 September 2015, at noon, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. Macdonald, ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; G. Kjelleren, N. Andrews, other members of the public 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. Public Input Session: Draft Comprehensive Plan a. Brief Overview to Public of Draft Comprehensive Plan b. Receive Public Input on Draft Comprehensive Plan Ms. Louisos explained that the city has an existing Plan which legally has to be re-adopted every 5 years. What is being presented today is a full rewrite of a Plan that has been in existence for a number of years. After 3 public input sessions, the Commission will go through the comments received from the public and possibly make changes. There will then be a formal public hearing. Ms. LaRose added that after the public hearing, the Commission can vote on whether to approve the plan and forward it to the City Council. The Council will then hold at least 2 public hearings. If any changes result from those hearings, additional hearings will be held. The deadline for adoption of the Plan is early March. Ms. Louisos said the Plan is a vision of how South Burlington wishes to evolve over the next 20 years. It is used to guide city policies (Land Development Regulations), in Act 250 reviews, and by the Regional Planning Commission for County-wide planning. Ms. Louisos noted that the Planning Commission has been working on the plan for more than 5 years, doing lots of research and getting input from other city committees (e.g., Open Space, Affordable Housing, Recreation and Leisure Arts, Sustainable Agriculture, Natural Resources, Energy, etc.). Ms. Louisos then provided an overview of the structure of the Plan, including the Vision and Goals, a Community Assessment (including demographics, future needs/trends, objectives and strategies, achievements/ongoing actions, social infrastructure, public utilities, water, transportation, ecological resources, etc.), and current and future land use, all of which relate to what South Burlington wants to be as a city. 2 A member of the audience asked how the Comprehensive Plan relates to zoning. Mr. Conner explained that the State requires zoning to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. If a Plan sets a different direction than current zoning, then zoning should be updated. Ms. Louisos then explained that there are four principal Goals of the Plan, with the heading: “Here and into the future South Burlington is:” 1. Affordable and Community Rich 2. Walkable 3. Green & Clean 4. Opportunity Oriented Each section of the Plan explains where the city is now, then projects what might affect the future. Mr. Conner noted this might include when to plan for a new fire truck or what recreation facilities are needed, etc. Members of the audience preferred the word “oriented” or “strong” to “rich” in the first goal. An audience member asked how the Plan can fit into a city comprised of so many “pockets.” Ms. Louisos said one major discussion was the focus on a strong City Center. Mr. Conner noted there are more than 20 distinct neighborhoods in the city and the aim of the plan is to “stitch them together (e.g., Recreation Department programs to bring people together). A member of the audience was concerned that the studies used by the Commission were a number of years old. There was particular concern with roads through wildlife corridors. It was noted that there has been a lot of development since those studies were done. Mr. Conner noted that an open space study was done in the city last year. It indicates where wetlands are, how they are connected, where there are parks, etc. An audience member felt this should be taken into consideration when putting in things like solar fields. Ms. Louisos then presented the Future Land Use Map. She noted that it is purposely “blurred” at the edges because it represented general ideas. She also noted there is no designation for the area where the Chamberlin/Airport study is now being done. The map indicates areas for low intensity development (possibly agriculture), lower intensity mainly residential neighborhoods with some small businesses, medium intensity residential to mixed use (condos, medical park), medium to higher intensity (Airport, businesses), and higher intensity mixed use with efficient infrastructure where a majority of development should occur. Mr. Conner said the map is largely reflective of zoning. He noted one are near Hinesburg Road where there is a change that will require zoning to “catch up.” 3 An audience member asked if there are any plans for another Interstate interchange. Ms. Louisos said there is no specific designation, but that possibility is recognized. Mr. Conner said the language reads “should be examined and considered.” He stressed that the Plan recognizes that the transportation system will have to evolve. Ms. LaRose noted the extensive planning that has to go into an interchange, and that would probably be looked at in a regional context. A resident expressed concern with an area in the Southeast Quadrant with a section noting some commercial development near South Village. This area is now zoning Neighborhood-Residential. He noted that 78% of the South Village residents oppose a commercial use in that area. Ms. Louisos said that area is there so that people know it is under discussion. The Planning Commission will eventually make a decision. Another resident was concerned with areas alongside streams. Mr. McKenzie explained the setbacks that are required from streams. He also noted that the concept of the commercial area in South Village was considered to allow residents to get some groceries without having to get in their cars and travel for them. Ms. LaRose stressed that sometimes there are “competing goods” which the Planning Commission has to consider together. An audience member was concerned with the potential “cannibalization” of existing businesses with City Center development plans. He questioned whether the city has enough population to support the amount of commercial business that is intended. There was also concern expressed for getting traffic in and out of City Center. Mr. Riehle noted there are many “moving parts” to City Center. A big component will be residential and that will drive the retail and commercial development. It is really quite a small space, and developers will look closely at “what will fly.” Mr. Riehle also noted that UMall feels it will complement what they have. Mr. LaLonde asked whether the School Board will have input into the Educational component of the Plan. Ms. Louisos said 2 Commission members who served on the City-School Task Force have been charged with revising the Education section. Ms. LaRose added that outreach has always included the Superintendent of Schools. As there were no more comments from the public and no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. ____________________________________ Clerk