The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/20/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 20 OCTOBER 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 October 2015, at 7:00 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 ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; B. Paquette, D. Leban, P. O’Brien, J. Kochman, S. Darnell, G. Berdie, A. Phelps, A. Vogler, T. Chittenden, H. Cockburn, B. & F. Burkhart, S. Basiliere, M. Merrill, B. Serviss, P. Nowak, M. Emery, D. Adamson, 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 Commissioner announcements and staff reports: No announcements or reports were made. 4. Public Hearing on Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of the preparation of the Plan and previous public input sessions. She noted that after this public hearing, the Planning Commission will deliberate and consider the comments made by the public. Mr. Gagnon directed attention to a matrix of public comments received so far which has been posted on the website. Ms. Louisos then invited public comment. Ms. Leban: On p. 37, regarding higher density development, she felt there should be planning for more compact schools On p. 69, she expressed a concern with compliance With regard to transportation issues, she felt roads shouldn’t roll over natural areas and wetlands There should be an updated map of bike/pedestrian paths. There needs to be reference to those who commute to work on bicycles. The 2001 study for the Swift Street Extension is outdated, and there is a question of wetlands. She felt the study didn’t take into account the intersections that are already functioning poorly. p. 125 – should include Dorset Street and the Wheeler view corridor p. 174 – use bike/pedestrian planning to discourage vehicles having a negative effect on the park. Ms. Darnell: Concerned about the “red dot” on Spear Street in the South Village neighborhood. She felt this is a residential zone, and that South Village is marketed as a “green community.” She was concerned with building of apartments which had some unintended results, including decreasing the amount of money for the farm, people not being able to work effectively with FHA and units that are not owner-occupied. She noted that a survey showed a majority of people would be OK with a bakery, but that would open the door to other retail. 70% of residents oppose changing the zoning to allow commercial. She didn’t feel South Village could support a business, and it would mean attracting other people to the neighborhood, thereby increasing traffic, etc. She would support a retail service up to 3000 sq. ft. that would be related to the farm venture and would benefit the farm. Ms. Vogler: Expressed concern that the information they are getting from the developer of South Village is “propaganda” and isn’t revealing that there would be rental units above the commercial/retail spaces. She felt that in the existing rental units, people don’t obey the rules, let kids and dogs run loose, etc. Mr. O’Brien: Wanted to know if there is a use that South Village people would support. Mr. Berdie: Was the first resident to move into South Village, and there was no mention then of commercial activity. Concerned about increased traffic and parking issues and the negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. O’Brien asked about process. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will work through public comments and then forward the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council for their process. Ms. Harrington added that any changes in zoning would require changes to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). That would require a whole new series of hearings. Mr. O’Brien: In the previous Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that these small commercial areas were thought of in the past. There are other “red dots” on Hinesburg Road, etc. He felt there should be similar areas on all the north/south routes to allow people to stop for milk, etc. on the way home. He said their concept is for a neighborhood store (bakery, little restaurant, etc.). He added that it was a mistake to roll out some “massive plans.” He said they would go to the residents and say there will be only an agreed upon set of uses. He noted that the farm struggles because of poor soils. A resident: Asked if there would be apartments above the retail uses. Mr. O’Brien: If it was up to him, there would not. He envisioned a small office area, an art studio, etc. He also noted that with current zoning, they could build a 12-plex in that location, and they would be apartment units. Mr. Cockburn: There are commercial uses 5 minutes away. They are not needed in South Village. He felt that if commercial uses are allowed, the developer could put anything in there. Mr. Merrill: Agreed with other South Village people. Said that to change it now would be to “bait and switch.” Ms. Basiliere: Doesn’t agree with a lot of the uses the developer proposes. Would prefer a community center where some of those uses could happen (yoga studio, etc.). She said that a farmstand would be OK because there is a farm. Mr. Conner explained state law regarding agriculture and what might be allowed. Ms. Burkhart: Was concerned that the education section of the plan hasn’t been updated and that it appears a land swap with the city and schools is a done deal. She wanted a vote on whether to transfer school property. Ms. Nowak explained that at the last City Council meeting, the Council unanimously supported a vote on a possible land swap. Mr. Adamson: Was concerned with the process, and that it is hard to track changes from the old Comprehensive Plan to the new one. Suggested a “track change of function” so people can see this. Resident: Stonehedge resident who works at the Airport. Noted that the proposed rec path along the security fence is likely to be opposed by the Air Guard (northwest side that connects from the Dog Park to the sewage treatment plant). Ms. Nowak noted the presence of 3 City Councilors at the meeting. They do not intend to weigh in on anything other than to make any needed clarifications. Mr. Paquette: On p. 259, he suggested making the language strong to support lessening of Airport noise impact and to take into account potential health issues. He questioned whether new zoning will take into consideration the noise levels and whether the city would allow new housing in the noise zone. Ms. Serviss: Asked the Commission to look seriously at bike/rec paths. She felt complete streets doesn’t work. Bicyclists “run over” people on Williston Road walkways. She asked the Commission to think about pedestrians and do something safe for them. Ms. Kochman: On p. 224, recreation also has a need for indoor activities. She asked that “recreation” be removed from the parentheses and put in the next sentence. Ms. Louisos noted that the Education section of the plan is being rewritten by 2 Commission members who served on the City/Schools Task Force. She asked them for comment. Mr. Klugo said their work is not quite ready for public comment. Their intent is not to speak to any specific recommendations but to the challenges being faced. He noted that they did submit something for Commission consideration today. Mr. Conner said the Commission could look at this and possibly post it on the website for public comment. He suggested keeping the public hearing open for such comments. Ms. Louisos noted receipt of written comments from Shelly Rayback, Liz Robert, and Mike Simoneau. Mr. Conner said staff had fixed several minor grammatical errors and typos. The Police and Fire Departments did some minor updating. There was also an update of transportation projects for the city and additional language for indoor recreation facilities. The next draft will include all of these updates. Mr. Burkhart: Ask that there be significant public notice when the Education Section is available for comment. Mr. Gagnon then moved to continue the public hearing until Tuesday 27 October at 7 p.m., for the purpose of reviewing the Education section of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Review Feedback provided on draft Comprehensive Plan; discuss possible amendments: a. Technical corrections completed by staff: This was already addressed. b. Staff-received changes based on prior Commission discussions: This was previously addressed. Mr. Gagnon suggested going through the education section so it can be posted on the website. Mr. Klugo said they organized the section by 1) Existing Conditions, 2) Analysis, 3) Future Needs. Mr. Gagnon felt it was a good job and maintained that this is an ongoing process and provides a good indication of where things now stand. Mr. Riehle questioned whether single family homes or apartment units would provide more students for the schools. Mr. Klugo said the issue is that after children in single family homes have grown up and moved on, the older parents remain in the homes, and the single family homes are no longer provided students to the school system. Apartment units tend to have more frequent turnover. Mr. Conner said it is also a question of the number of bedrooms in a unit. Ms. LaRose said they want to present accurate numbers regarding school populations. Mr. Conner stressed the need to acknowledge that there is a separately elected body that is responsible for education, even though the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by the City Council. He added that staff will do the edits and check on numbers with Superintendent Young, and then post the draft on the website. Ms. Harrington questioned “school population” and “school capacity” being such different numbers. Mr. Klugo said that it a concern of the School Certification people as more square footage is now needed per student. Mr. Conner said they will get wording for that. c. Community Feedback: Ms. Louisos asked if members felt there is anything that needs changing. Mr. Gagnon cited the numerous comments and letters regarding the map and whether to show potential zoning for South Village. Ms. Quest asked Mr. Conner to check on what the farm would allow and what would be allowed in a community center, which is an allowable use. Mr. Conner thought it would be more of a “for profit” vs. “not for profit” situation. Ms. Quest asked if there is another zoning that would allow some small commercial use that people seem to be OK with. Mr. Conner said the question is whether that could be in other locations such as Mayfair Park, the Orchards, etc., or whether it should be somewhere more compact. Ms. Harrington said she didn’t feel that people understood that there could be more density there with what is now allowed. Mr. Klugo said he is a strong supporter of mixed use; however, in this development, where the developer is still in control, he felt the community needs to be built out as it is now approved. He was not comfortable with an orange or red dot. Until the community is built out, and the residents have the upper hand, it should stay as it is. Ms. LaRose encouraged members to look at the more specific language in the plan and ask what is the “general intensity” they want and whether all red or yellow areas are the intensity. Mr. Klugo acknowledged they are not, but they define the kinds of uses. He felt there is no need for a red dot, because it is already allowed in the yellow area. He felt it was not part of the disclosures to the people who bought into South Village. Ms. Harrington didn’t favor the higher intensity and felt that multi‐units were not what that area is for. Ms. Louisos felt there should be more orange, if there are going to be more 10-12 units buildings. Mr. Klugo said that by changing the color, they would be giving the expectation that the zoning will change to meet what the color allows. He didn’t think it needs to be anything but yellow in South Village. Mr. Gagnon had no problem with all yellow. Members were OK with that. Mr. Conner said they tried to connect green areas where they could. One feedback was to indicate some connections where they are not obvious. She showed this on the map. He suggested connecting the green all the way to the Lake. He also indicated an area near the Cider Mill where the green area will have to be narrowed a bit. Ms. Quest said she would like to boil down Mr. Paquette’s comments regarding reducing litter. Mr. Klugo said there are costs involved in this, and he questioned how to promote that this is something people should do without having to “pay to be clean.” Mr. Conner suggested that this should be in the quality of life objectives/strategies. Mr. Conner noted he met with the Bike/Pedestrian Committee and made some changes; one suggestion is to work on Patchen Road to slow things down. Members then considered the “mix of housing” requirement in the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Klugo said “requiring” is not appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan and suggested “implementing” as an alternative. Mr. Conner then noted the City Council has asked to meet with the Commission on 12 November. Staff supports this date. Members felt they would like to read through comments to see if there is anything else they would like to address. Mr. Gagnon suggested working on the Top 5 concerns and focusing on the “big stuff” and letting staff do the little things. Mr. Conner noted the Commission will need to see a draft with all the changes so they can vote it out. Mr. Conner said staff will flag what they think is critical. He noted specifically a policy statement around the acquisition of homes in the Chamberlin/Airport neighborhood, which will not be addressed until the Chamberlin/Airport Committee finishes its work. 6. Other Business: a. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed to a short meeting on 3 November with other meetings on 27 October, 10 November and 12 November (with the City Council). 7. Minutes of 22 September (Noon meeting), 22 September (7 p.m. meeting) and 3 October: Ms. Quest moved to approve all minutes as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 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: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan DATE: October 16, 2015 Draft Comprehensive Plan- Public Feedback I am very pleased to share with you that we have received substantial feedback on the draft Comprehensive Plan! The Planning Commission hosted three public discussion meetings which generated very thoughtful discussion and input. More than a dozen South Burlington citizens and business owners have written to share their thoughts on multiple areas of the draft Plan. Planning staff has also received written comments and suggested edits from multiple City Committees, City departments, including Public Works, Police, Emergency Services, the Library, and from the City’s Project Director. Staff has collected all comments received in response to the warned draft Plan, as well as those which were submitted in response to previous drafts of the Plan. They are attached to this memo as one large pdf document and staff strongly recommends that the Planning Commission read all of these in their entirety. Staff has attempted to itemize all of the comments into a worksheet, with the goal of being able to categorize feedback into topic areas. In doing so, it was necessary to excerpt some comment letters to outlined points, and leave supporting arguments (i.e., ‘I support this objective because….’ or ‘I object to this strategy because….’) in the body of the original letter. This was the only way we could get all comments into a readable index. We feel confident that the matrix includes all feedback on policy proposals. However, I restate the importance of reviewing the original documents from each stakeholder so that the comments may be found in context, and with their supporting arguments. The matrix includes a reference to each document by name to make this connection as easy as possible. These are sorted by page number where known. Draft Comprehensive Plan- Edits The Commission directed Staff to make some updates to the Plan. We have made several updates to the draft Plan. For purposes of transparency and discussion, with the exception of spelling or grammatical errors, these are all itemized on an attached matrix. These edits fall into three categories:  Spelling, grammatical, and technical fixes. Examples include: lingering references to “Dorset Park” in place of “Veterans Memorial Park”; inconsistent uses of capitalization; missing punctuation.  Updates with a basis in City policy or Planning Commission interest. Examples include: updates to the Community Facilities list based on projects already existing on the official 2 map; updates to the Central District based on approved TIF District documents or ongoing and approved studies; updates to the Recreation, Library, Police, and Emergency Services sections which originate from the Department Directors and which are in line with existing plans from those departments.  Staff will also be outlining some comments received or staff recommendations which are more substantial and which should be discussed by the Commission. Updated Maps Staff has made several edits to the Maps included in the Plan, based on Commission and department feedback. A new map set will be provided at the Public Hearing. Changes include:  Revised projects shown on the Planned Infrastructure map;  A full size copy of the Land Use Planning areas- we received feedback from multiple residents who had difficulty finding which area their home was located in;  Changes to maps 7 & 8 (Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas) to utilize consistent formatting across all maps. There are no substantive changes to these maps;  Updates to the Planned Recreation Trails map to reflect suggested prioritization from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee;  Adding major road names to several of the maps to assist readers in orienting themselves. Next steps Following review of any additional public comment offered at this October 20th Public Hearing and a review of comments received to date, Staff recommends that the Commission provide direction towards any changes to the document. Staff recognizes that this no small task. Many stakeholders have dedicated substantial time to share a variety of important and often impassioned thoughts. There is certainly enough in the attached feedback that could easily fill multiple months’ worth of stimulating conversation and debate. Some items are new, and haven’t yet been considered in the plan. Staff recommends that the Commission consider for changes or new inclusion in the plan anything that is egregiously under- or misstated in the Plan and that does not represent the vision and goals of the City. We recognize that no plan will ever be perfectly complete; there may be suggestions for updates which the Commission finds good, but which may require more time for outreach, development, or understanding. It is an option to include these on a dynamic list for research and discussion for the next Plan. The draft schedule planned for Staff to quickly make any changes directed by the Commission in the few days following the meeting, such that the Commission could review a clean copy of the Draft Plan for the October 27th Planning Commission meeting, with the goal of presenting the Plan to the City Council in early November. There are two sections which are still under revision. Staff is awaiting edits to the Education sections and hopes to have something to the Commission for review on October 20th. Staff is also preparing the final required component of the plan: compatibility with plans of neighboring communities and the Regional Plan. This section exists on page 3-40 of the current warned draft. However, staff believes that there is an opportunity to expand this section in greater detail. A great deal of this already exists throughout the document, but it would be appropriate to pull the various aspects together in a consolidated section. Amendments to Draft Comprehensive Plan Completed by Staff For Planning Commission Consideration October 16, 2015 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 A B C D E F Date Sec.Page Edit Source Of note? 7-Oct 1 2 Added "and trails" In 3rd paragraph staff 7-Oct 1 2 Add 27 miles of recreation paths in 3rd paragraph public 13-Oct 1 2 Add reference to hotels/visitors in summary Shaw 16-Oct 1 3 Rephrased statement of pace of growth after WWII Staff 29-Sep 1 6 Add "subcommittee" to list of committees consulted Staff 8-Oct 1 8 Edits to Planning History to make more readable Staff 16-Oct 1 11 Updated language about how city uses Capital Budget & Program & TIF Districts Staff 16-Oct 1 12 Added CCTA & GBIC to list of regional partners Staff 7-Oct 1 1 and iv.Changes from "Community Rich" to "Community Strong"Public; PC Yes 16-Oct 1 7 and v.reference public facilities, functions and space in City Center instead of Public spaces Staff 16-Oct 1 7 and v.Referenced community identity instead of branding Staff 16-Oct 1 7 and v.Added additional studies completed and TIF Plan Staff 16-Oct 2 1 Rephrased opening sentence to be more clear Staff 16-Oct 2 6 Added a statement about population forcasts and assumptions around major employer loss. Staff 16-Oct 2 7 Updated information about population aging Staff 29-Sep 2 8 Add "facility planning" to need for monitoring future changes Staff and RLA 16-Oct 2 11 Updates to Housing Inventory for clarity; multiple readers were confused by the numbers and trends Staff 16-Oct 2 14 Added context to statement about City employee wages vs ability to afford housing in the City Staff 16-Oct 2 14 Clarified statement about households seeking smaller accommodations Staff 16-Oct 2 15 Added reference to Neighborhood Development Area program offered by the State Staff 16-Oct 2 18 Added reference to I-89 in an important element of the area's economy Staff 16-Oct 2 19 Clarified statements about wages earned in South Burlington vs/ the region vs the State Staff 16-Oct 2 20 Changed statements that "it has been South Burlington's policy to balance residential and non-residential" to Objective. Staff 7-Oct 2 21 Added "resource sustainability" to quality of life and economic vitality discussion EC recommended energy efficiency and renewable energy 16-Oct 2 23 Add strategy to develop a strategic economic development plan for the City Staff Yes 29-Sep 2 25 Remove references to National Night Out Staff 13-Oct 2 25 Updated police section under Inventory Staff 6-Oct 2 28 Add paragraph in library section related to future facility planning Library, Staff 13-Oct 2 30 Change Red Rocks management plan to complete Staff 16-Oct 2 34 Updated description and next steps for Dumont Park in City Center Staff 29-Sep 2 36 Clarify references to Baycrest park; change Baycrest Park to Allen Road park Staff Yes 7-Oct 2 37 Add cross references to recreation resources in Community Facilities section RLA; staff 8-Oct 2 38 Remove reference to Airport location impeding emergency response to northern neighborhoods Staff 16-Oct 2 43 Updated description of Dumont / City Center Park and future plans Staff 5-Oct 2 44 Add "indoor and outdoor" to strategy 10 Staff and RLA 7-Oct 2 44 Replace above #11 with objective for future master plan for city owned parks and natural areas RLA; NRC Yes 16-Oct 2 44 Added new project for a new park / gathering place in City Center Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 44 Added a new project of building a Library Staff 16-Oct 2 44 Added a new project of building a Recreational Facility Staff Amendments to Draft Comprehensive Plan Completed by Staff For Planning Commission Consideration October 16, 2015 2 1 A B C D E F Date Sec.Page Edit Source Of note? 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 16-Oct 2 44 Added a new project of building a City Hall Staff 7-Oct 2 44 Add "community center" to community needs in Strategy 32 RLA; staff Yes 16-Oct 2 45 Revised strategy 27 to refer to each of the City Center public facilities Staff 13-Oct 2 46 Remove references to quality of construction per DPW Staff 16-Oct 2 51 Updated Williston Road description to discuss TIF and Streetscape Staff 7-Oct 2 53 Changed Spear Street Travel Infrastructure paragraph to include all communities to the south public 16-Oct 2 54 Note that traffic levels of servce lower than D may be desirable in City Center and elsewhere and that high traffic generators can be mitigated for Staff Yes 13-Oct 2 56 Strengthened language regarding roadway connections per DPW rec Staff 16-Oct 2 57 Updated section on Regional Transportation analysis Staff 16-Oct 2 60 Updated description of Meeting Demands of Change and Development with greater emphasis on Bikes & Peds and transit Staff 16-Oct 2 60 Added statement about Access Management to Road Design bullet list Staff 13-Oct 2 61 Add "commuter" to enhanced rail service Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 61 Added references to Garden & Market Street projects to Additional Resources Staff 16-Oct 2 62 Updated Strategy 41 to discuss interconnections of bike and ped facilities with neighboring towns Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 62 Removed Dorset Street / Market Street Improvements project. That project is not being pursued in present version of Market Street reconstruction Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 63 Updated numbers associated with City Center parking garage Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 63 Updated City Center Road Network language to reference all streets Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 67 Updated US 2 Corridor Improvements to reflect recent additions Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 68 Added Bike-Ped Bridge over I-89 as a project Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 69 Added road north of Williston Rd as a project Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 69 Added Quarry Hill to Williston Rd connector as a project Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 69 Added Kimball Ave to Williston Rd connector as a project Staff Yes 16-Oct 2 70 Add reference to composting laws staff 13-Oct 2 73 Remove paragraph related to global economy of climate change Staff Yes 7-Oct 2 74 Add explanatory sentence relating energy efficiency with transportation EC 7-Oct 2 76 Reword confusing sentence EC 24-Sep 2 86 Add references to phosphorus in stormwater overview Staff Yes 24-Sep 2 86 First paragraph of Stormwater inventory Staff 24-Sep 2 86 Reference EPA Phosphorus TMDL Staff Yes 24-Sep 2 88 Add chloride reference in future needs paragraph Staff 16-Oct 2 102 Added bullet point under Habitat and Vegetation to reflect value of tree canopy NRC 16-Oct 2 103 Added Tree Canopy Report (2014) to resource list in Green Infrastructure, Ecology NRC 6-Oct 2 104 Add need for community center in Cultural Facilities RLA 16-Oct 2 104 Remove strategy 70: Update and adopt the City’s Open Space Strategy as a supporting plan to this Comprehensive Plan. NRC 16-Oct 2 104 Replace strategy 70 with: Maintain existing overall tree canopy. Set targets to increase overall tree canopy, with a focus on increasing tree canopy in urban areas and residential property parcels as identified in the Report on Existing and Potential Tree Canopy in the City of South Burlington (2014). NRC 7-Oct 2 106 Add reference to 2014 OS study in relation to scenic view protection work Staff 5-Oct 2 107 Add abridged paragraph at RLA recommendation RLA 7-Oct 2 107 update funds raised from open space fund Staff 7-Oct 2 109 Add restoration and maintenance needs to recreation fields RLA Amendments to Draft Comprehensive Plan Completed by Staff For Planning Commission Consideration October 16, 2015 3 1 A B C D E F Date Sec.Page Edit Source Of note? 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 7-Oct 2 110 Add reference to gap analysis map to strategy 79 RLA; staff Yes 24-Sep 2 114 Change first bullet in blue infrastructure continue-tos Staff 6-Oct 2 44 and 113 Move Educational System objective (formerly #11) to Achievements and Ongoing Action List Staff 16-Oct 3 4 Updated City Center project status Staff 16-Oct 3 9 Added more language on New Town Center and Neighborhood Development area designations Staff 16-Oct 3 24 Removed "without creating competition with City Center" from Objective 52 Staff Yes 13-Oct 3 35 Changed references to public facility in SEQ; formerly read as a given Staff 16-Oct Infrastructure Map Updating references in the infrastructure map (NOT COMPLETE)Staff 13-Oct maps updated maps to include street layer Staff 13-Oct maps updated maps to include full page for LU Planning Areas Staff 16-Oct Maps Tidied all maps for consistent appearance and use of date Staff 6-Oct multiple Revise all references to Dorset Park Staff, RLA 7-Oct Organization moved Executive Summary in front of TOC Staff 16-Oct Rec Path Map Updated planned rec path and bike lanes map Staff with input from Bike Ped Yes 7-Oct TOC Fixed to align with section heads Staff 7-Oct varies Assorted spelling and grammatical fixes EC 8-Oct Various Updates to Fire and Emergency Services Staff Yes 8-Oct Various Minor grammatical fixes aimed towards achieving consistency throughout document Staff 14-Oct various Update with various grammar changes from S. Dopp S. Dopp 15-Oct various updated minor grammatical and technical issues per comments from I. Blanchard Staff Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter Members of the audience preferred the word “oriented” or “strong” to “rich” in the first goal.Audience 9/22/2015 Vision & Goals 9/22/15 PC Y Please consider including in the Comprehensive draft plan, under Vision & Goals, Green & Clean (page 1-1), this statement "Facilitate Clean City Image with a multi-faceted approach toward litter prevention and year round clean up". Bern & Freda Scarpa 9/27/2015 Vision & Goals 9/22/15 PC Y Members of the audience preferred the word “strong” to “rich” in the first goal.Audience 9/22/15 Vision & Goals 9/22/15 PC Minutes 7 PM Y Under the Vision & Goals, Green & Clean (page 1-1), this statement: "Facilitate Clean City image with a multi- faceted approach toward litter prevention and year-round clean-up" Maida F. Townsend 9/29/2015 Vision & Goals M Townsend 9- 28-15 Y Vision and Goals: Add Bernie Paquette's suggested bullet on litter prevention Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Vision & Goals Pg. 1-1 N Goals as stated are not measurable, still not SMART. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable…)SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y There are vulnerabilities in the way the comp plan is drafted. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y The Vision Statement should be in the present tense.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y The SBLT has a strong preference for keeping the 11 original goals and feel strongly that eliminating the 11 current stated goals greatly weakens this section of the plan and devalues and discounts the many months of staff and community-wide effort and input (many residents put in many hours in workshops and visioning sessions) that went into creating these 11 goals. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y - Goal #2: ….that acts as a focal point “for” the community not “to” the community.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y - Goal #3: The sentence seems like a run on, with too many things mixed in, but the intent is good. (“woodlands” is missing in the June 5 draft. Include “woodlands” in the newer draft) SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y - Goal #4: Stronger language, replace “supports” for "gives priority to” pedestrian, bicycle and transit options…….. " SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y - Goal #6: Add language “identifying and prioritizing” appropriate sites. Identify the qualities and criteria that are required to qualify a site. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Vision & Goals * Y concern with roads through wildlife corridors. Audience 9/22/2015 Green Infrastructure 9/22/15 PC Y concerned with areas alongside streams. Audience 9/22/2015 Green Infrastructure 9/22/15 PC Y Ms. Sunderland regarding wildlife corridors. Ms. Sunderland 9/22/2015 Green Infrastructure 9/22/15 PC Y Under Surface water.... page 2-8, objectives. Please consider adding language to this effect. Set a goal of obtaining the remaining privately held property consisting of the Centennial brook and stream bank sections of which run the length of Kirby Road, beginning at Airport Pkwy, thru Patchen Rd. Purpose - eventual installation of a board walk over this length of stream in between the tree lined banks for the purpose of public passive outdoor recreation pathway. Bernard Paquette 10/5/2015 Green Infrastructure B Paquette 10- 5-15 Y Overall – no discussion of Lake Champlain/lakefront issues for our homes (Lake District) – new legislation on lakefront protections. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Green Infrastructure C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-24 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 2 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Page. 2-76 – there should be a discussion of “town forest” (Wheelock perhaps? Or Red rocks?)….also, there is a huge missing piece of the prime agricultural soils and their “extraction” through development (SusAg and the PC were to come up with language to protect these resources…is that still in the works?) – prime ag should be mentioned (even as we only have state zoning/act 250 protections, we are (I believe) working on our local conservation of same/secondary ag – and it should be a goal/objective/strategy mentioned here. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg 2-76 Y Page 2-98 – Secondary Conservation Areas – define please – “id’d for conservation or protection” doesn’t explain and is vague Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-98 Y In fact, the maps (which I will discuss later) are too confusing to be of use and are not large enough (size needs to be blown up) to be valuable. Prime and Secondary Conservation Areas are in the same area and seem grossly off in some cases Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure C. Shaw 10-10- 15 (PART 2) Y Page 2-102 -- Strategy #64 – this seems (in first sentence) like a tall order if we are relying on the existing map (such as it is with errors and as confusing as it may be: are we to prohibit build in 100 year flood plains where the map shows two that can be distinguished but there are clearly more? then are we to rely on federal flood areas or secure a more authoritative inventory as this survey does not appear to be complete (as referenced by the “secondary conservation area” qualifier that “site investigation” is needed) – surely “site investigation” would be warranted for “primary conservation areas” as well otherwise a refusal on the basis of this map and vague language is going to land us in court again. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-102 Y Page 2-116 I think there needs to be more detailed inventory/site investigation for primary and secondary areas – and that the state’s protection of wetlands has been sufficient – this is a big change and has many potential pitfalls for property owners that goes beyond its intent. Protection buffers may need to be tiered for the type of conserved element (hazard or environmentally sensitive (tree/forest, plant, wetland, stream source). Needs more thinking/exploration than a generalized Open Space consultant’s report that gave short shrift to viewsheds and offered multiple “tool kit” evaluation forms (often a tip-off to a thin report) on the back-end. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-116 Y Page 2-116 – bullet point #11 – “other Primary Natural Areas” – why has the designation for CheeseFactory Swamp and Great Swamp garnered special mention for their buffers and all else has been relegated to “other” (but with ostensibly equal protection) – this implies that the 300 foot buffer is “soft” around all “other” primary natural areas (and in line with Secondary Conservation “lack of disturbance” softer language than the “severely restricted” that was just stated in Bullet Point #9 above) – which is it? I think you may want to eliminate the reference to the buffer zones in bullet #9 to avoid this contradiction. Or explicitly state what you intend – understanding that the consultant’s inventory and map may not be entirely accurate. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-116 Y Page 2-116 I think you may want to eliminate the reference to the buffer zones in bullet #9 to avoid this contradiction. Or explicitly state what you intend – understanding that the consultant’s inventory and map may not be entirely accurate. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-116 Y Page 3-28 – Strategy #119 – not sure this is a great idea – is the PC OK with this? – lake front issues – flood issues – are there specific plots of land that work for this? Most communities there are small scale and would abhor development (QCP and Lakeshore). Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 3-28 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 3 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Primary Conservation Areas Map is Rather unreadable due to small size and busy amount of legend material; Rare species shown at middle school/south of san remo? Confusion between “hazard” and “environmental sensitivities” – also not clear on what is environmental sensitivity – riparian, wetlands, rare ntl community, rare species, source protection area, streams, ponds,? – all same priority/buffer? Hazard/environmental Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Primary Conservation Areas Map Y Secondary Conservation Areas Map; Uncommon species on the golf course at Vt Ntl? (quite a bit) – sedge?Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Secondary Conservation Areas Map Y If the Primary Conservation Area map can be fuzzy in spots (how was the info compiled? From surveys of residents? Or site investigation? Aerial mapping?) – this is an interesting take in that it details some properties and leaves others “tax parcels” blank…why is this? It appears incomplete and more focused on open space which is in some cases deemed “farmland” when it is parkland, golf courses, and industrial parks. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Primary Conservation Areas Map Y Page 2-34 Bullet 4 Mention clay plain if appropriate.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-34 N Page 2-43 #4 Purpose: Add natural resource conservation and trails/recreation paths.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-43 N Page 2-77, Top 2 lines include mention of forest management plans held by private landowners.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-77 N Page 2-95, Paragraph 4 severity of winter does not seem to me to affect construction season anymore (it did once). Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-95 N Page 2-97, Paragraph 2 Why would lawns be impermeable? This is mentioned again on page 2-99 Paragraph 6. Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-97 N Page 2-97, Paragraph 6, last sentence? Add "which are sometimes in conflict".Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-97 N Page 2-106, Paragraph 4, Thought the open space tax yielded more like $240K per year.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-106 N Page 3-28, Strategy 122, hope we aren't eyeing more residential development on Lake Front!Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 3-28 N 1. Update zoning regulations requiring parking lots w> 28 spaces to have a min. of 15% of the interior contain landscaped islands VS what I believe is currently a 10% requirement. Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-15 Y 1b. Require landscaped islands meet the size the Arborist determines is necessary so one can reasonably expect the tree(s) planted in it to survive duration equal to its normal life expectancy. Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-16 Y 2. Require a larger percentage of canopy trees in parking lots (through zoning regulations)-trees that can grow to provide large canopies for shade, both filtered shade trees and full shade trees. Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-17 Y 3. Provide adequate operating budget for tree care and tree planting line item. Currently the city does very little tree planting other than replacements. Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-18 Y 4. Optimize the SB tree nursery.Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-19 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 4 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 5. Recognize and prepare for *EAB (Emerald Ash Border) infestation. This will necessitate the removal and subsequent replacement of a large number of ash trees along city streets (currently about 15% of the city tree population). Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-20 Y 6. Create performance standards guiding maintenance practices for both either commercial or private property. (To help insure actual landscapes reflect original engineer drawings submitted at time of site development.) Bernie Paquette 6/10/2015 Green Infrastructure B. Paquette 6- 10-21 Y Strategy 38: There is a conflict between natural resource connectivity and the notion of East/West connecting roads. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 79: Reference the Natural Resources Scorecard for acquisition criteria. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Impacts to wildlife, wherever they appear, remove the word “critical”, change “avoid” to “prohibit”. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 82: (discussion about trees) Add language about tree selection. Evaluate and improve resilience of trees – select those that are disease and pest resistant. More variety in species. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 83: Remove the word “encourage” and, rather, start with the active verb “Require.”SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Include some language about the need for tree canopy strengthening and drought resistant and site appropriate vegetation selection, inclusion of rain gardens, and pest resistant plantings, compatible with changing climate conditions. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 85: Rather than “Encourage public education”, state “Educate the public.”SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 88: “require” development that is well planned……SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 90: Use the city’s LDRs to “mandate” development patterns……. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 94: “foster” is new word. Vague. What does it mean? Suggest new text: “Identify natural areas for passive recreational use and identify areas that may be appropriate for ”off-limits” designation due to their fragile nature.” SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 107: “Use” acquisition criteria, as developed by the Rec and Leisure Arts committee and evaluate land for…. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 109: Replace “strive to” with “make”SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Strategy 110: use action verbs, “offer” not just “consider”SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Regarding Ecological Statement, pg 2-102, Strategy 66 ...trees. Perhaps it would be appropriate to add language suggesting implementation of an enforcement strategy towards commercial landscape requirements beyond initial installation. Bernard Paquette 10/5/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg.2-102 & B Paquette 10- 05-15 Ecological N Page 2-100 Habitat and Vegetation para – 5th bullet point – can we explain “specimen” trees? (are these glorious examples of the noble ash? The hearty oak? The vibrant maple? The supple birch?) Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-100 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 5 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Strategy 111: Replace strive to with “Provide”SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Page 4-78: Reference the Red Rocks and Wheeler management plans.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Page 4-86:” Add “Look Around South Burlington, Vermont” (Chittenden County Historical Society 1975). SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y Page 2-47 --- need discussion of active viewshed management – an entirely missed opportunity that the Open Space report/committee has mentioned and the PC hasn’t addressed. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Green Infrastructure Pg. 2-47 Y Page 4-87: Add Veteran’s Memorial to Cultural Facilities.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Green Infrastructure * Y concern expressed for getting traffic in and out of City Center. Audience 9/22/2015 Transportation 9/22/15 PC Y Page 2-52 Spear Street - under Travel Infrastructure--change to say…Hinesburg, Shelburne, and Charlotte areas. Also change next sentence to read: "Repaving in 2013 made shoulders wider south of Swift street, but still inadequate for safe bicycle and pedestrian use on both sides of the street. Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Transportation Pg. 2-52 N Page 2-61 Objective 19 --Consider adding [Promote trips made by foot, bicycle and transit.] As an additional sentence. Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Transportation Pg. 2-61 Y There is one thing that is not addressed which I would like to draw to the attention of those reviewing the plan. I read the transportation section thoroughly, and there doesn't appear to be any specific plan for expanding CCTA routes and frequency within the town. Lindsay Bryce 9/29/2015 Transportation L Bryce 9-29- 15 Y Rec Path priorities should be more specific and reference the map Lou Bresee 10/2/2015 Transportation Pg. 3-34 Y Differentiate between planned and priority future rec paths.Lou Bresee 10/2/2015 Transportation Map 6 Y Page 2-50 – need to discuss “pop-up” bicycle lanes and road closures on weekends (market street/garden street) to strengthen the sense of place and city center (doing same on one half of Shelburne Road by state permission on Sundays – or Dorset St on Sundays? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Transportation Pg. 2-50 Y Page 2-53 – Kennedy Drive – there is an identified need for crosswalk at east twin oaks Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Transportation Pg. 2-53 Y Also – there is a need for improvement -- discussion of sidewalk connection to lime kiln road from airport drive/pkwy Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Transportation C Shaw part 1 of 2_ 9-28-15 Y The discussion of east-west corridors to Williston should include a prospective/potential connection through the Meadowlands Industrial Park over the Muddy Brook to a road through the SB quarry and exiting on South Brownell. – for the eventuality of the quarry no longer serving its purpose. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Transportation C Shaw part 1 of 2_ 9-28-17 Y Equally in a discussion of the sidewalks and their gaps – there should be discussion or a goal/objective/strategy to prioritize and have the city build to fill the sidewalk gaps in our system.(strategy#42- --need to speak explicitly to it in. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Transportation C Shaw part 1 of 2_ 9-28-18 Y Page 2-52 Bullet 1, paragraph 1, mention high density development in Burlington proposed for north end of Patchen Road? And under "missing Links" - auto traffic will increase. Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Transportation Pg. 2-52 N Page 2-57, 4th paragraph "discourage cut-through traffic" and "through travelers" are conflicting ideas.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Transportation Pg. 2-57 N I do not support, but instead oppose, the extension of Swift Street from Dorset Street to Route 116. Gwen Kjelleren 10/9/2015 Swift St. Extension G Kjelleren 10/9/15 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 6 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Firmly against the Swift Street extension.Kelly A Morrison 10/10/2015 Swift St. Extension K Morrison 10- 10-15 Y Firmly against the Swift Street extension. Ernie & Kelly Borsellino 10/9/2015 Swift St. Extension E K Borsellino 10-9-15 Y Understanding that the extension of Swift Street to connect with Hinesburg Road has been on the Master Plan for several years, I find the arguments for the proposal flawed, and practicality of this plan unrealistic. Stewart Boyd 10/8/2015 Swift St. Extension S Boyd 10-08- 15 Y I am writing about my concern of the effects of Swift Street being connected through to Hinesburg Road. From having talked to several people in my neighborhood most are opposed to the plan. Terence Woodard 9/22/2015 Swift St. Extension T Woodard 9- 22-15 Y I am asking the City to reconsider the plan to extend Swift St, doing so will destroy this valuable wetland, and destroy the peaceful neighborhood that we as residents of The Village at Dorset Park enjoy. Terence Woodard 9/22/2015 Swift St. Extension T Woodard 9- 22-15 Y Page 2-100 – the sentence which finishes from page 2-99 at the top of this page is not clear – it draws a comparison to “well-drained soils” v. “less well drained soils” but the context of their accompanying value as agricultural soils isn’t stated on the SEQ soils (“loam soils” doesn’t by itself denote good soil or poor ag soil to me) – be clearer that it is/isn’t good ag soil (whether soggy or not in SEQ). Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-100 Y Page 2-109 –Overview and Inventory – sent #2 – for clarity – revise for verbiage: should read: “in recent years, small vegetable farms, backyard gardens and farmers’ markets have emerged to join the city’s landscape and its economic and cultural base.” Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-109 Y Page 2-110 – bullet point #8 – please define the buzzwords -- and why do we list/mention them, if only to look au courant ? Define them and explain how we support them. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-110 Y Page 2-111 – 3rd bullet point – perhaps a quick overview of the ownership/management of UVM Wheelock as contrasted with SB Wheeler and the conflicting needs of the pre-existing Burlington Community Gardens at Wheeler? Result – more SB gardens needed overall and in different sectors – potential Airport – DeGrasse Park – Allen Road city land – etc. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-111 Y Page 2-111 4th bullet point – The City/School overlap of Common Roots/Farmers’ Market isn’t explored here – I believe the intent is to more clearly define the Farmers’ Market as a “City” initiative (where it may appear to be attached to Common Roots as a “School” initiative). Explicitly state that the City needs to assist the Farmers’ Market’s permanence and not rely entirely on private support (or the confusion that it somehow springs from the School – which needs to be mentioned because of CR’s better-known work within the schools) Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-111 Y Page 2-112 – Objective #35 – suggest “Promote conservation of productive farmland and prime ag w/I the city” Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-112 Y 2-113 – Objective #36 – why “new” farmers? We should be supporting ALL farmers, and especially those who have been doing it for a while in SB and therefore are most vulnerable. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-113 Y Page 2-113 Define “local consumption” – not clear – within SB? --- within Chittenden County? – within the State? – what percentage need be “local” – Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-113 Y Page 2-112 Define “entrepreneurs” (agricultural entrepreneurs?) Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-112 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 7 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Page 2-30 Bullet 4 Mention small scale as ag being encouraged at homes, businesses, schools Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-30 N Page 2-32 Bullet 7 Add "produce grown here is offered for sale to the public".Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Agriculture Pg. 2-32 N Obj. 38: New farmers become “established” farmers, so remove “new”.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Obj. 40: Replace “Enable, encourage and incentivize” with “Provide incentives for”SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Strategy 81: Add in specific reference to the IZ Open Space and Sustainable Agriculture Committee Reports as well as the older Open Space Strategy and SEQ Open Space Plan. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Strategy 114: Seems like it should be an objective – could be moved to Agricultural resources, as Objective 41.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Strategy 117: When new development, including condominiums, in all residential and mixed use areas, is approved, community garden space should be “required”, to facilitate the goal of urban gardening. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Page 3-22: Include reference to the Bread and Butter Farm as a working commercial farm and popular gathering place and the Wheeler Nature Park. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Page 3-26: The Ag Lands section not up to date – add reference to Sus Ag report, Bread and Butter Farm etc.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Agriculture * Y Mr. Bresee suggested eliminating a lot of the different districts and rolling them into the form based code.Mr. Bresee 9/22/2015 Future Land Use 9/22/15 PC Y Mr. Paquette felt it would be good to name some of the major streets on the Future Land Use Map.Bernie Paquette 10/3/2015 Future Land Use 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y They would like less commercial there. PC Members discussed potentially changing the color on the future land use map to orange from the red. Member of Audience 10/3/2015 Future Land Use 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y Page 2-116 – Land Planning Use -- bullet point #9 – this is a new initiative not yet supported in the LDR’s – how will the Prime Conserve Areas (and their 300 foot surrounding buffers) line up with our existing NRP areas in the SEQ (for instance)? – the effect of this is to INCREASE the buffer around the designated wetlands from 50 feet (as State )(regardless of Class) to 300 feet – seems rather arbitrary and unsupported as a policy. Apparently the 300 foot buffer wouldn’t apply to hazards? (right?) – flood plains and slopes….but this needs more discussion and explication – it is very complicated and the maps don’t do it justice (and in the Prime Conservation Area map, one can’t tell the difference between “riparian connectivity” and “wetlands” in the legend) – “severely limiting” disturbance in these areas wouldn’t allow so much as a shed on Vale Drive, for instance. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 2-116 Y A resident asked about the potential for more mixed use around the Cider Mill. Member of Audience 10/3/2015 Future Land Use 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y Page 3-28 – Strategy # 120 – what does this even mean? Review LDR’s or zoning in those areas? I think you mean zoning to have compatible transitions like from commercial/transit overlay district to residential/park – stepping down densities and uses and heights to ease the transition…? Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 3-28 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 8 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 Page 3-37 – Strategy #128 – this is a targeted request from one property owner which has been going on for over 10 years and I think is entirely inappropriate to list it as a strategy that benefits one property owner that would place mega-housing in one of the most valuable viewsheds of SB – no Bueno. Take it out. I far prefer folks see “Reverence” as they enter SB and we are defined by that rather than the look/feel of the Quarry Hill=style apts that would be prominent at any Exit 12B if this were allowed. Not a good look. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 3-37 Y Page 2-115, Bullet 11? Mention discussion about expanding TDR receiving areas outside SEQ.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 2-115 N Page 2-116, Bullet 4 "require" an integrated mix?Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 2-116 N Page 3-25, Paragraph 4, Is it possible that Brewer Parkway and Lindenwood predated the Orchards; redundancy between paragraph 4 & 5 re: Mention of Szymanski and Farrell Parks. Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 3-25 N Page 3-38 - D. Special Multi-District Issues - Three key themes mentioned, but no discussion of transition areas in the paragraphs that follow. Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 3-38 N Page 3-38, last paragraph, last line "higher density land use than elsewhere in the City". (not clear what district is being referenced). Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Future Land Use Pg. 3-38 N Page 3-25 Paragraph 2: Add mention of possible modifications of TDR program to site receiving areas outside the SEQ. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Future Land Use * Y Page 2-16 under Housing Objectives - Objective 5. "Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhood [with access to recreation paths] that offer a good quality…" Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Housing Pg 2-16 N Page 2-17 under Housing Strategies - add a [Strategy 14 that calls for using Impact Fees and other funding to build sidewalks and recreation paths to enhance community interaction and the sense of community.] Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Housing Pg. 2-17 N Page 2-16 -- offer a strategy to convert rental properties back to owner-occupied single family homes (tax rebates?) Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Housing Pg. 2-16 Y Why no discussion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund in Objectives or Strategies? (may be later in doc)Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Housing C Shaw Part 1 0f 2_ 9-28-15 Y Where is discussion of Form-Based Codes as it may/may not have an impact on Housing?Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Housing C Shaw Part 1 0f 2_ 9-28-16 Y Page 2-11 === seems like selective numbers of building units – first paragraph says 160 units per year in last decade and then in next paragraph it says 105 units per year as an average since 2007. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Housing Pg. 2-11 Y Page 2-100 Future Needs and Trends – 1st bullet point – development growth: “housing growth…with residential construction expected…” (how and what is the arcane distinction between “housing growth” and “residential construction”? (are apartments “housing growth” but NOT “residential construction”?) – this is unclear as to the definition you are using for each is apparently separate. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Housing Pg. 2-100 Y Page 2-17 Strategy 11 - "Monitor" too weak (City should implement codes - soon)Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Housing Pg. 2-17 N Page 2-100, Paragraph (bullet at the bottom) has extra words; eliminate "a rate of" and insert "an" there; also why is housing growth not identical to residential construction? Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Housing Pg. 2-100 N I support Bernie Paquette's suggestion concerning litter related issues in the SB Comprehensive Plan Susan Saferstein 9/27/2015 Litter S Saferstein 9- 27-15 Y Mr. Paquette felt that there should be more of a “clean aspect,” including litter prevention.Bernie Paquette 10/3/2015 Litter 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 9 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Consider noting recognition of litter as a serious problem and that a clean city as a brand and identity opportunity. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Goal: Consider setting the goal of continuous improvement year round towards a clean city. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Objective: Create management processes and regulations to manage litter in public and business landscapes. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y include the objective of a clean city standard (litter control) achieved partly through year round, timely, measureable litter management processes and regulations affecting public and private business landscapes. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Develop and implement Cleanliness Monitoring to measure cleanliness level over time and identify problem areas. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Promote increased participation in the current successful SB Green Up Day program, and the fledgling but growing Adopt-A-Block program. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Organize, facilitate and promote a yearly Fall Sweep campaign similar to Green Up Day only occurring in the fall season (in addition to the spring Green Up Day event.) Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Develop a comprehensive education and outreach campaign to reduce litter citywide. Sponsor interdepartmental school and public education program to include litter prevention. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Begin a pilot program of installing a few solar powered trash compactors in high traffic, high littered public areas. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Explore public/private partnerships for litter prevention and control (year round cleanup). Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y Single-use bags and expanded polystyrene are two materials that are increasingly targets of product bans around the country. These materials are not biodegradable and have life spans of hundreds of years. These materials negatively affect the collection system and, when littered, negatively affect the natural environment and harm wildlife. Therefore consider developing ordinances with the goal of reducing or eliminating consumption and generation of the following products: • Single-use bags; • Non-recyclable, non-compostable take-out containers; and • Single-use beverage containers. Bernie Paquette 6/9/2015 Litter B. Paquette 6- 9-2015 Y “Facilitate Clean City image with a multi-faceted approach toward litter prevention and year-round clean up.” Supporting Bernie's Decision Ken Allen 10/6/2015 Litter K Allen 10-5- 15 Y Page. 2-80 – who owns and operates the dam that separates SB from Colchester/Winooski on the Winooski River – that should be mentioned and why is SB not a party to what appears to be a shared resource? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Blue Infrastructure Pg. 2-80 Y Throughout the Blue Infrastructure section, we talk about flooding and flood plains, but as we’ve seen in Vermont (Irene) and even in South Burlington, the flood events that happen aren’t lately in the plains (“the rain in Maine stays mainly on the plains, but the wet fonts in Vermont runs gauntlets down the monts”) – that is the consideration about flash-floods that we should be mentioning in both hazard mitigation and planning: that the SLOPES are the important consideration. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Blue Infrastructure C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-26 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 10 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 Discussion of phosphorus load of each plant 80% of new reqs for Bartlett Bay and 92% of new phosphorus reqs for Airport Pkwy – it looks like we don’t need to outlay capital costs to meet the new EPA standards and lake cleanup plan. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Blue Infrastructure C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-28 Y Page 2-93 – this objective #28 stands out as an odd one – where is there wastewater allocation other than in City center? So maintaining that? Is it deliberately general? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Blue Infrastructure Pg. 2-93 Y Page 2-93 – strategy #63 asks for water for a high point, but there isn’t an attendant recognition of wastewater in that same area (i.e., if we build a water tower do we extend a sewer line to it and beyond?) It’s just odd that we are recognizing need for extra water in SEQ for safety and such, but there is a rather limiting approach to the sewer…isn’t that contradictory. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Blue Infrastructure Pg. 2-93 Y Map #4 – we aren’t showing any water tanks or towers (or the proposed ones) – I think they’re important on this map Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Blue Infrastructure Map #4 Y Page 2-78 Intro - No mention of private wells here also Bullet 4 should read "understanding of flood hazards and planning for flood emergency…" (For tenses to be consistent in bullets). Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Blue Infrastructure Pg. 2-78 N Page 2-81 My feeling is that the whole section on "how Fluvial Erosion Occurs" should be greatly shortened or eliminated - there isn't that depth of scientific background anywhere else in the Comprehensive Plan. Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Blue Infrastructure Pg. 2-81 N Page 3-28: No mention of the impact of City Center on total water and sewer needs.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Blue Infrastructure * Y Page 2-25 – need a strategy to have a city-wide “reverse 911” system to highlight storm events or special disaster/water usage alerts Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Community Facilities & Services Pg. 2-25 Y Page 3-34 – Public safety – here’s a chance to mention potential school with public meeting space/shelter/substation of PD. Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Community Facilities & Services Pg. 3-34 Y Obj. 31 Remove “restrict and limit”. Simply start the sentence with “Prohibit”. 2nd sentence, use “prevent” instead of “minimize”. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Community Facilities & Services * Y Obj. 32: Language choice is unclear, proactively means what exactly? Is this an objective that could be tied into an existing state statute that pertains to solid waste management? SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Community Facilities & Services * Y Obj. 36: if we are not meeting this objective now, which we are not, then how can we maintain it? We suggest modifying the language to be more accurate, using “create and maintain”, instead of strive. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Community Facilities & Services * Y 2-72 – municipal energy challenge – what is status of this or its deadline if you mention it? Need deets, peeps…. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy Pg. 2-72 Y 2-73 -- if sewage is biggest user…why no educational/conservation initiative…”if it’s brown flush it down….if it’s yellow, let it mellow?” Where are plans/discussion of lo-flow or water-free urinals (like at Sheraton)/toilets? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy Pg. 2-73 Y 2-74 what studies support the anti-wind statement? There are clearly wind turbines in SB in the Meadowlands (and historically on our farms) and the ridgeline can clearly support turbines – this is a rather bald statement that requires justification. Are we too timid to discuss in light of our energy future? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy Pg 2-74 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 11 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 How do we adopt building codes? New construction…energy efficiency?Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-20 Y How are you measuring…objective 22?Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-22 Y Define clean energy assessment district…..strategy 50 Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-23 Y Overall – no discussion of our phosphorus EPA regs for reduction with two WWTFs – one at 93% of load now (Airport) and the other at 80% (*Bartlett Bay) Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Energy C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-25 Y Page 2-69 No mention of solar or wind in this section, aren't they considered "utilities"?Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Energy Pg. 2-69 N Page 2-76 Strategy #52 "Consider" a weak word; should be "include" or "implement".Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Energy Pg. 2-76 N Missing item: The Plan needs reference to criteria for appropriate siting of water towers, cellphone towers, solar generating facilities and wind power installations. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Energy * Y 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. Audience 9/22/2015 South Village 9/22/15 PC Y I feel very strongly that we do not need any commercial entities within South Village. Judith Boyd 10/6/2015 South Village JK Boyd 10-06- 15 Y I am writing to support Mixed Use zoning for lot 11 in South Village in order to allow for a Farm Market, Café, and community center. Development for non-residential use should be limited. John Owen 10/7/2015 South Village J Owen 10-07- 15 Y South Village in the southeast quadrant. a red area in South Village that indicates higher density mixed use. I would like that area to indicate the actual use. Nicholas Andrews 9/22/2015 South Village N Andrews 9- 22-15 Y A resident the small “red dot” in the area of South Village. Felt that to put commercial uses there would be “disruptive to the concept of South Village.” Member of Audience 10/3/2015 South Village 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y We are delighted to see an area in South Village designated for an opportunity for mixed use to enhance the community in the SE quadrant area with walkable, bike-able & other pedestrian friendly connectivity contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Robin Jeffers 10/12/2015 South Village R Jeffers 10-12- 15 Y Page 2- 20 under Active Recreation" - Add something about the need for Recreation Path expansion and connections with other towns for recreational bicyclists, runners and walkers Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Recreation Pg. 2- 20 N Page 2-30 under City Parks, Lands & Facilities, there should be some mention of the number of miles of recreation paths in the City. Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Recreation Pg. 2-30 N Page 2-107 – Recreation Programming – “prohibitive” -- doesn’t sound right/make sense – find a better word.Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Recreation Pg. 2-107 Y Page 2-108 – Strategy #76 – what does this even mean? How about “use the matrices for land acquisition that have been devised by the RLA committee or NR/OS committee?” Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Recreation Pg. 2-108 Y Map #10 – no proposed trails? To show connections mentioned from Cider Mill to Shelburne Pond (connection trail to Scott Property?) Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Recreation Map #10 Y Objective 28: Combines 2 dissimilar objectives, conflicts between corridors and recreation. Seems like too much in one sentence so becomes a little bit unclear. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Recreation * Y Strategy 84: Remove reference to Wheeler; add reference to the city’s tree nursery.SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Recreation * Y Strategy 89: ….to provide buffer for all city parks and nature reserves to protect them from……, not just Red Rocks. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Recreation * Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 12 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Page 2-59 – there should be discussion of whether the city seeks further purchase of homes or not and/or whether we prefer aggressive noise mitigation measures by the airport (fencing?) or for the homes (insulation/windows) or both. The PC should offer their opinion on this (especially as to “future land use” of the Airport properties that are zoned R4 and are now a greenspace to the airport noise tunnel) – maybe get a cue from CNAPC – advise on whether a Berlin “sound” Wall is needed (or berm/embankments) or if future commercial development is envisioned as part of a buffer Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Airport C Shaw part 1 of 2_ 9-28-19 Y Page 3-19 – Objective 50 – is this the position of the PC & CNAPC? That they support the continued sale and relocation of homes? If not, take it out and stick with noise-mitigation. Chris Shaw Airport Pg. 3-19 Y Page 3-18, Bullet 2 Are there more houses going to be purchased and demolished? If project is done, perhaps rephrase this. Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Airport Pg. 3-18 N How will City policy affect wages - the real issue?Lou Bresee 10/2/2015 Child Care Pg. 2-29, 30 Y concerned with the potential “cannibalization” of existing businesses with City Center development plans. Audience 9/22/2015 City Center 9/22/15 PC Y Need discussion of how city center will be less car friendly…more pedestrian…setting up required city streets on the Official Map for this area is counter to this clearly stated goal/objective. (more pedestrian alleys & plazas/less thoroughfares) Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 City Center C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-21 Y The change to labeling content areas such green, blue, grey, etc sections was a bit confusing.Abigail Crocker 10/9/2015 Overall A Crocker 10- 09-15 Y whether the city has enough population to support the amount of commercial business that is intended. Audience 9/22/2015 Economic Development 9/22/15 PC Y Page 2-23 --- need a strategy to highlight improvements to the commercial districts that would allow restaurants or services within the Tech Park/Meadowlands to supplement our daytime workforce ballooning and reduce trips during the lunch-hour – fostering independence – need to allow hotel in Tech Park to facilitate usage and keep folks from driving to Williston. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Economic Development Pg. 2-23 Y Page 2-23 --Also add a strategy to coordinate more with SBBA types or GBIC or LCRCC or BIA for synergies.Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Economic Development Pg. 2-23 Y Page 2-22 Objective 7 Add "Monitor and adjust the ratio if needed".Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Economic Development Pg. 2-22 N the School Board will have input into the Educational component of the Plan.Audience 9/22/2015 Education 9/22/15 PC Y 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.” Member of Audience 10/3/2015 Education 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y Page 2-37 – is this the real data? Or is that still pending? This seems wrong as it shows the High School as operating at over its rated capacity for students – but if true – it should be highlighted. If the new data isn’t here – it sure isn’t fair to ask folks to comment in only 3 weeks on something that hasn’t even been presented yet. That will incite people who feel that the school task force report is being bulldozed through in a quickened process -- it clearly should have been included here for public review. Put it out there and have it evaluated in a decent amount of time – even if it means the PC has to re-adopt the old plan b/c the draft is incomplete and there isn’t enough time built in for proper public review and feedback. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Education Pg. 2-37 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 13 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 Page 1-2: A. General Description. 3rd paragraph - "Three major elements….Prominence are its [recreation path and] park system, retail and … It is traversed by two arterial highways, one railroad, [27 miles of recreation paths,] and has a nearly…" Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Executive Summary Pg- 1-2 N Page 2-104 – Cultural Facilities and Organizations – this is rather brief and general – I think we can do better – the new SB Historical Society, Rotary, Lions, SBBA, Moose, Vermont Country Club, Higher Ground, movie theater, plays at schools (Rice/SBHS), list our churches – and number them (religion being a lacking of Vermont supposedly) Chris Shaw 10/10/2015 Historical & Cultural Resources Pg. 2-104 Y In 2.3 (at beginning) – what measures will be taken to maintain “balanced neighborhoods” – rather vague – how do we assess they are “out of balance”? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Neighborhoods C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-26 Y Why is the Official Map not included here with Comp Plan (shouldn’t it be…or is it a separate process?) will that map coincide with “planned infrastructure improvements”? Why isn’t proposed water tower show? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Official Map C Shaw part 1 of 2_ 9-28-16 Y how the Plan can fit into a city comprised of so many “pockets.” Audience 9/22/2015 Overall 9/22/15 PC Y There is a strong need for a comprehensive glossary of clear (legal) definitions for many words like "significant" or "critical", what is "necessary"? Or tie the terms into existing state statutes like Act 250. Define the terms “conserve” and “preserve”, and the differences between them. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Overall * Y The language is often more vague than it might be. Terms and sentences should be clear and strongly supportive of the open space, wildlife corridors and descriptions of how objectives will be attained. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Overall * Y Obj. 29: Suggestion that instead of “avoid”, use “prohibit”. This same comment applies to a number of the objective statements. SBLT Board Members 4/25/2015 Overall * Y Why not streamline the policy for all permitting?Lou Bresee 10/2/2015 Permitting Pg. 2-16 Strategy 9 Y Page 2-9 There is no discussion of comparison or recognition of County growth or stagnation - as per the regional plan - I think we should be including comparisons to county to stay in context (either 1.5 - 2.0% dwelling unit growth or the county's DU growth rate - whichever is higher as triggers for re-eval) - similarly to the population counts/growth. It's not a good look to be calling to stop/slow growth at 2% when all your neighbors are experiencing 5%. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Population Pg. 2-9 Y It would appear that we are capping the average growth of the last decade as our maximum – is that smart where we experienced a major recession? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Population Pg. 2-11 Y Do we want growth for our schools and population? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Population Pg. 2-11 Y I am suggesting the 105 is a VERY low number considering issues like the recession and Interim Zoning over the last 7-8 years. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Population Pg. 2-11 Y Page 2-24 Bullet 2 should be a mention of decrease in school-age population.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Population Pg. 2-24 N Page 2-90 – was this “water ordinance” conflated with the wastewater allocation and do they then mean the 125-150k gals now? Or is it a separate stand-alone “water only” ordinance of which I’m not aware Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Potable Water Pg. 2-90 Y Protective Views - From what I can tell the protected views east are very limited. One area where the view east is excellent is from Wheeler Park focused east. Currently this is one of the few minimally developed views of Mt. Mansfield left in S. Burlington and should be protected. Justin Stinnett 10/8/2015 Protective Views J Stinnett 10-8- 15 Y Public Input received on Draft Comprehensive Plan For Planning Commission public hearing 10-20-2015 14 1 B C D H I K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Topic Reference Location # Additional Details in attached letter 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 Public utilities --- only one strategy for broadband? What about convert all homes/municipal bldgs. to natural gas? Incentives for solar panels? Solar energy/ community csa solar fields? Why so mute? Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Public Utilities C Shaw part 1 of 2_ 9-28-20 Y Page 2-49 under Quality of Life Strategies - add strategy to continue to maintain and expand recreation path development for getting people out of their homes and connecting with their neighbors. Bob Britt 9/19/2015 Quality of Life Pg. 2-49 N Page 2-46 Wish there were a bullet on the aspiration for code enforcement and long-term oversight of developer agreements and promises Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Quality of Life Pg. 2-46 N Page 2-46 Bullet 5 Add: and a contribution to a healthy environment.Sarah Dopp 10/12/2015 Quality of Life Pg. 2-46 N SEQ connecting roads to decrease east to west traffic. Extending Swift St and Cider Mill roads to Hinesburg Rd is a solution looking for a problem. If the interstate exchange is ever built at Hinesburg Rd. then much of the limited traffic which currently exists would be improved. Placing Bike Paths and other pedestrian and recreational friendly extensions would be reasonable. I hope the city would seriously re-consider those road extensions as not necessary. Justin Stinnett 10/8/2015 SEQ J Stinnett 10-8- 15 Y Mr. Owen noted an issue with solar arrays. He asked if South Burlington has given any thought to where these might be. Mr. Owen 9/22/2015 Solar Siting 9/22/15 PC Y concern with an area in the Southeast Quadrant with a section noting some commercial development near South Village. Audience 9/22/2015 Southeast Quadrant 9/22/15 PC Y I will say that I am disheartened to see so many new roads cutting through the SEQ. Abigail Crocker 10/9/2015 Southeast Quadrant A Crocker 10- 09-15 Y Page 2-85 – OK, I’ll bite – where are our “hydrodynamic swirl separators” for stormwater??Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Stormwater C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-27 Y Page 2-86 – fee structure for sloped impervious surfaces/properties should be more in recognition of their greater impact on running-off, or special buffering/treatment should be required for such properties/surfaces. Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Stormwater Pg. 2-86 Y Page 2-87 -- add some strategies and objectives that talk about mapping and dealing with slope runoff in a better way Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Stormwater Pg. 2-87 Y There should be a discussion of monochloramines and our award for best water taste nationally?Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Stormwater C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-27 Y Possible energy generation discussion for power to be generated from gravity/water pressure within system?Chris Shaw 9/28/2015 Stormwater C Shaw part 1 of 2_9-28-28 Y Mr. Nick suggested that in Strategies 126 and 127 greater densities might be allowed without using TDRs in the area presently zoning I/O Mr. Nick 9/22/2015 TDRs 9/22/15 PC Y was concerned that the studies used by the Commission were a number of years old. Audience 9/22/2015 The Studies 9/22/15 PC Y Members of the audience agreed with prior concerns with the word “rich” in the first goal.Bernie Paquette 10/3/2015 Wording 10-03-15 PC Minutes Y *From April Draft; may not reflect current order of or text of goals, objectives strategies etc. From: Abigail Crocker [mailto:abigail.crocker@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 5:07 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Comprehensive Plan Hi Cathyann, I wasn't able to attend the pubic meetings but have briefly reviewed the comprehensive plan and was just wondering if you have more information on the Education section? It looks like it's still stamped "in progress"...is this different than the stamp of "draft" that is part of the remainder of the document? I'm curious because certain sections from the 2011 version of the Comprehensive plan were deleted, such as "Continue the neighborhood school concept, which is paramount to a continued sense of community, a sense of belonging and affiliation, and encourages strong families and community values” and new items have been added such as “the district has started planning for a new school to serve students in the SEQ with a preliminary analysis of a site at Oak Creek Village”. I'm curious about this because it's not what has been going on in the School Board meetings? Also, I'm curious - was the School Board involved in writing this at all? I don't see anyone from the board on the acknowledgements page. Also, the last draft of the comprehensive plan had clear language concerning the process for potentially repurposing Central School (community involvement and a vote)...I'm curious as to what that language didn't continue in this draft plan? I will say that I am disheartened to see so many new roads cutting through the SEQ. This is a beautiful area of our city that studies have shown is the most important area for wildlife. Cutting it up with all these new roads seem like the wrong direction for our South Burlington. I don't see the traffic congestion that would require this, and would hope that the city would conduct additional traffic studies and wildlife studies before pursuing these types of efforts. I would prefer we keep this area as intact green space, not a series of cut through roads. Also, out of curiosity - why does the plan explicitly state the process for repurposing Wheeler Nature Park (public vote) but no other nature lands? The change to labeling content areas such green, blue, grey, etc sections was a bit confusing. It took a minute to orient myself and figure out where to find information. Also, schools and education are missing from the table of contents. Overall, I think there are some great pieces to this plan. I'm sure it was a lot of work to put together, and appreciate all of the hard work! What is the process after the public hearing on October 20th? Many thanks, Abby Crocker A. Crocker 10092015 1 B. Britt 09192015 2 From: Bernard Paquette [mailto:bernie.paquette@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 8:30 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Fw: Univ. Mall trees-Do they meet their permit obligations? Cathyann, would you please provide this request to the PC regarding the 2016 Comp plan? TY Regarding Ecological Statement, pg 2-102, Strategy 66 ...trees. Perhaps it would be appropriate to add language suggesting implementation of an enforcement strategy towards commercial landscape requirements beyond initial installation. Meaning, trees and other landscaping must be maintained to reflect that which was diagrammed or otherwise indicated in the original Dev Review board application. Enforcement requires recognition when trees are removed, die or are not being maintained in a manner that reflects the original intent, and then requires action to address the omission. As an example if the original Dev. Review board approves a structure plan with three (in maturity) lg trees in front of the building. And 25 years later as the trees reach full size at maturity, the business/building owner has the limbs removed on the lower third of the tree to allow improved visibility of the building/business- however no longer does the image reflect the intent of the original site plans. Another example is when trees are damaged, dying, or dead and removed, but not replaced. See note below and attached photos as examples within the city where I believe the intent of the site plans are not being met due to fallen trees not replaced and trees limbs severely cut at lower levels, and trees not maintained in such a way as they can reasonably be expected to reach maturity. Bernie Paquette Web site: http://www.litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/ "I write to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see, and what it means." Joan Didion ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Bernard Paquette <bernie.paquette@yahoo.com> To: ray Belair <rbelair@sburl.com> Cc: Craig Lambert <clambert@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>; "clarose@sburl.com" <clarose@sburl.com> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:12 AM Subject: Fw: Univ. Mall trees-Do they meet their permit obligations? Ray, below are photos of a few of the trees in the University Mall parking lot. Do these trees and their current condition meet the Umall's permit obligations to maintain the health of the trees on their lot, and to B. Paquette A 10052015 3 replace dead and dying trees? Though not included in the photos there is at least one tree that was cut down long ago and not replaced (along the roadway going by Sears Auto heading towards Hannaford (on the right side along the sidewalk). Similar question about the trees in front of the Anchorage Inn on Dorset St. - See attaché (3) photos. Does the result of heavy pruning of lower limbs and the resulting view meet the intentions of the Anchorage Inn permit? Is this what the architect drawings projected at the time the permit was reviewed? B. Paquette A 10052015 4 B. Paquette A 10052015 5 This is the last response I received from the UMall property maintenance rep. on July 10, 2013. I have asked for but not received an update. Hello Bernie, We’re on top of it, but as of today, have not replaced the trees. As a matter of fact, I’m meeting with my contractor early this week to go over a game plan, as I had been out of the office for most of last week. We do have a maintenance program in place to keep any trees alive that we can, typically through fertilization and pruning, but as I’m sure you are aware, it is difficult in situations where there is a lot of asphalt surrounding trees to keep in them tip-top shape. If you drive around South Burlington, you would probably find that University Mall is in much better shape than most large parking lots due to our maintenance programs. That said, as far as the B. Paquette A 10052015 6 trees in the Hannaford parking lot, we are obviously hoping to revive the ones most heavily pruned and restore them to their full potential. I usually leave it up to my contractor to let me know which ones cannot be saved, since he’s the professional and has much more knowledge about such things than I do. We do not typically have customers take such an active interest in our green-space but I enjoy the feedback and encourage you to continue contacting me. University Mall prides itself on being green friendly with our recycling programs, energy efficiency upgrades in HVAC and lighting, and decreased water usage in the restrooms. Being green friendly begins and ends with nature, however, and I share your passion in keeping University Mall and all of South Burlington looking as good as possible. Thank you Jason Steward, Property Manager UNIVERSITY MALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Bernie Paquette SB VT Love where you live Web site: http://www.litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/VTLitterStories Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/berniepaquette/ "I write to fnd out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see, and what it means." Joan Didion ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Bernard Paquette <bernie.paquette@yahoo.com> To: Pat Nowak <pnowak@sburl.com>; Kevin Dorn <kdorn@sburl.com>; Chris Shaw <cshaw@sburl.com>; Helen Riehle <hriehle@sburl.com>; Pam Mackenzie <pmackenzie@sburl.com>; Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> Cc: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>; Craig Lambert <clambert@sburl.com>; ray Belair <rbelair@sburl.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:29 AM Subject: Who will speak for the (urban) trees? Hello City Council members and Mr. Dorn, I hope you get the chance to not only read my Green and Clean column (Who will speak for the trees) in todays The Other Paper, but also look at my blog posting of the same title. http://litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/2013/09/who-will-speak-for-trees.html The blog posting has many more photos of trees in the Univ. Mall which show of which I speak and prompt the question, "who will speak for the SB Urban trees?" My hope is that more people speak up to businesses asking them to do a better job caring for trees on their properties, providing adequate growing space, replacing damaged, dying, and dead trees and planting trees that can become large canopy shade trees. B. Paquette A 10052015 7 And I hereby ask the city of SB (council and development review board and others) to look ahead in anticipation of large tree loss due to invasive pests, and plan how the city will replace those expected losses. I also encourage a review of the SB tree ordinance and related planning regulations along with the following considerations. > Consider setting performance standards guiding maintenance practices on either commercial or private property. NOTE I have attached photos of trees in front of The Anchorage Inn on Dorset street. Notice how these once beautiful full trees were severely de- limbed, presumably to open the view to the building. Does this revised view meet what their original permit intended? > Set development regulations with minimums set for planter islands (within parking lots) - capacity and quantity. > Encourage more canopy -large shade trees in parking lots. >Fund enforcement of tree regulations to help insure businesses maintain the landscapes according to their zoning permits-over time. > Increase the city tree budget to include a tree replacement line item, and for an increased city tree population. > Seek a coalition of the community garden volunteers and the public to achieve a larger bank of trees in the community garden earmarked for public-city planting in the future. Maybe citizens could be encouraged to donate trees (Inexpensive Bare root trees from WNRCD to larger caliber trees). The smaller trees to be grown and maintained at the community garden till mature enough to be planted in the city. Best Regards, Bernie Paquette Love where you live! Web site: http://www.litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/VTLitterStories Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/berniepaquette/ "I write to fnd out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see, and what it means." Joan Didion B. Paquette A 10052015 8 From: Bernard Paquette [mailto:bernie.paquette@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 8:07 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Comments for SB PC regarding Draft Comp plan Hello Cathyann, would you please provide these comments to the SB PC regarding the SB 2016 Draft Comp. plan? TY Under Surface water.... page 2-8, objectives. Please consider adding language to this effect. Set a goal of obtaining the remaining privately held property consisting of the Centennial brook and stream bank sections of which run the length of Kirby Road, beginning at Airport Pkwy, thru Patchen Rd. Purpose - eventual installation of a board walk over this length of stream in between the tree lined banks for the purpose of public passive outdoor recreation pathway. I can provide photos of this area taken in winter and or other season if that would be helpful. Bernie Paquette Web site: http://www.litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/ "I write to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see, and what it means." Joan Didion B. Paquette B 10052015 9 Under the ‘Green’ goals of the SB 25 year comprehensive plan, please consider the following goals and objectives. Thank You, Bernie Paquette, June 10, 2015. 1. Update zoning regulations requiring parking lots w> 28 spaces to have a min. of 15% of the interior contain landscaped islands VS what I believe is currently a 10% requirement. 1b. Require landscaped islands meet the size the Arborist determines is necessary so one can reasonably expect the tree(s) planted in it to survive duration equal to its normal life expectancy. 2. Require a larger percentage of canopy trees in parking lots (through zoning regulations)-trees that can grow to provide large canopies for shade, both filtered shade trees and full shade trees. 3. Provide adequate operating budget for tree care and tree planting line item. Currently the city does very little tree planting other than replacements. 4. Optimize the SB tree nursery. 5. Recognize and prepare for *EAB (Emerald Ash Border) infestation. This will necessitate the removal and subsequent replacement of a large number of ash trees along city streets (currently about 15% of the city tree population). 6. Create performance standards guiding maintenance practices for both either commercial or private property. (To help insure actual landscapes reflect original engineer drawings submitted at time of site development.) *For Reference For Reference: SB Emerald Ash Borer Action Plan (As far as I know the City Council has yet to approve and adopt all or a portion of the City Arborist EAB plan.) Introduction: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is an exotic wood boring beetle from Asia that was most likely introduced to North America in the 1990’s. The insect was first discovered in Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario in 2002. At the time of discovery, it was estimated that the insect had been present for roughly five years. Since its discovery, EAB has spread throughout the northeastern US and Canada, killing more than 50 million ash trees. While it has yet to be discovered in Vermont, EAB has been found nearby in the Hudson River Valley of New York, southern Quebec, and most recently in Connecticut, southern New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts. Discovery in Vermont is expected in the very near future. South Burlington currently has roughly 760 Ash trees along its streets and in its parks, comprising roughly 13% of the cities’ street and park tree population. To make matters worse, the vast majority of these trees are located in only 3 neighborhoods, Dorset Farms, Brand Farm and the Golf Course neighborhoods. The mortality of ash tree in these neighborhoods will result in a number of streets with no street trees and the loss of 50- 70% of the trees in the neighborhoods. B. Paquette 06092015 B 10 Discussion: While there are currently, no “cures” for EAB there are a number of strategies South Burlington could use to manage the effects of this exotic pest: 1. Removal and replacement of ash trees in fair to poor condition prior to EAB being detected in Vermont. This has been started in a very limited fashion mainly along Nowland Farm Road, utilizing trees from the TREEage community Tree Nursery as replacements. Public Works staff can accomplish removals and replanting but the city will need to budget for replacement planting stock. Systematic removal and replacement may also be advisable on streets where all the trees are ash. This might involve removal and replacement of every fourth or fifth tree on the street so that there would still be some trees on the street when the ash trees succumb to EAB. 2. Interplant trees where possible on streets that are heavily planted with ash. Prime locations for this type of activity are street entrances and areas along streets where residences are absent and adequate spacing exists to provide a suitable planting site. Midland Avenue and areas along Nowland Farm Road are examples of streets where this strategy might be utilized. Again, Public Works staff can plant the trees but the city will have to budget for planting stock (a limited number of trees from the TREEage Community Nursery could be used for this purpose). 3. Once EAB has been found in the state, suitable ash trees can be injected with insecticides to protect suitable trees from EAB damage. Trees would have to be treated every 1-2 years one EAB has been detected within 15-20 miles of the city. While this may not be a long term strategy to manage EAB it will provide the city with a longer time frame to implement the previous strategies. It is also possible that this strategy could buy time in the event that other more effective, long term management options are discovered. Costs: The primary cost of strategies 1 and 2 would be the cost of obtaining planting stock: 1. Wholesale cost of 2-2.5 inch caliper balled and burlapped trees currently run $150-200. 2. Nursery stock planted in the TREEage Community Tree Nursery currently cost the city approximately $20 a piece. These small 4-5 foot trees are then planted in the nursery and maintained for 3-4 years until they achieve a size suitable to transplant onto city streets. Most of the maintenance is provided by volunteers with some advice and assistance from Public Works staff. We presently have the capacity to harvest 50-60 trees a year from the nursery. The primary cost associated with strategy number 3 is the purchase of pesticides to treat selected trees. There are several pesticides which can be used to control EAB, the most effective being a material called Tree-age (active ingredient emamactin benzoate). 1. Using current pricing, material costs for this option would be approximately $3-6 per inch of trunk diameter i.e. a 10 inch diameter tree would cost $30-60 to treat. This treatment would be required every 2 years to ensure control. All of the above costs are strictly material costs and do not include labor and equipment costs that would be provided by South Burlington Public Works. Contracting any of these services would most likely result in 300-400% increase in the above costs(this is a best guess estimate). Summary: In the near future South Burlington will be faced with the prospect of removing and replacing a significant number of street trees due to the infestation of Emerald Ash Borer. Adoption of some or all of the above listed management strategies willenable us to deal with this problem in a proactive manner, spreading costs over a longer time period. B. Paquette 06092015 B 11 B. Paquette 06092015 B 12 I request inclusion of the following items into the South Burlington five year Comprehensive plan. Consider noting recognition of litter as a serious problem and that a clean city as a brand and identity opportunity. Goal: Consider setting the goal of continuous improvement year round towards a clean city. Objective: Create management processes and regulations to manage litter in public and business landscapes. Below are objectives that are more specific. 1. The quality of a city is reflected in the standards it sets. Clean city standards can help build community pride, tell a part of our story, what we are about, and demonstrate our values. Therefore, please include the objective of a clean city standard (litter control) achieved partly through year round, timely, measureable litter management processes and regulations affecting public and private business landscapes. The purpose of which is to protect our water, wildlife, and human health as well as our city’s image and brand. Littering will be difficult to stop until we recognize it as a serious problem. Keep in mind that Litter is primarily a problem due to a lack of concern and pride for the environment or improper waste handling and disposal practices. People tend to litter in places where, they feel no B. Paquette 06092015 A 13 sense of personal ownership, litter has already accumulated and there are insufficient trash receptacles. Develop and implement Cleanliness Monitoring to measure cleanliness level over time and identify problem areas. Promote increased participation in the current successful SB Green Up Day program, and the fledgling but growing Adopt-A-Block program. Organize, facilitate and promote a yearly Fall Sweep campaign similar to Green Up Day only occurring in the fall season (in addition to the spring Green Up Day event.) Develop a comprehensive education and outreach campaign to reduce litter citywide. Sponsor interdepartmental school and public education program to include litter prevention. Begin a pilot program of installing a few solar powered trash compactors in high traffic, high littered public areas. Explore public/private partnerships for litter prevention and control (year round cleanup). Single-use bags and expanded polystyrene are two materials that are increasingly targets of product bans around the country. These materials are not biodegradable and have life spans of hundreds of years. These materials negatively affect the collection system and, when littered, negatively affect the natural environment and harm wildlife. Therefore consider developing ordinances with the goal of reducing or eliminating consumption and generation of the following products: • Single-use bags; • Non-recyclable, non-compostable take-out containers; and • Single-use beverage containers. B. Paquette 06092015 A 14 Comp Plan Comments (part 1 of 2) Page #2 – acknowledgements – please put a space after the comma after “Chris Shaw” Page 1-2 --- inexplicable references to “nearby ferry crossings” without mentioning the airport as a major regional transportation center, nor additionally recognizing its role as an air base for the National Guard. No mention of the major role the city plays in hosting a great number of hotels for visitors. Additional focus should emphasize the bike paths and connectivity within the City as it enhances property values and access for all residents/visitors – connecting to Burlington and in future to surrounding towns. Page 2-9 – there is no discussion of comparison or recognition of County growth or stagnation – as per the regional plan – I think we should be including comparisons to county to stay in context (either 1.5- 2.0% dwelling unit growth or the county’s DU growth rate – whichever is higher as triggers for re-eval) – similarly to the population counts/growth. It’s not a good look to be calling to stop/slow growth at 2% when all your neighbors are experiencing 5% -- and in this case there may be a need to look outside the county to neighboring county growth as well (in order to reduce our traffic through and congestion from same within). Page 2-16 -- offer a strategy to convert rental properties back to owner-occupied single family hommes (tax rebates?)  Why no discussion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund in Objectives or Strategies? (may be later in doc)  Where is discussion of Form-Based Codes as it may/may not have an impact on Housing? Page 2-11 === seems like selective numbers of building units – first paragraph says 160 units per year in last decade and then in next paragraph it says 105 units per year as an average since 2007 (last 7 years?) – awfully big spread in numbers for a 3 year difference – if we are to target housing numbers based on the lower number (*105) then I suggest it is not valid – anymore than perhaps the higher number would also not be valid (@160) for different reasons. To that, It would appear that we are capping the average growth of the last decade as our maximum – is that smart where we experienced a major recession? Doesn’t sound realistic…especially when units this year appear to have already exceeded 160 and cheap money isn’t going away. Do we want growth for our schools and population? And most realistically, are these housing unit averages built into the projections for population and schools – (I am suspecting that perhaps not….or if they are they are conservative at the low end and looking at demographics of area as opposed to dwelling unit expansion and actual split of same for affordability/family structures/empty- nesters/single v couples). I am suggesting the 105 is a VERY low number considering issues like the recession and Interim Zoning over the last 7-8 years and we will be pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised by higher numbers over the next 5-10 years as the millennials provide a “boomlet”. Page 2-18 --- Overview/first bullet point: “boasts” Overview/second bullet point: put a comma in second sentence after “may increase” Kevin: -- nice job on writing a lot of the “Economy” section! (any mention of SBBA? – we mention GBIC and LCRCC) -=- [perhaps a BID for City center)? C. Shaw Part 1 09282015 15 Page 2-25 – police section mentions “accreditation” and “national night out” (neither of which I believe are still current) Page 2-26 – still crediting State Fire Marshal and not OUR SB Fire Marshal here – can we fix (and maybe add the electrical enforcement as well – either in “housing” or here? Page 2-31 --- red rocks and underwood properties mgmt. plans can be stated as complete Page 2-37 – is this the real data? Or is that still pending? This seems wrong as it shows the High School as operating at over its rated capacity for students – but if true – it should be highlighted. If the new data isn’t here – it sure isn’t fair to ask folks to comment in only 3 weeks on something that hasn’t even been presented yet. That will incite people who feel that the school task force report is being bulldozed through in a quickened process -- it clearly should have been included here for public review. Put it out there and have it evaluated in a decent amount of time – even if it means the PC has to re-adopt the old plan b/c the draft is incomplete and there isn’t enough time built in for proper public review and feedback. Page 2-23 --- need a strategy to highlight improvements to the commercial districts that would allow restaurants or services within the Tech Park/Meadowlands to supplement our daytime workforce ballooning and reduce trips during the lunch-hour – fostering independence – need to allow hotel in Tech Park to facilitate usage and keep folks from driving to Williston. Also add a strategy to coordinate more with SBBA types or GBIC or LCRCC or BIA for synergies. Page 2-25 – need a strategy to have a city-wide “reverse 911” system to highlight storm events or special disaster/water usage alerts Pae 2-47 --- need discussion of active viewshed management – an entirely missed opportunity that the Open Space report/committee has mentioned and the PC hasn’t addressed. Long overdue and has been neglected too long – look at the “view” from Overlook Park. Waivers will be granted to the Airport (in fact MUST be granted to them for their impact on views in a Commercial District) because we don’t have protections other than “it must not impact identified views from a public road” – yet we have 2 commercial bldgs. On Hinesburg rd that do just that (why? b/c they weren’t “identified” views?) – long past time to identify and protect those views and negligent not to mention their value (as most folks define their place by such views) while only hinting at the importance through “open space” (not the same). Page 2-50 – need to discuss “pop-up” bicycle lanes and road closures on weekends (market street/garden street) to strengthen the sense of place and city center (doing same on one half of Shelburne Road by state permission on Sundays – or Dorset St on Sundays? Page 2-53 – kennedy drive – there is an identified need for crosswalk at east twin oaks Also – there is a need for improvement -- discussion of sidewalk connection to lime kiln road from airport drive/pkwy Also – it’s “Chamberlin” school – not Chamberlain C. Shaw Part 1 09282015 16 Why is the Official Map not included here with Comp Plan (shouldn’t it be…or is it a separate process?) will that map coincide with “planned infrastructure improvements”? Why isn’t proposed water tower show? Page 2-58 Access Management: fix “Examples included and safety…” – rest of sentence is a fragment as well (after the semi-colon) which will need fixing The discussion of east-west corridors to Williston should include a prospective/potential connection through the Meadowlands Industrial Park over the Muddy Brook to a road through the SB quarry and exiting on South Brownell. – for the eventuality of the quarry no longer serving its purpose. Equally in a discussion of the sidewalks and their gaps – there should be discussion or a goal/objective/strategy to prioritize and have the city build to fill the sidewalk gaps in our system.(strategy#42---need to speak explicitly to it in Page 2-59 – there should be discussion of whether the city seeks further purchase of homes or not and/or whether we prefer aggressive noise mitigation measures by the airport (fencing?) or for the homes (insulation/windows) or both. The PC should offer their opinion on this (especially as to “future land use” of the Airport properties that are zoned R4 and are now a greenspace to the airport noise tunnel) – maybe get a cue from CNAPC – advise on whether a Berlin “sound” Wall is needed (or berm/embankments) or if future commercial development is envisioned as part of a buffer Page 2-60 -- Meeting Demands of Changing Development: fix 2nd sentence – (missing a word?)—and basically this whole paragraph says nothing about actually meeting the demands—it could be said in one sentence “as the city grows, we will strive to grow the roads and their connections within the goals of this plan” Page 2-62 – strategy #40 – fix ‘anticipate” (should be anticipated?) Public utilities --- only one strategy for broadband? What about convert all homes/municipal bldgs. to natural gas? Inventives for solar panels? Solar energy/ community csa solar fields? Why so mute? 2-72 – municipal energy challenge – what is status of this or its deadline if you mention it? Need deets, peeps…. 2-73 -- if sewage is biggest user…why no educational/conservation initiative…”if it’s brown flush it down….if it’s yellow, let it mellow?” Where are plans/discussion of lo-flow or water-free urinals (like at Sheraton)/toilets? 2-74 what studies support the anti-wind statement? There are clearly wind turbines in SB in the Meadowlands (and historically on our farms) and the ridgeline can clearly support turbines – this is a rather bald statement that requires justification. Are we too timid to discuss in light of our energy future? How do we adopt building codes? new construction…energy efficiency? Need discussion of how city center will be less car friendly…more pedestrian…setting up required city streets on the Official Map for this area is counter to this clearly stated goal/objective. (more pedestrian alleys & plazas/less thoroughfares) C. Shaw Part 1 09282015 17 How are you measuring…objective 22? Define clean energy assessment district…..strategy 50 Overall – no discussion of Lake Champlain/lakefront issues for our homes (lake district) – new legislation on lakefront protections. Overall – no discussion of our phosphorus EPA reqs for reduction with two WWTFs – one at 93% of load now (Airport) and the other at 80% (*Bartlett Bay) In 2.3 (at beginning) – what measures will be taken to maintain “balanced neighborhoods” – rather vague – how do we assess they are “out of balance”? 2-76 – there should be a discussion of “town forest” (Wheelock perhaps? Or Red rocks?)….also, there is a huge missing piece of the prime agricultural soils and their “extraction” through development (SusAg and the PC were to come up with language to protect these resources…is that still in the works?) – prime ag should be mentioned (even as we only have state zoning/act 250 protections, we are (I believe) working on our local conservation of same/secondary ag – and it should be a goal/objective/strategy mentioned here 2-79 ---para #2 -- reclassify BIA property as now a WVPD property off Van Sicklen 2-79 – para #3 “Chamberlin” 2-80 – who owns and operates the dam that separates SB from Colchester/Winooski on the Winooski River – that should be mentioned and why is SB not a party to what appears to be a shared resource? (i.e. – how does Williston and Essex manage their dam? Does Essex own it outright? And does a community that is first to dam up a river have no worries about the abutting community on the other side of the dam/river as to their compromised ability now to also build a dam and use the same resource?) 3-81 – ummm….there is no “figure 1” – this looks like it’s been lifted from an intro to the subject in another academic/engineering document. Throughout the Blue Infrastructure section, we talk about flooding and flood plains, but as we’ve seen in Vermont (Irene) and even in South Burlington, the flood events that happen aren’t lately in the plains (“the rain in Maine stays mainly on the plains, but the wet fonts in Vermont runs gauntlets down the monts”) – that is the consideration about flash-floods that we should be mentioning in both hazard mitigation and planning: that the SLOPES are the important consideration (witness Green Dolphin Drive near Syzmanski Park on the western slope ridges and conversely Butler Farms on eastern slope ridges)…there doesn’t seem to be a recognition of run-off from ridges and the effects from that in a torrential event or over super-saturation events (5-6 days of rain). I believe more language and study of slopes and their run-off might help this missing piece (witness rip-rapping of ditches along Cheesefactory and Allen Roads for same issues and flooding of residence on Allen by brook for the same “run-off” from roadway/golf course/hort farm/farm field issues) 2-85 – OK, I’ll bite – where are our “hydrodynamic swirl separators” for stormwater?? 2-86 – second sentence (second para) “assisting” C. Shaw Part 1 09282015 18 2-86 – fee structure for sloped impervious surfaces/properties should be more in recognition of their greater impact on running-off, or special buffering/treatment should be required for such properties/surfaces. 2-86 – last paragraph – second sentence: Add – “into adjoining basements” after “runoff”(this is a “just half kidding” statement. 2-87 -- add some strategies and objectives that talk about mapping and dealing with slope runoff in a better way (added treatment focus/buffering – special treatment for slopes – not necessarily to discourage development on slopes, but to require stricter stormwater run-off controls than in a flat area – based on the slope and how the runoff can best be handled and buffered. There should be a discussion of monochloramines and our award for best water taste nationally? Possible energy generation discussion for power to be generated from gravity/water pressure within system? 2-90 – was this “water ordinance” conflated with the wastewater allocation and do they then mean the 125-150k gals now? Or is it a separate stand-alone “water only” ordinance of which I’m not aware Discussion of phosphorus load of each plant 80% of new reqs for Bartlett Bay and 92% of new phosphorus reqs for Airport Pkwy – it looks like we don’t need to outlay capital costs to meet the new EPA standards and lake cleanup plan (but boy, howdy….winooski ($7m)and Burlington($24m) and essex($1m) get slammed) 2-92 – para #1 needs to remove reference to completion of upgrades as coming along since next paragraph states that they are done. 2-93 – this objective #28 stands out as an odd one – where is there wastewater allocation other than in City center? So maintaining that? Is it deliberately general? 2-93 – strategy #63 asks for water for a high point, but there isn’t an attendant recognition of wastewater in that same area (i.e., if we build a water tower do we extend a sewer line to it and beyond?) It’s just odd that we are recognizing need for extra water in SEQ for safety and such, but there is a rather limiting approach to the sewer…isn’t that contradictory (in that if you say you’ll supply water, how can you then say you won’t supply sewer?). If we ask people to pay that cost, then it would appear to be efficient to have parallel lines for both sewer and water and potentially allow MORE people to share that cost in future hookups. C. Shaw Part 1 09282015 19 C. Shaw Part 1 09282015 20 Comments on Draft Comprehensive Plan (Part 2) – October 10, 2015 C. Shaw 2-98 – Prime & Second Cons Areas para #2 – capitalize “prime conservation area” and change “regard- less” to “regardless” 2-98 – Prime & Second Cons Areas para #2 – bullet point the 3 primes (hazard, rare, environ sensitive) 2-98 – Secondary Conservation Areas – define please – “id’d for conservation or protection” doesn’t explain and is vague (this is what got us into trouble with the JAM development, lo those 12 years ago) In fact, the maps (which I will discuss later) are too confusing to be of use and are not large enough (size needs to be blown up) to be valuable. Prime and Secondary Conservation Areas are in the same area and seem grossly off in some cases (the entire middle school/high school is marked as a “rare species” – no doubt due to our dwindling student-age population?) and therefore should be afforded a 300 ft contiguous buffer – that means we can’t improve City Hall and Fire Station #1, right?) 2-100 – the sentence which finishes from page 2-99 at the top of this page is not clear – it draws a comparison to “well-drained soils” v. “less well drained soils” but the context of their accompanying value as agricultural soils isn’t stated on the SEQ soils (“loam soils” doesn’t by itself denote good soil or poor ag soil to me) – be clearer that it is/isn’t good ag soil (whether soggy or not in SEQ). 2-100 – Air Quality para – can we drop the CN(?) spelling “Auto-dependant” for American “auto- dependent”? 2-100 Habitat and Vegetation para – 5th bullet point – can we explain “specimen” trees? (are these glorious examples of the noble ash? The hearty oak? The vibrant maple? The supple birch?) 2-100 Future Needs and Trends – 1st bullet point – development growth: “housing growth…with residential construction expected…” (how and what is the arcane distinction between “housing growth” and “residential construction”? (are apartments “housing growth” but NOT “residential construction”?) – this is unclear as to the definition you are using for each is apparently separate. 2-102 -- Strategy #64 – this seems (in first sentence) like a tall order if we are relying on the existing map (such as it is with errors and as confusing as it may be: are we to prohibit build in 100 year flood plains where the map shows two that can be distinguished but there are clearly more? then are we to rely on federal flood areas or secure a more authoritative inventory as this survey does not appear to be complete (as referenced by the “secondary conservation area” qualifier that “site investigation” is needed) – surely “site investigation” would be warranted for “primary conservation areas” as well otherwise a refusal on the basis of this map and vague language is going to land us in court again. 2-104 – Cultural Facilities and Organizations – this is rather brief and general – I think we can do better – the new SB Historical Society, Rotary, Lions, SBBA, Moose, Vermont Country Club, Higher Ground, movie theater, plays at schools (Rice/SBHS), list our churches – and number them (religion being a lacking of Vermont supposedly) 2-107 – Recreation Programming – “prohibitive” -- doesn’t sound right/make sense – find a better word choice C. Shaw Part 2 10102015 21 2-108 – Strategy #76 – what does this even mean? How about “use the matrices for land acquisition that have been devised by the RLA committee or NR/OS committee?” 2-109 –Overview and Inventory – sent #2 – for clarity – revise for verbiage: should read: “in recent years, small vegetable farms, backyard gardens and farmers’ markets have emerged to join the city’s landscape and its economic and cultural base.” 2-110 – bullet point #7 – typo? Extra word – sent #2 – “in the in for-profit”? 2-100 – bullet point #8 – please define the buzzwords -- and why do we list/mention them, if only to look au courant? Define them and explain how we support them (or since this is an “overview/inventory” I guess we intend to use/evaluate/explore/implement/encourage them?) Perhaps “all these (*defined) can be fruitful opportunities for SB to encourage as part of its agriculture resource commitment”) 2-111 – 3rd bullet point – perhaps a quick overview of the ownership/management of UVM Wheelock as contrasted with SB Wheeler and the conflicting needs of the pre-existing Burlington Community Gardens at Wheeler? Result – more SB gardens needed overall and in different sectors – potential Airport – DeGrasse Park – Allen Road city land – etc. 2-111 – 4th bullet point – 3rd sent – the previous issue of spelling alternate “dependant” v. “dependent” (prefer the American version of the spelling – where we don’t distinguish between its spelling/use as noun/verb) 2-111 4th bullet point – The City/School overlap of Common Roots/Farmers’ Market isn’t explored here – I believe the intent is to more clearly define the Farmers’ Market as a “City” initiative (where it may appear to be attached to Common Roots as a “School” initiative). Explicitly state that the City needs to assist the Farmers’ Market’s permanence and not rely entirely on private support (or the confusion that it somehow springs from the School – which needs to be mentioned because of CR’s better-known work within the schools) 2-112 – Objective #35 – suggest “Promote conservation of productive farmland and prime ag w/I the city” 2-113 – Objective #36 – why “new” farmers? We should be supporting ALL farmers, and especially those who have been doing it for a while in SB and therefore are most vulnerable. define “local consumption” – not clear – within SB? --- within Chittenden County? – within the State? – what percentage need be “local” – Define “entrepreneurs” (agricultural entrepreneurs?) Suggest: “support new and existing agriculture and its entrepreneurs in the city that contribute to our local food system?” 2-116 – Land Planning Use -- bullet point #9 – this is a new initiative not yet supported in the LDR’s – how will the Prime Conserve Areas (and their 300 foot surrounding buffers) line up with our existing NRP areas in the SEQ (for instance)? – the effect of this is to INCREASE the buffer around the designated wetlands from 50 feet (as State )(regardless of Class) to 300 feet – seems rather arbitrary and unsupported as a policy. Apparently the 300 foot buffer wouldn’t apply to hazards? (right?) – flood C. Shaw Part 2 10102015 22 plains and slopes….but this needs more discussion and explication – it is very complicated and the maps don’t do it justice (and in the Prime Conservation Area map, one can’t tell the difference between “riparian connectivity” and “wetlands” in the legend) – “severely limiting” disturbance in these areas wouldn’t allow so much as a shed on Vale Drive, for instance. I think there needs to be more detailed inventory/site investigation for primary and secondary areas – and that the state’s protection of wetlands has been sufficient – this is a big change and has many potential pitfalls for property owners that goes beyond its intent. Protection buffers may need to be tiered for the type of conserved element (hazard or environmentally sensitive (tree/forest, plant, wetland, stream source). Needs more thinking/exploration than a generalized Open Space consultant’s report that gave short shrift to viewsheds and offered multiple “tool kit” evaluation forms (often a tip-off to a thin report) on the back- end. 2-116 – bullet point #11 – “other Primary Natural Areas” – why has the designation for CheeseFactory Swamp and Great Swamp garnered special mention for their buffers and all else has been relegated to “other” (but with ostensibly equal protection) – this implies that the 300 foot buffer is “soft” around all “other” primary natural areas (and in line with Secondary Conservation “lack of disturbance” softer language than the “severely restricted” that was just stated in Bullet Point #9 above) – which is it? I think you may want to eliminate the reference to the buffer zones in bullet #9 to avoid this contradiction. Or explicitly state what you intend – understanding that the consultant’s inventory and map may not be entirely accurate. 3-4 – Strategy #88 – add “occurs” in place of “occur” 3-14 -=- Strategy #94 – add the word “in” appropriately 3-19 – Objective 50 – is this the position of the PC & CNAPC? That they support the continued sale and relocation of homes? If not, take it out and stick with noise-mitigation. 3-20 – Strategy #112 – add “its” where appropriate 3-24 – Objective #52 -- fix missing/added word “with in”…. 3-28 – Strategy #119 – not sure this is a great idea – is the PC OK with this? – lake front issues – flood issues – are there specific plots of land that work for this? Most communities there are small scale and would abhor development (QCP and Lakeshore) 3-29 – Strategy # 120 – what does this even mean? Review LDR’s or zoning in those areas? I think you mean zoning to have compatible transitions like from commercial/transit overlay district to residential/park – stepping down densities and uses and heights to ease the transition…? 3-34 – Public safety – here’s a chance to mention potential school with public meeting space/shelter/substation of PD. 3-37 – Strategy #128 – this is a targeted request from one property owner which has been going on for over 10 years and I think is entirely inappropriate to list it as a strategy that benefits one property owner that would place mega-housing in one of the most valuable viewsheds of SB – no Bueno. Take it out. I far prefer folks see “Reverence” as they enter SB and we are defined by that rather than the look/feel of the Quarry Hill=style apts that would be prominent at any Exit 12B if this were allowed. Not a good look. C. Shaw Part 2 10102015 23 Appendices Map #1 – Forest Eve Farm (small scale ag) – no longer active (north of van sicklen icon) Map #4 – we aren’t showing any water tanks or towers (or the proposed ones) – I think they’re important on this map Map #10 – no proposed trails? To show connections mentioned from Cider Mill to Shelburne Pond (connection trail to Scott Property?) Primary Conservation Areas Map  Rather unreadable due to small size and busy amount of legend material  Rare species shown at middle school/south of san remo?  Confusion between “hazard” and “environmental sensitivities” – also not clear on what is environmental sensitivity – riparian, wetlands, rare ntl community, rare species, source protection area, streams, ponds,? – all same priority/buffer? Hazard/environmental Secondary Conservation Areas Map Uncommon species on the golf course at Vt Ntl? (quite a bit) – sedge? If the Primary Conservation Area map can be fuzzy in spots (how was the info compiled? From surveys of residents? Or site investigation? Aerial mapping?) – this is an interesting take in that it details some properties and leaves others “tax parcels” blank…why is this? It appears incomplete and more focused on open space which is in some cases deemed “farmland” when it is parkland, golf courses, and industrial parks. C. Shaw Part 2 10102015 24 -----Original Message----- From: Personal [mailto:eborselle@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 11:24 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: No to Swift St Extension As a resident of Dorset Park my family and I are firmly against the Swift Street extension. This road would not only threaten to disrupt valuable VT wildlife in the area, it also threatens the culture of the Dorset Park community. There is no need nor want from residents for a "safe second access" nor do I recall being asked if this was a need so unsure who came up with this. It is not possible for this road to exist without negative impact on the Dorset Park community and the surrounding wildlife with the increased higher speed traffic it would bring. Please vote No to the Swift Street Extension Ernie & Kelly Borsellino EK Borsellino 10092015 25 G. Kjelleren 1013201526 G. Kjelleren 1013201527 G. Kjelleren 1013201528 From: Jennifer Murray [mailto:jmurray@sbschools.net] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 12:03 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Comp Plan addition Hi Cathyann. Paul made some suggestions regarding our Comp Plan write-up and we would like to add this at the bottom of what you have. Let me know if there’s a different way you’d like me to handle it. Thank you, Jennifer The City is planning resources to support the building of a new Library. While the Library focus will remain on sharing books to provide information and inspiration, the new Library will also be a technology gateway, supporting organized on-line information sources for workforce development and other web-based educational opportunities. The future space will include room for meetings, performances, quiet reading space and collaborative learning. An early childhood “Literacy and Play” space is under consideration to support families with children under five, while teens and new adults will be the focus of a Digital Exploration space. A community auditorium is planned to promote author visits and local performances. All told, the Library will be a cornerstone of the South Burlington community. Jennifer Lee Murray, Director South Burlington Community Library 802-652-7076 jmurray@sbschools.net Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Barbara Ziemann Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 1:58 PM To: Jennifer Murray Subject: My changes, let me know your thoughts Hi Jennifer, The City supports the building of a new Library and is planning resources to support it. While the Library focus will remain on sharing books to provide information and inspiration, the new Library will also be a technology gateway, supporting organized on-line information sources for workforce development and other web=based educational opportunities. The future space will provide room for meetings, performances, quiet reading space and collaborative learning space. An early childhood “Literacy and Play” space is under consideration to support families with children under five, while teens and new adults will be the focus of a Digital Exploration space. A community auditorium is J. Murray 10012015 29 planned to support author visits and local performances. All told, the Library will be a cornerstone of the South Burlington community. Barb Barbara J. Ziemann Public Service Librarian South Burlington Community Library 540 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 J. Murray 10012015 30 From: John Owen [mailto:jrowen18@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:36 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Fwd: Comprehensive Plan Here is a corrected version of my email. It replaces Spear St. With Route 7. John Owen I am writing to support Mixed Use zoning for lot 11 in South Village in order to allow for a Farm Market, Café, and community center. Development for non-residential use should be limited, however, and designed primarily for residents of South Village, as there are many commercial establishments on Route 7 near South Village. It is important that the essential character of the South Village community not be greatly changed from its original design. John Owen 148 Chipman St S. Burlington J Owen 10072015 31 From: Justin Stinnett [mailto:justin.stinnett@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 8:16 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: SB Comprehensive Plan Hello. Please find below my comments on review of the SB comprehensive plan. 1) Protective Views - From what I can tell the protected views east are very limited. One area where the view east is excellent is from Wheeler Park focused east. Currently this is one of the few minimally developed views of Mt. Mansfield left in S. Burlington and should be protected. 2) SEQ connecting roads to decrease east to west traffic. Extending Swift St and Cider Mill roads to Hinesburgh Rd is a solution looking for a problem. If the interstate exchange is ever built at Hinesburgh Rd. then much of the limited traffic which currently exists would be improved. Placing Bike Paths and other pedestrian and recreational friendly extensions would be reasonable. I hope the city would seriously re-consider those road extensions as not necessary. Best, Justin Stinnett J Stinnett 10082015 32 From: JK B [mailto:jkboyd08@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:02 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Re: Comprehensive plan discussion Dear Ms. LaRose, My name is Judith Boyd and I live at 380 South Jefferson Road, South Burlington. I own a single family house within Phase I of the South Village development. I am writing to share my concern about a recent letter sent to me by Robin Jeffers that implies many residents support the revised re-zoning request submitted by the current developers of the South Village project. I personally have not seen a revised request, been asked my opinion about it, nor expressed any support to anyone about any such revision. Furthermore, I expressed strong opposition to the original zoning request and possible commercial and/or mixed use for the land, and submitted a letter to that effect to the South Burlington DRB to be considered during their deliberations. All of the neighbors I have spoken to are concerned about any re-zoning that would result in commercial use (other than related to teh farm) as well as add more residential lots. I suggested that the DRB table the request for rezoning until a majority of the houses in Phase II are completed and then have a discussion. With only about 35% of the development complete it seems quite premature to make such a major decision that would alter dramatically the original concept and designs of South Village and the character of this quadrant of South Burlington. If a decision must be made, I suggested to the DRB and pass along for your consideration the following: use this last bit of open space in these quadrant for community use and open spaces. For example, we may potentially have 600 dogs in South Village and there is only a tiny dog park planned at the edge of the South Burlington/Shelburne corner of South Village. (300 homes total in South Village with each permitted 2 pets=600). A dog park for this part of South Burlington is sorely needed already and will be welcomed by many. There will also (hopefully) be an increase in the number of children and there is no playground within safe walking distance of South Village. I shudder to think of a parent or teenage babysitter trying to push a stroller and perhaps hold the hand of a small child and attempt to walk on the shoulder of Spear Street to the park the city plans to build some time in the future. I feel very strongly that we do not need any commercial entities within South Village. I do not see a need for, nor want, another coffee shop, bakery, restaurant, medical facility, yoga studio, adult retirement home, book store, artist studio, or any other commercial entity. Instead, I want to support the existing businesses in South Burlington. I want to live in a residential community and not a mixed use community. I also want to connect with the land as promised and have a working farm that can be used as a CSA and to educate students about where food really comes from. If the planned school is not going to happen then I see this as a tremendous opportunity for the city to use this land for the recreational benefit of this quadrant. In closing, I ask that you please ask the South Village residents and those surrounding the community directly for their input instead of relying on the developers to speak for us. The developers are a business and thus are trying to build something they can sell for a profit. It is in their best interest to build. JK Boyd 10-6-2015 33 Sincerely, Judith Boyd JK Boyd 10-6-2015 34 From: Ken Allen [mailto:Faxfix@myfairpoint.net] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 6:26 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Cc: Bernie.Paquette@yahoo.com Subject: LITTER Dear Cathyann LarRose: We wholeheartedly support Bernie Paquette’s initiative as set forth below. Please share this request with the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION – Please add this statement to the SB Draft Comprehensive Plan – “Facilitate Clean City image with a multi-faceted approach toward litter prevention and year-round clean up.” This approach is long-overdue. Whatever progress South Burlington makes in other respects, there can be no true civic pride if litter remains an ongoing issue. Green-Up Day is a wonderful community effort, but the statistics on the volume and type of trash collected each year are illustrative of the problem. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Annetta and Ken Allen 63 Pine Tree Terrace South Burlington K. Allen 10-5-2015 35 -----Original Message----- From: Kelly A Morrison [mailto:kelly_a_morrison@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 11:55 AM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: No to Swift St Extension >> >> As a homeowner, professional, parent, active community member and resident of Dorset Park my family and I are firmly against the Swift Street extension. This road threatens the safety and culture of the Dorset Park community as well as the Vermont wildlife and natural areas. I do not have any need nor want from for a "safe second access." This road will have negative impacts on the Dorset Park community and culture and the safety of our children and the surrounding wildlife with the increased higher speed traffic it would bring. >> >> Please vote No to the Swift Street Extension >> Kelly Morrison Borsellino K. Morrison 10-10-2015 36 From: Lindsay Bryce [mailto:lindsayj817@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 10:05 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: South Burlington draft review-transportation Hi Cathyann, I've reviewed the comprehensive draft plan from the South Burlington website, and there is one thing that is not addressed which I would like to draw to the attention of those reviewing the plan. I read the transportation section thoroughly, and there doesn't appear to be any specific plan for expanding CCTA routes and frequency within the town. I live off of Kennedy Drive and I work on Shelburne Road 3 miles away. While there are plenty of bus routes from Kennedy Dr into downtown, there isn't a single one that travels the I-189 corridor so I am forced to rely on my car or a bicycle to get to work. I am a low income resident (about $40-50,000 for a 2 person household) and car expenses are significant when they come up. The past two cars I have owned have rusted out underneath and had no resale value after about 5 winters of driving around on heavily salted roads. I just bought a new car this summer, and I spent nearly everything that my husband and I had saved since we purchased our condo in 2012. I decided to look for bus routes in order to save my new car on the winter wear and tear, but there is no route available that would take me to work without going way out of my way into downtown first. It would be great if this could be considered in the plan for the next few years, and if it isn't practical at this time, I would like to know the reasons and whether or not there is anything I can do to help make new bus routes a reality. Thank you, Lindsay Bryce 802-540-5033 L. Bryce 9-29-2015 37 City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Review 9/18/2015 Plan Page Topic Concern iv Vision Community Rich - the word "rich" may not be the best word to convey the thought. 2 11 Inventory Existing Housing Stock says 7940 as of 2010 and Residential Construction says 8750 constructed between 1940 and 2010 ? 2 16 Housing Objectives Local wage earners don't earn enough - overall image - is it true? 2 16 Strategy 9 Why not streamline the policy for all permitting? 2 29,30 Child Care How will City policy affect wages - the real issue? 2 30 Wheeler Park Wheeler Park refers to Dorset Park - now Veterans Memorial Park 2 30 Underwood Property Are all proposed actions supposed to be blue ? Some are not. 2 41 City Offices Need a space between .In 2 50 Travel Infrastructure Exit 13 2 52 Travel Infrastructure Spear St. shoulders 2 55 Rec. path & Sidewalk Path funding should mention participation by developers. 2 58 Access management Examples include and safety through ? 2 60 Meeting Demands Areas of additional development 2 73 Energy Use Largest energy use is sewage treatment 2 103 Overview Pre-war period - Which war? 3 8 Future Land Use Map needs key 3 33 Developed Recreation AreasVeterans Memorial Park - Is that really a neighborhood park for the SE quadrant 3 34 Recreation Path Rec Path priorities should be more specific and reference the map. 3 34 Recreation Path Faith Methodist Church 3 34 Public Safety What new public safety facility? 3 36 Middle of page DRB unfortunately - why? Should this opinion be part of the plan. Map 6 Differentiate between planned and priority future rec. paths Add a Table of the 62 Objectives and 135 Strategies L. Bresee 9-18-2015 38 -----Original Message----- From: Maida Townsend [mailto:mftownsend@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:53 AM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Clean City in Draft Comprehensive Plan Good morning, Cathyann. I join Bernie Paquette in hoping that a statement regarding litter prevention and clean-up may be included in our city's Comprehensive Plan as we move into the future, and ask that the following request be shared with the Planning Commission. To SB Planning Commission members: Please consider including in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, under Vision & Goals, Green & Clean (page 1-1), this statement: “Facilitate Clean City image with a multi- faceted approach toward litter prevention and year-round clean-up." Supporting argument as articulated by Bernie for including the statement in the SB Comprehensive Plan... Littering will be difficult to stop until we recognize it as a serious problem. SB residents collected 2.3 tons of bagged trash on Green Up Day 2015. I estimate one ton of litter at 20,000 visible items. I consider 2.3 tons of littered trash accumulating on the ground in our city, for up to one year, to be a serious problem. The city can implement strategies to augment Green Up Day, to help make SB the cleanest city in the country, year round. Reference my Column in the Sept 24 edition of The Other Paper for recommended actions. A multi- faceted approach is necessary to maintain a litter free community. When education (information, knowledge), enforcement, and engineering (making it easy and convenient) are integrated, attitude and behavior change are more likely to occur simultaneously. It is easy to envision that a litter free community would be a social and economic benefit to South Burlington. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Maida F. Townsend 232 Patchen Road South Burlington M. Townsend 9-28-2015 39 To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Nicholas Andrews 358 South Jefferson Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Date: September 22, 2015 Re: City’s Draft Comprehensive Plan First I want to thank you for all of the hard work that each of you has done to get this document to it’s present form. Having been a member of several boards in the past I can appreciate the background work that you have all done in trying to manage all of the competing interests, especially in a project of this magnitude. I am a resident of South Village in the southeast quadrant. As I viewed the legend of the land categories in the Comprehensive Plan I noticed a red area in South Village that indicates higher density mixed use. As the Master Plan for the Village and the current zoning designation of neighborhood residential are residential and low density I would like that area to indicate the actual use. While there may be a proposal by the developer to rezone that area for more commercial uses, that is not in keeping with the intended uses as presented to the purchasers and owners of homes in that community. At a meeting earlier in the year the commission asked the developer to go back to the residents for more dialogue on the developer’s request for a zoning change. As the meeting was never scheduled with the homeowners, and as many of us were nervous about a unilateral move by the developer to move ahead with plans for developing commercial space and building more apartments in the community where apartments were not intended, we prepared a petition for this commission. The petition, signed by 78% of the homeowners in South Village, was presented to Paul Connor on July 28th for the informational use of the Planning Commission moving forward with this comprehensive plan and any potential requests by the developer for zoning changes for South Village. I ask that the draft comprehensive plan for the City of South Burlington remove the higher density designation for The South Village Community. While I would like it removed permanently, I understand that I am not the only voice in this discussion. I respectfully submit that if at some point in the future a decision is finalized to allow commercial zoning for South Village, N. Andrews 9-22-2015 40 then the red area can be reestablished without prejudicing anyone. While this is small in the grand plan for South Burlington, it is very large and important to those of us who live in that community. NWA N. Andrews 9-22-2015 41 From: Robin Jeffers [mailto:robin@SDIRELAND.COM] Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:10 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Comprehensive Plan public comment October 12, 2015 South Burlington Planning Commission Dorset Street, S. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Public Comment/ 2016 Draft Comprehensive Plan Dear Planning Commission, We are delighted to see an area in South Village designated for an opportunity for mixed use to enhance the community in the SE quadrant area with walkable, bike-able & other pedestrian friendly connectivity contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The opportunity for spaces to be created to support the community to enjoy a true local lifestyle is most welcome. We recently conducted a survey of residents to evaluate desirability of mixed uses and received very positive response. Our survey tool limited responses to one response per household and a vast majority of residents wanted an eatery (68%), year round local food market(90%), yoga studio (58%). Pre school, office support center, exercise facility and other recreation and community uses were also desired by many South Village residents. The comprehensive plan does a great job of bringing South Burlington residents into a more connected and locally supported community. It places South Burlington as a leader in our area leading the national trend to support people who want to commute less and have more time with family, community and live and enjoy a healthy lifestyle. In South Village, the founders who held a vision for a conservation community with an agricultural center laid a blueprint for mixed use in their Declarations, Bylaws and Planning, setting aside certain lots and acreage for “a farm store and potentially other uses and buildings” agricultural and community/civic use, calling out opportunity for a farm store/market, “commercial office support center” for the support of those Owners engaged in a home occupation, etc. Their vision is truly coming into being with support from both Residents and City Planners. With gratitude for your time and efforts, Sincerely, Robin Jeffers South Village Communities PO Box 2286 S. Burlington, VT 05401 802-863-6222 Cell: 802-316-6004 robin@sdireland.com www.southvillage.com www.southvillageleasing.com R. Jeffers 10-12-2015 42 Comments on the Extension of Swift Street Extension Understanding that the extension of Swift Street to connect with Hinesburg Road has been on the Master Plan for several years, I find the arguments for the proposal flawed, and practicality of this plan unrealistic. The arguments for the extension of Swift Street were: • Provide a second access/egress point for the 167 residences at the Village at Dorset Park • Provide an East-West connector for the Residents of South Burlington • Provide for improved emergency vehicle access (assuming to Hinesburg Rd) In response: 1) There are several residential developments in South Burlington and Chittenden County that have only one access/egress point – the recently created residential development at Cider Mill as well as Stonehedge off Spear St. being examples. The residents of the Village at Dorset Park (via the Association Board) have not requested or stated a need for a second access point. 2) The concept of an East-West connector may benefit some residents of South Burlington, but the negative impact on the residents of the Village at Dorset Park (VDP) are numerous and significant. An increase in traffic down Swift Street Extension through a quiet residential neighborhood has a major impact on the safety of the residents, especially children on bicycles, walkers, joggers, people accessing the walking trails in the Wheeler Nature Area, as well as wildlife crossing from the Wheeler Area to VDP. In addition, the intersection at Swift Street, Dorset Street, and the Swift Street Extension is an already highly stressed intersection. Adding more traffic trying to get off Swift St Extension on to Dorset Street, or vice-versa will only create more traffic congestion and delays. 3) As to improved emergency vehicle access to Hinesburg Road – it is 2.0 miles from the South Burlington Fire Department station on Dorset St. to the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Meadowland Drive, the approximate location where the proposed extension of Swift Street Extension would meet Hinesburg Road. Using Google Earth measurements, it would be 1.94 miles from that same fire station to the Meadowland Drive-Hinesburg Rd intersection – a difference of 317’. In addition to being an insignificant difference, the current route down Kennedy Drive, a four lane major artery, would be much faster than a path through the two lane Swift Street Extension through a large (167 unit) residential area. In addition to the counter arguments above, there are several other negative impacts of the proposed Swift Street Extension proposal. Wetlands Impact – the proposed extension of Swift Street would run directly though a Vermont State recognized wetland area. The water flowing through this wetland area ultimately flows into one of South Burlington’s impacted waterways – Potash Brook. As described by the State’s Agency of Natural Resources, floodplain wetlands such as the one bordering both the VDP and the Wheeler Nature Area, and that would be directly impacted by the Swift Street Extension, provide a number of Flood Control and Water Quality benefits. Floodplain wetlands provide S. Boyd Comments 10-8-2015 43 temporary storage of flood waters, and reduce the severity of downstream erosion by attenuating flood peaks reducing water velocities, and therefore reducing scouring and erosion. A road constructed through this wetland area would have nothing but negative impacts on this valuable natural element. In addition to the serious wetlands impact, there are very practical obstacles to extending Swift Street Extension through to Hinesburg Road. The path from the current end of Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road is almost entirely uphill. As a result, storm water runoff would naturally flow down this new proposed road to the low point which would be the current wetland area off the end of Swift Street Extension. As the Village at Dorset Park will not allow any additional storm water to be released into its storm water system, some elaborate method of moving storm water runoff from this new road would have to be devised. It would seem foolish, as well as very costly, to pump this storm water up to Hinesburg road or to some new storm water system constructed up near Hinesburg Road. To create a new storm water system in the existing wetlands area would have tremendous negative impact on the positive functional benefits of the wetland (described above), as well as negative impact to the impaired Potash Brook. Any proposal of this type would most likely be rejected by Vermont’s ANR for the same reasons. I sincerely hope these comments will be seriously considered by the South Burlington Planning Committee, as well as any other agency/department promoting this proposed Swift Street Extension. Sincerely, Stewart Boyd Resident, the Village at Dorset Park S. Boyd Comments 10-8-2015 44 From: Stewart Boyd [mailto:boyd.byrne@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:14 AM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Input on the Proposed Swift Street Extension Ms. Larose, As per your posted announcement requesting input on the proposed extension of the current Swift Street Extension to connect to Hinesburg Road, I have attached a Word doc my comments and concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinions and hope my input will be provided to the appropriate departments, planning groups, and agencies. In the spirit of full disclosure, I will inform you that I'm a board member on the Village at Dorset Park Master Association, as well as a board member on the Village at Dorset Park Cluster B condominium association. Regards, Stewart Boyd S. Boyd Email 10-8-2015 45 From: Susan Saferstein [mailto:susanghc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 4:20 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: litter I support Bernie Paquette's suggestion concerning litter related issues in the SB Comprehensive Plan Susan Saferstein S. Saferstein 9-27-2015 46 October 4, 2015 Dear South Burlington Planning Commission members, The South Burlington Energy Committee is pleased to provide the following comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan that was published on September 10, 2015. 1. (page 11) Change the second Green & Clean goal to "Reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy production." Inclusion of the words "where appropriate" seems like an attempt to minimize the importance of increasing renewable energy production compared to the other goals. The appropriateness of a proposed renewable energy installation will be determined at the time of permitting regardless of whether the comprehensive plan contains the words "where appropriate". Locations where renewable energy are encouraged are already defined in Objective 23 on page 2-75. 2. (page 12) The General Description of the city does not contain anything related to energy. We feel it is important to add a brief summary of the energy infrastructure in addition to rest of the description. Our suggestion is to insert the following after the third paragraph: Energy in South Burlington is provided primarily by imported gasoline, diesel, and heating oil from many independent suppliers, imported natural gas from Vermont Gas Systems, and electricity from Green Mountain Power. Most of the electricity used in South Burlington is generated outside the city, however an increasing number of rooftop and field-deployed solar generation facilities improve the resilience of our energy service system by providing generation capacity that serves the city directly. 3. (page 39) Strategy 12 in the housing section is very good. "Promote the construction of new homes- particularly affordable and moderate-income units- that are highly energy-efficient, and upgrades to existing homes to make them more energy-efficient, which will reduce residents’ overall cost of living and contribute to housing affordability.” 4. (page 43) Add an energy discussion to the "Economic Vitality and Quality of Life" section of the economy analysis and challenges. We suggest this be done as follows: a. Change "Notably among them are community services, public infrastructure, and housing affordability" to "Notably among them are community services, public infrastructure, housing affordability, energy-efficiency, and renewable energy.” b. Before the last sentence of that paragraph, add "Since the majority of the money we spend on energy leaves South Burlington, using less non-renewable energy results in a stronger South Burlington economy." 5. (page 95) Energy Conservation and Efficiency section: Add the following sentence to the beginning to explain why this section only discusses transportation: Recognizing that transportation is the largest use of energy in South Burlington, transportation energy efficiency and conservation is important. Energy Committee 10-4-2015 47 6. (page 97) In the energy section, future needs and trends, the last sentence does not make sense. Change the last sentence to the following: Local renewable energy provides clean energy at predictable costs for decades to come. 7. (page 97) In the energy section, future needs and trends, second to last sentence, people should be changed to people’s. 8. (page 97) Strategy 48: add the word “or" before the word "Leadership". Thank you for the time and effort you have devoted to preparing this draft, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide suggestions to improve the Comprehensive Plan. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about our suggestions. Sincerely, South Burlington Energy Committee Keith Epstein, Chair Karen McKenny, Vice-chair Don Cummings Fred Kosnitsky Wayne Maceyka Linda McGinnis Marcy Murray Sam Swanson Patty Tashiro Thor Vue Energy Committee 10-4-2015 48 S. Dopp "More substantial changes" 10-12-2015 49 S. Dopp "More substantial changes" 10-12-2015 50 S. Dopp "More substantial changes" 10-12-2015 51 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 52 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 53 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 54 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 55 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 56 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 57 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 58 S. Dopp "Word Choice and Typos" 10-12-2015 59 From: Terence Woodard [mailto:terryinvt@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:34 PM To: Cathyann LaRose Subject: Swift Street extension My name is Terence Woodard, I live at The Village at Dorset Park in South Burlington. I am writing about my concern of the effects of Swift Street being connected through to Hinesburg Road. From having talked to several people in my neighborhood most are opposed to the plan. We enjoy our peaceful space that we have in our little section of South Burlington, with our direct access to The Veteran's Memorial Park, and Wheeler Nature Park. It is our little kept secret, a lot of people do not even realize our wonderful neighborhood exists behind the park. My property borders the proposed extension of Swift Street, no one will be more affected by this than me. I currently have unobstructed access to Wheeler Natural park to the side and the wet lands to the rear of my condominium. On any given day I see the cranes fly in and out of the wetlands behind my home, this space home to so many bird species, just ask the birder's who spend so much time in this area. I see and hear coyotes, deer, rabbits, squirrels, beavers, and other wildlife that use this area. A while back the voters of South Burlington approved the land swap of golf course land with that of some City land so that the wildlife corridor could be maintained, the City, and residents realized the importance of keeping the wildlife corridor open. If Swift Street is allowed to extended through to Hinesburg Road that wildlife corridor that the City, and residents worked so hard to maintain will be disrupted. The amount of traffic that will be carried by this road will be tremendous, and if the Interstate exit is ever built on Hinesburg Road it will increase many times more. I am asking the City to reconsider the plan to extend Swift St, doing so will destroy this valuable wetland, and destroy the peaceful neighborhood that we as residents of The Village at Dorset Park enjoy. Thank you, Terry Woodard T. Woodard 9-22-2015 60 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 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 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