Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/26/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 JANUARY 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2016, 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; R. Jeffers, T. McKenzie, T. Chittenden 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: Ms. Jeffers noted that a much scaled down plan for a “village commercial” area in South Village has been submitted. She said many people in South Village want a market and a café but not “open” commercial.  She asked if there is a possibility of moving this forward. Ms. Louisos said it is on the Commission’s list. The Commission has been focused on the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs and can now plan upcoming tasks. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to hear support from the residents. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Riehle: Distributed an article from the New Yorker regarding “How Trees Calm Us Down.” Mr. Klugo: Attended the UMall presentation. Ms. LaRose said she also attended and found it very complimentary to South Burlington staff and city boards. Mr. Klugo noted that “place making” is different from what was presented across the road. Mr. McKenzie said the Form Based Code Committee saw UMall as a very important anchor to City Center. He was also very impressed by Todd Finard’s presentation. Mr. Conner: Cited a lot of efforts at the gateway to City Center with a lot of energy happening. The City Manager is working on a time for Todd Finard to present to the City Council, possibly this Monday. The City Council will have a work session on LDRs and a second public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on Monday, 1 February. 4. Review December 21 meeting of City Council regarding Draft LDRs and Official Map: Ms. Quest was pleased the Council was not changing things. Ms. Louisos noted there was not much public comment, possibly because the Commission had so much comment. Mr. McKenzie asked whether his questions regarding a Master Plan type tool would be discussed by the Council. Mr. Conner noted that the Commission has made it a first priority to address those issues, and has recommended that the Council move ahead with the draft FBC as is and have such a tool be added in the not too distant future. Ms. Quest asked if the consultant has been hired. Mr. Conner said they are in the final stages of that process. 5. Continued Discussion of Planning & Work Priorities for 2016-17: Ms. Louisos briefly reviewed thoughts from the last meeting. Mr. Gagnon asked about permit fees and the South Village request. Mr. Conner said the Commission could ask the City Council to look at permit fees. The topic was brought up by Councilors at the budget presentations, so the Council aware. Mr. Conner then directed attention to the Commission’s list of possible projects. He noted that LDR Clean‐up, as an item, will always be a “work in progress.” With regard to TDR Connections, staff will be brining something to the Commission in the near future. Natural Resource Standards are 70% completed. There is still a fair amount of work to do, especially on the part of staff and the consultant, specifically how to measure some of the standards. Staff might bring some options to the Commission which could entail parts of 3 or more meetings (not consecutively). Mr. Conner stressed that the Commission can decide on a priority that does not have funding. It could help staff “ramp up” for the next funding opportunity. Ms. Quest said she though Sustainable Ag and Food Hubs could be knocked off in 15-20 minutes. Mr. Conner noted that over the next 3‐4 months, the Commission already has 70% of its “band width” prioritized. After that, it is more wide open. If some project(s) get funding by the RPC, the Commission could add them at that time. Mr. Klugo felt the Commission should address things that are “irreversible,” so a chance isn’t missed. Mr. Macdonald felt that Shelburne Rd. and the waterfront are in the “irreversible” category. Mr. Riehle asked if there are committees in place that could continue/begin some of the work. He said it was very helpful when committees brought their findings to the Commission. Mr. Conner said the Commission could invite committees or their representatives to come in and talk about a specific project. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to hear from the Bike/Ped Committee as there are several things on the “new projects” list that relate to them. Mr. Klugo suggested a South Village Committee of residents that could bring to the Commission what they want for their area. Mr. Riehle said it would be nice to have a sub- committee start work on business parks/industrial zoning. Ms. LaRose cautioned members that even if work goes to a sub-committee, there is still staff time involved. It was noted that there is currently a Chamberlin/Airport Neighborhood Committee. Ms. Harrington represents the Commission on that committee. They will be reporting to the Commission at some point. Mr. Conner said they are slated to wrap up their work at the end of June. This will probably get onto the Commission calendar after the start of the third quarter. With regard to Post Adoption Form Based Code adjustments, Mr. Conner said that potential is ongoing. It would become a high priority when someone comes to the Commission with a specific concern. Mr. Gagnon asked if changes to the Form Based Code require public hearings, warnings, etc. Mr. Conner said they do. He suggested late spring for the next round of amendments. Mr. Klugo suggested a possible sub-committee for this. It was noted that there is now no committee working specifically on affordable housing though there is a newly appointed committee to address a “housing trust.” Ms. Louisos noted there is funding for a Master Plan/PUD Standards consultant. Mr. Conner asked how far the Commission would want to go with this….City Center? Other large properties? Redevelopment projects? The grant for this is approximately $20,000, and the total in the proposed FY17 for all consultant work is $60,000, most of which is the “match” for the RPC projects the city has applied for. There may be $10,000-20,000 not previously assigned. Mr. Gagnon felt they could do the City Center Master Planning plus the start of one more project. If the city gets more RPC funding, they could add Shelburne Rd. and the waterfront. Mr. Klugo cited his reluctance to address Mr. McKenzie’s concerns when the issue is one of cost, not something that can’t be done. He noted that the Form Based Code hasn’t been tested yet. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see it as lowering the bar. Mr. Gagnon said he saw it as supporting creativity. Mr. Riehle, who served on the Form Based Code Committee, said there is a need to be fluid. There are situations the Committee didn’t think of.  He felt a Master Plan was a great idea. He noted the city is seeing more and more creative development. Mr. Macdonald said he saw Master Planning as a way to reward creativity. Ms. Harrington said she agreed with Mr. Klugo. Mr. Conner said he has spoken with a number of property owners in City Center. Some are presenting major visions of re-development. In order to make that work, they see some things on which they need a “tweak.” It may be a difference between being able to move forward in a timely manner and being delayed. Mr. Klugo said he would want them to tell the Commission what the challenges are rather than having a Master Planning tool. Mr. Conner said that one “master planning tool” could be a legislative process for property owners to make a case for an alteration. Mr. Chittenden suggested calling it an “exception process for larger scale projects.” Mr. Conner suggested “alternative” instead of “exception.” Mr. Conner noted that UMall is talking about adding 600,000 square feet. They have said they might not be able to meet every letter of the regulations. Mr. Klugo felt that creativity shouldn’t be limited based on the scale of the project. Ms. LaRose said this is 60‐70% “exploratory. You can’t know the “fix” until you know the problems. Commissioners discuss the areas in terms of “risk” of development in the nearer term under current regulations. Mr. Conner was asked to enumerate some areas that involve this “risk”: a. K-Mark Plaza (which is currently empty) b. City Center (where the clock/TIF is ticking) c. Hill Farm (where there will be a development proposal) d. Industrial area (which has its own risks) Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission told the City Council they would look at some kind of flexibility with regard to City Center. Ms. LaRose noted that there is no Form Based Code beyond City Center. So the time-line for things outside City Center is different from things within City Center. Mr. Riehle asked if there are zoning issues outside City Center. Mr. Conner said that in some ways, traditional zoning has been written in a manner “protects against the bad, but doesn’t necessarily promote the good.” Mr. Conner explained that UMall is in the Form Based Code district, but not now in the TIF district. He further explained the history of this. There may be a recommendation made to the Planning Commission/City Council to add UMall to the TIF district in the near future. Members prepared an initial outline their potential priorities as follows: • City Center • Shelburne Road • Agriculture • Waterfront • Hill Property • O’Brien Property • Business Parks There was a brief discussion of the risks involved in each of the options. Mr. Conner and Ms. LaRose stressed that progress in City Center is a top priority for the City Council. Ms. Louisos felt the next step should be to collect information on issues that people have with City Center and determine which could be “tweaked” and which might require Master Planning. Mr. Klugo described this work as having a “part A” and a “part B.” Part A is having underlying regulations, and part B is having a tool for creativity. Mr. Conner suggested doing the “creative tool” first for City Center. Mr. Gagnon suggested doing “part B of City Center, then part A open space/undeveloped, then part A redevelopment (e.g., K-Mart Plaza). Mr. Conner suggested doing part B of City Center with the consultant and if there is money left, part A open space (Hill Farm and O’Brien). If additional funding is granted, part A of redevelopment can be next. Ms. Louisos noted the Hill Farm people have been to the Commission and are not happy with some of the zoning, and that the Planning Commission has made changes to the Future Land Use Map. Ms. LaRose said the existing regulations and the Planning Commission goals are the furthest apart there. Mr. Klugo asked if the Form Based Code could be applied to K‐Mart as a “stop‐gap.” Mr. Conner said there are questions: street network, T4 of T5, etc. There would also have to be assurance that there is no issue of spot zoning. Mr. Conner added that the breadth of what can happen there is very wide. Mr. Conner felt staff had a place to start and suggested having staff flesh this out for the next meeting. He also said they would find a night for South Village to come in as well as some other “tweaking” things. Mr. Conner noted that 8 March has been suggested as a possible joint meeting with the DRB. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. _________________________________ Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.