Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/11/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 OCTOBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 October 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Larkin, J. P. Larkin, S. Dopp, J. Heilenbach, D. Ruppel, P. Dandurand 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: Ms. Dopp suggested that on a future agenda the Commission consider the question of dead end streets. She noted that the regulations strongly discourage them and say they shall not exceed 200 feet in length; however, in another section of the LDRs, developers are required to extend a dead end street to the property line when the property is adjacent to a parcel that could be developed in the future. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: She and Ms. Harrington attended a meeting of Committee chairs and vice chairs. Mr. Conner: Tomorrow night, staff is hosting a neighborhood meeting for Kirby Road and Queensbury Road residents whose homes have been included in the Airport buyout program. By staff count, 13 homes have been added to the buyout program including Kirby Cottages. The head of the Kirby Cottages homeowners association said at a Council meeting that because of uncertainty, they have decided to go into the buyout program. Ms. Louisos raised the possibility of moving those houses. 4. Consider approval of a new street name request – Ally’s Run: Mr. Conner noted the street is located off O’Brien Drive. Members had no issue with the name. . Mr. Riehle moved the name Ally's Run be approved. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion approved. 5. Continued Discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Ms. Louisos said the goal at this meeting is to discuss the location and whether the use makes sense there. Mr. Riehle asked if there are other similar areas where this use could be proposed. Mr. Conner showed a map indicating all manufacturing/light manufacturing zoning. Mr. Riehle noted that Jeff Nick said he would be pleased to have the cider industry in that area as it would be a place for people to visit. There is also an Interstate Interchange possible nearby. Mr. Klugo asked about a "spot zoning" issue. Mr. Conner said that any time there is a re-zoning, they have to look at spot zoning. There aren't always hard and fast rules, and there are times when zoning for one use makes sense (e.g., the Airport, the Municipal District near the water tower). He pointed Commissioners to the link in this week's packet about considerations regarding any potential spot zoning. Mr. Conner added that the Commission should consider how the use category fits with the Comprehensive Plan; that is an important component. Mr. Klugo said he loves the project, but he can’t put it into the “agritourism” category because it is actually light manufacturing. He felt challenged as to where to put it. He asked whether there has been discussion at the County level regarding agribusiness. Ms. LaRose said there hasn’t been much at the County level, but the State has put together information on how to tie agriculture into the “new economy.” This is generally focused on “traditional” agriculture. Mr. Klugo said it seems most agribusiness was developed to help keep farms together, but this potential use would be agriculture in a non-agriculture area. Ms. Quest asked if current zoning would allow houses to be built in the northern portion of the property. Mr. Conner said yes, except in one corner near the stream. Mr. Riehle said he is torn. He would like to know if entities such as GBIC think the use makes sense in that location. He also suggested having the Natural Resources Committee look at it. He added that it’s a great use, but the question is whether it’s in the right location. Mr. Klugo noted that some communities have gone forward with this. Owners have had to sign agreements regarding noise control. Mr. Conner indicated the property on the map and pointed out the area that would be used for the cider facility. He noted that the applicant has said this was not “set in stone.” Mr. Klugo noted the primary access would be from Van Sicklen. Mr. Conner said the intersection would have to be upgraded to a standard intersection and would eventually be signalized, possibly with this use. He would urge that the intersection be designed for a signal when it is warranted. Mr. Dandurand, who owns property across the road, asked about zoning options. Ms. Louisos said there are different ways to do zoning. Mr. Conner said the issue is whether what the applicant is seeking is appropriate for this area and, if it is, what language would the community be comfortable with. Mr. Riehle said the wider issue is what might go in there if the cider operation ever left. Mr. Klugo said they have to consider the goals of bringing Citizen Cider into the area and how that can be made to happen without just allowing light manufacturing in the area. Mr. Hellenbach said it is hard to forecast what things will look like in 20 years. He added they are talking about a missed opportunity. He also noted that with the current zoning there could be 200 homes. Ms. Otsby asked what the difference is between milling flour and milling cider. Ms. Dopp said that traditionally the raw product would be taken elsewhere for manufacture. She questioned the driver for an agribusiness. If it is the apple trees, more could be planted. It would provide more material for the cider operation to work with. If it’s to produce more cider, that’s another thing. She said she would rather see that in an area more conducive to truck traffic, etc. Mr. Klugo said it the apple trees weren’t there, Citizen wouldn’t be looking at that site. Mr. Hellenbach said it’s more than that. That got them there, but they buy half of their crop from one place in New York, and they would be interested in having fruit as close as possible. He asked how much agriculture close to the plant would cause this use to be looked at positively. He recognized this is a unique zoning situation. They can get growers to grow fruit for them on “land leases.” That’s how dairies survive. Mr. Hellenbach stressed that if they can get all of their fruit from one place, they would. Mr. Riehle said he is concerned that this is an NRP district. He added that it feels like they’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. He’s still going “back and forth.” Mr. Conner pointed out various properties in the area including the solar installation and a few small, individually owned properties. Mr. Klugo said he could envision a walkable neighborhood integrated with Citizen Cider. Ms. Ruppel, who lives in Stonehouse Village, said the biggest concern is Van Sicklen. It’s a dangerous road, and residents are worried about the impact of more traffic. They are also concerned with noise and “what might come next.” Mr. Klugo said there would be some upgrade to Van Sicklen. Ms. Louisos suggested the possibility of “trading” so some of the housing units might be traded off. Ms. Dopp said it would be a different story if more trees were put there. Mr. Larkin said they have no idea now of what the residential element would look like. He did not want the “north 40” to be part of this discussion. Ms. Louisos said it doesn’t feel right to her to put something this big in the NRP. She would feel better of some of that NRP got traded with some developable land. Ms. Harrington asked the benefit of having NRP land right next to Hinesburg Road. Mr. Conner said this parcel was probably made NRP because of the orchard. Mr. Klugo said it is not inconceivable that Hinesburg Road could become a 4-lane road in the future. Mr. Hallenbach said the Commission should look back at the bigger vision for the Southeast Quadrant. He said they don’t want to be in an industrial park. He noted there are buildings like that in Essex, Milton or Plattsburgh that they could walk into today. If this site doesn’t work out, they will look for other farm land. They are hopeful there is a way to do this on this site, but they understand the challenges. Mr. Klugo said Citizen is “selling an experience,” and he can see them on this site, but there are challenges. Ms. Louisos said it would be very hard for the Commission to deal with unless there is some agriculture on the site. Mr. Hallenbach said a “value added agriculture” is OK, but they did not want anything tied to percentages of crops. Mr. Conner asked the Commission to consider: if a portion of the NRP is allowed to be developed, how would that affect similar NRP lands. Ms. LaRose added that people will ask “why can’t I build one house and you’re allowing a large commercial development?” She noted they have not yet had a legal opinion as to whether this would violate the Comprehensive Plan. Members asked to have that opinion for the next time this is discussed. Mr. Klugo said he would want a pre-development agreement that this would happen, so the Commission's time isn't cast aside if something better comes along. Mr. Conner asked members to consider 2 things: a. What is the context around which they want to do this? b. What makes this a use that is a catalyst for agriculture in the area? Mr. Dandurand said he would be open to talking about expanding the orchard onto his property. He also said he is impressed with the thought process he has seen. A member of the audience asked what would stop the Auclairs from selling land to a beer brewery and could the Commission prevent that. Mr. Klugo said they would need to quantify things such as “are they growing their hops on the site?” 6. Continued Discussion of Shelburne Road/mixed use and site plan standards: Ms. LaRose reminded members that they had talked about adding some landscaping standards. She asked if this would be just for “first line” properties on Shelburne Road or whether it would have any depth to it. She noted that in some areas, zones are only one property deep. She questioned whether all properties should be treated the same. She also asked whether the concern was with just one property, all new development, certain areas, etc. Mr. Conner suggested that a dense green buffer could be required where a commercial property backs to a residential property. This now counts as “landscaping,” which is why there is often not so much landscaping in front. One change could be to say that the buffer doesn’t count toward landscaping, or that a certain percentage of landscaping must be up front. Ms. LaRose noted that landscaping right up against a building really makes a big difference to a property. She showed some photos of this. Mr. Conner said they could also look at the credit a developer is given for existing landscaping. This does not always have a positive outcome. Members felt this discussion should apply to the whole city, not only to Shelburne Road. Mr. Klugo felt that if you’re trying to entice people to use sidewalks, they should be wide enough for use with landscaping along them. Ms. LaRose said they can also look at “doorway” standards. 7. Consider letter to The Other Paper regarding upcoming TIF district vote: Ms. Louisos liked the idea of explaining why the Planning Commission favors the ballot item and why it is important. She asked if the letter should be from the whole Commission or just from her. Mr. Riehle liked the idea of unanimity or at least naming those who support it. Ms. Louisos agreed to bring a draft of the letter to the next meeting. 8. Minutes of 27 September 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 27 September 2016 as written. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: It was noted that is likely Ms. Quest’s final Commission meeting as she is moving to the City of Burlington. Members thanked her for her participation and her service to the community. Mr. Riehle asked whether the Commission had received a follow-up from Tim McKenzie and South Burlington Realty regarding City Center standards. Mr. Conner said this has not yet been received. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: October 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. Consider approval of new street name request – Ally’s Run (7:14 pm) A recently-approved development on O’Brien Drive (near the Middle School & Barrett Street) includes a triplex and a single family home which are to be off a shared access. Because of the number of units it serves and due to the existing numbering on O’Brien Drive, this must be treated as a private street and given a name. The applicant has requested the name Ally’s Run. Staff has reviewed the name, checked it against other street names in the area, and confirmed with both Public Works and the Vermont E-911 Board that an apostrophe would not be a problem. Staff recommends approval of the name Ally’s Run. 5. Continue discussion of potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant (7:15 pm) See enclosed memo. 6. Continue discussion of Shelburne Road / mixed use area site plan standards (8:35 pm) See enclosed memo. 7. Consider letter to the Other Paper regarding upcoming Tax Increment Finance district debt vote, Jessica Louisos (8:50 pm) Ms. Louisos would like to discuss with the Commission the possibility of preparing and authoring a letter from the Commission regarding the upcoming TIF vote. 8. Meeting Minutes (8:58 pm) 9. Other Business (8:89 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:00 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Agricultural Enterprise Zoning Consideration DATE: October 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Over the past few months, the Commission has held a handful of discussions about the potential for a new use category: Agricultural Enterprise. As initially requested and proposed by a private business, it would allow for a multi-dimensional facility in the neighborhood of 75,000 s.f. to be constructed and operated in the Southeast Quadrant. Enclosed with this memo are all of the materials from the Commission’s prior discussions: • Initial letter from Rabideau Architects requesting discussion of a zoning change (3/29) • Citizen Cider Concept (3/29) o Minutes of 3/29 PC meeting • Staff memo outlining Ag Enterprise concept (5/24) o Minutes of 5/24 PC meeting • Staff memo with big picture questions and initial draft zoning language (8/9) o Minutes 8/9 PC meeting For this week’s meeting, staff recommends that the Commission work towards a conclusion of this zoning discussion, and to do so in two possible steps. Step 1: Big Picture Having had time to reflect on the ideas and concepts, does the Commission feel that allowing large facilities in the Southeast Quadrant, under the right conditions, is in the interests of the community? Fundamentally, a question is this: the City’s regulations presently allow for light manufacturing and manufacturing facilities in various areas. The Commission is being asked to consider a portion of the SEQ to be used for some form of large, multi-dimensional facility. Under what circumstances would a facility be appropriate in the SEQ? • Enclosed is a map indicating where facilities similar to the one that was shown to the Commission are currently allowed. Two important considerations for the Commission: 2 1. State law requires that any change to zoning be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Would a zoning change that allowed for a large facility be consistent with the Plan, and if so, under what circumstances? The Commission will need to prepare a report describing that. • The Comprehensive Plan can be found online at www.sburl.com/regulations. The Southeast Quadrant Chapter is found on pages 3-5 to 3-7, 3-29 to 3-39, and Map 11, Future Land Use 2. The City, as we’ve discussed before, needs to be cognizant of the context of any zoning change, its impact on surrounding properties, and its applicability across multiple properties. By looking at potential changes in their context can defray concerns about spot zoning. • Planners’ Web has posted a primer on spot zoning (click on this link). Step 2: the Standards. Should the Commission decide that a large facility could be appropriate in the SEQ, the next step would be to determine the conditions under which such a facility would be allowed. Staff urges the Commission to look at this not as a discussion over what might work for any given future business, but rather, given that this land use is allowed elsewhere in the City already, what are the conditions under which the Commission would deem a portion of the SEQ to be appropriate for a large- scale facility? Staff encourages Commissioners to review the materials and minutes from the August 9th meeting. For that meeting, staff was asked to prepare an outline of what regulations could look like based on past discussions of the Commission. Staff fully encourages the Commission to discuss these and other possibilities. We do find it important to note, however, that the language shown at the August 9th meeting is on the edge of our comfort level in terms of requirements, all around, given the big picture as discussed above. We also note that the requirement to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is no small hurdle in this case and has not yet been discussed. As Cathyann noted back at that meeting, there are many ways to craft that language. The use could be allowed in the Natural Resource Protection District, a subset of the NRP, the Village Residential District, or be part of an overlay district that applied in several districts under certain circumstances. • As a part of this discussion, Mr. Heilenbach from Citizen Cider has provided feedback to the City on the initial draft zoning language from August 9th, enclosed. Step 2.1: Next steps If the Commission decides to proceed, then staff will work with the Commission to refine options and language. If the Commission decides not to pursue this particular option / consideration for Agricultural Enterprise, it may still wish to continue its work on value-added agricultural as it had been discussing prior to this particular zoning change request. Step 2.5: Commissioners questions Staff has been asked to prepare a few materials for this discussion. They include: 3 1. Estimate of traffic generated. This is tricky for staff to assess because each facility is somewhat unique. Based on “typical” manufacturing facilities of similar size, a rough estimate would be 40-60 vehicle trips during the busiest hour of the afternoon on a typical day. With a tasting or other event room, this figure might be higher. Event days or evenings would likely be higher. 2. Amount of impervious surface in addition to buildings. Some Commissioners discussed the possibility of an off-set requirement for land and/or agricultural soils that would be affected not only by buildings, but by parking, circulation, and loading areas as well. Staff took a look at a handful of similar facilities to those being considered in this use category, including the Harpoon Brewery in Window, the Woodchuck Cider facility in Middlebury, the Burton factory & store in Burlington, and the concept as shown by Citizen Cider. The amount of parking, loading, and circulation areas generally range from 1:1 (building s.f. to these areas) to 1:1.25. So, for a building of a 50,000, it could be 50,000 to 60,000 s.f. 3. Provide some examples of other facilities that are comparable in some manner: Woodchuck Cider: 95,000 s.f. 4 Harpoon Brewery: 27,000 s.f. per floor, 1-2 stories Magic Hat: 50,000 s.f. footprint UVM Davis Center: 40,000 s.f. footprint Green Mountain Coffee 17,000 s.f. per floor, x 3 floors Tuttle middle school: 65,000 s.f. per floor, x 2 floors UVM Barn at Swift & Spear: 5,200 s.f. footprint NRG Systems in Hinesburg : 58,000 s.f. per floor, x 2 floors (x 2) Pizzigali Center at Sheburne Museum – 11,000 s.f. per floor, x 2 floors §¨¦89 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 PATCHEN RDN ATIONA L GUA R D AV C H E E S E F A C T O R Y R D W H I T E S T JOY D RM EADO W L A ND DROLDFARMRD SHELBURNE RDCOMMUNIT Y DRALLEN RD MILLSAVE T H AN ALLEN DR BARTL E T T B A Y RD BRANDFA RMDRWILLISTON RD DORSET STVALEDRCOUNTRYCLUB DRS ONGBIRD R D BREWER PKWY O B R I ENDRC I D E R M I L L D R N OWL AND F A R M R D B OW ERSTD U MONT AVAI RPORT DRB U T L ER D R H O L M E S R D ELSOMPKWYD U B O I S D R PH E A SA NTW Y S W I F T S T PA RK RDHI NESBURGRDVA N S I C K L E N R DLAURELHILLDRN C O DR BAYCRES T D RFAYETTERD KIMBALL AV B RAEBURNS T Q U A RRYHILLRDCENTRALAVEAIR P O R T PKWYIRISLN MOSSGL E N L N DEERFIELDDR PROCTOR AV H AYE S AVM A R KET S T I N T E R S T A T E 1 8 9 N IDX DR K E N NEDYD RI N T E R S TAT E 1 8 9 S GOLFCOURSER D M IDLAND AV K IRBY RD I B Y S T BARRE T T ST INTERSTATE 8 9 N FLORAL STGREG O R YDREA G LEDRFARRELL STPINNACLE DRS W IFT S T E X T KNOL L CI RSPEAR STTILLEY DR STONEHED G EDRBERARD DR S ANREMODRI N DIAN CRK CA TKI N DREAST TERRINTERSTATE 89 S South Burlington, Vermont ¹ 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Data Disclaimer: Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions Note: Parcel line data is provided for informational purposes only. The City reserves the right to update the Official Zoning Map with new parcel data as it becomes available. Zoning Effective April 11, 2016 Light Manufacturing & Manufacturing Zoning Districts \\PWSERVER\GISdata\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\ZoningMap\ManufacturingZones_2016_04_11EffectiveData.mxd South Burlington Boundary Parcel Line Light Manufacturing & Manufacturing Allowed Map Date: October 7, 2016         March  24,  2016       South  Burlington  Planning  Commission   C/O  South  Burlington  Planning  and  Zoning   575  Dorset  Street   South  Burlington,  Vermont  05403     Re:  Proposed  New  Allowable  Use  –  SEQ     Members  of  the  Commission’   We  are  in  the  process  of  developing  a  master  plan  for  the  former  Marceau  Farm  in  the  South  East   Quadrant  District.    This  farmstead  epitomizes  the  values  identified  by  the  City  of  South  Burlington   in  the  goal  statements  of  the  Land  Use  Regulations  and  the  Comprehensive  Plan.  It  contains  natural   areas,  open  spaces,  and  an  important  agricultural  resource-­‐  namely  a  mature  orchard.    These   resources  are  clearly  identified  in  the  Land  Use  regulations  cited  here:         “9  SOUTHEAST  QUADRANT  -­‐  SEQ  9.01  Purpose     A  Southeast  Quadrant  District  (SEQ)  is  hereby  formed  in  order  to  encourage  open  space   preservation,  scenic  view  and  natural  resource  protection,  wildlife  habitat  preservation,   continued  agriculture,  and  well-­‐planned  residential  use  in  the  area  of  the  City  known  as   the  Southeast  Quadrant.  The  natural  features,  visual  character  and  scenic  views  offered  in   this  area  have  long  been  recognized  as  very  special  and  unique  resources  in  the  City  and   worthy  of  protection.  The  design  and  layout  of  buildings  and  lots  in  a  manner  that  in  the   judgment  of  the  Development  Review  Board  will  best  create  neighborhoods  and  a  related   network  of  open  spaces  consistent  with  the  Comprehensive  Plan  for  the  Southeast  Quadrant   shall  be  encouraged.”     And     CHAPTER  VIII  SOUTHEAST  QUADRANT,  Section  9    Subsection  C.  Agriculture.       “The  conservation  of  existing  agricultural  production  values  is  encouraged  through   development  planning  that  supports  agricultural  uses  (including  but  not  limited  to   development  plans  that  create  contiguous  areas  of  agricultural  use),  provides  buffer  areas   between  existing  agricultural  operations  and  new  development,  roads,  and  infrastructure,   or  creates  new  opportunities  for  agricultural  use  (on  any  soil  group)  such  as  but  not   limited  to  community-­‐  supported  agriculture.  Provisions  that  enhance  overall   neighborhood  and  natural  resource  values  rather  than  preservation  of  specific  soil  types   are  strongly  encouraged.”       While  undertaking  our  planning,  we  have  been  approached  by  the  owners  of  Citizens  Cider  with  an   interesting  proposal.  They  would  like  to  locate  their  main  cider  mill  in  a  location  adjacent  to  an   Orchard,  and  would  we  consider  incorporating  them  into  our  planning?  This  proposal  has  many   merits,  but  to  make  this  possible,  the  City  of  South  Burlington  would  have  to  amend  their  LDR’s  to   allow  this  use  in  the  district.  Consider  first  the  merits  of  making  such  a  change:   The  district  is  established  to  encourage  agricultural  production.  However,  agriculture  in  Vermont   has  undergone  profound  changes  in  the  last  few  decades,  making  small  dairy  herds  or  row  crop   production  uneconomic.  This,  in  conjunction  with  rising  land  costs,  is  why  farms  like  the  Marceau   Farm  are  no  longer  in  production.    The  farming  success  stories  of  the  twenty  first  century  are  those   where  those  who  work  the  land  shift  from  producing  commodities  to  more  value  added  products   including  artisanal  cheeses,  organic  plant  based  health  and  beauty  products,  and  yes  cider.     Adapting  your  regulations  to  reflect  this  fact  advances  the  goals  of  the  district.   Not  long  ago,  there  were  many  orchards  in  South  Burlington  and  since  Colonial  times,  orchards   have  had  or  been  very  near  cider  mills.  In  the  Southeast  Quadrant  apples  were  pressed  at  the   Chittenden  Cider  Mill,  which  has  since  been  lost  to  development.  Cider  mills  are  by  ordinance   considered  as  an  industrial  uses,  but  they  are  different  than  general  manufacturing  in  that  they   depend  upon  an  active  farming  activity  for  their  raw  materials.     The  best  strategy  for  preserving  natural  areas  and  wetlands  is  to  leave  them  alone,  and  protect   them  from  encroachment.  Preserving  agricultural  lands  requires  stewardship.  Orchards  in   particular  cannot  lay  fallow  for  very  long  before  the  trees,  which  were  bred  by  humans  to  produce   larger  and  more  plentiful  fruit  than  their  precursors,  succumb  to  disease,  insects,  storm  damage   and  damage  by  small  mammals.  In  short,  orchards  must  be  tended  or  they  quickly  start  to  die  off.   Such  care  is  labor  intensive,  and  will  only  happen  in  an  environment  where  the  fruit  is  harvested  to   good  economic  purpose.       For  a  company  like  Citizen  Cider,  care  and  preservation  of  this  orchard  supports  their  business   activity,  but  also  presents  opportunities  for  research,  education,  and  public  outreach.  Placing  their   production  facility  in  the  midst  of  an  orchard  says  something  about  who  they  are  and  the  values   they  support.    It  also  allows  them  to  experiment  with  different  cultivars  and  to  welcome  visitors.     I’m  sure  you  know  that  tourists  now  come  to  Vermont  for  our  beers  and  ciders  in  the  same  way  that   people  visit  northern  California  for  their  wines.  Connecting  those  products  to  the  places  where  they   are  grown,  terroir,  is  important  to  make  Vermont  products  distinct  from  mass  produced  products   derived  from  concentrates.    Providing  a  market  for  agricultural  products  in  the  district  may  provide   an  opportunity  for  other  landowners  with  orchards  in  South  Burlington  or  other  Champlain  Valley   to  preserve  their  orchards  as  well,  further  advancing  the  stated  goals  of  open  space  and  agricultural   preservation.   We  would  like  to  create  an  environment  where  preserved  agricultural  land  and  residential   development  are  more  fully  integrated.  In  the  past,  agriculture  set  asides  have  been  an  after   thought.  Let  us  explore  together  how  this  can  be  done,  to  bring  the  business  of  growing  apples,   processing  apples  and  making  and  selling  Citizen  Cider  to  South  Burlington.     Greg  Rabideau     Rabideau  Architects                           CITIZEN CIDERSOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT DESIGN ELEMENTS FARM / BARN IMAGES GREEN ROOF EXISTING SITE 1743 S. LA CIENEGA BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA. 90035 T - 800.450.3494 www.greenscreen.com Field Blvd - Chicago, IL Freestanding greenscreen® panels are used on each side of an entry street to a new development adjacent to the Milennium Park. Photos show Summer and Fall seasons. Hardiness Zone 6a 1743 S. LA CIENEGA BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA. 90035 T - 800.450.3494 www.greenscreen.com Goat Hill Courthouse Parking - Seattle, WA A photo progession shows a greenscreen® three story green facade wall grow and fill in over three years. Hardiness Zone 8b Installed 2005Trumpet Honeysuckle GREEN WALL DESIGN INSPIRATION XOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHW OHW XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXH I N E S B U R G R O A DV A N S I C K L E N R O A D F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T EMPLOYEE PARKING +/- 56 SPACES VISITOR PARKING +/- 84 SPACES SERVICE PARKING 24 SPACES TRUCK LOADING AND UNLOADING PROPOSED CITIZEN CIDER FACILITY SERVICE ACCESS LINE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED LEVEL AREA FOR EVENT TENT/ ICE SKATING RINK LINE OF EXISTING PAVING TO BE REMOVED LINE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED LINE OF EXISTING PAVING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SOLAR ARRAY ORCHARD, TYPICAL TERRACE GREENHOUSE CLERESTORY GREEN ROOF ROOF TERRACE FARM MARKET SILO PORCH TASTING ROOM POTENTIAL SERVICE DRIVE EXISTING PATH CITIZEN CIDER • VERMONT CITIZEN CIDER • VERMONT 15'-5 5/16" 16'-5 9/16" 1000 sq. ft. CITIZEN CIDER • VERMONT 15'-5 5/16" 1000 sq. ft. 3D-1A SCALE: N.T.S. DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D MASSING STUDIES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT DATE: 03/29/2016 3D-1B SCALE: N.T.S. DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D MASSING STUDIES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT FERMENTATION BELOW ADMIN TASTING BELOW DATE: 03/29/2016 3D-1C SCALE: N.T.S. DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D MASSING STUDIES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT COLD STORAGE BOTTLING / DRY STORAGETASTING FERMENTATION KITCHEN COOLER LOADING PRESSING RETAIL DATE: 03/29/2016 3D-2 SCALE: N.T.S. DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D MASSING STUDIES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT DATE: 03/29/2016 3D-3 SCALE: N.T.S. DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D MASSING STUDIES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT DATE: 03/29/2016 3D-4 SCALE: N.T.S. DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D MASSING STUDIES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT DATE: 03/29/2016 3D-5 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 03/29/2016 DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D SITE IMAGES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT VIEW FROM HINESBURG ROAD 3D-6 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 03/29/2016 DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D SITE IMAGES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT VIEW FROM ENTRANCE 3D-7 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 03/29/2016 DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D SITE IMAGES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT VIEW FROM VAN SICKLEN ROAD 3D-8 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 03/29/2016 DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D SITE IMAGES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT VIEW FROM NORTH 3D-9 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 03/29/2016 DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D SITE IMAGES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT AERIAL VIEW 3D-10 SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 03/29/2016 DRAWING:PROJECT: 3D SITE IMAGES PROJECT NO.: 0707 CITIZEN CIDER SOUTH BURLINGTON • VERMONT AERIAL VIEW 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, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Agricultural Enterprise Regulatory Options DATE: May 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting At its March 29th meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a concept by representatives of Larkin Realty and Citizen Cider to develop an integrated production facility, tasting room, and small shop adjacent to the Marceau orchard on Hinesburg Road. The proposal showcased a 50,000 sf building to be constructed with a farm style or Vermont vernacular. Green roofs, green walls, and use of the existing orchard were also presented as elements. The specific property under consideration is located within the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection (SEQ-NRP) Zone. This zone does not permit construction or use of facilities other than residential, and even those are limited to large properties with very few units to be permitted. At that meeting, the Planning Commission expressed interest in pursuing options to encourage this proposal and directed Staff to research accordingly. Agricultural enterprise, and the changing face of agriculture in our community, is something we are seeing an increasing interest in and development of. Farms have become local event centers, wineries have become multi-functional, and even more agricultural uses have become beacons for local visitation and an attraction to tourists. Staff has communicated with several communities who have started to work through this change and has found valuable resources. Staff also participated in a follow-up meeting with the property owner and Citizen Cider representatives. In pursuing options for this type of integrated agriculture, Staff has found several considerations which may influence the tool(s) to be utilized or developed. As such, there are a few guiding questions we’ll ask for Commissioners to consider. 1) In consideration of integrated agricultural uses, are they appropriate City-wide? This consideration should consider all sub-zones of the SEQ as well. 2) Similarly, in consideration of a change in allowed use (or zone) at the Hinesburg Road property, is the property uniquely situated or does it have unique characteristics which would be unlike property also zoned SEQ-NRP? 2 3) In consideration of restrictions on this property or other properties which may have an integrated agriculture use or zoning, what, if any and to what extent, are important features or limitations which should also be considered? Examples could include expected traffic volumes, building sizes, relationship of building size to agricultural use, definitions of agriculture (and its changing face), building vernacular or design, relationship to residential structures (mixed use or PUD considerations), open space elements, community facilities or amenities. These are intended to be broad questions for which generalizations or relative rankings may be most helpful; exact traffic counts or square footages are not necessary at this time. As an example, you may indicate that traffic volumes are not important for arterial roads, or that a rural or farm building vernacular is a crucial element. Highlighting the elements which you find important will help us to find the most appropriate tools for the integration of this or similar types of facilities into the community. 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, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Agricultural Enterprise Zoning Concepts DATE: August 9, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission was approached by land owners and entrepreneurs this spring to consider amendments to the Land Development Regulations which would re-envision allowances in light of new faces of agriculture and agriculture-related enterprise. The State of Vermont has a broad encompassing definition of agriculture in the spirit of allowing most people the ability to raise or grow just about anything in any location. It does, however, have strict regulatory controls over wastewater and structures that are associated with agriculture. As such, a lot of value-added agriculture or agriculture-related tourism, and agriculture-based products which are not grown on site are not permitted exemptions from local control, and left to a municipality to determine how these uses and products fit into any given community. One of the great challenges in crafting this language has been acknowledging and embracing creativity in new agricultural enterprises without creating parameters so broad that they would permit production facilities that do not meet the vision or intent of this allowance. Staff has considered a breadth of options ranging from zoning district adjustments, floating zones, conditional uses, and new use categories. While there has been some national and regional work towards defining and clarifying how these extraneous uses can be incorporated, Staff quickly discovered that any definition and use allowances and restrictions really need to be tailored to the South Burlington community. The accompanying language reflects some of the basic work of existing publications on this subject, but is predominantly specific to our community and to the guidance that the Planning Commission has previously given. Please understand that these recommendations, though phrased in the format of regulatory language, are intended to be an introduction to the topics, forming the basis for an informed policy discussion. Some of the specific allowances, numbers, and allowed locations are meant to be guided place-holders that will benefit from your thoughts and a more thorough discussion. I will try to highlight known questions herein in order to most efficiently navigate through the pieces. I recommend returning to the ‘questions’ portion below after reading the accompanying language. Points of discussion: 2 1. Known Desires and Concerns: a. Zoning i. Protection against it becoming a basic manufacturing facility ii. High quality architecture that is reflective of more rural setting and downplays size iii. Loss of NRP land; maintaining 1.2 units per acre across the SEQ as per the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan b. Amenities i. Community access to orchards in some way ii. Venue for rental maybe? iii. Community access for events and this to be a gathering place iv. Walking trails connecting to system, including some important view-points c. Attention/Understand and address conflicts: i. Limits on hours of operation & noise of live music ii. Effective buffering from neighbors (existing and future) iii. Clear understanding of future growth Questions for the Planning Commission: - Is there a desire or requirement for integration or compatibility with whatever happens to the north - Should there be a minimum or maximum lot size for this use? - Should there be an allowance for land outside SEQ to be conserved or dedicated as park in as part of the proposed exchange of land? - Are there adjustments to the table of uses? Should this new use be permitted in R1 and R2?? Potential Tools: Addressing zoning:  New proposed use- Agricultural Enterprise o Definition:  Agricultural Enterprise- Hybrid land use with development being directly related to the principal farming activity being conducted on-site. o General Purpose:  Agricultural enterprises highlight both the tangible and tangential benefits of agriculture. They are enhanced with a purpose of recreation, education, or active involvement in farm operations. While still highlighting the connection between farm and plate- or glass- they embrace the changing faces of traditional farming by extending the employment opportunities, educational value, and range of agricultural products. These activities are not explicitly protected under state farming allowances and should be regulated for the hybrid use that they are. o Regulation (add to Chapter 13):  General Regulations:  For the purposes of Agricultural Enterprise use, the principal farming activity shall be limited to edible crops. This explicitly restricts the slaughter of livestock or poultry as constituting the principal farming activity.  At least half of the land’s developable acreage (not counting slopes more than 20% or wetlands) must be in active agricultural production and used or sold on-site by the facility.  The development on the site, including production facilities, must: o Relate directly to the crop being farmed on the site. o Ensure that at least three-quarters (75%) of its consumables are comprised of agricultural products from within the State of Vermont or within a 100-mile radius. o Demonstrate dedication to agritourism, highlighting the importance of agriculture as a community value. o Be open to the public and customers for at least 20 hours per week, for at least 9 months of the year.  The following related uses are permitted: o The sampling and tasting of crops and produce not principally produced on the farm or the resulting products from such crops or produce; o Tours of growing areas and storage and processing facilities; o Hayrides, farm tours, picnic areas and other agritourism activities. o Pub/Restaurant provided it is clearly incidental and subordinate. o Harvest and agriculture related events. Other events shall be permitted through the City’s events permitting process.  Specific Regulations:  Agricultural Enterprise shall be permitted in accordance with Appendix C, Table of Uses.  In the Southeast Quadrant, where residential density is most carefully delineated and where development is most restricted, Agricultural Enterprise must respect the intended purpose of the Zoning District. As the rural character and emphasis on open spaces and agricultural land remains imperative, Agricultural Enterprise shall be permitted only with the following exchange for building square footage: Per 1000 SF GFA of Structure1 Any cumulative combination of: Minimums .5 TDRs recorded and conserved from an approved ‘sending’ zone in the SEQ2 .25 acre of on-site agricultural land which serves the agricultural enterprise and which is in production Minimum 2 acre lots .4 acres of agricultural land in South Burlington common ownership or under contract to serve the agricultural enterprise and which is in production Minimum 2 acre lots .25 acres of land given to and accepted by the City for use as a public park or publically accessible natural area Minimum 2 acres $5000 of off-site infrastructure improvements which enable or enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the site. Minimum $10,000 1 * square footage of interior farmstand dedicated to selling or distribution of fruits or vegetables shall be exempt 2 * these TDRs may not be used in conjunction with any other projects.  In the Southeast Quadrant, any facilities associated with this use shall be located no more than 500 feet from a State designated highway.  There shall be at least one half mile separating lots approved for this use.  No facilities shall be located within designated primary conservation areas, excepting those designated as such for soils and farmland.  Review Standards:  Planned Unit Development (PUD) review shall be required.  The proposed development must submit a plan which demonstrates components of educational and community value. This may include planned community events, walking trails, or interpretive signage relating to historical, cultural, or agricultural significance of the land or production. Other ideas shall be considered by the DRB pursuant to the stated purpose of this use. As a condition of approval, the property owner or designee shall be required to submit a plan to the Director of Planning and Zoning annually.  In residential districts, hours of operation for outdoor events, retail, and restaurant components shall not begin before 8 am or end after 10 pm. Shipping and receiving activities shall be limited to those hours identified in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Production facilities shall be permitted to operate throughout the day and evening.  Shipping and receiving zones, parking lots, overhead lights and dumpster facilities shall be located such to minimize impact on adjacent residential properties. Where these abut a residential building within 250 feet, they shall provide for noise and light buffering.  Parking requirements are reflected in Table 13-2 (under development but anticipating including a maximum marking allowance)  In all permitted districts defined architectural controls shall be required. (THIS SECTION UNDER DEVELOPMENT- will review VC standards for commercial buildings)  Scenic views should be identified and integrated into the site design to allow for use and enjoyment by employees and visitors.  Walking trails shall be delineated on the property where connections can exist to existing or planned pedestrian or natural connections. Other definitions which should be adopted in accordance with Agricultural Enterprise: Agritourism -- act of visiting working farms to engage in outdoor recreation, participate in educational experiences, or enjoy entertainment and hospitality services. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 9 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner; E. Langfeldt & Andrew Gill, O’Brien Brothers Agency; Monica Ostby, Resident 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Klugo: Met with Tim McKenzie regarding problems with Form Based Code. A tentative date has been set for the Commission to discuss the issues (first meeting in September). Ms. Quest: Attended the second meeting regarding spending the Open Space money. The committee is coming up with accurate figures. The third meeting is tomorrow. Ms. Louisos: Spoke with the City Council Chair regarding the question of solar ready roofs. The Council is completely fine with what the Commission recommended. Ms. LaRose: Advised that Mr. Conner is on vacation. City Fest was held this past weekend and was a great success, generating a lot of community pride. 4. Discuss potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations a. Request from O’Brien Brothers – Parking in front of triplex / row homes on steep slopes (7:20 pm) Ms. LaRose reviewed staff’s approach to the issue as follows: a) Physical restrictions on a site and whether those should be considered for relief of parking requirements b) O’Briens’ suggested relief for all town homes c) Whether there should be design restrictions if parking were to be allowed in front of certain structures 2 Ms. LaRose noted that staff provided information regarding good design and what would make parking unattractive. She said there are some good examples of parking in front and still maintaining a good pedestrian environment. She also suggested considering the question of garages separately. Ms. Quest noted that the landscaping on Songbird makes it lovely to drive through. She felt it would be hard to write that up. Ms. LaRose said garage design is still a concern, even if they’re set back 8 feet. Mr. Langfeldt said that context is important. They have a unique site, especially the slopes. There is a good road, and it will be a neighborhood road, so a curb cut back to a garage isn’t bad (it would be on a street like Market Street because that is a through road). He didn’t feel that a uniform city-wide regulation works in this case. He suggested the Commission focus on areas with 10% slopes. Ms. LaRose noted that the original request didn’t mention slopes at all, just housing types. The applicant said they are fine focusing on just the slope issue. Mr. Klugo said the Commission has to be sure to meet the city’s needs on the larger scale. Ms. Louisos said there seems to be a more significant cut with an upslope. She felt there was more flexibility of design with a downslope. The applicant said parking in the rear with an upslope is totally impractical, but it is also not a good practice to have roads on both sides of a house. This also increases the impervious surface. Mr. Langfeldt said it is not good for people living in a house and wanting to have children able to play in the backyards with cars going by. He said that Market St. is a completely different context with people able to walk to City Center. With parking in the rear, you are selling a completely different product. He also cited the cost of building a retaining wall and adding more pavement. This makes a home more expensive for the buyer. Mr. Klugo said that with a downslope, you can put parking under buildings and not have to build a road. He cited homes built on Shelburne Road where cars enter on one side and go through to the other side. The applicant said there would then be no basements. Ms. Louisos said there could be half basement/half parking. The applicant felt that with appropriate landscaping there was no downside to parking in the rear. He felt that this should be conditions, with the DRB having the option to allow parking in the read. He said this would apply only in a very small percentage of the city and added that having one condition for the whole city didn’t make sense. If you offer it as a relief, with requirements, he said, you would get something the DRB thinks is positive. 3 Ms. Louisos said the Commission could write out the requirements so there is no waiver required. Then the developer would know the rules in advance. The applicant also noted issues of garage flooding with a sloped driveway as well as issues of ice in the winter, having to lug trash around to the front for pickup, and the added cost of plowing a rear driveway. Mr. Klugo said the applicant does have the option of building only on the easier sites. The applicant said they have the option of all duplexes, but they are trying to increase the density to meet the R-12 zoning. Mr. Langfeldt said he didn’t see an issue with street-loaded garages on a neighborhood street with appropriate landscaping. Mr. Klugo said he would like to see pictures/elevations of what “uphill” and “downhill” design would look like, a typical section through a street and how the grades would be managed. Mr. Riehle said that would be helpful for him as well. Ms. Quest asked whether they are still considering form based code city-wide. Ms. LaRose said there will be a presentation on that at the next Commission meeting. There will be elements of form based code that would be put into a PUD standard, but the feeling is there won’t be a strict form based code anywhere else in the city. Mr. Langfeldt noted they are in the process of doing a Master Plan presentation to the DRB. The have an amended sketch plan hearing on 23 August. Mr. Gagnon noted that any LDR changes would have to be publicly warned and then approved by the City Council. He questioned whether the timing of that would mesh with the O’Brien’s time frame. Ms. LaRose said they are looking at January for possible adoption of an amendment. Mr. Klugo cited the “bad design” on Dorset St. with a 50-foot wide drive in front of a building. He said it may be “marketable,” but it is not a pleasant experience. He noted there is only a 1% housing vacancy rate on homes for sale in the city. The applicant said that front-loaded garages are the preferred design of home buyers. Ms. Louisos said that is for single family homes, which the Commission cannot control (by statute). The issue here is multi-family units. Ms. LaRose stressed that the Commission had discussed this issue very thoroughly and was unanimous in the decision to not allow parking in the rear. She said that if that issue is to be re-opened, it should be at the same level of discussion. Ms. Louisos said she felt row homes have a very different presence than single family homes. 4 The applicant cited the Village at Dorset Park which has front garages that look very nice. Mr. Klugo said those are one-car garages, not garages that go across the whole front of a unit. Mr. Gagnon said he is willing to talk about the 10% slope issue, with some criteria as to what it should look like to be aesthetically pleasing. He felt it shouldn’t be automatic, and the DRB could approve or not approve it. He also felt it should be similar on both sides of a street. There was no voiced opposition to considering the 10% slope issue. Ms. LaRose reminded members this would be a city-wide consideration. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t necessarily support both sides of a street and had no issue with variety. Members then considered possible requirements to accompany the “10% waiver.” The applicant again mentioned issues with a sloping drive and expressed concern with a term such as “architectural elements.” He felt some of these could be ugly. Mr. Gagnon said he wanted to eliminate the “flat garage” look. Things such as windows and panels were suggested. Mr. Klugo read some language from regulations in Pennsylvania. Ms. Louisos felt there should be some architectural feature/detail near the garages, possibly a small setback and detail on the garage doors. There was general agreement on the following: a. Some setback b. Single wide doors c. Possibly percentage of elevation d. Detail on garage door e. Architectural treatment on the house near the garage Members agreed to a work session to flesh this out further. The applicant felt it would be OK to say this applies only in R-12 districts. b. Agricultural definitions and consideration of new use category: Regarding a definition of agriculture, Ms. LaRose noted that if you have a chicken in your backyard, you are considered “a farm” by state definition. She added that this is being reviewed at the State level as there have been concerns raised. Ms. LaRose noted that staff had shortened the definition of “food hub” to indicate a place where local farmers could come, have storage, have food separated, packaged, etc. This would not be allowed in every district (eliminate R-1- R-2, and R-4). It is already allowed in C-1. The size would also be limited in other residential districts. 5 Mr. Klugo asked if there is a way to allow it to happen with adequate green space. Ms. LaRose cited the issue of truck traffic in residential areas. Mr. Gagnon asked if the intent is to support local farmers or could food come from anywhere. He said he had thought it was local support or for food grown “on-site.” He felt the language should encourage that, but he noted the issue of defining “local.” Ms. Louisos liked the idea of saying “source identified.” Ms. LaRose said staff could come up with a definition of “local.” Ms. Harrington stressed that the food has to be local, not only the farmer. She noted that at some farm stands, farmers are selling “imported” produce. Mr. Klugo stressed the need to address vehicle traffic to avoid unintended consequences. Regarding “edible landscaping,” members considered allowing edible landscaping at a food hub to be counted as a landscaping credit at 150%. Mr. Klugo was concerned this would result in only 2 trees instead of 3. He suggested a different bonus (e.g., square footage) to incentivize. Ms. Louisos suggested 25% as a start. Ms. LaRose said she would speak with the City Arborist and possibly create a little handbook. c. Clarification of allowed uses in Industrial-Agricultural District; Parks & Recreation: Ms. LaRose noted that staff had discovered that the allowed uses don’t match up from the body of the LDRs to the table. Since the table is the most recent document, the other language will be deleted. 5. Discuss concepts for Agricultural Enterprise zoning Ms. LaRose stressed that the regulations would not be intended for just the one business that the Commission has heard from. That business has been sent a copy of the proposed concepts but has not responded as yet. Ms. LaRose said the regulations could apply to a local brewery or winery, etc. It would limit anything related to animals (e.g., a McKenzie factory would not apply). Ms. LaRose cited the need for a lot of specificity. She questioned whether there should be a regulation that addresses the relationship of this use to an adjacent residential component. Mr. Gagnon felt there should just be a stated separation. Mr. Klugo felt there should be a relationship between square footage and acreage, allowing only so much on a piece of land. Mr. Gagnon said there should be an allowance for expansion of a business that is successful. 6 Ms. Quest felt applicants should have to replace NRP land that they develop. Ms. LaRose noted that, as an example in a property they’ve heard from, only 10 acres of the proposed use is NRP. Options for “replacement” could include a rec path, public park, conservation of other land, etc. Ms. LaRose said the 24 allowable TDRs would have to be considered as this would no longer be a “sending area.” Members voiced no issue with “conserving” the 24 TDRs. Mr. Klugo said he didn’t want to create hurdles for a developer-- regulations yes, hurdles no. He felt that anything that is required should aid in bringing people onto the site (e.g., sidewalk, rec path). Ms. Quest didn’t feel a rec path mitigated the loss of NRP land. Ms. LaRose admitted that staff struggled with a recommendation on this component and urged the Committee to continue to think on it. Ms. Louisos said they also have to consider areas for parking and other disturbed land, not only the building. Mr. Riehle added there would be a lot of paved areas to accommodate more than 100 employees, truck traffic, etc. Ms. LaRose stated she’d work on language to incorporate this. Mr. Riehle asked about hours of operation. He noted when they had weddings at their home, people complained about the noise. He felt a 10 p.m. end time might not please some people. Ms. LaRose said she would check with legal people to see if this can be more restrictive. She noted that the applicant would have to have an event permit, and this would define what is allowable. Members briefly considered whether this use would be allowed outside the SEQ. Mr. Gagnon felt it could be applicable to other identified areas. Ms. LaRose noted that some UVM land and some O’Brien- owned land on Old Farm Road might qualify. She also explained the State’s agricultural exemption and what would and would not qualify. She said UVM could sell anything grown/produced on site under an agricultural exemption. 6. Other Business: None was shared 7. Minutes of 16 June 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 12 July 2016 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk 8/19/16 To the Good Folks at the City of South Burlington, I’m writing to you in response to the draft document reviewed by the planning commission on August 8th in regards to the proposed Citizen Cider project at the Marceau Farm. Please accept my comments with due respect and an understanding for my delicate position of needing to allow the City to go through its process, while balancing a sincere need to choose a direction and location for the future growth of Citizen Cider. We are excited about the opportunity to locate at this unique site and we are confident that we will work with you to create something special that the neighbors and the City will be proud of. There are many aspects of this proposal that Citizen Cider can support, and we want to be a partner in driving forward the vision of the southeast corridor in South Burlington. Citizen Cider will preserve existing orchard land and add as much additional acreage as is potentially available at this site, and look to bordering land for additional planting in subsequent years either as a partner or as the primary grower. It is our hope that new, young farmers will partner with Citizen Cider in this venture. Citizen Cider will structure agreements to make it feasible for a new grower to plant an orchard on surrounding land. Citizen Cider will design and build a facility that is architecturally appealing and in balance with the pastoral nature of the site. Citizen Cider will work with the City and others to make this a great public gathering site. Citizen Cider will work with the City to connect trails and endeavor to provide reasonable access. Citizen Cider will work with the City to make certain that any historical aspects of this site are featured in a public way, and perhaps more importantly we will carry on the tradition of the site as a working farm with a processing and manufacturing operation. However, there are a number of conditions in the draft document that would severely diminish the viability of the potential project at this site and we will need them revised, redefined and clarified in order for the project to be successful. Timeline: We would like to invest in the City of South Burlington at the proposed site, but we do not have the ability to risk the future of our business on a process without a framework of definitive timelines for your Zoning Process changes and DRB review. Citizen Cider requires: - A definitive commitment from the City to a timeline on delivery dates for a zoning change to be submitted to the Planning Commission - A commitment on a decision timeline from the Planning Commission and City Council for the zoning change review, response, public process and enactment - A decision timeline commitment from the DRB for complete project review As I have mentioned in previous meetings, Citizen Cider is under a substantial amount of pressure to deliver new capacity. Our business trajectory is such that Phase 1 of production space must be completed by February of 2018, and Phase 2 of retail space must be fully delivered by July of 2018. That means that Citizen Cider must have production capacity at this site by February of 2018. To accomplish this we will need to obtain all of our permits by May 1, 2017 in order to have construction commence and be completed, and for the facilities and site to be fully occupied and operational by summer of 2018. If the City does not think that this is a feasible timeline then we must abandon this prospective site. We have been exploring this site for 6 months and we need to know if this is an acceptable use and a viable site in the eyes of the City. We realize the permit review process can produce some uncertainty and we will do our very best to provide all information necessary to expedite the review needs of the City Staff, Commissions and Boards. Restrictions on Process: While we believe that this project will strongly incent new orchard planting in South Burlington and Citizen Cider will take a leadership position in promoting local product supply, there are realities and constraints that we face in order to produce the best products in our industry. While we try to source as much product locally and as close to us as possible, Citizen Cider cannot and would not accept a use restriction that controls our supply chain. Language such as “ensure that at least three quarters of its consumables are comprised of agricultural products from within the State of Vermont or within a 100 mile radius” is operationally unfeasible and naive as to the nature of the apple industry and the available crop year to year, and of the proprietary varietal needs for each Citizen Cider recipe. Restrictions on Use: Citizen Cider cannot entertain a site in South Burlington that has a zoning restriction that makes the building a single use. That would be difficult and/or impossible to finance, and so narrowly defined that it limits our future potential and opportunities. The bank simply will not finance such a project. Language such as “protection against it becoming a basic manufacturing facility” and development on the site “must relate directly to the crop being farmed on site” is too narrow for this to be a feasible and viable project from a financial perspective. Our primary commercial lender, Community National Bank, commented on this language in saying “these property types are already difficult to value, but if the bank ended up with the real estate, it is hard enough to sell and even harder if it is restricted to another agricultural business.” Light-Industrial/Agricultural Use vs. Accessory Retail Use: Citizen Cider is very comfortable in working with the City on hours of operation for the accessory use component of the project, but we will need to ensure that our industrial and agricultural use of processing fruit crops and making cider products is discussed separately in the zoning language. We don’t want to misrepresent the nature of this industrial and agricultural use in the language and have troubles due to misunderstanding upon opening the new facility. That said, I think the town and the town’s people will find the activities of our process exciting and a complement to the agricultural history of Vermont that still hums in our collective memory. Apple trucks coming and going, tractors at work, bins stacked high, the smell of fresh pressed juice, the grind of the mill, and so forth. I fully recognize that the Marceau Farm is not the easiest site for zoning reasons, but in the long term, it is the best site. Citizen Cider is hopeful that South Burlington and its residents will agree, and move zoning and permitting along swiftly. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of the above. Sincerely, Justin Heilenbach President, Citizen Cider 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, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Shelburne Road Layers DATE: October 11, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission continued a discussion on September 13th related to some short-term adjustments of the City’s Land Development Regulations, specifically as they relate to Shelburne Road. Staff provided concepts related to building heights, setbacks, windows and doorways. Commissioners further raised concerns and shared additional thoughts about landscaping in the corridor. While the discussion was brief, the feedback was valuable and allowed Staff to take another look at the issue, explore details, and consider related questions. In considering these adjustments, we’d welcome feedback on the following questions in order to pursue specific language at a further meeting: 1. Are the adjustments best suited for all of the portions of Shelburne Road that are within South Burlington? There are five zoning districts which touch Shelburne Road and which are variations within commercial and mixed use zoning. 2. Should the adjustments extend beyond Shelburne Road by any distance or block depth? In some districts, this impacts a different zoning district. 3. Are the concerns related to landscaping unique to Shelburne Road, or should Staff explore options for all new required landscaping? We are currently exploring several landscaping-related options, including: 1) assessing how the landscaping buffer requirements between commercial and residential uses is accounted for in the required landscaping budget; 2) assessing requirements for placement of required landscaping; 3) reconsidering what elements can or should be permitted within the required landscaping budget; and 4) assessing whether the formula for the required landscaping budget is appropriate and adequate. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 September 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 ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Needle, CCRPC; L. McGinnis, S. Dopp, K. Epstein, C. Frank, 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: The City is holding a leadership workshop on Thursday for all committee chairs and vice chairs. She and Ms. Harrington will attend. Ms. Quest: Saw the new Bayberry Apartments. People are already living there. Ms. Louisos noted they have a nice street presence. There have also been a lot of improvements to Schmanska Park. Mr. Conner: The Airport hosted the first “sound committee” meeting. He attended along with the City Manager and George Maille and Carmine Sargent from CNAPC and 2 City Council members. Various people spoke on what contributes to noise, and a consultant spoke of changes to the noise compatibility plan and possible options for sound mitigation. In one new program, the Airport could work with a homeowner who is interested in staying or the Airport can buy the home and then resell it to a family that wants to move there. There was also information on the current buyout program. The Airport got a grant to make a final set of offers to anyone who wants to sell. This would encompass 39 homes. About 13 of these homes are on the north side of Kirby Road that were not in the previous program. That area is now in the 75db zone which the airport reports automatically puts them in the optional buyout program. This is new information for the city, and there will be a meeting with Airport staff on this next week. 4. Presentation and discussion of energy planning and measuring: a. Renewable energy planning, siting, and Act 174: Ms. Needle explained that CCRPC has a contract to write a regional energy plan to advance the State’s energy and climate goals while being consistent with local and regional needs and concerns. 2 Act 174 became law in 2016. It requires the regional plan to gain a “determination of energy compliance” from the Commissioner of Public Service. CCRPC will be working toward getting a determination of “substantial deference.” A component of the Regional Energy Plan is to map areas that are appropriate for energy installations (this is in response to communities wanting more of a say in the siting of energy projects). Municipalities can develop their own plans, but they are not required to do so. The goals of Vermont’s 2016 Energy plan include: a. Weatherizing 80,000 Vermont homes by 2025 (60,000 by 2017) b. Getting 90% of Vermont’s energy from renewable sources by 2050 c. Reducing total Vermont energy consumption by more than ½ by 2050, 15% by 2025 Ms. Needle noted that the State currently gets 16% of its energy from renewable sources. Mr. Macdonald asked if hydro is included. Ms. Needle said it is part of the 2050 plan. Ms. Needle said the plan includes solar, wind, hydro, bio mass, bio fuels. At this time, however, it’s mostly solar and wind. Ms. Needle said CCRPC is now working with municipalities to find out their restraints. A first draft of Energy Resource Maps will be done in November 2016. A first draft of a Regional Energy Plan will be done in May of 2017 and will be adopted by February of 2018. Ms. Needle then outlined what the plan will discuss, including: a. Establishing quantitative targets for energy use tied to Vermont’s energy goals b. Establishing quantitative targets for energy generation tied to Vermont’s energy goals c. Outlining specific regional strategies for energy generation and conservation d. Future energy demand by energy source. Energy production mapping would include identification of possible solar and wind generation areas. It would also identify important features to protect and would compare the remaining available land suited for energy generation to the amount of renewable energy the district is obligated to produce. Ms. Needle then showed what energy mapping would look like. She noted that the maps don’t take into account all the local regulations. A list of energy production constraints includes such areas as FEMA floodways and other environmental constraints. Ms. Needle shows maps of level 1 and level 2 constraints. 3 Ms. Quest asked about factoring in South Burlington people who are part of a solar array in the southern part of the state. Ms. Needle said they don’t have an answer to that now. A case would have to be made for that. Next steps include asking municipalities for proposed constraints (by November). A draft map must be sent to the Public Service Department by 1 December 2016. Mr. Riehle asked if “creative ideas” would be taken into account. Ms. Needle said that is one strategy to get to the goals (e.g, increasing bike/pedestrian infrastructure). It will be part of this plan. Mr. Conner said there is advocacy for giving consideration to certain actions towns are considering. He asked how they CCRPC will differentiate between level 1 and level 2 constraints. Ms. Needle said in level 1, sitings definitely can’t happen; in level 2, there can be some “scaled down” sitings. Mr. Conner asked if “scale” is taken into account. Ms. Needle said that may be too “fine grain.” Ms. Louisos suggested saying “only certain size” in a particular area. Ms. Dopp asked if conserved lands will be forced into something that wasn’t considered. Ms. Needle said they would fall under a level 2 constraint because there are different types of easements with different allowances. Easements would be respected. Ms. Dopp asked if there would be any financial incentives for businesses and landowners to put in installations. Ms. Needle said they are not getting into the financial aspect. But that is a good question. Mr. Conner noted that it is his understanding that the rate structure for purchase of power generated by renewable energy has or will have incentives for priority areas. Ms. Louisos informed the Commission that she and staff had communicated with the chairs of the energy and natural resources committees to put aside time on their October meetings to review these maps, and asked that they provide feedback to the Commission in mid-October so that the Commission can discuss this input at its second meeting in October. b. Newly released community energy dashboard: Ms. McGinnis explained that the “dashboard” is a tool to help communities make energy more accessible to all Vermonters. It stems from the belief that Vermont’s energy future depends on overall goals at the State level, regional energy plans, actions at the community level and actions of individuals within communities. The biggest priority is to use less energy and to make the remainder 90% renewable. Dashboard provide an online tool to set goals, track progress, map current and future actions, share stories, etc. It is comprised of 7 tools: timeline, statistics, actions, analysis, stories, mapping and resources. South Burlington would have access to all the data, if it wants it (data through 2014 is 4 available now). Ms. McGinnis then explained how to access the data. She also noted that communities can upload their own local energy analyses and help other communities learn about best practices. Ms. McGinnis stressed that this is only a start and is not perfect. She also stressed that they are not trying to sell anything. It is also not a definitive indicator of potential renewable energy sites. Finally, Ms. McGinnis cited the need to determine what is feasible for rooftop solar. 5. Discussion of bicycle end of trip facilities for possible incorporation into the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Epstein of the Energy Committee, cited the “car problem” in the city. He also noted that the city is a leader in rec paths. What is needed is a “bike to work” initiative which would involve a safe place to store bikes, showers, etc. Mr. Epstein noted that Williston and Burlington are leading the way in these “end of trip” facilities. Mr. Conner noted that he spoke with Williston’s Planner who said that all medium size and up projects have to accommodate these types of facilities. He also noted that South Burlington does require a bike rack in all commercial facilities and all residences that are not single family or duplexes. Mr. Riehle asked how this would apply to a mall. Mr. Epstein said that is a good question. Mr. Conner said what is now required is a bike rack per “principal building.” Ms. Louisos felt such facilities should be lighted and should serve multiple entrances to a building. Staff was asked to share the draft with the Bike Ped Committee for the their review and also with Local Motion. Mr. Conner said they could put language into the next round of amendments if the Commission wished. Commissioners supported this idea. 6. Consider Potential Scope of Work for Planned Unit Developments Phase II Project: Mr. Conner briefly reviewed the history and showed possibilities being recommended by the consultants. There is a recommendation to prepare a guidebook for developers and the public. Members were OK with what is being recommended. 7. Consider possible FY17 Municipal Planning Grant Application: Mr. Conner said Phase II of the PUD project would be one consideration as would the Scenic View Project. He noted that the city can apply for about $20,000 of the $40,000-$45,000 budget for these projects. 5 Ms. Harrington moved to recommend to the City Council that the city apply for a Municipal Planning Grant for the Phase II PUD project and the Scenic View Project. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 13 September 2016: Mr. Klugo had commented in writing that there should be clarification to read a “one year, 24-hour storm event.” He also noted that in his comments regarding marketing, the reference should be to “marketing needs.” It was also noted that on p. 4, paragraph 3, Ms. Harrington asked only about the crosswalk. Mr. Riehle asked about speed bumps. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 September 2016 with the above notations. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: There was no other business discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk