Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/24/2009SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 February 2009 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 February 2009, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Kay, Chair; C. Shaw, L. Fife, B. McDonald, M. Beaudin Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Dopp, M. Marceau, E. Churchill, R. Hubbard, M. Needle 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Conner reported on the following: a. The City Council met with Airport staff last week. The Airport contacted the Federal Aviation Authority and has found that in 2010 and 2011 they will be able to double the number of homes they purchase from 10 to 20 a year. The Council approved this with two conditions: 1. There is a tax agreement negotiated 2. There is a measurement of a noise baseline and the setting of a noise policy. b. Staff has been holding discussions with the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization regarding ideas for planning projects, based on work the Planning Commission has done over the past year. 3. Rezoning Request: 1545 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the request. He identified the property as the “orchard property” near the corner of Van Sicklen Rd. He had been asked to review the property and to determine whether any kind of rezoning is appropriate. Mr. Conner said he communcated briefly with Bob White yesterday. He also looked at schedules and time-frames. The public auction for the property is coming up soon, but no zoning change could be finalized prior to that date. Mr. Conner recommended that the Commission take no action at this time because action could create uncertainty regarding the auction and could lead to problems at a later date. Ms. Marceau said she didn’t think it was completely appropriate for the Board to take the auction into consideration when addressing a zoning issue. She felt that delaying action because of a potential auction was “foot­dragging.” Mr. Conner said there are 2 issues that he can see: 1. There is still “homework” to do before the Planning Commission or City can make an informed decision. 2. Someone might purchase the property based on a change in zoning that they think is going to happen. If that change doesn’t occur, there could be a legal action. Mr. Fife asked if Ms. Marceau could say the Commission “seems favorable” to a zoning change.  Mr. Beaudin said he could speak for himself, but not for the Commission. He said that as of now, he would be in favor of a zoning change. But he cautioned that the City is still waiting to hear from its consultants to whom a lot of money is paid to advise on such issues. Mr. Kay added that the Commission also needs to be perceived as “not being pressured” into making a decision. Mr. Conner said one consideration would be the condition of the orchard. Ms. Marceau said the orchard has been “stressed.” It has been looked at by an expert at UVM who felt it would be virtually impossible to brink it back into operation. The best use for the trees would be for firewood now. There is a major infestation of scab which is almost impossible to get rid of. Mr. McDonald felt it was more the resource of the land rather than the trees. It had been considered for park land. Ms. Marceau said that the city had dragged its feet on that issue for 4 years. She noted that Hinesburg Rd. is a busy street and will get even busier. The property has 600 feet of frontage on Hinesburg Rd. She said she would like to see the Board warn a public hearing and discuss this issue with the public. Ms. Dopp noted that the regulations are only a year old and there was ample time for input when they were adopted. She asked why there should be a change now. Ms. Marceau said that her 90 year old father was not paying attention at the time. She added that her husband did try to raise the issue but was “shut down.” Mr. Shaw recalled that the intention was to address the need for recreation space in that area. There was also the idea of an east-west artery to connect ultimately with Van Sicklen Rd. He said he felt the zoning would need to be re-evaluated if the whole area is not a park. Mr. Conner reported that he performed an initial review of the Goals and Objectives from the Comprehensive Plan as they relate to this parcel. He identified there were several objectives to consult with Bob White about: 1. Maintaining the potential for agriculture compatible with a city 2. Protecting land for wildlife habitat (this is one of only 3 connections between Muddy Brook and the swamp) 3. Protecting scenic views from public rights of way Mr. Conner also noted that if the zoning for this parcel is to be reconsidered, it would be important to view it in the context of its neighbors, and determine what zoning is appropriate all around. Ms. Marceau said she is requesting a zoning change for 10.8 acres. She did not want the rights of neighbors to be wiped out because of this. Mr. Conner said his next step is to get feedback from the University of Vermont’s Horticultural Farm and/or Shelburne Farms on the trees. Mr. Fife noted there is an increasing demand for “truck” crops to be grown in Vermont. The clay soil is sometimes good, sometimes not. He suggested this might be the kind of agriculture to look at. Mr. Shaw noted that the Commission had examined the numbers of units that could be built in the Southeast Quadrant the when all the zoning was done, and that a balance was struck between “sending” and “receiving” areas. A change such as this would add new numbers into the picture. Mr. Conner said the 11 acres, if the zone were changed to Village Residential, would go from sending 15 units to receiving 80-90 units. Members agreed to continue looking into this. 4. U.S. Route 2 Corridor Study: Ms. Churchill of the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) noted that the US Route 2 Corridor study was completed in the summer of 2007. She outlined the process which included developing a vision and goals for the corridor and developing, analyzing and prioritizing strategies to achieve those goals. The study revealed that only 35% of the traffic is through-traffic. 60-70% of the travel in this corridor is generated by uses in the corridor. Mr. Conner said this is one of the most striking revelations from the study. It has impacts for transit use, bike/pedestrian use, etc. It also means that the priority concerning traffic does not need to be for it to “get out fast.” Ms. Churchill discussed the roles of the Route today, noting that there is existing congestion accompanied by access management problems. It is also a high crash location in several spots. Mr. Hubbard said that there are people trying to commute to work on bicycles and want to get from point A to point B quickly. He asked how this can be accomplished, including separate bike lanes. Mr. Conner said that is one of the most challenging questions as there is no more room on that road for additional lanes. Mr. Hubbard felt it was safer to be going down Route 2 on a bike in a good bike lane than on a separate path 20 feet off the main road. Ms. Churchill said a long-term consideration is to reconstruct Williston Rd. with bike lanes. This would cost more than $6,000,000. Ms. Churchill then showed a map indicating the congestion “hot spots.” She also reviewed access management issues. In considering future conditions (2030), the study took into consideration growth of the hill institutions, buildout of the City Center, and a doubling of emplanements at the Airport. The study resulted in the following goals: 1. Develop transportation strategies consistent with current and future function of U.S. 2. 2. Provide travel options to serve the needs of a diverse population. 3. Provide transportation improvement that support community character and development goals. 4. Improve safety for all modes. 5. Design and operate transportation facilities to protect and enhance the environment. 6. Develop transportation projects and services cooperatively and cost effectively in time to meet immediate and long term needs. Ms. Churchill said if all the projects on the books now are built, there will be the same congestion as now. Addressing some of the issues can ease, but not eliminate, congestion. Ms. Churchill then showed slides representing short and long term strategies for bike and pedestrian facilities (reducing curb cuts, adding left turn lanes, etc.). She also showed a map indicating access management issues. Estimated costs for short and long term projects total $11,000,000. Next steps include reconvening the U.S. 2 Study Advisory Committee and coming up with an access management plan for Rt. 2 from Dorset St. to Hinesburg Rd. 5. South Burlington Buildout Analysis -- Preliminary Results: Mr. Conner introduced Melanie Needle from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (RPC). He noted this study is related to the planning grant the city received in the past. The Southeast Quadrant was not included in this analysis. Ms. Needle explained that the analysis took into consideration such things as buffers, density standards, environmental constraints, etc. The purpose was to see if buildout totals matched planning goals. Ms. Needle then showed a table of existing units in all districts (no including accessory units), including what part of the district is already developed. She also showed a map of individual parcels. Mr. Conner suggested that this could be related back to census densities related to transit possibilities. He felt that if the city continues averaging 175 new homes a year, it won’t be long before all the available land is used up. Mr. Beaudin said that what will achieve more jobs, restaurants, etc., would be increase densities. The tough question would be whether this would “uproot” neighborhoods. Mr. Conner raised the possibility of encouraging the building of smaller homes, for example, providing for smaller homes to have smaller storm water bills. Mr. Kay said the city could base developer’s fees on a different standard and make it more appealing to build smaller homes. Ms. Needle said that from their calculations, if the city has 150 new units a year from 2008 onwards, buildout could occur in 2019 (excluding the southeast quadrant). The net buildout potential is 2873 units (excluding the southeast quadrant). Mr. Kay noted that the Airport’s home buying/destruction is taking out the equivalent of a year of building potential. He felt that the Comprehensive Plan should have a commitment to providing workforce housing. Mr. Conner said density isn’t just having more people packed together; it’s more people in quality spaces. Mr. Beaudin felt there should be an analysis of unused land in the city and a discussion of how to use it. He suggested possibly having the Airport fund that study as compensation for the housing they are taking down. Mr. Conner noted they are going to be looking for “infill” areas. 6. Approve Minutes of 10 February 2009: It was noted that on p. 2, paragraph 2, “the property” should read “a property.” Mr. McDonald moved to approve the Minutes of 10 February 2009 as amended. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. _____________________________ Clerk 24 February 2009 Published by ClerkBase ©2014 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.