Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/22/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 JULY 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Benton, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; L. Michaels, B. Milizia, J. Kochman, P. Clemins, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Riehle: Gave members a copy of an article from the Wall Street Journal about people returning from the city to the suburbs. Ms. Benton: Will send member pictures of street construction with low curbs for parking areas and amenities (e.g., benches surrounded by flowers) that she saw in Niagara Falls, Canada. Ms. Louisos: Was reappointed to the Commission by the City Council last night. Received a lot of good feedback from Council members about the work the Commission is doing. The Council also had a brief discussion about the Saxon Partners proposal. She suggested it might be good to have Gene Beaudoin speak to the Commission. Members agreed. 4. Presentation of Final Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Report: Ms. LaRose said the Committee worked very hard and did a lot of outreach. She felt this would not be a plan that “sits on the shelf.” Mr. Clemins then presented the report. He outlined their challenges as: 1. Creating a balance between development and maintaining open spaces/resources 2. Updating codes/planning in general 3. City Center, reflecting a vision of growth, sustainability, and as a place for all to enjoy open space. Mr. Clemins said the committee was asked to create a “vision” with regard to open space and came up with the vision to “preserve, create and restore open space.” They also cited the importance of both public and private open space and noted that open space can involve both developed and undeveloped land. Goals related to open space include: recreation, agriculture, and stewardship of resources. The committee felt that instead of thinking of open space as simply being undeveloped land, they tried to think of it as functional with different types of open spaces defined by their functions. Types of open space can include: 1. Resource/conservation areas – including water, wetlands, biodiversity, potential scenic views of mountains, Lake Champlain, etc. 2. Urban farms and forest lands – this involves 24% of the city, most of it in the Southeast Quadrant. There are 8 forested areas, ranging in size from 8 to 100 acres 3. Recreation/parks – The committee classified all parks based on their size and description. They looked at future needs based on population. 4. Urban open space – mainly City Center. The committee looked at different types of city greens, and what would be appropriate in T-4 and T-5 zones. They felt that key elements to include in the City Center are recreation paths/pedestrian connections, connected green strips, the Dumont Park wooded area, and tree canopies for walkers. The Committee considered what types of open space were more appropriate in each of the T zones. They also added guidelines for each classification, including amenities one would expect to find. On a broader scale, the Committee created objectives/goals/strategies for inclusion in the city’s Comprehensive Plan and also considered potential by-law amendments. Ms. Kochman said the committee felt that when a development is presented, there should automatically be some land set aside for recreation. She added that the report has no specific recommendations for community/neighborhood parks, and she would like to see that added. Ms. Dopp noted that some developers are thinking about these things before they begin their process of development. Ms. Milizia cited one view area and asked what can be done so that when development occurs, it does not destroy the views. Ms. LaRose noted that the scenic view portion of the report was meant to be incomplete for whatever committee takes it on next. Mr. Riehle cited some approved projects in the city and noted that land is being divided very quickly. The city is also working with developers to say: “we would like some creativity in a project.” 5. Discussion of Potential Future Uses of Land for Old Farm Road with Property owner Larry Michaels of O’Brien Brothers Agency: Mr. Michaels noted they will be submitting plans for Phase I very soon. They will then have a master plan for the rest of the land. Mr. Michaels referred to the recently announced agreement with Fletcher-Allen. There should be information to the state regarding the Certificate of Need in 90 days. That project ties into the O’Brien Brothers project in many ways. Mr. Michaels said it is the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Michaels then showed a map of the area and identified roads, existing developments, and the potential site of 2 buildings being built. They will continue Eldridge to join Kennedy Drive. Old Farm Road would dead end and they would bring in another road down to Kimball Ave. This will avoid a stacking problem on Old Farm Road. If and when Tilley Drive goes through, that will relieve a lot of pressure on the roads. Mr. Michaels showed the area where single family homes would be built and the area for townhouses and apartment buildings. There would also be an area for a park. The wetland area is smaller than first thought, and most of it will be left green. There will be an area for some commercial uses. One area is being considered for small retail uses, like “mom and pop” stores. The plan is to have a lot of underground parking, possibly some deck parking or a parking structure. They still have to deal with stormwater, etc, so there will probably be a lot of changes to what has been shown. The hope is that the existing barn could have some sort of community use. There is also an area for possible gardens. Mr. Michaels indicated a potential area for solar for the houses or the ability for solar. Ms. Milizia said it would be good to set aside an area where people can barbeque since they can’t do this right next to townhouses, etc. Ms. LaRose asked what the developer would like the city to pay special attention to regarding zoning, open space, density, form based codes, etc. Mr. Michaels said they are thinking of a mixture of T-3 and T-4 on the hill and T-4 elsewhere. He suggested using some areas as “pilots” if the city is to go to form based codes city‐wide. Mr. Conner added that with a property of this size, it is good to think of what a future PUD or master plan might be. Other specifics could be left till later. Mr. Michaels stressed that form based codes is not the answer to everything. If you want buildings built up to the roads, then you have to take down some great trees. So a regulation may want to be flexible if keep a tree corridor is a goal, for example. 6. Consider Providing Feedback to the Vermont Public Service Board on Definitions for “good cause” and “substantial deference” Pertaining to Telecommunications Facilities: Mr. Conner said this request related to the discussion on siting of telecommunications facilities. State law says the approval process can go through either the local boards or the Public Service Board. Most developers choose the PSB. The law, however, does not define “good cause” and “substantial deference.” Mr. Gagnon said in his opinion, if you have a municipal plan that says a piece of land is to be conserved, the PSB should give weight to that plan. Mr. Conner said the issue is “how much weight.” Mr. Riehle asked if the city can say a plan won’t conflict with the city’s plan. Mr. Conner said they are looking for a definition of “substantial deference.” Mr. Gagnon said it should be whatever is written in the city’s municipal plan. Ms. Benton said she feels they will do whatever they want, and that is why the language is so vague. Ms. LaRose said the recurring theme that comes up is “a burden of proof.” The applicant should make a case to go against a town’s plan. Mr. Gagnon added that “greater good” is in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Conner suggested relating “deference” to the amount of specificity in the town’s plan (e.g., citing “this location” as opposed to a general statement of wanting to maintain rural areas). He also suggested having “good cause” tie into the adopted state‐wide priorities. Ms. Louisos moved to authorize staff to respond to the Public Service board before 1 August 2014 relating “substantial deference” to the amount of specificity in the city’s plan and having “good cause” tie into the adopted state‐wide priorities. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. [Click here for Memo RE S.220] Mr. Conner agreed to run the last draft of the response by Ms. Louisos. 7. Other business: Ms. Louisos noted that she and Mr. Conner appeared on CCTV regarding work on form based codes. They received no “call ins.” 8. Minutes of 8 July 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 8 July 2014 with a corrected name spelling. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Final Report Presentation DATE: July 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting At this week’s meeting, members of the recently-wrapped up Open Space Interim Zoning Committee will present the group’s final report. As with the other IZ committee report presentations, Commissioners are encouraged to review the report in advance and pose questions at the meeting related to things such as how conclusions were reached, the process, key recommendations coming out of the report, etc. The report will be sent to the Staff Review Committee as well, which will develop a strategy for how the report’s various recommendations can be followed up upon. The Final Open Space Committee report can be found online at www.sburl.com under Open Space / Natural Resources Committee. A direct link to the report is here. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Potential input to PSB on definitions DATE: July 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting This past week, the City received the attached letter from the Public Service Board, seeking input on how to define two terms used in the review of telecommunications facilities. Telecommunications facilities can be reviewed by the PSB and in those cases, are exempt from local regulation. The process is similar in some respects to how energy transmission & generation facilities such as solar farms are reviewed. The two terms at issue are the words “good cause” and “substantial deference.” They turn up in the context below, under State Statute, where the Public Service Board, as part of their review, must consider local documents. 30 VSA 248a(c) (2) Unless there is good cause to find otherwise, substantial deference has been given to the land conservation measures in the plans of the affected municipalities and the recommendations of the municipal legislative bodies and the municipal and regional planning commissions regarding the municipal and regional plans, respectively. Nothing in this section or other provision of law shall prevent a municipal body from basing its recommendations on an ordinance adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 2291(19) or bylaw adopted under 24 V.S.A. chapter 117 by the municipality in which the facility is located. A rebuttable presumption respecting compliance with the applicable plan shall be created by a letter from an affected municipal legislative body or municipal planning commission concerning compliance with the municipal plan and by a letter from a regional planning commission concerning compliance with the regional plan. Commissioners are welcome and encouraged to provide guidance for staff to prepare a letter on behalf of the Commission. A link to the full statutes excerpted above is here. MEMORANDUM To:All Municipal Legislative Bodies and Planning Commissions; Vermont Department of Public Service; Vermont League of Cities & Towns; AT&T Mobility; Verizon Wireless; VTel Wireless, Inc. From:Susan M. Hudson, Clerk of the Board Re:Order Revision pursuant to Act No. 199 (S.220) Date:July 10, 2014 Pursuant to Section 28 of Act No. 199 , the Vermont Public Service Board ("Board") is required to revise its Amended Standards and Procedures Order ("Procedures Order") to include definitions of "the terms "good cause" and "substantial deference" for1 the purpose of 30 V.S.A. § 248a(c)(2)." In accordance with this legislative directive, the Board is required to provide notice and solicit comments and recommendations with regard to these definitions to be included in a further amended Procedures Order from "each municipal legislative body and planning commission, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Department of Public Service, and such other persons as the Board considers appropriate." If you would like to submit comments and recommendations regarding these definitions for consideration by the Board, the comments and recommendations must be filed with the Board no later than August 1, 2014. Your comments may be filed in hard copy or via e-mail to: psb.clerk@state.vt.us. 1. Amended Order implementing standards and procedures for issuance of a certificate of public good for communications facilities pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248a, Order issued August 10, 2011. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 JULY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, B. Benson, S. Quest, T. Harrington ALSO PARTI: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S Dopp, J. Nick, R. Greco 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions, or changes to the 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 report: Ms. Quest: Advised that the City Council has decided to have a consultant and task force look into the Underwood property. Mr. Conner: a) On last night’s Steering Committee agenda there was a proposal from Gene Beaudoin for a development concept in City Center utilizing Central School land. He has offered to talk to the Commission about the proposal. This was brand new to both boards, and both the City Council and School Board members posed questions. Mr. Beaudoin asked the School Board to move up their master planning. The development proposal would include a new city Library and a parking garage. b) Fletcher Allen has submitted a Certificate of Need for the purchase of existing buildings on Tilley Drive and about 40 additional acres of land in that area for future expansion. Staff is beginning to talk about related transportation issues with Public Works, et al. Mr. Riehle asked if Fletcher Allen would pay taxes on the property. Mr. Conner said he believed medical facilities such as these have a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). c) The city has been notified that it has been awarded a grant of $573,000 from the Regional Planning Commission. This includes funding for the Chamberlin/Airport neighborhood planning study, a scoping study to connect gaps in sidewalks, an update of the Traffic overlay District, a study of Williston Road/Dorset Street future transportation solutions, scoping for stormwater improvements to improve water quality and exploration and work on deploying active signal controls. d) An RFP was done for design of Garden Street, and a contract has been signed with Stantac. e) The Legislature has passed changes to the open meeting law requiring minutes to be posted within 5 days. Electronic meetings must be so identified on the Agenda, and there must be an indication of why an executive session is needed. Mr. Conner said South Burlington is “ahead of the curve” on most of these requirements. 2 4. Update on City Center Form Based Codes Public Outreach to Date: Mr. Conner said the city has done a direct mailing to property owners and an e-mail notice to all committees. A copy is posted at the Library. There will be a full page ad in The Other Paper, and he and Ms. Louisos will appear on CCTV on 22 July in a live call-in show. The Form Based Code Committee had an initial discussion and was largely comfortable with the document. 6. Status Report on City-Wide Land Development Regulation Updates: Mr. Conner advised that Paul Dreher has provided a series of T-3’s after a meeting with the Form Based Codes Committee. Mr. Dreher has proposed 3 or 4 more such areas in addition to what is in the draft today. These include the Orchards, Mayfair Park, and East Woods, and a special designation for Queen City Park. The Committee felt Form Based Codes should be for residential only. Staff is waiting for language from Mr. Dreher. There was a brief discussion of TDR’s. Mr Dreher suggested a few areas might have a cap and them be allowed TDR’s. The Committee felt this could “punish” some areas. The thinking is to have a cap with the ability to buy an additional story or such in all T-4s. 6. Discussion of potential future uses of land for the Hill Farm with property owner Jeff Nick of J. L. Davis Realty: Mr. Nick showed the area on the map and described it as a unique property. The property owners have not aggressively tried to develop the property to date as the zoning designation (Industrial-Open Space) never made sense. They have talked to a lot of commercial people over the years. Someone might want to locate a corporate headquarters there, and some of the property could be sold off. Mr. Nick then showed an area of wetland that would not be developed. He noted that residents of the Village at Dorset Park would prefer residential development, and Mr. Nick felt a residential component would make sense here. He showed where residences might be located. Mr. Conner then showed the location of city-owned land, including the piece which surrounds the Village at Dorset Park. Mr. Nick said they would like to see a mix of uses for the area. Mr. Conner noted that current zoning requires that 50% of the land be open space. He said there have been “mixed results” of development in the general area, but it winds up being very “patchy” open space with development very spread out. Housing is currently allowed at one per 3 acres, which, Mr. Conner said, may have been related to addressing existing conditions at the time rather than future housing. Mr. Nick then showed one development concept which included the extension of Swift Street. Members asked him not to go too close to the Wheeler Natural Area with any development. Mr. Riehle expressed concern with maintaining the view corridor. 3 Mr. Nick said they are also trying to leave room for a potential Interstate ramp. They also might include some services (e.g., a deli) in the commercial buildings. Mr. Conner said the acreage leaves a lot of room for a number of uses and any number of configurations. He showed a slide of the existing house and golf course development and the water tower. Mr. Riehle said he would compromise on parking to preserve views. Ms. Louisos said she has heard a lot of negative feedback on the long, narrow buildings across the street from this development which block the views. Mr. Nick said their current thinking is 1/3 residential and 2/3 commercial. They would prefer to move on something sooner rather than later. Mr. Gagnon noted the city’s concern with building orientation to take advantage of solar. Mr. Conner summed up the discussion and cited the importance of having every space “with a purpose.” Mr. Nick expressed concern with not being able to develop the ridge line. Mr. Riehle said he wanted to maintain some view corridor, even though he realizes the whole ridge line can’t be kept open. Mr. Conner recommended that staff stay in close contact with Mr. Nick and that he stay in contact with the Commission as plans develop. 7. Discuss preliminary outline of work plan for the Chamberlin Neighborhood- Burlington International Airport Planning Project: Mr. Conner reviewed the history, citing a lot of changes in the neighborhood in recent years. There is a lot of support for a neighborhood plan and a future vision. The likelihood is that the future will see both the Airport and a neighborhood; the question is how to have a neighborhood that can thrive. The planning grant outlines a broad set of objectives, including: a. Building a good relationship among the neighborhood, airport, and all stakeholders b. Strengthening the neighborhood c. Retaining affordability of housing in the area d. Developing a community-based vision/strategy for the area, including, potentially: 1. Noise strategies that will inform the Airport’s planning 2. Looking at land use inside and outside the 65 dnl area 3. Strategies for a transportation system, including looking at different users such as people coming to and from the airport; area residents; and travelers between Colchester and Williston Road 4. Possible future amenities: parks, garden opportunities streetscapes, etc. e. Exploring the relationship to City Center, such as the ability to walk there from the neighborhood 4 Mr. Conner noted that staff had discussed with the City Council about a 2-tier oversight for the project: a group responsible for project management (staff level plus consultants) and a volunteer policy oversight committee responsible for policy development, public input, etc. This could be a committee reporting to the Planning Commission and chosen by the Commission. This could potentially include one or 2 Commission members, one or 2 Airport Commissioners, possibly people from the School District, and a group of residents, geographically located. Mr. Conner said he met with Regional Planning Commission people today and discussed possibly doing the development of the scope of work in stages to insure that it is a very “grass roots” project. Mr. Conner noted that the Municipal Planning Grant of $17,000 must be spent by next May. He saw no issue with this. Ms. Greco noted that if the F35s come, the majority of people affected will be in Winooski. Mr. Conner said the grants were specifically to focus on the Chamberlin neighborhood. 8. Other Business: a. Review Upcoming meeting schedule: Mr. Conner advised that Larry Michaels has been invited to the next meeting. Future meetings will include discussion of waste water and the Open Space report. 9. Review Minutes of: 11 February, 25 February, 11 March, 25 March, 8 April, 22 April, 29 April,10 June, 24 June 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 11 February as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Calcagni noted that in the Minutes of 25 February, p. 5, item #7, the figure should read 80%. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 25 February as amended. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 11 March as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 25 March as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Calcagni noted that in the Minutes of 8 April, p. 2, #5, paragraph 1, the figures should read 80-120%. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 8 April as amended. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that in the Minutes of 22 April, p. 5, paragraph, the figure should again read 80-120% and the work “further” could be changed to “specifically.” 5 Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 22 April as amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was agreed in the minutes of 29 April to remove line 1 on page 2, paragraph 6. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 29 April as amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 10 June as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 24 June as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:22 p.m. __________________________, Clerk