Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/09/2014
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 SEPTEMBER 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 September 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; S. Quest, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Director; P. Nowak, L. Michaels 1. Agenda Review: 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 report: Ms. Quest: At neighborhood picnic, everyone she talked to wanted City Center to be a place with municipal buildings and greens. Mr. Riehle: Gave members information on a project in Waterbury. Ms. Louisos: Has had questions from people regarding the motion made by the Commission on the sewer ordinance. She suggested sending a transmittal letter explaining the Commission’s thinking. Mr. Conner: a) The city is preparing a 3d digital “modeling” for City Center and what it could look like. b) The Garden Street “kick‐off” will be held Wednesday, 7 p.m. c) Last week, staff participated in a site walk of Tilley Drive area in connection with the Fletcher Allen plans for the area. d) The group set up by the Commission to look at City Center/Form Based Code technical items will meet Wednesday morning. 4. Review Draft City Capital Improvement Plan for FY2016-2025; provide feedback: Mr. Conner said the goal is to project major expenditures for the city for the next 10 years for “physical” things. This avoids spikes in taxes. A project that will tie into this is the Impact Fee Ordinance, and the plan is to have that Ordinance tie directly into the C. I. P. Mr. Gagnon asked if anything moved forward or backward. Mr. Conner said not yet; this is the stage to gather input to see if anything should be moved. Ms. Quest asked why Underwood Park isn’t on the C.I.P. Ms. Blanchard said some things in the Impact Fee Ordinance are out of date, and there is no specific reference to Underwood Park at this time. Mr. Riehle noted that on pages 9, 10, 20, 21, 49, 55, 58, and 60 there are items that refer to “safety” and “hazard.” He would like to Commission to be proactive and say that safety should come before anything else. Some of these items are not on the schedule until 2020. Mr. Riehle then moved to advance to 2017 projects deemed by Public Works to be deemed “unsafe” and “hazardous for bicyclists and pedestrians.” Mr. Gagnon seconded. Ms. Blanchard explained there is a process for at least partial federal and/or state funding that most of these projects qualify for. The city has to go through that process. Mr. Conner said he can give the Commission an update on projects that are in the process. In terms of city money, some of the projects are a few years out because City Center projects are “soaking up” large portions of funding for the next few years. Ms. Blanchard added there are a lot of resources going into the C.I.P. At some point, there will be a drop off on city resources, and it is not known what impact fees will produce in the future. Mr. Conner stressed that there is always a balance of resources. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-0. 5. Overview of Garden Street Design Project: Ms. Blanchard said the development process includes a Definition Phase (kickoff, existing conditions, workshops, statement of needs, alternative possibilities, recommendation to the City Council), a Permitting Phase and the actual construction. For Garden Street, there has been an assessment of existing conditions by the consultant. There have also been meeting with stakeholders, utilities, etc. The kick-off workshop will be tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at City Hall. This will be preceded by a walkabout on Midas Drive at 5:30 p.m. From these workshops, the consultant will bring a recommendation to the Planning Commission at about the first meeting in October. Ms. Blanchard then showed what land the city owns. She noted that the project will include connections at the White Street/Midas Drive/Williston Road and Hinesburg Road/Williston Road/Patchen Road intersections. The whole project area will be looked at. Ms. Blanchard estimated that construction will be in 2016 at the earliest. Some parts of the street might be constructed by developers as part of other projects. 6. Overview of Dumont Park Design Project: Ms. Blanchard noted that Landworks has been chosen as the consultant, but the contract is not yet signed. Dumont Park will be a “City Center Park.” It was purchased with federal funds. Part of the project will be to evaluate surrounding pieces of land to incorporate into the park, including some wetlands that could otherwise not be developed. Ms. Blanchard then showed what the city does and does not own. She added that the time-line for Dumont Park is similar to that of Garden Street. 7. Consideration of Approval of 2015 Municipal Planning Grant Application: Mr. Conner discussed the memo provided to the Commission. He stated that after review and discussion with the VT Department of Housing and Community Development regarding which of the two options would be more competitive, staff is recommending the Planned Unit Development / Master Plan proposal. Ms. Quest moved to approve the Municipal Planning Grant Application as presented by staff. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion approved 4-0. 8. Other Business: Ms. Louisos noted a wetland permit in the Commission’s packet. Mr. Conner said this is just for the Commission’s information. Members agreed they would like to continue receiving these. 9. Minutes of 26 August 2014: Ms. Quest noted a missing “zero” on page 3. Ms. Quest then moved to approve the Minutes of 26 August 2014 as amended. 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 8:40 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com August 7, 2014 Dear City of South Burlington Commission and Committee Chairs, In the winter the City Council will be updating the Capital Improvement Program and Budget (CIP). This policy document, among other uses, is developed to coordinate and plan for the orderly development of capital (brick and mortar) improvements while reducing large fluctuations in the tax rate from year to year. The City is requesting your commission or committee’s input prior to preparing the FY2016 – FY 2025 (July 2015-June 2024) Capital Improvement Program. If your committee has comments, please provide them to your City staff person by September 15, 2014. If a new project is proposed, information regarding new projects will need to include a project name, description, and if available, estimated cost. Such projects should be prioritized by your committee’s estimation of their importance to the City in relation to other projects within the department/service area. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of the Capital Program and Budget Policy and the memo provided to the Council for the prior year (FY15-24 CIP). The current adopted Capital Improvement Program may be viewed on www.sburl.com. Please let me know if you would like any additional information. I am available to meet with your commission or committee if that would be helpful. Yours sincerely, Ilona Blanchard Project Director 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director Subject: Public Hearing and Vote on FY15-24 Capital Improvement Program Date: July 7, 2014 Background: A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a tool used to improve coordination in the timing of major projects, plan for capital replacement and future major maintenance costs, and reduce fluctuations in the tax rate. The attached draft CIP reflects the following potential capital expenditures: 1) Forecasted costs related to maintaining South Burlington’s current level of service through refreshing, rebuilding and replacing existing capital equipment and infrastructure including costs such as paving roadways, replacing vehicles and costly items such as cars and emergency apparatus, and upgrades to existing sewer treatment plants. 2) Estimated spending related to building public infrastructure that will result in a new downtown - City Center – including only projects eligible for TIF District financing such as new roadways, streetscapes and bridges, structured parking, parks, municipal facilities, wetland mitigation and stormwater management systems. 3) Projects (generally related to transportation and parks) that are included in impact fee ordinances, requested by committees or the community, or shown in long range plans or studies that improve the level of service such as reconstructing Spear Street, adding sidewalks to Hinesburg Road and expanding recreation fields. A CIP is a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future projects and costs consistent with current City priorities and fiscal outlook. The CIP incorporates Council priorities; committee recommendations which are solicited annually; adopted plans and ongoing projects; and equipment and facility maintenance, replacement and upgrade needs. As a financial planning tool, the CIP responds to the estimated fiscal capacity for each year going forward. It is not a static document and changes from year to year. The first year (FY15) of the FY15-24 CIP was incorporated into the City’s FY15 budget and has been approved as the FY15 Capital Budget during the City’s vote last March. FY15-24 Capital Improvement Program The Council is required to hold a public hearing prior to the amendment, adoption or repeal of the CIP. In establishing the FY15-24 Capital Improvement Program, the following priorities were used: 1) Maintain existing facilities and support ongoing operations with safe and functional equipment, 2) Develop public infrastructure for City Center, 3) Accommodate committee/department head requests to address gaps in the public infrastructure, 4) Reserve sufficient funds to avoid future spikes in the tax rate. The FY15-24 Capital Improvement Program in years FY16 forward takes any difference due to year over year reduction in debt payments and places this difference into reserve to address anticipated expenditures related to City Center. It also forecasts the need, should the Council move forward on projected City Center projects, to establish impact fees for public facilities, as has occurred with the Police Station. Finally, the CIP also estimates a one- time 2.25 cent increase in the tax rate (1.25 cents of which has already been implemented) the results of which are annually placed in the reserve fund. This CIP also saves up for the City’s largest known vehicle replacement cost –fire trucks. The CIP is structured to takes any difference from a year over year reduction in overall CIP spending and places this in reserve to cover future fire truck replacement costs. This achieves several goals. It functions to create a consistent predictable year-over-year tax rate between FY16-FY23, it eliminates financing costs on these expenditures, and it builds up a reserve of cash within City accounts. Attachments: • A Resolution Amending The Capital Improvement Program For Fiscal Year 2015-2024 Recommendation Listen to comments; review and consider approving the Resolution. Additional Consideration Note that the draft FY16-25 CIP (next year’s) is scheduled to go to the City Council at the beginning of November as part of next year’s budget preparations and will reflect updates to estimated City expenditures. 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: Consideration of 2015 Municipal Planning Grant application DATE: September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting Background Once again this year the State has made available funding for towns and cities to undertake planning activities. This year, the State has authorized the maximum grant award for a single municipality of $20,000. As with last year, any grant over $8,000 must include a local cash match of 50% for the amount above $8,000. Staff expects the application field to be competitive again this year. Last year, for instance, only two communities in all of Chittenden County were funded (South Burlington being one). The State awards these grants based on a series of competitive criteria. Those include: application quality, work plan & budget, linkage to comprehensive plan, citizen participation, statewide priorities, and bonus points. Of particular note for us are the statewide priorities, which in 2015 including plans and bylaws related to flood resiliency, resolving inconsistencies in plans from statewide goals, and special projects for Designated Downtown, Village Centers New Towns Centers, Neighborhood Development Areas or Growth Centers. As host of a New Town Center and Neighborhood Development Area, the City has the opportunity to qualify for bonus points in the award system for projects that enhance planning in these areas. Project Proposal Staff is considering two projects for possible submittal this year. Both have been identified as strong priorities for the City. Staff is reviewing both concepts to see which may be more likely to be funded through this grant program and will provide a recommendation on Tuesday at the meeting. Concept #1 is the use the MPG funds to support the development of revised “Master Planning” regulations for the City. As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting, this would and could be the new “Planned Unit Development” tools for the city, to include a clear and straightforward process and standards for the development of larger properties into innovative 2 “nodes” within the city – for items such as business park nodes, mixed‐use‐nodes, agricultural nodes, etc. Concept #2 is to use the MPG funds to support the development of a “Main Street” program and organization for the City Center area. These organizations have been a highgly successful model throughout the country. In Vermont, they principally exist in historic downtowns but a community such as South Burlington would be eligible as well. Such an organization would host events, coordinate services, and potentially have access to supplemental funds. As noted above, staff is strongly supportive of both. We will have a final recommendation on Tuesday as to which would be the most competitive grant application given the specific review criteria of the MPG. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 AUGUST 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 August 2014, at 7:00 P.M., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, T. Harrington, S. Quest, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; R. Greco; S. Dopp; M. Mittag 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: No changes to the agenda were proposed. 2. Comments & Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items: Mr. Mittag asked whether this would be the correct time to share information regarding wastewater. Ms. Louisos said that item 4a would be the appropriate item. Ms. Greco said that under Interim Zoning, there had been a website called the “South Burlington Path to Sustainability” that was no longer there. She had posed the question to the City Council and received a response from the City manager, but wanted to know if the Commission knew what had happened. Mr. Conner said that the reports were on the city’s website and that the department was planning to make them easier to find. The Path website license expired. Ms. Greco said that it was the vision of a Path to Sustainability that she didn’t want to see lost. 3. Planning Commission announcements and Staff report: Ms. Quest attended the Georgetown University Energy Prize kick‐off. Very positive, except that people said some disturbing things about the Planning Commission, that the Comp Plan wasn’t being completed, and that having the term “encourage” in a regulation without DRB approval would mean very little. Ms. Louisos attended the presentation before the City Council on the Open Meeting Law and shared information she learned about votes when members are participating by phone and about what constitutes a sub‐committee. Mr. Conner provided updates on projects: a. The Underwood property RFP has been issued. b. Staff is continuing to meet with property owners, attorneys, residents, and engineers regarding the draft FBC for City Center and receiving good, tough questions c. Staff has met with Fletcher Allen & the CCRPC to discuss the proposed out‐patient property acquisition and potential development 2 d. Have been working to get the pieces in place for the Chamberlin neighborhood project and providing information on the Williston Road study e. Provided an update on the improvements to the building and grounds at City Hall 4. Discuss City Wastewater capacity and long range projections a. Public Input and information A letter from Mr. Mittag and several members of the FBC Committee was handed out. Ms. Dopp handout a map and letter from the South Burlington Land Trust. She said that they had taken a 2005 map and updated it, and added a position paper on wastewater. SBLT has general concerns about the SEQ and smart growth not being followed. The letter then zeroes in on wastewater. It reviews the February 2014 letter from staff to Council and then recommends amendments to the 2005 wastewater ordinance to prioritize City Center. Ms. Quest said she was struck by the Vince Bolduc poll that listed City Center as the #1 priority, followed by Open Space. Ms. Greco said that the Open Space Report referred to several local polls that said Open Space was highly wanted. Mr. Mittag said he was looking at development patterns and the applications since the end of IZ. City Center could happen more quickly than envisioned. Ms. Greco said that the SusAg committee had uncovered the wastewater issue as part of its report. As the city is paved over, the ability to implement the food production goal is reduced. She said she was also concerned that capacity will be allocated before City Center can be realized. b. Commission discussion and identification of key issues / objectives/ concerns Mr. Gagnon asked about the status of the various questions posed by the Commission. Mr. Conner said that the staff has contacted its consultant regarding INI and ability to increase flow without a plant expansion. Mr. Gagnon said it was important to recognize that regulations may become more stringent. Mr. Conner reported that staff had looked at a number of percentage growth rates. Historically, the city appears to have grown at an average of about 150 housing units per year, and that this would appear to be a better indicator than a percentage growth. Mr. Riehle said that with City Center, an uptick could be expected. Mr. Gagnon said that he did think a set aside would be useful, but in addition, understanding whether we could bond for an expansion before the previous bond is paid would be useful. Mr. Gagnon recommended that of the approximately 600,000 gallons per day available, 1/3 be allocated to City Center, 1/3 be allocated to outside City Center, and 1/3 be reserved and not touched until the 3 others are exhausted. He said he wouldn’t do 470,000 GPD would would do more than 50, and would keep some in reserve. Mr. Mittag said that the payment of an TIF is on the taxpayers; is sewer capacity is gone, then that could be a problem. Ms. Louisos said that the PC has received input from residents outside of City Center posing the question “will the city hold us hostage” on wastewater. Need to be aware of these concerns. Ms. Quest said she thinks the city is behind, not ahead of ourselves. Right now it’s clear we’re in trouble. Maybe we won’t be in the future but we don’t know. People don’t want to deal with this issue because it’s too big. Mr. Riehle said that 591,000 gallons equaled about 2,800 homes. Clearly we need to set aside a number. How we determine that number is difficult; we shouldn’t just pull one out of a hat. Ms. Greco said that the other aspect is wanting open space. The PC has said it wants development along corridors and not elsewhere. If we don’t allocated for a Fletcher Allen, for example, it may not exist. We need a reserve. Mr. Riehle asked what the formal role of the Planning Commission is in this. Mr. Conner said that the ultimate responsibility is with the City Council. Certain items, such as the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning, and Subdivision Regulations, are required to start with the Planning Commission. Not so with an ordinance. The PC has the authority to undertake capacity studies and also under the city charter receive directives from the Council. Mr. Gagnon said that the Council would make Ordinance revisions; the Commission would only be recommending. Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City sewer ordinance be changed to allow for 200,000 GPD rather than the current 50,000. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Quest said she would want 470,000. Mr. Harrington offered a friendly amendment – to replace 200,000 GPD with “an increase from 50,000 GPD to a number closer to 470,000.” The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Riehle. Mr. Mittag said that the Commission should come up with a number. The Commission has a lot of respect. Mr. Riehle said he would prefer to go closer to 470,000. Ms. Louisos asked whether we should align the map with the allocation area, since the current area is only a small portion of the TIF district. She added that the number should be closer to 47,000. 4 Ms. Harrington said the number should be closer to 470,000 than 200,000. Mr. Gagnon asked about the source of the 470,000. Mr. Conner said that it was a very rough estimate based on the TIF and his and Mr. Rabidoux’s guess as to the rest of the FBC district over 20 years. Ms. Louisos offered a friendly amendment to make the wastewater reserve area by the FBC district and to up the allocation to 470,000 which is out best estimate. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Riehle accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Conner read the motion aloud: “I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City Sewer Ordinance be changed to make the wastewater reserve area be the Form Based Codes area and to up the allocation to 470,000 GPD which is our best estimate. Ms. Greco said she thinks the Commission is doing a wise thing. Ms. Louisos called the question. Motion passed 5‐0. 5. Discuss project prioritization and 2014‐15 schedule a. Review project list including those previously identified and/or started and those recommended by completed studies or contracts Ms. Quest said that the Comprehensive Plan really needs to happen before much else. Ms. Harrington said there were several projects listed to happen before January. Is that realistic? Mr. Conner said that some of the items were more about setting the table, so potentially yes. Ms. Quest said that if the Comp Plan is to start in January, she’d like to be thinking about it earlier. Ms. Louisos suggested a meeting in between to get things started. Ms. LaRose discussed the issue of PUDs / Master plans. She said that there can be common elements between different types of PUD / Master Plans. She said that PUDs / Master Plans may be more urgent to address than other items on the list. Not necessarily a higher priority, but more urgent given the projects coming before the City. Mr. Riehle said he liked the idea of having a subcommittee work on this that draws from each of the involved committees – the IZ committees, energy, etc. to lend perspective and come up with tools that work in a variety of settings. Ms. Quest said that SusAg had connected UVM about an intern to assist with agricultural PUDs. Ms. Louisos said that perhaps the combined committee, as Mr. Riehle discussed, could gather some specifics from the types of things a SusAg intern would work on. Mr. Conner encouraged members to consider how much guidance they would want to give as this proceeds to any subcommittee. 5 Mr. Conner reported that he had had conversions with Ms. Louisos and Mr. Simoneau concerning making use of volunteer energy and that they would be setting up a meeting in the near future. Ms. Louisos said that she would take this information to that meeting. Commissioners also discussed other items on the list. Mr. Conner noted that staff had taken a shot at prioritizing the list, but that the Commission should feel comfortable to adjust it. Ms. Louisos said that she felt very comfortable in being able to adjust and agreed with staff providing the recommendation. b. Identify and appoint working group(s) for shorter‐term projects if appropriate. Mr. Conner said that staff had been meeting with many individuals and that a handful of critical, technical items have been raised that staff has been working on and through, including items such as how the block standards would be applied to specific development proposals, how existing PUDs would be treated under the code, how to address phased development in light of the frontage requirements, and how to address “site nonconformities” such as parking lots, etc. He said it would be very helpful to have a short‐term Task Force to help work through these items. Ms. Louisos said that this remained the #1 priority. Mr. Gagnon moved that a Task Force for City Center Technical Items be established. The Task Force would include Mr. Riehle from the Planning Commission, and consist of all members of the current Form Based Codes Committee who express an interest in serving to Mr. Conner once announced. The Task Force would have 4‐6 weeks to complete. Mr. Riehle seconded. Members recommended Mr. Simoneau serve as chair should he agree to serve on the Task Force. Mr. Conner said that such a Task Force would have a quorum based on the number of people who agree to join. This would allow members of the FBCC who do not wish to serve on this group to be able to do so without problems of quorums. Motion passed 5‐0. 6. Other business Mr. Conner announced two upcoming workshops from VLCT and that the Garden Street kick‐off public workshop would be on September 10th. Ms. LaRose noted that the City has offered to cover entry fees for such items for PC members. 7. Minutes of 12 August 2014: Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 12 August 2014. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:42 p.m. ________________________________, Clerk