Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/03/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting for public input on the Comprehensive Plan on Saturday, 3 October 2015, at 9 a.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; S. Quest, T. Harrington, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; B. Paquette, other members of the public 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. Public Input Session: Draft Comprehensive Plan a. Brief Overview to Public of Draft Comprehensive Plan b. Receive Public Input on Draft Comprehensive Plan Ms. Louisos explained that the Comprehensive Plan is an overall vision of what the city wants to evolve to in the coming years. She noted that the city has an existing plan which legally has to be re-adopted every 5 years. What is being presented today is a full rewrite of a plan that has been in existence for a number of years. The Planning Commission received input from many groups, studies, public comments, etc. After 3 public input sessions, the Commission will go through the comments received from the public and possibly make changes. There will then be a formal public hearing. After the public hearing, the Commission can vote on whether to approve the plan and forward it to the City Council. The Council will then hold at least 2 public hearings. If any changes result from those hearings, additional hearings will be held. The deadline for approval of the Plan is early March. Ms. Louisos further explained that the Plan is used to guide city policies (Land Development Regulations), for grant applications, in Act 250 reviews, and by the Regional Planning Commission for County-wide planning. Ms. LaRose then provided an overview of the structure of the Plan, including the Vision and Goals, a Community Assessment (including population, employment, parks, community facilities, recreation, future needs/trends, objectives and strategies to meet the objectives, achievements/ongoing actions, social infrastructure, public utilities, water, transportation, ecological resources, etc.), and current and future land use, all of which relate to what South Burlington wants to be as a city. Ms. Louisos then explained that the Goals of the Plan are divided into 4 sections, with the heading: Here and into the future South Burlington is: 1. Affordable and Community Rich 2. Walkable 3. Green & Clean 4. Opportunity Oriented Mr. Paquette felt that there should be more of a “clean aspect,” including litter prevention. Members of the audience agreed with prior concerns with the word “rich” in the first goal. Ms. LaRose then directed attention to the Future Land Use Map. She noted that this is a requirement of the State. Each color on the Map defines a type of development, from very low intensity (green) to low intensity (yellow), to medium-higher density (blue), to high density (red). She also noted an area that remains white. This is where planning is now underway involving the creation of a vision for Airport/Chamberlin neighborhood. Ms. LaRose then identified two areas that are different from what exists today: the “Hill Farm” area which is now entirely designated as commercial but which is being shown as more of a transition area with a mix of uses, with residential closer to the Village at Dorset Park. A resident then noted the small “red dot” in the area of South Village. She felt that to put commercial uses there would be “disruptive to the concept of South Village.” She felt there were so many empty locations in strip malls, that commercial use isn’t needed there. Mr. Gagnon said that with a goal of “walkability” the thought is to have a small store where people can walk to get a newspaper or ice cream cone or loaf of bread without having to get in their cars. Ms. Harrington noted that the current zoning does not allow for such a store. A resident asked about schools and felt the schools should stay the way they are. She felt one elementary school for the whole city would go against “walkability.” Ms. Louisos noted that things related to the schools are not dealt with by the Planning Commission. Ms. LaRose added that the Education Section of the Comprehensive Plan is currently being worked on by two Commission members who served on the City/Schools Task Force. What is in the existing plan is not up to date. A resident asked about extending Swift Street through the Village at Dorset Park. Ms. LaRose explained how streets get connected. She also noted that this particular connection has been on the Official City Map for 40 years. She also noted that if the adjoining property were to come in for development, residents of the Village at Dorset Park would be notified. Ms. Quest said as many people want the connection as don’t want it. She added that it doesn’t have to be a straight connection which would encourage speeding; it could be a pleasant windy road like Songbird. Ms. LaRose explained that sometimes there are “competing goods,” and it’s hard to weigh one against the other. She stressed that city policy has typically been for road connections. Mr. Paquette felt it would be good to name some of the major streets on the Future Land Use Map. A resident asked about potential widening of Airport Parkway. Ms. LaRose said that would involve Airport property, and would require a lot of planning. It would be a long way off. Mr. Paquette felt that would reduce traffic on the side streets but would increase traffic on Kirby Road. A resident commented that more people are driving on White Street now because of the narrowing of Williston Road. Mr. Gagnon said that is another “competing good.” A resident asked about the potential for more mixed use around the Cider Mill. They would like less commercial there. Members discussed potentially changing the color on the future land use map to orange from the red. A resident asked if the Airport has any rights to the cemetery nearby. Ms. Harrington said it is on the “community facilities map,” which means it is owned by the city. Mr. Paquette asked what happens if someone wants to develop to match current zoning but not the new plan. Ms. LaRose said that is a tough situation. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission is working through the Land Development Regulations at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan. By and large, they match now. Ms. LaRose added that there is a statement that development should match the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Commission members noted they have a long list of things to do and they have to decide in what order to do them. As there were no more comments from the public and no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. _________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.