Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/22/2015 - 12:00pm meeting SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (NOON) The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting for public input on the Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday, 22 September 2015, at noon, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. Macdonald, ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; G. Kjelleren, N. Andrews, 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 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. 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. Ms. LaRose added that 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 adoption of the Plan is early March. Ms. Louisos said the Plan is a vision of how South Burlington wishes to evolve over the next 20 years. It is used to guide city policies (Land Development Regulations), in Act 250 reviews, and by the Regional Planning Commission for County-wide planning. Ms. Louisos noted that the Planning Commission has been working on the plan for more than 5 years, doing lots of research and getting input from other city committees (e.g., Open Space, Affordable Housing, Recreation and Leisure Arts, Sustainable Agriculture, Natural Resources, Energy, etc.). Ms. Louisos then provided an overview of the structure of the Plan, including the Vision and Goals, a Community Assessment (including demographics, future needs/trends, objectives and strategies, 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. A member of the audience asked how the Comprehensive Plan relates to zoning. Mr. Conner explained that the State requires zoning to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. If a Plan sets a different direction than current zoning, then zoning should be updated. Ms. Louisos then explained that there are four principal Goals of the Plan, with the heading: “Here and into the future South Burlington is:” 1. Affordable and Community Rich 2. Walkable 3. Green & Clean 4. Opportunity Oriented Each section of the Plan explains where the city is now, then projects what might affect the future. Mr. Conner noted this might include when to plan for a new fire truck or what recreation facilities are needed, etc. Members of the audience preferred the word “oriented” or “strong” to “rich” in the first goal. An audience member asked how the Plan can fit into a city comprised of so many “pockets.” Ms. Louisos said one major discussion was the focus on a strong City Center. Mr. Conner noted there are more than 20 distinct neighborhoods in the city and the aim of the plan is to “stitch them together (e.g., Recreation Department programs to bring people together). A member of the audience was concerned that the studies used by the Commission were a number of years old. There was particular concern with roads through wildlife corridors. It was noted that there has been a lot of development since those studies were done. Mr. Conner noted that an open space study was done in the city last year. It indicates where wetlands are, how they are connected, where there are parks, etc. An audience member felt this should be taken into consideration when putting in things like solar fields. Ms. Louisos then presented the Future Land Use Map. She noted that it is purposely “blurred” at the edges because it represented general ideas. She also noted there is no designation for the area where the Chamberlin/Airport study is now being done. The map indicates areas for low intensity development (possibly agriculture), lower intensity mainly residential neighborhoods with some small businesses, medium intensity residential to mixed use (condos, medical park), medium to higher intensity (Airport, businesses), and higher intensity mixed use with efficient infrastructure where a majority of development should occur. Mr. Conner said the map is largely reflective of zoning. He noted one are near Hinesburg Road where there is a change that will require zoning to “catch up.” An audience member asked if there are any plans for another Interstate interchange. Ms. Louisos said there is no specific designation, but that possibility is recognized. Mr. Conner said the language reads “should be examined and considered.” He stressed that the Plan recognizes that the transportation system will have to evolve. Ms. LaRose noted the extensive planning that has to go into an interchange, and that would probably be looked at in a regional context. A resident expressed concern with an area in the Southeast Quadrant with a section noting some commercial development near South Village. This area is now zoning Neighborhood-Residential. He noted that 78% of the South Village residents oppose a commercial use in that area. Ms. Louisos said that area is there so that people know it is under discussion. The Planning Commission will eventually make a decision. Another resident was concerned with areas alongside streams. Mr. McKenzie explained the setbacks that are required from streams. He also noted that the concept of the commercial area in South Village was considered to allow residents to get some groceries without having to get in their cars and travel for them. Ms. LaRose stressed that sometimes there are “competing goods” which the Planning Commission has to consider together. An audience member was concerned with the potential “cannibalization” of existing businesses with City Center development plans. He questioned whether the city has enough population to support the amount of commercial business that is intended. There was also concern expressed for getting traffic in and out of City Center. Mr. Riehle noted there are many “moving parts” to City Center. A big component will be residential and that will drive the retail and commercial development. It is really quite a small space, and developers will look closely at “what will fly.” Mr. Riehle also noted that UMall feels it will complement what they have. Mr. LaLonde asked whether the School Board will have input into the Educational component of the Plan. Ms. Louisos said 2 Commission members who served on the City-School Task Force have been charged with revising the Education section. Ms. LaRose added that outreach has always included the Superintendent of Schools. As there were no more comments from the public and no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.