Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/12/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING MINUTES 12 APRIL 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, consultant; J. Kochman, J. Nick, B. Milizia 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. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: No announcements or reports were made. 4. Outline scope of work and discuss initial concepts around Master Plan/Planned Unit Development/Node zoning tools throughout the City: Ms. LaRose noted there is a planning grant to address PUDs, master planning, etc. The aim is to address things that are not well defined (e.g. large properties). The standards don’t deal with what might take place one these properties (e.g. mixed use) and how to be sure creativity isn’t hampered. Things that are being looked at include the size of a parcel, geography, tools for a transit district in various areas, needs for large properties in City Center (where “large” might be different from other areas), and how different parts of a development can work together cohesively. Ms. LaRose stressed that this planning grant funds have to be spent by the end of May. Members then suggested some of the larger properties that might be considered including K-Mart Plaza, the waterfront (Farrell property), large pieces in City Center, neighborhood and agricultural nodes. Ms. Murray then reviewed her background. She said that this project involves doing 18 months of work in about 6 weeks. To help with this, the SE Group will also be working on this project. Ms. Murray noted that if there are too many PUDs, it’s time to look at the regulations. She noted that PUDs can serve the function of supporting transit. There can be campus types of PUDs (office/technology), and PUDs can be specific to infill development. Ms. Murray said she has been asked to talk with UMall about their future plans. They are now in the T-4 area, and there is a question as to whether that should be the designation for that property. Ms. Murray said she will try to create a menu/schedule of types of PUDs and indicate where they might go. She would also develop one of those types more fully. She also noted that Form Based Code had as its intent to get away from PUDs (fewer meetings, etc.). There are, however, some examples of Form Based Code with PUDs, especially with infill. UMall might fit into that category. South Burlington currently requires PUDs for properties over 10 acres. Master Plans are required only for some PUDs, though they are recommended for all. PUDs are prohibited in the City Center. Ms. Quest asked about the “tweaks” that people are asking for in City Center. Ms. LaRose said staff is hearing the need for “great flexibility.” She felt that if you do that, all the effort that went into writing the prescriptive code would be meaningless. What is needed is to know what the common issues are and whether there can be “trade‐off” options. She stressed that there can’t be a totally flexible tool. Ms. Murray said at this point she wouldn’t consider PUDs for City Center, but there is a need to figure out what will work there. Mr. Klugo asked if they are looking at the problem the right way. It seems “we’re negotiating against ourselves” instead of having a developer propose something and seeing what the issues are. Ms. LaRose said the direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission is to consider the options and be sure that a really great project isn’t “squashed.” Mr. Klugo added that the city is looking for creative projects that benefit both the community and the developer. He didn’t understand making changes to a process that hasn’t yet been tried. Mr. Riehle said he felt they were focusing on “not having a bad project.” Mr. Klugo said the worst projects are those that just check the boxes and have no creativity. Mr. Gagnon said they are also talking about projects outside of City Center and defining parameters in an attempt to stay ahead of the curve. These are 2 different discussions. Mr. Klugo questioned whether they know what they want these large areas to look like and how they all tie together. Ms. Murray said you can “knit them into the community” or buffer them. Ms. Harrington asked how you deal with PUDs if they don’t work well with Form Based Code and Form Based Code is being considered for the rest of the city. Ms. Murray said some things in Form Based Code can apply to PUDs (e.g. building types). Ms. LaRose said staff will bring some ideas on that to the Commission. Ms. Murray noted that under some kinds of Form Based Code you can focus on “pedestrian shed,” based on existing or planned neighborhoods. You can also look at commercial nodes, etc. Mr. Nick suggested broad based vision/goals for the large properties, not overthinking them. Mr. Klugo cited the JAM Golf decision and the problems that type of planning creates. Ms. Murray said developers need to be involved in the conversation. Ms. LaRose said one interesting tool is to design a whole project up front and have it go through the whole adoption process. With this there are usually thresholds and parameters. Mr. Nick noted they have a “specific plan process” similar to that in Williston. Ms. Louisos noted that current zoning doesn’t allow for much mixed use, and that is one outcome the City is looking for. Ms. Murray said that is typical of a PUD. Ms. LaRose also noted that current regulations would permit worst case scenarios. Mr. Gagnon said that is why the Commission wanted to define certain parameters to get something the City wants (e.g. mixed use, open spaces, etc.). He felt the commission has an obligation to provide general parameters and guidance. Ms. LaRose suggested going back to the Hill and O’Brien projects that the Planning Commission saw and pulling out what members like and giving Ms. Murray some of those points and plans. Mr. Klugo said they haven’t talked about options other than PUDs. Ms. Murray said they can talk about them, but the grant money is for PUDs. Ms. Milizia said her problem with the Hill Farm plan was the impact on the view. When you have buildings up near the road, the roof lines interrupt that beautiful view tremendously. She cited the view of the mountains from Wheeler House and said that seeing just the ridge of the Green Mountains isn’t good enough. She stressed considering the context in which a property is located, especially when there are no height restrictions, and building within that context. Mr. Klugo said there are tools at the DRB level for that protection. Members were generally OK with the direction of the work and asked to see a pallet of options to consider. 5. Other Business: a. City of Burlington proposed amendments to Comprehensive Development Ordinance public hearing 26 April 2016: No issues of interest were raised. 6. Minutes of 9 February, 23 February, 29 February and 5 April 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 9, 23 and 29 February and 5 April 2016 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 9:50 p.m. _________________________________ 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, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: April 12th Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 1. Joint meeting with DRB An opportunity to discuss trends in development review. A reminder that the DRB cannot discuss any applications pending before them or under appeal to the courts. 2. Outline scope of work and discuss initial concepts around Master Plan / Planned Unit Development / Node zoning tools throughout the City, Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning (8:10 pm) Sharon Murray of Front Porch Community Planning will attend and begin to outline different options, ideas, etc. regarding the Master Plan / PUD / Nodes tools. 3. Other business (8:55 pm) a. City of Burlington proposed amendments to Comprehensive Development Ordinance, public hearing April 26 See enclosed amendments. 4. Minutes (8:55 pm) Draft minutes of February 9, February 23, March 29, and April 5 are enclosed. 5. Adjourn (9:00 pm) SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  23 FEBRUARY 2016    1    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 February    2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, A. Klugo     ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Paquette, J. Kochman, B. Milizia, R. Agne    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. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports:    Ms. Quest: A number of towns are trying to get together to think about the future, as Resilient  Communities.  There was a 10‐town pilot, and they now want all towns to be involved.  It is being run by  a private non‐profit group with financing by FEMA.  Mr. Conner said he would reach out and find out  about it.    Mr. Klugo: Attended the press conference regarding possible redevelopment with an all‐purpose  arena.  A video is now on the city’s website.  Mr. Conner said this is a joint feasibility study with UVM to  look at possible construction of a 5,000 seat multi‐purpose arena for hockey, basketball, concerts, etc. in  the City Center area.  The results will be presented in august to the City Council and UVM Board of  Trustees.  Mr. Klugo said it could go on the Marcotte property or UMall property.  UVM would  repurpose Gutterson for student recreation.  Mr. Conner said that the City Manager was very clear that  the school’s due diligence is their purview, and there is no attempt to circumvent that.  Mr. Conner also  noted that City Manager had presented this as being done in line with “smart growth,” occurring where  there is already infrastructure and where it fits into its surroundings.  He also said that financing would  not increase South Burlington property taxes.  Ms. Kochman noted that the Recreation and Leisure Arts  Committee has been looking for indoor recreation facilities for a long time, and the city would have  some indoor facilities as part of the plan.  It would be in City Center where there is to be a mix of  housing.  Mr. Conner added that the facility would be owned by the city an envisioned at this time.  The  video was then shown to members.    4. Overview of the process, work and results of the Open Space Report regarding scenic  views in the city as a foundation for future Commission work:      2    Ms. Kochman noted that a group from the Open Space Committee drove around the city looking at  scenic views and how some might be preserved or restored.  They didn’t have a chance to discuss scenic  views as part of the Committee’s report, but this was added as an attachment (page 19).  Ms. Kochman  directed attention to a map that catalogs scenic views.    She also noted that is a form for evaluating and “scoring” scenic views.  Essex/Jericho has done a scenic  manual of this sort.  A “roadside guide” was also done by the Champlain Valley Greenbelt Alliance.  Ms.  Kochman suggested the possibility of a citizens’ committee being formed before a consultant is hired.    Mr. Conner explained how present South Burlington view corridor overlays work.  The challenge is the  need to be written with clear standards so an applicant, and the public, know the rules going in.  The  next step could be to have volunteers do the initial part of the analysis and then have the community  deal with the qualitative part.    Mr. Riehle noted that in some cases trees are obstructing views, and there is a need for “balance.”  Mr.  Conner noted that some trees have grown up near view areas and are not blocking views.    Mr. Klugo suggested that on Green‐Up Day people be asked to take pictures of the views they  particularly like.  Ms. Melizia stressed the importance of having people familiar with the community  being active in the process.    Mr. Agne showed a view of the Underwood property and noted that a consultant wanted to put  “towers” on the property so that people could see the views.  He added that there is also a concern with  solar arrays blocking views.    Mr. Conner said the timing would be up to the Planning Commission as would the kind of project they  would like to have happen.    Mr. Klugo said there are some areas that might be left as open space, where views change over the year.   He suggested that some views are very important to protect; others could just be left as open space.    Ms. Melizia said that when something is built there should be consideration for having it blend in with  the environment.    Mr. Conner said the next step is to determine what people are trying to accomplish and then find a  method to do it.    5. Pursuant to 24 VSA Section 4442(b), review and prepare updated analysis report on  changes to the draft Land Development Regulations made by the City Council for public  hearing on 21 March 2016:    Mr. Conner said that if the Council makes no changes on 21 March, the LDRs can be adopted then.      3      The Planning Commission is required under Statute to evaluate whether the changes are in keeping with  State planning goals and with the Comprehensive Plan and prepare a revised Report. Staff presented a  draft report to this effect for the Commission’s consideration.    Ms. Quest moved that the Planning Commission find that the changes made to the draft Land  Development Regulations are in keeping with both State law and the city’s Comprehensive Plan, and to  approve the report as presented.  Mr. Riehle seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    6. Discuss and possibly provide feedback to the City Council on changes to the draft Land  Development Regulations warned for City Council public hearing on 21 March 2016:    Ms. Harrington questioned the wording for “interesting plantings.”  Mr. Klugo noted that with plantings,  the key words are “thrills, spills and fills.”    Mr. Klugo noted a recent Public Service Board decision to uphold a community’s opposition to a solar  project based on specific standards in the community’s regulations.    Ms. Quest then moved to find that the Commission has no issues with changes made to the draft Land  Development Regulation by the City Council and warned for public hearing on 21 March 2016.  Mr.  Gagnon seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    7. Staff summary and initial Commission discussion of additional unrelated amendment to  the city’s Land Development Regulations identified by City Councilors as possible future  considerations:    Mr. Conner noted that the Council brought up a variety of unrelated items during its discussion of the  LDRs.  The Council was encouraged to think of these in 2 ways: things they would specifically change and  “unrelated amendments” that would have to start at the Planning Commission level.  Council members  send e‐mails separately, but the Council took no action on these. Staff did indicate to the Council that  the items would be provided to the Commission.    Mr. Conner then showed a chart of some Council members’ interests as follows:    Ms. Riehle: view corridors, fill‐in on big lots of older homes, number of trees with large canopies on  new streets    Mr. Chittenden:  clarifying how and where a wholesale club might fit in with permitted uses across zones  in the city    Ms. Emery: requirements for accessory structures (specifically allowing tree‐houses limited by size)      4    There was no discussion on these items.    8. Update on the work of the Chamberlin Neighborhood/Airport Planning Committee  (CNAPC):    Ms. Harrington noted that the Committee was shown a slide show in conjunction with the Airport’s  “reuse” plan for properties purchased.  Members of the committee were asked to react to the ideas  being presented.    Specific areas of interest were Bike and Pedestrian Connectivity, Neighborhood Streets, and Airport  Drive Reconstruction.  The presentation focused on projects that are under consideration (e.g., White  Street sidewalk on the north side, a relocated airport Drive), potential “overland paths,” crosswalks  (especially on Williston Road), flashing beacons, warning painted on the road, and bike  accommodations.  There was discussion of existing conditions on residential streets, traffic calming,  possible median refuge islands, curb extensions, welcome signs/banners, and public art.  With regard  the Airport Drive, a number of possibilities were suggested including the closing of certain streets,  looping of streets, one‐way streets, etc.  Mr. Conner noted that some of these possibilities can be done  on a trial basis.    9. Other Business:    a. Proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance:    No issues were raised.    b. Commission scheduling and work plan update:    No issues were raised.    10. Minutes of 20 October, 12 November, 24 November, 8 December 2015, and 26 January  2016 :    Ms. Quest  moved to approve the minutes of 20 October, 12 November, 24 November and 8 December  2015, and 26 January 2016  as presented.  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 8:58 p.m.           ___________________________________        Clerk    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES  9 FEBRUARY 2016    1    The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 February    2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo     ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Rabidoux, Director  of Public Works; S. Dopp, D. Leban     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:                                                      Ms. Dopp asked about the upcoming ballot item regarding use of Open Space Fund money for open  space maintenance/upkeep.  Ms. Louisos stated that the Planning Commission had not been involved in  this ballot item and suggested she contact the City Council directly with any questions.  Ms. Leban asked if the Commission has addressed east‐west roads in the Southeast Quadrant and how  they cross wildlife corridors.  Ms. Louisos said this was discussed when doing the Comprehensive Plan,  but in the “big context.”  Ms. Harrington said the Comprehensive Plan does include language to redo  studies before roads are built to consider impact on natural resources.  3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports:    Ms. Louisos: She, Ms. Quest and Mr. Klugo attended the City Council meeting and heard the UMall  presentation by Todd Finard.  The big news is that the Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan with no  additional changes.  There was also a work session on the LDRs. There may be things that Council would  like the Commission to look at in the future.    Mr. Conner: Listed questions raised by Councilors with the LDRs related to open space criteria  (specifically emphasis on trees), drive‐thrus in the City Center, solar ready roofs, materials for use in City  Center, and tree planting standards.  Discussion at the Council will continue on 17 February.  The same  situation as with the Comprehensive Plan will occur with any changes the Council makes to the LDRs.   The Commission will have to determine the changes are in keeping with state statute.      Ms. LaRose noted the ballot item for a bond for projects related to open space.  Money would be  replaced by not more than 50% each year of the open space fund.  There is a project list which includes  the Underwood property, Wheeler Nature Park and Red Rocks Park.  Some projects may be funded  ahead of available funding which is why there is a bond item.  Information on this will be presented at  the pre‐Town Meeting on 29 February.    2      Mr. Conner: Lindsey Britt has been hired as the new Development Review Planner.  She will begin  work on 1 March.    4. Review Conceptual Plans for State  Funded Sidewalk Connection on Hinesburg Road &  Tilley Drive:    Mr. Rabidoux noted the city received 2 grants to fund a 30+ foot segment of sidewalk on Hinesburg  Road (a State road).  He showed an overhead of the location.  It is a $180,000 project which it is hoped  will be in the 2017 construction season.    The sidewalk will be 5 feet wide concrete.  No crosswalks are planned, and the city was told if they  asked for crosswalks, the project would probably not get done at this time.  Mr. Rabidoux said he felt  that building this sidewalk will strengthen the cause for a full signalized intersection.  Mr. Klugo noted  that business appears to be booming for the hospital’s locations in that area, and it is not safe.  Mr.  Rabidoux suggested that the Planning Commission could possibly have some weight in support of  additional protection and control in the area.     Mr. Gagnon said a lot of study would be required for a crosswalk as this is a high‐speed area.  He felt it  would have to be signalized for safety.    Mr. Conner noted that because of funding issues, the city looks at “incremental improvements.”  He said  this project brings the city closer to a solution.    Members favored having staff draft a letter regarding pedestrian safety.    Mr. Gagnon moved to endorse the conceptual alignment of the sidewalk connection on Hinesburg Road  to Tilley Drive as presented.  Ms. Quest seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    Mr. Gagnon moved to request Mr. Rabidoux and staff to prepare a letter requesting that the State of  Vermont do a study regarding pedestrian crossing at the Hinesburg Road/Tilley Drive location. Ms.  Quest seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    5. Consider requests to allow personal instruction study use in the Southeast Quadrant  Village Commercial District:    Mr. Conner noted there have been 2 requests in the past year.  The original thought was to tie this into  the South Village request.      Staff feels that the request seems to be consistent with what are now allowed uses and with the intent  of the district.  They were surprised it wasn’t an allowed use.  The question is whether there should be a    3    size restriction.  Staff is recommending a 3000 to 5000 sq. ft. size limitation.  They feel this should meet  neighborhood needs.    Ms. Harrington felt this would be a ‘personal service’ use.  Mr. Conner said staff feels the closest  appropriate designation is ‘personal instruction’ use.  He added that business changes are occurring  faster than zoning can keep up.    Members favored allow the use and suggested a 3000 sq. ft. limitation.  Mr. Conner said staff will come  back with examples of what now exists in the city.  He noted that this would become part of the next  round of amendments.    6. Discuss how the Commission would like to interface with City committees for future  projects:    Mr. Gagnon cited the importance of knowing what all committees are working on and for the  committees to know what other committees are doing.    Ms. LaRose suggested the Commission decide which projects they want to do and staff can see what  kind of help can be gotten from other groups.  Alternatively, committees can come to the Commission  with something they want to work on.    Mr. Conner stressed the importance of avoiding overlapping which leads to conflict among committees    Ms. Leban suggested a matrix for people in the city to see what committees are working on.  She noted  there is very little interaction with the Bike/Ped Committee when roads are built.    Ms. Harrington suggested having committee chairs come to the Commission each year to report on  what they are doing.    Members agreed that they would like to hear from the Natural Resources, Energy, Bike/Ped, and  Recreation/Leisure Arts Committees.  In order to give committees time to get things together, members  agreed to do this no earlier than April.  Ms. LaRose agreed to put something together for the various  committees.    7. Minutes of 12 January and 26 January 2016:    Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 12 and 26 January 2016 as written.  Ms. Louisos seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    8. Other Business:    No issues were raised.    4      As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:45 p.m.             ___________________________________        Clerk    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 29 MARCH 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 29 March 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Larkin, J. P. Larkin, G. Rabideau, J. Heilenbach, B. Alvarez, S. Dopp, T. Chittenden, T. McKenzie 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: Ms. Dopp noted that someone from “out west” has been buying up large tracts of land with a plan to set up a Mormon community with housing for thousands of people. She asked how you guard against something like that. Mr. Gagnon said you can’t stop people from buying land, but if they come in with a plan, then you can have regulations. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Riehle: Attended the Airport function last week which included preliminary ideas for road configuration and the possible location for a hotel. Ms. Quest: Attended the school visioning meeting and noted that the School Board is “really thinking.” There are many ideas of what could happen with the city’s schools. Ms. Louisos: Will be on a panel in Hinesburg regarding watersheds. It will be good to say South Burlington has new stormwater regulations. Mr. Conner: The City Council unanimously approved the LDRs and Official Map. Mr. Conner distributed a press release on that and noted the tremendous effort by many people. The applications for the expansion of the New Town Center and Neighborhood Development Area designations were submitted yesterday and includes property across the street (UMall) and others. This submittal was approve by Council. The city will also apply to expand the TIF district to include the additional properties. The Chamberlin Airport Neighborhood Committee had its second meeting regarding neighborhood enhancements (e.g., signage, community engagement, long-term relationship with the Airport, etc.). 2 The Williston Road alternative project consultants are working up various ideas. The Secretary of State’s office will be presenting public service awards for people who have given 20 or more years of service to their communities. The event will be at South Burlington High School on 14 April at 6:30 p.m. A reception for South Burlington recipients will be held at City Hall following the event. Staff will be following up with Peg Elmer regarding “community resilience.” There will be more on this at the next meeting. Ms. LaRose: Distributed copies of the new Comprehensive Plan. 4. Discuss possible Agriculture-Enterprise use along Hinesburg Road: Mr. Conner said staff was approached by Joe Larkin about a potential use which would involve some changes to zoning regulations. This led to tonight’s open discussion on possibilities. Joe Larkin then introduced Justin Heilenbach and Bren Alvarez to make the presentation. Mr. Heilenbach said he is President and co-founder of Citizen Cider Projects. They moved part of their operation to Pine St. in Burlington a few years ago, but their apples are pressed in Middlebury and the juice then has to be transported to Burlington. They now want to combine both operations on one site. They are considering the feasibility of doing this on the Larkin “orchard site” on Hinesburg Road. They have created a possible plan for that site, if it is feasible. The site is located on the west side of Hinesburg Road and Van Sicklen Rd. Mr. Heilenbach showed the location on an overhead photo. The orchard has a long history and includes trees that are unique for a Vermont farm. Mr. Heilenbach said their business model is built around working with growers and trying to maintain orchards that otherwise might be gone in 10 years or so. They also want to interact with consumers, so they do not want to be in a strictly industrial site. In their plan, apples would be brought in from other places. They would be pressed, fermented, aged, packaged, shipped and sold in a retail store on this site. There would also be a “U-pick” format and an educational tour element. The retail store would have products such as cider, doughnuts, Vermont cheese, etc. The site could also host special “apple- related” events. Ms. Alvarez then showed a sheet of images including planted acreage and building concepts. The site would be entered by Van Sicklen along a landscaped area. The building would be about 50,000 sq. ft. with a “welcoming feel.” Things such as loading docks and dumpsters would be in the rear. The orchard would encompass about 8 acres, and there would be outdoor event space as well. The building would 3 have a “green roof” designed to bring light into the building. It would be 2 stories, with some administrative space upstairs. Ms. Alvarez showed concepts of landscaping with an orchard view as people would access the site. Mr. Gagnon asked if the site is on city water and sewer. Mr. Conner said it is not now, but he indicated the closest sewer and water connections on the plan. Ms. Quest asked if they have talked with people about growing apples for the cider use. Mr. Heilenbach said they are slowly working toward that. There are some small orchards already working toward that goal, and they would like this to be a drop-off site for their products. Ms. Louisos said the concept is in line with city goals. She asked about a time frame. Mr. Heilenback said that although they are just presenting the idea tonight, they would like to begin to work around the issues. Mr. Klugo noted the city could put some land into conservation to protect the community. Mr. Riehle said that as a neighbor, this is an appealing idea. He would be concerned with late night events, noise, etc. Mr. Heilenbach stressed that they would not be “bad neighbors.” Mr. Conner reviewed the zoning in the area including NRP (Natural Resource Protection), Village Residential (allowing up to 8 housing units per acre) and Neighborhood Residential (allowing up to 4 units per acre). He also indicated the extent of the properties owned by the Larkin family. Mr. Heilenbach said they would also locate their corporate office at this location (about 30 people), so there would be about 50-60 people working on the site in addition to the agricultural workers, possibly up to 100 total. There would be seasonal employees in the summer as well. Mr. Heilenbach said they would hope to construct during the summer of 2017 or sooner. Members were generally very receptive. Mr. Conner stressed the need for the Commission to write the regulations to get the outcome they want. 5. Continue discussion of potential amendments to Land Development Regulations, possible warning of public hearing of same: Ms. LaRose said the she and the consultant have discussed things such as PUD Master Planning, nodes, etc. They are trying to look at groupings (“buckets”). One question is whether there is a size threshold. For example, 5 acres off Williston Road is different from 5 acres on Kimball Avenue. They are also talking about properties on Shelburne Road, and the question is whether to look at this property by property or as the whole corridor. 4 Ms. LaRose noted that Sharon Murray, the City’s consultant, will be at the next meeting. She has a feel for how different tools might work, what is legal (e.g. private/public development agreements), etc. Mr. Gagnon noted that the Commission talked about being “behind the curve” on some things. He felt they should focus on 2 or 3 “buckets” they know about, where there is apt to be movement. Ms. LaRose said they may break things up into discrete “buckets” due to funding concerns. There is also the question of looking at potential zoning changes in the bigger picture. She will provide members with a list of questions to consider. Mr. Conner then reviewed the goals of the “Cars to People” project, specifically stitching places near roads where you want centers of activities (e.g., Orchards neighborhood, Mayfair Park neighborhood, etc.). In meetings with people from various neighborhoods, there was comment that there was nowhere they could walk to for an ice cream cone. Mr. Conner noted that Shelburne Road has no “distinguishing identity points.” It is a long corridor with little that is a hub for a neighborhood. However, there is an almost perfect line-up for “hubs”: Farrell Street, K-Mart/Hannaford area, Fayette Road access (where the new Larkin Terrace project is being proposed), and perhaps the new Pizzagalli building area. Ms. LaRose noted that people said they didn’t feel “comfortable” on this corridor during the Cars to People project. This can be related to building sizes, uses, etc. Mr. Klugo added that there is nothing that says this is a pedestrian experience. There are no trees on the road. He noted that nodes are most successful when they have multiple ways in and out, but these are very “linear” areas. Mr. Riehle said they have to keep in mind that South Burlington is a “through community.” Ms. LaRose questioned whether you have to accept that and whether you can be both a through community and a destination place. With regard to Williston Road, the questions include whether to go from 4 to 6 lanes or to meet capacity via other road (e.g. Market Street). There is also the question of South Burlington’s responsibility for getting people from other places “through” the community faster. Mr. Klugo said you need something to make people want to stop. Mr. Conner noted there are different areas of character in the eastern end of the city. The properties are larger than on Williston Road, and there is almost no retail other than what is on Williston Road. The retailers on Williston Road are generally quite small, unlike Shelburne Road. One possible concept is to split up the area, having Williston Road reflect smaller retailers away from the light industrial, and encourage the light industrial south of there. Ms. LaRose noted that the Mixed IC district is a problem as it encompasses so much land. 5 Mr. Conner said there is a question as to whether areas designated for business parks are able to sustain that activity. There may be reasons why a major complex would be difficult to put in some areas of the City (e.g, very close to residential), and why the business parks, away from housing, are an important area for certain activities. He suggested that as a way of supporting these activities, there are places where parking might be allowed in front of a building (separating cars from truck traffic could be important). He suggested that more freedom in those areas might bring more benefits to the city as well, such as high quality open spaces to employees, etc. Mr. Gagnon asked how this fit in with the Commission’s priorities. Mr. Conner said they could address some smaller pieces of the puzzle within the context of the whole concept. Mr. Conner said the Commission has been talking about different uses, different sizes of things, thinking about different parts of the city where they would look at the scale of things as opposed to uses. For example, they could simplify the list of uses in Village Commercial to “uses less than 5000 sq. ft.” with possibly some prohibited uses. The emphasis would be on scale. This could be done on Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave/Kennedy Drive. Mr. Conner also said there can be talk of possibly starting with something like “retail,” defining more clearly the size of retail in various places in the city and increasing clarity on terms. Mr. Klugo said he can see a “lot of stuff” but not an underlying concept. Mr. Conner suggested looking at the east end of the city, how business park activity there could be supported. That can be a medium and long-term goal. In the short term, they can make tweaks so that things don’t go in the wrong direction. Ms. LaRose noted that the presence of large retail project in that area will attract other anchors. A short-term stop-gap might be to discuss appropriate size of retail in that area. Mr. Conner said the Commission could determine 3 categories of retail: for example, up to 6500 sq. ft., up to 30,000 sq. ft., over 30,000 q. ft., and where in the city they would like to see those sizes. Mr. Klugo said that sounds like single-use zoning, back to the ‘60s. Mr. Conner said that there did not have to be single-use, it’s a question of scale. Ms. Louisos said the goal is to have something like City Center thoroughness everywhere in the city, but a small piece can make a big difference before the whole picture is complete. Ms. LaRose said one aim is to identify “leaks,” that might cause damage. With regard to “big stuff,” Mr. Conner said Nodes come first, then Transportation Overlay District, then Scenic view. Members were OK with exploring sizes with an eye toward the bigger picture. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission should address this issue in a timely manner. After looking at their schedule and seeing it being largely full for the regular April meetings, members agreed to hold a special meeting on 5 April. Mr. Gagnon cited the need to make an effort to make potentially affected parties part of the discussion early. 6. Other Business: 6 a. Draft Shelburne Zoning Regulations amendments: Mr. Conner said there is nothing dramatic in the amendments. b. Public Service Board Section 248(j) application for 1.55 MW solar group net metered electric generation facility on the closed landfill in South Burlington (City of South Burlington): Mr. Conner noted the Commission saw the concept for this. This is the official application. c. Upcoming meeting schedule: Special meeting on 5 April, 7 p.m. Next regular meeting, 12 April, 7 p.m. 7. Minutes of 8 March 2016 : Ms. Quest moved to approve the minutes of 8 March 2016 as presented. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING MINUTES 5 APRIL 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 5 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; T. Chittenden, D. Duell 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: Mr. Duell, a resident of Proctor Avenue, expressed concerns with traffic and public safety in the Rice High School area. He has been told the school is planning an addition, which will mean even more traffic in the neighborhood. One suggestion is to make Rice a one-way property with an exit via the Catholic Charities building area to Joy Drive. Mr. Duell noted that students drag race on Proctor Avenue, and he was told by someone at the school “that’s not our issue.” He also noted that Rice is building 2 new dugouts, and he couldn’t find a building permit for this. Mr. Duell said he walked the area with Councilor Chittenden, and also gave the City Council a petition from the neighbors. Mr. Conner said he received an e-mail from Councilor Chittenden. He added that he wasn’t aware of any community conversation on traffic configuration in this area since he has worked for the city. Mr. Duell said there needs to be joint action with the school, neighbors, and Police Department. He wanted students to learn respect for the community as part of their education. Mr. Duell also noted some concerns about trees and stop signs and the impact they might have in helping with the problem. Mr. Conner said the first thing he will do is to have a conversation with Public Works and also with other City departments at the next department head meeting. 2 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: Spoke on a panel in Hinesburg regarding stormwater. There was a good response to the work South Burlington has done. Mr. Conner: The department is tracking questions regarding Form Based Code, and there are already a few good questions. 4. Continued discussion of potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations and possible warning of public hearing on same: a. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial- type uses in heavy commercial/industrial districts: Ms. LaRose noted there are instances where having all parking in the rear of a building could create safety concerns with cars interacting with heavy truck traffic. The question is how to allow some parking in front to separate visitors from trucks. She noted that the goal of parking to the rear should remain intact: Visitors and pedestrians shouldn’t feel they are walking through a parking lot. The intent would be to create some green open spaces but still have a safe way get people from the road into the business. No more than 25% of parking could be in front and it would have to be screened from the road with landscape features. There would also have to be clear pedestrian access from the street. Qualifying open spaces could include: pocket/mini park, wooded area, community garden, enhanced rain garden, etc. Mr. Klugo said he could see a berm with some natural landscaping. Ms. LaRose said the aim is to make it a pleasant experience for someone walking by. Mr. Klugo suggested adding some images to illustrate this in the guidelines. He said this landscaping should be in additional to the regular landscaping budget so as not to dilute that. Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of an additional 10% landscaping if you move 10% of parking to the front. Ms. LaRose noted that typically these buildings are not that expensive compared with some other types, and so many building already exceed their minimum landscaping. In addition, the additional landscaping would not likely be a large number in most cases. Mr. Conner suggested language: The project’s minimum landscape budget shall be increased by an equivalent amount. Members had no issue with this. 3 b. Possible merger of similar use categories (e.g., retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions and arranging by scale and applicability: Ms. LaRose noted that the distinction between different types of retailers is becoming less over time. The Regulations presently have several different categories of similar activities, including retail, convenience store, retail food, etc. Mr. Conner also noted that there is a changing face of retail now where a “convenience store” and a Rite Aid are very similar in many respects. Mr. Conner showed a map of potential “size zones” for retail uses as an illustration of the draft language in the packet. Ms. LaRose noted that there are some natural size breaks among different types of tenants. Mr. Gagnon drew attention to the Commercial 1-Residential 12 Districts in the draft language. Mr. Conner said there are 2 of these which he showed on the map. Mr. Gagnon questioned why these should have unlimited size and asked Mr. Conner what the largest retailers in these areas are. Mr. Conner pointed to the Kinney Drugs as likely the largest retailer; he felt these districts could easily be changed to have retail at 15,000 sq. ft. or 30,000 sq. ft. max, especially because of the lot sizes. Members agreed on 15,000 sq. ft. max for those areas. Mr. Conner then identified some existing city retail establishments by their size: 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. (very small): Moe’s/Starbucks Vitamin Shop Denny’s NEFCU Panera People’s Bank Sleep Number/Comcast 10,000-13,000 sq. ft. (small): Trader Joe’s Kinney Drug Gonzo’s Golf Mall 4 Mr. Klugo expressed concern with 5,000 sq. ft. max at the Cider Mill. He felt that isn’t a neighborhood store and that there is a big difference between 2,500 and 5,000 sq. ft. He said he would cap retail at 3,000 sq. ft. in that area. Regarding the Rye property area, Mr. Conner said there is a question of 2 standards on opposite sides of the street. He didn’t see much retail coming there at the moment, mostly office use. Mr. Conner talked about “retail” and “retail food”. While the combining the uses makes sense, there is a difference in traffic on average. However, this difference is likely mitigated if the Commission discusses these in the context of size. A bigger grocery store generates a lot of traffic, a small one not so much. Mr. Conner also noted the Commission’s prior discussions on the need to consider larger areas for larger uses and those with high-quality employment potential, and the Comprehensive Plan’s support for this. He showed an overhead photo and identified existing retail uses. Members were OK with 15,000 sq. ft. in those areas. Mr. Gagnon suggested a 5,000 sq. ft. retail limit for IA areas north of the Sheraton and Spear Street area. Mr. Conner showed these on the map. Members agreed to leave the Airport area as it currently stands until the Chamberlin/Airport Committee finishes its work and makes recommendations. In the Village Commercial area, including the Rye Property, there is no retail proposed, so members had no issue downsizing potential retail to 3,000 sq. ft. Members agreed to add a footnote to this, allowing 3,000 sq. ft. per retail tenant with a maximum building footprint of 9,000 sq. ft. Mr. Conner then raised the question of a “wholesale establishment.” He noted the city gets asked about whether a “membership” wholesaler falls into this category. To address this, a special definition has been added for “wholesale club,” which is then defined as retail sales. Members agreed. c. Possible allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District: 5 Mr. Conner showed the draft language allowed allowing both in the VC district, based on the Commission’s prior discussions. While the Commission had specifically talked about personal instruction, he noted that the distinctions between these and small-scale indoor recreation can be very small and recommended both be allowed at a small scale. Members agreed to allow up to 3,000 sq. ft. for these uses. d. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout: Mr. Conner noted that the draft added a definition of “rear building line” and made corrections to the overlay map to eliminate the stormwater overlay, which had been removed in the text during the last set of amendments. Mr. Gagnon then moved to make the changes discussed to the Land Development Regulations as provided in the meeting packet and to set a public hearing on these amendments, as changed at this meeting, for 26 April 2016 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Report as presented. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Other Business: No other issues were raised. 6. Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:01 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk