Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/28/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 JUNE 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 June 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. Jemas, City Intern; S. Murray, consultant; S. Dopp, D. Leban, 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: Mr. Riehle: Attended the annual CCRPC meeting. Mr. Klugo: He and Mr. Macdonald attended the South Burlington Business Association meeting. Items raised included K-Mart Plaza (and the fact that it is now an eyesore), City Center and the proposed UVM Arena. Mr. Conner noted that the city has been in touch with the owners of K-Mart Plaza, requesting them to maintain the property. Mr. Conner also explained how the TIF district can be expanded to potentially include the new UVM Arena. Mr. Conner: The City Council completed interviews for positions on city boards, committees and commissions and will make appointments at either their 11 July or 18 July Council meeting. The City has a newly appointed Public Information Officer. Her first challenge will be to upgrade the city’s website. She will then help all departments to do more effective community outreach. This is especially important with TIF votes coming up. City Attorney Jim Barlow has stepped down. In the short run, Stitzel, Page and Fletcher will be serving in that role. The City participated in a press conference yesterday setting a County-wide goal of 3500 new housing units in the next 5 years (about 700/year). The aim is improving affordability at all levels. Mr. Klugo asked if there is advocacy to help move developments along, especially with Act 250. Mr. Conner said there is advocacy at all levels, including for streamlined regulations where communities make investments, also encouragement for non-profit partners to attend DRB meetings to advocate for good projects. 4. Summer Project Updates: Scenic Views and Street Types: Mr. Jemas reviewed the goals of the Scenic View project which include revising the scenic views inventory and laying out a plan to preserve those views. He then outlines methods by which the city can reach out to the community to understand what views people most value. Techniques for doing this include the Green Up Day survey, GIS maps, “sights map” and the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Jemas noted that the GIS views map of 2014 does not take into account any trees that may have grown up or new buildings that may have gone up and are now blocking views. The community survey done on Green Up Day indicated that of the 50-60 people who responded, the largest majority ranked the view west from Nowland Farm Road as their #1 favorite view. Mr. Jemas then showed a “Picasa SightsMap” which shows where photographs are taken and uploaded. Leading areas for photography on this map are Wheeler Nature Park, the Airport, and the Whale’s Tail. Questions for the Commission to consider include whether any important views are missing, any “blind spots” and other technology that might find views worth protecting. The next step will be to compile all the views into one map and to conduct outreach to see if any views are missing. Volunteer work can include evaluating every one mile segment and revisiting higher ranking locations that are potentially scenic and recording them. Mr. Jemas cited the importance of site visits. Ms. Milizia expressed concern with just using views from roads. She noted there are park views and views from 200 feet in from roads. Mr. Gagnon suggested developing the initial map, asking for public input, and then providing that information to the Natural Resources Committee and asking if they have any additions. With regard to street standards, Mr. Jemas said the goal of this work is to simplify street standards which appear throughout the LDRs. He will be using the most recent street typologies (i.e., public, private, alleyways, etc.) and will use a minimum right-of-way width as the standard for categorization. Mr. Conner said staff would like to provide a “pallet” of options for city streets based on what is appropriate for a particular area. Mr. Gagnon cited the need to think about future expansion and future use (e.g., bike path or sidewalk). He felt the right-of-way should be wide enough to accommodate that. Mr. Klugo said he had observed that the sidewalks that are the most used are the ones with a green buffer from the road. Mr. Jemas outlined questions and challenges including: a. Whether to trend toward new standards b. Working with Public Works to review standards c. Checking with the Bike Ped Committee to see what they think about efforts to consolidate the standards Commissioners agreed that all of these were good avenues to pursue. Mr. Conner said the ultimate goal is to get rid of the 3 separate sets of street standards and have just one. 5. Planned Unit Developments – project update, draft Phase 1 report, next steps: Ms. Murray said they are putting together the report to meet the grant deadline. They hope to have it out by tomorrow. Commission members will have it in advance of the next meeting. The report will be divided into 5 sections: a. Introduction b. Evaluation of level of flexibility under current regulations c. PUD as a design tool d. PUD typologies with graphic illustrations e. Recommendations Ms. Murray then distributed the list of recommendations. These are divided into the following sections: a. Discretionary Review (what the DRB can and cannot do under the regulations b. Regulatory Relief (variances, waivers) c. PUD Design-based Regulatory Flexibility d. City Center Form Based Code (FBC) District: Regulatory Flexibility under FBC e. Master Plans With regard to regulatory relief, the report recommends consolidating and updating PUD waiver provisions (building heights, setbacks, etc.) and considering a waiver provision separate from PUD review to be applied in association with DRB review. PUD Design-based Regulatory Flexibility includes redefining and establishing PUDs under the LDRS as a tool to promote integrated, innovative design. It also recommends consolidating PUD requirements under a new article to establish the framework for more comprehensive PUD by- laws under the LDRs to clarify use of PUDs as a design tool. For each type of PUD selected, there should be a clear purpose statement and related design and development standards including connectivity with existing planned development. Master Plans should be required for all types of PUDs, especially for phased development. There should be a schedule of PUD design options to meet required design standards. In the City Center FBC District, additional guidance should be developed summarizing adjustments, waivers, etc. Master Plans should be required for major subdivisions within transect zones that conform to the transect zone requirements (limited modifications could be allowed). PUD‐related “community types (e.g. traditional neighborhood) should be considered to accommodate infill and redevelopment. Master Plans can be as detailed as the Commission wants them to be. The purpose and application of Master Plans should be clarified in the LDRs. There should be strong provisions within Master Plans for addressing connectivity requirements. Consideration should be given to requiring the submission of a Master Plan Guide that defines critical design considerations peculiar to the site. Requirements for a phased review process should be clarified. Vested rights associated with Master Plan approval should be reviewed and clarified, particularly for phased development. Agreements with regard to cost sharing arrangements should be reviewed and clarified to insure that any public dedications are preserved. Ms. LaRose cited the issue of guaranteeing a developer a Master Plan but then having regulations change. She questioned what should be protected and for how long. Ms. Murray said that amending a Master Plan should be addressed (e.g., when transit service becomes available or the market changes). Some of this can be covered in a Master Plan book. Mr. Klugo asked about housing types that don’t exist or that haven’t been thought of today. Ms. LaRose said that what has been problematic is that with large PUDs plans get changed or when they are built, part of the development gets sold off and new owners want to change things. She cited the need to be sure that what come in as a unit can continue to be managed by the city as a unit. Mr. Klugo said deed restrictions can be part of an approval. He said he was OK with change as long as it is consistent with community objectives. Mr. Conner cited the Farrell Street development which began as almost all commercial and is not 90% residential. He also cited parking issues resulting from this change. Next steps in the process include: a. Working on a financing plan to continue the work b. Discussing whether these are good options for the city c. Beginning to draft regulations d. Phase 2: honing down regulations for the Traditional Neighborhood District e. Using that as a model for other districts f. Looking at how this applies to City Center/FBC Mr. Conner suggested the second meeting in July or the first meeting in August to review the draft report. Mr. Klugo cited the need to “raise the bar” on development in the community. People are now just trying to get things done. Ms. LaRose said staff is trying to get specific requests, not just “be more flexible.” 6. Other Business: No issues were raised. 7. Minutes of 14 June 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 14 June as written. 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 9:22 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: Jake Jemas, Planning & Zoning Intern DATE: 6/23/2016 SUBJECT: June Meeting topics I am pursuing a summer internship in the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department under Paul Conner. I will be attending the Planning and Zoning meeting next week and presenting on some of the projects I have been working on. I wanted to touch on a few of the subjects before we all meet. During my time working here I have mainly been focused on two major assignments. A project focusing on protecting Scenic Views and refining and consolidating Street Standards in the Land Development Regulations handbook. Scenic Views • I am setting out to refine our scenic resource inventory and lay out a plan of action to preserve scenic resources. • I will be utilizing a broad array of valuation methodologies to conduct preliminary research including contingent surveying (green up day poll), Picasa, Contracted maps deigning visibility of sights, and site visits. Street Standards • Currently South Burlington’s street standards are spread throughout our LDR’s leading to inefficiency and redundancy • I am looking to put the 17 street typologies into sub-categories of Arterial, Collector, and Local Roads. Thank you for your time and I look forward to meeting all of you on June 28th. Meeting Memo To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design Date: June 23, 2016 Re: Meeting Info: PUD Project Status Report, Phase II _______________________________________________ Hi everyone – My most sincere (and earnest) apologies for not getting a draft report out to you in advance of our meeting on Tuesday as planned. Due to some unforeseen delays on my end (involving a spouse with a broken foot) it’s still in the works. We’re committed to getting a preliminary draft in by your grant deadline next week, for your review at an upcoming meeting – prior to finishing up the final report. I’ll provide a project update on Tuesday, including some preliminary recommendations – and hope to also discuss next steps. We’re currently also preparing an estimate for Phase II work, for Paul and Cathyann to incorporate in their upcoming work budget, which we can discuss in more detail on Tuesday. Look forward to seeing you then! Best, Sharon SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 JUNE 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 June 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Kochman, 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: Ms. Louisos: Last week, the City Council held a public hearing on amendments to the LDRs. There was only one public comment. The Council passed the amendments unanimously. Mr. Riehle: Attended the City Council meeting at the theater on San Remo Drive where a presentation was made about the possibility of a theater in City Center. Mr. Conner noted the theater people had met with staff prior to the Council meeting regarding the role of arts in the community. In addition to presentations, they do programming for children and workshops regarding various aspects of the arts. Ms. Kochman noted that Library concerts are packed, and this would add another dimension to City Center. Ms. Quest: Attended one day of the UVM food summit. Mr. Conner: Several types of training have been held in past weeks including airport re-use plans (presented by a Virginia community), incident command systems related to emergency situations (e.g., storms, floods, etc.), and Form Based Code training to 45 landowners, developers, engineers, architects, etc.. The Planning Dept. has a summer intern, Jake, from Green Mountain College. He is doing some work on scenic views, road standards, and parking standards. A contract is being finalized with Donna Leban for lighting standards. Another contract is being finalized with Landworks to do park signage (way-finding). Ms. Harrington: Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting with Ms. Quest and Ms. Louisos. 2 4. Chamberlin Committee Update: Ms. Harrington reported on presentations made at Thursday’s public meeting for the Chamberlin/Airport Neighborhood. Presentations focused on possible neighborhood improvements, short term (bike lanes, neighborhood welcome signs, etc.), middle term (a protected crossing where the rec path comes out at Williston Road, White Street sidewalk, lighting, etc.) and long-term (reconstruction of Airport Drive, a multi-use trail system). One thing that may come to the Planning Commission is a possible zoning change to allow for front porches in the neighborhood. Mr. Macdonald asked what is projected for the land where houses have come down. Ms. Harrington said this land is still zoned R-4 but is not eligible for residential use. The Airport is working on ideas in their re-use plan. Mr. Conner said some options are open space and a reconstructed roadway. The Airport had thought of a 4-lane road, but the City has said 2 lanes would be enough. There is also a question of future land acquisition by the Airport. Ms. Harrington noted there will be a CNAPC meeting this Thursday evening. She added that the “noise sub-committee” is recommending a standing committee to continue to discuss neighborhood issues. Mr. Conner said there could be 2 committees, a noise-related committee for South Burlington only, and a committee to address broader noise issues which would be comprised of members from various municipalities. Mr. Conner said there will probably be a vote on that report at the Thursday meeting. Mr. Conner also noted there is a possibility of a request to limit the height of fences in the front yard to 4 feet rather than the current 8. 5. Preview of Next Round of Amendments: Mr. Conner possible amendments that will be brought to the Commission for consideration, including: a. PUDs b. Scenic views c. Agricultural things d. Updating rights of way for city streets, including bike lanes, street trees, etc. e. Basic form standards for high intensity uses not in the Form Based Code areas (e.g., Shelburne Road). Mr. Conner suggested the 50-foot setback could be replaced with something closer to the road. He also suggested basic window standards, and a door facing the street. Mr. MacDonald mentioned K-Mart Plaza which needs attention. f. Southeast Quadrant Residential North District on the Wheeler property (the 6 acres being transferred) regarding possibly allowing more density for providing affordable housing. Mr. Conner noted this is the only district in the city which does not specifically allow a density bonus for affordable housing. 3 g. Addressing first floor windows in the T-4 area of City Center and whether there can be something with a more residential look…possibly different standards on different streets h. Housekeeping items including a description of each zoning district, combining three sets of street standards, Underwood property zoning change to Park District, possible accessory buildings in the Form Based Code district 6. Brief Update on Scenic View Analysis and Standards: Mr. Conner said they have moved forward on two fronts: a. The summer intern is looking at ways to do outreach on views that aren’t top priority. There will be a presentation at the next meeting. b. Staff has been communicating with a firm that has expertise in this field for a proposal to do a formal analysis for one or two locations of the city’s choice and develop new standards for that. Mr. Conner noted that staff has worked with the Hill Farm people who are aware that this work is going on. 7. Other Business: a. Calendar update: Next scheduled meeting dates are: 6/28, 7/12, 7/26, 8/9 (state primary day), 8/23. Members noted dates they would not be able to attend. Mr. Conner said he would send out an email to members regarding dates. b. Essex Junction Village Code Amendments: Mr. Conner noted that updates include definitions for agricultural PUDs. 8. Minutes of 24 May 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 24 May as written. 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 8:15 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk