Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/08/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 MARCH 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 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 ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; 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: Ms. Kochman asked if there has been follow-up on inventorying scenic view. Ms. Louisos said that has not yet happened. Ms. Milizia expressed concern with development that could block views. Mr. Gagnon said there should be a focus on places where it is known developments are in the works. Ms. LaRose cautioned about “targeting” those developers who have come forward to share their ideas with the Commission versus those who choose not to. Commissioners agreed. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. MacDonald: Noted an article in the Free Press regarding establishing more local control over siting of renewable energy projects. Mr. Conner said a recent decision in Bennington resulted in a project being turned down in part based the community’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner: Lindsey Britt, the new person in the Planning Department began work last Tuesday. The city budget passed as well as the ballot item for open space maintenance. There will be a meeting next week (16th) regarding a conservation easement for the Wheeler Nature Park. A consultant has been hired for this. Tim Barritt stepped down from the DRB before he was sworn in as City Councilor. 4. Review Questions to share with City Committees in advance of Spring meeting: Ms. Louisos said the meeting with committees would be the second meeting in April. Mr. Conner said it will not focus so much on what the committees did in the past but what can be accomplished in the future. Members were OK with the proposed questions. 5. Continue discussion of potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations; possible warning of public hearing on same: Ms. LaRose reported on a meeting with consultant Sharon Murray to try to figure out a better approach to a Master Planning / PUD tool. She noted there are some properties that would benefit from such a tool. The aim is also to find out what is preventing/stopping a development in City Center that everyone would be happy with. Ms. Murray will come back with a recommendation as to how to “bucket” things. Ms. LaRose noted that flexibility is harder in Vermont because the rules are so specific. She added that Ms. Murray is very well educated on planning legislation and she will be aware of whether the courts will be OK with a proposal. Mr. Riehle asked how the K-Mart property situation works. Ms. LaRose said the question is whether the Commission is comfortable with the rules that are in place. She noted that the regulations for that part of the City don’t seem to match what the Commission has in mind. With regard to other potential amendments, Mr. Conner said staff has asked outside legal counsel for input technical corrections to the TDR program to assure consistency with State Statutes. Mr. Conner noted there are some things further down the list discussed by Commissioners earlier in the year, and when there is a light meeting, staff can bring these in for consideration. The Official Map is an example of this. With regard to “food hubs/farm stores,” Mr. Conner noted a request from South Village. There is also an opportunity being presented to the City. More will be presented on this at the next meeting. Ms. LaRose said there is also a lot of movement on this at the Legislature. There could be some major changes as to what is exempt from local regulations. One big thing would be “agri‐tourism.” The draft bill allows a lower percent of what is sold needing to be produced on-site. With regard to Industrial Zoning/Business Parks, Mr. Conner said a lot of different types of development are being seen in the east end of the city. The “big picture” issues include what the city would like to see in industrial area. Mr. Conner stressed the need to be sure there is space for businesses that aren’t appropriate for City Center (e.g., businesses that have a lot of truck traffic or that need significant horizontal space. There are limited areas for this in Chittenden County. “Smaller picture” items include parking standards. There has been feedback regarding the requirement for parking to be in the rear or on the sides of buildings. Mr. Conner suggested there may be some higher priorities as “trade‐offs.” Mr. Riehle felt flexibility is good, especially for some good “trade‐offs” if there is adequate screening. Ms. Louisos noted some buildings with loading docks and equipment in the rear, and you don’t want to have people walking back there for safety reasons. Mr. Conner also cited the differences in character between uses in the same zoning district (e.g., PJ’s Auto Village and Technology Park). He suggested these eventually might be split into 2 zoning districts. Also in the “big picture” are the types of activities in the business areas, what the scale of activities should be over time. There is some interest in larger scale retail. Current zoning allows for retail but not for shopping centers or grocery stores. Mr. Riehle expressed concern with “nibbling away” at small residential neighborhoods and felt they have to be careful to protect those areas. Mr. Conner asked members to consider the potential impacts of uses. Offices, for example, have led to some demand for restaurants; “destination” retail which may lure other retail, etc. Mr. Riehle said he would be OK with things that don’t decimate a neighborhood. Ms. Louisos noted the City Council asked the Commission to look at a place(s) for a use like a wholesale club. Any use would have to be very carefully defined. Mr. Gagnon noted there are “little islands of residential” in commercial zones. He questioned whether it would be a better approach to say these are discouraged, and residential uses should be focused elsewhere. People felt it was important for those houses to remain. Ms. LaRose said that question has come up before. Mr. MacDonald noted the houses on Dorset St. that came down when Trader Joe’s was built. 6. Staff Update on Status of New Town Center and Neighborhood Development Area designations: Mr. Conner reported that the City Council approved submittal of a proposal to expand the City Center area/”New Town Center” and “neighborhood Development Area.” Any area in a New Town Center can be in a Neighborhood Development Area and a TIF district. The benefits of this are that developers of affordable housing have lower Act 250 fees and some exempted taxes. Wastewater fees are capped at $50. An application will be brought to the City Council to expand the TIF district to include UMall. This would expand the TIF district to 173.8 acres. This would not include current publicly owned roads as they don’t get any benefits from new development. 7. Other Business: No issues were raised. 8. Amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance: Mr. Conner noted the amendments would allow increased lot coverage in some districts with impervious pavement. There are also some shoreline protection amendments and changes regarding duplexes in certain districts. Mr. Gagnon said that if staff sees any good ideas in this, to bring them to the Commission. Mr. Conner noted the shoreline protection amendments are of interest. 9. 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 9:00 p.m. _________________________________ Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. A. What are the largest three projects the committee has worked on in the last year or plans to work on shortly? Please describe the goals, outcomes, and any lessons learned throughout the process. B. Are you familiar with the role of the Planning Commission? Have you read or participated in the drafting of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan? If so, can you highlight some of the goals, objectives, or strategies that interest you most? C. Have you thought about, discussed, or planned for any changes in policy or regulation that you believe would help your mission or goals? D. If asked by the Planning Commission to assist and/or advise on some projects identified as priorities, would you be willing to do so?