Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/29/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 29 MARCH 2016 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.). 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 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. 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. 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: 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. 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: March 29th Planning Commission meeting Please find attached the Planning Commission agenda for the March 29th meeting. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 4. Discuss possible Agriculture-Enterprise use along Hinesburg Road, Joe Larkin (7:20 pm) Joe Larkin will be coming in to the discuss with the Commission a possible new use along the lines of agriculture-enterprise. No action required at this meeting. 5. Continue discussion of potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations; possible warning of public hearing on same (8:00 pm) Continuation of discussion of possible amendments to the LDRs based on priority items identified in late 2015 to early 2016. 6. Other business (8:30 pm) a. Draft Shelburne Zoning Regulations amendments See attached. 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) See attached cover letter. The full application is also available to anyone who wishes to review it. The Commission has previously seen the pre-application notice for this project and had no comments. c. Upcoming meeting schedule April 12th: presentation of recreation path scoping study draft findings; joint meeting with Development Review Board; discussion of tools for creativity / Master Planning / etc. 2 April 26th: discussion with Natural Resources, Energy, Rec-Leisure Arts, and Bike- Ped Committees 7. Minutes (8:35 pm) –March 8 8. Adjourn (8:40 pm) Town of Shelburne, Vermont CHARTERED 1763 P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482 Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number (802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550 INVITATION TO COMMENT ON ZONING AMENDMENTS TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING RE: ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT DA: MARCH 14, 2016 On Thursday, April 14, 2016, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment of Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw. The extent of the proposed changes is detailed in the attached memorandum. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter, and take place in the Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. It is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments should be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FR: DEAN PIERCE RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL REGARDING PET CARE FACILITIES DA: MARCH 14, 2016 At its March 10 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed possible bylaw modifications regarding Pet Care Facilities, also known as “Doggie Daycares,” and agreed to warn a public hearing on changes that would add “Pet Care Facilities with space for not more than 100 animals” to the list of Conditional uses allowed in two zoning districts: 1) the Commerce and Industry District and 2) the Commerce and Industry South District. This memorandum was prepared as transmit the proposed changes along with the associated “bylaw change report” that is required by statute. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is presented in the two documents attached. The first document is a proposed revision of Article XI, while the second is a proposed revision of Article XII. Language to be added to the bylaw is shown in color with underscore. ZONING BYLAW CHANGE REPORT A proposed “Zoning Change Report” was prepared by staff for the Commission’s consideration and approved for distribution. This report was prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal.” Statute also indicates the report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under §4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing; 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan; 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. This report may of course be modified before it is approved for distribution by the Commission. SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XI (COMM) Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] ARTICLE XI: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DISTRICT 1100 Purpose. The purpose of the Commerce and Industry District is to implement the goals and objectives of the Economic Development section of the Town Plan and to help meet the Town's and region's economic needs. 1110 Permitted Uses. 1110.1 Business or Professional Offices. 1110.2 Research and Testing Laboratories. 1110.3 Upholstery/Fabric Working. 1110.4 Enclosed light manufacturing. 1110.5 Public and private schools certified by the Vermont Department of Education and other educational institutions certified by the Vermont Department of Education. 1110.6 Outdoor Recreation facilities with no structures. 1110.7 Indoor recreation facilities including but not limited to bowling alleys, gymnasium, dance studios, indoor racquet sport facilities, etc. 1110.8 Accessory uses, including retail and other services accessory to a principal on-site manufacturing operation or other permitted use, where the service is clearly subsidiary to the principal permitted use. 1110.9 Multiple uses where all proposed uses are permitted uses. 1120 Conditional Uses. 1120.1 Artist’s studios. 1120.2 Wholesale Sales (enclosed). 1120.3 Vehicle Sales and Repair facilities. 1120.4 Building Materials Sales with all indoor storage. 1120.5 Lumber yards. 1120.6 Construction Services facilities. Page XI- 1 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XI (COMM) Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] 1120.7 Dry cleaning establishments where the actual cleaning is done on site. 1120.8 Auto/machinery repair facilities. 1120.9 Warehouses where all storage is enclosed. 1120.10 Churches and other places of worship. 1120.11 Day care centers with a maximum of 75 children. 1120.111120.12 Pet Care Facilities with space for not more than 100 animals. 1120.121120.13 Outdoor recreation facilities with minor structures. 1120.131120.14 Multiple uses when one or more of the uses are a conditional use. 1120.141120.15 Accessory uses, including retail and other services accessory to the principal on-site conditional use, where the service is clearly subsidiary to the principal conditional use. 1120.151120.16 Any use substantially, materially, and outwardly similar to those set forth above in Sections 1110 and 1120, provided that the Development Review Board finds that, in addition to other specific and general standards set forth in these regulations, the proposed use meets the following specific standards. A. Such use is of the same functional and physical character as those permitted or allowed as conditional uses in the district. To establish whether such use has the “same functional and physical character” as a permitted or conditional use in the district, an applicant must demonstrate to the DRB that the contemplated use shares the following features with a use specified in Section 1110.1-1110.8 or 1120.1-1120.12 above: 1. Inherent character of primary activity or activities, 2. Typical predominant sound levels and qualities, 3. Typical exterior activity levels, 4. Typical exterior lighting requirements, 5. Typical predominant odor, if any, 6. Typical vehicular traffic, 7. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of sound, lighting, smells, and exterior activity levels. Page XI- 2 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XI (COMM) Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] B. Such use will not be detrimental to adjoining land uses as measured by compliance with the performance standards contained in Article XIX. 1130 Dimensional Requirements. 1130.1 Minimum Lot size. A. Lot area minimum - 2 acres. B. Lot frontage minimum - 150 feet. 1130.2 Setback requirements. A. Minimum Front yard setback - 60 feet. B. Minimum Side and rear yard setback - 50 feet, or, when a parcel is adjacent to property or properties designated as residential under zoning bylaws in effect prior to August 12, 2008, applicable yard requirement shall be 150 feet. 1130.3 Coverage requirements. A. Building coverage maximum - 25 percent. B. Lot coverage maximum - 50 percent. 1130.4 Height restrictions. 35 feet for all structures except churches. 1140 Special Requirements. 1140.1 All uses in the Commerce and Industry District must be serviced by municipal water and sewer. 1150 Planned Unit Development - Commercial. Planned Unit Developments—Commercial may be permitted in the Commerce and Industry District upon approval of the Development Review Board, in accordance with Section 1930.5 of these Regulations. 1160 Site plan approval. Site plan approval by the Development Review Board is required for all uses, including any multiple use of a property in accordance with applicable portions of Section 1900 of these Regulations. Page XI- 3 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XI (COMM) Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] Page XI- 4 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XII Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] ARTICLE XII: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY SOUTH DISTRICT 1200 Purpose. The purpose of the Commerce and Industry South District is to implement the goals and objectives of the Economic Development section of the Town Plan, and to protect and preserve scenic views from adjacent lands, Route 7, and other public vantage points. 1210 Permitted Uses. 1210.1 Motels existing on March 17, 2009. 1210.2 Single family dwellings in existence prior to January 1, 1994. 1210.3 Business or Professional Offices. 1210.4 Research and Testing laboratories. 1210.5 Upholstery / fabric working. 1210.6 Public and private schools certified by the Vermont Department of Education and other educational institutions certified by the Vermont Department of Education. 1210.7 Licensed day care homes with 6 or fewer children. 1210.8 Registered family day care homes. 1210.9 Farming, dairying, orchards, nurseries, woodlots and forestry, truck gardening, livestock and poultry raising but specifically not including commercial slaughter of animals or poultry. 1210.10 Outdoor recreation with no structures. 1210.11 Indoor recreation facilities including but nor limited to bowling alley, gymnasium, dance studio, indoor racquet sport facilities, etc. 1210.12 Accessory uses, including retail and other services (e.g., food services) accessory to a principal permitted use, where the service is clearly subsidiary to the principal permitted use or, in the case of PUDs, is clearly subsidiary to all other uses in the PUD. 1210.13 Multiple uses where all proposed uses are permitted uses. Page XII- 1 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XII Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] 1220 Conditional Uses. 1220.1 Artist’s studios. 1220.2 Wholesale Sales (enclosed within a building). 1220.3 Building Materials Sales with all indoor storage. 1220.4 Construction services facilities. 1220.5 Enclosed light manufacturing. 1220.6 Auto and machinery repair. 1220.7 Warehouses where all storage is enclosed within a building. 1220.8 Roadside stands for the seasonal sale of farm products. 1220.9 Churches and other places of worship. 1220.10 Licensed day care homes with more than 6 children. 1220.11 Day Care Centers with a maximum of 75 children. 1220.111220.12 Pet Care Facilities with space for not more than 100 animals. 1220.121220.13 Outdoor recreation facilities with minor structures. 1220.131220.14 Accessory uses, including retail and other services accessory to a principal on-site manufacturing operation or other conditional use, where the service is clearly subsidiary to the principal conditional use or, in the case of PUDs, is clearly subsidiary to all other uses in the PUD. 1220.141220.15 Multiple uses when one or more of the uses is a conditional use. 1220.151220.16 Any use substantially, materially, and outwardly similar to those set forth above in Sections 1[2]10 and 1[2]20, provided that the Development Review Board finds that, in addition to other specific and general standards set forth in these regulations, the proposed use meets the following specific standards. Page XII- 2 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XII Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] A. Such use is of the same functional and physical character as those permitted or allowed as conditional uses in the district. To establish whether such use has the “same functional and physical character” as a permitted or conditional use in the district, an applicant must demonstrate to the DRB that the contemplated use shares the following features with a use specified in Section 1210.1-1110.12 or 1220.1-1120.13 above: 1. Inherent character of primary activity or activities, 2. Typical predominant sound levels and qualities, 3. Typical exterior activity levels, 4. Typical exterior lighting requirements, 5. Typical predominant odor, if any, 6. Typical vehicular traffic, 7. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of sound, lighting, smells, and exterior activity levels. B. Such use will not be detrimental to adjoining land uses as measured by compliance with the performance standards contained in Article XIX. 1220.16 Restaurant, in structure the entirety of which is located within 200 feet of the edge of the US Route 7 Right of Way and where food and drink are prepared to order, made available for consumption upon short waiting time, and consumed primarily within a principal building existing as of December 18, 2013, and having seating for no more than 60 patrons. 1230 Expansion of Structures within the setback from Route 7. 1230.1 Any structure located within the 100 foot setback from Route 7, in existence on August 2, 1995, and thereafter, may be expanded or altered if such expansion or alteration satisfies the following additional standards: A. The alteration or expansion does not extend any closer to Route 7 than the existing structure ; and B. The Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission shall review the proposed alteration or expansion as to visual impact and impact on the pastoral nature of the area and shall submit its comments and recommendations on the proposed alteration to the Development Review Board prior to the Board’s public hearing for Site Plan Review of the proposed alteration. Page XII- 3 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XII Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] 1230.2 Any structure located within the 100 foot setback from Route 7, in existence on August 2, 1995, and thereafter may be used for any use allowed under sections 1210 and 1220 of these Regulations, provided that any change in use from the use in existence shall obtain Conditional Use Approval from the Development Review Board in accordance with Section 1910 of these regulations. The Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission shall consider the proposed use change and shall submit comments and recommendations to the Development Review Board prior to the Board’s public hearing for Conditional Use Approval of the proposed use change. 1240 Dimensional Requirements. 1230.1 Minimum Lot size. A. Lot area minimum - - Hotels 3,500 square feet per room, or 2 acres, whichever is greater - All other uses 2 acres B. Lot Frontage minimum - 150 feet C. Lot width minimum - 150 feet 1230.2 Setback Requirements. A. Minimum Front yard setback - 60 feet. When lot fronts on Route 7, minimum is 100 feet B. Minimum side and rear yard setback - 50 feet. When parcel backs up adjacent to residential properties, rear yard shall be 150 feet. 1230.3 Coverage Requirements. A. Building coverage maximum - 25 percent B. Lot coverage maximum - 50 percent 1230.4 Height Restrictions. 35 feet 1250 Special requirements. All uses must be served by municipal water and sewer. 1260 Planned Unit Development—Commercial. Planned Unit Developments—Commercial may be permitted in the Commerce and Page XII- 4 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XII Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] Industry South District upon the approval of the Development Review Board in accordance with section 1930.5 of these Bylaws. 1270 Site Plan Approval. Site plan approval by the Development Review Board is required for all uses in accordance with applicable portions of Section 1900 of these bylaws except single family dwellings, including accessory uses to such residences, and for agricultural uses. Page XII- 5 SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE XII Effective August 19, 2015 [proposed amendment] Page XII- 6 Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments (adding Pet Care Facility use to two zoning districts) Approved by Planning Commission March 10, 2015 This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide (:) (A) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under §4444 of this title, (A)nd shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment. The Planning Commission proposal would modify the regulations by: • Add “Pet Care Facilities” use and maximum size to the list of Conditional uses in the Commerce and Industry District; and • Add “Pet Care Facilities” use and maximum size to the list of Conditional uses in the Commerce and Industry South District. Purpose The Planning Commission has developed the proposal in response to request from a local commercial realtor and business owner. These individuals presented the Commission with evidence and testimony suggesting that current allowances for the use (in the Mixed Use district) are too limiting to be economically viable. The proposal addresses these concerns in a manner the Commission believes is effective and efficient and serves the needs of the community. The proposal also responds to Comprehensive Plan policies that promote economic development and business. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 2 Municipal Bylaw Amendments regarding adding Pet Care Facility use to two zoning districts, March 2016 Findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. To be “in conformance with” the Plan, the bylaw must: make progress toward attaining, or at least not interfere with, the goals and policies contained in the Plan; provide for proposed future land uses, densities, and intensities of development contained in the Plan; and carry out any specific proposals for community facilities, or other proposed actions contained in the Plan. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: GOAL: TO ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED GROWTH AND DIVERSIFICATION OF SHELBURNE’S ECONOMY IN A MANNER THAT ENHANCES THE GENERAL WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WHICH DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. OBJECTIVES: 2. Actively encourage development of a variety of small scale commercial uses in the Village to reinforce this area as a mixed use center of the Town, as described in the Land Use Section of this Plan. 4. Actively encourage forms of economic development that complement and are compatible with existing institutions and businesses. GOAL: TO CREATE AN AREA SURROUNDING THE VILLAGE THAT CONTAINS PLEASANT, MODEST DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF SUB-REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES. OBJECTIVES: 5. Direct most of the Town’s anticipated residential growth to Growth Area 2. Ensure that zoning regulations for this area are consistent with accommodating that growth. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Zoning: Revise the Zoning to periodically re-examine uses, dimensional requirements, and access requirements for the Residential, Commercial/Industrial and Mixed Use areas. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 3 Municipal Bylaw Amendments regarding adding Pet Care Facility use to two zoning districts, March 2016 Planning Commissioners believe that the proposal would: • By proposing new allowable uses in two districts, reflect the Plan’s charge that the Commission “periodically re-examine uses, dimensional requirements, and access requirements for the Residential, Commercial/Industrial and Mixed Use areas”; • By increasing the list of allowable commercial uses in the selected areas, advance the Plan’s objective to “Actively encourage forms of economic development that complement and are compatible with existing institutions and businesses”; and • Respond to Plan Goals encouraging diversification of the Town’s economy and appropriate levels of sub-regional commercial activity by expanding opportunities for a commercial use that to date has had limited viability under the Shelburne’s land use regulations. Commissioners also recognize the potential for the proposal to promote other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. For example, by applying Conditional Use review to applications for the use, the Planning Commission believes that the proposal supports Plan Policies relating to protecting neighborhoods, supporting housing, and reinforcing desirable land use patterns. Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan The development densities authorized by the Zoning bylaws are not affected by the proposal. In the view of the Planning Commission, the overall pattern of development would not change as a result of the proposal and would in fact be reinforced. The districting scheme embodied in the Zoning bylaw map would continue to reflect the boundaries of the Composite Future Land Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan (Map 5) as it does currently. Thus, the Planning Commission finds that the zoning amendment proposal that is the subject of this report would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings regarding how the proposal carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment does not directly carry out specific proposals for any planned community facilities. In addition, the proposed amendment does not conflict with any specific proposals for planned community facilities. [end] JoSLYN L. Wlrscnur ADMITTED IN VT, NH ¡.NP CO j w il s chek@ p rù nt ne r. co rn 'rwz$02122}21:02 FAJ<: (802)223-26U1 PRIMN4ER PIPER EGGLESTON & CRAMER PC 100 EASr SrArE SrnuEr I P.O. Box 1309 | Monrnrurn, VT 05601-1309 March 23,2016 Hand Delivered Ms. Judith Whitney, Clerk Vermont Public Service Board 1 12 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 Re: Petition of the City of South Burlington for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. $ 24SC) authorizing the installation and operation of a 1.55 MW solar group net-metered electric generation facility on the closed landfill in South Burlington, Vermont Dear Ms. Whitney Enclosed for filing are an original and six copies of a petition and prefiled testimony and exhibits of Derek Moretz, Brian Beaudoin and Krista Reinhart, on behalf of the City of South Burlington ("City") for a Certificate of Public Good ("CPG") pursuant to 30 V.S.A. $ 219a(m)(2), $ 248Ú), Board Order Section 8007(b), Board Rule 5.400, and Board Rule 5.100 authorizing the City to construct and operate a 1.55 MW solar group net-metered electric generation facility on the closed landfill in South Burlington, Vermont. We have enclosed a CD-ROM containing word- searchable copies of the petition and testimony, as well as pdfs of all exhibit files. The CD- ROM will be provided to the Board, the Department of Public Service and the Agency of Natural Resources only. It is available on request to other parties. The Petition, prefiled testimony, exhibits, and proposed findings and order, demonstrate that this Project is appropriate for treatment under 30 V.S.A. $ 248Û) for the following reasons: The proposed changes do not impact the criteria under Section 2a8þ); The Project will be of limited size and scope; and The public interest is satisfied by the procedures authorized by $ 2a8Ú) 30 V.S.A. g2l9a(m)(2) allows the City to file this Petition under the Section 8007(b) Order where the Board has conditionally waived the following criteria for this Project: 30 V.S.A. $ 24S(bX2) (need for present and tuture demand), 10 V.S.A. $ 6086(aXl)(c) (water conservation), 10 V.S.A. $ 60S6(a)(2)-(3) (suffrciency of water and burden on existing water supply), 10 V.S.A. g 60S6(aX6) (educational services), and 30 V.S.A. $ 248(bX7) (compliance with electric energy plan), and 30 V.S.A. $ 248(bX6) least-cost integrated resource plan. The Project would be located on closed landfill and thus would have no adverse impacts on any of the environmental or aesthetic criteria. Given the minor impacts on the relevant criteria for this Project, a petition under Section 248(f) is appropriate. 2336625.1 2 If however, the Board finds that processing under $ 248C) is not appropriate and that it is more appropriate to process the petition under $ 248, the City has satisfied the required notice and filing requirements under Public Service Board Rule 5.400, including serving notice of the filing on adjoining landowners under Board Rule 5.402(BX3). The filing should be complete and the City requests that the Board schedule a prehearing conference and set a schedule to review the petition. As authorized by 30 V.S.A. $ 248(i), if the Board finds that the petition raises a significant issue with respect to any of the substantive criteria, the City requests that the Board hold a hearing only on that issue. Also enclosed is a copy of the Certihcate of Public Good Application Fee Form, which is also being mailed to the Agency of Natural Resources with the applicable filing fee. Thank you for your attention to this matter. As always, please contact me should you have any questions. Yours truly, J cc Attached Service List 2336625.1 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 MARCH 2016 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. ___________________________________ Clerk