Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 10/25/2016
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 OCTOBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 October 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Cummings, Energy Committee; M. Cuke, B. Milizia, Natural Resources Committee; T. Barritt; S. Dopp, additional residents 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: He and his wife went door to door in support of the ballot item. He noted that a former City Councilor Paul Engels has been putting up signs opposing the ballot item. Also questioned the new security measures at City Hall. Anyone not a daily member of City Hall is treated as a “guest.” He noted that even with these measures, the City Council and other committee meetings are not “secure.” Mr. Conner said there is an attempt to balance “openness” and “security.” Mr. Conner: There will be a press conference Thursday at 2 p.m. regarding the TIF vote. Last week, there was a great press conference at the city Landfill following the Public Service Board’s approval of the solar array to be placed on top of the Landfill. It will save the city considerable over the coming years. There was no city outlay for this. Staff has met with a class at St. Michael’s College taught by Vince Bolduc. They will be doing an Election Day survey. Andrew Bolduc has been hired as the new City Attorney. He begins on 7 November. He grew up in South Burlington 4. Continued Discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Mr. Conner reviewed the three potential paths for the Planning Commission to go down in discussion this issue. To start, he suggested the Commission address the question of whether and how any zoning change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner showed the area in question on the Future Land Use Map and noted that the property lines up pretty closely with the zoning district. The question then arises as to whether Citizen Cider’s use falls in the “agriculture spectrum.” Mr. Conner presented a chart of that spectrum ranging from farmland that would sell products raised off‐site to the “burger nights” use to a vineyard with “tasting” events, to a Jasper Hill type of use, to the Ben & Jerry’s establishment in Waterbury. Members felt the Cider use would fall between Jasper Hill and Ben & Jerry’s or between the vineyard and Ben & Jerry’s. #1 – the Van Sicklen Node: This would involve preparing a Master Plan for the area. If that plan were to change where development could occur, that could require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. There would have to be changes to the LDRs. Mr. Conner estimated the process under this scenario would take 12-18 months to do. The “pros” of this approach would be that it is comprehensive and addresses multiple issues. The “cons” are that it would take longer and cost more. #2 – Agriculture Enterprise Use: This would involve specifically developing an Ag-Enterprise Use. This could involve a change in the Future Land Use Map and possibly changes to the Comprehensive plan depending on where and how such a use would be allowed. It could take 4-10 months and involve zoning elements and a possible tie into the PUD project. The “pros” of this approach are that it is faster and more focused. The “con” is that it is a narrower approach. #3 – Agriculture “soup to nuts”: Would involve examining all forms of value-added agriculture and where they fit into the City. It would take 10-12 months. The “pros” of this approach are that it is a 360‐degree approach and it slots agriculture more purposefully than path 2. The “cons” are that it takes longer and is a big project. Mr. Conner suggested that the Commission could move districts around and could allow something like this use in a Village Residential area. Mr. Gagnon liked the idea of a PUD which can apply to different areas. The Commission could set certain criteria that it wanted to see. The use could then go wherever it fits. Mr. Gagnon asked what criteria were used to define the Natural Resource Protection areas. He felt that some areas make a lot of sense, but the piece in question is totally surrounded by developable areas. Mr. Conner said that when the visioning took place, they looked at wildlife areas (he showed a map of this) and viable on-going agriculture options. “Planned open space” was then brought in followed by placing residential areas where it was felt they made sense. Mr. Gagnon said if it is an area the community agreed should be set aside, that is a high priority. If it is an area for agriculture, perhaps agriculture plus a little industry (in a PUD) could be a good choice. Mr. Klugo noted that the Citizen Cider people said they have a 7-month time-frame, and only option #2 fits that timeline. He felt a public process should happen sooner rather than later and thought that could involve additional meetings until the work is done. Mr. Gagnon supported additional meetings. He liked the PUD idea and wanted it to be adaptable to other places in the city. Mr. Macdonald agreed. Mr. Riehle felt the Commission could get other requests and have to go through this process again. Mr. Klugo noted that traditionally planning happens when someone comes up with an idea. He felt the Commission can take what it likes from a project and include those aspects in other projects. Ms. Louisos asked whether there can be a zoning category with design criteria. Mr. Conner said there can. An audience member asked the Commission to consider what happens if something is replicated a number of times. Mr. Barritt questioned the possibility of people “hiding” behind agriculture use to avoid taxes. He noted the city does want to increase the tax base. He also questioned a marijuana growing use possibility. Mr. Klugo said he would be more comfortable with options #1 and #3 because they have a broader look. But he noted the issue of time frame. Mr. Conner noted that a timeframe reflects how broadly the Commission is looking at an issue. Ms. Louisos didn’t feel it would be too difficult to define each type of agricultural enterprise. Mr. Conner said that could depend on how you start out. Ms. Louisos noted they did talk to Paul Dreher about this, but nothing ever became of that discussion. Mr. Hair asked how the Commission would look at the impact on the three surrounding residential communities. He was concerned with traffic, home values, pesticide use, etc. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission does look at those things. She also noted that as the zoning now stands, a lot of houses could be built on that property and could have the same impact on traffic, pesticide use, etc. Mr. Klugo said there could be less control of traffic as well with a residential use. Mr. Barritt asked if there are areas where this use could now be allowed. Mr. Conner said there are. Ms. Louisos added that Citizen has said they have a vision of being in a more agricultural area where they can expand the trees, etc. Mr. Conner asked which path members felt they want to go down. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald favored an agricultural PUD. Mr. Klugo favored option #1 but said he would support #2 if that was the choice. Mr. Riehle leaned toward Master Planning. Mr. Klugo said PUDs only work when you have a Master Plan of what a “node” is going to be. He feared they would end up with a bunch of pieces that don’t go together. Mr. Gagnon said he was not hung up on the words PUD; he wanted to come up with criteria that are transferable. Ms. Louisos asked if the Commission should possibly talk to Citizen about their timeline. Mr. Gagnon said he felt they should define what the Commission wants, not try to tailor something to a specific industry/developer. There should be a reasonable set of criteria, and if it fits that developer, OK. If not, it’s OK too. Mr. Klugo noted that this discussion wouldn’t be happening without the Citizen proposal. Mr. Conner questioned whether the NRP designation is “in play” with this discussion. Three members felt that designation should remain or there should be a land swap creating NRP land elsewhere in the city. Mr. Klugo didn’t see that as a discussion item now. He added that if it is a discussion item, that’s a full year’s timeframe. He cited the need to impress Citizen with the time element. 5. Review Recommendations from Energy Committee and natural Resources Committee on Draft Siting Maps; Consider Feedback to CCRPC: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted that the Regional Planning Commission is mapping areas deemed appropriate or not appropriate for energy siting. Mr. Cummings felt that some guidance should be given to CCRPC regarding what areas are appropriate as well as those that are not. Areas that would not be appropriate include wetlands, NRP zoned areas, primary conservation areas, habitat areas. Mr. Conner said staff and the Planning Commission will have the responsibility of honing down what CCRPC comes up with. He stressed that the city will have to identify a sufficient amount of space to meet the State goals. The question of rooftop solar was raised. Mr. Cummings noted that ¾ of the roofs in the city are not usable because of age. Mr. Klugo added that he is amazed at the number of homes in new developments that are not properly oriented for solar. Mr. Conner noted there can also be the issue of trees in front of buildings that would have to be chopped down to allow for solar. A member of the audience asked about the possibility of buffers so that Vermont’s beauty can be maintained as much as possible. The possibility of “nicer looking” panels was also mentioned. Mr. Cummings also stressed the need “to take ownership” of electric use. Members agreed to have Mr. Conner and staff put together a letter to CCRPC and to share it with several Commission members. Mr. Gagnon then moved to authorize Mr. Conner to write a letter to CCRPC and share it with one or more members of the Commission. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consider Letter Regarding Upcoming Incremental Finance District Vote: Ms. Louisos noted that The Other Paper required the letter to be signed only by her as an individual. The deadline for the upcoming issue was last Thursday, and she submitted the letter in time for that deadline. Members suggested individually putting entries of support on Front Porch Forum. Mr. MacDonald also volunteered to represent the Commission at the information meeting on Wednesday evening. Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the letter written by Ms. Louisos and to have Mr. MacDonald read that letter at the public information meeting on 26 October. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the City of Burlington is now allowing single family homes that had been converted to multi-tenant use to go back to single family residences. 8. Minutes of 11 October 2016: It was noted that on p. 3, third full paragraph, it was Ms. Ostby who was quoted, not Mr. Larkin. Mr. Klugo also noted that at the top of p. 5, what he had specifically said was “so that our time is not cast aside if something better comes down the road.” Mr. Riehle moved to approve the minutes of 11 October 2016 as amended. 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 10:35 p.m. , Clerk 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: October 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s 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 (7:05 pm) 4. Continue discussion of potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant (7:20 pm) Staff has been preparing a workplan/ guide for the Commission. We’ll bring it to the meeting on Tuesday. We intend to start with a couple of different potential “paths” for the Commission to decide amongst. For each path we’ll lay out the major work tasks and what would need to be done (eg, a change to the Comprehensive Plan, etc…). 5. Review recommendations from Energy Committee & Natural Resources Committee on draft Energy Siting maps; consider formal feedback to Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (8:10 pm) See the attached cover memo from the CCRPC (provided to the PC last month, for context), and then the recommendations from the SB Energy Committee and SB Natural Resources Committee. The Commission is asked to take action on recommendations on behalf of the City of South Burlington to the CCRPC at this meeting. 6. Consider letter regarding upcoming Tax Increment Finance district vote, Jessica Louisos (8:00 pm) See attached letter from Jessica Louisos 7. Meeting Minutes (8:58 pm) October 11, 2016 draft minutes are enclosed 2 8. Other Business (8:89 pm) See enclosed Comprehensive Development Ordinance amendments from the City of Burlington. Their Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, Nov 9th. 9. Adjourn (9:00 pm) TO: Selectboards, Planning Commissions, Energy Committees, and Conservation Commissions FROM: CCRPC’s Long Range Planning Energy Sub-Committee; Melanie Needle, Senior Planner, CCRPC DATE: September 26, 2016 RE: Local Input for Constraints on the Siting of Renewable Energy Generation Facilities Act 174 (signed into law in 2016) requires all regional planning commissions to develop an enhanced regional energy plan that will advance the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan goals and at the same time ensure that local and regional land use policies are being applied in the Public Service Board’s (PSB) Section 248 process. Act 174 requires the regional energy plan to meet standards and be approved by the Department of Public Service in order for the PSB to give regional plans “substantial deference” in 248 proceedings. According to Act 174, “’Substantial deference’ means that a land conservation measure or specific policy shall be applied in accordance with its terms unless there is a clear and convincing demonstration that other factors affecting the general good of the State outweigh the application of the measure or policy.” As part of this work, CCRPC is developing regional renewable energy resource maps. These maps are intended to illustrate areas where renewable energy development would be most appropriate based on a combination of the presence of renewable energy resources and the lack of environmental constraints. To ensure that these renewable energy resource maps accurately reflect where municipalities want to encourage renewable energy generation, CCRPC is asking municipalities to weigh in with their input on local constraints by following the procedure outlined below. Two levels of constraint have been preliminarily identified by the State as defined below: Level 1 Constraints: Ecological and physical conditions that would very likely prevent the development of renewable energy infrastructure based on existing development constraints and environmental regulations. Level 1 is proposed to include the following state-identified constraints: Vernal pool + 600 ft. buffer, River Corridors, FEMA Floodways, Rare and Irreplaceable Natural Areas, Transportation Infrastructure, Wetlands, Federal Wilderness Areas, and Agency of Natural Resources in Fee Simple Ownership. Level 2 Constraints: Ecological and physical constraints that may make renewable energy generation less feasible but do not necessarily prevent development. Level 2 is proposed to include the following state-identified constraints: Agricultural + Hydric Soils, FEMA Flood Zones, Conserved Land, Deer Wintering Areas, and Habitat Blocks. Please use these same definitions of level 1 and level 2 constraints to identify municipal level constraints that should be considered for inclusion in developing the energy resource maps. Please ensure that proposed local constraints represent policies that are currently in effect in your town plan goals, policies or strategies, maps and/or zoning regulations. We do recognize that some municipalities are currently undergoing town plan or zoning updates. If you anticipate a constraint being adopted by your municipality as part of a plan or zoning update, please let us know. Please note, as a guideline, that only adopted polices effective by May 2017 may be included. Two web maps have been prepared for you to help guide your discussion. The draft Wind Energy Resource Web Map can be accessed here and the draft Solar Energy Resources Web Map can be accessed here. Each of the web maps contain data on potential energy resource areas before and after constraints are applied. The web maps also include the State-identified level 1 and level 2 constraints developed by the DPS and the Agency of Natural Resources. These state level constraints are subject to change as the DPS is currently drafting energy plan standards for issuing a determination of energy compliance as required under Act 174. Please submit your comments to us by November 1, 2016 as we need to submit draft maps to the Department of Public Service in December 2016 for their initial preliminary review of Chittenden County’s potential renewable energy resource areas. If you have questions or comments, please contact Melanie Needle, Senior Planner, by phone: 846- 4490 ext. *27 or email: mneedle@ccrpcvt.org October 11, 2016 Dear members of the South Burlington Planning Commission, As you know, the CCRPC has recently been working on the development of a plan for member communities for Siting of Renewable Energy Generation Facilities. That plan calls for communities to identify areas where they do not want renewable energy facilities as well as areas where they are permissible or encouraged. The Planning Commission has created an excellent basis for South Burlington’s part of this effort in the Comprehensive Plan. This document makes it clear that the city believes that our future is dependent on our better management of our energy use along with encouraging renewable energy generation subject to certain constraints. In the section 1.1 Vision & Goals under the heading of Clean and Green is this statement: “Reduce energy consumption city-wide and increase renewable energy production where appropriate.” In addition, 2.3 Gray Infrastructure section C. Energy (pages 2-77 – 2.81) details many strategies for becoming more energy efficient and for encouraging renewable energy generation. Later, the plan (page 3-41) clarifies siting considerations as follows: ENERGY FACILITY SITING South Burlington recognizes that there may at times be competing goals. While the City supports the harnessing of renewable energy, particularly in the case of solar arrays, it must consider the impacts of such structures on open spaces and wildlife corridors. As such, this plan shall serve to provide guidance as to where the siting of renewable energy facilities should be avoided in favor of certain conservation areas: ✦ All Primary Conservation Areas identified per the map included in the 2014 South Burlington Open Spaces Report. ✦ Uncommon Species, Habitat Blocks identified per the Secondary Conservation Maps included in the 2014 South Burlington Open Spaces Report. The Siting Plan being created through the CCRPC can use the limitations expressed above to identify areas within South Burlington where renewable energy generation should not be allowed. However, the siting plan is intended to also identify areas where renewable energy generation is permissible or encouraged. Since the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t specifically identify any areas in South Burlington as permissible or encouraged, the Energy Committee recommends that the Planning Commission affirm that all areas outside the aforementioned conservation areas be identified as permissible or encouraged for both individual and group net metered renewable energy projects. This clear identification will give the members of the CCRPC energy planning committee specific guidance for incorporating South Burlington’s part of the CCRPC Renewable Energy Siting Plan. Thank you, South Burlington Energy Committee Keith Epstein, Chair Karen McKenny, Vice-chair Don Cummings Jeremy King Fred Kosnitsky James Mount Linda McGinnis Marcy Murray Sam Swanson Patty Tashiro 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: Betty Milizia & Melissa Cuke, Co-Chairs, South Burlington Natural Resources Committee SUBJECT: NRC Input re: Energy Facility Siting Constraints DATE: October 21, 2016 The Planning Commission, at its September 27, 2016 meeting, requested that the Natural Resources Committee (NRC) provide input to them as they consider the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s (CCRPC) efforts to develop a regional energy plan. NRC members Melissa Cuke and David Crawford were in attendance at that Planning Commission meeting and viewed the CCRPC’s presentation on Act 174 and renewable energy siting. The NRC subsequently reviewed this item at their next meeting on October 5, 2016. Recognizing that there was not adequate time to thoroughly review a full report, the NRC voted unanimously to permit us to prepare a memo to summarize our discussion and highlight both concerns and questions. The NRC would like to make note of the following: 1. Members of the NRC expressed concern that the turnaround time for this input - on behalf of both the NRC and the Planning Commission - is unfortunately far too brief, and that the material deserves further discussion. The recommendations herein are potentially abbreviated due to insufficient time to access more information, ask follow-up questions, or complete the NRC’s discussion in advance of presenting its report. This concern should be noted to the CCRPC. 2. The Committee agreed that high priority should be given to renewable energy siting on developed areas (e.g. rooftops, brown- and grey-fields, parking garages). Members recognize that meeting the state energy goals will require steep increases in energy provided by renewable resources. Rooftops and existing industrial areas should be considered as high priorities, despite the potential challenges and costs of renewable energy generation in such areas. Solutions to incentivize renewable energy generation by existing and future commercial and residential developments (e.g. via rooftops) should be developed. The partnerships used by SolarCity to mitigate the installation costs for citizens are one example of such a solution. Funding should be considered for these incentives to offset costs barriers to renewable energy generation. Given time constraints, we were not able to adequately explore this important question. 2 3. The NRC recommends that efforts to increase renewable energy resource areas be paired with efforts to reduce overall energy consumption. Resources should be allocated to the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation as part of local and regional energy planning. Such efforts are already underway by many groups, including the City’s Energy Committee. 4. The NRC supports the proposed Level 1 constraints. This assumes that ‘Rare and Irreplaceable Natural Areas’ are reflective and inclusive of the ‘Rare Natural Communities’ and ‘Rare Species’ identified in the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as Primary Conservation areas. 5. The NRC identified the following resources to be considered by the CCRPC. The Committee supports the addition of the following to the list of Level 2 constraints: a. Shoreland; b. Steep slopes; c. Culturally important areas; d. Primary bird migration corridors (relevant for wind energy constraints); and e. Scenic views that are protected and/or identified by the City’s most recent scenic view inventory (conducted in summer 2016). 6. The NRC supports adding each of the following to the list of Level 1 Constraints: a. Habitat Blocks (included in pp 3-41 of the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan, as conservation areas to be avoided); b. Wetland and other surface water buffers (as suggested in page 26 of the CCRPC presentation); and c. 1-km buffer zones around homes for industrial-scale wind generation (as suggested in page 26 of the CCRPC presentation). 7. The NRC recommends that the CCRPC make clear that current, high-quality data sets are vital to both planning and enforcement. The CCRPC’s maps of prime and base solar energy potential areas depend heavily on available data. High priority should be given to recognizing gaps in data availability, and timely inventories to fill these gaps. In addition, it was recognized that the state- identified constraints involve resources with intrinsically dynamic distributions (e.g. vernal pools and some wetlands). A plan for regularly updating mapping data for these resources should be developed to allow energy planning to be adaptive over time with respect to priority environmental constraints. 8. The NRC recommends that maps for planning purposes be complemented by national and local standards as well as site-specific factors that may not be reflected in larger-scale municipal or regional maps. 3 We would like to reiterate our recognition of the profound impact of the regional energy plan on both the City as a whole, and its important natural resources in particular. We wish you the best in your task ahead, and remain available to provide any further input. We plan to have a member available to answer questions when this topic returns to your agenda on October 25. Thank you for your consideration. October 21, 2016 Hello Fellow Planning Commission Members, Following our last meeting I was informed that the deadline for inclusion of letters in the Other Paper is unique immediately before an election. In order to meet the deadline, I took the liberty of drafting a letter for submission signed solely by myself. I incorporated feedback that I received during our brief discussion on October 13. I hope that this letter is in line with the feelings of the Commission as a whole. As a Commission we do have the option of submitting this letter, or a different opinion that has been voted on by the Commission to another media outlet, such as the Burlington Free Press. I am presenting below my submission to the Other Paper for discussion and possible action for another submission. Thank you and sorry for any confusion, Jessica Opinion Letter Submitted to the Other Paper For inclusion in the October 27, 2016 issue Drafted by Jessica Louisos following general discussion with the Planning Commission October 13 Please join me in support of Phase I of the City Center public infrastructure development including Market Street Reconstruction and City Center Park – Dumont Park. This vote will put into action many steps the Planning Commission has taken over the course of many iterations and years. We hope you also support our vision for City Center and vote YES on Article 1 on November 8. City Center was first referenced in our City’s Comprehensive Plan in 1974 and has been included in every update since that time, but little has been developed and much of the land is privately held. The time is now to vote in support of major first steps in implementation. The Planning Commission and City Council have put in place zoning rules to ensure we get what our community has decided through years of significant public outreach. Extensive public input has influenced placemaking in order to create the public space that we want. The November 8 vote will approve reconstruction of Market Street in order to ensure we have the safe, attractive streetscape that has been visioned and a Park to provide open space and a destination for citizens. Other TIF projects would need another future vote. The TIF is an important tool for the City to achieve goals and build infrastructure without raising taxes. It enables projects that benefit the city, in this case the Market Street infrastructure and streetscape and Park, to be built using money that would otherwise leave our community and go to the State Education Fund. Voting YES allows our City to take advantage of this special opportunity to keep state taxes in our community for projects we choose. By voting YES, we will pay for these valuable projects with money that would have otherwise gone to state taxes, money already allocated in our current tax structure, impact fees, income from buildings already built in the TIF, and money the City has already set aside, with no increase in taxes. Please help implement the vision of our community. - Jessica Louisos, PE, Chair of the South Burlington Planning Commission The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk Lynn Brelsford, Interim Department Secretary TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski City Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: October 21, 2016 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments ZA-17-05, ZA-17-06, ZA-17-07 Enclosed, please find the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance: ZA-17-05 Permit Conversion of Former Single-Family Use Back to Single-Family Use ZA-17-06 Rezone 168 Elmwood to NMU ZA-17-07 Commissioner Terms The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the above referenced proposed amendments on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 6:45 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. Please ensure these amendments are forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the hearing to me by close of business on November 7, 2016. Thank you, Meagan Tuttle CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur vacant, Youth Member PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-17-05 Permit Conversion of Former Single-Family Use Back to Single-Family Use ZA-17-06 Rezone 168 Elmwood to NMU ZA-17-07 Commissioner Terms Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 beginning at 6:45pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows: ZA-17-05: To permit the reconversion of single-family detached dwellings back to single-family uses in neighborhood mixed use and high density residential zones. This change is consistent with provisions in Sec. 4.4.5 D 6 A, which allows neighborhood commercial uses within a building originally designed and constructed for such a purpose, regardless of its present use. ZA-17-06: To change the zoning for the property located at 168 Elmwood from Residential Medium Density to Neighborhood Mixed Use. ZA-17-07: To bring the Comprehensive Development Ordinance into conformity with the City Charter regarding Planning Commissioner term lengths. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington: ZA-17-05: This amendment impacts parts of the City zoned for high density residential, which is primarily concentrated around the downtown core; the Battery Street Transition Zone; and for neighborhood mixed use districts which are located along North Street, and Winooski and Riverside Avenues, and to areas of neighborhood-serving uses off of North Avenue, Shelburne Street and Pine Street. ZA-17-06: This amendment applies only to the property located at 168 Elmwood Avenue, the location of the former Myers Furniture store. ZA-17-07: This amendment impacts the administrative sections of the Comprehensive Development Ordinance, and has no impact on any geographic areas of the City. Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Warning p. 2 ZA-17-05, ZA-17-06 and ZA-17-07 List of section headings affected: ZA-17-05: This amendment affects Appendix A- Use Table by adding footnote 29 and applying it to selected districts for the Single Detached Dwelling use. ZA-17-06: This amendment affects Map 4.3.1-1 Base Zoning Districts and Map 4.4.2-1 Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts by changing the property from R-H to NMU. ZA-17-07: This amendment changes Section 2.2.2 Composition and Terms to reflect change in Commissioner term length from four years to three years. The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ David E. White, AICP, Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Project Planner/GIS Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Planning & Zoning Clerk Elsie Tillotson, Department Secretary Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-05 – Permit Conversion of Former Single-Family Use Back to Single-Family Use This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to permit the reconversion of single-family detached dwellings back to single-family uses in the neighborhood mixed use and high density residential zones. Presently, single-family uses are not permitted in these districts in order to foster higher intensity development within these higher density zones. However, there are cases in which single-family detached dwellings have been converted to non-residential or multi-family uses, and the current owner wishes to reconvert to a single-family use. This amendment would allow for such a property to be reconverted to a single-family use as long as the building was originally constructed for that purpose. This change is consistent with existing provisions in Sec. 4.4.5 D 6 A, which allows neighborhood commercial uses within a building originally designed and constructed for such a purpose, regardless of its present use. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: This amendment conforms with and advances the goals and policies contained in the City’s municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing. Specifically, this amendment is consistent with the policy to encourage the reversion of single family occupancy of properties, especially in areas with high concentrations of student rental housing, which have been converted into multi-unit dwellings. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: This amendment is compatible with proposed future land uses and densities. As it applies to a property adjacent to North Street, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan to revitalize the North Street commercial district, with an emphasis on a mix of uses which are supportive of small, neighborhood-oriented, locally-owned businesses that celebrate the working class and ethnically diverse character of the neighborhood. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: This amendment does not specifically implement plans for any new community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, CFM, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk vacant, Department Secretary TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: October 11, 2016 RE: Reconversion to single detached dwelling The Comprehensive Development Ordinance prohibits single detached dwellings in the downtown, neighborhood mixed use, and high density residential zones. They are prohibited as new construction or conversion of existing structures of another use. Existing single detached dwellings in these zones are nonconforming uses. This prohibition is intended to foster higher intensity development in these higher density zones. Since adoption of the CDO in 2008, the Planning & Zoning Department has received several requests to convert multi-family dwellings to single family homes in these zones, most recently at 75 Orchard Terrace (RH zone) and 28 Pine Street. None have been approved because they cannot be. 75 Orchard Terrace was ultimately approved as a boarding house. 28 Pine Street was denied. Both were originally single detached dwellings. Staff proposes that conversion of an existing use, whatever that may be, to a single detached dwelling could reasonably be allowed as long as the building was originally constructed for that purpose. Similar provision is made for neighborhood commercial uses in Sec. 4.4.5 D 6 A, Exception for Existing Neighborhood Commercial Uses (i) 1). This provision allows establishing a neighborhood commercial use within a building originally designed and constructed for such purpose regardless of its present use. This change would pertain to the downtown (except public trust), neighborhood mixed use, and high density residential zones. Appendix A – Use Table – All Zoning Districts would be amended to change “N” to “Y” for this use in these zones. A new footnote associated with single detached dwelling within these zones would be inserted that that allows conversion of an existing building to a single detached dwelling so long as the building was originally designed and constructed for that purpose. Appendix A-Use Table For proposed ZA-17-05 Permit Conversion of Former Single-Family Use Back to Single-Family Use p. 1 of 2 Urban Reserve Recreation, Conservation & Open Space Institutional Residential Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Enterprise USES UR RCO - A RCO - RG RCO - C I RL/W RM/W RH D DW DW-PT16 DT BST NMU NAC NAC- RC E-AE E-LM RESIDENTIAL USES UR RCO - A1 RCO - RG RCO - C I RL/W RM/W RH D DW DW-PT16 DT BST NMU NAC NAC- RC E-AE E-LM Single Detached Dwelling N N 1 N N Y Y Y N29 N N N N N29 N29 N29 N29 N N Accessory Dwelling Unit (See Art.5, Sec.5.4.5) N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N Attached Dwellings - Duplex N N1 N N Y CU 2 Y Y N N N N N Y 3 N Y N N Attached Dwellings - Multi- Family (3 or more) N N1 N N CU N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Attached Dwelling(s) – Mixed-Use26 N N1 N N CU CU CU CU Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL USES UR RCO – A RCO - RG RCO - C I RL/W RM/W RH D DW DW-PT16 DT BST NMU NAC NAC- RC E-AE E-LM Assisted Living N N N N CU CU Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Bed and Breakfast4, 6 N N N N CU CU CU CU Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Boarding House 6 (4 persons or less) N N N N CU CU Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Boarding House 6 (5 persons or more) N N N N CU CU CU CU Y Y N Y Y CU CU CU N N Community House (See Sec.5.4.4) N N N N CU CU CU CU Y Y N CU CU CU CU CU N N Convalescent /Nursing Home N N N N CU CU Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Dormitory5 N N N N CU N N N N N N CU CU N25 CU CU N N Group Home N N N N Y Y Y Y Y CU N Y N Y Y Y N N Historic Inn (See Sec.5.4.2) N N N N CU CU CU CU Y Y N CU CU CU Y Y N N Mobile Home Park N N N N N CU CU N N N N N N N N N N N Sorority/Fraternity5 N N N N CU N N N N N N CU N N N N N N NON-RESIDENTIAL USES UR21 RCO - A RCO - RG RCO - C I RL/W RM RH D DW DW-PT16 DT BST NMU NAC NAC- RC E-AE E-LM Adult Day Care N N N N CU N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Agricultural Use20 N Y Y CU Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Amusement Arcade N N N N N N N N Y Y N CU CU N CU CU N N Animal Boarding/Kennel/Shelter N CU N N N N N N N N N N N N CU CU CU CU Animal Grooming N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y CU CU Animal Hospitals/Veterinarian Office N CU N N CU N N N CU N N CU CU CU CU CU Y Y Appliance Sales/Service N N N N N N N N Y Y N CU Y Y24 Y Y N Y Aquarium N N CU N CU N N N Y Y (See Sec.4.4.1(d) 2) CU Y N N N N N Art Gallery/Studio N N N N Y N N CU8, 13 Y Y (See Sec.4.4.1(d) 2) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Auction House N N N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N CU Automobile Body Shop N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Y Appendix A-Use Table For proposed ZA-17-05 Permit Conversion of Former Single-Family Use Back to Single-Family Use p. 2 of 2 1. Residential uses are not permitted except only as an accessory use to an agricultural use. 2. Duplexes may be constructed, or a single unit may be converted into a duplex, on lots existing as of January 1, 2007 and which meet the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. 3. Duplexes shall only be allowed as a result of a conversion of an existing single family home. New duplexes are prohibited. 4. No more than 5 rooms permitted to be let in any district where bed and breakfast is a conditional use. No more than 3 rooms permitted to be let in the RL district. 5. An existing fraternity, sorority, or other institutional use may be converted to dormitory use subject to conditional use approval by the DRB. 6. Must be owner-occupied. 7. Must be located on a major street. 8. Small daycares in the RCO zones shall be conditional use and shall only be allowed as part of small museums and shall constitute less than 50% of the gross floor area of the museum. 9. Automobile sales not permitted other than as a separate principal use subject to obtaining a separate zoning permit. 10. Exterior storage and display not permitted. 11. All repairs must be contained within an enclosed structure. 12. No fuel pumps shall be allowed other than as a separate principal use subject to obtaining a separate zoning permit. 13. Permitted hours of operation 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 14. Such uses not to exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet per establishment. 15. Excludes storage of uncured hides, explosives, and oil and gas products. 16. See Sec.4.4.1(d) 2 for more explicit language regarding permitted and conditional uses in the Downtown Waterfront – Public Trust District. 17. Allowed only as an accessory use. 18. A permitted use in the Shelburne Rd Plaza and Ethan Allen Shopping Center. 19. Cafes not permitted as an accessory use. Retail sales and tasting are permitted as an accessory use. 20. Accepted agricultural and silvicultural practices, including the construction of farm structures, as those practices are defined by the secretary of agriculture, food and markets or the commissioner of forests, parks and recreation, respectively, under 10 VSA §1021(f) and 1259(f) and 6 VSA §4810 are exempt from regulation under local zoning. 21. See Sec. 4.4.7 (c) for specific allowances and restrictions regarding uses in the Urban Reserve District. 22. See Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 6 for specific allowances and restrictions regarding Neighborhood Commercial Uses in Residential districts. 23. Allowed only on properties with frontage on Pine Street. 24. Such uses shall not exceed 4,000 square feet in size. 25. Dormitories are only allowed on properties contiguous to a school existing as of January 1, 2010. 26. The mixed uses shall be limited to those that are either permitted, conditional, or pre-existing nonconforming in the zoning district. 27. Performing arts centers in the ELM zone shall be limited to a total of 5,000 square feet in size and to properties with frontage on Pine Street. Performing arts centers may contain accessory space for preparation and serving food and beverages, including alcohol, provided this accessory space comprises less than 50% of the entire establishment. 28. Grocery Stores up to but not to exceed 30,000 square feet may be permitted subject to conditional use approval by the DRB in that portion of the Enterprise-Light Manufacturing District between Flynn and Home Avenue. 28.29. A single detached dwelling may be reverted to single-family use regardless of its present use only if the building was originally designed and constructed for that purpose. Legend: Y Permitted Use in this district CU Conditional Use in this district N Use not permitted in this district Abbreviation Zoning District RCO – A RCO - Agriculture RCO – RG RCO – Recreation/Greenspace RCO – C RCO - Conservation I Institutional RL/W Residential Low Density, Waterfront Residential Low Density RM/W Residential Medium Density, Waterfront Residential Medium Density RH Residential High Density D Downtown DW Downtown Waterfront DT Downtown Transition BST Battery Street Transition NMU Neighborhood Mixed Use NAC Neighborhood Activity Center NAC-RC NAC – Riverside Corridor E-AE Enterprise – Agricultural Processing and Energy E-LM Enterprise – Light Manufacturing Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ David E. White, AICP, Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Project Planner/GIS Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Planning & Zoning Clerk Elsie Tillotson, Department Secretary Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-06 – Rezone 168 Elmwood to NMU This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to change the zoning for the property located at 168 Elmwood Avenue from Residential Medium Density to Neighborhood Mixed Use. For nearly 60 years, the property has contained a mix of retail/service space and residential apartments. Residential Medium Density zoning, while providing for neighborhood commercial uses, limits the size of the commercial space, causing it to be non-conforming. The proposed rezoning allows the property to continue to contain a mix of commercial and residential space in conformance with the zoning applied to adjacent properties along North Avenue. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: This amendment conforms with and advances the goals and policies contained in the City’s municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing. The proposed change to NMU zoning permits multi-family housing in mixed-use buildings by right, rather than as a conditional use under present zoning, and preserves neighborhood-oriented commercial uses within walking or biking distance of nearby residences. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: This amendment is compatible with proposed future land uses and densities. As it applies to a property adjacent to North Street, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan to revitalize the North Street commercial district, with an emphasis on a mix of uses which are supportive of small, neighborhood-oriented, locally-owned businesses that celebrate the working class and ethnically diverse character of the neighborhood. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: This amendment does not specifically implement plans for any new community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, CFM, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk vacant, Department Secretary TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: October 11, 2016 RE: 168 Elmwood Ave – RM to NMU rezone Rodney Meyers, the owner of 168 Elmwood Avenue (formerly Meyers’ Furniture) is requesting that the zoning of the property be changed from residential – medium density (RM) to neighborhood mixed use (NMU). The property is adjacent to the NMU zone running along North Street. The property has consistently contained a mix of retail/service space and residential apartments. This mix of uses is reflected in the Assessor’s records as far back as 1958. There is provision for “neighborhood commercial uses” within the residential zones; however, they are limited to 4,000 sf. The commercial space at 168 Elmwood appears to be ~6,300 sf. As it is presently zoned, the commercial space is nonconforming. Insofar as the property has consistently contained a mix of commercial and residential space and given its adjacency to the existing NMU zone, changing the property’s zoning to NMU can reasonably be supported. Existing and proposed zoning district boundary maps are attached. S T R E E T NORTH INTERVALELAFOUNTAIND E C A T U R AVENUEALLEN AVENUEC R O M B I E S T R E E T ELMWOODSTREET AVENUESTREETMURRAYSTREET AVENUECL O A R E C C O U R T CEDAR Burlington, Vermont B u r l i ngtonGIS For PC Public Hearing: November 9, 2016 Zoning Amendment ZA-17-06 Legend 150 0 15075Feet Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ David E. White, AICP, Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Project Planner/GIS Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Planning & Zoning Clerk Elsie Tillotson, Department Secretary Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-07 – Commissioner Terms This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this amendment is ensure consistency between the Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the City Charter regarding the length of a Planning Commissioner term. This amendment reflects the change from four year to three year terms. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: This amendment is administrative in nature and does not have an impact on the goals and policies, including those regarding the availability of safe and affordable housing, in the municipal development plan. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: This amendment is administrative in nature and does not have an impact on the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: This amendment does not specifically implement plans for any new community facilities. The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Elsie Tillotson, Department Secretary Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner DATE: October 5, 2016 RE: Planning Commission Membership Terms In March 2015, Burlington voters approved a charter change, which was later enacted by the VT Legislature, regarding length of term for appointees to the City’s boards and commissions. This changes the length of service for Planning Commissioners from four years to three. Planning Commissioners appointed prior to this charter change continue to serve for the duration of their original four year appointments; Commissioners appointed July 1, 2015 and later serve three year terms. As a result of this change, both the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the Planning Commission’s Bylaws need to be amended to be consistent with the City Charter. Planning Commission terms are defined in the Comprehensive Development Ordinance under Article 2: Administrative Mechanisms. Staff proposes the following change to this to be consistent with the charter: PART 2: PLANNING COMMISSION Sec. 2.2.1 Authority. There shall be a planning commission (or commission) created pursuant to the city charter and 24 V.S.A. Section 4321. Sec. 2.2.2 Composition and Terms. The planning commission shall consist of seven (7) members who shall be residents of the city. Planning commission members shall be appointed for four (4) three (3) year staggered terms by the city council with mayor presiding. Any member may be removed by the city council with mayor presiding pursuant to city charter Section 129 as the same may be amended from time to time. Vacancies in these offices may be filled for the unexpired terms only by the city council with mayor presiding or otherwise pursuant to law. A draft of the required Municipal Bylaw Amendment Report (Ch.117 Report) regarding this change is attached to this memo. As a separate item, the Planning Commission should also take action to update its Bylaws. While reviewing the bylaws to incorporate this change, staff discovered several typos and instances of outdated information; additional suggestions to correct these are noted in the attached version of the Bylaws. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 OCTOBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 October 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, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Larkin, J. P. Larkin, S. Dopp, J. Heilenbach, D. Ruppel, P. Dandurand. 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 suggested that on a future agenda the Commission consider the question of dead end streets. She noted that the regulations strongly discourage them and say they shall not exceed 200 feet in length; however, in another section of the LDRs, developers are required to extend a dead end street to the property line when the property is adjacent to a parcel that could be developed in the future. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: She and Ms. Harrington attended a meeting of Committee chairs and vice chairs. Mr. Conner: Tomorrow night, staff is hosting a neighborhood meeting for Kirby Road and Queensbury Road residents whose homes have been included in the Airport buyout program. By staff count, 13 homes have been added to the buyout program including Kirby Cottages. The head of the Kirby Cottages homeowners association said at a Council meeting that because of uncertainty, they have decided to go into the buyout program. Ms. Louisos raised the possibility of moving those houses. 4. Consider approval of a new street name request – Ally’s Run: Mr. Conner noted the street is located off O’Brien Drive. 2 Members had no issue with the name. Mr. Riehle moved the name Ally’s Run be approved. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion approved. 5. Continued Discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Ms. Louisos said the goal at this meeting is to discuss the location and whether the use makes sense there. Mr. Riehle asked if there are other similar areas where this use could be proposed. Mr. Conner showed a map indicating all manufacturing/light manufacturing zoning. Mr. Riehle noted that Jeff Nick said he would be pleased to have the cider industry in that area as it would be a place for people to visit. There is also an Interstate Interchange possible nearby. Mr. Klugo asked about a “spot zoning” issue. Mr. Conner said that any time there is a re- zoning, they have to look at spot zoning. There aren’t always hard and fast rules, and there are times when zoning for one use makes sense (e.g., the Airport, the Municipal District near the water tower). He pointed Commissioners to the link in this week’s packet about considerations regarding any potential spot zoning. Mr. Conner added that the Commission should consider how the use category fits with the Comprehensive Plan; that is an important component. Mr. Klugo said he loves the project, but he can’t put it into the “agritourism” category because it is actually light manufacturing. He felt challenged as to where to put it. He asked whether there has been discussion at the County level regarding agribusiness. Ms. LaRose said there hasn’t been much at the County level, but the State has put together information on how to tie agriculture into the “new economy.” This is generally focused on “traditional” agriculture. Mr. Klugo said it seems most agribusiness was developed to help keep farms together, but this potential use would be agriculture in a non-agriculture area. Ms. Quest asked if current zoning would allow houses to be built in the northern portion of the property. Mr. Conner said yes, except in one corner near the stream. Mr. Riehle said he is torn. He would like to know if entities such as GBIC think the use makes sense in that location. He also suggested having the Natural Resources Committee look at it. He added that it’s a great use, but the question is whether it’s in the right location. 3 Mr. Klugo noted that some communities have gone forward with this. Owners have had to sign agreements regarding noise control. Mr. Conner indicated the property on the map and pointed out the area that would be used for the cider facility. He noted that the applicant has said this was not “set in stone.” Mr. Klugo noted the primary access would be from Van Sicklen. Mr. Conner said the intersection would have to be upgraded to a standard intersection and would eventually be signalized, possibly with this use. He would urge that the intersection be designed for a signal when it is warranted. Mr. Dandurand, who owns property across the road, asked about zoning options. Ms. Louisos said there are different ways to do zoning. Mr. Conner said the issue is whether what the applicant is seeking is appropriate for this area and, if it is, what language would the community be comfortable with. Mr. Riehle said the wider issue is what might go in there if the cider operation ever left. Mr. Klugo said they have to consider the goals of bringing Citizen Cider into the area and how that can be made to happen without just allowing light manufacturing in the area. Mr. Hellenbach said it is hard to forecast what things will look like in 20 years. He added they are talking about a missed opportunity. He also noted that with the current zoning there could be 200 homes. Mr. Larking asked what the difference is between milling flour and milling cider. Ms. Dopp said that traditionally the raw product would be taken elsewhere for manufacture. She questioned the driver for an agribusiness. If it is the apple trees, more could be planted. It would provide more material for the cider operation to work with. If it’s to produce more cider, that’s another thing. She said she would rather see that in an area more conducive to truck traffic, etc. Mr. Klugo said it the apple trees weren’t there, Citizen wouldn’t be looking at that site. Mr. Hellenbach said it’s more than that. That got them there, but they buy half of their crop from one place in New York, and they would be interested in having fruit as close as possible. He asked how much agriculture close to the plant would cause this use to be looked at positively. He recognized this is a unique zoning situation. They can get growers to grow fruit for them on “land leases.” That’s how dairies survive. Mr. Hellenbach stressed that if they can get all of their fruit from one place, they would. Mr. Riehle said he is concerned that this is an NRP district. He added that it feels like they’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. He’s still going “back and forth.” 4 Mr. Conner pointed out various properties in the area including the solar installation and a few small, individually owned properties. Mr. Klugo said he could envision a walkable neighborhood integrated with Citizen Cider. Ms. Ruppel, who lives in Stonehouse Village, said the biggest concern is Van Sicklen. It’s a dangerous road, and residents are worried about the impact of more traffic. They are also concerned with noise and “what might come next.” Mr. Klugo said there would be some upgrade to Van Sicklen. Ms. Louisos suggested the possibility of “trading” so some of the housing units might be traded off. Ms. Dopp said it would be a different story if more trees were put there. Mr. Larkin said they have no idea now of what the residential element would look like. He did not want the “north 40” to be part of this discussion. Ms. Louisos said it doesn’t feel right to her to put something this big in the NRP. She would feel better of some of that NRP got traded with some developable land. Ms. Harrington asked the benefit of having NRP land right next to Hinesburg Road. Mr. Conner said this parcel was probably made NRP because of the orchard. Mr. Klugo said it is not inconceivable that Hinesburg Road could become a 4-lane road in the future. Mr. Hallenbach said the Commission should look back at the bigger vision for the Southeast Quadrant. He said they don’t want to be in an industrial park. He noted there are buildings like that in Essex, Milton or Plattsburgh that they could walk into today. If this site doesn’t work out, they will look for other farm land. They are hopeful there is a way to do this on this site, but they understand the challenges. Mr. Klugo said Citizen is “selling an experience,” and he can see them on this site, but there are challenges. Ms. Louisos said it would be very hard for the Commission to deal with unless there is some agriculture on the site. Mr. Hallenbach said a “value added agriculture” is OK, but they did not want anything tied to percentages of crops. Mr. Conner asked the Commission to consider: if a portion of the NRP is allowed to be developed, how would that affect similar NRP lands. Ms. LaRose added that people will ask “why can’t I build one house and you’re allowing a large commercial development?” She noted they have not yet had a legal opinion as to whether this would violate the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Members asked to have that opinion for the next time this is discussed. Mr. Klugo said he would want a pre-development agreement that this would happen, so the Commission isn’t wasting its time. Mr. Conner asked members to consider 2 things: a. What is the context around which they want to do this? b. What makes this a use that is a catalyst for agriculture in the area? Mr. Daundrand said he would be open to talking about expanding the orchard onto his property. He also said he is impressed with the thought process he has seen. A member of the audience asked what would stop the Auclairs from selling land to a beer brewery and could the Commission prevent that. Mr. Klugo said they would need to quantify things such as “are they growing their hops on the site?” 6. Continued Discussion of Shelburne Road/mixed use and site plan standards: Ms. LaRose reminded members that they had talked about adding some landscaping standards. She asked if this would be just for “first line” properties on Shelburne Road or whether it would have any depth to it. She noted that in some areas, zones are only one property deep. She questioned whether all properties should be treated the same. She also asked whether the concern was with just one property, all new development, certain areas, etc. Mr. Conner suggested that a dense green buffer could be required where a commercial property backs to a residential property. This now counts as “landscaping,” which is why there is often not so much landscaping in front. One change could be to say that the buffer doesn’t count toward landscaping, or that a certain percentage of landscaping must be up front. Ms. LaRose noted that landscaping right up against a building really makes a big difference to a property. She showed some photos of this. Mr. Conner said they could also look at the credit a developer is given for existing landscaping. This does not always have a positive outcome. 6 Members felt this discussion should apply to the whole city, not only to Shelburne Road. Mr. Klugo felt that if you’re trying to entice people to use sidewalks, they should be wide enough for use with landscaping along them. Ms. LaRose said they can also look at “doorway” standards. 7. Consider letter to The Other Paper regarding upcoming TIF district vote: Ms. Louisos liked the idea of explaining why the Planning Commission favors the ballot item and why it is important. She asked if the letter should be from the whole Commission or just from her. Mr. Riehle liked the idea of unanimity or at least naming those who support it. Ms. Louisos agreed to bring a draft of the letter to the next meeting. 8. Minutes of 27 September 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 27 September 2016 as written. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: It was noted that is likely Ms. Quest’s final Commission meeting as she is moving to the City of Burlington. Members thanked her for her participation and her service to the community. Mr. Riehle asked whether the Commission had received a follow-up from Tim McKenzie and South Burlington Realty regarding City Center standards. Mr. Conner said this has not yet been received. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk