Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/24/2017 PLANNING COMMISSION 24 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 January 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Louisos advised that item #5 on the agenda is being postponed as the weather has prevented the consultants from attending the meeting. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos advised that she and Ms. Harrington have attended 2 City Council meetings. A discussion of this will be included under item #6. 4. Preview Work on Housing Replacement Regulations: Mr. Simson noted he had attended the 17 January City Council meeting with a proposal to amend the LDRs to include a “housing replacement provision.” The Council was very interested in the idea and the Affordable Housing Committee was asked to “fast‐track” this. The Committee met with City Attorney Bolduc who already had a draft for them. The will meet again on 8 February to finalize a proposal. They are being careful so there are no unintended consequences. The amendment would be placed in Article 18 and would be related to housing preservation. It is similar to what exists in the City of Burlington. In Burlington, the amendment applies to all housing, not only “affordable” housing. The Committee discussed this and felt that if it applied only to affordable housing, there would have to be standards which would add complexity for staff to administer. The Committee feels that a large, expensive house is not likely to be torn down. In South Burlington, a house that might be torn down would fall in the moderate to affordable range, so the Committee is leaning toward following the Burlington model and making the replacement requirement apply to all housing. It would require a developer asking to demolish or change the use of a house from a residential to commercial to either construct a new housing unit on the site or elsewhere in the city, to convert a non-housing unit to a housing unit, to move the existing house to another location, or to contribute $60,000 per unit to a housing fund. Some exemptions would apply: a. If the housing is restored within a year b. If the house being demolished is sub-standard/uninhabitable c. If the house is in a zoning district where residential use is no longer permitted d. If there is a conversion of a duplex into a single family homes e. If the owner demolishes the house and then rebuilds it for his own use. Mr. Riehle asked what would happen if an owner upgraded a house so the rent went way up. Mr. Simson said that is OK as long as the use remains residential. He noted that the LDRs speak to housing for all people at all economic levels. The focus is on housing preservation. Mr. Riehle asked about a timeframe for the amendment. Mr. Simson said they can have the language in the Commission’s hands by 9 February, prior to the Planning Commission meeting of 14 February. Ms. Louisos noted the City Council has asked the Commission to prioritize this. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission can have a meeting to review the language and then warn a public hearing. The Council would then have to hold its own public hearing. He felt it would be a March time-frame for adoption. Ms. Louisos noted that she had heard that the more housing there is available, the less pressure there is on the market, and the more chance there is of lower costs. She felt it is right to have the amendment apply to all housing, not only affordable housing. Ms. Harrington asked if moving the house would require securing land on which to put the house. Mr. Simson said it would. Mr. McDonald asked about tearing down an 1800 sq. ft. house and building a 600 sq. ft. house. Mr. Simson said that’s OK as you still have the housing unit. Mr. Riehle asked if the Commission should be more careful about changing an area from residential to commercial. He cited the area on Hinesburg Road where this is happening. Mr. Simson said under the amendment, the houses taken down would have to be replaced somewhere in the city. Ms. LaRose expressed concern that with so much housing being built in the city, a developer could call another developer and say he is taking down a house and ask the other developer to claim that one of his units is the replacement unit. Mr. Simson said they had discussed that and felt that if the original plan was for 200 units, and they took down 5 units to build it, they would have to provide 205 units. He acknowledged there will have to be a way to prevent a developer from “selling” his obligation to another developer. Ms. Harrington asked about replacing a single family home with a similar home instead of a multi-family unit. Mr. Simson said that could depend on the location. He cited Mary Street where it might be beneficial to replace several of those single family homes with a multi-family structure as it is so close to City Center. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t feel this would encourage people to tear down houses. Ms. Harrington suggested possible incentives if a house is moved instead of demolished. Mr. Simson felt the Airport situation is a great lost opportunity. Members agreed to consider the proposed amendment as soon as it is received from the Affordable Housing Committee. 5. Kick-off of Planned Unit Development Project, Phase II: This item was postponed due to weather conditions. 6. Review and Possible Feedback on Burlington International Airport Draft 2016 Re-Use Plan: Mr. Gagnon noted his company does work for the Airport on the housing demolition, but since this is just the re-use plan, he felt he had no conflict of interest. Members agreed. Ms. Louisos reviewed the City Council meetings on this issue. She noted that the Planning Commission comments were discussed, and the Council unanimously endorsed the comments and said the Commission could add a sentence indicating its endorsement. Ms. Harrington said that the CNAPC members were very pleased with the draft. Ms. Louisos felt it might make sense to add Greg Severence’s comments. Other members agreed. Ms. LaRose will edit the letter to add those comments. Ms. Harrington then moved to endorse the letter and to authorize the Commission Chair to sign off on a final version per tonight’s feedback. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Gagnon abstaining. 7. Brief Update on Planned Zoning Amendments: Ms. LaRose said this is the first comprehensive list staff has put together to figure out how many amendments the Commission wants to move forward on. Some have considerable work needed (e.g., agricultural enterprise); some have been withdrawn (the O’Brien garage issues). Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see them all worked through. Ms. Louisos agreed. She particularly liked the garage door standards. Ms. LaRose noted that the Bike/Ped Committee may have something for the Commission to consider regarding “end of trip” facilities. Mr. Riehle asked about scenic views. Ms. LaRose said there has been a lot of discussion but no agreement on how broad, etc. Mr. Riehle asked specifically about views lost by heights of trees. Ms. LaRose said that could be part of the more involved project. Ms. LaRose said they could consider “foreground” when discussion scenic views. Ms. LaRose noted the Natural Resources Committee is putting together its work plan. They could be asked if they would like to work on the scenic views issues. Ms. Harrington did not want to lose the opportunity to address replacing single family homes with multi-family buildings, especially in older neighborhoods. She felt this changes the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see the language the Affordable Housing Committee comes up with and then have the discussion as to how the Commission might want to tweak it. Ms. Louisos noted that some of the zoning regulations prohibit that; she felt that Mary St. was an unusual situation because of its proximity to City Center. Mr. Gagnon said they had to decide whether they want to preserve the number of housing units or the character of a neighborhood. Ms. LaRose also noted there are some issues between the DRB and staff over the interpretation of regulations; some of these issues may come to the Commission for clarification or further guidance. Mr. Riehle suggested looking at the K-mart property to see what could be built there. Ms. LaRose said that ties in with the Shelburne Rd. discussion. She felt it would be short-sighted to discuss just the one property. Ms. LaRose noted that the PUD discussion will be taking up a lot of the Commission time and staff time. She also noted a list of other potential projects which could be discussed. Ms. Ostby asked if there will be a city vote on a bike/ped project on Williston Road. Ms. LaRose said she had heard that could be another vote. She suggested calling Ilona Blanchard for information. 8. Consider Timeline for Planning Commission Projects Commissioners looked through the draft outline of upcoming projects. Members discussed moving the Scenic Views discussion up. Ms. LaRose suggested discussing first what the scope would be, and deciding how much of the scope and outline would or could be tasked to another committee. Members agreed to discuss this soon, and to ask the Natural Resources Committee to be the ones to begin the project. 9. Shelburne Zoning Amendments: Ms. LaRose said staff had no issues with the proposed amendments. The Commission concurred. 10. Minutes of 10 January 2017 : Ms. Ostby moved to approve the minutes of 10 January 2017 as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. _________________________________ Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: January 24, 2017 Planning Commission 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 (7:07 pm) 4. Preview Work on Housing Replacement regulations, John Simson, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee (7:15 pm) The Affordable Housing Committee presented a proposal to the City Council last week regarding a potential housing replacement regulation, that it was well received and that the Council asked the Committee to prepare a draft for the PC's consideration. Jessica attended, expressed support on the broad subject of affordability from the PC's perspective (noting that the Commission has not discussed this subject at all). Jessica has since invited John Simson to attend the PC's meeting to brief everyone on the idea and gather questions that the Commissioners may wish to have the AH committee explore as part of their work. Also, the Commission will be asked to consider prioritizing this item when it comes to them based on the Council's request. 5. Kick-off of Planned Unit Development project phase II, Mark Kane, SE Group and Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design (7:35 pm) Attached is a memo from Sharon Murray of Front Porch Planning & Design. Phase 1 of the PUD Report can be found at www.sburl.com/planning. Sharon and Mark will be presenting Tuesday evening. 6. Review and possible feedback on Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re- Use Plan (8:20) See attached memo and draft letter. At the Commission last meeting, staff provided an overview of the Burlington International Airport’s Draft Re-Use Plan. The comment period on this draft Plan runs until January 31, 2017. The Re-Use Plan is the Airport’s required Plan for land that they have or intent to acquire through noise mitigation funds. Staff has prepared a DRAFT letter from the Planning Commission to the Airport for your consideration. Please, as with all documents, feel free to modify as you wish. 2 Also enclosed for your reference is the draft Re-Use Plan. Its appendices include the letter submitted by the City Council last May as well as the Airport’s responses to that letter in November. 7. Brief update on planned Zoning Amendments (8:45) See attached memo. The intention this evening is not to discuss individual amendments, but rather to preview the scope of changes and possibly discuss with related to next agenda item, timeline for projects. 8. Consider timeline for Planning Commission Projects (9:00) See attached draft schedule. This is a first ‘swipe’ at scheduling in assorted tasks and ongoing reviews. The discussion this evening could potentially alter this immediately. 9. Review Proposed Shelburne Zoning Amendments (9:15) See attached. Staff does not see any proposed amendments which are concerning or which would have any adverse effects on South Burlington. 10. January 10, 2016 Meeting Minutes (9:25) See attached. 11. Other Business 12. Adjourn Meeting Memo To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Sharon Murray, AICP Front Porch Community Planning & Design Date: January 18, 2017 Re: PUD Project, Phase II—Kickoff Meeting __________________________________________________________ Mark Kane from the SE Group and I are looking forward to meeting with all of you again on Tuesday, January 24th, to kick off Phase II of our PUD Project. We’ll be working with you over the coming year, on a monthly basis, to develop proposed bylaw amendments that allow new forms of “planned development” in the city, as highlighted in the Phase I report. In this meeting we hope to cover the following:  A quick review of Phase I report recommendations (attached). The full report will be available for review on the city’s website.  An updated scope of work and schedule for Phase II (attached).  An initial discussion regarding Task 1—identifying associated “housekeeping” amendments under the current LDRs to better support planned development (starting from the ground up). As noted in report findings and recommendations, planned unit development (PUD) and master plan provisions under the city’s current regulations have been used largely as a “waiver” tool, to accommodate development that doesn’t meet the strict requirements of underlying zoning (with regard to setbacks, height limits, etc.). This use predates more recent changes in state statutes (Title 24, Chapter 117) for dimensional waivers, subdivision regulations and planning unit development – including options that offer more limited flexibility under zoning, and much greater flexibility for planned development – as specifically established and defined under local regulations. Our first task then, scheduled through March, is to work with staff and the DRB to review the current LDRs in the following areas, for consistency with state statutes and to better support new forms of planned development:  Existing waiver provisions (throughout the regulations) for potential consolidation (related statutes: 24 VSA § 4414 (8) Waivers, § 4418 Subdivision Bylaws).  Master plan provisions (under Article 15), including associated purpose statements and standards of review – as the framework (“bones”) for all larger, phased development projects, including planned development (related statutes: § 4417 Planned Unit Development, § 4418 Subdivision Bylaws).  Subdivision regulations (under Article 15), including purpose statements, associated DRB review processes and technical and design standards, which may also apply to planned development (related statutes: 24 VSA § 4418 Subdivision Bylaws, §4463 Subdivision Review).  Planned Unit Development provisions (under Article 15) – including related purpose statements and standards of review (related statute: § 4417 Planned Unit Development).  Associated technical and design standards (throughout the regulations) – including form- based code and SEQ PUD standards that could be consolidated (e.g., street design standards), as more generally applied to subdivisions and planned development.  Associated development incentives (under Article 15) – especially those intended to support public/private partnerships in relation to defined public benefits–e.g., public access, open space, workforce housing, additional density, other public amenities (related statute: 24 VSA § 4414(14) Green Development Incentives, § 4417 Planned Unit Development).  Associated legal considerations (under Article 15) – for example, to include the city’s official map, capital budget and impact fee ordinance; associated bonding requirements; development agreements, including vested rights and the scheduling of required infrastructure improvements; and management associations and agreements (related statutes: 24 V.S.A. § 4421 Official Map, § 4422 Phasing, § 4463 Subdivision Review, § 4464 Decisions and Conditions). This list and the statutory references noted above are mostly for our benefit – and for those of you who may take a special interest in this stuff. There’s no expectation that you’ll review these before our meeting on Tuesday (but if you’d like, they’re available online: http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/24/117. Only be aware that, in addition to recommendations included in the Phase I report – and in the City’s Comprehensive Plan – there are also governing statutes (and related case law) that provide the foundation and legal framework for our work ahead. The next phase of the project – developing design criteria for new forms of planned development – should prove to be more engaging… Looking forward to our discussion Tuesday! Best, Sharon 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com January 24, 2017 The Honorable Miro Weinberger, Mayor City of Burlington 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Mr. Gene Richards Director of Aviation Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive South Burlington, VT 05401 re: Feedback on Second Draft 2016 Burlington International Airport Re-Use Plan / Noise Compatibility Plan Dear Mayor Weinberger and Mr. Richards, The City of South Burlington Planning Commission welcomes the opportunity to provide input on the Burlington International Airport’s (BIA) draft Re-Use Plan. The items in this letter related to the Draft Re-Use plan are based on the draft Plan released last month and the public meeting hosted by BIA on December 14th, 2016. For ease of reading, the term “the City” in this letter refers to the City of South Burlington unless otherwise noted. The City and BIA appear to have many shared goals – both recognize the important role that careful and comprehensive planning will have for the physical, social, and economic health of the Airport, neighborhood, and region. We consider this intermediary draft Re-Use Plan to be an important step towards reaching shared goals and look forward to the opportunity to review a revised draft that addresses the feedback below. While supporting shared goals, we also clearly state that neither this letter, nor any city officials’ involvement in this planning process represents an endorsement or approval of this plan or any part thereof by the City. Further, the City retains all rights regarding land in its possession and regulatory authorities it has over land use. Nothing in this Plan that references the City of South Burlington should be construed as the position of South Burlington. This letter is divided into three sections: 1) Key City topics / issues related to the draft Re-Use Plan 2) Follow-up to the City’s letter on the first draft Re-Use Plan and BIA’s response 3) Detailed feedback on the December 2016 Draft Re-Use Plan 1. Key City topics / issues related to the draft Re-Use Plan a) Geographic Scope of the draft Re-Use Plan Page 10 of the draft Re-Use Plan states “The FAA Noise Land Use Program requires all identified noise land parcels to be evaluated for their disposal or potential repurposing.” 2 The figures contained within the draft Report do not include at least 13 properties on the north side of Kirby Road, between Airport Parkway and Patchen Road, which we understand are part of the buy-out program1 and perhaps more. It is our understanding that the Re-Use Plan must include all properties acquired, planned for acquisition, and eligible for acquisition. Without the inclusion, evaluation, and designation of these properties in the draft Report, the City finds the overall Report to be incomplete. The City requests that the draft Report be revised to include these and any other absent properties. Upon completion of this revision, the City requests that a full, updated draft of the complete Re-Use Plan be released for public comment, and that additional public meeting be advertised and held by BIA. b) Designation of land in Mid/Long Term Plan Figures 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the Draft Re-Use Plan depict, graphically, designations of land for “Airport Development” and for “Noise Buffer / Green Space” over the medium and long-term. At BIA’s December 14, 2016 Public Meeting on the Draft Plan, the community was urged to look at the planned Airport Road - Airport Parkway connector as the divider between these two future designations and to provide feedback on how much land should be included on each side of the planned roadway. In its May 2016 letter, the City indicated that it supports a connector road that “Is adequately separated from and buffered from the Chamberlin Neighborhood (for noise generated by traffic on the road, and for visibility).” The City finds the land designated as “Noise Buffer / Green Space” to the west of the planned roadway, as depicted in Figures 3, 4, 5, and 8 to be insufficient. In some cases, the proposed buffer / green space appears to be 75’ or less in width. The City strongly advocates for all plans – short, medium, and long-term – to incorporate a buffer area sufficiently wide to protect the neighborhood from the impacts of any new roadway or Airport use, and to include sufficient area, where possible, to employ meaningful constructed noise buffering. Land Designated as “Noise Buffer / Green Space” should be at least 300’ in width from the property lines of homes outside the acquisition area wherever the existing roadway segments slated to remain allow for it. The reasons for this are three-fold: First, the existing housing to remain should be adequately buffered from development of all types. Until recently, these homes were located in the center of a neighborhood; they are now the edge of the neighborhood. Second, any impacts from a new roadway, which will come with its own noise and dust impacts, must be sufficiently mitigated to assure no detrimental effects on the housing. Third, sufficient space to the west of the roadway should be allocated to allow for future improvements, such as a linear recreation path or constructed noise mitigation, that may be explored in the future. Finally, the City of South Burlington strongly urges the Airport to develop, through this Plan or as a strong recommendation from this Plan, a detailed design document for the implementation of noise buffering and landscape enhancement techniques throughout this area. 1 http://www.btv.aero/airport-guide/neighborhood-connection/, “a list of eligible properties can be downloaded here” accessed January 5, 2016 3 c) Ongoing Collaboration The City, again, thanks BIA for the opportunity to provide comment and for hosting the public meetings it has held on the Draft Re-Use Plan. The City further thanks BIA and their consultant, CHA, for attending a meeting of the Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee (CNAPC) in February 2016 as the Committee developed a Chamberlin neighborhood transportation and land-use plan. The City finds it important, however, to note that it was not entirely satisfied with BIA’s engagement in the development of the Chamberlin neighborhood plan, and expresses a measure of disagreement with the draft Re-Use Plan’s characterization of said engagement. Referring to the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, page 2 of the draft Re-Use Plan states: “The airport and consultant team worked with the City to provide input from the airport’s perspective.” Further, page 7 of the draft Re-Use Plan states: “In an effort to expand the outreach this project has been coordinated with the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, conducted by the CCRPC in 2015 and 2016. The study is part of an ongoing effort to improve coordination between the Airport and the neighborhood in an effort to implement land use and transportation improvements for the neighborhood that work in conjunction with the Airport’s Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan.” While BIA’s consultant, CHA, did attend a CNAPC meeting to provide an overview of its work, the City was disappointed that the City of Burlington’s representatives to the Committee attended only 5 of 162 committee meetings, and none of the final 8. In noting this, the City wishes to express its desire for the Airport and City to each engage as full participants in each others’ planning efforts moving forward for the mutual benefit of all involved and for the region as a whole. 2. Follow-up to the City’s letter on the first draft Re-Use Plan and BIA’s response On May 17, 2016, the City offered a series of questions and comments on the initial draft of the Re-Use Plan issued in March 2016. The Airport’s Director of Aviation provided a response to this letter on November 10, 2016. The City thanks the Airport and its Director for taking the time to provide responses to the questions and comments contained in the letter. Many of comments contained in the letter and response underscore the collaborative goals of the City and Airport. The City offers a handful of follow-up items from this letter and response: a) Policy positions. The City’s re-affirms the policy positions that were enumerated in its original letter and incorporates them into this letter by reference. b) Development scenario questions. The City notes that for any Airport or other redevelopment functions to take place on land acquired by the Airport, the Airport will need to seek a zoning amendment from the City of South Burlington. Some of the facilities and uses depicted in the draft Re-Use Plan and/or the Airport’s 2030 Master Plan are not permitted under the City’s present Land Development Regulations. c) Looping of Elizabeth & Patrick Streets. The City thanks the Airport for its clarification of the “preliminary” nature of the ideas and looks forward to future engagement in options to best serve the neighborhood. d) Airport Road to Airport Parkway connector. As noted above, the City finds the present Mid & Long 2 One additional meeting, for a total of 17, took place but attendance records are not available for that meeting. 4 Term figures’ depiction of the planned roadway to be located too close to the neighborhood. 3. Detailed feedback on the December 2016 Draft Re-Use Plan The City offers the following assessment and feedback on the draft Re-Use Plan issues for public review in December 2016: Executive Summary, page 2, paragraph 2 See note under section 1 above regarding collaboration. 1.0 Introduction, page 3, paragraph 1 According to the FAA’s Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) data3, total enplanements at BIA in Calendar Year 2015 were 581,143, not “over 600,000” as listed in the draft Plan. Please confirm and correct as necessary. 1.1 Noise Land & Land Use Compatibility, page 4, table 1 According to the FAA’s Program Guidance Letters website4 it appears that program guidance letter 8-02 was cancelled by PGL-14-05. Please confirm, update the source, and adjust the table as necessary. 1.1 Noise Land & Land Use Compatibility, page 4, graphic: Common Sound Levels by DNL. Citation was inadequate to find the source document. Please provide the full document citation for this graphic. 1.4 Municipal and Public Outreach, Page 7, paragraph 1. See note under section 1 above regarding collaboration. 2.0 Noise Land Inventory, Page 9, paragraph 2. The draft report indicates that there are an “additional 37 parcels eligible for acquisition under the existing program.” Please clarify this statement. Specifically: a) Does this 37 figure refer to total properties eligible for acquisition, or total properties eligible for acquisition for which funding has been awarded by the FAA? b) Does this 37 figure include all properties presented in the maps prepared by the Jones Payne Group entitled “Proposed land acquisition properties” [undated], presented on September 14, 2016 to the Airport Sound Mitigation Committee5? c) The Jones Payne Group presentation on September 14, 2016 to the Airport’s Sound Mitigation Committee6 states, on page 2, “Received $16 million grant in September 2016 for 39 homes located in the previous acquisition area.” Please reconcile the 37 and 39 figures. 2.0 Noise Land Inventory, Page 9, paragraph 2. The draft report states “There are no apartment buildings… planned for acquisition.” It’s our understanding that there is at least one rental triplex in the noise land area that is planned for acquisition, on Dumont Ave. Please confirm. 3 https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/ accessed January 5, 2017 4 https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/guidance_letters/ accessed January 5, 2017 5 http://www.btv.aero/airport-guide/neighborhood-connection/, “a list of eligible properties can be downloaded here” accessed January 5, 2016 6 http://www.btv.aero/airport-guide/neighborhood-connection/, “Jones Payne Group Presentation (Airport Consultant)” accessed January 5, 2016 5 2.0 Noise Land Inventory, Page 9, paragraph 3. The draft report states “Due to significant interest and a large number of potential participants, BTV requested that the South Burlington City Council accelerate the program for FY 2010 and 2011. As a result, the FAA agreed to increase the funding for acquisition of noise land for the subsequent two fiscal years.” The City has two concerns about the above statement: a) First, the statement seems to imply that the “program” was run by the City of South Burlington. It was the Airport’s program, for which the Airport sought feedback from the City of South Burlington. b) Second, this statement appears to be somewhat of a non-sequitur to the remainder of the report. The statement refers to a request by the Airport to gain City Council concurrence on seeking additional funds over a two-year program to accelerate the program and allow the home buy-out program to end more quickly. The report makes no other reference to the pace of acquisition of homes. The City recommends this section be either removed altogether or clarified and explained as to its purpose in the report. 3.0 Noise Land Re-Use Plan, page 10, paragraph 1 See discussion above under Section 1. 3.0 Noise Land Re-Use Plan, page 10, paragraph 2. The draft report includes a table showing past, present, and future Terminal Area forecasts (TAFs). How often are the TAFs updated? When they are updated, are the future years also updated? Based on the declining enplanement in each of the years 2010 through 2015, to a figure of 594,034, what leads the projections to see an increase to 670,947 in just 4 years and to 781,216 by 2030? Historical figures before 2010 could be useful. Absent some information about the projections, South Burlington is somewhat skeptical of these figures. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 1 The draft report states “The property within the 75 dB DNL contour should be reserved for future airport development as well as areas along Airport Drive which fall within the 70 dB – 75 dB DNL contour.” Some of the planned acquisition areas missing from the draft report (see notes above) appear to be within the 70+ dB DNL contour. The report is incomplete without an assessment of those areas and should be added as discussed above. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 3 Land within the 75 dB DNL can also be suitable for Noise Buffer. The City of South Burlington requests that this option, for passive or constructed Noise Buffer, be added to this area. Constructed noise buffer may include berming or other landscape improvements to further reduce noise impacts of the Airport on the adjacent neighborhood. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 4 The draft report states that “Most of the properties in the VLAP that fall within the 65-75 dB DNL range will be retained for noise buffer between the Airport and Chamberlin neighborhood, and will include green space and open lands.” Figure 2, Short Term-Plan, makes no distinction between land reserved for “noise buffer” and land reserved for “aviation-related development.” Please clarify the statement above or depict the area in figure 2 to reflect the statement. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 4 The draft Report indicates that this area should be retained for noise buffers such as green spaces and open lands. The City of South Burlington requests that possible constructed Noise Buffer be added to this area as 6 short-term options. Constructed noise buffer may include berming or other landscape improvements to further reduce noise impacts of the Airport on the adjacent neighborhood. Short-Term Plan General Comments: a) The City of South Burlington strongly supports the short-term use of the land for noise buffering, both passive and active. b) The City of South Burlington supports continuation of the Airport’s current landscape maintenance efforts, the planting of additional landscaping, and access to the land for the travelling public. c) The City of South Burlington supports the efforts to continue having a public dog park in the vicinity. 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 2 The City of South Burlington notes, as it did in its letter of May 17, 2016, that it is not in support of a “limited access” road to reach the long-term scenario. The City has taken no formal position on an Interstate access serving multiple users. 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 4 (figure 4) The draft report states “It should also be noted that this road concept would need to be funded by the City or State, as new or improved roads serving the local community are not eligible for FAA funding.” Two comments: a) Please provide a specific reference to the FAA prohibition on use of funds for this purpose if such a statement is to be made. b) This statement is very narrow in its focus. There are multiple Federal funding sources that do or could in the future exist for such a project. If the statement it to be made, it should refer exclusively to the FAA and not all Federal funding sources. 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 5 (figure 5) A statement should be added to each of these alternatives indicating that a full traffic study would be required for any such improvements. The statement that “this scenario would remove automobile traffic from the neighborhood, providing access only at Kirby Road and Williston Road” may be accurate, but it does not in any way address the consequences of such an action. An improvement such as this, for example, could have a significant impact on Kirby Road being used as a cut-through for non-airport related traffic coming from or headed to Rt 15 in Colchester. Mid/Long-Term Plan General Comments: a) As noted above, the City of South Burlington does not support a limited access connector to I-89. b) Regarding land use designations, see discussion above in Section 1. 4.0 Implementation Plan, page 13, paragraph 1 This paragraph does not read correctly. Please review and clarify. 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 13, Table 6 As noted above, the City of South Burlington strongly supports moving the planned new roadway closer to the Airport and adding to the land designated as “retain land for noise buffer.” 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 13, paragraph 3 (short term) See notes above concerning the statement “There are an additional 37 parcels in the VLAP.” 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 13, paragraph 3 (short term) 7 The draft report states: “It is recommended that the Airport continue its ongoing Noise Land Acquisition Program by acquiring the remaining, eligible properties and as parcels are continuously being acquired by the Airport, non-compatible land uses should be removed.” The City offers the following comments: a) Until the exact numbers and location of eligible properties is clarified in this report, the recommendation to acquire the remaining eligible properties is too broad. b) The statement should be revised to reflect the voluntary nature of the program. It is our understanding that the FAA’s noise compatibility program is intended to offer acquisition. The statement above indicates an objective of acquiring homes. 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 14 (beyond five years) Please include a note that the City of South Burlington has not been formally approached regarding any of the ideas or options related to road rights-of-way acquisition or land exchange, and that the City of South Burlington has taken no position on any of these. 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 14 (beyond five years) If the Airport is interested in acquiring rights-of-way owned by the City of South Burlington, as indicated in the draft report, the report should be revised to state that the “Airport should approach the City of South Burlington about the possible acquisition…” Such a clarification would be consistent with the statement towards the end of paragraph 3 that notes that this is a voluntary acquisition. 4.2 Implementation Steps, page 15, action steps a) Regarding item (2), please correct as discussed above b) These implementation steps make no reference to the City of South Burlington’s exclusive authority of zoning over the land, nor any steps to approach the City regarding any changes in zoning to facilitate the actions contained with step 9, “implemented master plan improvements”. 4.3 Potential Implementation Schedule, page 16, tentative project phasing schedule Please update the table to reflect the voluntary nature of the programs as described above. Throughout The draft report contains multiple typographical, grammatical, and spelling errors. Please review and correct these are needed. Conclusion We wish, finally, to thank you for your continued openness in developing the draft Re-Use Plan, and to thank the Airport’s consultant, CHT, for their work on this project on behalf of the Airport and in the interests of the community, region, and State. We look forward to receiving an updated version of this Draft Re-Use Plan in the near future. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or City staff. Sincerely, Jessica Louisos, Chair on behalf of the South Burlington Planning Commission, which approved this letter on January 24, 2017. cc: Helen Riehle, Chair, South Burlington City Council; Kevin Dorn, City Manager; Pat Nowak, South Burlington Representative to the Airport Commission; 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: Draft Airport Re-Use Plan feedback – comments from public DATE: January 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting At the Commission’s last meeting, staff was asked to distribute the Commission’s draft letter to members of the former Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee. Staff received a handful of comments. They are included below. Following each comment is a note from staff. We went ahead and incorporated minor edits into the draft letter, and left the rest for you to decide how you’d like to proceed. The letter has also been updated per the Commission’s request to send it to Mayor Weinberger in addition to the Director of Aviation. Finally, a reminder that the deadline for all feedback on the draft Re-Use Plan is January 31st. Carmine Sargent: I have sat down this morning to thoroughly read through the draft you sent. I appreciate the thoroughness of addressing the concerns CNAPC had previously voiced and the continued engagement of the city in this matter. I have no concerns or additions, just found a few grammatical errors as any former teacher would do. It is so refreshing to see the city taking such an active role in these airport matters and being more aggressive in its approach with the airport. I like living here in this neighborhood for it reminds be of growing up in the Village of Johnson, not just the Town, where you could conduct your life on your feet and have your exercise program built into your daily living. This is not just about affordable housing but also about a way of life. Staff note – no changes made to draft PC letter Marc Companion Thanks, Paul and Jessica. 2 The draft response looks good from my perspective, and I plan to submit my own comments independent of CNAPC. Marc Marc Companion former CNAPC member Staff note – no changes made to draft PC letter Greg Severance: Paul and Jessica- Thank you for this opportunity. I think it may be relevant to expand the 3.2 comment on page 6: 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 5 (figure 5) A statement should be added to each of these alternatives indicating that a full traffic study would be required for any such improvements. The statement that “this scenario would remove automobile traffic from the neighborhood, providing access only at Kirby Road and Williston Road” may be accurate, but it does not in any way address the consequences of such an action. An improvement such as this, for example, could have a significant impact on Kirby Road being used as a cut through for non-airport related traffic coming from or headed to Rt 15 in Colchester. to include that a direct access route also impacts South Burlington residents located in communities north of the airport such as on Lime Kiln Road, Country Club Estates and White Rocks, not to mention the commerce development on Ethan Allen Ave. Airport Parkway is the only road connecting those that live in that area to the rest of South Burlington without going through another municipality. Otherwise, the draft letter looks good to me. Thanks again for the opportunity and keeping us informed. I would like to take the time to share that some of my neighbors in Country Club Estates are also concerned with the noise map and impacts to our homes. While no properties in our development have been designated as eligible for the buyout, there is general concern that they may be in the future and I for one am closely watching the developments. I am aware of at least one family that is seriously considering relocating to Georgia given the lack of affordable replacement housing within SB. Greg Severance Staff note – no changes made to draft PC letter; staff recommends the Commission review the suggestion and decide whether to include. 3 Meaghan Emery Very good, letter, Commissioners and Paul. Well documented and clear and concise. I'm using it as I prepare a draft resolution to present to the Council for passage prior to the deadline at the end of the month. One note on a possible typo in the very last sentence of the letter: "We look forward to revising an updated version of this Draft Re-Use Plan in the near future. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or City staff. " I believe it should read: "We look forward to receiving..." Thank you for your excellent work. Sincerely yours, Meaghan Staff note – correction made to draft letter. Monica Ostby Just a few Airport letter notes… - On all pages there are inconsistencies when stating “draft Report” vs “draft report.” - pg 1 para 2: “will have in for the physical…” - pg 2 last para, last line: “that may explored…” - pg 7 Conclusion: “thank you your…” Staff note – all corrections made to draft letter. 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: November 22, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Staff has been working on a hearty set of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations. Below is a listing of the projects, most of which have already been previewed in at least one meeting, while some have been discussed at several meetings. a. City Center street type designation for San Remo to Dorset and Barret to San Remo connections- Initially considered at the 1/10/17 meeting. Based on PC feedback staff recommends returning to this on February 14th. b. Building facades & garages for 1-4 dwelling unit structures- Discussed several times. At the direction of PC, staff is preparing LDR text. c. Clarification of uses permitted in the Institutional-Agricultural district- not yet presented; technical clarifications and clean up. May present on February 14th. d. Allowance for front porches in the R4 District- not yet presented e. Conditional Use Procedural clarification- not yet presented f. Fence heights in residential districts, SEQ, and CC FBC- not yet presented g. Affordable housing in SEQ NRN and reference corrections- not yet presented h. Clarifications of Transferable Development Rights program- not yet presented i. Planned Rights of Way – Williston Road, Garden Street, Market Street j. Shelburne Road / Williston Road basic “form” standards – setbacks, windows & doors, building heights- Discussed in recent months. Staff is prepared to bring more developed thoughts and additional language on February 14th. k. End-of-trip bicycle & pedestrian facilities- Discussed by PC in November as a response to a draft memo from Keith Epstein, with direction given to ask Bike and Ped Committee to draft language. Bike/Ped has been working diligently and a draft is expected in advance of the February 14th PC meeting. l. Agricultural Enterprise- Discussed at several PC meetings. Last direction from PC was to develop thoughts around the concept of equivalencies. Likely to bring back February 14th. 2 m. Agricultural Amendments not related to Ag Enterprise- Predominantly related to food hub regulations and related definitions. Brief, reviewed Summer 2016 with minor changes directed. n. FBC technical corrections- As the FBC is used and implemented, we are discovering some technical gaps which are best clarified. February 2/14 Meeting •Consider outstanding requests for FBC changes- street type and Official Map •Consider Road Name Request •Review in-depth thoughts for several LDR amendments; possible draft text. •Continue discussion of Ag Enterprise 2/28 Meeting •Continue discussion of Affordable Housing work •Continue Master Planning/PUD Tool Discussion •Continue discussion of LDR amendments March 3/14 Meeting •Begin discussing project scope for Scenic Views Project •Affordable housing continued •Consider system or approach for Comprehensive Plan evaluation •Introduce Tilley Drive traffic and land planning project 3/28 Meeting •Receive and review Williston Road/Rte 2 study •Continue Master Planning/PUD Tool Discussion •Review draft of LDR amendments; consider warning public hearing April 4/11 Meeting •Evaluate FBC implementation and consider tweaks •Continue discussion of Scenic Views Project •Check in on Tilley Drive project 4/25 Meeting •Master Planning/PUD Tool Discussion •Possible public hearing on LDR amendments May 5/9 Meeting •Possible public hearing on LDR amendments •Continue Discussion of Comp Plan Evaluation 5/13 Meeting •Master Planning/PUD Tool Discussion •Consider amendments to Natural Resource Standards DRAFT: Planning Commission Project Timeline, 2017 Other potential projects for CY 17: Bike/Ped Projects, Highway impact fees, Traffic Overlay Districts, Transferable Development Rights, Chamberlin Neighborhood, Open Space Standards 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: JANUARY 18, 2017 On Thursday, February 9, 2017, 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: RECIPENTS FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING BYLAWS DA: JANUARY 18, 2017 At its January 12 meeting, the Shelburne Planning Commission discussed possible zoning bylaw amendments. The amendments would modify the Town’s land use regulations in several ways. At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning Commission voted to warn a Public Hearing on the proposed changes and to conduct that hearing on Thursday, February 9, 2019. In addition, Staff was directed to distribute the proposed amendment and a “zoning change report” as required by statute. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The material warned for public hearing consists of several distinct pieces, which may be summarized as: a) a proposal to clarify sidewalk and path construction requirements, b) a proposal to expand requirements governing trailers and storage of waste, c) a proposal to modify regulations governing sign lighting, d) a proposal to establish requirements for setbacks from private rights-of-way, and e) a proposal to modify excavation and fill requirements. A list of the sections contained in the proposal is presented below. Article Section Article IV 430.2.A Article XIX 1900 1900 A 1900 B 1900.2 (multiple paragraphs) 1900.3 (“ “) 1900.7 (“ “) 1900.8 (“ “) 1950.1 (“ “) 1970.1 (“ “) 1980.9 (“ “) Article XX 2020.2 Article XXI multiple definitions The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is presented in the documents attached. Language to be added to the bylaw is shown in color with underscore. Language to be deleted is shown in color with strikethrough (strikethrough). Highlights are an artifact and are not part of any proposal to change the bylaw. ZONING CHANGE REPORT A report prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) is also attached. This report describes how the proposal “Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan…” and “Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.” Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments (Form Based Zoning) Prepared for Consideration by Planning Commission and approved on January 12, 2017 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 several aspects of the bylaw. Such changes may be summarized as follows: a) clarification of sidewalk and path construction requirements, b) expansion of requirements governing trailers and storage of waste, c) modification of regulations governing sign lighting, d) establishment of requirements for setbacks from private rights-of-way, and e) clarification and reduction in excavation and fill requirements. Purpose The Planning Commission has developed the changes in response to input from the Development Review Board and others, including members of the Shelburne Bike and Pedestrian Paths Committee. The Commission believes the proposed changes address concerns expressed by members of the DRB while also reflecting the policy input and prerogatives of the Commission. The proposal also responds to and contributes to the advancement of a wide range of Comprehensive Plan policies. 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 Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 2 Muti-element Zoning Proposal, January 2017 contained in the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: GOAL: TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT FACILITATES THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS, IS IN SCALE WITH THE PRESENT AND ANTICIPATED CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY WHILE RECOGNIZING OUR ROLE WITHIN THE LARGER REGION, AND REINFORCES THE LAND USE PATTERNS AND VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS SET FORTH IN THIS PLAN. SIDEWALKS, PATHS AND TRAILS Shelburne intends to continue its commitment to a wide range of modes of travel by creating an integrated network of sidewalks, paths, bike lanes, and trails that will accommodate walkers, cyclists, joggers, and other non-motorized travel modes. This will provide healthy, energy efficient, and pleasant ways of moving about the community. OBJECTIVES: 1. Create an integrated network of sidewalks, paths, bike lanes and trails that connects with surrounding towns, and connects residential areas with other key locations such as the Village, the beach, schools, Shelburne Pond, recreation areas, cultural facilities, and shopping areas, as described in the Bike and Pedestrian’s Committee comprehensive map 2. Explore the creation of incentives that might encourage private development of walkways that connect to the public path and trail network, via the development review process and in other ways. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 2. Construction of the various elements shall be consistent with the “Vermont Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Planning and Design Manual” issued by VTrans in 2002. 4. Construct walkways in the Village on at least one side of the road, as feasible. 5. Continue the practice of asking subdividers to grant easements of planned paths and trails as part of the subdivision approval process. 6. Establish rules for project approval by the Development Review Board that encourage the granting of easements and construction along any road in the town, for which the CCRPC transportation counts show an average daily vehicular count of 3,000 or higher, of either: • Bicycle lanes on both sides of the road and a sidewalk on at least one side, or. • A hard surface multi-use path of at least eight (8) feet in width with physical separation by either green strip, curb, or guardrail from the vehicular travel service. 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. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 3 Muti-element Zoning Proposal, January 2017 OBJECTIVES: 1. Ensure that commercial and appropriate industrial development, and associated employment opportunities, take place in accordance with 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. 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 GOAL: TO IDENTIFY, MANAGE, AND CONSERVE SHELBURNE’S NATURAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES SO THAT THEY MAY BE APPROPRIATELY USED AND ENJOYED NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. OBJECTIVES: 6. Ensure that the alteration or disturbance of significant natural areas and areas particularly at risk of degradation is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 7. Ensure that future development does not jeopardize surface and ground water quality or degrade drinking water supplies. 11. Require that all extraction of earth resources include an approved site restoration plan, and ensure that any restoration plan be implemented in a way that prevents adverse impacts on natural, scenic, and water resources. Work with owners of existing extraction operations to encourage effective closing and reclamation of such facilities, when use of such facilities ceases, in accordance with these objectives. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 8. Amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to more effectively achieve the Goal and Objectives of this section. Specifically, the amendments shall address at least the following (where appropriate, similar changes shall be made to the Subdivision Regulations): Incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) techniques and promote use of materials, design, and other features that improve environmental quality. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 4 Muti-element Zoning Proposal, January 2017 Planning Commissioners find that the proposal would positively address and advance the foregoing language as well as related Comprehensive Plan language. They believe that the proposal would: • By increasing sidewalk and path construction requirements, support the creation of a multimodal transportation system that is safe, efficient, in scale with surroundings, and reinforces desired land use patterns, while also encourage physical activity and better public health; • By clarifying regulations governing sign lighting, support the growth and diversification of the Town's economy in a way that enhances the general well-being of Shelburne; • By establishing requirements for setbacks from private rights-of-way and further by expanding requirements governing storage trailers and domestic waste disposal, promote the preservation of attractive and modest density residential neighborhoods; and • By clarifying and prioritizing requirements relating to excavation and filling, contribute to the protection of water quality and stewardship of the Town’s natural resources, including earth resources. Commissioners also recognize the potential for the proposal to promote other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan The default development densities authorized by the zoning bylaws are not affected by the proposal. Thus, in conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that the zoning amendment proposal that is the subject of this report would be entirely 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] NOTICE SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to 24 V.S.A., Section 4444, Shelburne’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on February 9, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in Town Center Meeting Room 1 to consider amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. Purpose: Add language relating to: sidewalk and path construction; trailers and storage of waste; sign lighting; setbacks from private rights-of-way; and excavation and fill. Geographic Area affected: Area affected is the Town of Shelburne. List of sections affected: Article SectionArticle IV 430.2.A Article XIX 1900 1900 A 1900 B 1900.2 (multiple paragraphs) 1900.3 (“ “) 1900.7 (“ “) 1900.8 (“ “) 1950.1 (“ “) 1970.1 (“ “) 1980.9 (“ “) Article XX 2020.2 Article XXI multiple definitions Place where full text may be examined: The full text will be available for review in the Shelburne Planning and Zoning Office during regular business hours, on the Town’s web site, and via email (contact the Planning and Zoning office). Publication date: January 22, 2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 JANUARY 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 January 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; D. Leban, F. Johnston, P. Carpenter, D. Burke, B. Gardner, M. Dumont 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. Johnston asked when it is appropriate to inform abutting neighbors when a property is to be discussed. Mr. Conner explained that all agendas are posted on the website the Friday prior to a meeting. Anything to be voted out by the Planning Commission or City Council requires a warned public hearing, advertised in the local newspaper, online, and at various places around the city. When there is a project before the DRB, a notification goes to abutting neighbors and neighbors across the street from where the project is. Mr. Carpenter noted that Ms. Johnston’s driveway comes off the street involved in agenda item #4. He asked if she would have received a formal notice. Mr. Conner said there is not a legal requirement for that. If the adjacent property is to be developed, there is a formal notification. Mr. Gagnon added that when the Commission knows something that is being requested, they ask staff to draft regulations and at times ask staff to do other extra kinds of outreach. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Conner: Staff met with the Project Team for the Tilley Dr./Kimball Ave. project, Phase I. There will be a presentation on this to the Planning Commission on 7 February. The City Council passed a resolution at the end of December asked that the FAA help fund/provide information regarding what the noise contours could be when the F-35s arrive. Staff has been meeting with developers in the City Center area regarding projects. The first application for a City Center project is in. It involves 2 properties on Hinesburg Road, south of Price Chopper and is a proposal for a commercial building. 2 Staff is taking a look at impact fees. The Affordable Housing Committee is talking about tools that can be used to get affordable units. Different members of the Committee have different tasks. On Thursday evening, the second committee leadership meeting for committee chairs and vice chairs will be held. Ms. LaRose: Staff has met with 2 architects regarding garage standards. They also met with property owners regarding garages. The Commission will be seeing something on this soon. The Bike/Ped Committee meets tomorrow. At their December meeting, they discussed “end of trip” facilities and are doing work on that. This will also come to the Planning Commission soon. Ms. Louisos: Submitted the Planning Commission annual report to the City Council. Ms. Harrington asked if there have been any follow ups regarding South Burlington Realty’s concern with block standards. Mr. Conner said there haven’t been. They have been doing some master planning to see how to meet the code, etc. 4. Initial Consideration of LDR Amendment Request: Form Based Code T3 street connectivity: Mr. Conner noted that 2 regulations apply: the LDRs and the Official City Map. The concern is the property to the immediate west of Dumont Park. He indicated this on the map and also indicated the old route of the road. That route was updated this past year. Mr. Conner indicated the new proposed route. Staff has been approached by Brad Gardner regarding the city’s intent for the area he owns. Form Based Code requires that if the property is developed, that road has to be built and has to be connected at both ends. Mr. Burke then said they do not have a specific proposal, but they do have concern with the wording in the LDRs that says roads “shall” connect at each end. Their question is whether that “connection” must be a road or whether it can be viewed as a walking path, or not be considered at all. Mr. Burke said the intent of that section is good; however, there are some places where connection at both ends may not be the best thing. He felt that in this case a pedestrian connection would be preferable because of the proximity to a city park. He suggested that a boardwalk across the wetland would be a nice connection to the park. Mr. Gardner then showed the route they would like to take for a city road and also the potential location of a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Burke added that they would have no problem giving the appropriate easements to make that happen. He then showed an overhead photo and indicated the possible location for a bridge. 3 Mr. Gagnon noted that the Commission had been broadening the concept of “connection” to include pedestrian connections. Mr. Conner said the Commission could write that as a pedestrian connection so there would be no questions in the future. Ms. Louisos suggested changing it only on the Official City Map. Mr. Gagnon said they could show a street from the south to the end and show it on the Official City Map. The developer’s only responsibility would be to provide either an easement for the connection. If the property to the west were to be developed, they would have to do the connection. Mr. Burke asked about timing. Mr. Conner said if the Commission likes a pedestrian connection, they could allow for a dead end road. All alternatives would require a language change which could be in the next packet of amendments that goes to the City Council. Ms. Ostby asked if there are any safety concerns requiring the road to be connected at both ends. Mr. Conner said any development would go through a review, including a review by the Fire Department. Mr. Gagnon asked if there could be a pedestrian path wide enough for Fire Department trucks to access. Mr. Conner said he would ask them. Ms. Blanchard indicated the city’s favored connection to the north. She noted that there is nothing that speaks to a connection from San Remo to the Park. Mr. Carpenter indicated his house location. He said the neighborhood is concerned with additional cards from the proposed new housing (as many as 70 units). He added you can’t make a left turn today, and even a right turn is hard. Ms. Johnston said she doesn’t want their road to become an access to Hinesburg Road. She felt a pedestrian pathway to Barrett Street was OK. Mr. Dumont added they had no idea that road was on the map. They don’t want traffic coming through there. Ms. Louisos explained how the Official City Map works. A resident asked if Wesco can be required to allow a right-of-way to cross his property. Mr. Conner said staff’s recommendation would be to write what the Planning Commission wants (e.g., a pedestrian connection). The city could only compel land to be taken for a road and one for “public benefit,” not for economic development. Mr. Burke said they haven’t talked with Wesco. They can only go to the property line. In the future, the city could decide to use eminent domain to cross the Wesco property. Mr. Conner noted the City does not like to do that. 4 Mr. Conner said staff will propose some language, possibly for the first meeting in February. 5. Review and Possible Approval of Draft Purpose & Need Statement for I-89 Exit Bicycle- Pedestrian Crossing Study: Ms. Harrington moved to approve the draft Purpose & Need Statement for the I-89 Exit Bicycle- Pedestrian Crossing Study as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Gagnon abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. 6. Review and Possible Feedback on Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re-Use Plan: Mr. Gagnon recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Conner reviewed the nature of an Airport re-use plan. He noted that the land in question needs to be either for airport use or disposed of (which is rare). Airport use could be for noise buffers, green space, commercial use, etc.). The Airport recently held its second public meeting on this, and staff learned 2 things: 1. The consultant said there is no money for the roadway, and that the draft Plan should use the road as a guideline regarding what the desired land uses are to the east and to the west of the road. 2. There are small areas which are not included in the re-use plan which are in the acquisition area plan (Mr. Conner showed these on the map). The plan is being updated to include these areas. The deadline for feedback on the plan is 31 January 2017. Commissioners reviewed the draft letter that staff had been asked to put together based on prior discussions and input from the city. After some discussion, members agreed to send a copy of the draft letter to former CNAPC Committee members for their feedback prior to their final action, and asked staff to send a copy of this “near final” draft to the City Council so that they can be informed of the Commission’s work and in the event that the Council may also wish to be providing input to the Airport prior to the deadline. 7. Consider FY2018 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program requests: Mr. Conner noted that he and Mr. Rabidoux met with CCRPC. They particularly liked the Part 3 of the Kimball Avenue project and the shared use path scoping. There is also interest in the other an option for park siting, but there are questions as to how they could be tied to the funding source which needs to be directly related to transportation. 5 Mr. Riehle questioned whether the Commission could do the park study themselves and save the money. Ms. LaRose said the study would look at levels of parks, when needed, and what kind of programming is needed. After discussion, members agreed to move item #6 up to #3 and drop the rest down. Mr. Macdonald moved approve the list of CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program requests with #6 moved up to #3 and the rest moved down a place. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 13 December 2016 Ms. Harrington clarified that on -. 5, next to the last comment, her point was that she hoped residents were told how avigation easements work before they accept any funds. She stressed that the easements run with the land. Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the Minutes of 13 December 2016 with the above clarification. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: a. Proposed Amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, public hearing 24 January 2017: No issues were raised. b. Application to Vermont Wetland Program, wetland reclassification, Barrett Street: Mr. Conner said the request is to change the classification from Class 2 to Class 3. No issues were raised. Ms. LaRose noted that staff has put together a full listing of all strategies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk