Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/22/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 MAY 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 May 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Greco, D. Marosky, L. Block 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Marosky expressed concern with a possible change in zoning for the property a 1225 Dorset St. Mr. Conner explained that the Commission will be discussing its work schedule, and that will be one of the items they will consider adding to their work plan. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner: Attended the annual CNU conference last week with other planners and developers. The main theme was urban development planning & design. Mr. Conner said he will share things from that event in the future. The City has officially started digitizing all files, etc. Mr. Riehle said he has been asked the status of the derelict building (formerly belonging to the late Paul Heald). Mr. Conner said the City Council has discussed this but taken no action as yet. 5. Planning Commission Work Plan FY2019 initial discussion: Mr. Conner reviewed basic parameters for discussion: making sure members are clear about what projects are, what to possibly add, and a review of staff recommendations. Then before the next meeting, members can rank the projects in order of priority preference. Mr. Conner added that staff recommended projects include those that are nearing completion. Ms. LaRose also noted that when the Commission has decided on a work plan, they can meet with other city committees and encourage them to have their plans coincide with some of the Commission’s plans. Ms. Ostby favored all the projects related to affordable housing and suggested broadening the definition of “affordable housing.” Mr. Klugo asked who drives the affordable housing agenda. Mr. Conner said in the past the Commission has met with committees, and they have been open to addressing the Commission’s priorities. Mr. Riehle favored items #27, 29, 35, 36 and 48. He felt #35, 36 and 48 should be moved up in the rankings so the Commission can decide what it wants there before something gets built. He also noted that #12, 13 and 52 relate to bike/ped/transportation and should be moved forward before projects go into place. Ms. Louisos said that projects that are funded should be at the top. Mr. Macdonald suggested filtering out the ones that are definitely going to be done and then choosing from the rest. Mr. Klugo questioned how much time there will actually be for new work and the requests that come in. Mr. Conner said how the Commission takes on a project is important…for example, asking another committee to do some of the work. Mr. Klugo said the Commission still has to review what the other committees present. Ms. Ostby asked about #9 (review of UVM properties). Mr. Conner said it may be time to work with UVM regarding “right zoning” properties instead of having so much of UVM property zoned as “Institutional Agriculture.” Mr. Riehle suggested telling UVM what the city wants for various properties and seeing their response. Mr. Conner said staff meets formally with UVM twice a year, and staff has begun to pose that question to them. Ms. Ostby said if UVM isn’t willing to lose the flexibility, it wouldn’t be worth it. Mr. Klugo added there has to be a mutual benefit to warrant discussion. Ms. Louisos cited some “givens” such as meeting with the DRB, public hearings, providing input to the CIP, etc. She cited #2, 3, 4, 7,10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26, 28, 32 and 37 as “givens.” Mr. Conner said he will send out the Excel for members to use in choosing their priorities. He asked each member to rank 15 choices. Staff will also indicate its preferences. 6. Consider and possibly approve or support City Council Resolution formally requesting that the U.S. Air Force replace the F-35A with a safe and quiet aircraft: Ms. Louisos provided a brief review of the history. Mr. Klugo questioned whether this is the appropriate body to take this up. Mr. Riehle said he felt the impact to a neighborhood does have planning implications. Mr. Mittag said the impact on housing stock is of interest to him and the Commission. Ms. Ostby asked how the Commission can be proactive. Mr. Klugo said the Commission’s proactivity is in the Comprehensive Plan. At this point, there is nothing for the Commission to do. Ms. Louisos said there are a lot of things related to housing and affordability in the Council Resolution, and those do make sense to the Commission. Other things in the Resolution do not. She also noted that in the past, the Commission did make a statement related to land use (letter of 2012). Ms. Greco cited new pieces of information that might affect a decision. The first is that the F-35 will carry nuclear weaponry by 2020 or sooner. It is doing well in testing. If this is the case, nuclear weapons would be stored in South Burlington. Ms. Greco added that the planes would be a target from an enemy’s perspective. She cited the difference between an Air Force Base, where there would be increased security, and a commercial airport. Ms. Block said the Commission’s work is about health and safety. She supported the Commission taking a stand to support the City Council. Mr. Conner said he would send members a copy of the 2012 Commission letter and the formal response to that letter. He suggested having this as a votable item on the work plan. Members decided to leave it to the Chair to determine whether, if additional relevant information becomes known, to place further discussion of this topic on the agenda. 7. Staff Update on Traffic Overlay District with Impact Fees: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He said staff is leaning toward looking at traffic more generally across the city, having thresholds for when a traffic study is needed. For all projects, there would be a requirement to show there is an effort to reduce single-occupancy vehicles. Staff has spent the most time of the City Center area, where the intent is to promote more modes of transportation. There is consideration as to how the CIP is put together with an emphasis on how to “move” people. Money can then be provided for identified projects. 8. (#6 on the agenda): Walkable Communities – Short Video and Discussion: Members agreed to postpone the video to a future meeting due to time consideration. 9. Meeting Minutes of 8 May 2018: Mr. Mittag noted that on p. 3, third paragraph from the bottom the line should read “due diligence training.” Mr. Klugo noted that on p. 4, third paragraph from the bottom, the sentence should read “no questions/issues with 8c or 8d.” Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the Minutes of 8 May 2018 as amended. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:31 p.m. Minutes approved by the Commission on June 12, 2018 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: May 22, 2018 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 initial discussion (7:15 pm) Enclosed with your packet please find an initial rough cut at the elements of a potential work plan for FY 2019. The list contains the projects the Commission is actively working on, as well as the bulk of the items that were not able to “make the cut” in 2018. There are some additions as well, driven by either projects that the Commission has asked be considered for this year or evolving conditions in the Community. Staff was asked to provide some recommendations on priority projects this year. The project lit includes these and is marked as such. We also took an initial attempt to organize the work by themes, to give Commissioners a sense as to the topic areas being addressed. Finally, we did some consolidation of projects to make the list a little easier to read. We envision the development of this work plan as a two-meeting effort. At this meeting, we’d love to have Commissioners share the areas you see as critical for being worked on this year, add projects, remove projects, etc. After this meeting, we’d be happy to provide you a copy to “rank” projects of importance to yourselves and to bring back to the next meeting for action. In all cases, the work being proposed is intended to advance the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Walkable Communities- Short Video and Discussion (8:00 pm) As a change of pace, staff has a short video to share from national expert on community building Jeff Speck. Paul had the pleasure of seeing the speaker live at a recent conference and found him to be both engaging and in line with the work that the Commission has been considering over the past several years. 7. Consider and possibly approve or support City Council Resolution formally requesting that the US Air Force replace the F-35A with a safe and quiet aircraft (8:30 pm) Per the Commission’s request, time has been reserved on the agenda for the Commission to continue its consideration of action related to the F-35 aircraft. 8. Staff Update on Traffic Overlay District and Impact Fees (8:45 pm) Staff will provide a short project update. 9. Meeting minutes (8:55 pm) Minutes of 5-8-2018 10. Other business (8:58 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:00 pm) 1. Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181234567MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan GoalsConsider having the FBC supersede the IHO provisionsAdoptCommission added per request90%PC hearing warned for 6/12/18expected complete by July 101. Bringing City Center AliveWalkableConsider allowance for taller buildings in the T4AdoptCommission added per request90%PC hearing warned for 6/12/18expected complete by July 101. Bringing City Center AliveOpportunity Oriented(1) Define short & medium term street profile for Williston Road (2) set ROW for long‐term street profile, (3) set/ revise location of planned supporting streets, (4) revise FBC & Official Map to match, (5) possibly revise how buildings and streets are related in the FBC1Prioritize for completion in FY 19AdoptionFUNDED VIA? Also‐Council Priority?80%Detailed review of proposed streets underway following completion of consultant work in FY 18Level of FBC amendments: add new "planned connectors" or redefine building presence on streets?2 to 3 40 to 6001. Bringing City Center AliveWalkableProvide guidance on design / planning priorities in City Center in support of the City Council1Prioritize City Center guidance & development ongoing and as neededPrioritization ongoing and as neededCouncil & Commission priorityongoing ongoingNo major changes are expected; PC feedback could arise in relation to street designs1 to 4 100 to 20001. Bringing City Center AliveOpportunity OrientedWould be a focused look and gathering feedback on FBC1Priortize for proactive assessmentOutreach, assessment, and fixes as neededCouncil & Commission priorityunofficially: 10% Staff is collecting notes and feedback as they come up from both developers and review staffDependent on recommended adjustments2 to 7 10 to 4001. Bringing City Center AliveOpportunity OrientedWould set new standards for most new large scale development, including revised Master Plan thresholds & procedures and Planned Unit Development Types. Includes (1) creating clear Master Plan process, thresholds, & benefits, (2) creating 4‐8 Planned Unit Development types with clear review criteria & standards for development, (3) clean‐up of related LDR language ‐ subdivisions, PUDs, Site Plan, building heights, etc., and (4) significant public outreach1Bring to completion in early FY 19; likely small residuals and cleanups will followAdopt Master Plan & up to 4 PUD typesFunded using City Funds; Highly anticipated by array of stake‐holders. 75%Master Plan detailed outline presented to PC & side‐by‐side of PUDs/Master Plans/Subdivisions delivered10 to 15 200 to 25002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseAffordable & Community Strongexpected complete by July 1expected complete by July 11DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals8910111213Update the official map from its current 2004 edition. Smaller project would be to align with Comprehensive Plan, medium project would incorporate bike‐ped committee recommendations, larger project would be to streets & public spaces citywide1Prioritize for completion in FY 19Completion & AdoptionNeeds update to be consistent with other City Planning Documents and reflect Comp Plan goals30%Intitial staff assessment begun. Staff recommends that at a minimum, the basic update be completed.2 to 10 30 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseOpportunity OrientedWould consider possible amendments to the I/A zoning district in conjunction with UVM for right‐sizing the zoning for all of their lands1Prioritize for completion in FY 19Adopt adjusted zoning map and related table of uses; relate to PUD 5%Staff has had very early and broad conversations with representatives from UVMDependent on scale of changes and input from UVM1.5 to 3 20 to 3502. Sustainable, Quality Land UseIterative development of a transportation & land use plan for this part of the City: (1) presentation of current conditions and anticipated amount of development; (2) review and approve Purpose & Need; (3) discuss future transportation / land use scenarios to study; (4) review recommended approach & projects; (5) set table for future project to update zoning to reflect priorities and coordinate with transportation plan1Review existing conditions, approve purpose and need, provide feedback on scenarios and recommended next stepsPhase II funded 2017, Phase III funded 201850%Project team reviewing PC feedback; developing review plan with PC and landownersVery dependent on results of study and breadth of possibilities1.5 to 6 60 to 10003. Transportation, SmartlyOpportunity OrientedReplace the existing traffic overlay district that sets a cap on rush‐hour vehicle trips along major roadways with new tools to encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modes. Includes providing consultants & project team with broad direction for desired outcomes1 AdoptionFunded 2017‐201865%Detailed consult outline being reviewed by Staff2 to 3 40 to 6003. Transportation, SmartlyWalkableReplace the existing ordinance with new tools to encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modes1Recommendation to CouncilFunded 2017‐201865%Detailed consult outline being reviewed by Staff230 to 4003. Transportation, SmartlyOpportunity OrientedPrepare scoping studies of four city‐led projects identified by the Bike Ped Committee1Prioritize for reviewPurpose & Need and preferred alternatives Funded 2017‐201835%Project team kickoff October 20171 10 to 1603. Transportation, SmartlyWalkable2DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals141516171819202122Would re‐evaluate parking requirements Citywide. Could be a smaller project to do an overall reduction of requirements, or a larger project that looks at how to incentivize changes. Could include Park & Rides1Staff recommends at least a first step towards reduction in FY 19Jessica: seek funding source, if needed15%Initial discussion with PC complete; Staff has begun to discuss w/ development community at PC RequestDependent on technical research requested/required2 to 3 30 to 4003. Transportation, SmartlyWalkableWould re‐examine planned east‐west connections in the City comprehensively1 Begin in FY2019Jessica: seek funding source0%PC agreed to getting a presetation on the 2007 plan this yearRecommend the Commission consider this as a future UPWP funding request??03. Transportation, SmartlyRequest for South Village Communities to establish a small retail / neighborhood commercial component. AdoptionCommission priority90%PC hearing warned for 6/12/18expected complete by July 10‐Jan 004. Strong NeighborhoodsDevelop an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on the Chamberlin report, neighborhood meetings, City Council, etc.1Prioritize in FY2019Have language ready for consideration35%No recent action; Chamberlin report long complete.How deeply does the Commission wish to go? Would the commission wish to amend plan ahead of normal cycle?8 to 14 80 to 24004. Strong NeighborhoodsAffordable & Community StrongWould replace the lot coverage standards citywide with intentional open space, similarly to how the FBC has done this. Ties into the PUD project for larger parcels, and has some of the work completed from the 2014 open space report.1Prioritize for completion in FY 19Jessica: begin work, delegate to NRC?25%PC reviewed staff updates in April; directed to see advisory committeesSee notes from last staff presentation; dependent on how vast the geography of changes will be6 to 8 80 to 12004. Strong NeighborhoodsClean & GreenProvide input on draft NCP1small but important04. Strong NeighborhoodsExplore establishing clear goals & objectives for young families in South Burlington1PBC ‐ If comp plan is being opened up for Chamberlin, then this should be done too10%Staff recommends this be asked of the Affordable Housing Committee2 to 516 to 5005. Supporting AffordabilityAffordable & Community StrongBroad topic ‐ how to increase development of housing that is affordable throughout the City1From Affordable Housing30%Staff recommends this be asked of the Affordable Housing Committee2 to 4 40 to 15005. Supporting AffordabilityAs City transportation & development projects move forward, consider, adjust, and approve the purpose & need statements1Review and approve P & N for planned projectsN/A1 to 2 6 to 1206. Walking the walkAffordable & Community Strongexpected complete by July 13DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals23242526272829303132Annual Capital Improvement Plan  1Annual 100%Input provided for 20180 to 1 806. Walking the walkAffordable & Community Strong106. Walking the walkShort training sessions ‐ videos, etc. when we have holes in the agenda. Staff could line them up.1Valuable insight. Scatter throughout year. Learn something new every quarter.0% Not yet begun06. Walking the walkAnnual meetings with DRB1yes, jan 2019 Annualannual Met in FY 18What is the Commission's annual objective?1 to 2 4 to 1207. Community EngagementOpportunity OrientedDevelopment of Commission policies and procedures for how to farm projects out to Committees of the City1Bring to completion in early FY 19Jessica: Adoption75%2 20 to 4008. Capacity BuildingOpportunity OrientedEstablish scenic view protection overlays, including a methodology, analysis of priorities, and standards for foreground, middle ground, and background1lets get 1‐2 done!Adoption of 1‐3 scenic views, steps toward additional protectionsCommission priority15%Staff has initiated work at Wheeler Nature Park; developing baseline for PC to review3 to 7 40 to 10009. Conserving Natural ResourcesClean & GreenClarifications to the TDR program as it operates in the SEQ1Adoption60%2 8 to 1610. Foundations of zoningClean & GreenWould remove public works standards (street construction, turn radii, etc.) from the LDRs and create as a DPW policy book125%1 30 to 4010. Foundations of zoningWould review the City's regulations regarding the number, frequency, and allowance for various kinds of temporary structures & uses10%Review initial draft early 20181 to 3 25 to 3510. Foundations of zoningDevelopment of PUD regulations has highlighted areas for adjustments to underlying zoning as well as technical and policy adjustments to the LDRs in support of PUD provisions1Most fixes; excepting those listed as next steps in staff memo50%Ongoing in parrallel to Mastr Plan/PUD project44010. Foundations of zoningClean & Green4DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals33343536373839Would evaluate the TDR program, including possibly (1) making areas outside the SEQ eligible as receiving areas and/or (2) prioritizing sending areas2Work previously done by committee. Triaging projects, this doesn't seem to 15% 4 to 8 40 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould do a clean‐up of each of the "purpose statements" to assure that the regulations are framing the reasons for the existence of each zoning district clearly, and assess where zoning districts may be outdated1 to 2Purpose statements: on the "nice to do list"; consolidation of zoning districts more important20%Presented initial concept of consolidation to PC in Sept. Review again in early Nov. 5 40 to 5002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould have staff and the PC engage proactively with large property owners prior to any project plans2Ongoing even outside of PC involvement3 to 4 25 to 4002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould look comprehensively at how the City is planning for space for future industrial areas as areas that aren't near housing are limited in the City. Ties somewhat into the Tilley Drive project, but only somewhat20%6 to 8 70 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseRequests from the public to consider amendments2yes, but always mindful of impact on work planPerform initial Reviews, decide what to do with eachInitial reviews per policyN/A ongoing Per project12 to 24 May‐5007. Community EngagementOpportunity OrientedWould be an annual check‐in of the Comprehensive Plan and development and review of indicators of success. Could also, as a larger project, include review of all strategies and assignment of responsibility / timelines2Could do all plan work simultaneously‐ would like consume a full fiscal yearJessica: annual1.5 to 2.5 20 to 3008. Capacity BuildingProvide feedback to the CCRPC on renewable energy siting; consider updating the Comp PlanCould do all plan work simultaneously‐ would like 20%Provide input to the CCRPC or prepare a plan amendment?2 to 10 16 to 4002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseClean & Green5DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals4041424344454647Would work with property owners to plan the conditions for a future mixed‐use waterfront area along the lake.Jessica: begin work0% 6 to 8 70 to 10002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould establish standards for relationship between garages and faces for single & two family homes City‐wide70%Presented to PC in 2017. No action taken. 2 12 to 1802. Sustainable, Quality Land Use(1) Create a new use category for agricultural businesses at a large scale; (2) look at in context of TDRs & add Non‐residential uses to TDRs; (3) examine neighborhood impactsEngaging project. Unclear of current pressing need.30% 8 30 to 4002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseOpportunity OrientedExamine appropriate intensities & densities in various districts. May be folded into 2 other projects: PUDs for larger properties, and examination of the definition of "unit" citywide15% ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould examine the Shelburne Road corridor to create intentional centers of activity and places in between that are less built‐up. Shelburne Road Form standards, underway, helps set the baseline for this.80%Work largely completed as part of Urban overlay standards; 6 to 8 80 to 15002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould consider removing undevelopable land from maximum density on parcels. Would likely involve an examination of underlying density to assure right‐sizing in affected areasThis is being done as part of PUDS, at least for that kind of developmentJessica: discuss, make plan0% 6 to 10 40 to 8002. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould establish requirements related to alterations to historic structures0% ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseBroad review of the City's policies to assure that they are promoting long term resilience and sustainabilityJessica: begin discussion, tie to Hazard Mitigation Plan update?5% ? ?02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use6DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals48495051525354Broad review of the City's policies to assure that they are promoting development in planned areas for growth & developmentPBC ‐ I think we should build in a short "test" before starting any project ‐ does it meet this and the other key planning goals?Jessica: ongoing??02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseWould update the City's landscaping requirements; possibly allow off‐sitePBC ‐ maybe combine with open space work?Jessica: begin discussion, make plan1 to 2 10 to 1502. Sustainable, Quality Land UseLinking parks & open spaces to neighborhoods; planning out future park needs; creating quality transitions between neighborhoodscombine with official map work02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseHigh quality of buildings; planned unity developments; large parcel planning; business parks; coordination with smaller development projectscan this be integrated into all that we do/02. Sustainable, Quality Land UseBroad topic ‐ how to improve connectivity between neighborhoods in all modes of transportation, looking towards the futurecombine with official map workJessica: Begin work, delegate to bike and ped?Mapping of bike / ped easements & planned projects funded for 201830%Staff recommends this project be recommended to Bike Ped for 2017‐18??03. Transportation, SmartlyWould create incentives for Park & Ride facilities into the LDRsPut into Transportation overlay district work1503. Transportation, SmartlyWould evaluate and possibly lower front setback standards in the R4 district1CL‐ would like to see this prioritized to enable existing neighborhoods to have same opportunities 70% No change 1 10 to 1504. Strong NeighborhoodsWalkable7DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals555657585960616263Would determine future park space needed throughout the city and how to access it for the coming decades. Some of this baseline work was done in the 2014 Open Space reportPBC ‐ maybe combine with citywide official map update?Seek funding source10%Staff recommends the Commission seek a fundi8ng source, alongside Recreation & Parks??04. Strong NeighborhoodsRevise fence standards City‐wide40% 2 10 to 2004. Strong NeighborhoodsAffordable & Community StrongWould require vehicles to park in designated parking areas on a parcel. Project would likely involve defining how much of a lot can be devoted to such uses.0% 1 to 2 12 to 1804. Strong NeighborhoodsWould explore how to allow and incentivize Cottage Housing types (such as Kirby Cottages). Project was initiated by a subcommittee in 2012 but went to back‐burner. Members of that group have offered to re‐initiateCombine into broad topicbegin work, delegate to Affordable HousingongoingStaff recommends this be asked of the Affordable Housing Committee2 to 4 20 to 4005. Supporting AffordabilityAffordable & Community StrongWould consider changing the definition of density. Today, a housing unit is a housing unit, regardless of size or configuration. Could be examined as bulk, or other methods30% 1.5 to 3 12 to 1805. Supporting AffordabilityWould consider allowing larger homes to be divided into multiple units (relates to density and definition of a unit)Combine into broad topic0%Staff recommends this be asked of the Affordable Housing Committee2 to 4 20 to 4005. Supporting AffordabilityWould re‐examine how the city regulates accessory dwelling units, within overall context of state statuteCombine into broad topic10%Staff recommends this be asked of the Affordable Housing Committee2 to 3 15 to 3005. Supporting AffordabilityHousing retention, cottage housing, tools to support affordability, smaller homes for young families; comprehensive plan amendment to address goals for retaining young families; etc.Combine into broad topic05. Supporting AffordabilityWould set aside time for Commissioners to bring new or different ideas to the Commission not specifically related to a project in the annual work planJessica: ongoingN/A 1 to 4 2007. Community Engagement8DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals64656667686970717273PBC ‐ for PC to decide07. Community EngagementPBC ‐ for PC to decide07. Community EngagementPBC ‐ While an emerging subject, not high enough up the 07. Community EngagementExamine how to address footprint lot incongruity in the LDRsPBC ‐ for PC to decideConsider and possible adoptCommission added per DRB request50%PC reviewed concept in January, asked staff to look at with Attorney1 to 207. Community EngagementOpportunity OrientedCoordinate committee & staff work. This is underway with the Leadership committee & upgraded CIP/Budget process.Underway 2 40 to 8008. Capacity BuildingOpportunity OrientedReview how to maximize the combination of these efforts. A piece of this will be addressed as part of the PUD project5%08. Capacity BuildingWould update the City's stream buffer requirements to be consistent with river corridor planningPBC ‐ looks like there won't be much hereAdopt any changesFunded 2017‐201840%Project team met. Standards to be sent to river corridors person at State1 to 3 30 to 5008. Capacity BuildingClean & GreenWould establish more clear review criteria for conservation of wildlife, landscape, natural resource standards on individual parcels. Project was 50% completed in 2010CL‐ 1Could pick back up with guided assistance from NRC. Would tie in nicely with PUD standards. Jessica: continue work with support from NRC50% 3 to 6 50 to 7009. Conserving Natural ResourcesContinually review opportunities for open space acquisitionJessica: discuss, make planN/A 1 15 to 2009. Conserving Natural ResourcesWould consider requiring more substantial vegetated buffers in the Interstate Overlay District, and also whether a project's landscaping budget can be used for this buffering0% 1 to 2 12 to 1809. Conserving Natural Resources9DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals7475767778798081828384858687Would review the criteria by which homes & properties are reviewed and approved in the SEQ‐Natural Resource Protection district to assure consistency with the intent of the district0% 2 to 4 20 to 3009. Conserving Natural ResourcesScenic views, citywide open space standards, acquisition of park land, wildlife corridor & habitat standards, riparian corridorsPBC ‐ maybe roll into open space?09. Conserving Natural ResourcesWould set criteria for which portions of a parcel would need to be retained base on soil types, and would consider requirements for soil aeration post development.Jessica: discuss, make plan5%3 to 5 30 to 4009. Conserving Natural ResourcesWould evaluate SEQ design standards to assure they are measurable0%2 to 6 30 to 4010. Foundations of zoningWould place a limitation on the number of movable structures on a lot0%1 to 2 12 to 1810. Foundations of zoningWould re‐evaluate current restrictions limiting private roadways to the lesser of: (a) 3 lots, (b) 5 single family homes, and (c) 10 housing units total.0%2 to 4 30 to 4010. Foundations of zoningWould provide additional guidance as to whether stormwater areas should be fenced, or not fenced.0%0.5 2 to 410. Foundations of zoningWould develop standards for cell tower placement. "Towers", generally , will be addressed as part of a clean‐up of heights in the PUD project.0%10. Foundations of zoningScoping project for bike/ped bridgeFunded and underway 2017‐201860% PC Role Complete Provide input? .5 to 1 15 to 30Opportunity Oriented10DRAFT Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update5/18/20181MNOPQRSVW ZADAEDescriptionRecommended ProjectsStaff InputFY 2019 GoalContributing InformationPercent Complete as of 5/19/18Status as of 5/19/18Project Size decision pointsFY19 PC HoursP & Z Staff HoursThemes Comp Plan Goals88Update the City Center Official Map as details & Master Planning for large projects becomes more knownPrioritize City Center guidance & developmentCouncil & Commission priority1 to 2 20 to 4011DRAFT SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS MINUTES 8 MAY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 May 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Klugo, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, consultant; R. Jeffers 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Conner provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Mittag: Green Up Day was a resounding success with 391 volunteers. Public Works has been notified about ravines with appliances and oil tanks in them Mr. Riehle: Distributed the Administrative Officer’s Monthly Report for April Referred to a list compiled by David Kaufman’s class as to what they would like to see in City Center. Noted “serpentine” street types in Salt Lake City, which created a “walking experience.” Mr. Conner showed a photo of a similar street in the Green Mountain Coffee area. Mr. Klugo: Became more educated about biking during a recent trip to Europe. In rush hour, bikes outnumber cars 3-1 Mr. Gagnon: Hopes to be at the June meeting in person. Ms. LaRose: Noted that last night the City Council voted to add a “Penny for Parks” item to the August ballot to help implement rec path projects, especially closing gaps. Mr. Conner: Attended a regional housing workshop. 2 Met with the consultant on the Traffic Overlay District. This will be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future. 5. Work Session on PUD/Master Plan: Ms. Murray said they have been meeting with other committees and have been refining the PUD policy including mixing the types. The are now getting into the outlining of the Master Plan section. Master Plans are not common in Vermont. Traditionally, they have applied to things developed over time (laying out when things should happen). The purpose of a Master Plan is to coordinate development over time. It also gives a developer vested rights which can be locked in for a specified period of time (10 years is often suggested). It can also look at development management through a Homeowners Association. Mr. Riehle asked whether the stipulations of a Master Plan carry over if a new owner takes over the property. Mr. Conner said they do, but that’s a different, very detailed master plan. Ms. Murray said the Master Plan goes with the land, but a new owner can request amendments. Ms. LaRose said amendments are anticipated in may projects because things change over time (a wetland can be re- defined, for example). Mr. Riehle noted the city can’t ask for amendments. Mr. Mittag noted that some residents left South Village because they were upset with changes that were made. Mr. Klugo said there is a process, and residents can attend meetings. Mr. MacDonald said markets change, and you can’t force a developer to build what isn’t marketable. Ms. Murray said one questions is how much detail to require in a Master Plan. She reviewed what is required under today’s regulations, particularly projects developed in phases. At present, Master Plans are applied to developments of 10 or more acres, but they could also be applied to a certain number of units or lots. Mr. Klugo asked how to deal with large parcels that are subdivided into parcels that are under 10 acres. Ms. Murray said some of that will be dealt with in the subdivision part of the regulations and would be based on zoning requirements. Mr. Klugo noted the Act 250 “loophole” which requires Act 250 review only if there are more than 9 units being built. Ms. Murray recommended strengthening the basic subdivision regulations to address that. Mr. Conner noted a development on Dorset St. where the DRB would have liked to know the future plans beyond the 9 units under review. Ms. LaRose cited the Tilley Drive area where a bunch of lots were created and the only things looked at were traffic and the number of units. There was no consideration of the relationship between buildings and roads, etc. The aim now is to be able to lay out resources, traffic management, etc. Mr. Riehle felt that larger developments are handled well in South Burlington, but the issue is the number of smaller developments. Mr. Conner showed an aerial view of a portion of the city and indicated issues because of piecemeal development that precluded other desirable things from 3 happening. Ms. LaRose said any plan should have to indicate that the developer is not precluding future considerations. Ms. Murray then outlined the proposed “Plan Book.” It would consist of design guidelines to be attached to a Master Plan. The thinking is that this would apply only to PUDs. It could include such things as street cross-sections, building elevations, etc., and whether they are consistent with street types. Information in the Plan Book would include: a. Street types b. Block/lot layouts c. Lot configuration d. Housing types e. Building types f. Open/civic space types g. Bike/ped facilities h. Parking i. Signs, lighting, landscaping materials Mr. Klugo noted that in Europe, they make sure neighborhoods are connected. They also have dedicated bike lanes with traffic signals. Ms. Murray said they have met with the Bike/Ped Committee as to what they would like to see, and connectivity is important. Mr. Conner asked if landscaping would be considered at the Master Plan level. Ms. Murray said that’s more of a site plan consideration. Tree cover is more of an issue, especially in light of what has recently happened. A plant list could be good as well as preserving a certain amount of tree cover and major buffer zones. Ms. Murray then addressed management structure and stressed that it should be consistent with regulations and should include phasing schedule, management structure, transportation, stormwater, parking, affordable housing, public safety, protected resources, open space, common lands and facilities, and vested rights (as approved by the City Council and DRB). Ms. Murray said the next step is to translate these concepts into language and then outlining the PUD. Mr. Riehle noted the issue of a developer wanting to add to a plan, within what is allowable, and residents getting upset. Mr. Mittag said homebuyers need “diligence training.” Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of master planning and a time limit for an approval. He also felt there should be a mechanism to change a master plan. Mr. Klugo cited the importance of having good counsel as they get into development agreements. Mr. Gagnon added that Pubic Works input is also important. 4 Ms. Murray said they are talking about a “scoring system” for PUDs based on criteria being developed. A development would have to hit a minimum score in order to get approval. 6. Review Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations; Possible Warning of Public Hearing and approval of Planning Commission report on same: a. Establish new use category: “limited neighborhood commercial,” permissible in certain residential zoning districts b. Eliminate maximum setback requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District (SEQ-VCD) c. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District d. Permit buildings of up to five stories in the Form Based Code T4 District e. Establish an architectural gateway area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 District f. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts g. Minor technical corrections # a: Mr. Mittag questioned the language regarding increased traffic in the limited neighborhood commercial use category. Ms. LaRose suggested letting the legal people work out the language. Mr. Klugo felt that “commercial” seems to relate more to the front of a development and to be related to a collector road. Mr. MacDonald asked what “architecturally relevant” means. Ms. LaRose said it can tie into architectural standards. Mr. Klugo suggested talking to legal about striking “most of” in Section C-1-A. Ms. Jeffers asked to add the words “per tenant” to “of single use” which would allow for both a market and café. Members were OK with that but limiting a use to 5,000 sq. ft. # b: Mr. Conner noted that setbacks default to the overall standards in the district with a minimum of 20 feet in the SEQ-VCD. The DRB can reduce that. Mr. Klugo asked that fencing of trash facilities should be consistent with the architecture of the residence style of the homes in the area. Members had not questions/issue was #c or #d. #e: Mr. Conner explained why a 13-foot setback doesn’t need to happen. The amendment will also allow for a “glassed corner” which now cannot happen. #f: Mr. Mittag suggested eliminating the word “reduced.” Members agreed. 5 No issues were raised with #g. Mr. MacDonald moved to warn the amendments, as amended, for public hearing on 12 June, 7 p.m. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mittag moved to adopt the report with amendments made at this meeting. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Meeting Minutes of 24 April 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 24 April as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: a. 60-day advance notice for application to Public Utilities Commission for attachment to replacement Utility Pole by AT&T Mobility, Shelburne Road near Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Conner said the Commission will see this when there is an actual application. b. Meeting Schedule: The next meeting, 22 May, will include the first cut of a work plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:26 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk