Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 06/24/2018South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2018 7:00 pm South Burlington Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street AGENDA: 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 (7:15 pm) 5. Discuss concepts to re-align / consolidate similar zoning districts, Cathyann LaRose, City Planner [Work Plan project #13] (7:25 pm) 6. Update of multi-site Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping Study, Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning [Work Plan project # 15] (8:10 pm) 7.         Commissioner review & discussion of last week’s showing of presentation on land value / focus of development (8:25 pm) 8. Meeting minutes (8:45 pm) a. June 26 b. July 10 9. Other business (8:47 pm) 10. Adjourn (8:50 pm) Respectfully submitted, Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines 1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to insure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. 2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. 3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission. 4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items. 5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully. 6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. 7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. 8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers address the Commission for a second time. 9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter. 10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. 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: July 24, 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 (7:15 pm) 5. Discuss concepts to re-align / consolidate similar zoning districts, Cathyann LaRose, City Planner [Work Plan project #13] (7:25 pm) As part of the PUD project, one of the “clean up” items that will be important to do is to make sure that the underlying zoning is right in the various applicable parts of the City. If you recall, we started this discussion last summer at a PC meeting – how to potentially consolidate some of our very similar zoning districts and re-align as necessary. At this meeting, we’ll continue this discussion and move towards a long-overdue cleanup of districts. 6. Update of multi-site Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping Study, Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning [Work Plan project # 15] (8:10 pm) Staff will provide a brief update on the scoping studies for Fayette Road, Spear Street, Hinesburg Road, and Allen Road in advance of the community presentation & discussion Wednesday. 7. Commissioner review & discussion of last week’s showing of presentation on land value / focus of development (8:25 pm) Some time for Commissioners to reflect on the video presentation by Joe Minicozzi at Magic Hat this past week. Didn’t get the chance to watch? See it here (start at 35 mins in) https://vimeo.com/221640203 8. Meeting minutes (8:45 pm) a. June 26, July 10 9. Other business (8:47 pm) 10. Adjourn (8:50 pm) TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of consolidation of zoning districts DATE: July 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Per the staff memo and annotated agenda, below find some of the most recent thoughts on consolidation and alignment of zoning districts in our City, as a response to a proliferation of districts and in anticipation of the upcoming PUD work, which will likely be tethered to underlying zoning in some way. Considerations for Fixes to Underlying Zoning: Mixed Industrial Commercial Stated Purpose in Current LDRs Chapter 6.01: The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. This district exists in large areas in the eastern portion of the City, north of the interstate. Key areas include Technology Park, Williston Road east of the airport, National Guard Ave adjacent to Muddy Brook, Ethan Allen Industrial Park, and the Belter Farm. Under consideration: • Adjust boundaries such that there is a separation between the properties south of Kimball Avenue and the properties north. • Consider whether the southern portion mentioned above belongs with the Meadowlands in similar zoning. • Consider Belter Farm as R1 to differentiate from Industrial zoning and the Ethan Allen Industrial Park. Would be protected under flood plain regulations. Key Questions for Commissioners: • Does the availability of land for industrial use feel adequate? Does it remain appropriate that this use continue to exist along the Williston Road corridor, as well as areas adjacent? • Should any of this land be incorporated into the Airport Industrial Use? • Should the delineations make distinctions between light industrial and heavier industrial? I.e., contractor trade facilities vs heavier manufacturing? Remaining staff work if changed: • As with other potential consolidations, carefully work through allowed uses and consider impacts on existing land holders. • Examine regulatory impact of flood plain restrictions on involved land. Industrial Open Space: Stated Purpose in LDRs Chapter 6.01: The Industrial-Open Space IO District is established to provide suitable locations for high-quality, large- lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to major arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high- quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth. The location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. This district exists north and south of the interstate in the eastern portion of the City. Key properties include Meadowland Business Park and some undeveloped lands in the same PUD, Tilley Drive (medical offices), and the Hill Farm. Under consideration: • As mentioned above, consider whether the southern portion of what is currently Mixed IC should be merged with IO in similar zoning. These properties share many key features, both current and planned: similar access to arterial and collector roads, large lots, limited adjacency to existing residential areas. • Recommend changing the name of this district- Industrial Open Space is often cited as confusing and silly. Key Questions for Commissioners: • Does the availability of land for (light) industrial use feel adequate? • There is a historic trend for high quality office spaces, including research and medical facilities, to located here. Should this be encouraged in order to create a technology node? • Should the delineations make clearer the distinctions between light industrial and heavier industrial? • Consider how to incorporate the Hill Farm- re-zoning of which was identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Remaining staff work if changed: • As with other potential consolidations, carefully work through allowed uses, specific standards (for example, a large buffer that is required in IO district) and consider impacts on existing land holders. Commercial 1-Residential 12 and Commercial 1-Residential 15: Stated Purpose in LDRs While there is a stated purpose for the Commercial 1 district (see elsewhere in this report) it does little to reflect upon the residential components, and no stated specific purpose statements exist for C1-R12, and C1-R15. The C1-R12 exists in the northwest portion of the city, just east of the Burlington town line along Williston Road, stretching behind what was formerly the Sheraton hotel, as well as a small portion of land nearby the Williston Road/Kennedy Drive intersection. Under consideration: • Consolidate and keep 15 units/acre as density; delete C1-R12 Key Questions for Commissioners: • Commissioners previously identified this as a ‘no-brainer’. Remaining staff work if changed: As with other potential consolidations, carefully work through allowed uses, specific standards. It is not uncommon for proposed uses to creep in given a specific request and aren’t copied to similar zoning districts. Also, we should seek insight from the Affordable Housing Committee on any impacts of this change. Commercial 1 Airport Stated Purpose in LDRs The purpose of the Commercial 1 with Airport Uses District (C1-AIR) is to recognize the existence of airport- related support services and businesses and to encourage their location in close proximity to the Burlington International Airport. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The C1-Air exists in the northeast portion of the City, immediately to the east of most of the airport proper. It is a large land area, originally designed to encourage airport-related uses. Historically, however, these have not developed here and those that do would fit into a standard C1-district. Under consideration: • Remove and combine with Mixed IC. Previously, staff recommended combination with Commercial 1 district. Key Questions for Commissioners: • Previously, staff recommended combination with Commercial 1 district. However, this would open up the potential for residential housing in very close proximity to the airport. This should be discussed, given recent developments in airport purchase of residential homes. Remaining staff work if changed: As with other potential consolidations, carefully work through allowed uses, specific standards. R1-LV, R1-L, QCP & Lakeshore • Consider combining at least the R1-LV and Lakeshore Districts. R1-L has very different potential for future land use given its undeveloped nature and large lot existence. QCP needs a more thorough review as it has so many intricacies unique to the small, pre- existing lots in that neighborhood. Staff will continue to explore this in much more detail, combing through and comparing all dimensional standards and specific regulations. C1-Auto Stated Purpose in LDRs The purpose of the C1-AUTO District is to recognize the existence of several automobile sales and service facilities in this area of the City and allow for their continued operation and improvement, while not detracting from the overall purpose of the C1 District. The C1-Auto exists along Shelburne Road. Differences from Commercial 1: • same dimensional standards (coverage, lot size, etc); • permission of multi-family housing used to be a key distinction between the two zones; however several years ago the City approved a change to allow multifamily housing in the C1-Auto zone. • few differences in use: include congregate care, personal instruction facility, auto sales, shopping center and commercial kennel. Will assess to see if there’s adverse impact from allowing these in both geographies. Understand kennel and auto sales is difficult- may assess standards associated with kennel specifically. Key questions for Commissioner thought or discussion: Should auto-sales continue to have a designated zone? Is it more appropriate to be included as a use, similar to how other uses are treated? Are there inappropriate locations? While these uses traditionally seek to locate on heavily trafficked areas, should these areas (here, Shelburne Road) be reserved to accommodate transit-oriented development, providing space for denser housing and employment on our main corridors, particularly those served by public transit? Remaining staff work if changed: Determine how to provide for adequate space for auto sales and provide protections for existing auto sales uses in the zone; work with Affordable Housing Committee in light of their work on targeted housing centers. Commercial 1- Limited Retail Purpose: to encourage the location of general retail at specific intersections in the city, to serve nearby residential areas. These commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of local residents and employees. Staff note: this is almost C1 lite. Fewer uses are permitted than in C1. This is likely appropriate as these areas are not on main arterial roads and are intended to serve neighborhoods. Office and restaurant uses are permitted. The purpose statement here aims to create neighborhood nodes of activity- a goal that the City has discussed off and on for several years. By taking a look at this purpose statement (even under a different name), we could proactively and comprehensively plan for Other work for consideration: Swift Street and Allen Road Zoning districts • Consider combining and creating a “transition” district which would serve to create a deliberate and planned transition and buffer between non-residential uses that are intense or don’t serve the neighborhood, and adjacent residential or open space areas. Several of the zones listed below could benefit from this as well. Commercial 2 • Consider converting northern section on Patchen Road near Landfill Road to Residential 7-Neighborhood Commercial • Consider converting southern section along Shelburne Road to Commercial 1-R15 Commercial 1-Limited Retail and Neighborhood Commercial • Consider combining; see purpose statements for both- they are nearly identical. Signage restrictions would need to be considered as one is currently a residential district. Residential 7- Neighborhood Commercial Stated Purpose: In certain Residential 7 Districts, there may be a community need for a neighborhood commercial area. These commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of local residents and employees. This is a very small district created largely to protect lands that were already in use, but adjacent to residential areas. I believe we can do better with this and build it into a more purposeful district, which would reflect its place as both a node of neighborhood activity, and a transition area from more intense uses. The purpose statement of this is very useful and applicable, and its deployment across the City’s geography should match it. Institutional Agriculture Discussed briefly in relation to the proposal by Frank Von Turkovich to the Planning Commission for zoning change of the UVM-owned Edlund Tract, one of six UVM parcels in the City. Staff continues to advocate that a comprehensive review of this zoning district would be appropriate, as the current zoning aggregates lands that aren’t necessarily of shared future land use goals. §¨¦89 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 R1-PRDR1-PRD R1-L R1 - L V South Burlington, Vermont ¹ 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Data Disclaimer: Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions Note: Parcel line data is provided for informational purposes only. The City reserves the right to update the Official Zoning Map with new parcel data as it becomes available. Transect Zone 1 Disclaimer: The T1 Transect Zone depicts stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer areas on the Official Zoning Map. Stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer areas are shown for illustrative purposes only. Depicted stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer boundaries are approximate. The diagram should not be construed as showing all stream buffers, wetland, and wetland buffer areas, nor the precise locations of such stream buffers, wetland, or wetland buffer areas. Stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer delineation for permitting purposes must be determined in accordance with Article 10 and 12 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, as applicable. Effective April 11, 2016 Zoning Map P:\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\ZoningMap\2016\ZoningMap_Effective_2016_04_11.mxd Zoning Districts Residential Districts Residential 1 Residential 1 - Residential 2 Residential 4 Residential 7 Res 7-Neighborhood Commercial Residential 12 Lakeshore Neighborhood Queen City Park Form Based Code Districts Transect Zone 1 Transect Zone 3 Transect Zone 3 Plus Transect Zone 4 Transect Zone 5 Municipal & Institutional Municipal Park & Recreation Interstate Highway Overlay Institutional & Agricultural-North Institutional & Agricultural-South Southeast Quadrant Subdistricts Natural Resource Protection Neighborhood Residential North Neighborhood Residential Neighborhood Residential Transition Village Commercial Village Residential Commercial Districts Commercial 1 - Residential 12 Commercial 1 - Limited Retail Commercial 1 - Residential 15 Commercial 1 - Airport j j jjjjjjj Commercial 1 - Automobile Commercial 2 Swift Street Allen Road Industrial and Airport Districts Mixed Industrial & Commerical o o o o o oAirport Airport Industrial ((((( ((((( (((((Industrial & Open Space Districts Districts Districts SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 JUNE 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 June 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon,T. Riehle, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; F. von Turkovich; E. von Turkovich, P. Smiar, M. Hamlin, R. Greco, S. Dopp, S. Dooley, J. Simson, W. Daumer, B. Sirvis, T. Haas, K. Ryder, D. Leban, L. Ravin, additional visitors 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: There were no public comments. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby: The Affordable Housing Committee is working on inclusionary zoning. They were also informed that the Maple Leaf Hotel is now scheduled for demolition, removing another source of affordable housing. Mr. Conner: Groundbreaking for Market Street will take place on Thursday, 28 June, 11 a.m. at the Central School entrance. Last night the City Council hosted a presentation regarding the proposed new City Hall/Library/Community Center which will possibly be on the November ballot. Art Klugo spoke regarding the Comprehensive Plan. All documents are being scanned as part of a tremendous project. This meeting is being video-recorded. 5. Presentation and Initial Review of Request to change Edlund Property on Spear Street zoning from Institutional Agriculture South to a district that allows residential development: 2 Ms. Louisos explained the process for considering zoning changes and outlined the Commission’s alternative. No decision will be made at this meeting as a number of Commission members are not present. Mr. von Turkovich indicated that they would speak in general terms and answer questions. They would then try to mesh into the zoning request process and come back with a full presentation. He then identified the parcel in question on the map and also adjoining parcels owned by UVM. Part of the plan would be to connect all the parcels. The property identified as 150 Swift St. is the area they had been looking to building housing previously. They then learned that the Edlund parcel might be for sale by UVM. They now have an agreement to purchase the property contingent upon a zoning change. Mr. von Turkovich said he felt the city should consider their plan because of the type of development they envision. Mr. von Turkovich noted that UVM could build housing today (without a zoning change) on the Martin parcels, which are part of this agreement, but they do not want to do that and instead are pursing partnerships. Housing for the Edlund parcel would be in the interior of the parcel, screened from any view, and not up to the street, Mr. von Turkovich said. It would allow for connectivity to bike paths, etc. There would also be appropriate strategies put in place for the protection of the Potash Brook basin. Mr. von Turkovich asked the Commission to allow them to have a deeper engagement with staff to discuss their ideas and also to have a complete discussion with other city committees (i.e., Natural Resources, Affordable Housing, Parks/Recreation, Rec Path, etc.). They have already spoken with the South Burlington Land Trust. VHB would put together reports and studies so the Commission can see all the details of the site. Mr. Riehle asked what would be developed on the Martin property. Mr. von Turkovich said none of the preliminary planning would have development on that property initially. Ms. Ostby noted there is already some UVM land zoned R-4 and suggested utilizing that land instead of going through this process. Mr. von Turkovich said that is very productive agricultural land that serves the needs of a farm. Ms. Ostby said she is talking about the land south of Swift St., rather than the land north-east of the intersection. Mr. von Turkovich said that land had not been discussed. Mr. von Turkovich noted that the interior of the Edlund property is where stuff from the building of the Interstate was “dumped” and that there are aerial photos of the property without trees in the center from the mid-Century. Mr. Gagnon ask about the allowable density of the 2 parcels. Mr. Conner said in the PRD, if there is less than 5 acres, the allowable density is one per acre; if it is more than 5 acres, the density is 5 per acre. Mr. Conner listed some of the allowed uses in the Institutional-Agricultural South District. Mr. Gagnon 3 noted that the IA district included Group Quarters, and asked if the applicant would look at a density constraint with the surrounding properties. Mr. von Turkovich said they would. Mr. Riehle asked if it is an “all or none” situation or whether they would develop only 150 Spear. Mr. Von Turkovich said the “master plan” is to develop Edlund. Martin would be held. 150 Spear would go to UVM. He noted that the center parcels between 150 Swift and the Martin parcel along Swift street are separately owned by others. Ms. Ostby noted that the Commission’s workplan includes discussion of UVM property and asked how much time the applicant is willing to give to this. Mr. von Turkovich said they can be patient and would work with staff and committees before coming back to the Commission. They want to move ahead and come back later in the summer with a fuller presentation. They are hoping for a decision before the end of the year. Ms. Ostby said it seems to her like a “spot zoning” request. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is in the process of re-doing the PUD regulations and questioned whether this proposal would coincide with that work. Mr. von Turkovich said they would hope to interact with that ordinance. Ms. Dopp cited several “position papers” written by UVM students in the Rubenstein School which should feed into a full discussion of this request. Ms. Greco said the proposal goes against the Comprehensive Plan and the city’s vision and would do irreparable harm to the environment. She cited the need for full public awareness. Ms. Ostby reiterated that today, without a zoning change, UVM could build dormitories on that land. Mr. Daumer asked what UVM expects for a monetary point of view as “affordability.” Mr. von Turkovich said the University expects a “meaningful affordability,” and they would work with the city in good faith on affordability. Mr. Simson, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, explained what “affordability” means in terms of housing for households with an annual income in the $55,000-80,000 range. He felt this could be a real benefit to the city if the developer plans housing in that range. Ms. Dooley noted she is on the Affordable Housing Committee but is also a member of the Land Trust. She cited the “competing needs” in the community for conservation and for affordable housing. Ms. Sirvis said her big fear is that what would happen here is the same clear cutting that occurred on the O’Brien property. Mr. Haas cautioned not to push the “visual envelope” too much; it’s a matter of “what’s behind the curtain.” Ms. Louisos said the Commission is very aware of all the concerns that have been raised. 4 Ms. Ostby said she would like to hear from UVM directly as to why they are not using land already zoned for housing. Mr. Riehle added that he would like to see a map of all the UVM zoned lands. Ms. Ryder asked what a person with the indicated income range can afford. Ms. Dooley said she would provide a link to that information. 6. Overview of the Role of the Official Map and Proposed Steps for FY2019 Update: Mr. Conner explained that the Official Map is a special strong too for communities outlined in State Statutes regarding future public infrastructure (e.g., roads, water towers, fire stations, etc.). The affect is that any infrastructure indicated on the map must be incorporated in any development plan. If a developer chooses not to do that, the city has the right to acquire that property. If the city chooses not to acquire the property, the plan goes back to the DRB without that issue. There is language that addresses the possibility of a small change (e.g., moving a proposed road a few feet). Mr. Gagnon asked if the proposed infrastructure is taken off the map if the city doesn’t buy the property. Mr. Conner said there could be circumstances where it might remain (e.g., a different type of configuration that would be compatible with the development that takes place). Mr. Conner noted that the Official Map has been successfully used in the community for roadways and rec paths. He said the City Attorney could be asked to come in and provide more detail. Ms. Ostby asked about adding solar facilities and scenic views. Mr. Conner didn’t feel the Official Map was the place for those considerations. Ms. LaRose added the things on the Official Map are tied to specific geography. She noted the Map was used in the case of the Underwood property and the O’Brien neighborhood development (for road connections). Ms. LaRose cautioned that anything that is put on the Official Map should be very well researched and thought out as you don’t want to take away value from the property and there is always a cost to the city. Mr. Conner added there has to be a very clear “public purpose.” Ms. Ostby suggested a draft first if east-west roads are left on the Map. Mr. Gagnon said you can’t do that as the Official Map has to be approved by the City Council after which it is official city policy. Mr. Conner noted that a city road shown through the Hort Farm could come off the map as it is not in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Update on various grant-funded projects: Mr. Conner updated grant-funded projects as follows: a. Traffic Overlay District & Transportation Impact Fees 5 The city is working with RSG and are close to a proposal as to when there needs to be a traffic study (including more specificity regarding a project) so the developer’s share of the cost can be known. It also encouraged multi-modal transportation. b. Williston Road Network Study implementation: One piece of the 2-piece study is underway for the Williston Road Streetscape. There have been meetings with property owners. The other piece of the study is attached to the Official Map and involves how City Center can be more precisely calibrated for different types of streets. c. Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping: The first public meeting on this project will be held on 1 July. Scoping is now being done for Fayette Road, the West end of Allen Road, Hinesburg Road between Williston Rd. and Kennedy Drive, and all of Spear Street. Consultants are now working on options. Ms. LaRose noted they are also looking at replacing the crossing where the bridge washed out. Last week, the project team had a meeting to kick that off. The map has always shown a bike-ped option there. This will be a joint project with the Town of Williston which will be striping bike lanes to the bridge. d. Tilley Drive/Kimball Ave Land Use/Network Study: The city is working with RPC to outline the next steps which include talking with property owners. 8. Update on Open Space Categorizations for the Land Development Regulations: Ms. LaRose said staff has met with both Natural Resources and Parks/Rec Committees who are excited about participating in this project. There will be a small group including members of each committee. 9. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on Planning Commission FY19 Work Plan: Mr. Conner advised that staff had acted on the changes requested by the Commission. They also added reserving time for things that come within the Commission’s realm of responsibility. Mr. Gagnon cited the need to address some concerns before they become issues/problems (e.g., air b&b’s). Mr. Conner noted that the City Council Chair has asked for quarterly updates on the work plan. A member of the Natural Resources Committee said they would like to be involved in the scenic views discussion. Mr. Gagnon suggested meeting regularly with committees to hear what they are working and to tell them what the Commission needs. 6 Ms. Ostby then moved to adopt the work plan as presented and discussed. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Minutes of 12 June 2018: Mr. Riehle noted that on p. 3, third paragraph from the bottom, the recommendation came from Mr. Klugo. Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the Minutes of 12 June as amended. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the City Council has warned a public hearing for the amendments sent by the Commission. Council members had expressed concern with the potential for residential development close to the Interstate ramps. A “tweak” had been added to “except residential uses.” The Commission will be able to weigh in on that. Ms. Ostby asked about the noise report done for Chamberlin School. Mr. Conner said he would try to get a copy of it. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:32 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 JULY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 July 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; F. Von Turkovich, E. Von Turkovich; B. Sirvis, J. Simson, S. Dooley, L. Yankowski, R. Greco. L. Ravin, S. Dopp, L. Vera, D. Murdoch, W. Daum, other members of the public 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. Greco expressed concern that South Burlington was overdeveloping, especially in the Southeast Quadrant. She felt this was in contradiction to many reports the city had commissioned and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Riehle expressed concern with what else will already be “in the hopper” for the SEQ before the Commission can get the new PUD standards adopted. Mr. Klugo noted that Planning Commission members can engage in the DRB process as citizens and mention what the Commission is working on. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner noted that next week there will be an event open to the public related to types of development, impacts, etc. 5. Affordable Housing Committee Project Updates: Mr. Simson noted that “affordable housing” means a lot of different things to a lot of people. To explain the Committee’s concern, he also noted that only 35% of people who work for the 2 city of school district live in South Burlington. The Committee is trying to find a way get developers to provide housing for people at or just below the median income level and still make money doing it. The hope is to have the city be in a position to say that a development of at least 12 units must provide some affordable housing. They are suggesting 10% of the units for households with incomes at 80% of median level or less and 5% for households at 100% of the medial level. This would cover all zoning districts. Affordable units would remain so in perpetuity by deed restriction. As an alternative, a developer could contribute $60,000 per required affordable unit to a fund from which the city could help to finance affordable housing. Mr. Klugo noted that the City of Philadelphia has a 1% tax across the board to pay for their inclusionary program. This means that businesses that benefit from those units also help to pay for them. Mr. Simson said that one problem with that in Vermont is that Vermont is not a home rule state, and a community has to go to the State to institute a new tax. Mr. Riehle suggested increasing permit fees. Ms. Dooley said increasing revenue is next on the Committee’s agenda. Mr. Klugo said he would like to see more balance than just targeting residential developers. Mr. Simson then noted that in looking at density bonuses the Committee couldn’t get the numbers to match up. Their thought was if a developer creates 15% affordable units, they would get one additional unit for every affordable unit. They are also considering a density bonus for developments of fewer than 12 units where the developer voluntarily provides inclusionary units or where a developer voluntarily provides more than the required number of affordable units. Mr. Riehle said he wouldn’t like to see the SEQ “bastardized” when it was meant to be open. Ms. Dooley asked whether 2 more units per 10 acres is really “jamming up.” The rules already allow more than the maximum. Mr. Conner explained the current rules for affordable housing. He stressed that these developments must meet other regulations as well. Mr. Simson said the Committee wants to work with the Planning Commission to come up with what works best for the city. He noted that if inclusionary zoning is adopted for the whole city, logic says that most of the $60,000 payments would come from the SEQ. He questioned whether this is something the City would be concerned about if SEQ developers buy their way out. Ms. Dooley noted that buyouts are not allowed in City Center. In the City of Burlington, the thinking is that for areas with little “inclusion, there would be no buyout allowed. Ms. Dooley 3 added that the median income in the SEQ is $130,000. In the rest of the city, the median income is $50,000. She questioned whether the city wants that to continue. Mr. Klugo stressed that in building affordable units the exterior has to connect with the rest of the community so the affordable units don’t stand out. He suggested a possible special meeting on this issue as there are lots of questions and issues involved. He also stressed that the issue isn’t population numbers it is whether the city is doing what it can to create a diverse, sustainable community. Mr. Riehle said they also have to be sure there is the infrastructure to support the populations. Members agreed to scheduling a special meeting on this topic. 6. Continued Initial Review of Request to Change Edlund Property on Spear Street (south of I-89) Zoning from Institutional Agriculture South to a district that allows residential development: Ms. Louisos noted that the applicant’s request is to talk to the Commission before coming back with an actual request. Mr. Von Turkovich said they have no additional information for this meeting but would like to engage with the committee process in the city and then come back to the Commission with a formal request. Mr. Gagnon felt that was reasonable and that it was OK for them to talk with committees. Mr. Von Turkovich then identified the 3 parcels involved and identified the area where development would occur. He stressed that the way the 3 parcels work together is integral to the plan. Mr. Riehle asked about 150 Swift being transferred to UVM. Mr. Von Turkovich said UVM wants to unify the Potash Brook basin. Mr. Riehle said he was shocked that UVM could sell East Woods. Ms. Ostby agreed that there should be some way to protect East Woods. She was also interested in what other committees have to say. Mr. Klugo said he did not think the city can say UVM doesn’t have the right to sell the Edlund property until they do what South Burlington wants with East Woods. He stressed that right now UVM could do more dense development on the Edlund parcel without a zoning change. Ms. Louisos said the bigger issue is whether all the UVM property is zoned the way the city wants it to be. Ms. Ostby said that before she would agree to change the zoning on the Edlund 4 property, she would want to look at all UVM land. She felt the Commission could do this while Mr. Von Turkovich is talking with other committees. Mr. Riehle noted that when he was on the Council in Burlington, UVM and the Hospital were not very good neighbors, and Bernie Sanders (then Mayor of Burlington) called them on it. With so many properties in South Burlington, Mr. Riehle wanted to be sure VUM is a good neighbor. Mr. Von Turkovich said he felt UVM has “very high intentions” with the Edlund property. If the Commission disagreed, it can say “no.” Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is working on new PUD standards, and that discussion should also be had. Mr. Von Turkovich said he has seen some of the draft. The plan is to make this work as a PUD, and they would work within the city’s regulations. Mr. Klugo suggested Mr. Von Turkovich put together a letter outlining the committees they will talk to. Ms. Dopp questioned whether “institutional zoning” can be transferred to a “non-institutional” owner. Mr. Conner said zoning is independent of ownership. A member of the Natural Resources Committee said the Committee would be interested in discussing this property and would like to have facts. Ms. Dooley questioned how the property is taxed. Mr. Conner said there is a “payment in lieu of taxes” on buildings, however, not on undeveloped land as he understands it. Ms. Greco said she would like to give a presentation on the impact of development, environmentally and economically. Mr. Murdoch said he opposes any development in this forested area. He felt UVM has not been a good neighbor as the city didn’t get wind of these plans until it was too late. Mr. Daum suggested UVM develop Wheelock East where they wouldn’t have to tear down decades old trees. Ms. Ostby read from a letter from UVM in which they cite wetland issues and use of the property for cropland. 7. Walkable Communities: Video and Discussion: Following an introduction, the video was presented. A very brief discussion followed. 8. Review draft updated policy on requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations: 5 Mr. Klugo noted that the concept is to address such requests twice a year. Mr. Conner said this would create predictability as committees would know 30 days in advance if they have any issues. If something urgent came up, it could be addressed. Mr. Klugo felt the only urgent thing would be an issue raised by the city. Mr. Macdonald moved to adopt the Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Mittag having left the meeting earlier). 9. Review modifications proposed by the City Council to the draft amendments to the LDRs in advance of the 16 July Council public hearing; update Planning Commission report and consider input on proposed modifications: Mr. Conner explained that the Council was concerned that the elimination of the 50-foot setback from the Interstate on-ramp could result in residential units without a setback. The amendment excludes residential use within that 50 feet. There is also a minor rewording in one other section to eliminate possible confusion. The changes to the report reflect these edits. Ms. Ostby moved to approve the updated report as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0). 10. Minutes of 26 June 2018: The minutes were not presented for review. 11. Other Business: a. AT&T petition to the Public Service Utilities Commission to modify antenna on and near existing monopole, 2026 Williston Road b. AT&T petition to the Public Service Utilities Commission to replace a 40-foot utility pole with a 45-foot utility pole, Shelburne Road: Members questioned whether there are limits to the heights the poles can go. Mr. Conner noted the city can always “weigh in” on the PSUC process, but it is not the city’s decision to make. 6 Mr. Klugo asked why the pole height is being increased. Mr. Conner said that question can be posed. Ms. Louisos suggested that the antenna will then be able to go on top of the pole; otherwise, AT&T would have to lower all the wires. Mr. Klugo said the city should still ask the question, so the Commission knows of the city’s interest. Mr. Conner said he would tell them the city is concerned about future “higher requests.” As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:41 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk