Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/24/2018SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 JULY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 July 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, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; B. Milizia, R. Greco, R. Kay, S. Dopp, L. Ravin 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: Mr. Conner asked to add an update on guidance to city committees under Other Business. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Greco noted that at a recent DRB meeting, the public was told they were at the wrong forum for the issues they were raising. She asked that people’s concerns be put on a future agenda. Mr. Gagnon asked if something is submitted under existing regulations, and the regulations then change, is the project grandfathered. Mr. Conner said if there is a Preliminary Plat submitted before the regulations are changed, it is reviewed under the Regulations at the time of submission. He stressed that a “project” is the province of the DRB while a “standard” is the province of the Planning Commission. He urged the Commission not to discuss a specific project. Ms. Greco stressed that the public wants to be heard. She feels the LDRs do not match the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gagnon noted there is a process to change the LDRs. Ms. Greco said they are losing the “rural character” because the LDRs allow it. Mr. Kay expressed concern that the integrity of private wells be respected when there is development in the area. He noted he and neighbors have been involved in successful litigation to that effect. Mr. Kay also felt the city should look beyond the 100-year storm even in considering potential flooding. He noted that he had to design a special system to handle area flooding that affected his home. He was concerned the city could become liable if it allows homes to be built on land that then floods. He also stressed that the developer should not put the burden of dealing with that potential on the homeowners. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: 2 Ms. Louisos advised that the City Council has passed the LDR changes sent to them by the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle reviewed figures from the Administrative Officer’s monthly report. There is a $14,000,000 increase in the taxable amount of permits over the same time last year. Mr. Conner noted this includes new development and improvements to existing development (e.g. Target) Ms. Ostby noted the Burlington City Council approved a letter regarding getting a conclusion to the nursing strike. She noted this does tie-in to affordable housing. Mr. Conner: All records a being digitized, a massive project, but a good one. Ray Belair will be retiring next week, and staff is in the process of interviewing to fill his position. Mr. Mittag cited how wonderful it was to work with Ray and how accessible he has been. Members will be doing their annual review of the city’s 10-year Capital Improvement Plan on an upcoming agenda. 5. Discuss concepts to re-align/consolidate similar zoning districts: Ms. LaRose reminded members that they had started this discussion a year ago. She noted that some districts are so close to each other it seems foolish. In addition, staff has to look at 30 different districts every time a zoning request comes in. She also commented that trying to tie zoning to geography/topography gets “messy.” As a first example, Ms. LaRose indicated the “Mixed IC” district on the map. It has various uses including the small lots in the Ethan Allen Industrial Park and the very large uses in Technology Park. The original intention was for this to be a “new industry,” “new economy” area, not a place for car repairs. Mr. Mittag indicated a piece at the top of that district which seems to be in the Mixed IC but is really a flood plain. Ms. LaRose said there is an overlay for that which does not show on the map. Mr. Mittag also questioned why the properties north and south of Kimball Ave. are in separate districts. Ms. LaRose said there is a question as to whether Kimball Ave. is the appropriate boundary line. In looking at the Mixed IC, Ms. LaRose said what she recommends at the least is that Ethan Allen Industrial Park and those uses north of the Airport not be in the same category/district as Technology Park. The question is what to do with the land in between. Should the type of heavy industry in Ethan Allen Park also be on Kimball Ave? Ms. LaRose noted that Ethan Allen Park is a great place for people to do what they want to do without annoying anyone. And that type of place is needed. The Meadowland area has less intense uses. Mr. Conner said it is more of a “modern campus” with less heavy truck use. Mr. Riehle cautioned not to create a zone with a negative impact on the residential uses there. He asked if there is anything pending that might be of concern. Ms. LaRose said there is not except for the 3 PUD project. She said that working on that project made them realize the difference in how various uses would function. Mr. Riehle expressed concern as to whether this should be higher on the Commission’s priority list when there are areas with a “race before the next development comes in.” Ms. LaRose felt this should be in place before the PUD project is complete. Mr. Conner said he knows the Hill Farm has interests as well as the O’Brien area. Ms. LaRose stressed that none of the changes staff is considering would increase the intensity of what exists today. Mr. Riehle also noted that they have to keep tax considerations in mind. Mr. Conner said that one thing that is not being done super well is more intense industrial and commercial. There may be a sufficient amount of land, but they may also want to allow/en-courage more compact use of industrial land. Ms. Greco asked about the taxes brought in from UVM buildings. Mr. Conner said if UVM rents a building, the building owner pays full taxes; if UVM owns a building, they pay a “payment in lieu of taxes.” Mr. Conner added that everything on Tilley Drive is leased by UVM. He suggested the Commission might want to have a presentation on this aspect of development by the City Assessor. Ms. Dopp suggested that buildings with a lot of open space could let employees have a community garden and make the open space usable. Ms. Ostby commented that in Edmonton they have a “heavy industrial” use that is so placed that it doesn’t interfere with the enjoyment of adjoining zones. Ms. LaRose questioned whether any of this land should be incorporated into the Airport Industrial Zone. That zone was created to provide a place to serve the Airport (e.g., FedX facility), but it hasn’t developed that way. She would propose to eliminate the redundancy and get rid of the “Airport Industrial Zone” name. Ms. Milizia was concerned that a lot of what is being talked about is “looking inward,” not at scenic views. The panoramic views are not discussed, and she is troubled by that. Those views will be gone if they are not considered. Ms. LaRose then addressed the C-1 Airport Zone (corner of Williston Road and Kennedy Drive). It was supposed to support the Airport but is largely car rental. It could be incorporated into an adjacent zone, probably the C-1-R-12. She felt it would be nice to exit the Airport to something other than car rentals/repairs, etc. The lakeshore area is encumbered by many grandfather clauses and many different districts. Queen City Park is different from R-1 Lakeshore and Bartlett Bay. The only ones that might be combined are R-1 Lakeshore and R-1 Lakeview. There are no recommended changes to Queen City Park. 4 Ms. Ostby noted that waterfront development is on the Commission’s work plan and could be moved to a higher priority. The C-1 Auto district was created to allow redevelopment and small scale growth of existing auto sales. Ms. LaRose felt that what happens there could still happen with a C-1 zoning designation and grandfathering of existing uses. Mr. Mittag noted that by clustering the auto uses there means they don’t go anywhere else. A member of the audience noted that this is not an attractive place to live and there are now several residential uses happening there. A change in zoning wouldn’t mean the auto uses would have to go, but they could not expand or have any new auto uses. Mr. Conner felt some little expansion would have to be allowed. He also stressed that this will be one of the more active areas of the city in coming years and it is a good area for and “urban PUD form.” Ms. Louisos suggested increasing the landscaping for those areas. Ms. Ostby also noted the tax revenue impact of that part of the city and said that people come from out of the city to make significant purchases there. Ms. Dopp asked if there is enough room for a new car dealership there. Mr. Conner said probably not. He added that in the future, they would be more likely to see used cars located there. He noted that the Mixed IC and the C-2 also allow auto sales. Ms. Ostby said she would like to see the tax revenue from that district compared to residential use. Ms. LaRose then addressed the C-1 Limited Retail district which was established to serve nearby residential areas. Ms. Conner said a similar use is the NRC-7 district. Mr. Mittag asked if the commercial uses serve the neighborhoods. Mr. Conner said the gas station does and it is the only place to get milk (the convenience store). The rest of the uses don’t. Mr. Conner questioned whether there are other areas where a similar retail use could be created for neighborhood use. Mr. Mittag suggested Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dirve and Williston Road/Kennedy Drive. Ms. Ostby said she left the last meeting with the feeling that the Commission should discuss the whole UVM zoning. She said she wouldn’t support any changes unless the whole issue is considered. 6. Update on multi-site Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping Study: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of a similar project and noted that tomorrow night will be the first meeting for the next such projects. The specific projects being considered include: Allen Road from the big buildings down to Shelburne Road with an alternate of Harbor View Road; Spear Street from the US Forest Service Building to the Shelburne line; Hinesburg Road between Williston Rd. and Kennedy Drive; and Fayette Road from Queen City Park Road to just above the movie theatre. Ms. LaRose noted these projects don’t represent the only needed areas. The list is never static, and it will be looked at again. Mr. Conner then reviewed the process that will follow tomorrow’s meeting. In mid-fall, the Commission will get a presentation on the chosen recommendations. 5 7. Commissioner review and discussion of last week’s showing of presentation on land value: Mr. Mittag said it was an “anti-sprawl lesson” that showed how disbursed residential and commercial uses don’t contribute. Ms. Ostby asked if the C-1 Auto zone and other similar zones could be used for TDRs. Mr. Conner said they could, but the question is how to incentivize the market to do that. He questioned whether they would want to down-zone the area to incentivize the use of TDRs there. A developer can build 5 stories there now. The question is would anyone want to build 8 stories. Ms. Ostby questioned whether anyone would want to live in an 8-story building between car dealerships. Mr. Conner noted that for a TDR to work, there has to be something a developer want to do that can’t be done any other way. Mr. Mittag raised the issue of the O’Briens not caring to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner noted the Comp Plan is a “road map,” not a set of regulations. Mr. Mittag felt that if the O’Briens had been approached, they may have been receptive to the issue of complying. Mr. Conner noted that the O’Brien project does not use the maximum density allowed. Ms. Greco noted that a number of places in the Comp Plan say things will be “monitored.” She asked who does this. 8. Meeting Minutes of 2 June 2018 and 10 July 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 2 June and 10 July 2018 as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: Mr. Conner distributed a draft of a letter to go to city committees. One part of the letter asks committees to give some time to talking with Mr. Von Turkovich and provided feedback to the Commission on those discussions. Mr. Mittag raised the possibility of a 100-foot strip of land between UVM I-AG lands and adjacent properties. Mr. Conner noted the next Planning Commission meeting will be 3 weeks from tonight. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2018