Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 10/23/2018South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Meeting Tuesday, October 23, 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 (7:10 pm) 5. Recap of City Council discussion of growth and development in South Burlington and consideration of Interim Bylaws & related studies (7:15 pm) 6. Commission consideration of update to FY 2019 Work Plan (7:25 pm) 7. Scheduling action concerning initial consideration of requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations discussed on October 9, 2018: (7:35 pm) [Work Plan #4] 8. Discuss recommendations to City Council regarding proposed Interim Bylaw studies to be undertaken: (7:40 pm) a. Completion of Planned Unit Development regulations [Work Plan #9, 13 and related]; b. Prioritization of open land [Related to several Work Plan items], c. Analysis of transfer of development rights program [Work Plan #43]; d. Economics / cost-benefit of land use assessment [Work Plan #49] 9. Status report and key topics for discussion on Planned Unit Developments (8:25 pm) [Work Plan #9] 10. Consideration of approval of street names in Cider Mill II neighborhood (8:55 pm) 11. Meeting minutes (9:00 pm) 12. Other business (9:05 pm) a. Scheduling of upcoming meetings b. 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan update, Planning Commission public hearing November 15, 2018, 7 pm 13. Adjourn (9:08 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 Commi ssion. 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 Ch air 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 th e 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. 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: October 23, 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. Recap of City Council discussion of growth and development in South Burlington and consideration of Interim Bylaws & related studies (7:15 pm) Last week, the City Council passed a resolution and a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare a draft Interim Bylaw and warn it for publication in the Other Paper this coming week. The Council set the date of the public hearing to be Tuesday, November 13th. Here are links to the City Council meeting video and to the meeting minutes [to be posted this afternoon]. Staff and Commissioners who attended will provide a brief recap to set the framework for the rest of this evening’s agenda. 6. Commission consideration of update to FY 2019 Work Plan (7:25 pm) Based on the Commission’s recommendations from the last meeting and the Council- approved resolution (imbedded in the Council’s meeting minutes), staff recommends that the Commission update its work plan for the remainder of the year. Enclosed with your packet is a simplified version of the work plan. The color coding is as follows: • Rows with a Green tag are the approved priorities for the Commission for completion this year. • Rows with a Yellow tag are the approved second priorities to complete if possible this year • Rows with an Orange tag are the approved priorities to pursue when there is time / opportunities arise and/or to get started for action in the following fiscal year • ADDED this week are the Blue tags. These are projects that relate directly to the studies the Commission recommended at your last meeting to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Commission update its priority list for this year’s work plan and, as appropriate, update the descriptions of projects. 7. Scheduling action concerning initial consideration of requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations discussed on October 9, 2018: (7:35 pm) [Work Plan #4] At the Commission’s last meeting, two requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations were presented. Based on the Commission’s recommendations for priority actions and the Council’s resolution, staff recommends the Commission determine when it will next hear these requests. 8. Discuss recommendations to City Council regarding proposed Interim Bylaw studies to be undertaken: (7:40 pm) a. Completion of Planned Unit Development regulations [Work Plan #9, 13 and related]; b. Prioritization of open land [Related to several Work Plan items], c. Analysis of transfer of development rights program [Work Plan #43]; d. Economics / cost-benefit of land use assessment [Work Plan #49] See separate memo prepared by staff. 9. Status report and key topics for discussion on Planned Unit Developments (8:25 pm) [Work Plan #9] At this week’s meeting, staff proposes that we begin taking a slightly modified approach to the PUD project that reflects the Commission’s prioritization of this work. Staff would like to propose that we provide you with information and discussion points at virtually every meeting from here forward. In doing so, some of the materials would come with a staff recommendation, and some of the questions would be ones we’re just beginning to address as well. The effort will be more hands-on. For this meeting, we propose to do the following: • Recap where we are with the project • Review of the PUD types, allocations, and measurements • Begin review of possible constraints and factors that will be included in determining calculations. To prepare for these discussions, staff recommends that you review the following documents: [both can be found on the City website under Planning & Zoning – Projects & Studies] 2014 Open Space Report. Specifically, staff recommends that for this part of the discussion, to review pages 6-18. PUD Types Comparison Chart. 10. Consideration of approval of street names in Cider Mill II neighborhood (8:55 pm) Attached please find a map indicating the proposed roads. It is possible that some of these road names were previously approved back in 2007/08 by the Planning Commission but with some changed names and relocation of some of the streets, staff recommends a fresh approval for all name. They are: • Nadeau Drive (shows as Nadeaucrest Drive on the map, but the State E-911 coordinator recommends a shorter name and the applicant and staff are both fine with the shorter name. • Aurora Drive • Senator Street • Russet Road [note that it is listed as Russett on the plan; that’s a typo. The apple type is Russet]. • Liberty Lane • Pippin Lane 11. Meeting minutes (9:00 pm) 12. Other business (9:05 pm) a. Scheduling of upcoming meetings Two items / questions: First, would the Commission want to hold a special meeting on Tuesday October 30th to continue to either: • Review / consider the items from this week’s agenda, either to complete any unfinished business in advance of the City Council’s public hearing and/or • Use the extra meeting to make progress on projects such as the PUD project and others on the list Second, the City Council has scheduled its public hearing on the proposed Interim Bylaw for Tuesday, November 13th. That happens to be a Planning Commission meeting night. What would the Commission like to do regarding its meeting that evening? b. 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan update, Planning Commission public hearing November 15, 2018, 7 pm 13. Adjourn (9:08 pm) Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 3 City Center guidance & direction Provide guidance on design / planning priorities in City Center in support of the City Council; includes UPWP work to evaluate parking and movement (approved spring '18) 01. Bringing City Center Alive Opportunity Oriented 4 Zoning Amendments- Initial requests Initial requests from the public to consider amendments; determination of next action 07. Community Engagement Opportunity Oriented 5 Planning Commissioner items Would set aside time for Commissioners to bring new or different ideas to the Commission not specifically related to a project in the annual work plan 07. Community Engagement Opportunity Oriented 6 Meet with DRB Annual meetings with DRB 07. Community Engagement Opportunity Oriented 7 Provide input to Capital Improvement Program Annual Capital Improvement Plan 06. Walking the walk Affordable & Community Strong 8 Williston Road Network Study (1) set/ revise location of planned supporting streets, (2) revise FBC & Official Map to match, (3) possibly revise how buildings and streets are related in the FBC 01. Bringing City Center Alive Walkable 9 Master Plan / Planned Unit Developments (& related) Would set new standards for most new large scale development, including revised Master Plan thresholds & procedures and PUDTypes. 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, 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use Affordable & Community Strong 10 Transportation Overlay District Update Replace 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 outcomes 03. Transportation, Smartly Walkable 11 Traffic Impact Fee Update Replace the existing ordinance with new tools to encourage multi- modal investment and changes in travel modes 03. Transportation, Smartly Opportunity Oriented 1 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 I-89 Bike / Ped Crossing Scoping project for bike/ped bridge 01. Bringing City Center Alive Opportunity Oriented 13 Fixes to zoning and LDRs per PUD project Development 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 provisions 10. Foundations of zoning Clean & Green 12 Tilley / Kimball / Community Drive Transportation & Land Use Study Iterative 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 03. Transportation, Smartly Opportunity Oriented 14 Wildlife / natural resources standards Would establish more clear review criteria for conservation of wildlife, landscape, natural resource standards on individual parcels. Project was 50% completed in 2010 09. Conserving Natural Resources Clean & Green 15 Scoping of 4 Bike / Ped Projects Prepare scoping studies of four city-led projects identified by the Bike Ped Committee 03. Transportation, Smartly Walkable 16 Updates to LDRs to promote affordable housing Would examine and implement various zoning tools to promote housing, such as bonuses, inclusionary zoning, cottage housing, accessory units, etc. 05. Supporting Affordability Affordable & Community Strong 17 Scenic Views Establish scenic view protection overlays, including a methodology, analysis of priorities, and standards for foreground, middle ground, and background 09. Conserving Natural Resources Clean & Green 18 Airport Noise Compatibility Plan Provide input on draft Airport Noise Compatibility Plan when it is complete 04. Strong Neighborhoods Affordable & Community Strong 19 Scoping of 4 Bike / Ped Projects- Crossings Prepare scoping studies of four city-led projects identified by the Bike Ped Committee- UPWP 2019 03. Transportation, Smartly Walkable 20 Projects that Arise through the year Reserving time for other projects that fall within the PC's area of responsibility 07. Community Engagement 2 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 Update City-Wide Official Map Update 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 citywide. Includes review of East- West Roads 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use Opportunity Oriented 22 Redefine Open Space citywide Would 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. 04. Strong Neighborhoods Clean & Green 23 Organizing for managing larger projects, including developing a policy for support committees providing draft policies Development of Commission policies and procedures for how to farm projects out to Committees of the City 08. Capacity Building Opportunity Oriented 24 River Corridor Standards Would update the City's stream buffer requirements to be consistent with river corridor planning 08. Capacity Building Clean & Green 25 Parking Standards outside City Center Would 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 & Rides 03. Transportation, Smartly Walkable 26 Gap and future needs Analysis Parks, Transportation Would 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 report 04. Strong Neighborhoods 3 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 27 Full review of UVM Properties Would consider possible amendments to the I/A zoning district in conjunction with UVM for right-sizing the zoning for all of their lands 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use Opportunity Oriented 28 Waterfront development Would work with property owners to plan the conditions for a future mixed-use waterfront area along the lake. 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 29 Evaluate FBC 2.5 years into adoption. How's it going, what have we seen Would be a focused look and gathering feedback on FBC 01. Bringing City Center Alive Opportunity Oriented 30 Linking City's efforts together Coordinate committee & staff work. This is underway with the Leadership committee & upgraded CIP/Budget process.08. Capacity Building Opportunity Oriented 62 Intentionally work with large property owners on their plans Would have staff and the PC engage proactively with large property owners prior to any project plans 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 64 Focus of Development in the city.Broad review of the City's policies to assure that they are promoting development in planned areas for growth & development 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 31 Open Space Acquisition Continually review opportunities for open space acquisition 09. Conserving Natural Resources Clean & Green 32 Shelburne Road- Nodes of activity Would 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. 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 33 Transferable Development Rights clarifications Clarifications to the TDR program as it operates in the SEQ 10. Foundations of zoning Clean & Green 4 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 34 R4 District front setback standards Would evaluate and possibly lower front setback standards in the R4 district 04. Strong Neighborhoods Walkable 35 Footprint Lots Examine how to address footprint lot incongruity in the LDRs 07. Community Engagement Opportunity Oriented 36 Fence heights in residential districts, SEQ, and CC FBC Revise fence standards City-wide 04. Strong Neighborhoods Affordable & Community Strong 37 Chamberlin Neighborhood / Airport Plan amendment Develop an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on the Chamberlin report, neighborhood meetings, City Council, etc. 04. Strong Neighborhoods Affordable & Community Strong 38 Agricultural Enterprise Use (if applicable) (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 impacts 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use Opportunity Oriented 39 Defining density & housing units Would 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 methods 05. Supporting Affordability 40 Clean up of LDRs - remove public works standards & put into a book Would remove public works standards (street construction, turn radii, etc.) from the LDRs and create as a DPW policy book 10. Foundations of zoning 5 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 41 Review "purpose" statements of each zoning district; possible consolidation of districts Would 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 outdated 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 42 Renewable Energy Siting - CCRPC & Plan amendment Provide feedback to the CCRPC on renewable energy siting; consider updating the Comp Plan 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use Clean & Green 43 Review TDR program Would evaluate the TDR program, including possibly (1) making areas outside the SEQ eligible as receiving areas and/or (2) prioritizing sending areas 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use Opportunity Oriented 44 Intensities and Densities in various districts, including density increases allowable through PUDs Examine appropriate intensities & densities in various districts. May be folded into 2 other projects: PUDs for larger properties, and examination of the definition of "unit" citywide 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 45 Family / Affordability Goals Plan amendment Explore establishing clear goals & objectives for young families in South Burlington 05. Supporting Affordability Affordable & Community Strong 46 Short and Long Term Resilience Broad review of the City's policies to assure that they are promoting long term resilience and sustainability 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 47 Public and private investments Review how to maximize the combination of these efforts. A piece of this will be addressed as part of the PUD project 08. Capacity Building 48 Agricultural lands & soils planning Would 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. 09. Conserving Natural Resources 49 Cost / benefit of development Analysis of City's existing development related to cost of infrastructure 06. Walking the walk Affordable & Community Strong 50 Review Temporary use & structures Would review the City's regulations regarding the number, frequency, and allowance for various kinds of temporary structures & uses 10. Foundations of zoning 51 Industrial Zoning & Needs Would 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 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 52 Maximum Density Calculation and Undeveloped Land Would consider removing undevelopable land from maximum density on parcels. Would likely involve an examination of underlying density to assure right-sizing in affected areas 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 6 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2019 Update 10/19/2018 1 N P Q AG AH Project #Project Description Themes Comp Plan Goals 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 53 Historic preservation language Would establish requirements related to alterations to historic structures 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 54 Consider no parking on front lawns- Would 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. 04. Strong Neighborhoods 55 Examine tree requirements in IHO-Would consider requiring more substantial vegetated buffers in the Interstate Overlay District, and also whether a project's landscaping 09. Conserving Natural Resources 56 Clarify regulations regarding construction or reconstruction of homes in the SEQ-NRP district Would 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 district 09. Conserving Natural Resources 57 Southeast Quadrant - Quantifying Standards Would evaluate SEQ design standards to assure they are measurable 10. Foundations of zoning 58 Limit number of trailers on a property Would place a limitation on the number of movable structures on a lot 10. Foundations of zoning 59 Clarify the number of single family homes permitted on a private right- of-way or road; Would 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. 10. Foundations of zoning 60 Clarify standards for fencing of Stormwater facilities Would provide additional guidance as to whether stormwater areas should be fenced, or not fenced. 10. Foundations of zoning 61 Placement of cell towers Would develop standards for cell tower placement. "Towers", generally , will be addressed as part of a clean-up of heights in the PUD project. 10. Foundations of zoning 63 Comprehensive Plan progress check-in Would 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 / timelines 08. Capacity Building 65 Design - small & big High quality of buildings; planned unity developments; large parcel planning; business parks; coordination with smaller development projects 02. Sustainable, Quality Land Use 66 Von Turkovitz request Consider rezoning of Edlund Tract per request 07. Community Engagement 67 AirBnBs / short term dwellings Would take up the subject of short term rental regulation 07. Community Engagement 7 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning for possible studies DATE: October 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Context & City Council Resolution Recent conversations at the City Council have focused on how to implement better regulations or procedures for future land development and/or conservation. The Planning Commission had a robust conversation on these subjects as well at the October 9th meeting. Insights and recommendations from that meeting were forwarded to the City Council, who continued the discussion at their meeting on October 15th. Concluding that evening’s discussion was a motion and vote to adopt a resolution related to studying these concerns and opportunities, and setting a public hearing for discussion, to be warned October 25th for a November 13th public hearing. The resolution focuses on: (1) Completion of Planned Unit Development regulations (2) Prioritization of open land (3) Analysis of Transfer of Development Rights program (4) Economics/ cost-benefit of land use assessment The City Council hasn’t yet explicitly set the boundaries on these studies, nor have they explicitly assigned the Planning Commission to act as the project lead for each. Staff and the Chair have agreed, however, that this would be a good opportunity for the Commission to provide guidance to the Council. Below is staff’s initial understanding of each study and our preliminary recommendation to the Commission for review processes for each. We ask that you consider what of these, if any, you wish to be a lead on or participant in, what you desire with respect to goals, and that you advise the City Council as to your thoughts on each study’s goals, outer boundaries, and team management. (1) Completion of Planned Unit Development Regulations About: We often refer to this work as the ‘PUD Project’. In truth, this work is even more extensive: the project, when complete, will produce several new components, multiple adjustments to current development approaches, and extensive updates throughout the Land Development Regulations. Among them are: a. Subdivision standards for simple divisions of land; 2 b. Master plan standards to ensure appropriate and thoughtful planning of large projects, with the goal of ensuring that needed infrastructure is considered and accommodated early, while also giving some predictability to property owners and other stakeholders; c. Planned Unit Development standards to build places that create neighborhoods and community spaces we can be proud of and wish to spend time in; d. Site Plan standards intended to allow every business to be their best; e. Open space standards to ensure that every person, whether they be near their home, place of employment, school, or shopping center has a high-quality open space, whether it be for meeting their neighbors, enjoying their lunch outdoors, teaching their children to ride bikes in a safe environment, quiet reflection, admiration of wildlife, growing their own food, or even exercising; f. Creating graphic illustrations- including photographs, charts, and graphs- for some of these elements to make the LDRs more user-friendly and intelligible; g. Building typology standards that reflect the character of South Burlington, create welcoming spaces, and are timeless; h. Consolidated and well-planned street standards that create predictability in road designs, ensuring the proper elements including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle accommodations, speeds, landscaping, width and other safety measures; i. Coordination of development with the goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan; j. Re-evaluation of the underlying zoning districts to simplify what is now arguably over-complicated and over-saturated; k. Streamlining the application process and creating project scorecards such that measures of review are clear and objective; l. Possible revisions to parking standards such that our places are about people and buildings, rather than vehicle and striped swaths of asphalt; m. Miscellaneous cleanups of conflicting or duplicated standards within the LDRs. Undertaking a complete overhaul like this has been an immense task and while we haven’t been able to hit our original deadline dates, we have made tremendous gains towards results that will exceed our original expectations. The project is shaping to come together in the next few months with dedicated work from Staff and the Commission. It will transform the way places are created in South Burlington. Recommended next steps: This project has been managed to date by the Planning Commission with staff support from Planning and Zoning department staff. Where it has been applicable, the Commission has sought insight from related committees- staff and the consulting team has met with Natural Resources, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Recreation and Parks, and Affordable Housing committees. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue to proceed as it has with the full Planning Commission tasked with review and development of this project, with the goals and outer boundaries as defined in a-m above. Please see Staff’s note in the overall cover memo of a proposed reallocation of Commission time over the next few months as a suggestion to reach project completion. (2) Prioritization of Open Land About: The Council first asked, and the Planning Commission later added: what are the City’s specific conservation goals for South Burlington’s undeveloped lands? What are the City’s conservation tools? 3 The resolution desires an analysis of all undeveloped lands outside of the transit overlay district, Meadowlands, Ethan Allen and other similar industrial parks, and the airport, with no thresholds of size or zoning district. Recommended next steps: Similar concepts have been discussed in previous city-wide open space plans, including the 2002 South Burlington Open Space Strategy and the 2014 Open Space Report, and the SEQ specific 2004 Arrowwood Environmental Study (all available on the City’s website). All of these studies employed the help of a consultant to gather research and serve as the team manager, enabling meetings and soliciting stakeholder feedback. Staff recommends that rather than define the full parameters from the start, that first a coalition of members of City committees coordinate to form a working group towards a 2019 report. This should include 1-2 members each of the Natural Resources Committee, Recreation and Parks Committee, Economic Development Committee, and Planning Commission. The addition of a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian and Energy Committees and a City Council liaison may also be appropriate. Staff envisions this being a public committee, with meetings open to the public; this should be a committee that commits to public outreach at key points in their work’s development. The Planning Commission may wish to advise as to the scope of the committee’s work, including: a. What is the scope of lands to be considered? b. Should lands be identified only for conservation? What about planning for future parks or recreational spaces? c. Should the lands be prioritized against each other? Or rated with a High/Med/Low assessment? d. Is it the group’s charge to identify the range of conservation tools; if so, broadly or specifically? e. Should the group consider the cost of conservation? Should the group consider or give advice with respect to financing mechanisms or regulatory tools? (3) Analysis of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) Program About: Since 2005, the Land Development Regulations enable a TDR program in the Southeast Quadrant: property owners in several ‘receiving zones’ can purchase development rights from ‘sending zones’ in order to increase their allowed density beyond 1.2 units per acre, up to a sub-district maximum. Recommended next steps: The Planning Commission’s discussion of this subject at their October 9th meeting focused largely on what was referred to as a ‘state of the state’ of the TDR program. Commissioners wished to understand-for example- how many TDRs were being used, where they were being used, and what the shortcomings of the program have been. Commissioners also expressed interest in revisiting the work begun by a prior working group that explored options for use of TDRs outside of the SEQ. This project has many avenues for possible exploration. Are there possible uses for TDRs outside of the SEQ? For density increases or other? Is there adjustment to consider with the sending or receiving zones? Is there sufficient value given to the sending zones? 4 Staff recommends that this be a 2-part project. Phase 1 is research based- exploring the recorded uses to date of the TDRs, consulting with property appraisers as to values of TDRs, outlining legal options under state enabling legislation. Staff recommends a project team for this part of the study, to include a member of City Council, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, a hired project consultant, and possibly a member of the former working group on TDRs. Phase 2 of the project should expand to be policy-oriented. It should become a working group with public meetings, and could potentially include members of the affordable housing and economic development committees, as well as a member of the to-be-formed Open Space working group. It should also commit to public outreach, meet with land owners, and consider the ongoing work and results from the identification of the prioritized conservation parcels. (4) Economics/ Cost-benefit of land use assessment Recommended next steps: Staff indicated to the Council that they are communicating with the Regional Planning Commission and possible consultants as to what a possible scope could look like. If Commissioners have feedback at this time, it would be welcome, but is otherwise premature at this date. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 OCTOBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 October 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair (arrived late); B. Gagnon (chaired opening hour of the meeting), A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner ; S. Partillo, C. Miller, L. Murphy, F. Cresta, D. Burke, D. Heil, B. & C. Gardner, S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, H. Riehle, R. Greco, T. Prerafado, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon 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: Mr. Partillo said it is the belief of a group of citizens that residential housing costs more than it brings in while commercial/industrial costs less than it bring in. Residential housing creates a need for infrastructure which the additional taxes don’t cover. He noted that city taxes have increased three times the rate of inflation while school taxes have held the l ine at the rate of inflation. Ms. Miller said in 10 years, he city tax rate has gone up 40.4%. Mr. Riehle asked if the group had gleaned what caused the increase in taxes. Mr. Partillo said they didn’t. They just went with what department heads said. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby reported on the recent meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee. They will be submitting a modified draft for inclusionary zoning which excludes the Southeast Quadrant for now. Mr. Conner: Last Friday, the city and its partners closed on the acquisition of the Auclair property (375 acres were transferred). The City’s participation in the 117 acre parcel on the west side of Hinesburg Road includes an option to conserve 35% of that property. 2 A Neighborhood Watch program has been launched in the Chamberlin Neighborhood at the request of residents. South Burlington participated in the Governor’s “Capital for a Day” program last week. State officials visited the city and viewed the City Center area dodging construction vehicles on Market Street. 5. Initial Consideration of Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Allow parking to the front of buildings under certain conditions related to visibility and preexisting development b. Remove applicability of the Hinesburg Road North Scenic View Protection Overlay District at 1398 Hinesburg Road Mr. Murphy said the property in question is behind the former Bouyea -Fassetts Bakery building which is not W. B. Mason. It is a large parcel zoned Commercial. The property is accessed off Nesti Drive. If development came off that road, there would be no issue; however, there is a proposal to have traffic come in and out at the traffic light at Route 7. The problem is that if the property is connected to Route 7, and if there is a second building on the property, the property on the sides can’t exceed half the width of the buildings. This limits parking which limits commercial use of the property. The purpose of the ordinance is to limit the visibility of parking from Route 7, but this property is 400 feet from Route 7 and is about 25 feet different in elevation. There is absolutely no possibility of viewing any parking on the property from Route 7. Mr. Murphy said he has drafted a very narrow proposal that would give the DRB flexibility to waive parking in front of a building if it is not visible from Route 7 because of distance and topography. It does not mandate this but gives the DRB flexibility to allow it. Mr. Klugo asked why parking in front matters. Mr. Murphy said because there is frontage on Route 7, parking is limited for any new development. He stressed that this is a very good place for commercial development. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the property can be developed without this change. He cited similar issues with the O’Brien property. Mr. Murphy said that was a residential development and easier to predict. Development on this property could be a car dealership, a hospital- associated business, etc. It is an unknown. Mr. Klugo felt that the parking could be seen from the top of the hill. Mr. Murphy said there are 20-30-foot trees in place, and almost nothing could be seen from that height. Mr. Klugo said he would want to see something on paper. Mr. Murphy said that is for the DRB. The Planning Commission sets policy. 3 Ms. Ostby said she would like to understand why a building so far from Shelburne Rd. is considered to have Shelburne Rd. frontage. Mr. Conner explained that adding the narrow “finger” of land creates a frontage on Route 7. The regulation does not stipulate how much frontage triggers the parking requirement. Mr. Mittag said he would like to see an aerial view and an indication of what the applicant wants. Mr. Murphy said this is a policy decision. If the policy is to screen parking from the public road, there could be a choice if that parking isn’t visible from the public road. Mr. Riehle asked if there is anywhere else this situation could apply. Mr. Conner said it could apply near Lowe’s and the existing Hannaford. Ms. LaRose added they have not taken staff resources to look at this. It would take significant time if the Commission wanted to proceed with the request. Ms. Ostby felt the Commission would see this again because of all the property near Hannaford and possibly in other places. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the remaining parcels at Lowes/Hannaford would have to comply with parking regulations. Ms. LaRose said if Hannaford were to move and the old building were to be torn down and rebuilt, it would probably have to conform with the parking in the rear regulation. Ms. Ostby said her concern is whether this fits in the Commission’s work plan. Mr. Klugo said his question is whether standards for a public road should apply to a private road. Mr. Conner said staff will come back with some answers so the Commission can decide whether to take this up. This will be a few meetings out as staff is trying to move on the Commission’s top priorities. (Ms. Louisos arrived at this point in the meeting and assumed the Chair.) Mr. Burke then addressed the Scenic View Protection issue on Hinesburg Road. He noted there was an appendage of road that jutted out. In September 0f 2014, Tim McKenzie asked that Commission to rezone it from I-O to SEQ-NR, which the Commission did. The Gardners bought the property based on residential use. At that time, nobody noticed the view protection zone. Mr. Burke said their feeling is that it does not apply to this property. The property was specifically rezoned for residential use, and not to use it for that use doesn’t make sense. The first buildings in the area are at one level, and there is a major wood line that follows the “appendage.” Mr. Conner noted that the allowable height on this site would be much less than one story. Mr. Klugo asked if the existing house would remain. Mr. Burke said it would. It is a 2-story house, and most of any new development would be 2-story. He added that you have to go past this property to see Mt. Mansfield. Mr. Riehle said he parked near the property today and it didn’t seem to impinge on any view. 4 Mr. Burke said they are asking staff to spend some time on this and get it into the Commission’s work plan. Ms. Louisos agreed that the scenic view issue was overlooked by everyone at the time. Mr. MacDonald asked if the property was originally part of the Mansfield Business Park. Mr. Burke said it was and also noted how the park was designed for excellent Mansfield views. Mr. Gagnon said one of the Commission’s priorities is to re-look at view corridors. If it stays the same, he was OK; if it changes, he was also OK. Mr. Burke said if there was a great view, they wouldn’t be asking for a change. He noted that at the time, the Commission just followed the property line. Members agreed to contact the applicant when scenic view corridors are on the Commission agenda. 6. Planning Commission follow-up discussion of joint meeting with City Council concerning future growth and development in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): Ms. Louisos noted she had spoken briefly with the Council Chair who asked if the Commission would discuss this and get back to her. Ms. Louisos felt that what would be helpful would be to process what was heard and to try to come up with some feedback. She asked members to take 5 minutes each to present their thoughts. Mr. Riehle: Feels like he is “on a treadmill” with all the things that are presented to the Commission. He said he is concerned with the kind of development that is happening. He not a “no growth” person, but feels growth isn’t happening the right way. He wanted to try to make things more attractive and cited Burlington’s attractive parks and South Burlington’s “some space put away.” He was concerned that the new PUD standards are not yet in place. Mr. Klugo: The Commission did 5 years of great work on the Comprehensive Plan, but when the plan takes a “3-dimensional life,” people say this isn’t what they envisioned. What is being developed is what was envisioned and planned to be developed. It was on all the maps. He felt that a map of parks is needs and also a street grid, so that people will understand. He said the city does not have a “regulated plan,” and it is left to developers to bring that to the city. He added that streets help define growth. He said the challenge is that the city had a 1% vacancy rate which is driving up the cost of housing. If that isn’t solved, the affordable housing issue won’t get solved. He also noted the need to look at the studies quoted by residents from both sides of the issue. He stressed that “we are not adversaries.” He also said new community 5 members come for the same reason as earlier people and questioned whether to say new community members can’t come into the community. Mr. Gagnon: It will be hard to craft something that pleases everyone and noted the requests from owners/developers and those who oppose the requests. He felt it was good to have different perspectives on the Commission but noted that sometimes the best they can do is to get a majority consensus. He supports more density in already developed areas, but also recognizes that people’s land is an asset to them, and didn’t feel the benefit of that asset should be taken away. He noted Councilman Chittenden suggested looking at developable land and who owns it and then identifying what the city wants to conserve and how much money it will take in the Open Space Fund to do that. Mr. Mittag: Noted that open space has been the second most major concern of the public (after good schools). He felt development shouldn’t be incentivized in forests and on agricultural land. He also felt the Commission hasn’t looked at Act 171 which aims to prevent forest fragmentation. Mr. Macdonald: He is not a “no development person,” and does not favor Interim Zoning. He has lived in the city since 1976 and has seen “a ton” of changes. He felt the city should identify what it wants to preserve and that the ownership of those lands should be compensated for the land’s value. He wasn’t sure the city could get enough money in the Open Space Fund. He also said that there are always “competing interests” in everything the Commission sees. Ms. Ostby: Agreed with finding anything of absolute value and making it a priority to preserve that. She didn’t think the LDRs are out of whack with the Comprehensive Plan and said the city has done a good job of not have two houses per acre all over the place in the SEQ. She supports some Interim Zoning to update studies. Studies should include economic issues. She cited misunderstanding about the need for workforce housing and noted that teachers, nurses, and others are leaving the community because they can’t afford to live here. She also cited the need for east-west connections and “nature connections.” She is concerned as to what will be revealed in December with the new Airport noise map. Ms. Louisos noted that the issues being discussed are not new. The felt there is significant alignment of the LDRs with the Comprehensive Plan and noted that not every goal applies everywhere in the city. There are always competing goods. She is proud of the water resource protection but noted that not all remaining land falls under that protection. She hears the need for a parks/open space master plan. She also sees the need to follow up on the economic issues, and this is not on the Commission work plan. 6 Members then specifically addressed the interim zoning issue and made the following comments: Ms. Ostby: Limit it to undeveloped land, wherever that is. Include a TDR analysis and where they could be used outside the SEQ (e.g., C-2, Swift St., Allen Road). Mr. Macdonald: Does not favor interim zoning as the city hasn’t used the tools it has (e.g. TDRs). He could be convinced for IZ in the SEQ eventually. He does agree with the importance of trying to acquire open space. Mr. Mittag: Thinks IZ is a good idea but noted that recommendations from the IZ studies done the last time were not implemented. He did not feel IZ should be city-wide. Felt it makes no sense to have sending and receiving areas in the SEQ. Mr. Gagnon: Limit IZ to open areas to preserve. Would prefer a limit of 6 months. Did not want to encumber people’s resources. Wants to identify lands to conserve and finish the PUD work. Mr. Klugo: Doesn’t favor IZ but could support Mr. Gagnon’s 6 month option. Supports a TDR study. Cited the need to go back and define space that gets allocated for “open space.” Mr. Riehle: Agrees with a TDR study. Two years is too much to interim zoning. Would go for 6 months with “all hands on deck.” Felt the last IZ was divisive, and the city doesn’t need that. Supports finishing the PUD work. Ms. Ostby: Hopes the Commission with consider workforce housing with the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t support that as park of interim zoning and wants to keep the focus narrow. Other members agreed. Mr. Conner noted that with regard to TDRs, there has to be a demand for TDRs where they are not being used now. He also asked the Commission “what does success look like?” Is it a number of units per acre or compact development in fewer acres? Mr. Klugo said the Commission has to have that conversation and decide how to contribute success. Mr. Gagnon felt the PUD project will define what success should look like. Mr. Conner felt the PUD project can happen within 6 months. He also felt the City Council can prioritize open space in 6 months. Mr. Conner also noted that staff is looking to the people who did the “economic viability” video to get an idea of what “economic viability” looks like. Mr. Klugo cited the need to see what will get bumped from the Commission work plan if this is to be done. Ms. LaRose said they will also have to be more selective regarding new projects, and that might mean some things don’t get discussed. 7 Public comment was then solicited as follows: Ms. Rihele: Questioned whether 6 months is adequate and realistic to get studies done and data back. Ms. Dopp: Things an open space inventory is a good idea but noted they were told in the past that couldn’t happen because it is people’s private business. She felt that all the significant rural land is in the SEQ. Mr. Chalnick: Showed blown up maps from the Comprehensive Plan and felt that there is development in areas which are designated as “primary conservation areas” and “secondary conservation areas.” He cited the O’Brien property, South Village, JAM Golf, Brand Farm. Unidentified: Charlotte has preserved land forever. Growth can be moderated. Ms. Prerafado: Dorset Meadows would be in the view of Camel’s Hump. Ms. Greco: Did not find any studies that showed residential development brought in tax money. Ms. LaRose noted that the large wetland shown on South Village was not built on, and the agricultural soils were not built on. Ms. Ostby asked who would do the needed studies…the Commission?...with what resources…Mr. Conner said “all of the above.” He added that some identified Commission projects will be challenging to put on a “side burner.” Mr. Riehle suggested the possib ility of additional meetings. Members again discussed the possible length of IZ. Ms. LaRose stressed that some undeveloped lands are already out of the discussion because there are vested applications. Mr. Conner noted that other committees would have to drop what they are doing to participate in the IZ process. He then outlined what he has heard from the Commission as follows: a. Prioritize developable land for conservation (open space and forest tracks outside the traffic overlay district) with help fro m city committees b. Finish PUD work c. Prioritize remaining developable lands for conservation d. Analyze the TDR program/options e. Economic study (not part of Interim Zoning) 8 Mr. Macdonald asked what tools are available to conserve land. Mr. Klugo said that is the Council’s responsibility. Mr. Gagnon said land to conserve can be put on the official city map, then if an owner wants to develop, the Council has to decide whether to buy the land or not. He said the Commission’s goal should be just to create the map of what to conserve. Ms. Greco said consultants can be hired to do that work. Mr. Gagnon then moved to support interim zoning for 6 months to prioritize developable land for conservation with help from city committees, finish PUD work, and analyze the TDR program and options. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Ostby moved to amend the motion to support interim zoning for a period not to exceed one year. Mr. Mittag seconded. The motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Messrs. Klugo, Macdonald, Riehle and Gagnon opposing. The original motion then passed 6-1 with Mr. Macdonald opposing. Mr. Macdonald added that he would like to be on the record indicating that he supports each of the studies recommended in the motion. 7. Meeting Minutes: Members agreed to postpone consideration of minutes due to the late hour. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:30 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk Town of Shelburne, Vermont CHARTERED 1763 P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482 Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number (802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550 INVITATION TO COMMENT TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING AND ZONING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARING DA: OCTOBER 12, 2018 On Thursday, November 15, 2018, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. and take place in Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room 1. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. Materials associated with this proposal can be downloaded from the following link: https://goo.gl/n3Hwg6. Should you have any difficulties accessing the file please contact Dean Pierce immediately. If you receive this memorandum and represent an adjoining municipality or the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, please note that Shelburne Planning Commission specifically solicits any comments you may have with respect to the compatibility of the proposed 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan and your own Plan. Finally, please note it is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments may be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Plan Amendments Shelburne Planning Commission – Approved for Distribution October 11, 2018 This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A.§4384(c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a plan, the planning commission shall prepare a written report on the proposal. The report shall address the extent to which the plan, as amended, is consistent with the goals established in §4302 of this title. If the proposal would alter the designation of any land area, the report should cover the following points: 1. The probable impact on the surrounding area, including the effect of any resulting increase in traffic, and the probable impact on the overall pattern of land use. 2. The long-term cost or benefit to the municipality, based consideration of the probable impact on: (A) the municipal tax base; and (B) the need for public facilities; 3. The amount of vacant land which is: (A) already subject to the proposed new designation; and (B) actually available for that purpose, and the need for additional land for that purpose. 4. The suitability of the area in question for the proposed purpose, after consideration of: (A) appropriate alternative locations; (B) alternative uses for the area under consideration; and (C) the probable impact of the proposed change on other areas similarly designated 5. The appropriateness of the size and boundaries of the area proposed for change, with respect to the area required for the proposed use, land capability and existing development in the area.” Brief explanation of the proposed Plan The Planning Commission has prepared the proposed 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan in anticipation of the expiration of the Plan adopted by the Town in February of 2014 and amended in 2016. Although substantive in nature, the changes to policy and narrative language embedded in the 2019 Plan are not considered dramatic by the Planning Commission. Rather, the most dramatic change to the Plan is its design and presentation. Also, it should be noted that modification of the Plan’s “Composite Future Land Use Map,” as proposed, is largely intended to clarify and reinforce existing policies relating to the protection of natural resources and multimodal transportation. Brief explanation of the extent to which the plan, as amended, is consistent with the goals established in section 4302 of this title. As the proposed changes to the Plan largely are intended to clarify and reinforce existing policies (as opposed to significantly altering the macro land development pattern), and because the Town’s planning process has been confirmed by the Regional Planning Commission, and because confirmation by the Regional Planning Commission requires that it find the Town “is engaged in a continuing planning process that, within a reasonable time, will result in a plan which is consistent with the goals contained in section 4302 of this title”, the Shelburne Planning Commission believes the resulting Plan, if approved, would be consistent with statutory goals. More specifically, the Planning Commission hereby finds that: (1) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan supports a coordinated, comprehensive planning process. Planning Commission Reporting Form Page 2 for Municipal Plan Amendments, October 2018 (2) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan encourages citizen participation at all levels of the planning process. (3) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan considers the use of resources and the consequences of growth and development for the region and the state, as well as the community in which it takes place. (4) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan encourages municipalities to work creatively together to develop and implement plans. (5) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan maintains the historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers separated by rural countryside, in that it would not increase intensive residential development in areas not related to community centers nor encourage strip development nor discourage economic growth nor modify public investment plans. As time passes, however, and the amount of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure expands, and as investment in the village and neighborhood is encouraged, the Commission finds that the 2019 Plan will help reinforce the existing historic settlement pattern. (6) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan provides for a strong and diverse economy that provides satisfying and rewarding job opportunities and that maintains high environmental standards. The Commission finds that, over the long term, the 2019 Plan will help encourage sustainable economic development. (7) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan broadens access to educational and vocational training opportunities sufficient to ensure the full realization of the abilities of all Vermonters. (8) The 2019 Plan extends the degree to which the 2014 Plan provides for safe, convenient, economic and energy efficient transportation systems that respect the integrity of the natural environment, including public transit options and paths for pedestrians and bicyclers. It does so in a manner supportive of the state planning goals, in that implementation of projects consistent with the map will expand opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclers, which in turn will yield safety and energy benefits and help support the economy. (9) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan integrates highways, air, rail and other means of transportation. Again, it does so in a manner supportive of the state planning goals, in that implementation of projects consistent with the map will help integrate pedestrians and bicyclers into the overall transportation system. (10) The 2019 Plan enhances the degree to which important natural and historic features of the Vermont landscape—including significant natural and fragile areas; outstanding water resources (including lakes, rivers, aquifers, shorelands and wetlands); significant scenic roads, waterways and views; and important historic and archaeological resources (including structures, sites, districts, and sensitive areas—are protected and preserved. However, it does so in a manner supportive of the state planning goals, in that a distinct effort has been made to increase the degree to which investment in the retention of historic structures, an important feature of the Vermont landscape, is encouraged. (11) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan maintains and improve the quality of air, water, wildlife and land resources. (12) The 2019 Plan, in fulfilling the requirements of Act 174 through the addition of data, mapping and analyhsis, extends the degree to which the 2014 Plan encouraged efficient use of energy and the development of renewable energy resources. (13) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan maintains and enhance recreational opportunities for Vermont residents and visitors. It does so in a manner supportive of the state planning goals, in that implementation of projects consistent with the Plan will expand opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclers, some of whom are using the facilities while recreating. (14) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan encourages and strengthen agricultural and forest industries. (15) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan provides for the wise and efficient use of Vermont's natural resources and to facilitate the appropriate extraction of earth resources and the proper restoration and preservation of the aesthetic qualities of the area. (16) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan ensures the availability of safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters. (17) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan provides for an efficient system of public facilities and services to meet future needs, including fire and police protection, emergency medical services, schools, water supply and sewage and solid waste disposal. (18) The 2019 Plan extends or at a minimum continues the degree to which the 2014 Plan ensures the availability of safe and affordable child care and to integrate child care issues into the planning process, including child care financing, infrastructure, business assistance for child care providers, and child care work force development. Planning Commission Reporting Form Page 3 for Municipal Plan Amendments, October 2018 Brief explanation of the probable impact (of altered land use designations) on the surrounding area, including the effect of any resulting increase in traffic, and the probable impact on the overall pattern of land use. The Planning Commission has concluded that proposed changes in the Composite Future Land Use Map may be generally described as increasing areas for conservation, and, within those areas, simultaneously limiting opportunities for intensive development. Consequently, the proposed changes would not result in the type of impacts (e.g., traffic generation) that may ensue when an area designated for low density development is reclassified for more intense development. Rather, the aim of the proposed change is to better recognize where change is unlikely to occur or should not occur. Commissioners believe the reclassification would not significantly impact areas surrounding the newly-designated Conservation lands. That is because development of the newly-designated Conservation areas is already restricted in some fashion, or is publically owned, in nearly all cases. In sum, the proposed revisions seek to enhance the overall patterns of land use by reinforcing existing developed areas and protecting important natural resources. Brief explanation of the long-term cost or benefit to the municipality, based upon consideration of the probable impact on municipal tax base; and the need for public facilities. Prior Comprehensive Plans have recognized that certain forms of development have costs—typically coming in the form of high demands for public services (e.g., education, highway capacity, etc.)—that are not offset by increased property tax revenues. Prior Plans have also recognized that conservation-oriented land uses generally have low demand for services and thus are seen as revenue neutral or at times even positive. It is the position of the Planning Commission that the changes to the Composite Future Land Use Map contained in the proposed 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan are unlikely to have negative impact on municipal tax base and the need for public facilities. Similarly, the Planning Commission foresees no negative impacts on the need for public facilities as a result of the proposed policy changes. Indeed, by reinforcing the economic potential of the established growth area and by improving mobility of residents, the Planning Commission foresees the revised policies resulting in positive impacts on the municipal tax base by enhancing property values. Brief explanation of the amount of vacant land which is: already subject to the proposed new designation; and actually available for that purpose, and the need for additional land for that purpose. Under the Future Land Use map contained in the current Comprehensive Plan, approximately 3,300 acres in the Town are classified as Conservation. Under the proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the amount of land classified as Conservation would increase to over 5,100 acres. As noted above, the motivation for reclassifying the areas as Conservation is driven in part by a desire to better align planning designations with current and possible future uses. Generally speaking these lands will not be suitable or even available for development oriented uses. The change does not represent a municipal effort to prematurely classify areas of the community for development contrary with statutory goals. Brief explanation of the suitability of the area in question for the proposed purpose, after consideration of: appropriate alternative locations; alternative uses for the area under consideration; and the probable impact of the proposed change on other areas similarly designated. As noted above, many of the areas proposed to be reclassified as Conservation already have some form of development restriction that is related to natural resource features of the property. Examples include public lands, lands subject to easements held by the Vermont Land Trust or similar conservation organizations, lands identified as open space parcels as part of development approvals granted by the Town, and lands subject to open space agreements. The Planning Commission is not aware of evidence or analysis indicating that an increase in areas with Conservation designation will have a negative impact on lands already having a Conservation designation under the Comprehensive Plan. However, before advancing the proposed 2019 Plan the Commission will need to be satisfied there are no areas proposed for Conservation status that are included inadvertently. Brief explanation of the appropriateness of the size and boundaries of the area proposed for change, with respect to the area required for the proposed use, land capability, and existing development in the area. As noted above, many of the areas proposed to be reclassified as Conservation consist of land already having some form of development restriction related to natural resources. The proposed changes are meant to better align Future Land Use categories with current and possible future uses and more accurately reflect land capability. ATTACHMENTS Composite Future Land Use Map Confirmation Letter 24 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan - Chapter One: Future Land Use §¨¦89 £¤7 £¤7 ¬«116 ¬«116 CharlotteCharlotte South Burlington South Burlington HinesburgHinesburg WillistonWilliston DORSET STCHEESEFAC T O R Y R D HARBORRDW E B S T E R R D SPEARSTFALLS RDMOUNT PHILO RDIRISHHILLRD THOMAS RD BARSTOW RD BAY RD MARSETT RD BOSTW ICKRD SPEAR ST S H E L B URNE HINESBUR G R D Map 3 Composite Future Land Use Legend Village Center Village Residential Museum Mixed Use Residential Commercial/Industrial Rural Area Shelburne Falls Conservation Designated Village Center 2016 Tax Parcel Boundary Road Centerline Railroad 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Future Land Use data developed by Shelburne Planning Road Centerline - e911, 3/2017; Railroad - VTrans, 2003 Base data sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, USGS, etc. All data is in State Plane Coordinate System, NAD 1983. Maps online at: https://map.ccrpcvt.org/ShelburneTownPlanMaps Disclaimer: The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission is not responsible for these. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. 9/24/2018 Map 3: Composite Future Land Use.