Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/19/2019SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 19 FEBRUARY 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 February 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning (arrived near the end of the meeting); F. Von Turkovich 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: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. 5. Reports on Committee Assignments: TDR Interim Zoning (IZ) Committee: Mr. Mittag reported on the first three meetings on the TDR IZ Committee. The first meeting was more of an information session with City Attorney Lafferty. The Committee’s purpose was stated as being as much to provide housing as to protect open land. The second meeting involved very broad discussion as to whether TDRs serve a conservation purpose. A member of the public who has sold her land but retained the TDRs has been attending the meetings. At the third meeting, each Committee members was asked to work on various assignments: ways to make TDRs more viable; whether to terminate TDRs and replace them with zoning; conservation values; a fact sheet on the current status of TDRs. Mr. Mittag noted that the representative from the Economic Development Committee has not been attending the TDR meetings. He also noted that there are a lot of divergent views about TDRs and how they may affect climate change. Ms. Ostby added that one thing that came up at the meetings is that some of the land owned by the City (e.g., Underwood property) still has TDRs associated with it, and it was noted that the City has to be careful when they have a financial interest in property under discussion. 2 Mr. Mittag concluded by saying that creating a market for TDRs outside the Southeast Quadrant will be a critical issue. 6. Status Report on PUD Project: Ms. Louisos thanked staff for the update and work schedule/time line provided. She also thanked Mr. Klugo for having pushed to get this information. Ms. Louisos said the Commission had wanted more information on Traffic Overlay standards and whether that would follow the IZ work. Ms. LaRose said staff is trying to make sure that the Traffic Overlay District will cut down on turning movements. She cited the situation at Gracey’s (Hinesburg Rd/Williston Rd) where nothing can be done because of the traffic “budget.” The hope is to allow for redevelopment but not to add additional trips. The traffic budget at that location is so low that no changes can be made. Ms. Ostby noted that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) say there should be an effort to meet the “stretchable” code. She asked whether there can be more strict rules such as requiring all buildings in a PUD to have a solar ready roof. She felt the baseline should be more aggressive. Mr. Mittag noted this was discussed at the Form Based Code City Center meetings, and an expert told them that having a solar ready roof adds only 1% to the cost of the building. Ms. LaRose said that at a meeting with the Energy Committee a year ago, they were more focused on transportation energy (e.g., people getting to work). Ms. LaRose said staff is looking at options, possibly having 5 options with developers having to meet 3 of them. There is also talk about ground-mounted solar. Ms. Ostby said more aggressive requirements would be for developers to meet all 5 options or if you do only 3, you have to have TDRs involved. Ms. LaRose said if the Commission spends months on specific items, it could slow down the PUD project. She stressed that if PUDs become “a pain,” people won’t use them and the city will get bad development. She noted that a number of new projects will not be subject to PUDs. She also noted that the Energy Committee member of the IZ Committee should be taking the Committee’s ideas back to the Energy Committee. Ms. Ostby noted the possibility of an “all committee meeting” the week of March 25th to bring everyone up to date. Members felt this would help committees know where to put their emphasis and could also air some bigger policy questions. 7. Review Specific Items of the Subdivision/PUD project: Ms. Louisos noted the entire packet is on the website. She said the concept is that a chart would contain a menu of building types, and each type would have standards. There could be a range of building types in each PUD type to avoid a ‘monoculture’ look. Some things would be mandated, others suggested. 3 Mr. Riehle noted that where he lives, there are 6 homes which are “backfills,” and properties are being subdivided to allow achieve these lots. He felt they could wind up with the same number of acres of these homes as in a PUD but not built with any coordination. Ms. LaRose said certain types of buildings are not appropriate in certain types of PUDs. They are trying to cover the elements that density alone doesn’t address. She said a 12-plex building can look very nice, but there are no current regulations to keep a 12-plex from looking like a big box. The hope is that the housing tools will address this concern. She noted that a 6-plex with a single door is different from a 6- plex with 6 separate entrances. Mr. Von Turkovich said he would like to see the DRB empowered to have the ability to determine what is appropriate in a given development. There could be limits on building heights, but architects should be able to show their creativity. Ms. LaRose noted the jarring effect of the 30-unit building next to single family home on Allen Road. Mr. Mittag felt that if the key elements are present in a development, the DRB should have some leeway. Mr. Von Turkovich said they are committed to meeting the affordability goals, and the way to do that is with multi-family buildings. Underground parking adds to the cost of the building. He also noted that adding multi-family buildings can’t be done in their zoning area, and they would like the option for 6 or 12 unit buildings. Mr. Riehle said the problem is that some developers wouldn’t do that in a tasteful way. Mr. Von Turkovich said the DRB needs to be strong enough to say “that’s not good.” Mr. Riehle replied that if there aren’t regulations, the DRB doesn’t have a strong position. Ms. Louisos said the DRB shouldn’t be in a position where the regulations are so “wishy-washy” they can’t make a decision. There should be enough checkpoints so the DRB has a framework to work with. Ms. LaRose said staff does not feel the new regulations will be a detriment to developers. They will alleviate a lot of fears as to what a building will look like and will prevent “eyesores.” Mr. Von Turkovich said he felt height, density and parking requirements make sense. He noted that the Red Rocks buildings are still a design people like. Newer “boxy” buildings people don’t like, even though they are the same size. Ms. Ostby stressed that affordable units need to look the same as other units and must be scattered throughout a development. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with cottage clusters and where bylaws fit in. She felt there has to be a structure or there could be problems down the road. There will also be shared property. Ms. LaRose said there are ways to split up property so that doesn’t happen. Ms. LaRose also noted there is a question as to whether a stormwater pond should have its own “lot.” They are waiting to see what the consultant has to say about that. Mr. Mittag felt the Commission should stay away from architectural design standards. Ms. Louisos said the question is how to have enough room for creativity. Ms. LaRose said they need to determine the 4 elements that separate “good” from “bad” (e.g., doors, roof treatments, windows, etc.). They can make a big difference. She noted there are some beautiful 8-plexes and some ugly duplexes. She cited some old Victorians that are now 8-plexes. She said that anything that breaks up a façade makes a big difference in how a building feels. Ms. Louisos cited the Bayberry Commons buildings in Burlington which seem to fit into the landscape. She noted that people don’t want to drive by something big or a have something big beside them. Ms. LaRose cited a potential problem with the O’Brien development where there are single family and duplexes currently and where they will be coming in with a 30-unit building. Ms. Louisos felt there may be a place for something bigger in the right context, but there have to be specifics about windows, doors, building breaks, etc. Mr. Von Turkovich said the concept of garden apartments can be done poorly but in the hands of a good designer can be very attractive. The same is true of a ranch style. He cited the need to get density in a building with underground parking, but that means a building has to be 68 feet wide. Ms. Ostby said the Commission will be hearing about a square footage cap on units. She noted that “unit” is not now defined. Ms. LaRose said that may have to be a special conversation as it would be a huge policy change and will impact some people. Ms. Ostby didn’t feel carriage houses have to be in the rear. They could be placed in front of homes with large front yards or a home in front could be turned into a carriage home with another home built behind it. Ms. Ostby asked whether any of the PUDs would get into urban storefronts. Ms. LaRose said absolutely. There would be guidance given, especially in PUD types that are predominately residential. Mr. Conner arrived as members were addressing parking standards. He reminded members that they had been presented with 5 options. Staff is proposing the middle of these options, eliminating parking standards except for multi-family residential developments. Mr. Mittag felt there should be maximums set. He asked whether they can stipulate that parking spaces should be pervious. Mr. Conner said Public Works has said the technology isn’t quite there yet. They tried this in one place and it crumbled. The functionality is dependent is maintenance. Ms. Ostby suggested that over a certain number of parking spaces should require a charging station. She also suggested the possibility of converting parking spaces into bike parking. Mr. Conner noted that the literature regarding maximums said it makes sense some of the time. He felt there would be pushbacks from developers. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission was told that some retailers won’t come if they don’t get the parking they want. Ms. LaRose stressed that this needs very careful study because there so many different types of users. 5 Mr. Conner said they would like to get the new parking concept approved now if the Commission is ready. He cited a number of smaller businesses that can’t expand because they don’t have space for more parking required by the current standard. Members were OK with moving forward. 8. Consider a possible sub-committee to review potential changes in the Form Based Code City Center Area: Ms. Louisos said it would be unfortunate to push this off. The City Manager is in support of it as well. Members discussed the makeup of such a committee and agreed on 3 Planning Commissioners and someone from the Form Based Code Committee on the technical side. Messrs. Riehle, MacDonald and Klugo were suggested as Commissioners. Mr. Mittag then moved to establish a subcommittee to consider applications for changes to the Form Based Code. The Committee would consist of 3 Planning Commissioners and a design professional and would require a vote of 3 members to bring a proposal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Meeting Minutes of 11 September, 25 September, 9 October and 23 October: Mr. Mittag noted the following amendments: 11 September: His statement was that the SEQ and areas of educational agriculture should be excluded from Inclusionary Zoning. 25 September: p.1, typo of the words “saying” and “PUD” 9 October: -p. 6, 3rd paragraph should read: There is no sense to have TDR send and receiving areas in the Southeast Quadrant. 23 October, p. 4: “Noah” should read “Mr. Hyman.” Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the minutes of 11 and 25 September and 9 and 23 October as amended. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. 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 9:35 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 10, 2020