Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/24/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 NOVEMBER 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 November 2020, at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; V. Bolduc, L. Ravin, S. Dooley, J. Bellavance, C. Trombly, C. & A. Long, D. Long, L. Kupferman 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby: Noted a remote meeting on 30 November regarding housing involving all of Chittenden County. Also suggested the Planning Commission have a column in The Other Paper which is no longer covering meetings. Mr. Conner noted the City now has a Newsletter every few weeks. Staff could highlight anything the Commission feels important for the public to know. Ms. Louisos: Will be providing an update to the City Council at their next meeting. Mr. Conner: Met with the Affordable Housing Committee to give them an update and tell them how they can participate. He will be attending the Natural Resources Committee meeting next Wednesday. Ms. Ostby noted the Affordable Housing Committee formed a sub-committee to address Mr. Conner’s question of what the Southeast Quadrant might look like. Mr. Trombley said outside persons are welcome to be a part of that sub-committee. Mr. Conner also met with the Energy Committee regarding a Climate Action Plan. They also discussed the new energy codes which include the option for solar ready roofing. They will be bringing a proposal to the Planning Commission. 4. Work Session on Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Habitat Blocks and Connectors: Mr. Conner said staff has been getting feedback as to what to do with allowing future modifications when projects are at the DRB. He then posted a chart of possible options. 2 Mr. Mittag asked if these options relate to the block or to the buffer or outside the buffer. He said if you encroach in the buffer, it is no longer a buffer. Mr. Riehle said he keeps going back and forth. The center of the habitat block may not actually be the center. What is needed is someone in each case to actually determine where the habitat block is. Ms. Ostby said the core is not a precise place. It can be movable. She didn’t feel that changing the shape of a block shouldn’t be an issue. Mr. Gagnon agreed. He said the lines around the block are arbitrary and not “ground true.” He liked all the options and felt they are needed. Ms. Ostby said she would remove Option #4 because this is not a matter of money, and someone shouldn’t be able to “buy one’s way out.” Mr. Gagnon disagreed and said he liked the offsite option for TDRs. Mr. Macdonald agreed with Mr. Gagnon. He said Arrowwood did a “windshield study.” He suggested combining #3 and #4. Ms. Louisos asked if Option 4 would have an assessment done first. Mr. Conner said both Option 3 and 4 would have to show they are not diminishing the habitat function. Option 4 is the one option where the property owner wouldn’t have to find another place on the site and could pay into a fund so someone else does this. Ms. Ostby didn’t agree with #4. She felt “shape shifting” was find but not decreasing the size of the block. Mr. Mittag said he had a problem with moving habitats around. He said you can’t replicate the topography of a habitat block from one place to another. Ms. Louisos said she would agree with that except a proper5ty owner wouldn’t be able to remove a wetland or a river buffer piece. She agreed with flexibility because some of the spots are marginal and the lines aren’t perfect. Mr. Mittag felt they are offering less protection than what is in the current LDRs. He read from the NRP language. Mr. Conner said the NRP language is actually being tightened up. Ms. Ostby felt the map should lock in the acreage of the core area. Mr. Conner added that any land that was added would have to be certified that in 10 years it would be a transitional forest. Members said they would like to see the exact language proposed for Options 1, 2, 3 and 5. Mr. Mittag still was not sure. Ms. Louisos suggested members read what Mr. Mittag send and discuss it at the next meeting. Mr. Conner suggested a possible special meeting before the end of the year in order to get Article 12 in good shape. Members suggested December 15th. Mr. Mittag said he would like an “editable” verson. A comment from C. & A. long noted that some of the Arrowwood study is arbitrary as are some of the Planning Commissions decisions. 3 b. Functions of Conservation and TND PUD types within the Southeast Quadrant: Mr. Conner said staff did an analysis of every parcel of three acres or more and their development potential in order to be sure the Conservation and TND types are doing something different. The recommendation is to separate them a little more. He cited a possible 10-acre parcel of which 6 acres was in the NRP and 4 acres in the NR District. In a TND, you would exclude the 6 acres and the TND standards would apply. In the same parcel with a Conservation PUD, you would only have to conserve one more acre. Staff recommends you make the Conservation PUD apply only to the non-NRP part of the property. Mr. Riehle asked what the maximum density would then be. Mr. Conner said it would be what the building types allow, probably a little more than 4 units per acre. Ms. Ostby said that would leave only buildable acre. Mr. Conner said that is true, but with larger acreage, it becomes more viable. Ms. Ostby asked how much density would be allowed on that one acre. Mr. Conner said the maximum would be 16 in theory but in practice something less than that. Mr. Macdonald asked what the minimum density would be. Mr. Conner said classically a Conservation PUD would allow the minimum density times the acreage. If they do more conservation, they could eliminate more city rules (e.g. more homes on a dead end road). Mr. Conner added the intent is not to move toward “rural sprawl.” Ms. Ostby noted that not everyone wants to build a neighborhood. They might just want to build a couple of homes for family members. She asked if someone who wanted to build with more density could do that via TDRs. Mr. Conner said that is what the TND would do in the SEQ. It would be based on building types. Staff recommends that if you go over 1.2 per acre you have to buy TDRs. Ms. Ostby said she wants to serve both ends: the landowner who wants to conserve and the landowner who wants to provide housing. Mr. Conner said the maximum density is set by building types, but there is still a TDR cap (1.2 per acre). If you are a split property, there might be a reason to transfer the 1.2 acres from the NRP on your property in order to achieve your density. Ms. Ostby said she supports allowing the base density to include the hazards. Mr. MacDonald agreed. He said that is land the property owner has paid taxes on. Mr. Mittag said he had mixed feelings, but on balance it felt it would be fair. Ms. Louisos said that has been the policy in the SEQ for 30 years. Ms. Ostby said that protecting the hazard is so important that the owner should be able to use all the density on the property. Mr. Conner stressed that you do not transfer density from the hazard, you transfer TDRs. Mr. Conner noted this also addresses the problem of developers building under the maximum density in order to avoid Act 250. 4 Mr. Conner asked what about a property that is a Conservation PUD and the one next to it is a neighborhood and the one on the other side of that is a Conservation PUD. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t have a problem with that, if the resources allowed for it. Ms. Dooley cited the inequities of lower and higher densities with regard to taxes. She noted that a 4- acre development zoned at R4 and fully developed with single family homes with an average appraised value of $350,000 has a taxable value of $5,600,000. She asked how many 4-acre estates with one home have an appraised value of $5,600,000. She asked why people on the quarter-acre lots should pay proportionally so much more for city services than the owner of the home on 4 acres. Ms. Louisos said the Commission hasn’t weighed in on that specifically but the question ties into the efficient use of land where development occurs. Ms. Ostby asked if that is within the purview of the Commission. Mr. Conner said he will chat with the City Assessor. He said the ability to maintain city services is within the Commission’s purview. 5. Meeting Minutes of 28 October and 10 November 2020: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 28 October and 10 November 2020 as written. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. 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 8:50 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission December 8, 2020