Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/12/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 JANUARY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 January 2021, 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; S. Dooley, K. Epstein, T. Barnes, A. Chalnick, B. Murphy, M. Reale, S. Murray, C. Trombly 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Conner asked to add to Other Business an update on scheduling and some outreach information. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Dooley was concerned with not being able to get the meeting materials. Mr. Conner said he will get that sorted out. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos said she spoke with the Editor of The Other Paper who said she would welcome articles from the Commission. I suggested we would try for something quarterly. The Editor also indicated that the paper would report on something the Commission felt should be communicated. Mr. Macdonald noted he could not attend the first meeting of the Spear /Swift Street Scoping Study Project Team. They will meet again in February. He will forward to members a list of what they committee will be doing. Mr. Conner advised that last week the City Council approved the proposed FY22 budget for voter consideration. It contains the full budget for consulting. A number of city positions will remain unfilled including the City Planner position. The Council also approved the Garden Street TIF project for voter consideration. The project would include the missing sidewalk in front of Healthy Living and the connection of Garden Street to Midas Drive. 4. Energy Committee proposal for requirement of Solar-Ready Roofs on new buildings subject to the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards: 2 Mr. Conner noted that the Energy Committee has been looking at the possibility of requiring solar-ready roofs. He then introduced Barry Murphy from the Vermont Department of Public Service.. Mr. Chalnick said the energy stretch code has included solar-ready roofs for residential buildings, but it has been hard to get financing for solar through the banks. The topic for this meeting will be commercial buildings. Mr. Chalnick said we are already seeing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is important to reduce them. Electrifying will require a lot of solar. The Commercial Code was updated in September, but it did not include solar-ready requirements although communities were told that they could have that requirement. The Code also includes residential buildings of 4 stories or more. There are specifics that would allow buildings to meet the requirement including the requirement that 40% of a roof should be a “solar ready zone.” Mr. Chalnick then showed language that could be adopted. Ms. Ostby asked if this would be for new buildings. Mr. Chalnick said it would apply only to new buildings. Mr. Conner asked Mr. Murphy if this is a “self-certification” situation similar to the stretch code or would the municipality do it through the development process. Mr. Murphy said the responsibility would lie with the municipality because it is an appendix to the Code. Mr. Murphy added that the reason it was not required was that they would have had to go back too far to rewrite the code, and that would have delayed implementation. Mr. Murphy said the city could require it, but compliance could depend on the building. There is the possibility that you could end up with a building with a very strange roof line or the roof might not be sound enough to support solar. Mostly it is a question of aesthetics. Mr. Mittag said a lot of commercial buildings have flat roofs. He felt the city could require it. Mr. Epstein said requiring solar-ready roofs would also ensure that solar panels do not take up land. Mr. Gagnon asked if there is any thought given to retrofitting existing buildings, possibly during a major remodel of a building. Ms. Ostby suggested requiring solar-ready for new commercial buildings and retrofitting for a remodel of a certain percentage of an existing building. Mr. Murphy said there would have to be assurance that the roof can take both snow accumulation and the solar equipment. 3 Mr. Conner noted that in the City Center Form Based Code district, there is a standard for when a building must meet the regulations. He recommended keeping exemptions for unusual circumstances. Mr. Conner also noted that South Burlington might be the first municipality to adopt this Appendix. Mr. Riehle asked whether there is a minimum or maximum number of panels and what kind of criteria there would be. Mr. Chalnick said they would like to require solar panels, but he didn’t think it was a big step to ask for as much solar as possible. He added that it also makes economic sense. Mr. Barnes said the rate that you get reimbursed for power you don’t use isn’t worth it. For smaller businesses it is onerous. Ms. Ostby noted that credits with GMP do expire. She felt they should look to see what can be done so those credits don’t expire. Mr. Chalnick said you can sell your power to someone else. Ms. Ostby said that puts another burden on the business. Mr. MacDonald agreed that for a small business it can be very onerous. Mr. Barnes said that retrofitting costs can skyrocket, and that’s “sink or swim” for a lot of owners. And, he added, you can’t sell or upgrade the buildings because of these onerous regulations. Mr. Gagnon suggested requiring solar ready but not the panels for less than a certain amount of square footage. He said there has to be a reasonable amount of square footage to make it reasonable. Ms. Ostby agreed. She also noted that as we move into the future, the tiles will get smaller. Mr. Chalnick said costs will get better over time. Mr. Gagnon said he wants to know if there is a break even point in terms of square footage on buildings with solar ready. He would want to see numbers to see where that break even point is so this makes economic sense. He noted that the tax credits today may not be there tomorrow. Mr. Conner said he would do some work for the Commission on that. Mr. Murphy said the cost per commercial system is less than for residential, but it is larger, 15- 20 kw in size. It takes up about 120-150 sq. ft. for 10 kw. There is also a minimum size that is cost effective to install. What you have to do depends on the type of building and its energy demands. Requiring people to do it can have a negative impact. Encouraging them can go farther than what would have been asked. Mr. Conner noted there are some commercial buildings with pitched roofs. When the infrastructure is already there, you’re dealing with architectural design. 4 The question of running out of electricity was then raised. Mr. Chalnick said the State has already acknowledged that will need to be an increase in electricity. Mr. Murphy said the State’s goal is to be ready by 2030. A straw poll of members indicated that all favored adopting Appendix CA to require new commercial buildings to be solar ready. They also favored applying Appendix CA to retrofitting over a certain percentage of a building. They also agreed to request the Energy Committee to further explore a mandate to install panels subject to commercial viability. Mr. Conner noted that the Commission has included in the subdivision regulations a requirement for new lots to be oriented toward solar. Mr. Mittag asked for parameters where it is not practical to require panels on a roof (e.g. where there is shading). Mr. Murphy said that is hard to do. It depends on the commercial entity in the building. It is different for an office use and a manufacturing facility. He noted that shading is included as one of the exceptions. 5. Planning Commission work session with Sharon Murray of Front Porch Community Planning & Design: Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Planned Unit Development General Standards First Draft b. Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD Type Initial Draft Ms. Murray said this is the first 5 chapters of the PUD Article. The PUD can extend over more than one zoning district. Given that it is tied to a zoning district for density, the question is how to treat the PUD. Options include extending one of the zoning districts, allowing for a transition zone or having something to apply in both districts. The major issue is density. Mr. Conner elaborated and said the issue is establishing a minimum density. Ms. Murray said they might have to vary building types per zoning district, which is not now being done. Mr. Mittag suggested applying the higher density to both districts. Ms. Murray said that was reasonable. Mr. MacDonald asked if a PUD is a “floating zone,” would the rules of the PUD supersede zoning? Ms. Murray said generally yes. What relies on the underlying zoning are generally minimum density and allowed uses. Ms. Murray said that originally the directions were that everything that is 4 or more acres should be a PUD. She asked whether the Commission might need or want PUDs for smaller acreage now that there is master planning. She asked what the added value would be. Ms. Louisos said building types. 5 Mr. Conner asked Ms. Murray to describe the advantage of doing only a master plan at 4-10 acres. Ms. Murray said they could reserve a large portion of the parcel, but the DRB could still review the portion they are developing. It would only go through a site plan review. In this instance, master planning becomes regulatory. Mr. Gagnon asked if a master plan was used for part of a parcel whether the owner could later do a PUD for the rest of the parcel. Ms. Murray said they could if there was enough acreage. Mr. Gagnon said he felt the developer should state in the beginning what they intend for the whole parcel. Mr. Mittag asked if a developer is obliged to complete a master plan. Mr. Gagnon said they could amend it later to consider a PUD. Ms. Louisos said she was concerned with not applying PUD standards to smaller parcels. Ms. Murray said they just have to figure out how PUD types apply to smaller PUDs. Mr. Conner said you would have to recognize that not everything that could be done on a larger PUD could be done on a smaller PUD. Mr. Conner asked Ms. Murray to describe how flexibility is incorporated and the point system. Ms. Murray said this has been a real challenge…to get back to a planned development with its own standards. Questions include: how much flexibility, is there a range of dimensions, is there a range of civic space types, is there a range of building types, etc. Ms. Murray noted that in a TND, there are design standards to be met (e.g., sidewalk on both sides of the street). She felt the standards are typical of that type of PUD. However, there can be alternate forms of compliance, and a developer could come in with another way to comply with a standard. She felt that was legitimately allowable. Mr. Conner said that another approach would be “points based.” Some things would be mandatory, but there would be flexibility. The negative in this approach is the amount of work to calibrate it correctly. Mr. Mittag said he was torn. Too much flexibility loses the idea of the PUD they are trying to allow, but flexible compliance would allow for more creativity. He felt that with a point system, you could lose what you’re trying to do because people would choose the easiest/cheapest way. Ms. Ostby said there was a discussion in the Affordable Housing Committee regarding prioritizing what is most important in each PUD…what has to happen immediately and what can happen down the road (e.g., if you know where the bike path is going to go, would they have to build it immediately?). 6 Mr. Gagnon said he liked the alternative approach. Mr. MacDonald asked what is different between modification and alternative compliance. Ms. Murray said they are similar. In Vermont, towns typically address modification and waivers. The question here is how to get away from waivers. Modification is a change of design. In alternative compliance, you want to substitute one thing for another (e.g., you can put a sidewalk on both sides or one side could be a rec path). Mr. Conner said a “modification” is an “accommodation.” Members favored alternative compliance and favored deleting item “e.” Mr. Mittag was concerned that the DRB doesn’t want to be put in a position to have to do waivers. Ms. Murray said there may be issues where they would want them. Mr. Conner suggested they may have to narrow the term “waiver,” to make it very specific to something. Mr. MacDonald said he still had an issue with building types and density. Ms. Murray said there is a minimum density (she noted developers are very supportive of that). You could have 4 units in various building types, depending on the types you allow. There is no maximum density. Mr. Conner provided the following example: a traditional neighborhood might say 70% of the land will be residential. There are 7 to 10 buildable acres. Several building types are allowed. If half the units are single family and half duplexes, that would be the density. The smaller the lot size, the more you will need rear-loaded garages. Mr. Conner noted they have charted the Southeast Quadrant. With only residential building acreage at 8-15 units per acre would be your maximum (after roads, resources, etc. are taken out). Ms. Murray added that this also allows for flexibility with the market. Mr. Riehle noted that on p. 9 the DRB would be allowed to increase the height of buildings. He asked if this would result in 4-5 stories in the SEQ. Ms. Murray said not with a TND. Mr. Mittage cited an instance of a property owner with 30 acres who wants to give each of his kids an acre and leave the rest undeveloped. Ms. Murray said at some point in time you might not want to have PUDs, just a simple subdivision. Ms. Ostby raised the issue of TDRs. If a building can build to the density, why would anyone buy a TDR? (Mr. Engels left the meeting at this point) 7 Mr. Conner cited the need to explain this to the public and asked members to let him know their questions/concerns within the next week. 6. Meeting Minutes of 8 December 2020: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 8 December 2020 as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the next meeting will include a memo summarizing other changes that the Commission hasn’t yet seen. Most of these are housekeeping items. Regarding outreach, Mr. Conner said a question is how to quantify what the Commission has been working on. He felt they can’t do this on a parcel by parcel basis, but they can do it on a zoning district basis. Ms. Louisos said she would like to see an existing project and how it would look with the building-based concept. Mr. Conner said he would try to provide that. Ms. Ostby said people should know what “big changes” they can expect. Mr. Riehle felt there should be a maximum density for a particular parcel/developable area so it won’t come as a surprise to people. Mr. Gagnon suggested showing what you could do now and what you would be able to do with the new regulations. That’s the concern he’s heard. Mr. Conner said for properties that are largely buildable, the opportunity is for more housing but in a more compact area. This would make the infrastructure more affordable for the city as well. Ms. Dooley spoke in support of a focus on neighborhoods and creating rules to require more neighborhood design, rather than sprawl that didn’t inspire neighborhoods. She felt this asks a developer to be more creative. Mr. Conner reminded members that the next meeting is 26 January. Mr. Conner also advised that he and his wife are expecting their first child in April. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:48 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 26, 2020