HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/09/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
9 FEBRUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 February 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; E. Cherington, Stormwater Project Manager;
V. Bolduc, K. Ryder, A. & A. Chalnick, C. Trombley, S. Dooley, J. Bellavance, S. Dopp, A. Strong, S. Partillo,
D. Seff, J. Simson
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Mittag suggested removing Item 5C from the agenda and postponing it until Interim Zoning work is
finished. Mr. Macdonald said he thought it made sense to incorporate that into the PUD process. Ms.
Louisos recommended keeping it on the agenda, and she would explain why when they get to it.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether discussion on Article 12 was closed. Mr. Conner questioned whether to
hold it from public distribution if the Commission is going to revisit. Ms. Ostby was OK with whatever is
clear for the public.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
No announcements were made and no report presented.
4. Presentation of Proposed Design for Lindenwood Drive Stormwater Treatment System:
Ms. Cherington said this project is in the Potash Brook area, in the heaviest developed part of the city.
Because Potash Brook is impaired, the city has to reduce the flow by 16-1/2%.
Ms. Cherington showed an image of the drainage area. She noted there is significant flooding with small
storms. She then showed a photo of the erosion caused by that flooding.
The project will install a collection system on Lindenwood Drive which will also capture flow from
Brookwood Parkway. It is being funded by a grant from VTrans which requires a 20% city match. It will
provide channel protection by slowing runoff and detaining the flow from one-year storms.
Ms. Cherington then showed a photo of the dry basin and noted the bike path located just outside the
project limit. The whole project is within the city right-of-way or city-owned land.
2
There are some large beautiful trees in the area, so a tank was removed in the hope that they can get
through without too much damage to the trees. There is a landscape budget in the plan, and the hope is
to incorporate some native plants. There will probably also be a split rail fence for safety.
The project has all its permits, and the anticipation is it will go to bid next winter with construction in the
spring of 2022.
Mr. Mittag asked if there is allowance for “critters.” Ms. Cherington said they are concerned with
muskrats which cause erosion. Mr. Conner suggested talking with Dave Wheeler who may have some
ideas for that.
5. Land Development Regulations Work Session:
a. Continue Commission Review of Planned Unit Development/Traditional Neighborhood
Development PUD type draft key questions
b. Consider Conservation PUD Key questions
c. Consider expansion of inclusionary Zoning to apply citywide to housing exceeding 12
dwelling units to replace existing affordable housing density bonus
d. Staff summary of waiver/modification/alternative compliance elements of draft LDRs:
Mr. Conner reminded members there were some items they did not get to in the January discussion of
the TND PUD type:
There is a sub-group of the Affordable Housing Committee looking at the “housing types” proposal so
they can provide the Commission with some feedback.
Regarding infill, Ms. Ostby suggested delaying addressing it until after Interim Zoning because it needs a
lot of community input, and the Commission should be thorough with it. Mr. Gagnon asked how infill is
currently handled. He was OK with delaying discussion as long as they’re not leaving a gap or having
things go in a direction the Commission doesn’t want.
Mr. Conner said that on the residential side, future development would be a straight subdivision. The
most significant piece that wouldn’t exist would be a “cottage court” on 3+ acres. On the commercial
side, a developer may choose PUDs to get waivers or t combine 2 lots for density purposes. Some
changes are being proposed to eliminate the need for waivers. With regard to combining lots, in the
future a developer would have to do more than combine lots to gain the density. Mr. Conner said he
would like to run these concepts by the consultant.
Ms. Ostby then moved to remove 15c.08 from the current draft until after Interim Zoning. Mr. Riehle
seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Conner said he was Ok with this as long as he didn’t find a major “side effect” to bring back to the
Commission.
3
Mr. Mittag referred to the beginning of 15C and asked for a statement that when there is a conflict with
this section and Article 12, Article 12 should control. Mr. Conner said the Conservation PUD creates
some allowance, but that is covered in Article 12. He will make a note to make that clear. Mr. Mittag
also said the statement with regard to the Comprehensive Plan is not there. Mr. Conner said the
statement is at the beginning of the entire LDRs and does not need to be repeated over and over again.
There is also a reference in the PUD section that conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is a State
requirement.
On p. 2, line 14, Mr. Mittag suggested using “encourage” instead of “allow” compatible infill. Members
were OK either way.
On p. 3, regarding “uses” in the TND, Mr. Conner referred to a short list of allowable uses in addition to
residential (e.g., a small restaurant). Otherwise, the only things allowed are what the underlying district
allows. He asked members whether uses should stay with the district or, when there is more than one
district in the TDN, should the uses be allowed throughout. And should the density also be a blend?
Mr. Mittag suggested applying the higher density of the 2 zones.
Mr. Gagnon was OK with that unless there are unintended consequences. Mr. Conner said the only big
disparity would be if an R-4 becomes an R-12. Mr. MacDonald asked if there is a transition zone to
address that. Mr. Conner said typically the transition is to what is next to it. You could build in a
transition area and “either density could apply.”
Ms. Ostby suggested staying with intended uses in underlying zoning. Regarding density, she felt giving
some flexibility would be good to create the best integrated neighborhood with different types of
housing.
Mr. Riehle felt that in circumstances where there is a very dense proposal in a not dense area, there
should be a transition, so there isn’t so much of a “start.” Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of a
transition. Ms. Ostby felt the building types would almost require a transition. Mr. Mittag suggested
looking at the language of Sharon’s percent concept.
On p. 4, #2, Mr. Mittag asked to add “or consists of grassland, hayfields or shrubland or other
agricultural land.
Ms. Ostby suggested implementing a plan like a TDR method. If someone uses a Conservation PUD and
is not over the 50% in hazards, etc., if they don’t want to have the minimum number of units, they could
buy out of the density with a contribution to type of housing trust fund bank. Mr. MacDonald suggested
that would be similar to “an estate block.” Mr. Conner reminded members that the overall purpose of
the Conservation PUD is that you can still build the number of allowable units per acre, but you can build
them on only 50% of the land. Ms. Ostby suggested the owner could still have those number of units
but provide them somewhere else.
4
Mr. Macdonald asked whether Conservation PUDs are not allowed in some districts. Mr. Connor said
Sharon suggests to limit them to certain districts so you don’t have big commercial zones where
Conservation PUDs are not allowed (e.g., along Shelburne Road). Ms. Louisos directed attention to the
chart of districts that could qualify for Conservation PUDs.
At the bottom of p. 4, Mr. Conner raised the question of a PUD development that is non-contiguous to
itself or one that has multiple owners. Members suggested not allowing them to be non-contiguous.
On p. 5, Mr. Mittag suggested adding a statement of conformance with Article 10 and 12. Mr. Conner
noted that C-1 on the next page addresses that concern. Members were OK leaving the language as it is.
On p. 8, Mr. Conner directed attention to the section that says within your buildable area, the area
designated as buildable must be at least 4 per acre or whatever the underlying density of the district is
within the residential portion. He asked whether members wanted higher density within a transit area
or in the middle of a TND to allow for 8 units per acre. He noted there are two R-12 areas which are
very small and built out. Everywhere else, the highest minimum density is 7 per acre in a TND.
Mr. Riehle felt this was an important issue and that a maximum density should be provided. Ms. Ostby
said if they go to “building type,” it becomes how many units you can fit. She added that the community
has to understand that the developer can create a neighborhood with the maximum number of building
types that can fit. No one can say what the maximum would be; it would depend of the building types.
Mr. Conner said a range can be provided, but within that range, it’s to the design that’s chosen.
Mr. MacDonald said he struggles with that. He felt it will be very hard for the public to understand and
asked if this can be put in more understandable terms. He was concerned that people will “holler”
when they see what is going up.
Ms. Louisos said 8 per acre seems like a high number. Mr. Conner said they could restrict this to a PUD
of 20 acres or more.
Ms. Louisos suggested having a concept of what these areas would look like would make it easier to deal
with.
Mr. Riehle asked why ½ mile instead of ¼ mile. Mr. Conner said that is a good question. Mr. Mittag
supported ¼ mile. Ms. Ostby said she would support a ½ mile. She noted that people who were living in
the Larkin building on Shelburne Rd. moved because of noise. And there are people on Market Street
with no safe place for their children to play. Mr. Gagnon favored ½ mile as they are trying to encourage
walkability.
Mr. Chalnick said that having what was the maximum density become the minimum density seems like a
big jump.
Traditional Neighborhood Design:
5
Mr. Conner stressed that these will become design standards. He noted the need to update the
standard requiring homes to face “arterial streets” as list those streets as they are not necessarily what
you would think they are. He suggested possibly just listing the roads you can’t face onto.
Mr. Conner suggested delaying the discussion of “units per acre” until the next meeting.
Ms. Ostby raised the issue of heights and noted that with more height you can have a smaller building
footprint. She said she would hate to block a good idea because of a height maximum. Ms. Louisos
suggested that they tie heights to building types. Mr. Gagnon noted receipt of a letter asking them to be
careful not to block anyone’s views. Mr. MacDonald suggested this could be addressed under “alternate
compliance.” Mr. Conner said he had no problem going a little talker or with some “alternate
compliance” as long as it doesn’t change the building type. He noted there is some current language
regarding transitions as to height and what can go next to it.
Mr. Conner said that currently in an R-4 district, there is a maximum of 4 units per acre. In a TND,
hazards and level 1 resources would be deleted from a PUD. Then the top 4 rows of the chart would get
applied. He said he would try to figure a way to say this so it is not confusing to people. Mr. Gagnon
suggested pie charts which might be easier to understand than a table. Mr. Conner said that is in the
work plan.
Mr. Conner noted that Sharon had a question regarding the amount of space dedicated to “civic space.”
Currently it is 10% of developable land. Sharon thought to bump that up. This will be added to next
week’s discussion.
Conservation PUDs:
Mr. Conner said there is a question as to what the 70% should be. It is drafted so that density excludes
the hazards. He asked whether it is 70% after hazards.
Mr. Conner also asked what the Commission wants to do about “estate lots” or “small cluster
allowances.”
Ms. Louisos suggested that with “estate lots,” a landowner could put aside land for future development
or dedicate land for a future park or for greater conservation. Mr. MacDonald asked how many
properties fall under this scenario.
Mr. Conner noted that the Commission had said that everywhere that could be a TND could be a
Conservation PUD. He didn’t think there would be many “estate lots.” There are a handful set up by
deeds as to how many homes can be on a property. That kind of deed restriction is no longer legal
unless the land is to be donated to an entity like a Land Trust. Mr. Bolduc said he would like to know the
possibilities for that.
6
Ms. Ostby said she would like to reserve a right for future development. She said if someone does less
than what is in the regulations, but the Comprehensive Plan spells out other goals (e.g. housing),
reserving land for the future does that.
Mr. Gagnon said his concern would be a piecemeal development which would result in the whole thing
eventually being built out. He felt there should be a conjunction with a PUD type or some such thing.
Ms. Louisos said if someone isn’t meeting minimum housing goals, they could meet another goal like a
park or a dog park or other recreation space. Ms. Ostby said that removes housing, and there is a
housing crisis, and the Comprehensive Plan has housing goals. She felt there should always be an option
to support housing goals. Mr. Mittag said there is also a climate crisis. He felt the two goals aren’t
mutually exclusive and there was a place for each.
Mr. Conner asked what could make an “estate lot” different from a PUD. It doesn’t follow a traditional
block layout. He asked if members were comfortable with a circumstance like that. He suggested there
could be an option that with 20 acres someone could cut off several acres for a small subdivision site
plan instead of a PUD and then say that any more than that would be subject to the PUD standards. The
problem is if the “estate acres” are right in the middle of the property, precluding future use of it.
Mr. Gagnon said there needs to be delineation of what the Commission wants for the future. There
needs to be constraints on the remaining acreage. He was OK with future development, but it has to be
some kind of PUD, park, etc. Ms. Louisos asked what the city gets for this flexibility. Mr. Gagnon said
the land is private until the owner decides what to do with it. Mr. Conner asked what if the owner
doesn’t allow future development on the remaining acres. Mr. Gagnon said it could be willed to the kids
and could remain undeveloped unless/until someone decides what to do with it. Till then it’s just like
any other land.
Ms. Louisos said there needs to be language so the carved out piece is not in the middle.
Mr. MacDonald asked if there would be a size restriction. Mr. Conner said there probably would be a
minimum size, probably 15-20 acres with no more than 10% being “cut off.”
Mr. Conner then raised other questions regarding the Conservation PUD:
a. Should there be a density minimum PUD (typically there is not)?
b. Do we have the right order of ranked importance?
Members felt the answer to “b” is yes. Mr. Gagnon favored no minimum. Ms. Ostby felt there should
be a minimum but there would have to be something “to the greater good.” Mr. Riehle said he was
leaning toward no minimum density. Mr. Mittag read other goals from the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Dooley had several questions:
7
a. Where in the Comprehensive Plan does it say the city should encourage preservation of
grasslands? She said taking land that is otherwise appropriate for development and
removing it from availability for development via a Conservation PUD is not a win-win
proposal.
b. With regard to “estate lots,” she asked how keeping the remaining acres private is
consistent with goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bolduc felt “estate lots” should be discouraged.
Ms. Dooley said that in light of the dramatic difference between households in the Southeast Quadrant
and those in the rest of the city, it seems to her that providing for estate lots will increase existing
inequities. She asked how this can be a constructive public policy. If you are essentially providing for R-
1 instead of R-4, it is enabling very large homes, whether you call it an estate lot or not.
Ms. Ryder said that climate issues are as important as housing goals.
Ms. Chalnick said she looks forward to further discussion about infill development, particularly regarding
vacant commercial space.
Regarding item 5c (expansion of Inclusionary Zoning), Ms. Louisos said this is on the agenda because of
what happens when they move to a building-based density and affordable housing bonuses no longer
apply. She asked if there are other “carrots” that could apply. She felt it might make sense to include
Inclusionary Zoning in PUDs instead of coming back to it in a year. She also noted there are certain areas
of the city that are “better off” economically and the Commission could be disproportionately
representing groups of people. She asked members to consider this as part of what the Commission is
doing.
Item 5d was not discussed due to the late hour.
6. Staff overview of next meeting & overall project schedule & hearing dates
Item 6 was not discussed due to the late hour.
7. Consider and possibly approve request for new street name: Rosita Lane:
Mr. Riehle moved to approve Rosita Lane as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
8. Minutes
No action was taken on minutes due to the late hour.
9. Other Business:
8
a. Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to
Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 23 February, 6:45 pm via Zoom.
b. Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Limited Land
Use and Development Regulations, Thursday, 25 February 2021, 6:30 p.m. via Zoom
Items for information only.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:01 p.m.
Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission February 23, 2021