Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/03/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 MARCH 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 3 March 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; J. Nick, A. Luzzato, C. Long, S. Dooley, F. Von Turkovich, A. Jensen-Vargas, S. Partilo, A. Chalnick, R. Greco 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: There were no announcements or staff report. 4. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session: a. Review of provisions for waivers/alternative development standards in the draft LDRs: Mr. Nick noted that the Hill Farm has a lot of forest blocks, wetlands, etc. He asked if there is some flexibility. He also noted a fair amount of invasives on the edges. One concern is that if there are house lots, there is a question of who owns the woodlands. He wanted to encourage kids to get outside, and there is an opportunity to have house lots with some woodlands (50 feet into the woods). He cited the Deer Run development where very few trees were removed. There are no pools in the woods, and there is plenty of wildlife. Another concern is that he wouldn’t want the regulations to preclude Swift St. Extension or Exit 12B. He noted the number of times he has heard “what you’re saying makes sense, but that’s not what the regulations say” in his work in various communities. He asked members to keep that in mind. Ms. Louisos thanked Mr. Nick for that feedback. 2 Regarding waivers, Ms. Louisos questioned how much flexibility to allow. She felt flexibility for better design was OK and suggested that “waiver” may not be the best word. Mr. Conner agreed and said “waiver” usually means doing away with something. A modification is more typical of what is done (e.g., reducing a setback by a foot or so for a better project). There is also a provision for “alternative compliance” as in City Center. “Show us something better.” Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission had decided that 25 percent will be the number for steep slopes for Level 1. Mr. Conner said that is in the draft, but it can be changed if the Commission chooses to. Ms. Ostby felt they would have to circle back to that at some point. Mr. Riehle said he doesn’t care what the angle is as long as it doesn’t create erosion. He felt they may not need a percentage. Mr. Riehle then asked about zoning district boundaries and the ability to apply the regulations of one district 50 feet into an adjacent district. He asked about buffering. Mr. Conner said there is a buffer required from a commercial to a residential district. If the uses are the same, there is no buffer required. Mr. Riehle asked about 4-plexes put down behind single family homes. Mr. Conner said the rule is that a building can’t be more than one story higher than buildings in an adjacent area. Mr. Macdonald asked if there is any other district other than City Center where there can be impact to a Class 2 wetland. He cited the proposed industrial park on Rt. 116 which is targeted for office/commercial use. He asked if development would be eliminated there because of the wetland. He saw that as an “unintended consequence” since that’s where the city is looking for jobs, etc. He would like to see that area lumped in with the City Center regulations. Ms. Ostby noted that area would also be involved if the 12B interchange is built. She felt it might have to be revisited in the future, but in the meantime supported sticking with the wetland plan. Mr. Gagnon noted they had talked about this and agreed regarding wetland buffers and whether to allow any disturbance in the buffer. Currently this can happen with mitigation, but the Commission decided not to allow impact on the buffers. He was concerned with saying one area is different from another and having people ask for more exceptions. Ms. Louisos noted they went with a moderate approach by not making the buffers any wider. Ms. Louisos asked for public comment. There was none made. b. Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD Type Review: debrief on presentation/illustrations from 2/23, feedback on the results of TND development calculator; discuss potential adjustments to the “levers” affecting development and other TND design elements; overview of “mixed-use” component: 3 Mr. Mittag questioned the 11C table and said he was proposing to make things more comfortable for people who may continue to work from home. Mr. Conner asked Mr. Mittag to share his thoughts with him directly to help with drafting. Mr. Conner asked members if anything from Mark Kane’s presentation “jumped off the page” that they weren’t expecting. Mr. Riehle said he still has an issue of tri and quad plexes and the purpose of the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). He felt inclusions of those units could change the SEQ so it is no longer the rural part of the city. He noted that 3 Burlington City Council members have “fled” to South Burlington’s SEQ. Mr. Riehle also felt the tri and quad plexes would also probably be rental units, and he didn’t feel that renter support the city with taxes, etc. Ms. Louisos said if they break up the land into 1.2 acre pieces, you can see the houses, but you use up more land. She acknowledged that a quadplex in the middle of nowhere could look imposing. Mr. Gagnon said one of the things used to address the quadplex is the construction style which would have the buildings look like single family homes. There would also be a matched look and feel of the houses in the neighborhood. He felt they should make sure building types match a neighborhood. Regarding renters, Mr. Gagnon said this can be great or not so great, and he didn’t know how to address that. He noted that there are single family homes rented to students, and that can’t be banned. Ms. Louisos suggested a possible limit on some types of houses in a location. The multi-family homes could be in the center, and certain groupings could create a homogeneous sense. Ms. Ostby urged members to be more open-minded about renters. She noted that 40% of South Burlington residents are renters, and they pay taxes through their rents. She added that it is very difficult to be homeowners these days, and renters can be very vibrant members of the community. Mr. Mittag recommended that regulations be written that anyone can understand. Ms. Louisos said that Mr. Kane had said it was a junior person in the company who drew the plans from the text. Mr. Conner said he had a debrief with Mr. Kane after the presentation. They felt it might make sense to cap the percentage of multi-family homes and to stress that multi-family buildings types would have the form and feel of a single family home. Mr. Conner also noted that the biggest challenge the drafter had was to hit the numbers exactly. The suggestion is to give the 4 DRB a 3-4% ability to deal with unique circumstances. Ms. Ostby felt that was a good idea. She noted that everything she tried always had a little land left over. Ms. Jensen-Vargas said she is a renter, and the ability of not having to deal with upkeep (e.g., mowing, plowing, etc.) gives her more time to do more for her community. It also reduces heating costs, which makes it more affordable. Ms. Dooley noted there are already places in the SEQ with multi-family units (e.g. South Village). She also pointed out Bayberry Commons in Burlington which has some interesting streets. Some buildings look like duplexes, but in the back there are 2 more units. She cited the importance of the neighborhood feel. Mr. Riehle asked about the 10 units mentioned on one page. Mr. Conner said that is a total of housing units: two 3-plexes and one 4-plex. Ms. Ostby reminded members that development can be more dense because they are conserving more land. Mr. MacDonald said that is a good point, but he wasn’t sure how to explain that to the public. He was concerned that the building type approach still leaves gaps as to density. Mr. Conner said the maximum allowable density isn’t necessarily what developers are looking for. Having building types, percentages, etc., is providing more certainty. Mr. Chalnick said some properties won’t look very different. If they don’t have hazards, etc., there could be a huge number of houses. He wasn’t sure that much more land is being conserved. Mr. Mittag took issue with the word “conserved.” It is not necessarily more conserved space but more open space in the development. Ms. Ostby said they have also added hazards and level 1 resource areas that can’t be built on. People can build more in the buildable areas. Ms. Louisos added that there is also civic space that is not lawn. It is usable open space. Mr. Von Turkovich said he is very interested in building typology. He tends to be drawn to the “stacked flat” building of 3-5 stories. He asked if you can build a 2-story building of that type. Mr. Conner said possibly. Typically, it would be located in the higher density area or in a transition area. He will bring that idea to the consultant. Mr. Von Turkovich said it is a very efficient building design. He noted that 3 story buildings become expensive because of elevators. He asked whether the DRB would be allowed to modify a building type and noted the need to make room for “evolution.” Ms. Louisos said that each PUD would have to have multiple building types. In a TND, there would be a more traditional neighborhood feel. Buildings would like more like single family homes. Mr. Gagnon added that there will be percentages of each required building type, and the Commission is still working on those percentages. 5 Mr. Conner said in the current draft, with 10 acres, a developer would select a minimum of 3 building types and a percentage of each, with no more than 50% of any one type. Developers would have the flexibility to do something that will fit well in a neighborhood context. Ms. Ostby said that where they are being proscriptive is with the need to have a cohesive neighborhood with flexibility in design. Mr. Conner said the rules say very little about architectural style other than having a building present a front door to the street or to a center green. Ms. Ostby said that South Village and the new O’Brien development are following a lot of what the new PUDs will have. She also noted that Mr. Von Turkovich’s new development does this as well. Mr. Conner added that the Kirby Cottages are a good example of what a cottage block could look like. Ms. Ostby said the 1.2 units per acre has never been an average in a specific development. It is an average for the whole SEQ. Mr. Riehle was concerned with having 90% multiplexes (e.g., 40% duplex and 50% higher multiplexes) with only 5% single family. Mr. Conner said it may be appropriate to put a cap on the multiplexes in a neighborhood. He noted that in the Rye development, there are 12 “cottages,” 12 4-plexes, and 27 single family homes. Mr. Riehle said the neighborhoods cited are lovely. He is just concerned with the potential. Ms. Louisos noted that some housing types are very similar. The proposal is for a minimum of 15% of a type and a maximum of 50%. She suggested that possibly the sum of multiplexes should be 50%. Mr. Conner added that they may want to lump town homes and multiplexes. Mr. Gagnon agreed with capping multiplexes with possibly a higher cap in the Transit Overlay District, lower elsewhere. Ms. Ostby asked if a development commits to a “tighter” neighborhood, could there be flexibility for 2 types, duplex and single family. Ms. Louisos suggested that another type could be a small house on a small lot. Mr. Conner showed photos of what “small lots” look like in South Burlington including City Center, Village at Dorset Park, Kirby Cottages, and also 5 Sisters in Burlington. He also noted there is a range of building types and sizes in Queen City Park, Blackberry Lane (off IDX Drive) and South Village. Southpoint has small single family homes. Mr. Conner then asked if members wanted to “play around” with allocations. Mr. Gagnon said he wanted caps, with higher caps in the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Ostby suggested decreasing the minimum lot size from 5000 sq. ft. to 3800 sq. ft. Mr. Conner asked to let staff toy with that idea and possibly suggest an additional building style. 6 A straw poll of members indicated a positive response to caps. Ms. Louisos noted that the minimum for civic space is now 10%, but 15% has been suggested. Mr. Conner said that is achievable, especially with smaller lots. Members gave a thumbs up to 15%. Ms. Ostby asked if there should be an allowance for a larger house. Mr. Conner said they shouldn’t go beyond 10,000 sq. ft. because then you lose the neighborhood feel. He added that there could be a “peculiar parcel” where there is some flexibility. Mr. Riehle asked if the intent is to preclude houses such as those at Butler Farms. Mr. Conner said generally yes, in the sense that the lots are somewhat larger and there are no focus points to the neighborhood, but you can still get a large house on 10,000 sq. ft. Ms. Ostby asked about accessory apartments. Mr. Conner said that State law allows a single family home to have an accessory apartment in the same or an appurtenant building. In an adjacent building, you must meet the required setbacks, etc. Ms. Dooley applauded the inclusion of smaller houses, especially from an energy point of view. Mr. Conner then addressed how commercial uses fit into the TND. He said there are a few options. There could be a community building for use by the neighborhood. There could also be some authorized non-residential uses such as small retail, restaurant, personal instruction, but it would be capped at 5000 sq. ft. per use. There could also be a vertical mixed use with a store and apartments above it. Ms. Ostby said she has heard people ask to allow for childcare. Mr. Conner said staff was 100% supportive of that, and indicated he thought it was in the current draft but would confirm. Members gave a thumbs up for childcare inclusion. Mr. Gagnon said that in addition to a square foot limitation, there should be a standard that the commercial building matches the architecture of the neighborhood. Mr. Conner said there are guidelines for that and they have worked fairly well. Ms. Dooley noted there are some uses protected by the State including a group home for no more than 6 people with developmental disabilities. Registered child care can go up to 6 full- time in-home. Ms. Louisos also noted accommodations for home businesses and people working from home. 7 5. Review/possible action on possible updated meeting participation guidelines: Ms. Louisos showed the list of proposed guidelines for public participation. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the guidelines for public participation and Commissioner guidelines as shown. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Ostby asked about the procedure to get something on an agenda. Ms. Louisos said to ask her or Mr. Conner. There can also be a short discussion under “other business” about adding something to a future agenda. Mr. Conner said the “other business” discussion would not violate the open meeting law. He also noted there is some authority for the Chair to delay addressing an item if it interrupts another discussion. 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner reminded member that their next meeting is 10 March, 7 p.m. The next night is the joint meeting regarding the I-89 corridor study at 5 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:05 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 31, 2021