Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/31/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 31 MARCH 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 31 March 2021, at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; A Crocker, D. Peters, F. Von Turkovich, R. Gonda, R. Greco, A. Jensen-Vargas, L. Ravin, S. Dooley, A. & A. Chalnick, C. Trombly 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Louisos asked to add 2 items to Other Business: an update on scheduling and an update on correspondence. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Crocker asked the Commission to add item to an agenda to consider removing the Swift Street Extension from the Official City Map. She felt it would be a “commercial highway” through an environmentally sensitive area and would increase traffic near the entrance to Veterans Park. She also felt it would drive development away from City Center. She noted Swift St. Extension was planned as a second egress from Village at Dorset Park, but since that time, other east-west roads have been added or remove from the Official City Map. There was a petition in 2015 to remove the road from the map and there was an agreement by the Planning Commission to study this. That study has not been done. Mr. Mittag said this is long overdue, and somehow the Commission never got to it. Mr. Mittag moved to place the issue of Swift Street Extension on one of the next 2 or 3 agendas and deal with this problem. Ms. Ostby seconded. Mr. Macdonald noted there had been an agenda item regarding all east-west roads and asked if the Commission was going to review all of them or just Swift Street Extension. Ms. Louisos said her only issue regarding scheduling is the need for background data and the fact that the Commission may not have staff support in the next few meetings. She asked for a friendly amendment to change “2 or 3” to “few.” Mr. Conner added that even with a focus on Swift St., the Commission needs to look at the context. He also noted this is a transportation issue as well as an environmental issue. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0. Ms. Louisos said she will mention this as part of the joint meeting with the City Council. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: 2 Mr. Riehle noted that the Long property will be in front of the DRB. Ms. Ostby said she saw their presentation to the City Council and to the Affordable Housing Committee. She noted the Longs are aware of Article 12. Mr. Conner noted the City Council had a work session on Monday regarding interchanges and will continue their discussion on 19 April. The Council also considered options to seek funding to build the pedestrian boardwalk to connect City Center to park areas. Ms. Louisos noted she had signed a letter of support for the funding application on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Conner also noted that the Council had a conversation regarding completion of Interim Zoning and whether they want to consider Articles 10 and 12 separately. The sense was to have Interim Zoning in place for the Commission to complete work on Articles 10 and 12 and the PUDs. 4. Review and possible action to approve advancing LDR-20-01, draft Environmental Protection Standards amendments to the Land Development Regulations, and accompanying Planning Commission Report for the purposes of holding a public hearing on same: Mr. Macdonald asked the pros and cons of putting Articles 10 & 12 out alone or with the PUDs. He noted that Ms. Dooley favors the latter option. Mr. Conner said the benefit of doing them together is you get to look at all the pieces, and if one affects the other, things can be adjusted. The benefit of doing them separately is that one big piece of the puzzle would be complete and the Commission would have a lot of feedback. With that behind them, they could get more feedback on the PUD part. Ms. Louisos said even if they don’t warn a public hearing, they should release what they have with a report in order to get comments. Ms. Ostby noted that because there may not be staff available after the 4/6 meeting, they may not be able to address comments right away. Mr. Mittag said both the environmental and PUD documents are complex. He felt they should get Articles 10 & 12 done and then focus on Article 15. He felt it would be hard to get public input if both documents were done together. Ms. Louisos cited the need to have a enough of a block of time for public comment. She felt the Commission should finish their draft tonight and decide what goes into the packet for the joint meeting with the Council. She added that one of the April or May meetings would be good to have a listening and mapping session, look at the maps together with the public. She proposed that as part of the path moving forward. Ms. Ostby felt good about the separate path. She thought the Council wants to do their hearing during Interim Zoning and do both parts together. 3 Mr. Riehle said the Commission should be through the pubic hearing process by May. Mr. conner agreed. He didn’t know if there were substantial things the Commission would want to change after that hearing. Most times in the past, the Commission has advanced a document soon after a public hearing. He also noted the Commission will have to warn a public hearing regarding the PUDs by mid- September in order to meet the Interim Zoning deadline. Ms. Ravin said she was representing UVM, and the University is trying to follow this process. She noted the University does not support regulations that would limit the use of UVM land any more than it is limited now. She reminded the Commission that UVM owns lands identified as habitat blocks. She understood it would be possible to develop portions of those blocks. She said the University hasn’t had enough time to really understand the implications of the new regulations, and it was hard to understand the impact on University land without the PUD standards, both intended and unintended consequences. She thought moving one forward without the other could wind up taking more time if the Commission has to go back and change something. She suggested there not be an official public hearing until the Commission has both pieces. Mr. Conner noted that UVM is a large landowner in the city, including the Wheelock parcel on the north side of Spear Street, the property on Patches Road and some agricultural properties now zoned Residential. Ms. Dooley said her reading of Articles 10 & 12 is that habitat blocks apply to all land in the city, including UVM land. Mr. Conner said that is correct, except where there is an exemption beyond local authority. Those articles re “ownership neutral” and reflect only where the resources are. Members then reviewed the new draft which Ms. Louisos noted includes updates since the last Commission meeting. Mr. Riehle said he agonizes over 12:10 and felt allowing a road is a negative. He could not support that section. He cited the road across the Great Swamp as “an abomination.” He felt allowing the crossing of wetlands could lead to many east-west roads the city doesn’t want. Mr. Conner urged the Commission to look at the Official City Map as a whole. Mr. Mittag agreed with Mr. Riehle. Mr. Conner showed the list of alternatives that would have to be considered before a wetland could be crossed. Ms. Ostby said the Commission has to decide on shifting NRP boundaries. Mr. Mittag felt the map was hard to distinguish between the NRP now and what is proposed. Ms. Ostby said she felt it made sense to change the NRP and let the habitat blocks be established. Mr. Conner said the current thinking is that a TND must exclude any lands in the NRP. There is also the option for a Conservation PUD. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Ms. Ostby. He felt they would lose flexibility by putting those land into the NRP. He noted there is already a landowner who wants to use the ‘swap” ability. Ms. Louisos agreed. Ms. Ostby said it doesn’t seem right to add to the NRP when a TDR proposal hasn’t been considered. Mr. Mittag asked whether the South Village Master Plan shouldn’t conform to the NRP rather than vice versa. Mr. Conner explained the timing issue. 4 Ms. Ostby then moved to keep NRP zoning intact until a later stage. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Members then considered the Report that accompanies the changes. Mr. Conner said some pieces of the report will be part of the public outreach. What he is presenting meets State law. Ms. Louisos stressed the need to be sure they are not misleading the public to think every inch of what is not conserved is going to be built on. Ms. Ostby agreed and said they need to indicate that what they are doing adds so much more protection for natural resources and will make it clear to people what can and cannot be built on. Mr. Mittag noted the paragraph near the bottom of page 2 and cautioned care with that statement because he had an objection to something removed from what is now in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner then asked to what extent members would be interested in having a brief discussion in “plain English” on what each of the categories in the environmental standards does, possibly a ½ or 1/3 of a page, something like: “Here is what it is, here is where it comes from, here is what can happen with it,“ explained in layperson’s terms. Ms. Louisos felt that was a good idea. Ms. Ostby noted that Strategy 138 of the Comprehensive Plan is said so nicely that she recommended including it. Ms. Louisos questioned whether language in the Table regarding river corridors is confusing. Mr. Conner said he will look to clarify it. Ms. Louisos also noted that for the 500-year flood plain, language should say FEMA Insurance Maps, not State Reiver Corridor Mapping. Mr. Conner agreed. Mr. Mittag suggested a list of what is in the package. 5. Consider Topics for Discussion at Upcoming Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting: Ms. Louisos listed the Report, Revised Standards for Articles 10 and 12 and related items, mapping (to be provided in the packet). Mr. Conner said he has available interactive mapping which shows previous and new standards. Mr. Mittag said the CCRPC map is a lot more user friendly than other maps. Mr. Conner said staff will be looking at making maps more “tidy.” Ms. Louisos suggested as talking points: details of mapping regarding environmental protection standards, overview of PUD work including the concept of minimum density, high-level policy items related to potentially developable lands as part of the PUD portion of Commission work, and a target update to Comprehensive Plan to insure consistency with city policy. Ms. Ostby suggested maximum density as well as the Council may want that. Mr. Conner said the Southeast Quadrant as a whole has a maximum density that could be retained. There could be very compact development in some areas or possibly target some areas for development. He noted the current 9-lot development that doesn’t take conservation into account. 5 Ms. Louisos felt there was more on the list than they could get feedback on. Mr. MacDonald felt it was important to get feedback on the density issue as it might surprise people how dense some development could be. Mr. Conner urged members to think about “the tool” and “the applicability of the tool.” For example, something may be a “good tool,” but “not here.” Ms. Louisos said it is important to stress that the total number of units in the SEQ isn’t increased. Mr. Engels said he would like to see some hard numbers. How many acres would be conserved after the changes are made? Mr. Conner said he will see what can be done with that. It is on a list for CCRPC to do as soon as possible. Ms. Ostby felt the Council should be reminded of things they can do that are out of the Commission’s purview (e.g., inclusionary offsets, TDR marketplace, etc.). She felt there is grant money available to accomplish some of those things. Ms. Dooley said that may be something for the new City Manager to take on; it may be hard to add to Kevin’s load at this time. Members briefly discussed remaining after the joint meeting and summarizing what they gathered from the Council. 6. Minutes of 3 March, 9 March, 10 March and 16 March 2021: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 3, 9, 10, and 16 March as written. Ms. Ostby seconded. Mr. Macdonald noted that the minutes of March 9 say March 3 in the header. Mr. Conner said he would correct that. The motion passed 6-0. 7. Other Business: a. Winooski Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use Development Regulations, Thursday, 8 April 2021, 6:30 p.m. b. Burlington Planning Commission Public hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 13 April 2021, 6:45 p.m. c. Upcoming meeting schedule Mr. Conner noted the Burlington amendment address short-term rentals and suggested members take a look at this. Members agreed on a “listening session” for members of the public prior to the public hearing. Mr. Conner said he will send out information on the I-89 alternatives. The question is which alternative to support. The Council wants to address this in the first part of next month. Ms. Louisos cited the possible need to meet every week. 6 Mr. Conner said he will also get information to members on the Tilley Drive Study as it relates to the Swift St. Extension. Members agreed to hold a short “debriefing” session following the joint meeting with the Council. Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an email from Ray Gonda regarding buffers and a letter from Arrowwood regarding habitat buffers. There are also emails regarding the appropriateness of a person reaching out to a consultant on behalf of the city. Ms. Louisos said there may be some correspondence on that issue coming forth. The concern is that this could incur an expense. Ms. Louisos said she would never do that on her own. Mr. Mittag asked if it’s OK to reach out to State resources. Ms. Louisos said she has done that, and it feels different to her. Mr. Conner agreed there is a difference but still encouraged having an individual confer with his/her committee before doing that so there are no surprises and so the person can speak on behalf of the group. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission May 11, 2021