Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/13/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 JULY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 July 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. Baker, City Manager; J. Nick. A. Crocker, S. Dopp, D. Leban, F. Looft, C. Chamberlain, L. Kupferman, J. & N. Necrason, K. Maynard, E. & K. Borsellino, G. Kjelleren, Wayne, T. Doyle, D. Gaalema, J. Stinette, S. Dooley, B. Milizia, V. Bolduc, L. Marriott, C. Jensen, T. Woodard, M. Emery 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. Louisos reported that she attended the City Council meeting where the Council talked about the 8 areas the Commission discussed. Only 4 of the 5 Councilors were present. Ms. Louisos said she mentioned that there were mixed opinions on the Commission. Ms. Louisos also noted the importance of being sure who is speaking for the Commission and who is speaking for him/herself. She felt that one Commission member had left the impression of speaking for the Commission and was actually voicing a personal opinion. She stressed that there is always a place for the public to weigh in, but she felt this instance “muddied the waters.” Ms. Ostby said she was listening to that meeting and was very upset. She noticed one particular statement made which had her very alarmed. She stressed that issues should be raised at the Commission level before being voiced at the City Council. She questioned what process should be followed to correct a mis-statement. Mr. Mittag said he didn’t feel the Commission should waste time on this. Mr. Macdonald said the answer was simple. If the Commission appoints someone to speak on its behalf and another member speaks, that other member should make it clear he/she is speaking for him/herself. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 2 Mr. Riehle said he had noticed a number of advertising signs in the city which should be addressed by city staff as there is a sign ordinance. Mr. Riehle also noted the he and his wife attended the event at Veterans Park and were astounded that they knew only one or 2 people out of the whole crowd. He specifically noted a number of young families. Mr. Conner noted the historic note that this is the last meeting taking place at the “old” City Hall. The building will now be used by the School District. City servers and the web will be down possibly through Thursday as they are being reconnected at 180 Market Street. 4. Welcome to City Manager, Jessie Baker: Ms. Louisos welcomed Ms. Baker on her first visit to a Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Baker cited the enormous task the Commission has undertaken and noted that they are now on the last leg of that task. She acknowledged the work being done to move the community forward. She asked members to think about what is best for the entire community and how that plays out in the LDRs. She felt there were some processes that can be put into place that will make the task easier. She also urged members to have as much patience with each other as possible. Mr. Riehle asked how the city can balance what comes from the CCRPC and local wishes. Ms. Baker said CCRPC is a conduit for funding and best practices and brings them to the community for consideration. Mr. Conner said his whole team is happy to have Ms. Baker on board to fill the “huge shoes” of Kevin Dorn. 5. Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Official Map: a. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a planned 20-foot wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road at 2 locations b. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive/Deerfield Drive: PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 3 Mr. Mittag moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner noted receipt of letter from John Dinklage and Larry Kupferman supporting the elimination of the road through the Hort Farm. Mr. Conner also noted that there are some changes to the map that do not require Planning Commission action (e.g., additions to the rec path). Ms. Louisos noted a comment received from Nick Montaro regarding Swift Street Extension, specifically having the road continue through the habitat block. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Dopp: Endorsed replacement of the road with a rec path but questioned whether 2 “prongs” to the path are needed as they are close in proximity. Ms. Leban: Noted that the Bike/Ped Committee hasn’t discussed this. She said if there are to be 2 “prongs,” one branch should be moved further up the hill so it doesn’t affect the forest block. She asked if that would happen when there is development. Mr. Conner explained the nature of the Official City Map. He said the rec path is a public facility that would need to be accommodated when there is development. Ms. Maynard: Supported the path instead of the road. Ms. Ostby noted that the Commission did discuss having the rec path avoid the habitat block. Mr. Conner indicated the piece that is to be outside the habitat block. He added that if there is development on a portion of the Hill property, there will be facilities for bikes/pedestrians. Ms. Crocker: Supported removing Swift Street from the map. She asked whether there is a guarantee that the 20-foot right-of-way won’t turn into a road. Ms. Louisos said a road would have to be wider than 20 feet, so there would not be room for a road. Room has been left for the path to follow the topography. Mr. Conner said the Hill Farm is likely to have some internal roadway from Hinesburg Road, and it would also have to have bike/pedestrian accommodations. Ms. Ostby said she continues to support the path connection to Hinesburg Rd. so cyclists have a safe way to Hinesburg Rd. from Swift St. directly. Mr. Gagnon agreed with that. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 4 Mr. Riehle was concerned there is no indication of what happens when the path dumps into Butler Farms. He suggested a sign there that the path continues onto Butler Drive. Mr. Conner said he will share that with the Bike/Ped Committee. Mr. Macdonald then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Review and possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments to Official Map and accompanying Planning Commission Report to City Council: Mr. Conner noted an error in the blue circle #9. The word “of” needs to be eliminated, so it reads “…within 20-foot planned city rights of way.” Also, the portion in parentheses should be deleted. Ms. Ostby moved to approve the amendments #OM-21-01 and #OM-21-02 to the official city map as amended to eliminate the word “of” and the portion in parentheses in blue circle #9, and to confirm that the rec path connection to Landon Road will stay outside the regulated habitat block, and to submit the amendments and accompanying Planning Commission Report to the City Council. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continue Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Environmental Protection Standards: receive and confirm that updated habitat block boundaries match Commission direction: Mr. Conner said staff is considering having habitat blocks be overlay districts as that might make it easier for people to understand. Functionally, there would be no difference. Ms. Ostby noted that the vote on habitat block #12 was 3-3 which resulted in remaining with the Commission’s original decision. She asked for a revote so there isn’t a “default decision.” Mr. Gagnon said that philosophically he felt strongly that once there is a vote and the Commission has moved on, going back is not a good idea. He noted there have been other 3-3 votes that have remained. He felt this would set a bad precedent. Mr. Macdonald said he was the one who wasn’t at the meeting, and probably would have voted to leave it as originally voted. Mr. Mittag said that as it was the only 3-3 vote, he agreed with Ms. Ostby. Mr. Conner suggested voting on whether to reconsider. If that vote is favorable, it could be put on a future agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 5 Ms. Ostby then moved to reconsider the vote on habitat block #12 and the Arrowwood recommendation at a future meeting so people can have time to study the issue. Mr. Mittag seconded. The vote was 3-4, and the motion was deemed to have failed. Members noted that in the material they received, the habitat blocks didn’t fill in and suggested saving the affirmation for a future meeting. Mr. Mittag questioned whether they were going to consider the pink areas identified as NRP and, if so, he would move to accept. Ms. Louisos said those areas were not identified as NRP but as areas for conservation via some tool. Mr. Conner noted some general pink circles had been drawn but are not yet firm for a formal decision. b. Review proposed approach for completion: PUDs, Subdivisions, Master Plans, Site Plans, Inclusionary Zoning, TDRs, Zoning districts: Mr. Conner said he met with Sharon Murray last week. The recommendation is to bring to the Commission what staff and Ms. Murray feel is the best program for the community. Mr. Conner noted there is not unanimity on the City Council. He noted that he and Ms. Murray discussed an approach and a schedule for completion. The recommendation is for the Commission to focus on tools that already exist. One priority is to get the “infill” areas right. Mr. Conner listed criteria for this as follows: 1. All development would be subject to Environmental Protection Standards 2. All subdivisions would be subject to proposed subdivision standards 3. All development above a certain threshold would be subject to proposed Master Plan standards. Specific to the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), the following would apply: 1. For properties with smaller buildable areas, present zoning district standards would apply as well as proposed subdivision standards 2. A Conservation PUD would be allowed as an option 3. An option for a partial TND PUD type would be allowed 4. For larger properties, a Conservation PUD would be required in most cases Within the SEQ’s Village-Commercial/Residential area: PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 6 1. Applicants can use the present district standards, proposed subdivision standards, and the proposed environmental protection standards. TDR transfers would remain eligible as they are today 2. For medium and larger properties, the partial TND and NP PUD types would be eligible. Ms. Ostby said she would want to discuss defining “conservation” and determining what the number is (e.g., 60 or 70%). Mr. Conner said he and Ms. Murray discussed that, and at the next few meetings, the Commission will be discussing PUDs. Mr. Conner stressed the importance of having a tool set. Mr. Riehle noted there has been discussion about allowing some residential on higher floors in commercial areas. Mr. Conner said that is a good dialog to have following interim zoning as it does not line up with top priorities to solve. Ms. Ostby questioned whether the 30% area for development in a Conservation PUD should be all together or spread out. Mr. Conner said generally speaking, it should be together, but it could depend on the property. Ms. Ostby said she could see people wanting to spread out with larger homes. Mr. Conner said they could elect a partial TND, if it fits anywhere. Standards city-wide for areas that allow residential would include: ` 1. In smaller areas, apply the present zoning district standards and proposed subdivision standards 3. Allow as an option a partial TND for parcels with a buildable acreage above 4 acres. Alternatively allowing limited use of infill PUDs to provide flexibility. 4. For parcels with buildable 10 acres, require a TND PUD. With more than 50% Level 1 resources, a Conservation PUD would be an option. Ms. Louisos asked whether subdivision regulations include building types. Mr. Conner said he would check. He said there are incentives for diversity in the subdivision regs. Mr. Riehle encouraged members to look at the different styles on the Rye development. He felt they have gone above and beyond what the Commission has talked about. In Commercial and Industrial areas, the following standards would apply: 1. Apply the present district standards and proposed subdivision standards 2. In built up areas, allow for infill PUD to allow for flexibility to address unique circumstances of infill/redevelopment sites PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 7 Mr. Conner cited the need for flexibility in infill PUDs in order to avoid creating new problems due to existing built up circumstances. Ms. Ostby cited the need to consider the result of shifting residences to noisy roads. It was noted that a recent study has indicated that people who are exposed to high levels of noise have a 30% greater risk for stroke and other health issues while people living near “green areas” have a 25% lower risk for those health issues. 8. Other Business: a. Review upcoming meeting schedule (27 July, 18 August, 24 August) consider holding 31 August for special meeting, if needed: Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Murray will be at the next meeting to consider Conservation PUDs. Mr. Conner asked members to reserve the evening of 3 August for a special meeting. Ms. Louisos recommended setting a special meeting date of 31 August. Members were OK with that. Upcoming meetings would be 27 July, 3 August, 18 August, 24 August, 31 August. Mr. Conner said that generally meeting will be in person unless someone is out of town. He anticipated having the public be able to participate remotely. Ms. Jensen, attorney representing Joe Larkin, expressed concerns with additional regulations specific to the Marceau property on Hinesburg Road. Layers of regulations are being added to properties, and there is a concern that some parcels are being treated “differently,” specifically rendering a property undevelopable for conditions that are not on the ground. Ms. Jensen said large land owners would like the time to express concerns and discuss the need to balance housing and conservation. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will continue to take input on that. Ms. Ostby felt large land owners should be informed about the upcoming Conservation PUD discussion as it may resolve some concerns. Mr. Conner noted that one thing Ms. Murray will speak of is setting the numerical threshold and possible incentives. Mr. Conner cautioned members to remember that the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee report is not a regulatory document. 9. Meeting Minutes of 22 June and 29 June 2021: PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2021 8 Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 22 and 29 June as written. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. The Planning Commission approved these minutes on August 18, 2021