Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/24/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday , August 24, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; D. Leban, J. Nick, J. Larkin, S. Dooley, other members of the public 1. Emergency Evacuation Plans: Mr. Conner provided emergency evacuation information 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Leban noted that she had sent a copy of infill housing information from Portland, Oregon. She said the Commission should consider what kind of housing they want and then modify the regulations to accommodate it rather than the other way around. She felt architects should be consulted to have designs fit a neighborhood. Mr. Nick said he understands the effort to conserve land but asked whether the city knows what is already conserved. He felt it would be wise to have that number. He also drew attention to an article in Vermont Digger which quotes Mr. Conner and Charlie Baker of CCRPC regarding gearing new development to urban areas. Mr. Nick said South Burlington is a popular place to live and work. He felt the Hill Farm is clearly infill development and he was concerned with what he sees as an attempt to limit development on this property. He cited the need to develop close to Burlington rather than creating longer commutes with more greenhouse gases. He is concerned that there is no talk of a higher use mixed PUD, which is what he presented as a concept for the Hill Farm several years ago and what was positively received. Mr. Conner noted the Hill Farm is zoned Industrial-Open Space which has limited residential use. Mr. Riehle felt the Commission should talk about that. Ms. Louisos suggested Mr. Nick send an email regarding his vision for that land. Mr. Conner said Industrial -Open Space may not be the right zoning, and the Commission may want to establish a new zone there that allows for Planning Commission 24 August 2021 2 more residential. Mr. Macdonald thought the Neighborhood Commercial PUD might work there, but the Commission hasn’t gotten to that yet. Mr. Conner said all the pieces for Neighborhood Commercial PUD exist, but they are not fully written out yet. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby said there seems to be confusion among the City Council regarding whether the regulations make affordable housing perpetual. She felt it should be clarified that the regulations create perpetual affordable housing. Mr. Conner said there could be a question when someone chose to make something affordable. Mr. Conner noted that Colin McNeil has been appointed City Attorney to replace Andrew Bolduc who became Deputy City Manager. Mr. McNeil has worked with the city before. He will start the first or second week in September. 5. Continued Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Conner said this is the first review of Infill PUDs. They are really intended to operate in a way to complement other PUDs. They allow for a traditional neighborhood with modifications of the TND when standards would be difficult to meet. They also serve to insert something into an already built environment. As such, there may be a major utility line or some buildings that would have to be worked around. Ms. Ostby asked why a standard TND wouldn’t work. Mr. Conner said the standard TND requires full blocks and a certain amount of open space which may not be able to be accommodated. He added that the Infill PUD would only be applied to a smaller piece of property (e.g., 10 acres). If there is already a park across the street, that could count as the required park. Ms. Ostby asked what is “in it” for someone with a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner supposed a 10-acre piece of land, 40% of which is covered with wetland and forest. In a standard subdivision, you can only subdivide from the remaining 6 acres. In a Conservation PUD, you protect 70% but get the density from about the whole property. Ms. Ostby asked if you can put a TND into the developed area. Mr. Conner said you could. Ms. Ostby asked if an Infill PUD would work there. Mr. Conner said it could be a “mini-TND.” It could be 4 acres or less, instead of needing 10 acres. Ms. Ostby was concerned that addressing anything under 4 acres during Interim Zoning would be a lot to go through including things the Commission hasn’t had to address so far (e.g., road frontage). She said if you don’t have to address road frontage, it would be OK, but that’s in the current regulations. Mr. Conner said all forms lean very heavily Planning Commission 24 August 2021 3 on frontage on the street. Ms. Ostby said the 2-4 acre parcels on the map don’t usually have the possibility for street frontage because of the shapes of the parcels. Mr. Conner said buildings can fronton a street or cottages can face a “courtyard.” The regulations wouldn’t allow a building that was just “stuck there” with no relationship to the neighborhood. Ms. Ostby said if it’s not as complicated as she thinks it is, she’s OK with it. Mr. Engels asked if an Infill PUD can be in an open area. Mr. Conner said that is a good question. Mr. Conner said there could be a green site on Shelburne Rd. where everything around it is built up, and you might want to go with a traditional PUD there. Ms. Louisos said she likes this option for sites that aren’t big enough to support other PUDs. She wanted to be sure development is happening efficiently. She felt concerns should be addressed, but the idea should not be thrown out. Mr. Riehle questioned where the green space will be in City Center when there are 1000 units there. He wanted to see a space for kids to throw a ball around. Mr. Conner said subdivisions and PUD types require 10% of the space to be devoted to “civic space.” Where to have a city- wide park is another question. Mr. Conner added that the Infill PUD does give the DRB the ability to reduce certain minimums when they are accessible within a quarter mile. In a 10-acre PUD, you have to provide for those things. He also noted that staff always encourages people to think creatively (e.g., working with adjacent properties to get something better for both properties. Ms. Louisos asked what happens if what is next door to a property is something the city doesn’t want. Does the Infill developer have to match that? Mr. Conner said that is a good question and is very important on the residential side. Ms. Ostby asked what about a piece with one large house and whether that would lead to “McMansions.” Mr. MacDonald recalled the Highland Terrace neighborhood where neighbors were not happy with infill development. He felt there will be some feedback. Mr. Con ner said Highland Terrace is a place where they can look at underlying zoning. What is being built is exactly what the zoning calls for. Mr. Conner said the issue is you want to build in the character of a neighborhood when that character is great, not when it isn’t. He added that with what Ms. Murray has written you do get development but you have to meet the character of the neighborhood, and you have to be creative. Planning Commission 24 August 2021 4 Mr. Conner noted that if the zoning doesn’t match what is around it, that zoning wi ll have to be reconsidered to solve the issue. Ms. Ostby said that under base density, the minimum required density is 4 per acre or the maximum allowed in the underlying zoning. She asked if the zoning is 2 per acre whether that number becomes 4 per acre. Mr. Conner said it does otherwise the economics won’t work. Ms. Ostby felt that makes sense with a larger parcel, but with 2-3 acres, there is not a lot of room. Mr. Conner said the next paragraph allows the DRB to be more flexible in certain circumstances. He stressed that a PUD is always a negotiation. Ms. Ostby said she felt this could be a very good thing but questioned why they would create something that have problems. She thought that as it is written, it is giving very strong motivation for someone to do an Infill PUD. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will be discussing where these are acceptable. Ms. Ostby questioned whether to allow infill in an R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Conner responded that what they are seeing now is 9 or fewer units be ing built on 5 and 6 acre parcels in order to avoid Act 250. Those parcels can never be built on again, and that is not efficient use of land . The Infill PUD can address that. Mr. Conner then reviewed some input from Mr. Mittag. He generally liked the Infill PUD but felt there should be more design flexibility. He also felt that areas on Shelburne Rd. should be integrated in and drive-throughs should be prohibited. The parcels should also have 25% or fewer resources (Level 1, 2 or hazards). Mr. Conner noted that drive-throughs are prohibited in most places in the city. Ms. Ostby felt that with Shelburne Road and residential mixed us, there should be more distance from the road because of noise issues. She cited friends who have moved from a beautiful apartment in the new Larkin building on Shelburne Road because of the noise. Mr. Conner said that is not easy to address though he understands the importance. Mr. Riehle said he generally likes from p. 5 on, though he thought the DRB will have challenges. Ms. Ostby questioned the requirement to orient a building to the street particularly when the views are to the rear and to address privacy and noise mitigation. Mr. Conner noted that 2 years ago the Commission required doors to the street. M s. Ostby said they now have experience. There are large parcels with views to the back of them in the Auto zoning area. Mr. Larkin acknowledged that there have been noise complaints from residents of the Shelburne Road building, but the majority of people are OK. He said the complaints wouldn’t Planning Commission 24 August 2021 5 preclude them from doing that kind of building again. When a building is nearer to the road, they can get more units in, and they can provide a lower price point on some units. Mr. MacDonald said he is fairly comfortable with the Infill PUDs. They just need to work out some details. Ms. Ostby questioned whether an Infill PUD will work in the buildable area of a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said they could say a “cottage court” can be built on a smaller piece of acreage. Ms. Ostby asked whether 4 families could get together, tear down their homes, and build something like this. Mr. Conner said they could but they would have to meet all the regulations including replacing all the 4 dwelling units. Ms. Leban asked how you add a unit to a one-story ranch house. She felt you shouldn’t want to match that. She asked if there is an exception to “contextual obligations.” Mr. Conner said the solution to that is not at the PUD level; it is at the zoning level. You c an have a triplex that looks like a single family home, but that is another discussion. Ms. Leban asked if there is an allowance for increased density for an efficiency apartment regarding affordability. Mr. Conner noted that accessory units don’t count for density by State law. Any single family dwelling on its own lot can have an accessory apartment that meets certain requirements. Ms. Dooley said what is especially important in the TDNs is the promotion of strong neighborhoods. She said she supports no drive-throughs. She also stressed that Kirby Cottages are below the Infill PUD threshold. Ms. Louisos read from the regulations regarding preserving neighborhoods and noted there are standards that try to achieve that. Ms. Ostby asked if she is alone in her concern with building orientation with regard to Shelburne Road. She noted that if you build housing in the old Hannaford off Shelburne Road, you are facing Lowe’s, and there are beautiful views in the other direction. She felt that the decision to have buildings front on a road should be reconsidered in instance such as this. Mr. Riehle noted that some buildings on Hinesburg Road have created a “front door façade” with the actual entrances to the side and rear. Ms. Ostby said a grove of trees would be appealing as you drive down Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner said you can’t change the regulations just for the PUDs. In a straw poll of members, 3 felt the regulation should stand as written, 1 wants it changed. Mr. Riehle abstained. Mr. Riehle said he agrees with Ms. Ostby regarding trees, and he was torn about allowing a greater setback. Mr. Conner stressed that the aim is to continue the pattern of development. Planning Commission 24 August 2021 6 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner said that the hope is for the next meeting to bring back the TND, Conservation PUD, and Infill TND. Ms. Murray may also have the Commercial ready. The meeting following that will deal with all the other things, what has to be done, what is already done, etc. One of the things that will come up next week is “carving out” parcels. Ms. Ostby felt they should have a straw poll as to whether to allow Infill PUDs in unbuilt areas. Mr. Conner said there is also the question of whether to allow a Conservation PUD in a buildable area. Mr. Mac Donald asked how they will define “unbuilt.” Is it no building? What about one building? Mr. Conner said if the Commission says no infill, they can go back to the underlying zoning. Mr. Louisos said the word “infill” may be the problem. She felt the tool is important, but she wasn’t sure it was necessarily “infill.” Ms. Ostby said size is the only difference between this and a regular TND. Ms. Louisos suggested possibly calling it a “small TND. Mr. Conner said he’d like to think about that. Regarding the Williston changes, Mr. Conner noted they are considering reducing but not eliminating parking standards. Mr. Macdonald noted they are also considering cannabis sales. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:32 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022