Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/31/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 31 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 31 August 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; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dooley, J. Nick 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on emergency exit from the building. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of a response regarding the letter sent about the solar array. It will be on the next agenda. Ms. Louisos also noted that at its next meeting the City Council will hear the revisions to the Official City Map. Mr. Riehle said the Commission should talk about the letter received from Jeff Davis’s attorney. Ms. Louisos said they can put it under “other business.” 5. Swift Street/Spear Street Intersection Study: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history. She noted that the Bike/Ped Committee made a recommendation for a roundabout as the safest, though most expensive, option. Ms. Ostby noted that UVM has ideas in its Strategic Plan for the barn area to which the main access is on the Spear Street side. The roundabout would remove that, and UVM will want to maintain that as a safe access for cars. Ms. Louisos said the details for that could be worked out. Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the roundabout option recommended by the Bike/Ped Committee as the safest. Mr. Conner noted the next level will be for design which will provide a more detailed design. A representative from UVM asked to be included in the future discussion as the roundabout will remove their access to Spear Street and the Wheelock parcel. They are also concerned with bike and pedestrian safety. Mr. Engels said he will vote against the motion as there is o evidence that this is not a safe intersection. There have been no injuries at this site, and it will cost $1,000,000 more than other options. He felt there were much better ways to spend that money. Ms. Ostby was concerned about the amount of land it will take from the northeast corner. She wants to be sure the City Council knows that. Mr. MacDonald said the roundabout actually takes the least amount of right-of-way. In the vote that followed the motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Engels voting against. 6. Continued Review of Proposed Land Development Regulations: Mr. Mittag moved to approve all of 5c. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. A. Habitat Blocks: Ms. Louisos noted the draft contains the changes the Commission asked for. Mr. Mittag suggested under “standards” in 12.02c to use “extreme” instead of “unnecessary” or “extraordinary.” Mr. Conner said he will run that by the City Attorney. In a straw poll, members were unanimous to let the City Attorney decide, as long as the language sets a high bar. In Sect. 12.05c5 Ms. Ostby asked if it is OK to have such a structure in a connector. Mr. Conner said this is separate from relocating a habitat connector. There are times when 150 feet can’t be met. The DRB can make a judgment when there is an obstacle to planting in an area that requires restoration work. Mr. Riehle said 2 inch caliper seems small for a tree. Ms. Ostby said that is the biggest size you can move around safely. She suggested deferring to the Arborist on this. Mr. Conner said the Arborist can take a look. He also noted that planting a larger tree may not always be a good idea. Ms. Ostby asked why “institutional” is included in 12.06.2a and not in residential. She felt it should be in “b” not “a.” She then moved to move Industrial and Ag from 12.062a and 2a1 to 12.06.2b1 and 2b. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner noted that one change that was made was to make habitat blocks and connectors as overlays. Ms. Ostby questioned whether on p. 27 the prohibiting of basements in new-builds was only for commercial. Mr. Conner said it was for both commercial and residential. If you meet the definition for “substantial improvements,” you must fill in the basement. You can said it only applies if you completely rebuild the house. Language now is at the cost of 100% of the value of the house. Mr. Gagnon suggested saying “at the appraised value of the house.” Mr. Connor felt that makes sense. He also noted that any change has to be cleared by the State so federal standards are not violated. He will check on “appraised value.” Mr. Riehle questioned why a recreational vehicle has to be fully licensed and asked if that refers to a go- cart. Mr. Conner said it means an RV. Ms. Ostby said she would like to check the overlay map with the Arrowwood mapping to verify that the connectors are where they should be. Mr. Nick asked where they wound u with recommendations for removal/retaining. Ms. Louisos said it is where it was mapped in the draft that went out. Mr. Nick asked if the “pink areas” were adopted. Mr. Conner said the Commission made adjustments in October. Then in June, Arrowwood reported on those changes and made recommendations. The Planning Commission did not accept those changes in a 3-3 vote. The applicable map is the one warned for public hearing for this parcel. Mr. Nick said their concern is that of their 42 acres, 38% is almost a taking. He said there is no forest along the Interstate. All the invasives have been removed. There is also no provision for a consultant they would hire to debate this. Mr. Nick added it seems counterintuitive to have habitat along the Interstate corridor. He was not sure what the Commission was trying to accomplish. The finger along the Interstate is no longer a habitat block. He also noted this area is identified by the Regional Plan as a “growth area.” Ms. Ostby moved to reconsider the straw poll on habitat block on map #12 to accept Arrowwood’s changes (areas in yellow), adding in the lower and removing the upper, and remove the area outlined in the yellow rectangle identified as “retain.” Mr. Riehle seconded. Mr. Engel noted that the state says straw polls are just as valid as formal votes, so they don’t have to redo anything. Mr. Nick noted the retained portion is a meadow, not a habitat block. Ms. Louisos said in this case the Commission cut it out because it isn’t forest. The Core is defined as the edge of the habitat block. Ms. Ostby said Arrowwood said in 10 years there would be forest there. Mr. Nick said they would never develop on the Interstate piece. He said they can hire a consultant with another opinion. He considers this a “taking” as 42 acres are being “taken.” Ms. Ostby said that the density from those acres can be used in the developable portion. Mr. Conner said that only applies in a Conservation PUD with 70% of the land remaining undeveloped. Mr. Mittag said the retained portion could be narrower based on the Google map. In the vote that followed, the motion was defeated 3-4. Mr. Gagnon then moved to remove the area shown on the Arrowwood map as “remove.” Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regarding Article 12, Mr. Mittag asked to delay discussion so he can relook at his notes. Ms. Louisos noted the Council wants to see all the parts together. 7. Continued Review of Draft Conservation PUDs” Ms. Ostby felt they don’t have to give so much in the purpose statement because Article 12 does so much. He found it wordy and confusing. Mr. Conner said he had issue narrowing it. Ms. Ostby said the last 2 bullets are most important. Mr. Mittag felt it reaffirms Article 12 and reinforces its strength. Ms. Ostby said then it should be in all the other PUDs. Mr. Conner said the difference is that hazards and level 1 and level 2 resources are excluded from PUDs; here it is the protected part of the PUD. Mr. MacDonald said he felt mentioning Article 12 strengthens it. Mr. Engels suggested the language “conserve the city’s most important resources.” Members agreed to that. Ms. Dooley said under Conservation PUD the word “are” is used. She asked if there is a “has to” or “may do” difference and whether there can be a Conservation PUD that doesn’t have to meet all the criteria. Mr. Conner said the purpose statement gives context, and he is comfortable with the list as it is. It is intended to be read together to provide context. Under C2, Mr. Mittag felt it should read “where any portion of it is in the Southeast Quadrant.” Ms. Louisos said the spot she would be concerned about is Village Residential zoning where they talked about having neighborhoods. Members then considered the ‘carve out’ piece. Mr. Engels said he wants to remove it. Mr. Conner said Sharon drafted it based on what she thought the Commission was looking for. On a one-time basis, someone could subdivide off a couple of parcels. Mr. Gagnon recalled they talked about that for someone setting aside a piece for family members only one time. Ms. Ostby felt this was part of the big conversation on the 14th. Mr. Conner noted that even a “carve out” would have to be near the roadway and be subject to subdivision standards. Mr. Mittag said he was OK with what Sharon wrote as long as there is no minimum density. Mr. Conner noted that if a driveway goes past 2 houses on the property, it has to become a road. He added that it would have to be a Conservation PUD. Mr. Engels felt the DRB would have a hard time dealing with this. Ms. Dooley urged the Commission to think about unintended consequences. There is no requirement that the “carve off” would have to be for the owner’s kids. Members agreed to continue the discussion on the 14th. Regarding TDRs, Mr. Conner reminded members that in a Conservation PUD, all the density that would otherwise be developed goes into the 30% that is not conserved. This works out to about 4 units per acre. If the Commission allows TDRs beyond that, there has to be a decision on net density. Alternatively, there could be a TND on the buildable portion. There would be no upper cap because that development depends on building types. The difference is that the first option is based on underlying zoning, and the TND sets a higher bar of design and you get what fits. Mr. Conner cautioned not to have the 2 options “bleed” into each other or people will take the easier one. Mr. Mittag felt you shouldn’t put a TND in a Conservation PUD because it “muddies the waters.” Ms. Ostby countered that the landowner is preserving 70% of the resources, and to do that they get a greater density in the 30%. Mr. Conner added that with the first option you can still have a minimum of 2 building types, civic space, etc. Ms. Dooley said in a TND there is no offset/bonus for inclusionary units. She questioned how many units a person could build under the current zoning and would like that answer for the next meeting. Mr. Conner said Ms. Dooley’s question is a tricky one. Many properties are not building to the maximum density now, and he wasn’t sure he could run the math that would make people confident. Ms. Ostby said Sharon’s numbers don’t include offsets and bonuses. She said that if they go the TND route and had a minimum density, development could be phased. Mr. Conner said that is built into it. A developer would be vested in the current rules for 10 years; after that, they would be subject to the rules at that time. Ms. Ostby said that would ensure that what is built immediately is clustered. She felt that in a non-TND very large homes could be built. Mr. Conner said that part of the goal for the next meeting is to determine where the Commission is with PUD types. He said he would probably recommend that the upper net density not go much more than 8 to 10 per acre. Ms. Ostby said she would like the Energy Committee’s input on that. Mr. Conner noted that shared walls are more energy efficient as are compact neighborhoods with shops nearby. Mr. Mittag asked if they can require solar for new construction. Mr. MacDonald reminded members that they passed an amendment for solar-ready. Ms. Louisos said installation of solar is tabled till after Interim Zoning. Mr. Conner said Sharon noted the city doesn’t have control over solar fields. If you put it in the 70%, you can’t count it as your conservation amount. He also reminded members that the city does not control installation of solar, but if there is a developed energy plan, there can be more of a role in the process. 8. Climate Action Plan Task Force: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission has been asked to choose a representative. Mr. Mittag expressed his interest in this. Ms. Ostby questioned whether the representative would be representing him/herself or the Commission. Mr. Mittag said the assumption is the Commission. Mr. Conner said the expectation is that decisions would come to the Commission, but the Task Force would not need authorization for everything they do. Mr. MacDonald then moved to appoint Mr. Mittag to the Climate Action Plan Task Force to represent the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Mr. Riehle noted receipt of a letter from the attorney representing Jeff Davis and Jeff Nick. He said he found the tone offensive. Mr. Mittag said the land was bought 20 years ago when there was very little knowledge of climate change. Ms. Ostby said that parcel in part of the Interim Zoning area and would have to go to the City Council anyway. Mr. Mittag felt the Commission has tried to do the best for them taking into account the rest of the community. Mr. Gagnon questioned whether there is a potential for unintended consequences. He also noted potential issues with UVM land where they want to build dorms and felt the Commission should be aware of potential issues there as well. Members then reviewed the schedule. The next meeting is on 14 September. Mr. Conner said they should be voting for a public hearing in early October. Mr. Mittag said the Commission is also concerned with affordable housing and felt that to achieve this they need to go up to 10 stories at least with green space around it. Ms. Louisos felt this would be good to add to the work plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:36 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022