Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/14/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 SEPTEMBER 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 September 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. Murray, Consultant; D. Seff, R. Greco, S. Dooley, L. Kingsbury, C. Trombly, A. Chalnick, C. Jensen 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on exiting the building in an emergency. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: An attorney representing UVM noted that he had sent a letter with a number of concerns regarding the scope and effect of the proposed regulations on UVM lands. He also noted that earlier today he had submitted a letter regarding UVM’s views of the regulations. Their concerns focus mainly on the scope of environmental protection standards, especially habitation blocks in relation to UVM lands. The wording of the regulations raises concerns regarding legal and statutory requirements. The hope is that with additional clarification from the Planning Commission that UVM’s concerns can be alleviated. They are particularly interested in Conservation PUDs. Mr. Conner said he saw the letter briefly. He believed some comments date back to things that happened in May and may have been modified. He will check on that. Ms. Louisos said she will make sure the letter is distributed to all Commission members. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Riehle noted a Tree Equity Campaign beginning in Burlington, Colchester and other communities regarding tree planting. He thought South Burlington might have some people join in this tree-planting process. Ms. Ostby noted that Spear Meadows is beginning construction on 1 October and suggested some residents might go in and transplant some greenery to their own parcels. 5. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Applicability by Zoning district: 2 Mr. Conner showed a map of “Conservation PUD Applicability by Zoning District (DRAFT)” indicating where Conservation PUDs would be allowed. This gives a sense of the parcels being talked about. Conservation PUDs would be mandatory in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) parcels indicated and would incorporate the NRP part of the SEQ. Mr. Conner then showed a second map with rough approximations of parcels that would be impacted (4 acres or more not already built out). Mr. Mittag asked if there are any areas northeast of the Airport that would be eligible. Mr. Conner said those areas could be TNDs. Mr. Conner noted there are 2 properties along the Lake that are potentially open to a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner then showed the same map with resources indicated and a map of TND applicability. He noted that what is not shown is the NCD (Neighborhood Commercial). It would apply in places like Williston Road, Shelburne Road and the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. The Hill Farm could be an “either/or.” He recommended the Commission advance what they are comfortable with and getting to the NCD and TDRs in the next few months. Mr. Mittag asked if the Belter Farm were in a flood plain, could there be a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said that area is Mixed Industrial/Commercial, similar to Ethan Allen Industrial Park. Ms. Louisos noted 2 PUD types are applicable to the lakeshore so there could be a choice. Ms. Louisos also noted that in the developable portion of a Conservation PUD with a TND in that area, there would have to be a minimum density to make it viable for a developer and for the city. Mr. Mittag said they can get about 8 units an acre. Mr. Conner said with a TND, there has to be civic space, roads, etc., and with additional units for affordability, you get more design standards. Ms. Ostby suggested that where a Conservation PUD is required, have the conserved portion be 60-70% and give the owner up to 40% developable so you get about 5 units an acre and it isn’t so densely developed. Mr. Conner said the more you can conserve of open space, the better. He had no issue with 6 units an acre. Ms. Ostby said when there is a choice, make it 70%. Ms. Murray noted that the Town of Warren has a “hamlet” concept. She said you can have a pretty high density development surrounded by conserved land, similar to South Village. Mr. Gagnon said he would prefer something on the higher density side rather than 2 large “monster houses.” Mr. Conner said there is an option to set a minimum density, not very high, but something so you don’t get the 2 large houses. He said the plan is to have a Master Plan. The owner would have the right to build for 10 years under the rules at the time the plan is drawn up. After that, the rules in place at the later time would govern. 3 Mr. Mittag said 2 big houses in the 30% isn’t profitable. He added that in the southwest corner, there is a new “McMansion” built almost every day. Mr. Trombly, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, said the Committee had a discussion about this topic. A developer told them that without a minimum density, they would probably build large houses. He said the question is what kind of housing the city wants in the 30%. He added that at their 27 September meeting, the CCRPC will have a presentation of “housing inequality.” Mr. Trombly urged the Commission to maximize the housing types in the 30% area and noted this was the unanimous recommendation of the Affordable Housing Committee. They encouraged 4-plexes that fit into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon encouraged a minimum density so there can be a combination of housing types. Mr. Conner noted that with a “land-based” approach, density reverts to the underlying zoning. There is a maximum of 4-plex units in a building. There could not be a 12-plex. With a TND approach, you can have a mixture, but not a 20-plex. There would have to be at least 3 building types. In the land-based approach, you would still need to have a mix of housing styles. Ms. Ostby suggested some kind of minimum, possibly restricting the size of a single family house. Ms. Murray said there could be a minimum density instead of a full-blown TND. A straw poll of members showed that a majority favored requiring a variety of housing types. Ms. Dooley, Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan’s vision is for affordable housing. She did not think this mean affordable everywhere except the Southeast Quadrant. She also noted that people were unhappy not only with the loss of natural resources but with how development has happened, specifically the absence of “neighborhoods.” She encouraged the Commission to think more positively about a minimum density as a way to counterbalance the 70% conservation of land. She stressed that if there is no minimum density, the landowner is at the mercy of the neighbors. Ms. Dooley then asked about the “carve-out” in a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner explained that a designated amount of land could be removed from a property without considering designing the rest of the property. The size of the carve-out would be kept small, just enough to accommodate a house. Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure where the minimum density went away as it was presented to both the City Council and the public. In a straw poll, the concept of having a minimum density in the 30% developable portion of Conservation PUD passed 4-3. Ms. Louisos then moved to include the minimum density of 4 units per acre in the developable portion of a Conservation PUD. Ms. Ostby seconded. 4 Ms. Mittag moved to amend the motion to be only 2 units per acre. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Louisos said 4 units/acre would make for a walkable neighborhood. Mr. Trombly questions whether 2 units/acre serves the city’s housing need or whether it would restrict those houses to people who can afford them. Mr. Chalnick asked if a minimum density is allowed. Ms. Murray said it is common around the country and has been adopted largely to protect the investment and to create walkable neighborhoods. Members voted on the amendment which failed 3-4. Members then voted on the original motion to include a minimum density of 4 units per acre in the developable portion of a Conservation PUD. The motion passed 4-3. Regarding the “carve-out,” Mr. Gagnon asked if there would be a minimum acreage. Mr. Conner suggested a 10-acre parcel or more with one carve-out of no more than 4 acres. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the language as currently written. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Macdonald moved to retain the language but reduce the 4 acres to 2 acres to be carved out. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion failed 3-4 Mr. Mittag moved to allow a 4-acre carve-out from a parcel of 6 acres or more. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Ms. Ostby noted you then can’t have a Conservation PUD. Mr. Mittag then amended his motion to allow a 4-acre carve-out from a parcel of 8 acres or more. Mr. Gagnon seconded. The motion failed 3-4. Mr. Engels moved to eliminate carve-outs. Ms. Ostby seconded. The motion failed 3-4. Ms. Louisos moved to allow one carve-out of 1 acre where there is a requirement for Conservation PUD. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion failed 3-5. Mr. Ostby suggested creating a sliding scale to create a carve-out with a minimum one acre for 5 acres or more with a sliding scale at increments of ½ an acre. Mr. Conner then asked members what they would support in the way of a carve-out. The responses were: Mr. Engels – no carve-out; Mr. Mittag – 1 acre for every 10 acres of parcel size; Mr. Gagnon, Mr. MacDonald, and Ms. Louisos – 2 acres with 6 acres or more; Ms. Ostby – 2 acres with no minimum acreage; Mr. Riehle – at least one 1-acre carve-out with a minimum of 4 acres. 5 Ms. Louisos then moved that with a minimum of 4 acres, to allow a carve-out of up to 2 acres as long as there are 4 acres remaining. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members then considered whether to require a Conservation PUD in the SEQ. Mr. Conner said the draft language is to require the Conservation PUD in the SEQ when there are 4 or more acres except for land zoned Village Residential or Village Commercial, in which case the owner can choose. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the language as written with the noted exceptions of VR and VC zoning. Mr. Mittag seconded. Ms. Ostby asked how many parcels have 70% or more natural resources. Mr. Conner said not very many. Ms. Ostby said the Conservation PUD is usually required where there are 70% resources. This language says even land with those resources would have to have Conservation PUD. She felt Article 12 and the NRP are very robust, and she had an issue requiring a Conservation PUD that are so far from 70% natural resources. Mr. Chalnick noted that some resources (e.g., meadows) are not protected by Article 12. Ms. Jensen expressed concern with fairness and noted that conditions have not been verified on the ground. She felt the Commission is severely restricting the rights of landowners. She said if the citizens and the city are so concerned with resources, they should buy the land. Mr. Mittag said it is important to keep open land for the health of those who follow us. Mr. Gagnon then restated the motion to require a Conservation PUD on parcels of 4 or more acres in the SEQ, NR, NRP, and NRN zones. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-1. Mr. Gagnon then moved to allow the option for a Conservation PUD or a TND in the Village Residential and Village Commercial zoning districts. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-1. Mr. Conner confirmed that for parcels under 4 acres, the underlying zoning plus TDRs would apply. The Commission could said that TDRs are not allowed. Mr. Gagnon was OK with allowing them if the property is adjacent to a developed area. Members were OK with the draft language as long as a landowner can’t get more than the 30% would allow. Mr. Engels noted he had sent in some suggested language changes including adding open meadows and grasslands to 15.06C1 and requiring a Conservation PUD on 4 acres or more even if some is in the NRP and requiring a Conservation PUD with 25% resources. Mr. Conner noted the first suggestion has already been voted on. Mr. Gagnon suggested saving the other suggestion for a future discussion. 6 Ms. Louisos noted that staff recommends that the Neighborhood Commercial not be included in these LDRs but be taken up after Interim Zoning. Members felt they were not yet ready to discuss this. Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Murry has added a “smaller TND” concept to the language, similar to the “infill PUD” concept. Mr. Mittag said that is where affordable housing can be done. He suggested taking this up after Interim Zoning. Mr. Conner suggested including this only where TNDs are allowed. Ms. Murray suggested having graphics where dealing with infill PUDs as there are concerns with design standards. Mr. Conner stressed that 2-4 acre parcels need more analysis when the Commission has time to look at them in order to get a better product. Mr. Conner then outlined the areas still to be done: a. Zoning adjacent to the NRP b. I-O area c. Applicability of TNDs to the rest of the city d. Lakeshore: what to require e. “housekeeping” items 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted the next 3 Commission meetings are on 23 September, 28 September, and 30 September. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:28 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022