Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/12/2022SOUTH BURLNGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 APRIL 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 April 2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom 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; K. Peterson, City Planner; M. Damon, R. Groeneveld, Mr. Wright 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided emergency exit instructions. 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: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted she had attended the City Council meeting of 4 April. The Council has warned the LDR amendments the Commission sent them and were appreciative of the speed with which the PUD concerns were addressed. Mr. Conner advised that the city is in the process of moving to Office 365. All email addresses will be updated. The IT people will be at the next meeting to be sure you can use your new address. Ms. Peterson advised that it is staff’s goal to be planning 3 months in advance to everyone has a sense of what is coming up and what has been tabled for the future. 5. Commissioner Reports from Committee Assignments: Mr. Engels reported on the public comment meeting held by the Airport Rezoning Task Force. The Task Force has decided to deny the Airport’s/City of Burlington’s request to rezone 11 acres. Public comment overwhelming supported that decision. Mr. Riehle asked if there are other parcels available for what the Airport wants to do. Mr. Engels said that there are. Ms. Louisos advised that the City Council has warned a public hearing for 2 May on the amendments set to them by the Commission. They did make some small changes which required updating the report. 2 Members briefly discussed and agreed that they may be doing a disservice to a lot of good, creative projects by not allowing parking in front of buildings. Mr. Mittag and Mr. Macdonald felt this should be addressed by the Commission sooner rather than later. Mr. Riehle felt parking can be done creatively and attractively. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the updated Planning Commission report on LDR-22-01, -02, -03, and -04 and submit the updated report to the City Council. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. Mr. Conner noted that these amendments do not apply to any applications already in the “pipeline.” He also noted that Beta will be a tenant of the Airport, not the owner of any property. 6. Public Hearing: Changes to the Official Map #22-01, pedestrian connections for pedestrian bridge over I-89: Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. Mr. Conner showed the map and referred to a notation that identifies “UVM Centennial Woods Area.” He said this is not an accurate representation, so he is recommending removing it. Ms. Louisos suggested doing the same thing with the “East Woods Area.” Mr. Conner agreed and said this should be done with all the UVM labels. Mr. Conner then identified all the pedestrian bridge connections. He noted that the city has a federal grant for this bridge. Affected property owners have been notified. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Mittag moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. Mr. Conner noted that the new owners of UMall are very pleased with this. 7. Approve Changes to the Official City Map and submit map and Planning Commission Report to the City Council: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the proposed changes to the Official City Map (-22-01) and to submit the map and Planning Commission Report to the City Council. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 8. Initial Review of Zoning Change Requests: Ms. Louisos reminded members that the Commission tries to address these requests twice a year but had put that process on hold during Interim Zoning. 3 #1. Request of ONLOGIC: Mr. Damon explained that the company designs and manufactures computers and are an international company with 150 employees. Most of the manufacturing is done in Vermont, and they have outgrown their current facility and are planning to build a new one. They would like to build a training/conference center on the current campus which would include temporary housing which is not a permitted use in this zone. Ms. Peterson confirmed that hotel/hotel extended stay are not allowed in the Mixed Industrial zone. Mr. Damon said the housing would be for ONLOGIC people coming for training or for suppliers. He then showed a vision of their Master Plan indicating I-89, Community Drive, and the rec path. He identified the area where they hope growth will occur. The facility would include a full-service café. Mr. Groeneveld said the zoning change could also apply to other businesses in Technology Park as it has been hard to find housing for temporary employees or new employees. Mr. Mittag asked why, if this is a business use and not a hotel they would be renting out, does it require a zoning change. He cited places in Scandinavia where there are studio apartments above office uses. Mr. Riehle said he has also been in business parks where there is a “campus,” and he feels it is a good idea. He has heard that several City Councilors support this. Mr. Macdonald recalled that the Commission had discussed a Campus PUD. Mr. Conner said it was discussed, but the Commission decided to go instead with the General PUD. The definitions available do not reference any accommodation for employees or other ancillary services. Ms. Peterson said the Commission can change a definition, not only the zoning. Mr. Conner said if the Commission decides this is worthy of discussion, they can put it in the work plan and then decide how to address it. He noted that staff did have a legal review, and there are no legal issues. Ms. Ostby reminded members that she had sent them information about the Google Campus concept of residential and business so that employees have housing. She wanted to discuss the possibility of a Campus PUD or look at the definition of housing where there is no monetary exchange. Mr. Engels noted that if Form Based Code was city-wide, there wouldn’t be an issue. Mr. Macdonald cited the need to look really creatively at housing because companies cannot staff their businesses as workers have no place to live. Mr. Groeneveld said they hope to start building in May and stressed the need for employee housing. He added that people have turned down employment here because they can't find a place to live. Mr. Macdonald asked if employees would have to pay for the housing. Mr. Groeneveld said they would not, but it would be an IRS issue they would have to figure out. 4 Ms. Greco said the Commission should also consider the impact on businesses where people won’t be paying to stay. She also cited the loss of Rooms and Meals local option taxes. Mr. Mittag said they should move expeditiously to make it easier for businesses to come here. Mr. Conner said the Commission can re-allocate things in the work plan or put this in a new work plan. That can be discussed at the next meeting when the work plan is considered. #2 – The Wright Family’s request for multiple homes on a single property: Ms. Peterson said the Wright family property is on the east side of Hinesburg Road. There are 3 residences on about 10 ten acres. She stressed that the request has to be considered on a broader scope than just this property. She then showed an overhead photo and indicated the Wright property. Mr. Mittag questioned whether to wait on this until the litigation in that area is settled before making a decision. Ms. Peterson said another family has expressed a similar interest in the area of Lime Kiln Road/Airport Parkway, south of the multi-family buildings. She showed this area from an overhead photo and noted that the way the line is drawn, these people are in the I-C District which does not allow for residences. She also noted that all the properties around the Wright property are Industrial-Open Space. Mr. Mittag said that if they do allow housing in industrial zoning, the question would be moot. Mr. Wright indicated what is left of a family dairy farm when part got cut off by the Interstate. He said his children would like to come home and raise their families here, and he would like to build each of them a home on half an acre. He would like to do this as soon as possible as a grandchild is expected shortly. Ms. Ostby said she would support considering this request. Mr. Conner noted that today they are allowed one home for three acres, but as they already have 3 homes on the 10 acres, no more homes are allowed. However, the Commission could write whatever rule they choose. One question to consider is how to separate residential from industrial uses. Ms. Peterson also asked whether the city needs an area that is industrial only. Mr. Conner said there are a small handful of circumstances like this throughout the city. He cited the Szymanski house on Williston Road. He thought there may be a way to address pre-existing situations similar to this. Members indicated a desire to pursue this request and the issue of residential use in industrial areas. 7. Review Preliminary Working Draft of TDR’s: Ms. Peterson outlined the priorities to discuss as follows: 5 a. Should R-7, R-7NC, and R-12 be receiving areas? b. How should TDR use be incentivized? c. Should minimum lot size be reduced? Mr. Conner stressed that the T-7, R-7NC and R-12 are only for those zones within the transit overlay district. Mr. Mittag asked why they shouldn’t increase density outside the transit overlay district. Ms. Peterson said that can be discussed. She also noted that the proposed draft has not been worked out to take Inclusionary Zoning into account. Ms. Ostby said she would like to see TDRs intensified in terms of ownership. Ms. Peterson said that can be discussed, but staff has not yet been able to discuss this with the City Attorney in terms of legal issues. Ms. Ostby noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has a strong preference for the ARPA money to be used for ownership. Mr. MacDonald said they also need some low-income rental housing. Ms. Ostby said what is missing is the “middle” piece. People are paying more for rent than they would for a mortgage and then leaving the city. There are no “owner-occupied” units being built on Shelburne Road. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that in the past 5 years there have been more rental units built than ownership units. She noted some of the “pitfalls” of requiring ownership: for example, whether a condo owner could rent it out if they moved away or whether ownership has to be perpetually affordable. Mr. Conner said ownership would also require looking at the enabling TDR language and at the fair housing laws in order to prevent an unintended effect on certain populations. He stressed that there is an affordability issue across the board and they have to be very thoughtful as to why they are sending housing from one part of the city to another…such as closeness to transit. Ms. Peterson added that nothing in the regulations says anything about the receiver of the housing. Ms. Ostby said that the developer on the Affordable Housing Committee was very supportive of incentivizing ownership. She stressed that people need assets in order to “move up.” She felt that if a unit was owned, the TDR should go to an owned unit, not a rental. Mr. Conner cautioned care is downgrading rentals. Ms. Louisos noted that the type of housing that might have been built with a TDR in the SEQ is different from what would be built in other receiving areas. Mr. Riehle said he understands Ms. Ostby’s issue, but he wasn’t sure it can be solved with the document they have. Ms. Ostby said she would like the Commission to hear from someone who can give them the whole picture. Mr. Conner said that today the market is very much toward rentals. He asked whether “unpacking” that issue should be a priority. Mr. Mittag asked whether the preponderance of rentals is because people can’t come up with down payments. Mr. Conner said that is part of the story. In the past, lending of money has been against ownership. He noted that South Village now has some multiplex units that are ownership units, the first ones in a decade. 6 Mr. Mittag asked if there could be an incentive to have rentals become ownership. Mr. MacDonald said that just happened in Waterbury with some small houses. He asked whether small houses could be incentivized. Ms. Ostby didn’t feel that could happen in the urban design overlay. Ms. Ostby favored a one-to-one TDR relationship. Mr. Mittag said someone he spoke to in Seattle said not to use simple arithmetic and to give more than one developed unit for a TDR in areas where you want development and less where you don’t. Mr. Riehle raised the question of whether they want 5-story buildings. Mr. Conner said that after 5 stories there is a different method of construction, so they shouldn’t think of going to 6. He also said they should do the same thing they did in City Center so there is no development dwarfing City Center. Mr. MacDonald asked if there are 5-story buildings being built. Mr. Conner noted one in City Center and one planned in the new O’Brien development. Ms. Ostby also cited concerns with noise on Shelburne Road and didn’t feel buildings should be right up to the road. Mr. Mittag noted he had asked Joe Larkin if he would have put an additional story on the Shelburne Road building he built. Mr. Larkin said he would have, if he could have complied with all the other regulations. Ms. Peterson said she went with a 1-2-3 system, from one unit per TDR to 3, depending on where the city wants density. She showed a table of where the various densities would apply. Ms. Louisos said she agreed with Ms. Ostby that 3 feels like too much, and if you go with it and it doesn’t work, it’s hard to back out of. Ms. Ostby also noted that in an area with no maximum there are no parks or other amenities. Ms. Peterson said there would still be amenity requirements. Ms. Ostby said that no maximum doesn’t feel equitable to her. Mr. Macdonald said he favors 1 for 1 but with an incentive of some sort. Members asked for time to “chew this over” and come back to it at the next meeting. Mr. Conner reminded members to consider the inclusionary zoning requirement and its offset in their thinking. 9. Meeting Minutes of 8 March and 22 March 2022: Ms. Ostby showed a correction she had made to the 8 March minutes. Ms. Ostby then moved to approve the 8 March minutes as amended and the 22 March minutes as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 10. Other Business: 7 No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission May 10, 2022