Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/24/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 MAY 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 May 2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels, A. Chalnick ALSO PRESENT: K. Peterson, City Planner; R. Dahlstrom 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Ostby provided instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency. Ms. Ostby then asked for a moment of silence for the victims of an elementary school shooting in Texas earlier in the day. 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: Mr. Dahlstrom said the new LDRs have adversely affected how he can use his property. He said he hadn’t known that private property could be restricted by a city. He owns a 44-acre parcel which has one home (his) on it. Prior to the new LDRs, 45% of the property was restricted. Now 95% is restricted. He had thought the LDRs applied to developers, not to people like him. He noted that there is an airport in the middle of the property. Mr. Dahlstrom said the City Council passed the LDRs 3-2, even though they knew there would be adverse effects for individual property owners. He said he does not want to develop his property; he just wants to build one house for his son and family. He added that he doesn’t want to subdivide the land as that would cost him close to $40,000. When he spoke to Mr. Conner, he was told he would build a “tiny house” next to his home. He doesn’t want that. He then went to the City Council which said he had to go to the Planning Commission. He felt the intentions were good, but that there were mistakes made. He just wants to fix errors that affect people like him. His son has a builder lined up for the home (the son is now serving with the National Guard in Germany). Mr. Dahlstrom said he felt the regulations are made for developers, not for people like him. Ms. Ostby asked if he is going to build in the 5% that is not NRP. Mr. Dahlstrom said that 5% is a stream/pond, which is not zoned NRP. Ms. Peterson suggested Mr. Dahlstrom make his request in writing to the Planning Department. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: 2 Mr. Riehle noted a Wall Street Journal report regarding a company that is buying homes and using them for rentals. They have already bought 300 homes which they are renting out. Ms. Peterson noted the City Council has not taken up that issue yet, but it could come to the Planning Commission and could be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ostby said she attended a graduation party for a UVM graduate who has been hired by Beta and is staying in Vermont. Ms. Peterson said there is nothing to add to the written report. 5. Transfer of Development Rights – Review and discussion of updated TDR Section draft and related references in other sections: Ms. Peterson noted that Article 19 was created as a new article because TDRs are no longer housed only in the SEQ. The Article 19 draft is all new language. There are some changes to the April draft. There are 2 options for public engagement: a regular public hearing or more engagement ahead of time. Mr. Mittag suggested sticking with past procedures. Ms. Peterson said the question is whether you will make substantial changes based on feedback (e.g., if developers say something won’t work). Ms. Ostby said it isn’t out of the norm to do preliminary outreach, which she favors. There may be other strategic ideas, and they should hear those, then look at the draft. Ms. Peterson suggested a public hearing later in July. The date can always be moved out, if needed. Mr. Mittag suggested changing the words “agricultural uses” to “agricultural lands.” In the purpose statement, he suggested the language “…and to direct development to priority areas for development in the city.” Ms. Peterson said she and Mr. Conner had discussed language and had landed on what is presented. She added that it is important to recognize that TDRs do both: conserve and develop. Mr. Macdonald was OK leaving the development part in there. Mr. Mittag said it sounds like “business as usual.” Mr. Mittag also suggested changing the 6 units per structure in the SEQ to 4 units. Mr. Macdonald said the Commission had landed on those numbers to get some dense development in those areas. Ms. Peterson noted that language is already in the approved LDRs. Mr. Mittag said the Commission hasn’t done anything regarding the Interim Zoning Open Space Report. He felt that parcels identified as “priorities” in that report shouldn’t be for receiving areas. Ms. Peterson said there is a legal/defensible issue with having selected 25 parcels. She said there are other ways to capture some of these parcels instead of picking out an arbitrary list of 25. Mr. Chalnick asked whether there are receiving parcels in the draft that don’t need TDRs. Ms. Peterson said there are very few. There are an indeterminate number that can be redeveloped. If that happened, the TND would apply. Mr. Chalnick suggested that in a TND to build beyond the zoned density, the developer would have to purchase TDRs. Mr. Macdonald said density in the TND is not a 3 number; it is by building types. Mr. Chalnick suggested changing the LDRs in to make the TDRs required. Ms. Peterson reminded members that developers get the added density now because they are complying with a stricter set of regulations. Mr. Macdonald said they are already meeting a higher standard, and he didn’t thing they should be asked for more. Ms. Ostby said she would like to have clarification on where TDRs can be used in the SEQ. Ms. Peterson said that can be provided. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned that the challenges from developers don’t pertain to density but to additional floors and to the fees. She suggested allowing purchase of TDRs to apply to additional floors. Mr. Chalnick felt that was a good idea, if it is legal. Ms. Peterson said height has been allowed for in various districts. There are regulations in some areas. On Shelburne Road, there is a “stepping down” clause. Height also is dependent on what is on the adjacent property. Allowing additional height would upset some of that. She also stressed that adding additional metrics to the TDR program complicates the process for staff and for the DRB. Ms. Peterson also noted that the LDRs don’t regulate “bulk,” and that would add another variable. Ms. Peterson said staff looked at measurements on Shelburne Road. You can’t get additional height on the east side because of the proximity to existing neighborhoods. There is also a view issue on the west dies. She also noted that on Shelburne Road, buildings have not been built to the allowable height. With regard to fees, Ms. Ostby suggested possibly recommending to the City Council that purchase of TDRs can be offset. Ms. Peterson said she would relay that thought to the City Manager. Ms. Peterson questioned whether to share the TDR document with other committees. Ms. Ostby wanted to wait to find where TDRs are allowed in the SEQ and also to get an answer to the relationship to TNDs. Ms. Peterson said that will push the public hearing to August. Mr. Riehle asked how many usable TDRs there are. Ms. Peterson said about 1400. Mr. Chalnick said it is hard for supply and demand to connect. Ms. Peterson suggested reversing the order of the next 2 items. Members were OK with this. 6. 2004 Comprehensive Plan – Approach, Outreach, and Tentative Schedule: Ms. Peterson said a schedule for the Comprehensive Plan and outreach has been provided. It includes opportunities for non-traditional audiences to engage in the process. The hope is to get public input and funnel it through committees to the Planning Commission. Ms. Peterson directed attention to the outreach plan which includes: social media, The Other Paper, Recreation Department events, community events, on-line poll, listening sessions. 4 Mr. Mittag said what is missing is a visioning session, professionally facilitated. The last time, they ended up with charts all over the room which staff consolidated into a usable document. He added there is nothing better than live participation. Mr. Riehle suggested doing events in various neighborhoods. Mr. Engels said that worked well with the Airport Task Force, and people in the Chamberlin neighborhood really responded. Ms. Peterson said the hope is to engage with as many people as possible with a very broad open-ended question. Mr. Macdonald said the challenge is how to reach people who don’t participate in community events. Ms. Peterson said that because of all the city is trying to do, the hope is to have participation of Planning Commission members at events. Mr. Chalnick cautioned against scheduling anything during normal working hours. Mr. Riehle suggested possible meetings with seniors during working hours. Mr. Engels moved to approve the proposed approach to the Comprehensive Plan as presented. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Continue Discussion of Vision and Goal Statements for 2024 Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Engels said he did not like the goals that have been stated as they don’t have a “ring” to them. He preferred “Sustainability,” “Resilience,” and “Equity.” Ms. Peterson showed the goals of the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ostby noted most of those goals haven’t been reached, though there has been improvement. Ms. Peterson stressed that this will be a joint effort between the Commission and the City Council. She acknowledged that some of the goals are vague, but she stressed that these are the foundational statements for specific goals in the rest of the Plan. There will be more metrics to the strategies and objectives. Ms. Ostby said it seems like the Climate Action Task Force will drive so much, and that will be the foundation, including equity and inclusion. Ms. Peterson said that will be incorporated throughout the document. This is the statement of the core values of the city. Mr. Chalnick felt the goals could be much tighter, especially in the “Green and Clean” section. Mr. Mittag felt the core value should be related to climate change. The goal should be to meet the city’s climate goals and prepare for climate change. Mr. Riehle said the categories are still relevant today. Ms. Ostby questioned what “affordable” and “community strong” mean today. “Affordable” seems so unreachable. She felt “inclusive” was a better word…something like “a diverse community that has a home for everybody.” She noted that there are people not accepting jobs because they can’t find an affordable place to live in South Burlington, and companies are closing because they can’t find employees. 5 Ms. Peterson stressed that the 4 goals are interconnected, not 4 individual goals. Mr. Macdonald said it would be good to put these goals out the community. Ms. Petersons said there will be a short on-line poll to do that. It is already being worked on. Mr. Chalnick suggested adding to “Green and Clean” the words “Climate Change Focus.” Ms. Ostby asked where there is a planning directive in the goals. Ms. Peterson said this is not just a development policy. It is a policy for the city, for everything. The 4 core values touch all other elements of the plan. She stressed that this page will never be a stand-alone document. Mr. Mittag said he would leave out references to automobiles. Mr. Macdonald asked when the Commission will see the public feedback. Ms. Peterson said the hope is before the joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Riehle said they need to be emphatic about providing parks which could help address the disparity between people in the Southeast Quadrant and elsewhere in the city. Mr. Mittag recalled that Ms. Ostby suggested that Commission members should go around the whole city at least once a quarter. He seconded that idea. 7. Meeting Minutes of 10 May 2022 Members agreed to defer action on the Minutes in order to get the exact wording of a motion. 8. Other Business: Mr. Mittag noted that there is a question of people being able to build or extend decks on their homes because of expanded buffers. Ms. Peterson said that will be a good topic for discussion. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission July 12, 2022