Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/12/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 JULY 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 July 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, A. Chalnick ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. Trombly, S. Dopp, S. Dooley, D. Peters 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: Mr. Trombly said he was copied on an email from Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity regarding a parcel in the city they wish to purchase and they are concerned that the zoning was recently changed and does not allow for the model they are seeking to build that may be been permitted previously. Ms. Ostby suggested this could be discussed with item #6 on the agenda (minor adjustments to the LDRS) as it pertains to changes made during interim zoning. Mr. Conner said it is on the work plan to loo k at this issue and he suggested adding it to a future agenda as it has not been warned. Ms. Dopp asked what area/specific property is involved. Mr. Conner said it is not clear it is a specific property. The 1.2/acre density was an effort to align net density of small properties with the density of the Conservation PUD for parcels under 4 acres in the southeast quadrant. Mr. Trombly noted that there is a lot of ARPA funding available, and he could not think of a better non-profit than Green Mountain Habitat. He didn’t want to lose the opportunity because it didn’t fit the work plan. Ms. Ostby said it would be fantastic on the next agenda. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: 2 Ms. Ostby noted that in a lot of neighborhoods there is already a “neighborhood captain” who would be a receptive liaison. She said that that the Chamberlin Neighborhood asked her and Paul Engels (who served on the Airport Rezoning Task Force) to sit in on a meeting they are having. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council would like to adopt the new Comprehensive Plan in December 2023. The Commission would have to get it to them by August 2023. Ms. Ostby recalled that at the last City Council meeting there was discussion of possibly expanding membership of the Planning Commission, City Council, etc. It would take voter approval. Mr. Conner said that discussion will happen at the City Charter Committee. Their decision will require a public vote and possibly approval by the State Legislature. Mr. Conner noted the Climate Action Task Force will see their first draft this week. They are planning to attend community events and asked if Commission members would be interested in spending time at the events to answer questions. Mr. Conner added that this would be a good time to engage people regarding the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Election of Planning Commission Officers: Mr. Conner presided over the election of a Commission Chair. He opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Riehle nominated Ms. Louisos. There were no further nominations. In the vote that followed Ms. Louisos was elected Chair by a vote of 6-0 with Ms. Louisos abstaining. Ms. Louisos then presided over the remainder of the meeting. She opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair. Mr. Mittag nominated Mr. Engels who said he would serve if he could be involved in setting the agenda. Mr. Riehle nominated Mr. Macdonald. In the vote that followed Mr. Macdonald was elected by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Macdonald abstaining. Mr. Macdonald nominated Ms. Ostby for Clerk. There were no further nominations, and Ms. Ostby was elected Clerk unanimously. Mr. Mittag then moved that the Commission continue to meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month, at 7:00 p.m., except as otherwise rescheduled. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3 6. Review and possibly request City committees consider items raised during public feedback on 2021/22 Land Development Regulations amendments: Ms. Louisos said some the items are more technical and should possibly go to Public Works or to a committee (which would involve a charge to the committee). Mr. Mittag said some came up a number of times and should be looked at. Committee items could include: Bike/Ped Committee: street type comments and a review of street type standards Natural Resources Committee: exemption of natural resource restoration project standards; tree ordinance/large tree considerations; soil restoration Ms. Ostby suggested adding bike/ped safety in the Transit Overlay District and ownership vs. rental possibly going to the Affordable Housing Committee. Ms. Louisos said they asked for a legal opinion on ownership vs. rental. Mr. Conner said he didn’t think it got a majority vote. The Bike/Ped and Natural Resources issues were deemed worthy of follow-up by the Commission. Mr. Conner added that what is provided tonight is very technical, and the Commission could have a response in a reasonable time. Other questions are more “big picture” question that could be part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council will be going through its policy priorities in coming weeks. One item they will consider is for the city to develop a clear filter as to how to prioritize capital projects. He felt this would align well with the concern for bike/ped safety. Mr. Conner noted that the new Public Works Director is a big supporter of this, and there is now a Capital Projects Director as well. Mr. Conner explained that the bike/ped items being considered tonight are very technical (e.g., 5’ vs, 4’ bike lanes). Ms. Louisos asked about a timeline. Mr. Conner said they should ask to hear from the Bike/Ped Committee by the beginning of December. Mr. Mittag moved to ask the Bike/Ped Committee to study Donna Leban’s comments and do a general review of street type standards and report back to the Planning Commission by early December. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regarding the natural resources items, Mr. Louisos suggested they might want more information regarding what is specifically being asked for. Ms. Ostby said there was talk about policies regarding topsoil (protecting and relocating). Mr. Conner said an issue is what ha ppens o soil around a green field development. Mr. Chalnick questioned whether the Natural Resources Committee has expertise regarding restoration projects and suggested possibly 4 having a consultant. Mr. MacDonald noted that Dave Wheeler had talked about one project. Mr. Chalnick said there should be a process to allow for this. Mr. Conner said one issue is the level of enforcement. Mr. Mittag said there is a question as to whether there is any restoration of topsoil. He was also concerned with blasting which disrupts the natural geology. Regarding trees, Mr. Conner noted that the existing tree ordinance applies only to trees in the City-owned right-of-way. He questioned whether large tress on private land should be considered as well. Mr. Mittag said that in one court case, the judge specified what could be done. When the appellant didn’t comply, there was only a very small fine. He felt the tree ordinance needs reinforcement. Mr. Chalnick said it would be good to do a survey of best practices around the country. Mr. Conner then explained that now there are no exceptions to doing work in 25% slope areas. They can be improved for stream health. He suggested there could be a review process for an exemption to do these projects more quickly so more can get done in a year. Mr. MacDonald said the Commission could probably do that on its own. Ms. Dopp suggested a permit process for land owners to remove a tree that could be threatening a building or an unhealthy tree. Mr. Conner said that site plan s cover some of this. Ms. Ostby said if they can’t make it a policy because it can’t be enforced, how about an education effort. Mr. Mittag suggested the Natural Resources Committee consult with other organizations. Ms. Louisos noted the state has some regulations regarding topsoil as part of a permit process. Mr. MacDonald suggested they explore both regulatory and education concepts. Ms. Ostby asked about the impact on developers if private outdoor space is required. She had recalled possibly asking the Affordable Housing Committee to look at this. Mr. Conner said the new regulations require this. Ms. Ostby said the regulations don’t say “private” or “semi- private.” She questioned how much impact this would have on developers. Mr. Chalnick then moved to ask the Natural Resources Committee to make recommendation s on both regulatory and non-regulatory requirements regarding tree ordinances and soil restoration in the city within 6 months. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Ostby asked about tasking the Affordable Housing Committee to get an opinion on the impact to builders regarding private outdoor space. Mr. Conner suggested tasking him to contact the development community. Ms. Ostby then moved to ask staff to investigate with the building community the impact of adding private outdoor space per unit, within 6 months. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5 7. Review of Staff/DRB experience with updated Environmental Protection Standards; discussion of possible minor amendments: Mr. Conner noted that wetland buffers were expanded from 50 to 100 feet, and exceptions were reduced. What staff is seeing involves people coming in with projects on single family properties. Mr. Conner showed a picture from Pinnacle at Spear showing how this affects backyards. He noted that in order to get an exception, the homeowners have to do a field delineation, which is expensive. The issue is people wanting to extend a back deck or put in a shed. In other locations, with smaller parcels, where the house hasn’t yet been built, (e.g., near Allen Rd.), the house would be in the buffer. Mr. Conner noted there are many ways to address this and asked the Commission’s intent. Mr. MacDonald said it was never his intent to prevent a homeowner from expanding a deck. Mr. Conner asked about adding a room to a home that is already partly in the 100 -foot buffer. Ms. Ostby asked about a way to streamline the process for residences regarding decks and sheds. Mr. Conner asked what the criteria would be. He noted this used to be a 10-minutes process; it now takes hours of staff time. Mr. Chalnick said the buffer isn’t a wetland. Mr. Mittag said it does provide resilience for rain events. Mr. Conner said the regulations could say that a pre-existing residential lot as of a certain date would have a 50-foot buffer. Ms. Louisos added there could be a size criteria as well. Mr. Conner noted that in the habitat blocks it is less than an acre. Mr. Chalnick was OK with a deck; he wasn’t sure about expanding a house. Mr. Engels said there has already been a cry that a developer can build 100 homes, “and I can’t put a deck on my house.” Mr. Macdonald said he respects the wetland buffer, but with small residential properties you’re not talking about impact to the wetland. He favored a return to a 50-foot buffer for pre- existing homes. Mr. Conner said they can say a “house existing as of a certain date.” He will draw something up. Mr. Conner then said the next issue is the wetland in City Center. Impacts to the buffer in City Center are allowed if they follow state regulations. There are some instances where that is the only reason a project goes to the DRB. He asked if this can be managed administratively as the 6 rest of the project is. He added that there is already a requirement that for over a certain size project, there has to be a neighborhood public meeting. This situation has happened three times, and every time there is a modification, the plan has to go back to the DRB. Mr. Mittag was concerned that the public doesn’t have input. Mr. Conner said the public can appeal to the DRB. Ms. Ostby said she felt going with staff would be more consistent with what the Commission’s goal was. She stressed that every permit is public information and the public still has access. She supported staff taking this on, if they want to. Mr. Mittag said that if it is in compliance, he was OK with an administrative decision; otherwise it should go somewhere else. Mr. Conner noted that in practice, the DRB follows the State; if the application has State approval, the DRB will follow. Mr. Conner noted that outside of City Center, if the administrative officer says it should go to the DRB, it does. Members were OK with that. Regarding steep slopes, Mr. Conner said there are a few properties where the 25% slope is of human construction. He noted that in some communities, there is a distinction made between natural and human construction. Mr. Chalnick asked what the purpose is in protecting steep slopes. Mr. Conner said the consultant saw them as a “hazard.” They are not necessarily a “resource.” There is a potential hazard if they are not developed well, but there is now a standard that addresses that. A lot of steep slopes are also in habitat blocks and are thus already protected. Mr. Riehle had no issue with amending the regulations if the project is not environmentally destructive (e.g., the slope leads to a stream). Mr. Mittag said making major alterations to a naturally occurring steep slope would be a problem for him. Mr. MacDonald said there is a difference between a naturally occurring slope and a constructed slope. Members agreed to address constructed slopes. Mr. Conner then raised another steep slope issue, noting that having really good data creates a problem. He said you can find tiny bits of slope everywhere. He questioned whether there 7 should be a minimum area. He stressed that every blip in a backyard is a big adminiatrative project. Ms. Ostby said she would question whether it connects to anything, and something clearly isolated would be less significant. Mr. Mittag suggested a percentage of the area. Staff will work on this. Ms. Ostby noted that there is a chain link fence at the top of Allen Rd/Spear Street. She thought they were not allowed. Mr. Conner said that location is not in the Southeast Quadrant which is where that regulation applies. If it is in the right-of-way, it is not subject to the regulations. 8. Consider requesting the Economic Development Committee to examine future land use goals, objectives and regulations associated with the City’s Commercial/Industrial areas: Mr. Conner said there is no request written up. The Economic Development Committee would be interested in working on what should be done to support business grown in these areas, if the Commission wants them to. Members favored this. Mr. Mittag said what the Commission is asking should be very clear. Other members suggested doing this in conjunction with the Natural Resources and Affordable Housing Committees. Mr. MacDonald noted these are areas the Commission has designated for economic development. Mr. Conner suggested asking them to look at it through the lens of transportation, affordability, etc. 9. Meeting Minutes of 24 May 2022: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 24 May 2022 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Ms. Ostby abstaining. 10. Other Business: a. Petition to Vermont Public Utilities Commission by AT&T to modify telecommunications antennas and equipment at an existing telecommunications facility owned and managed by American Tower Corporation (ATC) on property owned by Gray Media Group dba WCAX-TV, 30 Joy Drive: 8 b. Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 26 July, 6:45 p.m., Burlington City Hall, 149 Church Street c. Preparation for anticipated 26 July joint meeting with City Council Mr. MacDonald noted he will be away on 26 July. Mr. Chalnick was not certain. 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 August 8, 2022