HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/29/2022
1
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
29 NOVEMBER 2022
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 29 November
2022, 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; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels,
A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; H. Riehle,
Council Liaison; L. Bailey, D. Peters
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Conner asked to add to Other Business the selection of a Planning Commission member to
the City Manager’s Advisory Group for Transportation (under the Climate Action Plan).
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 advised that she had an email from the Affordable Housing Committee. They will
be asking the City Council for ARPA money for a study on affordable housing, and they asked if
the Planning Commission would support that. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission has
already endorsed that type of project. Mr. Conner said what the Affordable Housing
Committee is looking for is a housing needs assessment to see what is needed in the
community (e.g., housing for different income levels).
Ms. Ostby noted an email from Donna Leban about a bike safety gathering at “Old Spokes
Home.”
2
Ms. Ostby also noted she has resigned from the Planning Commission and said she hoped the
City Council would appoint someone with a more diverse perspective than she has. Members
thanked Ms. Ostby for her years of service.
Mr. Conner: The City Council approved the submittal of the Municipal Planning Grant
application.
The Planning Department has had some reorganization. Marty Gillies is now the
Assistant Zoning Administrator. Department people are now on a project from start to finish,.
The Department also expects to go much more digital.
The City Council adopted the TDR amendments. They also had the first reading
of an ordinance regarding education impact fees for Zero Emission Modules (ZEMs) at Marcott
and Orchard Schools. The impact fees would cover 90% of the cost of the ZEMs, excluding the
interest on the bond. The fee would be based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. Ms. Ostby
was concerned that this could result in developers building units with fewer bedrooms. She felt
a flat fee would be fairer. Mr. Conner said they have been looking at that, but the other side is
that people could feel they are being charged for more children than they have.
The Council also had a presentation regarding a potential ballot item to give the
city authority to regulate heating systems in existing homes. This will be on the Council’s
special meeting agenda tomorrow night.
A building permit was issued today for a building behind Healthy Living. It will
have 120 housing units, a café, and on-site daycare. The building is in conjunction with the
UVM Medical Center.
Ms. Louisos: There will be no second December meeting. Members should also remove it
from next year’s meeting schedule.
5. Solar Requirement: Review of current solar regulations in the LDRs and discussion of
proposed amendment:
Ms. Peterson noted there is an opportunity for solar in parking and parking structures, not
necessarily on rooftops.
Mr. Chalnick said that during Interim Zoning, the city adopted a solar-ready requirement. What
is now being proposed is filling up that zone as there seemed to be a lot of receptivity a few
years ago. Mr. MacDonald asked whether this would be for new construction or existing. Mr.
Chalnick said basically new at this time. Anything new would be required to have a solar ready
zone.
3
Ms. Peterson said Cambridge, Mass. Requires rooftop solar as part of a menu of options. She
noted that if you require 80% to have solar panels, you are not allowing for other options.
Mr. Mittag said he would also like to consider an amendment to Chapter 15 to remove the
language that allows for ground-mounted solar arrays in conserved areas. He felt those lands
should remain in their natural state. Ms. Louisos said that some ground mounted units are just
one screw, which is why that language is there.
Mr. Conner reminded members that the city does not have final say as to the location of solar
arrays. He also noted that if you put in a solar array on conserved land, it doesn’t count toward
your 70% conserved area.
Mr. Riehle stressed the importance of having the possibility of a green area on roofs for people
to recreate.
Ms. Ostby noted the city can’t say you have to plug into the grid. Ms. Peterson said you can
have a battery loop system. Ms. Ostby asked if the city can create an alternate option to
require people to connect to a community grid. Mr. Conner said the issue is that once you
leave your building/site, you need approval to go into a community grid, and the city doesn’t
have the power to force GMP to accept connections.
Ms. Ostby asked whether the LDRs give a developer the ability to remove a senior tree to get
solar. As written, it gives solar priority over the senior trees. She recommended hearing back
from the Natural Resources Committee regarding senior trees. Mr. Chalnick said if a building is
shielded/shaded and doesn’t have to be solar ready, it is exempt. Ms. Ostby said the public
should be aware of this. Mr. Chalnick said he didn’t think this regulation would incentivize
someone to cut down a mature tree.
Ms. Louisos asked what kind of development this would apply to, noting that some
developments are multi-family or multi-use. Mr. Conner said a commercial building is defined
as a non-residential building; however, a 4-story residential building is considered commercial.
He added that there may be a mixed use energy code coming forward.
Mr. Riehle asked if a cost analysis has been done for this. Mr. Chalnick said it makes economic
sense. Mr. Conner said there are load requirements for buildings. With the added solar load, it
could trip a building to the next category.
Mr. Chalnick said you would not be required to have more solar panels than you would typically
use in a year.
4
Mr. Riehle asked if there is a possibility to pool resources for several buildings. Mr. Conner said
it would be valuable to understand the first exception. There could be a ground-mounted solar
system. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be on an individual building. Mr. Riehle asked if
someone could sell some solar to another building. Mr. Conner said that would be group net
monitoring. Mr. Mittag said there are legal issues related to ownership. It has to be owned by
one person.
Members expressed an interest in moving forward with this. Mr. Conner said he will have the
City Attorney review the language. A straw poll of members indicated they generally approve
with what is presented with language that allows older trees to remain.
Ms. Riehle noted that there have been discussions at the Natural Resources Committee
regarding the use of ARPA money to do a senior tree analysis so the city can know what exists.
6. Comprehensive Plan – Thriving Neighborhoods:
Ms. Peterson said she has included what people call “vintage neighborhoods.” Many areas fit
that term. They have been “static” and have the opportunity for growth while retaining unique
features. She asked what members’ vision was for those neighborhoods, particularly with
regard to additional services available and transportation, and how these can be presented to
the public during public outreach.
Mr. Riehle said the real question is what those neighborhoods want. He suggested the
possibility of connecting some neighborhoods that are far out. He urged caution about trying
to change the character of neighborhoods such as Mayfair Park and the Orchards.
Ms. Peterson read from one of the goals regarding preserving the character of existing
neighborhoods. She then noted the issue of neighborhoods remaining “static.”
Mr. Mittag said that hearing from those neighborhoods is critical. He did feel that when people
renovate in those neighborhoods, the city should try to get duplexes.
Ms. Ostby said she couldn’t separate this issue from the TDR issue. Those neighborhoods are in
the Transit Overlay District, and if it is the city’s intention to build up that District, those areas
should have a target of a lot more density. She added that in order to preserve the NRP, TDRs
will have to come in some way, and those neighborhoods may have to look different and have
big changes.
Ms. Peterson said those TDRs could be absorbed in the current receiving areas and not be
expanded to the R-4 areas, though they could be in the future.
5
Mr. Engels said they also need to find out what problems exist in neighborhoods such as traffic
issues twice a day in the East Woods area because of Rice High School.
Ms. Peterson expressed concern with the impression that the city is going to take density from
the SEQ and force it into existing neighborhoods. She said the question should be “how do we
enhance your neighborhood?” not “how do we use your neighborhood to solve another
problem?”
Mr. Conner said he agrees with listening to neighborhoods, but he stressed that the city will see
more population growth. He suggested some of the discussion should be how to look at lot
sizes which are larger than necessary, and could a single family home become a duplex without
changing the character of a neighborhood. He showed a map indicating where there more than
one dwelling unit exists on a lot. He questioned how acceptable it would be to see more of
that.
Mr. Conner also questioned whether there is enough demand for parks to justify the cost. He
noted that a lot of the city’s investment goes into maintaining what already exists. He added
that the city is not yet contemplating substantial re-investment as there is not funding for that.
Ms. Ostby wondered if they are asking the right questions and whether it would be worth
putting money into a survey.
Ms. Peterson outlined a potential public outreach plan in 3 stages:
1. City-wide listening sessions
2. Structuring neighborhood outreach (Front Porch Forum)
3. Topically (from other committees)
Ms. Peterson also noted she is meeting with professional facilitators as to how to do this.
Mr. Conner asked if the Commission is comfortable reaching out to neighborhoods on all the
challenging issues.
Mr. Engels noted there are only 4 people attending this meeting remotely when there could be
hundreds. People have to be informed that they can participate in the writing of the
Comprehensive Plan. He felt this would result in a lot of good ideas. He also suggested using
the Chamberlin Neighborhood study as a template. He advised members to read it and to note
that none of what was planned has been done even though there are things as simple as
planting more flowers.
7. Meeting Minutes of 25 October 2022:
6
Mr. Riehle noted that the paragraph in item #6 should read “bending over backwards.”
Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the minutes of 25 October 2022 as amended. Ms. Louisos
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Other Business:
Mr. Conner said the Council is looking for a Commission member to serve on the Climate Action
Transportation Advisory Group to provide feedback to people being hired. The Group is likely
to meet 4 times between now and spring.
Mr. Chalnick expressed interest, and members agreed to have him serve in this capacity.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:05 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk