Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/11/2019 (2)SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 11 2019 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 June 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; T. Barritt, D. Seff, T. Bailey, Other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Possible executive session to discuss real estate transactions: Mr. Mittag moved that the Commission meet in executive session to discuss real estate transactions. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. The Commission entered executive session at 7:03 p.m. and resumed open session at 7:53 p.m. 4. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 5. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: There were no Commissioner announcements. Members reviewed the written staff report. 6. Initial consideration of proposed amendments to Article 9 related to TDRs: Ms. Lafferty reviewed the history. She noted there was a court ruling that some of the provisions of Article 9 of the LDRs are not legal. This ruling has been appealed. In order to provide some certainty during the appeal period, the City Council has asked that some revisions be prepared that respond to the Court decision. Ms. Lafferty added that the Council understands that 3 Interim Zoning committees are working on possible changes to the LDRs. They just wanted to put the TDR program back to where people thought it was. Ms. Lafferty then reviewed some potential amendments to Article 9. Section 9.05 is now broken out differently. There is an opening paragraph that lays out the foundation of the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) until 2016-7, the date of the last Comprehensive Plan. It establishes sending and receiving areas. Each parcel in the SEQ is assigned a number of dwelling units (1.2 per acre). There is a section on allowable density in a PUD. Anything in an NRP district is reviewed under Section 9.12. Density increase is also addressed. A new paragraph makes clear the .83 acres of land for each transferring unit. Mr. Riehle asked what happens if, for example, 4 of the acres are undevelopable. Will they still get credit for TDRs? Ms. Lafferty said the language says: “per growth acre.” Unless it is a single family house or a duplex, it would have to be reviewed as a PUD. Mr. Riehle said it seems odd to give credit for worthless land. Ms. LaRose said that is not part of the direction from the City Council for the immediate adjustments at this time. Mr. Klugo added that he does not want this to be where the city will end up after the Interim Zoning committees do their work. Mr. Gagnon asked if there is a chance the city is “chasing its tail” on this. He felt it would be unfortunate to tweak the language and then have to tweak it back again. Ms. Lafferty said the Court case can’t be heard until July or August. It is not even on a “rocket docket.” The idea was that it is possible that the IZ Committee will complete its work and provide feedback before the Court can rule. The goal is to have some certainty during this period. Mr. Gagnon asked if these changes will have to be warned for a Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Lafferty said they will, and the City Council will also hold a public hearing. Ms. Ostby said she still struggles with the affordable housing bonus. She asked if it is still clear that this type of bonus is still available without TDRs. Ms. Lafferty said it is clear and is called a “housing density increase.” Ms. Ostby felt that in the opening paragraph of 9.05, the word “maximum” was questionable as it isn’t because of affordable housing. Ms. Lafferty said she would consider that. Mr. Bailey noted the use of the word “city” in section 2.02 and “municipality” in state statutes Section 44.23. He also felt that in Section 9.25 it would be better to spell out that zoning approval has to be gotten and specifications in “D” are required. That would make it simple for anyone who wants to go through the TDR process. Mr. Seff said it is a bad idea to tweak the by-law while the appeal is pending. Mr. Gagnon said the City Council is taking advice from its attorneys. 7. Report from Committee Liaisons: Mr. Gagnon: Open Space Committee – Their next step will be public outreach. Ms. LaRose noted that dates for this have been set. She will send out the information. Mr. Klugo: The Form Based Code Committee took up a request to review potential changes to the official city map/wetland issue. A recommendation will come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ostby: The TDR Committee won’t meet again until July. They have sent out a draft which is solidly supported by committee members. Ms. LaRose noted a meeting held with Ms. Louisos, Jens Hilke, and Alan Strong focusing on forest blocks. They did a “marker session,” and you can see some interesting mapping. This may lead to a tiered approach rather than saying all forests are the same. 8. Initial consideration of proposed technical corrections to the Land Development Regulations, including umbrella approvals and procedural updates including field changes, administrative reviews and as-built plans: Ms. LaRose said the changes give a little more authority to the Administrative Officer for minor changes. The 2 appeal periods are combined but only for administrative decisions. 9. Continued review of proposed amendments to Appendix F relating to open space: Ms. LaRose said staff has created a matrix for open space types and are finding out where the “cracks” are. She noted that as they move forward, there may be a PUD type as the regulations to city -wide. There is now frustration as there is no requirement for open space outside the City Center. Ms. Ostby cited the importance of considering noise levels when dealing with dog parks. Ms. LaRose noted that what is here related to private open spaces and dog walking areas just for residents of a particular building complex. 10. Discuss approach to LDR Updates: Ms. LaRose directed attention to the written memo. She noted that current regulations for commercial parking lots require landscaped islands. Staff was asked about the possibility of solar panels as canopies. This could be an exception for plantings. Mr. Klugo said it is hard to pick one over the other. Ms. LaRose then enumerated the issues that should be ready for the first round hearing, including: TDR cleanup, some Form Based Code issues, river corridors, open space types in City Center and possibly city wide (not related to PUDs). She also noted that some things will come out of the LDRs and go into some kind of guidebook (e.g., turning radii, manhole covers, and other very technical things). Mr. Klugo felt that was OK as long as they have no public impact. He cited the new LED lights that now shine into his house. 11. Meeting Minutes of 28 May 2019: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 28 May 2019 as written. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Other Business: a. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments including updates to Inclusionary Zoning: Ms. LaRose said this is for information only and the opportunity to learn what Burlington is doing. b. Future Meetings: Members will be polled regarding availability for attendance at future meetings. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:10 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission July 9, 2019