Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/25/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 JANUARY 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 January 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; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; J. Bellavance, S. Dooley, T. Bailey 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions on emergency exit from the building in case of emergency. 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: Mr. Engels reported that the Airport Zoning Task Force has met twice. Carmine Sargent and Kim Robison are co-chairs. Brandy Saxton is the consultant working with the committee. She provided a 30-page memo on where things stand. There will be a public input session coming up on 3 February. Mr. Conner noted that the Climate Action Task Force has weighty targets established by both the City and State. Mr. Mittag said their work will affect future LDR amendments (e.g. fossil free new construction). Mr. Conner felt this would work well with the Commission’s review of the Comprehensive Plan from a timing point of view. It will also affect the city’s capital planning. Ms. Louisos asked if there is a consultant working with the group. Mr. Conner said CCRPC is currently assisting, and they can hire a consultant when they get to transportation implementation. 5. Review of draft General PUD and related amendments to Land Development Regulations: 2 Ms. Ostby said she has one overall request: an easy way to look at a map and say “here, here, here, etc.” Ms. Peterson then cited the goal of the draft as providing minor amendments to the existing PUDs in order to allow PUDs in the whole city that will end up with better outcomes than the existing regulations allow. Mr. Mittag said design will be a very big, contentious discussion. He didn’t know of any other community requiring buildings to be designed by a member of the Institute of Architects familiar with energy efficiency. He felt what is proposed is going in the right direction in some areas, but not in others. Ms. Peterson said to keep in mind there are things to put in the general PUD regulations and other things that are more appropriate in other parts of the LDRs. Ms. Ostby asked if there are any areas on the map that would not have an underlying zoning to work with. Mr. Conner said everything has an underlying zoning. He indicated on the map the areas that have no existing PUD type at this time. He said the tool provided would also allow for minor amendments to existing PUDs (e.g., change from single family to duplex). Mr. Mittag said they should focus on the transit overlay district, form based code area, etc., which is development should happen. Ms. Louisos asked if what is proposed would apply at the underlying density. Mr. Conner said no. It is the ability to move density within a parcel, but it doesn’t increase density. There is also a placeholder for TDRs. Mr. Macdonald asked what these regulations would get the applicant that subdivision and master plan regulations doesn’t provide. Ms. Peterson gave an example: with a minimum lot size at 40,000 sq. ft., buildings must be on their own lots. The Pizza Hut property that has 3 buildings on it, with a 40,000 sq. ft. lot size, could fit only 2 lots there. The 40,000 sq. ft. lot size encourages larger buildings that are not necessarily walkable, etc. The new PUDs would allow more uses in that area. Mr. Conner added that this would return the ability to have some flexibility like a commercial building in front and a residential building behind it. This would still keep the intent of the regulations. Mr. Conner said the purpose of the general PUD was to be sure the new regulations haven’t upset the apple cart in the short and medium time-frame. Mr. Conner noted that there is no minimum lot size in the City Center, and that has caused no issues, but it may not be the right thing everywhere in the city. 3 Ms. Peterson said hypothetically, with the Pizza Hut lot, if you replace the auto lot with residential, you could put all the units for the 3 lots into one building. Without a PUD, you can only get 7 units on each of the three lots. She added that in that location, you want to use land efficiently, and though the regulations don’t increase density, they allow for my efficiency. Mr. Conner then cited the OnLogic facility. They had considered purchasing the lot to the east but did not. They could do a Master Plan, but in a PUD, they would gain some flexibility. Mr. Conner did not think people will see PUDs as often as in the past, but there are circumstances where it comes up (e.g., large campuses), and it allows flexibility within what the city is trying to accomplish. Mr. Engels asked if there would be eligibility for TDRs. Mr. Conner said TDRs have been written in as a cross-reference, so that decision can be made at any time. Mr. Engels then asked about building height. Mr. Conner said that can be dealt with in the site plan, if the circumstances are there. Mr. Peterson said in the TDR section, there is a cross-reference. Ms. Ostby said that on the Pizza Hut corner, they could add density with a TDR. Mr. Conner said that is “enabled” but will only exist when the city says it can. Ms. Peterson noted that particular corner may not be the best example because the urban design overlay district already applies there. Ms. Ostby felt it would be good to discuss the density question because this will ignite good development on Shelburne Road. She asked for a parallel conversation regarding the type of density that would go there. She was very concerned with giving up “ownership based density” and noted the Governor’s agenda stresses home ownership. Ms. Louisos reminded members that the intent was to do the general PUD first at “warp speed” and then to get into the more complex things. Ms. Ostby felt ownership should be considered in the short term as there is nothing on Shelburne Road than won’t wait for the Commission to get to. Mr. Mittag agreed with the desperate need for ownership. He asked whether the owner of the Swift/Shelburne Rd. property couldn’t building 20,000 sq. ft. of residential building and have 60,000 sq. ft. of green space around it. He felt people could buy an apartment in a park-like surrounding and walk everywhere. Ms. Ostby said a first home may have to be a condo on Shelburne Rd., and right now there are only rentals there. She felt developers would respond to this at a public hearing. Mr. Riehle agreed with Ms. Ostby. He cited the area near Lowes and said he would hate to see something come in there that the Commission did not want to see. Mr. Macdonald said the Commission had talked about “weighting” TDRs. He suggested ownership could be weighted higher. 4 My Conner said the city does not have a policy on ownership vs. rental, but there are tools that can be used including ARPA funds. He suggested asking the Affordable Housing Committee to look at the ownership issue, but he added it is a very tricky area which can lead to questions of fair housing. Ms. Peterson said there is a difference between having a percentage mandate for ownership vs. heavy incentives for ownership. It is not as simple as one would hope it would be. Ms. Ostby asked to keep the issue open. Mr. Mittag asked if the Inclusionary Zoning regulations could be amended to require a higher percentage in zones of the city where it is appropriate such as Shelburne Rd/Swift Street and the C1-R15 areas. Citing line 17, he felt that density should not be constrained by what is already there, particularly in redevelopment infills. Ms. Peterson said line 17 is a more general statement. The actual standards are further down, including what is compatible. Mr. Mittag asked the reason for a minimum lot size (under C1B). Mr. Conner said along Shelburne Road, they are not finding a compelling reason for a minimum lot size. There is not in City Center and Form Based Code areas. In other districts, it may have more impact if it applies to an amendment to an existing PUD. The 2 acres is the minimum in ow density districts, and the intention is to retain numbers as close to what exists. Mr. Mittag felt they should do away with that. Mr. Conner said they might do away with it as a PUD but have it as a zoning change, but that would come with its own issues. Ms. Ostby asked about Hill Farm. Mr. Conner said they could say “and in the R7NC District within an area of 300 feet from an arterial road.” Ms. Ostby suggested pulling out areas they know are going to need more discussion (e.g., the Orchards). Ms. Peterson said there would have to be more community discussion on some areas. Ms. Ostby felt the R-1 area along Spear Street should go along with the other infill discussion. Mr. Conner said it was left out of the last round because the option was to create the TND, and the Commission thought that was too great a change. Ms. Ostby’s overall comment was that it seems like for a general PUD if the underlying zoning is driving it, why repeal it. The answer was to make it clearer for the DRB. She would like to hear feedback from the DRB if this is more helpful or whether they would like it streamlined. Ms. Louisos said the DRB always likes it when there are examples. Mr. Mittag said the minimum allotted to civic space for an urban area is 15% which he said is too small for a good quality of life, especially for multi-family buildings. He also wanted to see more opportunity for creativity and questioned what qualifies the DRB to make design 5 decisions. Mr. Conner said this sets the stage for when the DRB can grant flexibility. Staff felt 15% was pushing the envelope. People could just choose not to redevelop. Mr. Riehle said that in a 5-story complex, 15% might be a little tight. He also didn’t want to discourage development. Mr. Gagnon recalled that they did recall requiring additional civic space for each additional building story. Ms. Ostby raised the issue of private outdoor space and felt people would much prefer that to a shared space. Staff was concerned that you then wouldn’t get the group space. Ms. Ostby asked why it has to be an “either-or” situation. Ms. Ostby then moved to incorporate some private and semi-private space into the generic PUD. Mr. MacDonald seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner said they may look at that for site plans in the interest of equity. He noted that a lot of things in the city won’t be PUDs, and there is a question of 2 buildings next to each other, one having 15% open space and the other having none. Mr. Mittag felt the whole section should be rewritten to get net zero buildings, and you can’t do that with “compatibility.” Mr. Conner reminded members that at the last meeting there was talk about how to evaluate the context of what is around a PUD. If it was built in the last 10 years, it is more likely to be closer to what the city wants, but you have to be very mindful if you’re up against East Woods. Mr. Riehle asked how you encourage creativity. Mr. Conner noted the regulations used to say “innovative,” and the current language attempts to denote what “innovative” is. Ms. Louisos asked if the Commission should get feedback from the DRB. Mr. Conner suggested certainly DRB staff, possibly the Chair and other members if there is availability in the next few weeks. Ms. Peterson noted that all the “for examples” are just that, not binding. They can stay as examples or they can be elevated to standards or eliminated. She added there could be things that meet the purpose that they haven’t thought of, so there are pros and cons each way. Mr. MacDonald said they don’t want to stymie creativity and suggested doing the “gotta haves” and eliminating everything else. Mr. Gagnon suggested adding “not limited to” to encourage people to think of other things. Mr. Engels felt it was good that a Form Based Code form seems to be emerging on Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner said that could be mandated or set as an aspirational goal, something more measurable. Mr. Engels said it would make Shelburne Rd. “human“ again. Ms. Ostby felt the urban overlay district does that. 6 Mr. Mittag cited #f on page 6 and questioned whether that is confusing or contradictory. Ms. Peterson said architectural style is bigger picture thing (e.g. Cape Code style), but two different styles could have things in common (e.g., window style or both brick buildings). They wouldn’t require that every building along the block be the same style. Mr. Bailey said this all looks to him like a “shoot-ready-aim” approach. You normally start with zoning districts you want to address. He said if you look at Shelburne Rd., Williston Rd, etc., there are many zoning districts that would need to be addressed separately. He still didn’t know where the proposed regulations would apply. He added that if you’re doing infill, it often a matter of what’s empty and what isn’t. He asked how many 4-acre lots there are, and how many are smaller. He also noted that TDRs always cost more on the developing end. You pay for it with higher building costs. He said that may not be the best bet. He also said the problem is nobody knows what the cost of what is being propos3ed, which is why the Economic Development Committee said to stop before approving the new LDRs and look at that aspect, look at it now, not when you’re trying to defend it. 6. Review and possibly update to the Planning Commission Report on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations following changes prepared by the City Council: Ms. Louisos noted the Council made a few changed to the Commission’s draft, and because of that the Commission has to amend its report. Mr. Conner said that on 20 December, the Council got a series of legal qualifications. They warned a second public hearing on receipt of that. The only substantive change was to address two sections one which talked about optional PUDs at 4 acres and the other at 2 acres. At its most recent meeting, the Council added an agenda item regarding feedback from UVM asking for greater visibility of existing statutory limitations for educational and some municipal facilities. The Council decided to add a statement that added a direct reference to State Statute and to cite UVM and the Champlain Water District as examples. Mr. Gagnon then moved to affirm that the proposed changes to the draft Land Development Regulations made by the City Council on 20 December 2021 and 18 January 2022 do not alter the conclusions of the Planning Commission’s Report approved on 20 September 2021. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: a. Town of Williston Planning Commission proposed amendments to Williston Development Bylaw: 7 No issues were raised. b. Meeting Procedures: Ms. Louisos noted that the Governor has now allowed them to have remote meetings. Mr. Conner said there would still be a “live” staff person to enable the public to attend. He felt they could be safe in whatever format they chose. Mr. Mittag said he thought they were more effective when they met in person. Mr. Engels noted they got a lot of work done when they were entirely remote for many months. Members opted for individual choice. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 8, 2022