Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/08/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 FEBRUARY 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 February 2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planning; C. Trombly, D. Peters 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 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: Ms. Louisos advised that at last night’s City Council meeting the Council adopted the Land Development Regulations with a few small changes. The vote was not unanimous. The Council may come back to the Commission with some questions. Mr. Conner noted that South Burlington is now among, if not the, state leader in flood plain management. Ms. Ostby said she was asked to bring the issue of “rent vs. ownership” to the Affordable Housing committee. She wasn’t clear what to ask them, so she has not yet raised that questions. She did note that Ms. Louisos will be helping her with that, and Mr. Conner is working on something from a legal point of view. Mr. Conner said regulations are not the only tool to address that issue (e.g., ARPA funds). Mr. Mittag asked if there are ways it can be regulated as he had thought it was up to the developer what to build. Mr. Conner said it is a complex area of law, and he did not want the Commission to rush into it. He did note that there are buildings being built in South Village now that will be sale units. He added that it interesting how markets can shift. Mr. Mittag asked if there can be a mix of rent and buy in one building. Mr. Conner said he was not sure what the legal landscape is for that. Ms. Louisos said she knows the Affordable Housing Committee has looked at this in the past. She asked whether they could direct the Planning Commission on how to do it, if they can’t do it themselves. 2 Mr. Macdonald said he would be very leery about regulating ownership vs rental. He would favor incentivizing. Ms. Ostby said she would like more information on how the Commission should receive information from other committees. Ms. Louisos said committees have often gone through staff. Mr. Conner said he and Ms. Louisos have begun to talk about how to get information from committees to the City Council. Mr. Mittag said there will be a lot of product from the Climate Action Task Force that will have an impact on what the Planning Commission does going forward. Mr. Engels noted that the Airport Rezoning’s public listening session had to be postponed due to the snowstorm. 5. Discussion of General PUD Draft and updates to Site Plans and Master Plans: Ms. Peterson said she had a conversation with DRB staff and got insight as to what would be helpful in the review process. a. Civic and open space: Ms. Peterson said civic and open space do not have to be tied to the PUD tool. She noted that in the meeting packet there was a requirement that is specific to the PUD. She noted that in the LDRs, there is an open space requirement in subdivisions. The question is whether developments would be covered by that requirement. Site plans also do require some civic or open space. Anything over 2 acres already has that requirement. If you put it in a site plan, you would catch those developments. Ms. Peterson said anything smaller than 2 acres a requirement would become burdensome. Ms. Ostby said someone had asked her whether “private” outdoor space would qualify as civic or open space. She felt this could be helpful in some of the smaller parcels. Mr. Mittag said if a development is residential, civic/open space will influence the quality of life. He felt they should require as much civic space as possible and suggested taller buildings with more open space. Ms. Peterson said the site plan requirements would be identical to what is required in the T-4 district of Form Based Code. It would take that standard and apply it to all site plans. Ms. Louisos asked about the type of open space that would count. Ms. Peterson directed attention to Table 11B which enumerates types of open/civic space. All require some outdoor element, and site amenities must be communal. “Per unit” does not qualify under that. Mr. Conner noted that when the Planning Commission adopted the City Center Form Based Code, they did not want individual open 3 space to count. Mr. Mittag felt that was a good decision and did not think balconies should were a “civic space.” Mr. Conner cited an example of the Citco redevelopment got approval for a 2-1/2 story building. The Form Based Code site amenity standard would likely be able to be accommodated on a property like that. A larger amenity, however, could have the effect of shrinking the project. He noted that anything that requires a site plan would have an amenity associated with it. A larger development would to have to meet the civic space requirement. Ultimately, the role of a PUD would allow for creativity but not for amounts. Mr. Engels asked why not just extend Form Based Code to Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner explained that they are moving in that direction with tools such as these. The reason for not going there formally is that in the City Center it was a clear vision of what it would look like. Shelburne Road has more variability (e.g., car dealerships). He felt they could get close to a Form Based Code but without the formality that is in City Center. Ms. Ostby asked if they go this route, would this be part of the General PUD package. Ms. Peterson said it would. Ms. Ostby then asked whether a balcony could be part of that with under 2-acre site plans. Ms. Peterson said that is not a bad idea, but it is more complicated. Ms. Ostby asked what is within a quarter of a mile from Shelburne Rd. that could be considered open space. Ms. Peterson said there would still be a requirement for on-site open space. If there is nothing within a quarter of a mile, all the open space would be on site. Mr. Conner added that they could also consider indoor common space and cited the new Larkin building which has an upstairs common area with a view of Lake Champlain. Ms. Peterson noted that the quarter-mile would have to be measured from the building exit in this draft. Ms. Ostby reminded members that they are talking about major arteries. Children cannot cross Shelburne Road, Kennedy Drive or Hinesburg Road. Ms. Peterson said the quarter-mile would have to be “walkable.” Ms. Ostbly cited the need for extra care. Mr. Macdonald said the onus would have to be on the developer to prove there is a safe, walkable connection. Ms. Ostby cited the need to be careful of the definition of safety. She didn’t want a developer to prefer to do a one-story bank. She noted that school buses are not even allowed to stop on Shelburne Road. b. How the DRB can change standards Mr. Mittag raised the question of what the DRB can and can’t waive. He said if they don’t allow waivers, especially for height, they will never get the density or the affordability they want. Ms. Louisos said the long-term answer is to go up to satisfy affordability. She noted that TDRs may play a role in it as well. Mr. Mittag said that now that there is Inclusionary Zoning, they have to understand what the mission is: whether they are building “homes for people.” He cited the need for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments for families and studios for professionals. 4 Ms. Louisos questioned whether they are missing anything regarding block size, etc. Mr. Conner said the subdivision regulations can be used for that. Ms. Peterson said that in site plan regulations 14.06a and 1406c, there are standards that the DRB has been trying to apply without much directions. By moving the design standards there, it helps the DRB clarify a standard they have been trying to apply. Mr. Conner showed the language of those sections. He cited the CVS building on Williston Road as an example of the result of that issue. Ms. Peterson noted that they have added a section that allows modifying a standard when it relates to alternative energy and energy efficient goals. Ms. Peterson then directed attention to specific language designed to address properties such as Hill Farm. It would allow a more commercially oriented development closer to Hinesburg Road. The General PUD would apply to the first 400 feet of Hinesburg Road and the TND would be appropriate after that. The question is whether height is a concern. Mr. Conner noted that the zoning in R7-NC must be a TND. If you take the new approach, the first 400 feet could just use the underlying zoning. He showed a graphic to illustrate this. Mr. Mittag urged caution in not blocking some of the best views in the city. Ms. Ostby suggested an alteration to protect views, creating the gap at the southern end but keeping the height limit. The issue of zoning for one property was raised. Mr. Conner said he was comfortable with this because the Comprehensive Plan allows for a transition of uses. Mr. Macdonald said he was comfortable with and noted they had promised something an NCD in that area. Members supported staff reaching out to the property owner to discuss. Mr. Conner then addressed some “clean-up” things from what was adopted by the Council. He noted that where the Master Plan applies to multiple buildings on a single or complex lot, there are some small properties where the owner is making a small change that would now require a Master Plan. He felt they might want to drop that or to streamline the Master Plan process. He noted that the first two projects staff saw had this problem. Members were OK with removing the multiple buildings on a single lot from the Master Plan requirement. Mr. Conner said staff can have a cleaned up version in the next packet and the Commission can warn a public hearing at its next meeting. This could get to the Council by late March. 6. Meeting Minutes: Members asked to delay approval of the minutes. 5 7. Other Business: No other business was presented. 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 February 23, 2022