Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/27/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 June 2023, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301 City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, P. Engels, D. Leban, L. Smith, F. McDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, Senior City Planner; S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, J. Nick, R. Doyle, V. Bolduc 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: Members agreed to move Agenda item #8 to #6. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Peterson introduced Nick Atherton, the city’s newest member of the Planning Department. Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Peterson is now Senior City Planner and Mr. Atherton is City Planner. There will now be Planning & Zoning liaisons to the Energy and Affordable Housing Committees. These changes will also build capacity to take on more projects. 5. Upcoming Schedule and Public Outreach: Ms. Louisos said the hope is to have a full draft for the 11 July meeting. There will be time for members to add anything that is missing. On 25 July, there will be a public comment session with possible additional listening sessions in late July. On 8 August, the Commission can discuss anything that was raised at the listening sessions. On 22 August, there can be any needed further Commission discussion, circulation of the updated draft reflecting changes from the July and August meetings, and a motion to go to Public Hearing. Ms. Petersons said there could be a special 15 August meeting to see if there is anything to add from public comments. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 Mr. Conner said that the version the Commission approves at the next 2 meetings will be the one to go to the public for comment. He reminded members that the document has to go to the City Council by 16 October so it can be warned in time for their public hearings. It must be adopted by 2 February 2024. Mr. Smith asked if there is a way to get an extension if the Commission can’t do it on time. Mr. Conner said the city can’t amend the LDRs without a Comprehensive Plan as well as other “uncomfortable” ramifications. Ms. Peterson stressed that if the Planning Commission process drags out, it pushes the City Council process toward the end of the year, and the aim is not to have the Council discussion taking place during the holiday season. Ms. Peterson said the goal is to hold listening sessions at different hours (e.g., morning, Sunday afternoon, etc.), and she would like to have 2 Commission members at each session (21-30 July). The maximum time commitment would be 2 hours. Committee feedback has been requested by 2 August. Members agreed to listening sessions at Noon on 27 and 29 July and 1 August. 6. City Plan FY24: Introduction, etc.: Mr. Smith said he felt the focus on the climate issue is lost. He proposed a paragraph to add after the first paragraph. Ms. Leban said it doesn’t sound like the rest of the plan. Mr. Mittag asked to change “human focused” to “sustainable.” Mr. Smith agreed that housing is a major issue, but he felt it had to be seen through the lens of climate change. Mr. Conner said that when he looks at the draft recommendations, he felt that all topic should be looked at through all 4 lenses, with the climate crisis above the others. Mr. Smith moved that as the introduction is put together, it should be clear that climate crisis is the overreaching lens through which all else in the plan is viewed. Mr. Mittag seconded. Ms. Leban said they have to weigh in public comments. Ms. Peterson cautioned against numbering. Mr. Smith said it doesn’t mean climate is more important than economics, but economics should be viewed through the climate lens. He felt the other 3 are “sub-lenses.” Mr. Mittag felt that numbering gives force to the message. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 Ms. Peterson said that instead of “gloom and doom,” the plan should present major challenges and “here’s how we plan to address them.” Mr. Doyle disagreed that climate is the biggest and the others are lesser and that climate supersedes housing. There are people with no place to live. He didn’t feel that climate should be above the things that mostly affect people. Mr. Bolduc said climate is an international issue. Housing is a local issue. He would like to see housing better represented. He felt that Mr. Engels’ idea of fostering a statewide partnership is very important. He added that while it is important to see the largest context, this document is a regional context. He liked Mr. Engels’ language. Ms. Louisos said that while she liked stronger language for the Introduction, she still liked all 4 items being overreaching. She was OK with climate change being first, but she did not want to see the items numbered. Ms. Dopp said if all municipalities say it is not a top issue, it won’t happen. If the earth is destroyed, the other items won’t matter. Mr. Smith agreed that all bullet points are important. To say climate is overreaching doesn’t mean housing is ignored. It says to do housing in a way that supports climate goals. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-2 with Ms. Louisos and Ms. Leban voting against. Regarding changes to the titles of the 3 remaining goals, Ms. Leban said what is not included is a specific goal regarding housing that is built to last. Mr. Mittal said that should be a goal of the housing section. Ms. Peterson said that can be a topic for the 11 July meeting. Mr. Engels then moved to approve the following three titles: Inclusive, fair and just Thoughtful and sustainable (changed from “human-focused”) Collaborative and engaged (changed from “opportunity oriented”) Mr. Engels moved to approve the three titles. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 Ms. Louisos suggested going with shortened versions for the public outreach. She showed this on the screen. Ms. Peterson said this was very helpful as a guidance document for the public and staff. The concern now is that something may get left out so that it is not considered an important goal. She felt the shortened version solves that. Mr. Smith questioned whether it may be a little too condensed. Mr. Conner noted that if there is one sentence, it will be at the head of every project the Commission takes on in the next 5 years. Ms. Louisos said she liked the table with short descriptions under climate change. Mr. Smith liked adding CO2 emissions to the climate change paragraph. Ms. Dopp suggested using greenhouse gases instead of CO2. The following language was added as a first sentence of the Climate Change goal: “Prioritize goals that mitigate climate change impacts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the city safe, clean and green.” This language was unanimously approved. Land Use Areas: Members reviewed each of the city areas. Mr. Francis MacDonald questioned whether to include language about parking in the Central Area. Ms. Peterson said the same would apply to Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner noted that parking lots shift to serve a number of locations instead of one per use. Ms. Leban said some people may object to connecting Tilley Drive/Kimball Avenue/Community Drive as it is an archaeologically sensitive area. Mr. Mittag added that there would also be a wetland crossing. Mr. Conner said studies say you either build more connections or expand to 4 lanes. Mr. Mittag felt you shouldn’t cross a major wetland. Mr. Conner said there are 2 planned connections: Tilley Drive to Kimball Avenue and Tilley Drive to Community Drive. The City will have to prioritize one, and there will have to be a thorough study of each one. Ms. Louisos added that this came from a study the Commission asked to be done regarding buildout area. Ms. Leban said they seemed to just look at transportation issues, not environmental issues. Ms. Peterson noted the study says to provide connections, but it doesn’t say how to do this. Members agreed to use the word “area” instead of the more direct references. Mr. Mittag asked to “soften” the 12B language. Mr. Conner said the City Council voted to keep it on the long-range plan, in case it is needed 50 years from now. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 It was noted with regard to the Southwest Section that the City is working with Regional Planning to make sure energy goals are being met. Mr. Conner noted there is more emphasis in this plan than in previous plans regarding creating a sense of space along Shelburne Road. Land Use Map: Mr. Conner said a “slightly fuzzy” map has been created. Some areas have been identified that were “overemphasized” in the 2016 map. Green areas at Central and Orchard Schools should be shown as they are shown at Chamberlin School. There are also new green areas to come on line in O’Brien and South Village developments. Ms. Peterson cited the need to show more transitions. The new map was shown. Mr. Smith said he would like to see the area west of Shelburne Road that is shown for intense development become all green. He also noted some areas at the edges of parks that would allow for some small commercial development. Ms. Peterson noted that “yellow” areas do allow for small scale commercial. Mr. Mittag said he would like to see the “red” area on Williston Rd. become housing with commercial. Mr. Conner said that is what “red” is supposed to reflect. Mr. Mittag asked if that area could be expanded north of Williston Road into the “yellow.” Ms. Peterson said that is getting into the Chamberlin area. Mr. Conner said it is mostly single family housing with some occasional commercial. Mr. Conner said there is a question of whether to show a band of orange there to allow for townhouses. Ms. Leban said that Williston Road commercial uses are now underused, and there are too many parking lots on a number of the properties. She felt there could be more residential there. She said she didn’t want to preclude better uses of that land. She had no problem leaving houses as they are, but a new buyer, having spent so much money, might want to get more use of it. Ms. Peterson said some details can be discussed in zoning discussions. Mr. Conner said making it “orange” may clue the Commission to spend more time on that area. Ms. Louisos suggested an action item to address that but leave it “yellow” for now. Ms. Peterson explained the process and limitations of keeping it “yellow” as it could limit how high you can SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 go. Ms. Leban noted it is the only “yellow” major roadway in the city. Mr. Conner suggested waiting for public comment before making a decision. Mr. Nick expressed his confusion, particularly with regard to the Hill Farm area. He said in 2016 it was designated as medium-high density based on a plan he submitted which the city used to designate the use of the property. Zoning for that property never was addressed until last year. The property is close to schools, to the University, to the Hospital, etc. There are more daytime jobs on Hinesburg Road than anywhere in the city. He felt the city would meet its climate action goals if it allowed higher density on that land. He said there are now only 16 commercial lots in South Burlington that are available for development. He asked why the Commission isn’t taking a more realistic view of that property. It is just half a mile from public transit. He felt the property’s designation should mimic the 2016 designation and said it is the epitome of smart growth, and the current zoning is very limiting. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is not arguing that. Mr. Nick asked how long it will take to get zoning that will allow the plan. Ms. Louisos said there is “some movement” to get that. Ms. Louisos asked if Mr. Nick wants more commercial on that property. Mr. Nick said it makes sense to expand the “purple.” Mr. Conner said one question is the scale of development that Mr. Nick wants there. Ms. Leban said they also have to keep in mind the view corridors. Mr. Nick asked if that is the “800 pound gorilla.” He said they have done some visual analyses which show you would be looking over rooftops because the land descends. A member of the audience addressed the green space between 2 yellow spaces near the Shelburne Town Line. He said he has 16 acres there, and all of that area is now green. Mr. Conner showed the area on the map. He indicated the habitat blocks and land with Act 250 restrictions. He said that Act 250 as refused to relocate that land, so it is green because it is restricted. It can be used for agriculture. The audience member showed the area he is concerned with and said it had always been yellow. Mr. Conner said the change occurred because of a habitat block. The audience members said that was done with a “windshield survey.” He added that land was never meant to be preserved. He also noted he planted 1000 trees there. Ms. Louisos said it is a habitat issue. Mr. Mittag said they should look at it but move on now. Mr. Doyle noted a road shown near Barrett Street between near San Remo. He felt there should be no road there. Mr. Conner said the zoning is T-3. It is on the map as a dead end road. They did not want to show it as crossing Potash Brook. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2023 Mr. Doyle also noted UVM property at the northwest corner of the map. There is not a lot happening there, but it is a prime corridor. He felt it should be red because there is already a parking garage there, and it is a very highly travelled street. Members considered whether to use the fuzzy map in the plan. Ms. Louisos moved to use the fuzzy map as presented. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6- 0. 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 10:41 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk