Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/12/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 September 2023, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Engels, Acting Chair; M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, D. Leban, L. Smith, F. McDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; R. Doyle 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Mr. Donner 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: Mr. Conner noted that the City is scheduled to be in front of the Downtown Board on 25 September. The City is expecting the Board’s support. Staff attended a meeting in Randolph today regarding the next 25 years. There were a lot of different perspectives. 5. Consider the following proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. LDR-23-03 – Multiple Structures on a Single Lot b. LDR-23-04 – City Center Form Based Code: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners c. LDR-23-05 – Technical Corrections Mr. Conner explained the amendments as follows: #a: He advised that the City has entered into a development agreement with the Holiday Inn/Joe Larkin regarding the Holiday Inn development site. There is, however, a technical issue. Holiday Inn was there first. There was an agreement to build a building in front of Holiday Inn SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 2 and a building to the east (which is being built now). The plan was then to renovate the Holiday Inn. However, it was found that the Holiday Inn building is in worse shape than anticipated and has to be removed. This has created a problem. Because of the sharp turn in the road, there is a gap where the Holiday Inn was, and the regulations say no building can take its place. There are also several other sites in the city where this situation can happen. The proposed amendment addresses that situation. At the same time, there is a connected amendment (not part of the development agreement). When you build more than 4 stories, there must be a minimum 12-foot setback from the primary and secondary building facades. #b. This is a technical amendment related to the NRP which makes the rules consistent. #c. This allows a mobile home park an exemption from the rule that requires a principal building to be on its own lot. The only place this could apply is in City Center, but it is not likely. Discussion on the amendments then followed; #1: Ms. Leban cited the need to think about how streets are defined. She said streets should not be defined only in terms of vehicles. She noted that this amendment deals only with vehicular streets and asked why there can’t be an extension for a “pedestrian street.” Mr. Conner said staff generally agrees with that, and there are some things that will be discussed in the coming year. There is a lot of validity to “pedestrian streets,” but the aim is to get it right, and there will have to be standards. Ms. Leban wondered if that space can be made better and get things rolling in a better way. She noted that UMall will be even more of an example of this issue. Mr. Conner noted that the space between buildings is not now defined as “street,” and there are amenities there. Ms. Leban suggested that instead of making it an exception, define it as a “pedestrian oriented street.” Mr. Conner said the challenge is that the building now under construction would become a non-conformity, and a quick solution is needed now. Mr. Engels suggested a field trip to the area. Mr. Conner showed a plan of the area and identified the roads and buildings. He showed where the “space” would be created and also the location of the courtyard area and green spaces. He then showed where the non-conformity would be. That building wasn’t designed to meet the standards because it was assumed there would be a building in front of it. The design of the commercial building would have a commercial use on the first floor, parking to the rear. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 3 Mr. Conner showed where the access to the parking would be and also the ground level parking. The front building is currently planned at 5 stories, but the developer is wrestling with the required setbacks. Mr. Mittag said he didn’t see why they should make an exception for the building facing the Interstate. He felt there is an aesthetic component, even if you’re just driving by. He suggested terrace/balcony space which would make a big difference for residents as well. Ms. Peterson said requiring the 5th floor setback on the 2 street facing sides creates construction problems. A compromise of 10 feet was suggested. Mr. Duncan MacDonald said he didn’t want to lose a floor of that building because of a few feet of setback. He saw no reason for that on the Interstate side. Mr. Mittag felt that open air space would be beneficial for people in the building. Mr. Doyle suggested creating a well-designed molding on the 5th floor instead of the setback. He felt that could be just as attractive. He noted that buildings usually have the most interesting detail on the lower floor. This would be a chance for people to see that interest from afar. Mr. Francis MacDonald thought the setback is more important from the pedestrian side than from the Interstate side. Mr. Smith said if the regulations restrict how people build vertically, they won’t build vertically, and the city wants that verticality, especially in this location. He suggested a rooftop space instead of terraces. He added that there are a lot of ways to make buildings look good other than setbacks. Ms. Peterson stressed that this amendment will apply to more than one place (e.g., San Remo Drive and other buildings facing the Interstate). Mr. Engels said his concern is to have a nice looking building. He was disappointed with the City Center buildings but cited the Larkin building on Shelburne Road is nice looking. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 4 Mr. Smith then moved to approve LDR-23-04 as presented and warn it for public hearing on 10 October 2023. Mr. Francis MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Leban and Mr. Mittag abstaining. Members then considered LDR-23-03. Mr. Smith commented that it is frustrating not to be able to put several nice looking small homes on one lot. Mr. Conner noted there is a “cottage court” option which is allowed only in T-3 but could be allowed elsewhere. Ms. Peterson said the bigger issue is that you can’t have 4 units on a quarter-acre lot. Mr. Conner said there is a package of tools that is more intentional; here, the amendment deals only with mobile home parks. Ms. Peterson added that mobile home parks are very specifically defined in State Statute. She also said there will be a lot of opportunity for the Commission to go forward with things that make sense for the City regarding S-100, and they can be dealt with over the winter. Mr. Mittag then moved to approve LDR-23-03 and warn for public hearing on 10 October 2023. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner then explained that LDR-23-05 makes a table consistent with the text. Mr. Mittag moved to approve LDR-23-05 and warn for public hearing on 10 October 2023. Mr. Duncan MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner noted there is now a requirement that the report accompanying the amendments has to make a statement as to how the amendments affect zoning, etc. Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the accompanying report. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Request to the Planning Commission for support for Beta Manufacturing Facility to install a MW-DC/960 KW AC rooftop photovoltaic electric generation system, 154 DaVinci Drive, and waiver of remainder of 45-day pre-application notice: Ms. Peterson explained that Beta has to get approval for their solar installation. The Commission can waive the 45-day notice and also send a letter indicating that the installation meets the City’s goals and is supported by the City because it is consistent with the City Plan. Mr. Conner added that State Law allows a maximum of 500 KW. This is more than that. How SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 5 they meet the law is that they are a co-applicant with Green Mountain Power. Mr. Conner also added that it was his understanding that the Beta buildings will still consume more. Mr. Mittag moved to support the Beta installation and the waiver of the 45-day notice as presented. Ms. Leban seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Vermont HOME Act of 2023 (Act 47/S-100) Overview Presentation by Staff: Ms. Peterson noted that the HOME Act amends pieces of State Statutes. She provided members with the entire text of the Act and also a document from the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Act became effective on 1 July of this year. She then showed a power point of what the Commission needs to consider. a. Duplexes: This section will have a potential impact on TDRs/Inclusionary Zoning; the Conservation PUD density yield; the cottage building type; and dimensions outside the Form Based Code area b. Multi-unit: Allows 3 and 4-unit buildings in R1, LN, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRP; 4 units will be allowed in any district that is served by municipal water and sewer c. Accessory Units (ADUs): The City is likely in compliance and there will likely be no required changes d. Parking Minimums: LDR Sect. 13.02B(1): change from 1.69 for a 2+ bedroom multi-family unit outside the Form Based Code e. Hotel Housing: must be allowed f. Housing density: Affects SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRD, R1, R2, R3, QCP, LLN, R7, I-O where residential is allowed; does not apply where residential is not allowed. Requires 5 or more units per acre; density cannot be more restrictive than for single family dwellings Ms. Peterson said the Planning Commission will have a robust discussion of this and about aligning this with the amendments to the Water and Sewer Ordinances. It would mean expanding the water/sewer area. A sewer service area must be established and density must be adjusted. Ms. Peterson added that some of this may wind up being addressed by courts. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 6 g. Affordable Housing: Affects LDR 19.01 Inclusionary Zoning and Appendix C: Dimensions. It adds a definition of affordable housing development and creates an allowance for a 40% increase. It will require reviewing and clarifying Inclusionary Zoning regulations and bonuses. Any area with municipal sewer/water will have to permit affordable housing that strictly complies with the Vermont Fire and Safety Code. There is a question as to how this will work with the City’s TDR program. h. Emergency Shelters: There will have to be an “Emergency Shelter Use” and consideration of allowing other uses to be temporary shelters without a change in use (e.g., schools, large retail areas). Mr. Conner said some things to “chew on” include: a. Are there opportunities for thinking beyond the minimums? b. Could there be an opportunity to streamline the City’s regulations? c. Could some districts be consolidated? Ms. Peterson said the City is currently out of compliance with the new State law. The first thing will be to bring the City into compliance, then go back and see what else to do. Mr. Conner added that the DRB is doing its best to interpret the Statutes and comply with the law. 8. Meeting Minutes of 22 August 2023: Mr. Mittag corrected his statement to read: You can’t unbuild what is already built in the Southeast Quadrant. It was also noted that the term additional dwelling units should read accessory dwelling units. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 22 August 2023 as amended. Ms. Leban seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Other Business: None presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:02 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk