Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/12/2019 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 MARCH 2019 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 March 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, K. Van Woert, A. Chalnik, 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. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Van Woert expressed concern with the city’s striving for “connectivity” of neighborhoods and felt that it resulted in a threat to wildlife corridors. She asked the Commission to reconsider that. She also felt the wildlife corridors are being mowed at the wrong time of year. She asked the Commission to “consider the big picture” and noted so much of the Southeast Quadrant is “a patchwork.” 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner: The City Council re-elected the same slate of officers following the 5 March vote. Will meet with the Bike/Ped Committee tomorrow. Is working with the Dog Park Committee to find a piece of land that will work. 5. Review Draft Elements of Subdivision/PUD/Master Plan Project: a. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas: Ms. Murray said they are trying to wrap up the resource/conservation section. The subdivision regulations are almost completely drafted now. Regarding resource protection, they are looking at regulatory options including the following: a. State data, maps including the Vermont Natural Resource Atlas, Biofinder, local studies and inventories. Ms. Murray stressed that all maps have to be verified. b. Legal actions including the Vermont Planning & Development Act 24VSA, Chapter 117, regulatory takings (both federal and state, with clearly stated public interests, identification of resources for protection/conservation, a direct nexus/link between regulatory protections and project impacts, and viable economic use of land), and the JAM Golf decision which requires clearly stated public policies, resources identified for protection/conservation, and clear guidance for applicants and the DRB. Mr. Klugo questioned how property rights play into this and cited the need for balance with conservation. Ms. Murray said Vermont mostly relies on Federal law. A landowner has to have economic use of his/her land, even if it is a wetland (when there is no other option for the landowner). Ms. LaRose raised the question of what it means to “protect.” She suggested there may be a “bucket” of all resources and that all of those resources may not be treated the same. Ms. Murray said that in zoning, you have to regulate resources specifically. There are also regulations for zoning districts (e.g., general standards, overlay districts). Ms. Murray said that the focus for this meeting is on subdivision regulations and PUDs, recognizing the developability of the land and the need to address resources on that property. Ms. Murray then noted that “primary conservation areas” are legally definable and include floodplains, wetlands, very steep slopes, etc. They are typically deducted from the total parcel acreage and she recommend that this be the case in South Burlington. Mr. Klugo noted a recent development on a steep slope in the City of Burlington which was accomplished by canterlevering out. Ms. Murray said this is allowed in Burlington but not in many other places. Secondary conservation areas include more extensive “open space” resources and vary in significance, vulnerability, function and available documentation. Examples include farmland, forest land, wildlife habitats, scenic areas. They must be clearly defined community conservation priorities. The regulations may specify a minimum percentage of total SCA acreage to be retained as open space. Mr. Macdonald asked if there would be a ranking of these resources. Mr. Gagnon said that is up to the Commission. Ms. Murray said her suggestion is “yes.” Mr. Klugo asked whether mitigation is allowed for both primary and secondary conservation areas. Ms. Murray said it is. Mr. Conner added that fewer circumstances allow for mitigation in primary areas than in secondary areas. They are also much more specific. Ms. Murray said it is also the intent to define “building lots.” Ms. Murray then differentiated between “subdivision regulations” and PUD regulations. She noted that subdivision regulations regulate the pattern of development, density, streets, blocks, lots, intended use. They are tied to underlying zoning district standards (minimum lot area, frontage, width of setbacks, maximum allowable density and maximum building lot coverage requirements etc.). The resource protection objectives for subdivision regulations will be written to avoid/minimize resource fragmentation, maintain contiguous open space, provide long-term conservation management (e.g., deed restrictions, management plans, single/common ownership, etc.). The intention is also to introduce building envelopes. Mr. Mittag noted that in some places the number of times you can subdivide a property is limited. Ms. Murray then showed a plan representing a conventional subdivision and one representing a subdivision focusing on conservation. The latter indicates sensitive areas and easement or deed restrictions. The proposed Conservation PUD would modify the underlying zoning to separate density from lot size requirements. Typically, they conserve 70% of the land. Mr. Gagnon noted this means having a higher density on the rest of the land. Ms. Murray said that is often not popular. She also stressed the need to clearly identify what you want to protect in the regulations. Ms. Murray then showed a development potential from “Growing Greener” (by Randall Arendt) indicating where houses are to be placed, trails, etc. Mr. Riehle questioned whether this puts more onus on the DRB. Mr. Gagnon said the more specific the regulations are, the better for the DRB. Ms. LaRose said the DRB would still have to make some calls regarding “encroachments.” Mr. Conner added that the intent is to have additional guidance to the applicant and to the DRB about what else is needed (e.g., street connections.). One question is at what stage would the applicant have to provide specific information. Ms. Murray then outlined the next steps as follows” a. Defining primary and secondary conservation areas b. Creating resource protection strategies c. Addressing conservation PUD considerations (e.g., mandatory vs. elective, thresholds and triggers in acreage, etc.) Ms. LaRose directed attention to the staff memo and noted that the subdivision regulations are in an early state. She also noted that some things are difficult to regulate because the data is not there. Regarding buildable/developable area, Mis LaRose asked whether for the purpose of a simple subdivision (not a PUD) members would find that resources should be discounted from the buildable area and thus discounted from the density calculation. Ms. Murray said that most buildable areas exclude things that are hazards such as surface waters, floodplains and very steep slopes. Mr. Klugo said he would keep the underlying density but take out the primary conservation areas from it. He also noted that a PUD provides more flexibility and more creativity. Ms. Ostby asked how much more expensive is the PUD route than the simple subdivision. Ms. Murray said it is a little more expensive. She also stressed that you can’t remove all the value from the land, but you can reduce it. Mr. Klugo said he would hesitate to go down that road given all the recent case law. Mr. Conner added that were the Commission to go down this path, each parcel would wind up being different, with different features. Mr. Riehle said he didn’t feel a swampland deserved a full TDR. Ms. LaRose said everything seems to be density based, and that should not happen. She asked members to talk about design and how resources are used. If something can support 10 units, it should have 10 unites; if can support only 2 units, that what it should have. Mr. Klugo also noted that the fewer units you build, the more expensive those units become. He also said he is struggling with the fact that you can get 20 units with a PUD but only 10 with a subdivision. Ms. LaRose said in a subdivision you have no standards. If you want more units, there have to be standards. Mr. Klugo said he is on board with everything except stripping away density. Ms. Ostby asked why not have everything be a PUD. Ms. Murray said that then you have no underlying standards to modify. She said the Commission can said that if 50% or more of the land is in a primary conservation area you MUST have a Conservation PUD. Mr. Klugo said that if you allow the subdivision part, you will get more of what is going on on Dorset Street now. Ms. LaRose noted that almost nobody ever come in for a simple subdivision. In a straw vote 4 of the six members felt that in a simple subdivision both resources and density should be discounted. Members then considered the following proposed PUD requirements: a. For larger parcels, except in the City Center Form Based Code District, at the last meeting members had discussed reducing the draft 5 acre minimum lot size for a PUD to 4 or more acres. This should be reviewed in relation to the definitions of “minor” and “major” subdivisions. Currently, all PUDs are considered “major” subdivisions b. There would be specified types of PUDs depending on the zoning district (e.g., the SEQ). This is still under discussion. c. Whether to require site plan or subdivision review for multiple principal structures on a lot. d. Whether to require a PUD if 50% or more of the total tract area is included in a primary or secondary conservation area. e. Making a PUD elective for smaller parcels, including infill development Ms. Ostby suggested lowering the threshold to fewer than 4 acres. Mr. Conner said that raises the question of having a minimum size to accomplish the objectives of a PUD. At 4 acres, you can build a cohesive neighborhood. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with a “domino effect” of the 3‐acre parcels. Ms. Murray noted the bulk of standards will be under the subdivision regulations. Ms. LaRose added that she felt those standards would address the possible “domino effect.” She also noted that if you set the minimum too low, you can’t get fit in some of the desirable elements. Mr. Klugo questioned how to manage the 9-unit developments that a skirting Act 250. Ms. LaRose said not one of those developments was under 4 acres. Mr. Gagnon suggested setting a 4-acre minimum with anything under that being optional. Commissioners agreed. Ms. Murray said anything under 4 acres must be as Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner questioned whether that should be with 50% primary/secondary conservation areas. Mr. Gagnon felt that if all the conservation area was secondary, it shouldn’t have to be a Conservation PUD. Ms. Chalnik asked how something such as riparian areas got downgraded from primary to secondary. Ms. Murray reviewed the history and stressed that “hazard areas” are still primary. Mr. Riehle and Mr. Mittag felt some secondary areas should be primary. Ms. Ostby asked what this would do to the 1.2 coverage. Mr. Klugo asked how you could still maintain the economic value of the land. Mr. Conner suggested members consider other planning tools, noting that there is still the issue of maintaining walkable neighborhoods. Ms. LaRose said that members should consider what it means to make something secondary. You don’t just put a parking lot on it. Ms. Murray again stressed the need to be sensitive to legal issues and economic value. Mr. Klugo said that by nature development is disruptive to the planet. The question is how to have development and conservation. Mr. Mittag also noted that there are now 7 billion people worldwide today and that number is expected to be 9 billion by 2050. Mr. Klugo said you can manage compromises in the secondary bucket that you can’t do in the primary bucket. If everything goes in the primary, there can be no compromise. Mr. Gagnon asked that at the next meeting Mr. Conner show the impacts of different layers of secondary conservation. He felt there should be a primary list that is unbendable. A member of the audience expressed concern with maximizing density in smaller areas. Mr. Klugo said if you push all development to where you can have only a 10‐story building, and you can’t have a 10‐story building, you eliminate the economic value of the land. Ms. Ostby asked that there be a chapter heading for “energy efficiency.” 6. Reports from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Transferable Development Rights: Mr. Mittag said the Committee has asked the Planning Commission to develop a registry of TDRs (what lands they apply to). They are developing 3 proposals: fix TDRs and make them workable, dispense with them altogether, create a TDR “bank” and have the city buy them over time with open space money (or something else) and sell them or retire them. Mr. Klugo asked how the committee’s work is impacted by the Court decision. Mr. Mittag said it isn’t. They feel the TDR regulations can be fixed. They are getting counsel from the City Attorney on this. Mr. Conner noted the City Council has not yet had a discussion regarding that Court decision. He also stressed that the decision did not eliminate the concept of TDRs. Mr. Klugo said he would pause the work of the TDR committee until there is a determination of how to address the Court judgment. b. Open Space: Mr. Gagnon said the committee has a list of evaluation criteria and scoring criteria for open space. They will look to see how that is impacted by the mapping. They will then ask for public input. 7. Discuss adoption schedule for amendments to the Land Development Regulations: singular sets or multiple sets: Mr. Conner asked if members wanted to see the whole PUD package or individual packages. Mr. Gagnon said his gut feeling was to move things along and not hold back something that was finished. 8. Confirm postponement of initial review of LDR amendment requests until completion of Interim Zoning projects: Members confirmed that this was their wish. 9. Meeting Minutes of 26 February 2019 Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 26 February as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Macdonald abstaining. 10. 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 10:08 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: March 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm) 5. Review draft elements of Subdivision / PUD / Master Plan project: (7:10 pm) a. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, Sharon Murray & Mark Kane (7:10 pm) See the enclosed memo from Cathyann. Sharon Murray will attend, will give a presentation, and then respond to questions and discussion from the Commission. b. Review Planned Unit Development Chapter Outline (8:00 pm) The outline for the PUD chapter was provided to the Commission at a meeting in late January but due to the time Commissioners didn’t get the chance to weigh in on the outline. Please look it over and let staff & Sharon know if you have any question, and importantly, whether there are any missing pieces. Staff worked with Sharon to prepare this draft and doesn’t see any missing elements, but before she moves into a full drafting mode we wanted to check with the Commission. c. Thresholds for required Planned Unit Developments & Master Plans (8:10 pm) Sharon and staff will host a discussion of the thresholds for Planned Unit Developments and for Master Plans. 6. Report from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: (8:30 pm) a. Transferable Development Rights IZ Committee, Michael Mittag (8:30 pm) b. Open Space IZ Committee, Bernie Gagnon (8:40 pm) 7. Discuss adoption schedule for amendments to the Land Development Regulations: singular sets or multiple sets (8:50 pm) Staff would like to briefly introduce the question / subject of how you would like to proceed with amendments. We could envision all of the OUD/Subdivision/Master Plan work going forward as a single package, or having certain elements that are ready sooner move ahead in a more timely manner (perhaps alongside any amendments to the FBC). We’ll discuss some pros and cons of each approach with the Commission and provide a preliminary recommendation. 8. Confirm postponement of initial review of LDR amendment requests until completion of Interim Zoning projects (9:00 pm) The Commission’s amendment review policy calls for a review of initial requests in April. At the start of Interim Zoning the Commission indicated that it would likely not have the April 2019 review unless the schedule had opened up with the IZ work. Staff recommends that the Commission not hear initial requests (other than those in the FBC area) for the timebeing as work on the PUD project continues at full pace. 9. Meeting Minutes (9:05 pm) Draft Minutes from February 26, 2019 are in the packet for your review. 10. Other business (9:07 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:08 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Draft elements of Subdivision/PUD/Master Plan Project DATE: March 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting In the creation of new standards and typologies for Planned Unit Developments, we anticipate that there will be increased use of subdivision standards. As previously discussed, we are working on a large overhaul of our current subdivision standards. Many of these elements that are relevant to subdivision standards are also relevant to site plan review and other planning tools. We previously shared the first draft of the administrative portions of those standards from our consulting team. There are some excellent adjustments, some items which are currently undergoing legal review, and some which require a high-level policy discussion. We’ve since also received an additional draft with more of the subdivision standards. While those aren’t ready for discussion in their entirety (partially owing to time needed for staff review and an already full Planning Commission agenda) we do want to share with you the pieces which are influenced by resource elements. Finally, we’ll also discuss and hopefully finalize the thresholds for required Planned Unit Developments and Master Plans, which was previously introduced several months ago. Conservation Areas and Resource Elements During previous discussions of the various resource elements and conservation area designations, we’ve reviewed a variety of previous referrals of the elements and looked anew at these resources mapped with the best raw data we can access. The Commission had a robust discussion, but did not want to finalize categorization without first understanding what it meant in a regulatory context- related to new subdivision and master planning standards- to be a primary or secondary resource. Our consultant team is prepared to present a full discussion of resource elements in their context of regulatory options, community priorities, and impact on development design. I’ve also included in this memo some of the draft subdivision regulations as they relate to resource protection and avoidance standards. We’ll return to the remainder of the subdivision standards at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Resources in the draft are assessed or regulated in various ways: • Development suitability 2 • Lot layout and design, including avoidance, transition areas, and location of lot lines and building envelopes • Determination of encroachment allowance Below are excerpts from a consultant draft of the submitted regulations for context. Again, please note that this is a very early draft that has not yet been reviewed by staff or the City’s legal team. We ask that you approach this from a policy perspective, understanding that more precise language may still be necessary. Furthermore, this draft doesn’t yet have the incorporations from the 2012 CCRPC Chapter 12 work which includes site specific resource identification and definitions. We’ll try to highlight policy questions for the Planning Commission where applicable. (a) Buildable [Developable] Area. For purposes of these regulations, including the platting of building lots, and the calculation of the density or intensity of development allowed within a subdivision, “buildable area” shall be defined as the total area of the tract or parcel to be subdivided, less the area occupied by the following physical site constraints, as indicated on subdivision plans and plats, and verified through site investigation: • Surface waters, [Class I and II] wetlands and associated setbacks and buffers under Article 12; • Floodplains under Section 10.01; • [River corridors under ___]; • Very steep slopes equal to or greater than 25%; and existing and planned road and railroad rights-of way. [SM Note: as commonly defined hazard areas, it is typical under subdivision regulations (and sometimes site plan review) to exclude these areas from development, and from the calculation of the buildable area—which may also affect allowed density, depending on how this is addressed under zoning. Except for rights-of-way, these are also typically included in “Primary Conservation Areas” where defined for purposes of resource protection.] F. Natural, Cultural and Scenic Resources. [SM Note: This section generally follows the approach recommended by CCRPC and in the 2014 Open Space Plan as discussed (e.g., w/ re to defining Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas); however, the regulations could also be more resource- specific. Once more detailed resource protection standards are finalized, it may be appropriate to simply reference these under the subdivision regulations—except as necessary to address resource parcelization/fragmentation—e.g., building envelope requirements may also apply under site plan review. Another option may be to include a matrix of accepted mitigation techniques, by resource] The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will be laid out to: • incorporate significant natural, historical and scenic site features located on the parcel or tract to be subdivided in subdivision layout and design; • exclude Primary Conservation Areas from land subdivision and development, and to • minimize and mitigate the impacts of land subdivision and development on Secondary Conservation Areas located on or contiguous to the parcel or tract to be subdivided. PC Discussion: for the purpose of simple subdivisions (NOT PUDs), do you find that these resources should be discounted from buildable area and thus discounted from density calculations? 3 (1) Applicability. Resource protections standards under this subsection generally apply to all subdivisions of land [unless waived by the DRB]. (a) The DRB may modify or waive the requirements of this section for a minor subdivision; a transect zone subdivision within the City Center Form-Based Code District…… (b) Where fifty percent or more [other?] of the land in a major subdivision is located within one or more primary or secondary conservation areas, a conservation planned unit development under Article __ is [required/recommended] to allow for the transfer of density, and more flexible resource-based subdivision lay-out and design, to include the clustering of development outside of Primary and Secondary Conservation areas. (2) Resource Identification. Features or resources to be considered in subdivision layout and design shall [may] be initially identified from imagery, resource inventories and maps available from the City at the time of application, from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resource’s Natural Resource Atlas, and through site investigation. The location and extent of mapped resources, as indicated on subdivision plans and plats, must be field verified and delineated on the ground by the applicant, unless waived by the DRB. (3) Existing Site Features. Existing site features to be considered in subdivision layout and design include: …… (4) Primary Conservation Areas to be incorporated in subdivision layout and design include [SM note: suggested; review and update list from 2014 Open Space Report, etc.]: • Surface waters, Class I and II wetlands and associated setback and buffer areas, required under Article 12; • Lakeshore setback areas [as measured 250 feet from the shoreline] • River corridors; [note as mapped, should also compare to riparian areas/connectivity, w/re to what riparian areas are also included] • Mapped floodplains, regulated under Section 10.01; • Very steep slopes equal to or greater than 25%; and • Rare, threatened and endangered species habitat. • Other…? (a) Delineated Primary Conservation Areas shall be shown on subdivision plans and plats submitted with the application [and permanently marked/pinned/posted on the ground]. (b) Subdivision boundaries and lot lines shall be configured to extend contiguous resource areas on adjoining parcels, and to avoid further subdivision and fragmentation of Primary Conservation Areas. (c) Building lots and building envelopes are prohibited within these areas, except as necessary to accommodate resource-dependent facilities (e.g., water and wastewater treatment facilities, public or community recreation facility). PC Discussion: determine required v recommended for PUD requirement of parcels which are majority conservation area. PC Discussion: Return to this list after a full assessment of the rest of this section. Also, note that lakeshore setback has been added, and other terms have been updated to accepted terms (fluvial erosion is now river corridors) Commented [A1]: I think our work with the RPC might be able to make this more resource specific- to say which are to be ground delineated and which are not. Commented [A2]: We’ll return to this. These do not include primary and secondary conservation area references]…. Commented [A3]: This one will need a careful definition and specific language under Chapter 12. Mr. Hilke cautioned against broad inclusion of this. 4 (d) A building lot may incorporate a primary conservation area that is less than the minimum lot size for the district in which it is located. (e) A building envelope must be defined to exclude conserved resources, and limit the siting of buildings and parking areas on the lot, for any building lot that extends into or incorporates a Primary Conservation Area, as indicated on the subdivision plat, [in supporting legal documentation, and as clearly marked on the ground]. (f) Allowed encroachments within primary conservation areas are restricted to resource-dependent infrastructure and facilities, road and utility corridors, and shared facilities that provide access to conserved resources (e.g., a shared path, driveway, boat ramp, or dock). [SM Note: Review against resource protection standards…] (g) All encroachments must be sited, designed and constructed to avoid very steep slopes, to minimize stream and wetland crossings, and to mitigate adverse impacts to conserved resources, using accepted mitigation techniques. (h) Road surfaces and facilities allowed within mapped flood hazard areas must be elevated at least [2 feet] above the Base Flood Elevation to ensure access and minimize flooding during flood events. All roads, utilities and other infrastructure located within a flood hazard area must be designed and constructed to withstand flooding, and result in no adverse impact to surrounding properties during flood events. (i) Primary Conservation Areas are to be set aside and identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as protected open space to be maintained and managed in single or common ownership. (5) Secondary Conservation Areas to be incorporated in subdivision layout and design include [SM note: in order of priority or functional resource value—could also involve weighting by resource type; suggested; review and update from 2014 Open Space Report, more current CCRPC lists]: • Scenic areas • Natural communities • Riparian Connectivity • Surface Waters and Riparian Areas • Class III wetlands • Primary Agricultural Soils (Prime, not “Statewide Importance”) • Forest blocks [equal to or greater than ½- acre] • [Farm parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres] • Significant Natural Communities • Intermittent stream and swales • Slopes 15-25% • Other? (a) All Secondary Conservation Areas shall be shown on subdivision plans submitted with the application. PC Discussion: This is a list of how primary conservation areas are considered/ excluded/ avoided in the process of subdivision. This directly addresses the question the Commission asked the project team to address to help understand what impacts it means to be a primary vs secondary resource. Consider this list of impacts. PC Discussion: Consider notes herein, as well as whether there are other resources which should be included. Commented [A4]: To be updated with the Scenic Views project underway Commented [A5]: Commission had active discussion in Dec.. Current direction from PC is to consider in lotting, but not excluding from development potential. Commented [A6]: Added by Commission on 12/11/18 5 (b) At minimum [50 - 70%] of the parcel or tract of land within Secondary Conservation Areas shall be identified for protection as open space [in stated order of priority], as incorporated in subdivision layout and design, as shown on subdivision plans and plats submitted with the application [and as permanently marked/pinned/posted on the ground]. [SM Note: the concern here w/ re to specifying percentages are perceived or potential regulatory takings – a clear nexus must exist between the impacts of a subdivision proposal and imposed open space restrictions, and the regulations must allow for some continued, viable economic use of the property – which would also be addressed through an elective Conservation PUD requirement.] (c) Subdivision boundaries and lot lines shall be configured to extend contiguous resource areas on adjoining parcels, and to avoid further subdivision and fragmentation of Secondary Conservation Areas identified for protection as open space. (d) A building lot located entirely within a Secondary Conservation Area identified for protection as open space is prohibited, except as necessary to accommodate resource-dependent facilities (e.g., farm structure, public or community recreation facility). (e) A building lot may extend or encroach within a Secondary Conservation Area identified for protection as open space, only as necessary to meet minimum lot size or frontage requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. (f) A building lot may incorporate a secondary resource area that is less than the minimum lot size for the district in which it is located. (g) A building envelope that excludes conserved resources, and restricts the siting of buildings and parking areas on the lot, must be defined for any building lot that extends into or incorporates a secondary conservation area, as indicated on the subdivision plat, [ in supporting legal documentation, and as clearly marked on the ground]. (h) The DRB may approve a proposed subdivision, though development on one or more building lots in the subdivision would exceed the limitations of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District (“view restrictions”), only as allowed under Section 10.03 (J). [Currently under 15.11, could be moved to Context] (i) All encroachments must be sited, designed and constructed to avoid or otherwise minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to conserved resources, using accepted mitigation techniques. (j) Access roads, driveways and utility corridors must be shared to the extent physically feasible, and follow existing linear features where present (e.g., existing corridors, tree lines, fence lines, field edges), as necessary to minimize the physical fragmentation of conserved resource areas (k) Areas identified for long-term farm or forest management should be of sufficient area to qualify for enrollment in state tax stabilization (Use Value Appraisal) programs, where feasible. Access to conserved farm and forest land shall be maintained as necessary to allow for long-term resource management. Management plans, prepared by a qualified professional, may be required by the DRB to ensure sustainable, long-term resource management. PC Discussion: Consider this new standard. We haven’t previously discussed it. 6 (l) Secondary Conservation Areas are to be set aside and identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as protected open space to be maintained and managed in single or common ownership. b. Review Planned Unit Development Chapter Outline See attached draft. c. Thresholds for required Planned Unit Developments and Master Plans Consultant led discussion. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 FEBRUARY 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 February 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair (by phone for first part of meeting; B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dopp 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: The review of Minutes was deleted from 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 directed attention to his written report which included information on Bike/scooter share program, PUD/Master Plan/Subdivision working project schedule, DRB amendment requests, Legislative changes, and a joint meeting of IZ Committees. 5. Report from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Open Space IZ Committee: Mr. Gagnon reported that the Open Space IZ Committee is developing criteria to evaluate open spaces. People were tasked with looking at a matrix from the Natural Resources Committee and Recreation Department and to rate their “top 10.” Members reviewed criteria they felt were important and felt that some criteria could be combined. A subcommittee has been formed to try to consolidate everyone’s “top 10” into fewer criteria. In addition, staff provided maps of parcels of over 4 acres that are open and parcels that are already conserved. The Committee will next test criteria against open spaces to see if what they have makes sense. They will then seek public input. Members also talked about a second “bucket” of property that might be good for a dog park or for athletic fields. Mr. Conner showed the “Natural Resources Inventory Map” being used by the Committee. 2 Mr. Riehle questioned the possibility of “reforesting” certain areas and specifically cited an area in front of Butler Farms. Mr. Conner noted some regeneration is already taking place (e.g. Wheeler Nature Park). Ms. Dopp noted that reforesting could provide more visual buffer for some neighborhoods. (Ms. Louisos arrived in person at this point in the meeting) 6. Provide feedback to City Council on IZ 19-01, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Conner reviewed the proposed subdivision and noted that the City Council took testimony and did not see any major obstacles. The did, however, want to check with the Planning Commission to see whether this would be counter to what the Commission is discussion regarding PUDs. Mr. Conner showed the parcel on the map and indicated the proposed 3 building lots for single family homes. The new lots would front on Highland Terrace. Members were concerned that this development could lead to others in the area wanting to do the same thing, and the 3 houses could then become 20. Mr. Riehle suggested delaying this and building it into the PUD plans. He said he was not averse to infill but felt it could defeat the purpose of the PUDs. Mr. Conner noted that the properties to the north and south are also individually owned. Mr. Gagnon questioned whether they can regulate down to a small lot. Ms. Ostby said this could function as a “cottage cluster” with 12 units per acre, which would then be a benefit to the applicant. She said that unless there is some urgency, it could be in the city’s and the applicant’s interest to delay approval. Other members agreed. Mr. Conner suggested having someone draft a written report to the Council. Ms. Louisos said she can do that if the Council wants something in writing. 7. Review draft elements of Subdivision/PUD/Master Plan Project: a. City-wide parking standards draft, follow-up from 19 February: Mr. Conner directed attention to his written follow-up. Mr. Gagnon noted the parking lot at the former Trinity College is pervious concrete and has been there for a number of years. There are maintenance requirements, but it is a good way to treat stormwater. Ms. Ostby said there is a chance the TDR Committee will recommend always having a pervious surface, but in the case of a hardship to provide a “way out.” She felt they have to look at what is best for the environment and then consider an alternative when there is a hardship. Ms. Louisos said any pervious surface depends on maintenance, and she wasn’t sure any one option is better than another. Mr. Mittag said that in some places pervious concrete is a requirement. 3 Mr. Conner said he met with the Stormwater Department as requested. They have seen tools such as pervious parking areas used more commonly in larger in cities because there is no land available for other options. He noted that in City Center the value of the land is an issue. He also noted that a large portion of land in City Center is being dedicated to stormwater management, so something like “green roofs” could be discussed. Mr. Gagnon said state regulations require certain volumes of water be treated, either on site on into a secondary system. If that system overflows, water goes into a pipe and into a stream. The ideal is for the water to go back into the ground. Ms. Louisos said the current City requirement is that all methods be held to the same standard, and she wasn’t sure they should require one method over another. Mr. Conner said one suggestion is to lower the requirement to treating less than one-half acre. The Stormwater Department is also looking into a credit on stormwater billing for large properties for participation in some training. This would help ensure good management of the systems. Ms. Louisos suggested the possibility that if a business isn’t meeting the ½-acre threshold and is adding some more parking spaces, they would have to use pervious concrete. She supported requiring some pervious surface for more than just a few parking spaces. Ms. Ostby suggested that different treatments might be required in different parts of the city. Mr. Conner noted that on some major roads there is no place to deal with stormwater. The Stormwater Department is looking to see if the city could incentivize private landowners to help out. Ms. Louisos noted that “recreation vehicles” were crossed out of Section J. She thought it might be good to keep them in. Mr. Conner agreed. Commissioners agreed by consensus to advance the draft parking amendments to the next round of changes as presented, with the correction to Section J, and to add the subject of stormwater & pervious parking to when the Commission returns to the subject of parking as previously committed to at the last meeting. b. Subdivision administration and enforcement key questions: Mr. Conner directed attention to notes from Ms. LaRose. He asked members if they could think of any reason for not doing a subdivision. He noted that basic subdivision standards would always apply. A PUD would allow modification of those standards if certain city goals were met. Mr. Conner also noted that Sharon Murray recommends tighter waiver authority as to when you can get a waiver for a subdivision. Ms. Ostby questioned whether a subdivision could have a requirement that what goes there be solar ready. Mr. Conner said they could provide an incentive for that (e.g., more square footage). 4 Mr. Conner noted that the language for administrative approval of minor boundary adjustments provides more guidance. One addition is that the acreage to be transferred is less than the minimum lot acreage size. Anything beyond that would have to go to the DRB. Mr. Conner will provide clearer language for this. With regard to Sketch Plan Review, Mr. Conner stressed that this is to be an “informal conversation.” He noted that there is a push to have this be more “formalized,” but the language says it is advisory only. He would like to get input from the DRB on this. Mr. Riehle asked whether neighbors get advised of a sketch plan review. Mr. Conner said they do. With regard to referencing the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Conner noted staff is working with the City Attorney as to how to do this. He will come back with more detail. c. Building Typologies, follow-up from 19 February: Mr. Conner noted one more type, “apartment building” has been added. He showed an example from the City of Burlington of how to approach defining building types on a page. This information will be given to Mark Kane so he can work something up. Mr. Riehle stressed the need to allow for creativity in design. Ms. Ostby requested that cottage clusters allow up to 12 units instead of 3 to 9. She also felt buildings could be 2 stories, not just 1-1/2. Mr. Conner said this section does not address standards; it just defines the types. d. Update on city-wide street types: Mr. Conner said he met with the Bike/Ped Committee, and they want more attention paid to the NACTO Guide of street types. They feel the city has too many types. To address this, some types have been removed, and the more typical ones remain. The intention is to focus more attention on new streets and how they should be designed. There is less attention to “retrofitting” existing streets. Staff is proposing that things that are “below ground” be pulled out and put into a Public Works guide book. Members were OK with this. 8. Meeting Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. 9. Other Business: a. PAT&T Mobility Public Utilities Commission Section 245 Request, 825 Williston Road: Mr. Conner noted the request is to add 10 feet to the pole. This is an advisory item only. 5 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:22 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk