The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/13/2019SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 AUGUST 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 August 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon (arrived late), M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; S. Dopp, R. Brinkerhoff, D. Seff, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos 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: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. 5. Public Hearing on proposed Land Development Regulation amendments: Mr. Klugo moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0. a. LDR-19-01: Eliminate minimum parking requirements for all users citywide except multi- family housing and accessory dwelling units, for which parking requirements are to be reduced b. LDR-19-02: Amend transfer of development rights requirements to be consistent with enabling statutes c. LDR-19-03: Establish Citywide River Corridor Overlay District and make minor modifications to the Flood Plain Overlay District d. LDR-19-04: Eliminate duplicative surface water protection standards for land within 150’ of Lake Champlain and allowances for expansion of pre-existing structures within 100’ of Potash Brook within Queen City Park Zoning District e. LDR-19-05: Administrative Amendments: Authorize Administrative Officer to approve minor field changes to site plans & allow for a joint administrative approval & zoning permit; minor technical corrections f. LDR-19-06: Modify table of open space types (Appendix F) and applicability in the City Center Form Based Code District 2 Members of the public commented on proposed amendments as follows: Mr. Epstein: Spoke in support of eliminating and decreasing parking standards as one way to decrease the public’s reliance on cars. Mr. Snider and Ms. Dopp: Agreed with Mr. Epstein. Ms. Louisos read a letter from Cory Gottfried who also supported the reduction in parking standards and noted that he had had to reduce the size of his building in order to provide parking he didn’t need. Ms. Dopp: Asked what is included in LDR-19-02. Mr. Conner explained that after the ruling by the Environmental Court, the City Council asked for amendments to tighten up regulations in order to abide by State Statute. This was done in conjunction with the City Attorney. It does not change any policy in the regulations. Mr. Seff: Reviewed the history of the Environmental Court’s action. He noted that decision is on appeal by the developer to the Vermont Supreme Court. There is also a cross-appeal by residents (whom Mr. Seff represents) regarding portions of the TDR regulations that the Court did not find improper. That argument in the Supreme Court is slated to take place in September. Mr. Seff felt that “legal chaos” could ensue if the Supreme Court reverses the original decision. In addition, the TDR Committee is recommending a total revision of the TDR policy to allow TDRs to be placed outside the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Seff said there is already “TDR chaos” in the community. Mr. Conner explained the process that the City Council can engage in. He also noted that last week the Council asked for an update on these changes. He also stressed that the city can change policies at any time. The bylaws that are in effect at any given time are the ones under which people would apply at that time. Mr. Brinkerhoff: Felt there is a perception that “this is more for developers and not for the citizens.” He said the citizens want to save open spaces. Mr. Conner noted with regard to LDR-19-06, after the Form Based Code (FBC) subcommittee did its work, staff found conflict regarding on-site/off-site open space. The recommendation from staff is to hold this amendment until it is made clearer. There will also be a review of a letter from Snyder- Braverman regarding this amendment, and changes will be made if they are deemed appropriate. Mr. Conner also noted that the amendments include a couple of changes recommended by the City Attorney. These are not substantive. The Agency of Natural Resources has given its OK to these changes. As there was no further public comment, Mr. Klugo moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 3 6. Review public input on draft amendments; consider possible changes; possible action to approve draft amendments and submit to the City Council: Commission members reviewed public comments. In reference to LDR-19-04, Mr. Conner explained that State Statutes now apply to water protection, and there is no need to duplicate those rules. Ms. Louisos said she would speak with or send a note to the Council Chair regarding comments on possible confusion regarding TDRs. Mr. Conner noted there is a lot of confusion among property owners at this time as to what they can do with their properties. In answer to Mr. Brinkerhoff’s concern with “favoring developers,” Mr. Klugo reminded the public that property owners have guaranteed rights as to what they can do with their properties. Mr. Mittag then moved to approve amendments LDR-19-01 through LDR-19-05 as amended by the City attorney and to pass these amendments along to the City Council with the Planning Commission Report. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Planning Commission debrief on joint Planning Commission/City Council Interim Zoning Meeting on 1 August 2019: Mr. Mittag commented that it is obvious that there is still a lot of work for the Interim Zoning Committees and the Planning Commission to do. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council held a public hearing following the joint meeting and extended Interim Zoning for 3 months. Ms. Louisos said there may be pieces (e.g., affordable housing) ready for adoption in that time frame. She also noted that IZ can be extended another three months after that. Mr. Mittag said the TDR Committee’s report will depend on the time staff and the City Attorney have for drafting of by-laws. Mr. Klugo cited the need to update the Commission’s IZ work plan in order to keep things moving forward. Mr. Conner agreed. He added that there will be a lot of things coming to the Planning Commission in upcoming meetings. The next agenda will include the Inclusionary Zoning draft. Mr. Macdonald asked if there will be a similar joint meeting at the end of the next 3 months. Mr. Conner said that will depend on where things stand, but likely the Council will want an update unless all work is completed. Ms. Louisos felt the IZ Open Space Committee report will be the first to come to the Planning Commission. 4 8. Presentation and discussion of recommendations of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee: Mr. Mittag noted that in all of the Committee’s deliberations, they had to take into account the right of property owners. That made it clear to them that the receiving areas for TDRs had to be expanded outside of the SEQ. Mr. Mittag said they don’t yet have a tool to determine where those areas are, and it could involve rezoning in certain cases. They hope to get information from the Open Space IZ Committee as to which parcels are not high quality and would therefore be OK as receiving areas. Mr. Mittag acknowledged that residents of those areas may not be pleased with the additional density. Mr. Klugo cited the need to look at TDRs on a regional basis. Mr. Mittag said there are some regional TDR programs. Mr. Klugo said the next step could be to explore a regional TDR program as there may be demand outside of South Burlington to have TDRs go where they are wanted. He suggested there could be a place in the committee’s report for “future opportunities.” Mr. Gagnon asked whether the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) has ever gotten feedback from various towns on density, etc. Mr. Conner said they get a lot of feedback on density and other issues, but he was not aware there had been discussion with the RPC regarding TDRs. Mr. Gagnon suggested that might become part of the RPC plan. Mr. Mittag said there had been a suggestion to define a “dwelling unit” by area. This could help with affordable housing. It could allow an owner/developer to build larger if they use TDRs under a system to be defined. Ms. Louisos said that is not a new idea. Mr. Klugo said he wasn’t a “yes” or a “no” on that. Mr. Mittag noted that the City Attorney’s concern was that the used would have to be compatible with the statute. Mr. Klugo expressed concern that if someone meets all the requirements for a large house they would have to “buy something.” Ms. Louisos noted a proposal that would allow TDR units to be in a commercial district. Mr. Klugo asked whether there are other places in the country doing this. If so, are they successful? Are there unintended consequences? Mr. Mittag said another recommendation of the TDR Committee is that areas in the SEQ that are now receiving areas would be changed to only sending areas. Other sensitive areas in the SEQ would also no longer be receiving areas and could be developed only at base density. Mr. Brinkerhoff said land is being ranked for development that has already been deemed unbuildable in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner said the Comprehensive Plan is a vision, not a regulation. Mr. Klugo added that all documents are living documents, and things change over time. Mr. Conner said the IZ Open Space Committee was charged with looking at all properties in the SEQ. Ms. Louisos cited changes being made to what were resource protection elements to make them even better. 5 Mr. Klugo noted that at this time, TDRs don’t have to be built till a development has reached a certain point. He asked if there is a way to make them be purchased up front or along the way as a certain number of units are built. Under today’s system, those units may never get built. Mr. Mittag felt that sounded like a good rule change. Ms. Dopp added that doing that would help landowners get their money from TDRs sooner. Mr. Mittag noted that now each TDR conserves .83 acres. The Committee’s idea is to expand that number. That would reduce the number of TDRs if the market for them is limited. Mr. Klugo said that could result in TDRs being priced so high that there would be no market for them. Mr. Mittag said it is up to the owner and developer to work out the value of TDRs. The city has no interest in that. Mr. Mittag noted there is a recommendation to have a TDR bank. Mr. Klugo asked whether the Committee recommends and adjustment to the base density. Mr. Mittag said they are recommending that be considered. Mr. Mittag noted the city could purchase and retire TDRs from very high value properties with Open Space Fund money. He noted the city now owns 116 TDRs from the Underwood and Scott properties. He added that there should also be a conservation easement associated with those properties. Ms. Louisos asked whether the Committee will make a recommendation as to what the city should do with its 116 TDRs. Mr. Mittag said that is not their charge. Mr. Klugo noted the city could be competing with other TDRs on the market if it decided to sell its TDRs. Mr. Mittag said the committee also recommends that the city establish a mechanism to connect TDR buyers and sellers and that there be a separate TDR registry. This should include a map of where TDRs are sent from and where they were sent to. He noted that TDRs can be used on the same property if one part of the property is zoned NPR and the other is zoned Village Residential. Mr. Mittag said the committee feels its recommendations support the city’s conservation goals. They also feel a lot of demand for TDRs will come from re-development. Ms. LaRose noted there are a lot of market studies to be done. She asked if the IZ Committee would be doing that or the Planning Commission or City Council…? Mr. Mittag said the IZ Committee doesn’t have the expertise to do that. Ms. LaRose asked if the IZ TDR Committee has explored why TDRs aren’t being used. She said staff is trying to understand all the steps that are left so they can budget for funding and time. Mr. Klugo said there is a lot that is not yet understood: What makes a program successful? Why is the program here not successful? He noted there are a lot of ideas, but they are not appropriate for solving the problems. Ms. LaRose agreed those questions need to be answered in order to move forward. 6 Mr. Klugo said the Planning Commission needs to come up with some “bullet items” to get back to the TDR IZ Committee. Mr. Mittag said the draft report he presented is what the IZ committee has approved to date. Mr. Klugo said he is still struggling with the underlying possibility for success. There has been no discussion with developers, with other communities, etc. He said the TDR Committee’s recommendations make sense, but there is no relation to the outcome the city is trying to get to. Ms. Louisos asked how to get the number right (e.g., increase receiving zones?). Mr. Mittag said they made assumptions, but they don’t know beyond that. Ms. LaRose said the problem is not knowing if the market is there. She noted that the areas in which the large car dealerships are located have 12units/acre zoning allowed, and they are not being developed. What would increasing that to 15/acre mean? Mr. Klugo said just creating more receiving areas does not ensure the success of a TDR program. The recommendations are good, but now they have to be tested. Ms. LaRose noted that TDRs have dropped considerably in value. Ms. Dopp asked if there are some real estate people who could quantify this. Mr. Klugo suggested Art Wolf. Mr. Conner cited the need for specific objectives: amounts of sending and receiving areas, number of units, etc. Mr. Klugo volunteers to pull out the action items when the minutes are posted. 9. Receive proposed amendments to the City Center Form Based Code (FBC) portion of the Land Development Regulations from the FBC Subcommittee; consider approval of PC report and warning public hearing on amendments (Staff recommends 10 September): a. LDR-19-08: Reduce first story minimum window heights and establish privacy standards in FBC T4 District b. LDR-19-09: Establish greater allowance for location of open space off-site for residential buildings in FBC T4 District, clarify definitions c. LDR-19-10: Allow greater proportion of Landscaping Budget to be used off-site and to be used for hardscapes in FBC district d. LDR-19-11: Reduce size of reserved width for future buildings in FBC T4 and T5 Districts e. LDR-19-12: Modify Upper Story Glazing Standards in FBC T4 and T5 Districts Members agreed to postpone consideration of these amendments item until the next meeting. Mr. Conner reminded members that these 5 possibly amendments are important for design for projects in City Center that are ready to go now. They will be at the top of the next agenda. 7 10. Meeting Minutes of 23 July 2019: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 July 2019 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Other Business: a. Notice of Town of Williston Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Bylaw, Tuesday, 20 August 2019, 7:00 p.m., Williston Town Hall Annex b. Notice of City of Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 27 August, 6:45 p.m., Burlington City Hall Mr. Conner briefly explained the amendments involved. 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 August 27, 2019 1 Paul Conner From:Corey J Gottfried <parkwaydiner13@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 3:00 PM To:Paul Conner Subject:Parking requirements As I said before, I apologize that I will not be able to attend the meeting. I will say, the parking requirements made it very challenging to make my project happen. It took months longer planning then I feel it needed to. It was very frustrating in the end because I had to reduce the size of the addition I was building to accommodate the parking. With the smaller building it changed the square footage, which in turn changed the requirements, but still was hard due to the size of the existing lot and how it is shaped. I am in support of reducing or amending the parking requirements to help facilitate business owners to update and grow. Corey Sent from my iPhone 1 Paul Conner From:Ken Braverman <kb@bravermancompany.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 3:04 PM To:Paul Conner Cc:Chris Snyder Subject:Sun Terraces in proposed FBC changes Hi Paul… Hope you’re good.. See that the PC is reviewing the proposed changes to the open space categories within the FBC. Quick question. Sun Terraces: Would like to better understand why changes are being proposed to only grant open space credit to buildings with 12 or more units? Pls let us know. We’d like to request that Sun Terraces be considered for all multiple‐family buildings, in T‐4 and T‐5, regardless of building size or number of units; as originally contemplated. Let us know your thinking. Talk soon, KB Ken Braverman The Braverman Company LLC bravermancompany.com 802.343.6330