HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/29/2019 - Special MeetingSOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
29 OCTOBER 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 October 2019, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner
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:
Ms. Ostby noted that a forum on Domestic Abuse will be held on 30 October from 5:30-8:30 p.m.
Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. He also noted that on 4 November, 10 a.m.,
the Affordable Housing Committee will be holding a forum for developers.
5. PUD/Subdivision/Master Plan Project:
a. Presentation and discussion of Natural Resources Working Group recommendations:
Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of the group’s work and directed attention to a memo in the meeting
packet. She noted that the Arrowwood Report will be updated as part of the project, including Class 1
and Class 2 Forest Blocks which were missing from the original report.
The areas for protection have been divided into three categories: Level 1, Level 2, and Hazards.
The hazards category includes the following:
1. Surface Waters
2. 100-year flood plain
3. Class 1 wetlands and their 100-foot buffer
4. Class 2 wetlands and their 50-foot buffer
Ms. Louisos noted that lands in this protected category do not count toward density calculations.
2
Areas included in the Level 1 category include:
1. Class 1 Forest Blocks
2. Rare/threatened/endangered species
3. Class 1 Agricultural parcels
Ms. Louisos said that for lands in the Class 1 category, the conserved land is not removed from density
calculations.
Ms. Ostby asked whether this will remove land from the total density in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ).
Mr. Conner said that in the SEQ there is a base density and a density of what actually in a development.
This would affect the latter. Ms. LaRose added that since she has been with the city, there have been
only 2 developments in the SEQ that were built to their total allowable density.
Ms. La Rose also noted that “hazards” have a history of being defensible in case law for being non-
buildable. Some other tiers of resources tend to reflect “priorities” rather than hazards
and may be less defensible.
Mr. Mittag asked whether Act 171, related to forest fragmentation, has to be taken into account. Ms.
LaRose said that hasn’t applied yet, but it will have to be taken into consideration and addressed in the
next Comprehensive Plan update.
Ms. LaRose said part of the Arrowwood work will be to look at habitat. The goal is to address al the
“sub-bullets,” how the city is taking care of things in the biggest sense.
Ms. Ostby said she wanted to be sure that Hazards and Level 1 have the same level of protection. Mr.
Conner said that can be addressed in the language.
Ms. Louisos noted that Level 2 is not a complete “no build zone,” but there is some protection in place
for certain areas.
Ms. LaRose said a challenge identified by the consulting team is to look at a neighborhood commercial
development where there is a Class 3 buffer. Is it still fair to say the buffer takes up the land and you
can’t have a central playground? Mr. Conner added that half of the resource should be part of the open
space (protected). The question is much should be for resources and how much for amenities for
people.
Ms. LaRose then showed a draft of a Map of Natural Resources for Consideration for zoning. Mr. Riehle
noted there is nothing that precludes and east-west road. Mr. Gagnon said that’s true with specific
criteria.
Ms. LaRose also showed a map of “endangered species” but noted that it is possible those species are
not where they are indicated on the map.
3
Another map, drawn by the committee, indicated where there are forests that aren’t yet transected as
well as riparian areas, etc. Ms. LaRose said that Arrowwood may come back with something different.
In dealing with prime ag soils, the question that arises is how to deal with already developed prime ag
lands. Mr. Gagnon said one possibility is not to map these soils at all. A map of “soils” and
“undeveloped soils” was then shown.
Ms. Louisos said another issue is how to deal with a property that is almost entirely in one of the
protected areas. Mr. Gagnon said if you take an asset that has value to a property owner and say you
can’t build, this has ramifications of a policy nature. Ms. Ostby noted the Open Space IZ Committee may
come back with something different. Mr. Gagnon said there is a lot of overlap. There will be higher
priority properties that make sense. That is when it becomes a policy issue. Mr. Conner said the
Commission can meet with the City Attorney to discuss policy issues.
Ms. LaRose said there is a tendency to see farms as large areas, but it is possible to have farms on 3-12
acres. Mr. Riehle said people with those 3-12 acres could be encouraged to do some farming on their
land that would not be developed.
Mr. Conner then showed an overall map of what might not be buildable (taking all resources together).
He then added land that is developed and land that is undeveloped/unencumbered. He indicated areas
with “redevelopment” potential. He noted that in developable areas, there should not be low density
because then you can’t meet affordability concerns, especially in areas for single family housing. Mr.
Gagnon said the trade-off for conservation is higher density in other areas. Mr. Conner added this is a
concern for “people next door” to those areas.
b. Review detailed outline of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and
Neighborhood Commercial Development (NCD) PUD Standards:
Mr. Riehle commented that in the TND, there is no common open center possible in the middle which
makes it look “Butlerfarmesque.” Mr. Gagnon said these diagrams are more conceptual. Development
can be done another way and still meet the criteria. Ms. LaRose said they have talked about changing
the graphics to reflect that. She added that staff is building a book to include allowable building types in
different PUD types, types of “civic spaces,” etc. Ms. Ostby questioned whether it is necessary to talk
about frontage width.
5. Consider and Assign New Street Name: Johnson Way:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve Johnson Way as presented. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Meeting Minutes of 22 October 2019:
The minutes were not presented for consideration.
4
7. Other Business:
a. Town of Shelburne Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to
Zoning Bylaw, Thursday, 14 November, 7 p.m.:
Mr. Conner said there is some interesting Form Based Code things in this. Staff will look further at it
when there is time.
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 November 12, 2019