Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/28/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 JANUARY 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 January 2020, 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, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dooley, J. Simson, A. Chalnick, A. Gill, P. O’Brien, R. Greco, S. Dopp, J. Nick, R. Jeffers, P. O’Brien, E. Langfeldt, C. Jensen, P. Kahn, T. Bailey, C. Montgomery 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: Ms. Greco asked about public participation. Ms. Louisos said at times the Commission will hold discussion among themselves, and she then will then ask for public comment. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted that she and Ms. LaRose made a presentation to the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. He added that the Regional Planning Commission is undertaking a study of the full I-89 corridor. The first public meeting will be on 30 January, 6 p.m., at South Burlington City Hall. Ms. Louisos reminded members that their next regular meeting on 11 February will be a joint meeting with the City Council. 5. Continued Review of Proposed Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendments: a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center Form Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overland District. b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed inclusionary zoning standards 2 (LDR-19-13A), and (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all remaining parts of the City: Mr. Conner reviewed action since the last meeting including language changes (e.g., “habitable area”). Staff also cleaned up the lot coverage question so additional offset units can be accommodated. Ms. Louisos noted receipt of correspondence from Janet Bellavance. Mr. Conner showed the land area she was concerned about on the map. It is excluded from Interim Zoning (along Hinesburg Road). Ms. Jeffers felt there is still a vagueness in Section 18.02D and there should be more definition regarding integration of affordable units into a project. She felt the language should indicate who this is determined by. Mr. Langfeldt expressed appreciation for the language staff has provided and said they now can support the amendments. Ms. Greco questioned the use of “vicinity of” and asked if there will be a map reference. Ms. Louisos said there is a map reference. Mr. Conner said the City Attorney is comfortable with the language alongside the map. Ms. Greco asked why there would be affordable units outside the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Dooley said this particular area was specifically excluded by the City Council from Interim Zoning because they felt it was appropriate for affordable housing. There is bus service down Hinesburg Road. 6. Possible Action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council: Ms. Ostby moved to approve Land Development Regulation amendments #LDR-19-13A and LDR-19-13B as presented and to approve the Planning Commission Report and to submit both to the City Council. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Louisos thanked the Affordable Housing Committee for their work in bringing these amendments to the Planning Commission. 7. Presentation and discussion of Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Standards: Ms. Louisos said this is a preview of what will be presented to the City Council on February 11th. Mr. Conner then explained the purpose and the connection to the work of other committees. Ms. LaRose showed a map of what coverage looks like now, including built-on lots and various conservation areas (NRP, Public entity, association land, etc.). She noted that the existing regulations were not always reflecting the goals for “great places” (affordability, walkability, green space, etc.). What was needed were “thoughtful patterns” to organize natural resources and create community- oriented neighborhoods. 3 Resources to be considered include water quality, hazards, wildlife habitat, agricultural sustainability, climate change impact, and scenic views (a future project). Ways to plan for these resources include LDRs, public purchase and conservation. Mr. Conner then addressed the regulating of natural resources. He showed a map of hazards (river corridors, steep slopes of 20% or more, river corridors, floodplains) and Level 1 resources (habitat blocks and steep slopes (15-20%). He then showed a map of habitat blocks and surface waters and streams. The habitat blocks are newly produced from the 2020 Arrowwood Report, which was delivered last week to the City. Their report will be on the website tomorrow and will be included in the joint meeting with the City Council. There are 26 habitat blocks of 20 acres or more identified in the report. Some of these cross borders into adjacent communities. They are ranked from lower to higher. Ms. Louisos said another discussion will be needed as to how to regulate Level 1 and Level 2 resources. Mr. Conner said where it relates to PUDs, development rights could be transferred from Level 1 habitat to elsewhere in the PUD. He then showed a map of what it would look like to respect resource patterns. Ms. LaRose then showed a slide of other work the Commission has been doing regarding resource protection (Chapter 12 updates, river corridors, Chapter 15, etc.) and another slide of work being done by other committees that is feeding into the Commission’s work (Interim Zoning Open Space and TDR Committees). Mr. Conner showed the map of properties identified by the Open Space Committee for conservation. He noted that the Committee identified entire parcels, not just the portion containing the resource. Mr. Gagnon noted that the habitat blocks are partial parcels. Mr. Kahn noted that if the 2 maps are combined there won’t be a lot of developable area left. Mr. Conner showed that map. Mr. Conner then showed a slide of how hazards/habitat/open space relate to each other. He noted the possibility of habitat properties becoming sending TDRs. Mr. Conner said that open space properties will require a decision by the City Council. These could be acquired or put on the Official City Map (Mr. Conner explained how this process works). The Council’s decision will be made based on the Comprehensive Plan and a study being done by Earth Economics regarding the economic value of the 25 identified properties by the Open Space Committee. Mr. Bailey noted he is part of a group identifying where housing could go in the city. He noted that housing could be possible on parts of the 25 identified properties. Ms. Jensen noted that the Open Space Committee’s charge was not related to development, but the talk now is of using those parcels in a regulatory concept. Ms. Louisos said that decision hasn’t yet been made. Mr. Kahn added that the Open Space report “blanking out” entire parcels doesn’t mesh with what he is hearing tonight. Ms. Ostby said the Commission is seeing this for the first time. 4 Mr. Chalnick asked what the charge to Arrowwood was. Ms. Louisos said it was to identify habitat. Members then addressed the PUD concepts. Ms. LaRose said the intent of the new PUD regulations will be to create great neighborhoods, not just streets with houses on them. The Commission will try to reframe the plan, being thoughtful about streets, shared public spaces, transportation connections, utility connections, transitions between PUD types. Development on Shelburne Road will look different from Southeast Quadrant development. Ms. LaRose then showed a chart of the proposed PUD types: Conservation PUD (with large portions of resources on a property), campus PUD (office parks, research centers, etc.), Traditional Neighborhood Development, and Neighborhood Commercial Center (near a transit loop). Issues to be addressed include: what becomes of non-resource spaces in a Conservation PUD, how resources relate, distribution of residential units, and non-residential distribution. Mr. Conner said that in each PUD type there is the expectation that small piece of the property will go to a “civic space” (e.g., a park). Agriculture can plug in as well (possible community farm of 1-2 acres). With each PUD type there will be a maximum density and also a minimum density for the developable area. This gives the public an idea of what to expect. Ms. LaRose cited the need for “trade-offs” in order to be efficient with the land. Some properties will have choices of a mix of uses, styles, etc. Developers will be given a range of options to choose from. A 4-acre threshold will require a PUD. Subdivision will be very straightforward, and all regulations will have to be met. Ms. LaRose noted that a guidebook is being drafted which will show potential neighborhood components such as open space types (civic open spaces such as parks as well as private open spaces for such uses as hotels), street types (what happens at intersections), building types (e.g., a neighborhood store front), etc. There would be a pallet of options assigned to each PUD type. Ms. LaRose noted there is still work to be done before adoption of the PUD regulations. Site plan standards will follow adoption of the PUD regulations. There is a draft of Master Plan Standards, which the Commission has not yet seen. Subdivision standards are currently in legal review. Mr. Conner said the hope is to get a complete first draft in February, though this may be a push. For the meeting with the City Council, Mr. Gagnon suggested specific use of slides. Mr. Riehle said it is important to get the grand picture of the city, then talk about PUDs in context. Mr. O’Brien asked whether an applicant will be able to field verify what is on a map. Ms. Louisos said they haven’t looked at that. Some things on the map have a very specific process defined by the State. Ms. Dopp asked about the role of the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Conner said the Commission will be connecting with them and with other committees. He added that the work done by committees as much as 5 years ago is a part of the grand plan. Ms. LaRose noted that the first draft of Chapter 12 was from work done in 2012 that included the Natural Resources Committee. 5 Mr. Nick noted that he had submitted a plan regarding the Hill Farm a few years ago. He noted that the Hill Farm is one of the 25 identified open space pieces. He asked if the plan they submitted is still OK. Mr. Gagnon said several things could happen: the land could be acquired by the city, it could be put on the Official City Map, or it could be targeting for development with PUD standards applying. Mr. Nick asked who would make that decision. Mr. Gagnon said if the property is put on the Official City Map, the city would have the right of first refusal to buy it. If the city did not buy it, the PUD standards would apply to any development. Mr. Conner stressed that how to address the 25 identified open space properties is a conversation that is just beginning. Ms. LaRose added that the Planning Commission hasn’t adopted a plan for addressing those 25 properties. Mr. Montgomery read from the opening paragraph of the Open Space Report. He noted the difference of the Arrowwood Study’s use of scientific data. The Open Space Report cites the need for field studies to verify existing resources. He asked how a report with no scientific basis identify 25 priority conservation areas. Mr. Montgomery noted that the TDR Report also uses no scientific data because it used the Open Space Report for decisions regarding sending and receiving areas. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is very well aware of this and will be very conscious as to how it uses the maps. She added that the Commission had asked for the Arrowwood study to get a more scientific approach. Ms. Ostby said the 2 reports say similar things but without lot lines. Mr. Langfeldt said the Open Space report is not an equitable approach. He felt that if 10% of a property has a resource, you don’t identify the whole property. Ms. Dopp said the Open Space Committee were volunteers who highlighted parcels that need a closer look because they have distinctive things on them. Mr. Conner added that some of the impetus for looking at parcels was to determine how to use the Open Space Fund to get properties not in a regulatory manner. The Committee’s charge specifically did not say how to use the results. Mr. Conner noted that Staff and the Committee’s chair are figuring out how to reach out to the owners of the identified properties. Mr. Gill said part of the pressure of the Open Space Report is that it appears to be the “third leg” of a stool for something that will be decided in February. He asked if this is true. Ms. LaRose said the Planning Commission is trying to hear everything, and it is hard to say where things overlap. The Commission has not proposed any regulations related to the Open Space Map. They have not identified them as “no development” areas. 8. Continued Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report: It was noted that the Commission’s representative to that committee was not present. Mr. Conner asked if there are “bullet points” that the Commission can agree on to bring to the City Council. Members asked for a special meeting at which Mr. Mittag could be present. Staff will poll members for an appropriate date for that meeting. 6 9. Other Business: a. City of Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 11 February, 6:45 p.m. b. City of Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the Winooski Unified Land Use and Development Regulations, 13 February, 6:30 p.m. Mr. Conner noted that both Commissions are looking to reduce parking standards. 10. Meeting Minutes of 10 December 2019 and 14 January 2020: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 10 December 2019 and 14 January 2020 as presented. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 10, 2020