Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/10/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 MARCH 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 March 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, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Kahn; A. Gill; C. Jensen; F. Von Turkovich; R. Greco 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. Review and Discuss Possible Regulatory Direction of Findings of 2020 South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking: Ms. Louisos said there are still a lot of questions and a lot of interest in the Commission working through this and coming up with a balanced solution. Ms. Ostby said she was disappointed because she thought the City Council would discuss what they might do. They spent the time talking about what the Commission is working on. Ms. Louisos said she thought they had more questions and listened to the public. She agreed there was no specific direction given at this particular meeting. Mr. Mittag said his sense is that the Council wants an overview of all of it together. Ms. Louisos noted the Council will be looking at the economic report next Monday. Mr. Mittag questioned the use of Level 1/Level 2 language instead or “primary” and “secondary” resources. Ms. Louisos said this is regulatory language, and they had wanted to be sure it wasn’t mixed up with the general language of the Comprehensive Plan. “Primary” and 2 “secondary” have a very specific meaning at the State level. Mr. Gagnon added that people might also think “secondary” was less important. Ms. Ostby said she noted that the hazards that the Commission had marked overlap with what Arrowwood found. She also noted that the Commission had earlier put forest blocks into both Level 1 and Level 2. She said what stood out to her was that Arrowwood talked about the “core forest” with a minimum 10-acre center as being very valuable. She wondered if they should consider that a Level 1 and the surrounding area of the core as Level 2 so the core forest is protected. Mr. Gagnon agreed that a lot of hazard areas cover a lot of the corridor and are good to be no- build areas. But he was concerned that these areas are assets for people. If 10% of forest block is on a property, you can allow that percentage of development elsewhere on the property. But if a property is mainly forest core, it should go on the official city map, and the City Council should decide whether to buy it. If they don’t, it should be able to be developed. Mr. Gagnon also noted that there has been talk of using TDRs and having these forest block areas be sending areas. The problem with that is the need for receiving areas that the public will accept. There have been times where the public didn’t want the increased density. He said they have to remember that these properties have economic value, and it shouldn’t be diminished for the owners. He also did not want to see 500 single family units going into a 50-family building. Ms. Ostby noted that some of the forest blocks are in an NRP area or on the Wheeler property where they are already protected. Mr. Macdonald noted that it looks like there are some parcels surrounded by a lot of development. He questioned whether they should prioritize the forest block properties and said it seems staff has started them down that road. Mr. Gagnon cited the need for field identification. Ms. Ostby said even Arrowood agreed on that. Members then addressed the list of meeting objective provided by staff as follows: a. Habitat Blocks within the City Center Form Based Code district: Ms. Louisos noted the city has been planning for many years for dense development in this area. Ms. LaRose showed a map and identified the Form Based Code (FBC) area. She noted that the hazards here are mostly steep slopes and some areas with streams. Ms. Ostby noted that the part closer to Williston Rd. opens up when you eliminate the Class 2 wetland and steep slopes. Ms. LaRose said there are some places where this is listed as a hazard and others where it is not. 3 Mr. Gagnon said he would eliminate this area from the habitat discussion and respect the wetland and buffer when it is field delineated. It is where density is wanted, near the Interstate. Ms. Louisos noted the City may choose to expand the City Center FBC area at some point. Mr. Macdonald pointed out that there is developed area around the FBC area. In a straw poll, members agreed to exempt the City Center FBC area from habitat block regulations, except where other hazards exist, per the staff recommendation. b. Habitat Blocks on existing parcels of less than 1 acre in size with one or more developed units: Ms. LaRose noted that some of these parcels are already covered by wetland buffer regulations, but there are some with a corner of a property. Staff found no parcel like this within a core portion of a forest block. Mr. Gagnon said he would say yes to exempting such parcels. Mr. Riehle asked what would happen if the owner wanted to add another home. Ms. LaRose said most existing homes are placed so this couldn’t happen. Ms. LaRose said they could indicate that there could be no additional primary residence. Ms. Ostby said some people would not understand the value of a forest property. Mr. Gagnon said he took exception to the word “forest.” It is “habitat,” and it could be a wetland or wetland buffer which is already regulated. A true forest would be different. In a straw poll, members agreed to exempt one-acre parcel with existing housing, per the staff recommendation. c. Habitat blocks located within 30 feet (50 feet?) of an existing principal building on the same parcel: Ms. LaRose said the recommendation is for a 30 or 50-foot usable buffer. Ms. Louisos said the issue is whether a building owner can maintain 30 or 50 feet around a building. She also noted the property would still be subject to stream and river standards. She also felt that a tree that might fall on a house should be able to be removed. Members were OK with 50 feet. In a straw poll, members agreed to a 50 foot buffer, excepting Mr. Mittag, who said he wanted a 30 feet buffer. d. Individual habitat blocks, either in lower ranked ones or isolated ones: Ms. Ostby said if there is a forest core, it should be protected. 4 Mr. Gagnon said he would keep them all the same and move the density to the rest of the parcel. If it is a “big blob,” put it on the official city map. Mr. Riehle asked how many parcels this involves. Ms. LaRose showed a map of parcels of 50% or more in habitat blocks and also a map with hazards included. She identified properties with 90% or more. Mr. Gagnon felt if there is more than 50%, and the property is not already controlled, it should go on the official city map or use TDRs if they can be made to work. In any case, hazards would still be regulated. Ms. Louisos said there could be some encroachment into the outer part and still maintain the core. She also suggested seeing how these lands would play into Conservation PUDs. Ms. LaRose noted that a Conservation PUD would have 70% resources, but nothing yet specifies whether these would be hazards, etc. The other thing the map doesn’t show is whether a habitat block is on top of a wetland, in which case there wouldn’t be a big change from today’s regulations. Mr. Gagnon encouraged the public to come to a listening session and provide any new thoughts to the Commission. Mr. Gonda said the maps miss a lot of what is on the ground. He said he would be willing to guide members in the Windjammer area property. Ms. Greco said the Commission should look into a regulation that doesn’t allow cutting down a healthy tree unless it is apt to fall on a house. Ms. Jensen said she was glad to hear concern for property owners. She noted a property not identified as a habitat block but as a supporting property. It was also identified by the Open Space Committee. She asked if there is an option as to how that property is dealt with. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is not regulating individual parcels. They have asked the Council to weigh in on those properties. Ms. Jensen said not all of the 25 properties coincide with Arrowood. Ms. Louisos said they are not looking to regulate the supporting or connecting lands. Ms. Ostby said she would be interested in having the Natural Resources Committee look at the supporting areas if they have the time. Mr. von Turkovich said it is important for the whole Planning Commission to hear from property owners, not only those who come to the listening sessions. He said there could be neighbors with different regulations. He said members should read Act 171. Most of it is about trees. It is not all about habitat blocks. He cited concerns with the Arrowwood study and said it is a “policy paper,” and it is not scientific. He said Arrowwood’s studies are not used to create 5 zoning in other communities. He noted that Arrowwood said 20 acres would be a habitat block, but that lets the 19-acre guy off the hook. He felt the Commission was asking for problems if it used the Arrowwood report as a regulating document. He also said that Act 171 is not a tool to tell people what they can or can’t build on their property. Ms. Louisos said Arrowwood did what it was specifically asked to do. The Commission will have the City Attorney look at it. Mr. Kahn asked about the 2004 Arrowwood study and what they were looking for. Ms. LaRose said most of what they did was wetland and other resources, some of which included community discussion and priority. It is on the city’s website. Mr. Kahn noted Map 8 in the Comprehensive Plan is “secondary conservation” which allows limited encroachment. He said if you go with the “tier 2” concept, you won’t need all the exemptions. Mr. Gill said habitat blocks have no discernable criteria. Arrowwood said “the forest is the thing.” He felt the city should say to the developer, “show us how you will not impair connectivity.” He added that they could provide a consultant who will look at Arrowwood and help develop some of that. 6. Establish calendar for public outreach for PUD/Natural Resources amendments to the LDRs: Mr. Mittag suggested an audio recording of listening sessions. Ms. LaRose said that can be done. She recommended sessions be very topic-specific and relate to recent Commission discussions. Ms. LaRose noted that the next meeting will feature a discussion about Master Plans. She said the Commission could discuss it, then have a listening session. Mr. Macdonald suggested that the next meeting also include discussion of how to rank the habitat blocks. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald agreed to be present at the next listening session on March 18th, 5:30 p.m., which will focus on typologies (building, street, open space). 7. Meeting Minutes of 19 February 2019, 28 January 2020, and 25 February 2020: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 19 February 2019, and 28 January and 25 February 2020 as written. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Other Business: 6 No other business was presented. 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 11, 2020