Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/27/2018SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 NOVEMBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 November 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; S. Dooley, A. Chalnick, D. Leban, T. Barritt, D. Burke, L. Murphy, D. Angus 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: Mr. Conner asked to add to Other Business a 45-day notice from the Public Service Board. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. Chalnick said that the Energy Committee would like to work with the Planning Commission regarding changes to the LDRs to support South Burlington’s climate change pledge. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Conner is the city’s Sustainability Coordinator. She also noted that the Commission will be evaluating its work plan at this meeting and will sort out what it has been asked to do. The Commission has been considering a possible bonus structure for developments the provide something “extra special,” which could involve energy. The Energy Committee could suggest possibly changes to the LDRs for the Commission to review as it has done in the past. Ms. Leban said the Bike & Pedestrian Committee would like to help promote bike and pedestrian structure for new streets and streets that are redone. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission will be consolidating roadway standards. A preliminary draft of the standards is posted on the city’s website. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby: She is hoping to attend the Vermont Energy and Climate Conference on Saturday. She also noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has been invited to tour Allard Square next Thursday. 2 Mr. Conner’s: Voters very substantially passed the 4 ballot items regarding the new City Hall- Library-Senior Center. Staff has been doing the math to see where new dwelling units in the city have been located this year. 126 of these units have been located in the City Center/Form Based Code area (this does not include the Cathedral Square building). 5. Recap of November 13th City Council Meeting /Adoption of Interim Zoning Bylaws: Ms. Louisos noted that she and Mr. Gagnon attended the meeting. The City Council voted 4-1 to adopt Interim Zoning with the 4 study areas the Commission had discussed. The City Manager then sent a letter summarizing the approach the Council wants to take. The Commission will continue to have the consultants for the PUD project, but staff time will be a big concern. Mr. Mittag asked if there will be staff/legal time to review what the Commission comes up with. Mr. Conner said if there is a need to review anything, that is within the Council’s priorities. Mr. Mittag asked if Inclusionary Zoning will be included in what the Commission needs to work on during Interim Zoning. Ms. Louisos said that is not part of the 4 assigned committees, but the Commission should talk about that. Mr. Mittag said the Affordably Housing Committee has done most of that work. Ms. Dooley said there was a lot of talk at the Council meeting regarding Inclusionary Zoning. Ms. Ostby said she recalls asking if that was a priority and the Council chair said yes. Mr. Klugo noted there was no direct instruction to include it. Mr. Conner said that Mr. Dorn had felt that the City Council saw Inclusionary Zoning as a “secondary priority” to the elements of Interim Zoning. Mr. Gagnon cautioned to be careful of “scope creep.” Mr. Klugo said the Commission should deal with the primary priorities first and can ask for clarification regarding Inclusionary Zoning. Mr. Mittag also noted that he had done a draft of a TDR Ordinance which would need a legal review. Ms. Louisos said that should be considered by the TDR Committee that is being set up. Ms. Ostby asked whether having the LDRs catch up with the Comprehensive Plan is part of Interim Zoning. Ms. Louisos said that all the recommendations of the Interim Zoning committees will have to come to the Planning Commission for vetting. Mr. Klugo said there are open issues from the last Interim Zoning that weren’t implemented, and there was a lot of public comment about that. He felt they need to understand where their base line is. Ms. Louisos said she felt the Commission’s entire work plan addresses elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Mr. Mittag said he thought that what the Council wants from the Commission are draft LDRs. Ms. Louisos said that was the Commission’s goal with the PUD project. Ms. Louisos suggested there be time on every agenda to get feedback from representatives to the Interim Zoning committees so there are no surprises when the Commission gets the final products. Mr. Klugo said he would like to see information prior to a meeting in order to review it before the Commission has to respond to it. He asked who will set out the “master calendar” of when drafts, final reports, etc. are due. Mr. Conner said that would by the City Manager implementing the City Council’s request. Staff has laid out a timetable, but it is a work in progress. The floor was then opened for nominations to represent the Planning Commission on the TDR and Open Space Interim Zoning Committees. Ms. Louisos nominated Mr. Gagnon for the Open Space IZ Committee and Mr. Mittag for the TDR IZ Committee. Mr. Mittag seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Mittag were elected 6-0. Mr. Klugo asked if there will be a statement of what the committees are supposed to accomplish. Mr. Conner said Mr. Dorn and the Council will provide that. All committee meetings will be public and subject to the open meeting law. The Council will take action on committee nominations at their 17 December meeting. 6. Scheduling action concerning initial consideration of requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations discussed on 9 October 2018: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of discussion as to whether the Commission would take up LDR amendment requests in the near future. Mr. Conner noted there are two requests pending, the first would allow parking in front of buildings (the specific request involves buildings on Shelburne Road) and the second relates to scenic views. Ms. Louisos noted the Council has indicated the Commission shouldn’t take up anything that is not related to the Interim Zoning instructions. Mr. Gagnon felt the requests should be deferred if they are not what the Commission has been told to do. Mr. Burke noted that their request regarding scenic views started before Interim Zoning. He asked that it should be addressed as soon as the Commission has time for it. Mr. Murphy made the same request regarding front of building parking. Commission members agreed. 4 7. Commission Work Session: Planned Unit Developments: a. Which elements to complete, which to phase for post IZ period b. Introduction to application spreadsheet and review elements Ms. LaRose reminded members that at the 23 October meeting staff presented a long list of projects to complete. The Commission asked staff to see if anything could/should be moved to a later date. Ms. LaRose said there are some pieces that could be done after the PUD standard and a few that can be phased out. Ms. LaRose then explained the nature of a PUD and noted that it has been used most often because it is an easy way to get waivers. Mr. Conner added that some projects that are PUDs now shouldn’t be. This means that some site standards have to be revised so this doesn’t continue to happen. Ms. LaRose then reviewed the 3 types of applications: site plans, subdivisions, and planned unit developments (PUDs). She said there needs to be clarity as to what is expected under each of these types. She then reviewed some of the issues that need to be addressed: 1. Master Plan Standards: these need to be clearer 2. Open Space, Building, Street Standards: These will be important for all the types of applications. 3. Graphic Illustrations: These will be critical for understanding what is being required. It makes it easier to understand if you can actually see what something should look like. 4. Natural Resource Standards: After the JM Golf decision, staff realized that these standards were vague and a rewrite began. But because of the first interim zoning and work on the update of the Comprehensive Plan, work did not progress. There is some grant money with the Regional Planning Commission to do some of the work. Ms. LaRose noted that some of the “big picture” items were already pulled out and put into the Comprehensive Plan, but nothing specific got into the LDRs. Mr. Conner said the first thing the Commission should address is buildable/nonbuildable areas and what it means to be a “secondary resource.” Is it OK to have an incursion if there is mitigation? Ms. LaRose added that they are also working on consistent terminology. Mr. Conner stressed that the Comprehensive Plan can be implemented in many ways, not only by regulatory solutions (e.g., education). Ms. LaRose said they are trying to build a connection between the Comprehensive Plan strategies and what exists in the LDRs. One of the 5 standards is “compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,” and that’s like “cherry picking.” She suggested there could be a requirement for 5 specific things and then a choice of 5 more from a list of 10. She felt this is one of the biggest improvements that can be made and one which the DRB would appreciate the most. 5. Re-evaluation of Underlying Zoning Districts: Ms. LaRose noted that PUDs were tied to a zoning district (there wouldn’t be a Conservation PUD on Shelburne Rd.) Staff has been looking at all the zoning districts to be sure a PUD type is right for that district. They have to look at every use in every district to be sure something isn’t left out from where it could/should be. Mr. Klugo asked if it is possible to do this by just saying it supersedes the underlying zoning. Ms. LaRose said that is the intent, but you have to be sure the right PUD districts are in the right zoning districts. Ms. Ostby asked what if an IZ Committee comes back with a different recommendation. Mr. Gagnon said every piece of land in the city has to have an underlying zoning. If the Open Space IZ Committee recommends that something be kept open and the city chooses not to use a mechanism to conserve it, there has to be a zoning district to direct the development that happens there. Ms. Ostby said there could be a bonus that the TDRs could offer. Ms. LaRose said still will provide a chart of zoning districts and what changes could occur there. Mr. Klugo said the Commission should only be looking at zoning in the IZ areas. The others can be a “phase 2.” Ms. LaRose said the issues to cover at a later date include: Master Plan standards related to City Center, Miscellaneous clean-ups (there are many), and Natural Resource Standards to areas specifically excluded from Interim Zoning. Ms. LaRose then showed what an application for a PUD could look like. It would include restraints (unbuildable areas) which would have a number associated with them. There would then be a buildable number. For parcels that fall into 2 zoning districts, there would be an average density. Mr. Conner said there would be elements of the PUD standards that determine where the development goes (e.g., in a Transit PUD, development would go near the transit). Mr. LaRose said the purpose of a PUD is to allow for efficiency and creativity. She noted that for certain PUD types, there would be a minimum land size, no matter what the underlying zone is. Mr. Conner said there may be cases where a small project is in an area with larger neighborhoods. Mr. Klugo said there is a need to figure out how to navigate the Act 250 “loophole” which allows up to 9 units to escape Act 250 review. 6 Ms. Dooley noted that the Kirby Cottages took up less than 2 acres (which would be a PUD minimum) and was a great development. Mr. Conner said that is a great point and staff is considering that. Mr. Klugo said they also have to understand that “highest and best use” can change daily. Mr. Klugo asked if there would be an administrative approval if a development proposal meets all criteria and standards. Ms. LaRose didn’t think so. Mr. Klugo asked why a developer would go through all of that and still not know if the project is going to be approved. Mr. Conner said that is the lesson of the JM Golf decision: neighbors have a right to know what is like to be built. Mr. Klugo felt that if a development meets all the standards it should be viewed the same as in the Form Based Code district where there is administrative approval. Members agreed to continue this discussion after Interim Zoning. Mr. Angus cited an issue where he has attempted to put a tenant (skin care service) into a building and has been turned down because of zoning. Ms. LaRose acknowledged that the property is one of those where the underlying zoning doesn’t make sense. Part of the PUD project could involve a new zoning for that area. Mr. Conner felt there could be a very simple solution to this problem which wouldn’t take much time to do. Ms. LaRose then explained how a formula would work: In the Traditional Neighborhood PUD, you would eliminate the unbuildable areas and then be allowed to develop 70% of the buildable areas with a distribution of housing types, some non-residential and usable open space (e.g., a soccer field). 10% of the housing types would be of the developer’s choice. Mr. Klugo said that would help address the market demand. Ms. LaRose noted that certain building types would not be appropriate in all PUD types. Mr. Klugo asked why there is a maximum density in a PUD. Mr. Conner said you don’t have to have a maximum density. Realistically, there won’t be more than that. It will just be easier to explain to the public. Ms. LaRose noted there would be a minimum density based on the underlying density and the proportion of buildable land. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the minimum density is too low from the taxability point of view. Mr. Conner felt that is a good conversation to have. Mr. Conner noted that the Traditional Neighborhood PUD doesn’t not work at less than 4 units per acre. 8. Consider Resolution for Electric Vehicle charging Station Grant: 7 Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Resolution for the Electric Vehicle Charging Station Grant as presented. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Meeting Minutes of 23 October 2018: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 October 2018 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Macdonald abstaining. 10. Other Business: a. Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission on draft amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 27 November 2018, 7 p.m., Burlington City Hall b. Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission on draft plan BTV Burlington Comprehensive Plan, December 5, 2018, Burlington City Hall c. Public Hearing by Winooski Planning Commission on Draft Winooski Master Plan, December 13, 2018, 6:30 p.m., Winooski City Hall Mr. Conner noted these are information items. Mr. Conner then presented 2 Public Service Board 45-day pre-application notices and identified where the solar panels would be located. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t support either request because of the process. Mr. Mittag agrees and noted this panels make the land unusable. Mr. Klugo said the PSB should provide land that is usable as a mitigation similar to what happens with wetlands, etc. Ms. Ostby asked if the Commission can request that the land below the panels be filled with wildflowers and pollinators and possibly use for grazing. Commission comments will be passed along to the Public Service Board. Members agreed to hold only 1 meeting in December (11 December) as the second meeting would fall on Christmas night. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:25 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission 25 August, 2020