Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/03/2020 (2)SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, 3 February 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. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; P. Kahn; K. Montgomery; C. Jensen; A. Chalnick; A. Gill; F. Von Turkovich; E. Von Turkovich; M. Cota; E. Langfeldt; M. Cota; M. Simoneau; S. Dooley; P. O'Brien; J. Larkin; J. Morway; J. Morway; K. Lord; J. Nick 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: No announcements. 5. Continued Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report recommendations Staff shared an updated set of recommendations from the TDR Interim Zoning Committee Report based on the Commission’s prior meeting discussions and feedback. Commissioners reviewed the draft recommendations and members indicated that they felt they generally represented the Commission’s feedback to date. Ms. Louisos solicited comments from the public. Mr. Langfeldt said that not being able to use a hazard as sending TDR doesn't make sense; if the receiving area can absorb the density, why not? Mr. Mittag said that TDR may be used to tweak conditions elsewhere Mr. Kahn said that if one can build by transferring density within a property, should allow it to be used as TDR as well. Mr. O’Brien said that if you're a landowner and deciding whether to build or conserve a piece of land, the City may wish to give the benefit of selling TDRs from hazards in order to get additional value for conservation. 2 Mr. F Von Turkovich said that starting with a clean slate, wetlands do have an economic value of wetlands. If you have a wetland next to your developable land, it enhances the value of the developable part. Perhaps a wetland has a fraction of a TDR value? Ms. Lord said that if you have an owner of TDRs, if you take some away, that's a direct economic impact. Mr. Montgomery said that he was concerned that the Open Space report would be used in a regulatory form. Ms. Dooley said that in looking at new receiving areas, the Commission needs to consider traffic impact. Mr. E .Von Turkovich asked whether there has there been a study of the economic value of TDRs? Mr. Mittag replied that he had spoken with several TDR program managers and they have said it's difficult to estimate TDRs until you determine the areas where you want to use them. Ms. Morway said it’s important for everyone to remember why the TDR program started. Everyone feels that they're not sure what's coming next, except that their property will be worth less. She said that they had sold some, and that it's not a quick process and it's not cheap. And it's not easy to find someone to buy them. Mr. Kahn asked whether the Commission is contemplating retaining the NRP and adding, or replacing the NRP? Ms. Louisos replied that the Commission has not talked about removing the NRP Mr. Kahn said that a major focus has to be on new receiving areas. Mr. Gill said that he is concerned that both allowing development on Open Space IZ parcels and also having them be TDR sending areas. Could be creating uncertainty at Act 250. Mr. Larkin said he wasn’t sure why he'd buy TDRs if there are other places, like City center FBC, don't require them. Mr. Langfeldt inquired about steep slopes. Members of the audience and Commissions had a extended discussion of steep slope considerations. Following discussion, Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission accept the revised recommendations as written for our future work as a path forward on items 1-6 from the packet. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion approved 6-0. 6. Affirm Planning Commission Policy Intentions Related to Interim Zoning Committee and PUD Project Work Ms. Louisos discussed the list of items in the Commission’s packet. She reported that she and staff had worked to prepare a list of the guidance previously given on various elements of Interim Zoning Work and PUD project for review together and possible action by the Commission to affirm the list. This would be helpful in preparing the Planning Commission’s presentation to Council next week, she said. Members reviewed the numbered items one by one. 1. Regulated Natural Resources: a. Tiered levels to include hazards, level 1, and level 2, per the resource considerations document reviewed October 29, 2019, with updates per Arrowwood 2020 report and continued work on steep slopes and agriculture. These will apply citywide as part of Chapter 12 update. b. Accept findings of 2019 Arrowwood Report 3 i. Habitat blocks shall be defined per identified areas of report; Commission to evaluate whether to include all blocks and/or regulate at the same levels. No additional lands to be regulated as Level 1 habitat blocks. c. Some exemptions or reduction in regulation (example, City Center area) are intended to be reviewed shortly. d. No additional natural resources regulated as hazards or level 1 beyond those identified and accepted above. Those portions of parcels identified in the 2019 IZ Open Space report, that are not a regulated hazard, level 1 or level 2 natural resource shall not be regulated as a hazard, level 1 or level 2 natural resource. Commissioners discussed. Staff was asked to clarify #1b. What did “findings” mean, as the Commission has only received the prior week. It was suggested that it be changed to “findings & methodology”. Commissioners agreed. Mr. Nick asked whether there could be field verification? Ms. Louisos suggested that there could be a commitment to update the report regularly. 2. Density Calculations: a. Max Residential Density calculated: multiply total land area less hazards by average weighted density i. Maximum density would remove hazard lands in all cases. For development without PUD, would also remove lands classified as Level 1 resource areas. ii. Some exceptions for conservation PUDs. b. Minimum residential densities would apply in PUDs i. Calculate by multiplying land area exclusive of hazards and level 1 times residential allocation x underlying density maximum. ii. For SEQ, minimum density (of 4 units/acre for NRT/NR and 8u/acre for VC and VR) would be calculated as an effective density based on impacted land. This would not mandate use of TDRs to meet minimums. c. Minimum and maximum commercial densities are intended; work is ongoing and details tbd. Mr. Von Turkovich said that if a property owner has land in these areas, they may need to to buy TDRs to make up for lost density on a property. 3. Changes to PUD requirements a. Confirm PUD types (conservation, TND, NCD, Campus) b. Remove required PUDs based on underlying zoning (airport, SEQ as example) c. Require PUDS for 4+ acres (PC determination on 3/12/2019); special circumstances to be discussed d. PUDs to include mix of land allocations per PUD type e. Open space, road, and building types will be specified from typology standards 4. Master Plan- required for phased projects; details forthcoming. 5. Affirm that some desired elements of work will take place after adoption of PUD/Subdivision/Master Plan work. These phase 2 components include: a. Score card for PUDs b. Remainder of underlying zoning updates c. Infill/small lot subdivision 4 d. How to fit building and open space types City-wide e. Additional update to site plan standards f. Reserved sections of article 12 and scenic views 6. TDR Report Recommendations a. Per PC decisions 02/03/2020 (see separate memo) 7. Affirm intention for community outreach. General game plan to include testing and small group meetings/listening sessions with diverse groups of stakeholders. 8. Open Space Report: for any portions of identified parcels not already restricted in PC work related to natural resources (hazards, levels 1 and level 2), Commission recommends City Council review in balance with Earth Economics report and other metrics and consider any potential conservation using tools outside of the Land Development Regulations. Commissioners discussed each of the above. Following discussion, Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission affirm the Planning Commission decisions as presented in the memo for presentation to Council (with the addition of “and methodology to item #1b). Mr. Mittag Seconded. Motion approved 6-0. Mr. Gagnon stressed that this was a working document and that these were, in his view, general affirmations. Mr. Macdonald said that the Commission needs to be conscious of downzoning in all discussions. This must be a community conversation. Ms. Ostby said that a helpful visual would be arrowwood report and overlay NRP on it. 9. Preparation for February 11th Joint Meeting with City Council (8:00 PM) Ms. Louisos said she was prepared for the presentation with tonight’s guidance. The presentation would be based on the prior week’s work, rearranged and with the feedback given at that time and tonight. Mr. Mittag offered to assist with the presentation of the TDR portion of the report if needed. 10. Adjourn 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 25 August 2020