Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/11/20201 JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 11 February 2020, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. City Council Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman Planning Commission Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag Others Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; V. Bolduc, J. & F. Kochman, A. Chalnick, J. Morway, E. Langfeldt, S. Dopp, J. Nick, L. Nadeau, D. Murdoch, B. Gardner, P. O’Brien, A. Gill, P. Kahn, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, D. Seff, S. Dooley, M. Cota, Ms. Peters, other members of the public 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions in case of an emergency. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Consent Agenda for City Council: A. Authorize City Manger to negotiate and sign an agreement with the recommended consultant, Stantec, to design and engineer the shared use path on the south end of Dorset Street project Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Planning Commission presentation, followed by joint discussion, of approach to and status of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) amendments prioritized as part Interim Zoning: Ms. Riehle noted that the purpose of this meeting is to get the Planning Commission’s per- 2 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 2 spective on where they stand re: LDRs, PUDs, and the time-frame on studies. She added that there are clearly different points of view, and the Council needs to find a balance. She asked that everyone listen and understand the other person’s perspective, honor that, and find a way to move forward. Ms. Louisos then explained that the Planning Commission has been working on many regulations and planning pieces for many years (e.g., natural resources, PUDs, etc.) in order to bring about the city’s vision as put forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Many pieces are in draft form. The goal is to have a community that is affordable, walkable, green, clean and with available opportunities. Ms. Louisos then showed a map of existing land coverage. She identified developed parcels, open space areas, and larger parcels still available for development. She said the big thing the Commission is working on is to look at thoughtful patterns, multiple types of natural resources, and infrastructure. A lot of this, she noted, piggy-backs on what was done for City Center. There are multiple approaches to changes in the LDRs. This is often called the PUD project, but it is bigger than that. With any new development proposed, the aim would be to create a neighborhood with connections, resources, etc. The Commission is also proposing changes to a traditional subdivision and to Master Plans to bring about “place making.” PUDs have traditionally been used to get a waiver and flexibility. The question is what the city gets for that flexibility. The Commission will be proposing several types of PUDs for the future: a. Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) b. Neighborhood Center Development c. Conservation PUD d. Campus/Business Park Each would have its own development pattern and different components. Ms. Louisos then showed what a TND would look like, how the land would be broken up. It would be mostly residential with open space (e.g., resource land, civic space), and some non- residential. Unallocated land could go into any of the other categories. Ms. Louisos showed a pie chart of each type of PUD, indicating how different land allocations change with each type. She noted that allowable housing types would also change. All 3 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 3 Undeveloped parcels would follow one of the types of PUDs. Smaller parcels could be re- developed. The Commission has also created levels for natural resources: a. Hazards – flood plains, wetlands, etc. These would be no-build areas and would not count toward buildable density. There could be some restricted encroachment when there are no other options. These would have specific criteria. A map of hazard areas showed wetlands, streams & buffers and steep slopes b. Level 1 & 2 Resource areas include habitat blocks, some steep slopes and other resources valued by the community. In PUDs, these resource areas would be included for density, and there would be regulations for different types of encroachment. Ms. Louisos noted that some resources would have to be field delineated. Ms. Louisos noted that there will be new language to calculate the top of river banks. She also showed a map of habitat blocks and noted there will be a separate meeting with the consultant on this. A “generic” development parcel was then shown, indicating an area of hazards, level 1 resources and some level 2 resources (subject to DRB review for impacts, possibly requiring offsets), and what is left for development. Ms. Louisos noted that what is also new is the requirement for a minimum as well as a maximum density in order to get efficient use of developed land (e.g., cost of running utilities to an area). Minimum density would be calculated by subtracting hazards and level 1 resources and taking 70% of the zoning for the area. The new regulations will provide predictability regarding the tax base and what development would look like to neighbors. Ms. Louisos noted there would be different types of open space (e.g., plaza, green,, pocket park, etc.), where they would be appropriate, and what would have to be included (e.g., benches, picnic tables, etc.), similar to City Center. Street types would also be considered including placing of sidewalks, bike accommodations, and dimensions. Building types could include row houses, cottage clusters, etc., and where they would be applicable. Two consultants are working on the language for the new standards, and everything is being reviewed by the Commission in pieces/outline form before language is determined. 4 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 4 Ms. Louisos said the Commission has both an “aggressive” and a “very aggressive” schedule. The feeling is that a 90-day schedule is not realistic, but they could bring something approvable to the Council in June. This would allow time for public input but will require additional meetings. After the PUD and Master Plan work is adopted, the Commission will then be looking at additional issues and recommendations: a. Underlying zoning districts b. Smaller lot subdivisions c. Open space types city-wide d. Sit plan standards update e. Scenic views f. Recommendations from the TDR report With regard to the TDR report, Ms. Louisos noted that the Commissions recommendations are not meshed perfectly with the Open Space report. The Commission did not mandate any TDR changes. Ms. Louisos said there are questions as to how to move forward based on the Open Space Committee report. She showed an overlay map with recommended open space parcels added to the Resource Map. The portions of the parcels that are resources are very regulated, and the Commission is not using parcel boundaries for natural resource designations. The City Council will have options regarding the recommended open space parcels (e.g., acquisition, official city map and possible acquisition, etc.). Mr. Chittenden asked about density minimums. Ms. Louisos stressed that no one would ever have to buy a TDR to meet the minimum. Mr. Barritt said he would like to see a comparison of the changes to different properties. Ms. Louisos said the Commission would like to see that as well. Ms. Riehle expressed the concern that if the door on Interim Zoning (IZ) was closed before the Commission’s work is done, there could be a rush to develop. Mr. Mittag said this is not an easy project to complete. He had some doubts about a June date. 5 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRURY 2020 PAGE 5 Ms. Ostby felt it might be worth the time to landowners to let the project complete. She also cited work being done by a volunteer group related to development. 6. Convene Public Hearing to hear comments related to the possible extension of Interim Zoning in those areas currently covered by Interim Zoning for a 3-month period: Ms. Emery moved to open the pubic hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Community input was then invited with the following responses: Community Member: A lot of people have volunteered their time, and their recommendations should be implemented before IZ ends. Three months is just a “blink” in the city’s history. Mr. Kahn: Asked how it would be determined what goes where in a PUD. Ms. Louisos said there is a map available which includes choices. Mr. Conner added it would generally be related to today’s zoning with a few changes. Mr. Simoneau: Would like the City Council to “get straight” with everyone, those who support/don’t support IZ. He cited a lot of “heavy lifting.” He asked if it is the Council’s intention to keep IZ in place until all work is done. Ms. Riehle said that discussion will occur later in the agenda. Ms. Worth: Spoke to the need for connectivity of wildlife corridors. Also questioned how open space areas would be preserved. She was concerned the identified parcels would be broken down just like any other parcels. Mr. Gardner: Asked where a previously started development stands. Mr. Conner said it is a question of when the Preliminary Plat was submitted. The regulations at that time would prevail. Mr. Chalnick: The TDR committee felt the open space parcels should be sending areas, never receiving areas. He felt the open space parcels should automatically become Conservation PUDs. Ms. Morway: Noted that “steep slopes” weren’t in the City Council list but are on the Planning Commission’s list. She was concerned with this disconnect. 6 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 6 Mr. Langfeldt: Keeping IZ in place is making the housing crisis worse. Mr. Nadeau: The public was told the reason for IZ was overload on city services, but actually the real overload to city services is to areas outside the Southeast Quadrant that are not under IZ. Ms. Peters: City the need to end up with acceptable items. Urged patience and everyone’s respect for the work being done. Ms. Dopp: Didn’t feel affordable housing needs to be built in open areas. Member of the Public: There is an affordable housing crisis which continues to get worse. The city has a 2% vacancy rate, and this affects everyone in the community, the quality of life and the schools. Mr. Murdoch: Hoped for solid decisions around the work of the Open Space Committee. Cited the need to know where other species will live. Mr. Nick: Expressed concern with the Open Space Plan. It is vague as to how it will be used. The city spent $5,000,000 in the past to conserve properties. Now looking at over $100,000,000 in property. He felt this could lead to a “back door taking.” Mr. Kochman: Was distressed by the polarization: affordable housing vs. open space. He said the really affordable housing can’t be accomplished these days without subsidy. He felt the Open Space Report was useful as an inventory, but “back door taking” has some resonance, and the city needs to be careful what is regulated. Ms. Greco: Asked the Council to take a broad, long-term view. Showed the stack of reports done for the city with tax-payer money. Urged preservation of open lands. Mr. Seff: Felt there would be a scramble to develop is IZ were not extended. Was concerned that the current TDR bylaw makes areas in the Southeast Quadrant receiving areas which are now identified as high priority conservation areas. Felt this should be resolved. Member of the Public: Balancing development and conservation is daunting. Affordable housing is a national issue and should be a shared responsibility. 7 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 7 Ms. Dooley: IZ depresses the production of housing and increases the price of housing. Inclusionary zoning will address housing for some people. For others, non-profits would have to be involved. Urged the city to put more money in the Housing Trust Fund. She also cited the need to have the 2 goals (affordable housing and open space) complement each other. Mr. Mittag: Noted the IZ was a response to people who felt the city was developing too quickly. Felt IZ should be extended so there can be draft regulations before it ends. Mr. Kaufman: Stressed that the charge to the Open Space Committee was not to identify lands that should never be developed. It was to identify resources on the land. Even the Chair of the Open Space Committee discusses how development should occur on those lands. Mr. Barritt then moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Status report of Studies related to the economic assessment of conservation and development: Mr. Dorn said the Earth Economics report is due by the end of the week. Mr. Stewart’s report is due by the end of the month. 8. Determine Actions and Schedule follow-up meeting for additional work: Mr. Conner said the Planning Commission recommends not doing everything in one shot. A few important pieces need follow-up, specifically the Arrowwood Habitat Block Assessment (they would be happy to make a presentation to both the Council and Planning Commission) and areas from the Open Space report that the City Council has the tools to deal with. A mutually convenient date for a joint meeting will be worked out. 9. Consider and possibly approve extending Interim Zoning in those areas currently covered by Interim Zoning for a 3-month period: Mr. Chittenden said he would vote against this as he didn’t feel it was necessary. He was concerned with the possibility of the “taking” of people’s assets as well as with the process not being balanced for affordability and opportunity. 8 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 8 Ms. Riehle cited the need to balance all competing interests even though it won’t please everyone. She added she is a big supporter of affordable housing but didn’t thing Interim Zoning was preventing it from being built. Ms. Emery cited the irreplaceable loss of affordable housing because of the Airport taking. Mr. Barritt said the Planning Commission presentation convinced him to extend IZ as he felt that the PUDs were the best way to see how to develop remaining land. He also cited the housing that is now being built or ready to be built. Mr. Kaufman said “taking” of land is never going to happen. He added he wasn’t overjoyed with the Planning Commission time-line, but appreciates the hard work and the difficult nature of the project. He felt it was appropriate to complete that work so that everyone can be a winner. Mr. Mittag questioned whether staff has the manpower to get everything done. Mr. Barritt moved to extend Interim Zoning for 3 months. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden voting against. 10. Other Business: No other issues were presented. As there was no further business to come before the joint meeting, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission 25 August , 2020