Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/26/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 JANUARY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2021, at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Dorn, City Manager; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; T. Newton, CCRPC; V. Bolduc, S. Dopp, D. Long, S. Dooley, C. Long, C. Trombley 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos reminded members to attend to the Open Meeting Law Training they received via email. If all members have completed it by the end of February, there can be a session in March regarding any questions. Mr. Conner said he would re-send the link. Mr. Riehle noted an article in the Williston Observer about Taft’s Corners. It said there will be no more big box stores, and they are hiring a consultant to look into Form Based Code. Mr. Conner noted that Taylor Newton of CCRPC is part of that process. 4. Presentation of Upcoming March Ballot Item for Tax Increment Financing Garden Street Section Completion: Mr. Dorn reviewed the history of the ballot item to connect two sections of Garden Street. Ms. Blanchard then showed an overview slide of the project. She noted that Sections “A” and “C” represent this project. Section “A” includes the area between Trader Joe’s and Healthy Living. The project there includes lighting, utilities, curbing and bicycle facilities. Section “C” is for full construction of the street through to Midas Drive with lighting, curbing, utilities and bike facilities. Ms. Blanchard showed plans with a cross section at each end of the street. Ms. Blanchard then explained that this project is 100% TIF eligible and explained the nature of tax incremental financing. She showed a chart for debt authorization. The total bond is for $4,002,550. Passage of the ballot item will not increase the city’s tax rate; however, if the increment does not occur, the city would have to service the debt. 2 Mr. Dorn noted that this will be the fourth time the city has taken TIF debt to the voters (others are Market Street completions, the Library/City Hall building, and City Center Park). Mr. Dorn also noted that the city has authorization to incur debt only until the end of 2022. He explained that there are already 2 additional City Center projects fully approved. Dover Place will have 30 units of mainly affordable housing. Prospect Place will be a mixed use project to be built right after Dover Place. The incremental taxes from both of these projects will become part of the financing for the two sections of Garden Street. Mr. Conner noted that Dover Place and Prospect Place developments include requirements to complete Garden Street. 5. Continued Planning Commission Work Session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Updated Environmental Protections Standards b. Review, Summary and Status of Complete Working Draft of LDRs Ms. Louisos noted receipt of public comment asking for strong natural resource standards to be adopted before the end of Interim Zoning. Ms. Ostby noted receipt of comments from Patrick O’Brien and Vince Bolduc to discuss when the Commission gets to the relevant sections. Mr. Newton then said that there are 3 big policy issues to discuss: buffers, wetlands, and Class 3 wetlands. With regard to stream and surface water buffers, Mr. Newton suggested combining river corridors and stream buffer standards as mapped, as they are roughly the same area. Mr. Gagnon noted the Commission had defined buffers by distance from the top of the bank. He asked if that would go away under Mr. Newton’s suggestion. Mr. Newton said the geographic area is mapped by the State. For major streams, the geographic area is mapped by the State according to the size of the river, type of soils, and area prone to erosion. The city’s 3 streams that fall into this category are Muddy Brook, portions of the Potash Brook and the Winooski River. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the State standard is less than the measured distance. Ms. Louisos noted that for smaller streams, the measure is currently from the centerline of the stream in South Burlington but proposed to be measures from top of bank. The City can just adopt that buffer if it wants to. The current local measurement from major streams is 100 feet. Mr. Conner referred to the Potash Brook chart and noted the closeness of the 50/100-foot buffer and the defined river corridor. He noted that with the Winooski River, the State’s standard is more substantial. He also noted that all of Muddy Brook is mapped by the State. Ms. Ostby asked if combining the stream buffer and river corridors impacts the 500-year flood plain. Mr. Newton said not at all. 3 Ms. Louisos said she fully supports the State’s mapped river corridors. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald said they support what Mr. Newton has presented. Mr. Gagnon added that he is concerned with property that is an asset for its owner who has paid taxes on it for a long time. Mr. Conner asked whether an addition to a home would be allowed. Mr. Newton said no new structures could be built. Ms. Ostby said she agrees with Mr. Gagnon that measuring from the top of the bank provides more protection than what exists now. Ms. Louisos said that because there will be habitat blocks, she was OK to go with what Mr. Gagnon is saying. Ms. Dooley asked whether the 50-foot buffer had bad results and added that if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. Mr. Mittag said he was concerned with what is coming in 10-15 years regarding climate change. He felt it was a resiliency concern. Ms. Ostby felt there were protections in multiple layers. Mr. Gagnon felt the 100 and 500 year flood plains address resiliency. Mr. Riehle asked about a section through Butler Farms. Mr. Conner showed a map with the current buffer and a 100-foot buffer. Mr. Bolduc asked whether 20-30 of the homes would not have been able to be built with the 100-foot buffer. Ms. Louisos said they couldn’t have been built in their current location. Mr. Conner said there is one other feature of the proposed regulations. The backyards of people’s homes go directly to the street. In the future regulations, hazards and Class 1 resources can’t be included in people’s house lots. People now are mowing right to the stream. Mr. Conner showed a map indicating the 100 and 500 year flood plains. Ms. Louisos noted the substantial overlap of resources and buffer areas around streams. Mr. Engels asked what happens to Potash Brook at Dorset Street. Mr. Conner said it goes underground next to Healthy Living and reappears at the UVM Miller Farm. It briefly goes into Burlington at the golf course. Eventually, it meets up with the main line of Potash Brook at 150 Swift Street, goes through Queen City Park and into the Lake. Ms. Louisos noted that the city would not longer allow a long section of a stream to go underground. Mr. Engels then asked about water in City Center. Mr. Conner explained there are substantial stormwater facilities being built. Water is being treated at Market Street. Mr. Conner added that he actually saw some ducks going through there. Mr. Newton said he removed some language regarding stream alteration. That is not in the city’s jurisdiction. There is a section of the regulations to provide a referral to a stream alteration engineer. Mr. Conner said the State has jurisdiction over where water is. The city regulates everything beside it (e.g., buffers). 4 Members were in favor of combining river corridor and stream buffer standards, with the more restrictive of each applying. For buffers, in a straw poll Messrs. Gagnon and Macdonald and Ms. Louisos and Ms. Ostby favored using the river corridors where mapped by the state, 100 foot buffers from larger streams and 50 feet from smaller streams measured from the top of the stream bank. Messrs. Riehle, Mittag, and Engels favored larger buffers. Regarding buffers related to wetlands, Mr. Newton said his recommendation is to think about them by zoning district. In the Commercial/Form Based Code/Industrial/Airport zones, he recommended maintaining the existing wetland buffers. In the Residential and SEQ zones, increase the buffers to 100 feet from Class 1 and 2 wetlands. Mr. Newton said he does not recommend regulating Class 3 wetlands for administrative reasons. The city cannot rely on the state, which does not regulate Class 3 wetlands at all. There is often a “self- verification” process from the homeowner, and the city would have to hire someone to verify this. Class 3 wetlands are also generally smaller with less function, and there may be too many of them. Mr. Conner showed a map of Class 2 wetlands and their buffers. He stressed that these are estimates and that wetlands require field delineation. Mr. Gagnon said it seems like what you should want is a wider buffer in a developed area than in a residential area where you don’t have runoff from parking lots, etc. He felt that what is being proposed is “backwards.” Ms. Louisos said the concern with industrial areas is a good one when there is more pavement (e.g., parking lots). That could be a policy decision. She added that it is important to have absorption upstream and cited the Middlebury situation where this was the case, and there was no downstream flooding during Irene. Mr. Conner noted there is a challenge with wide buffers in some commercial areas. He cited Technology Park where development sites are getting squeezed on all sides by wetlands and buffers. He felt they could say “restricted infrastructure allowed” if it meets all standards. The exception would be Form Based Code/Market Street where offsite mitigation might be appropriate. Mr. Gagnon said he was good with what is proposed, now that it has been explained. Ms. Ostby asked if it is possible for a Class 3 wetland to become Class 2, and would it then be added to the Class 2 map. Mr. Conner said wetland delineation in Vermont is good for only 5 years; then it has to be remapped. The regulations don’t go to a map. You have to delineate the wetland. Mr. Mittag said he preferred regulating Class 3 wetlands in some “lighthanded way.” Mr. Riehle said he thought Class 3 wetlands have a place. He wouldn’t want them all covered with development. He felt they could be determined by species and plants. Mr. Macdonald agreed. Mr. Conner expressed concern that the buffer could be larger than the Class 3 wetland. Mr. Mittag suggested a 10-foot buffer 5 in such instances. Mr. Conner cited the challenge to the DRB. Applicants say the Class 3 wetland has few functions/values, and this puts the DRB in a tight spot. Mr. Newton said Class 3 wetlands tend to be small. If they get larger, they become Class 2. It is also hard to know where they are. Mr. Conner cited the example of a property off Gregory Drive. It is a Class 3 wetland. An applicant said they met with the State wetlands people who agreed it was not a Class 2. Mr. Conner said that is usually the best they can get unless the city hires its own person, and that can be tricky because wetlands can be delineated at only a certain time of year. He added that he would advocate for the ability to work on a case by case basis to allow for some flexibility. Ms. Louisos noted there is a physical separation between Class 3 wetlands and other waters. Mr. Mittag noted that the city now regulations Class 3 wetlands of 300 feet or more. Mr. Gagnon summarized the Commission’s thinking regarding wetland buffers as follows: Industrial zones, etc. – keep the 50-foot buffer, more stringent regulations and allow only restricted infrastructure Rural areas – 100-foot buffer from Class 2 wetlands, 200 feet from Class 1 Class 3 wetlands – as previously drafted, with standards for the DRB to review Mr. Conner said he can work with that. He also asked that the same allowances as now be allowed for Class 2 buffers in City Center. Members agreed. Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton did a good job cleaning up the standards in habitat blocks as to what happens with forestry operations. There appears to be an inconsistency in State rules which say that forestry is exempt from local regulations but also say that this does not preclude wildlife management by communities. Staff has reached out to the Chittenden County Forester to get a determination. He felt this was a “good question.” Mr. Gagnon drew attention to Vince Bolduc’s letter regarding invasive species. Mr. Gagnon noted there was a project to do a mass removal of invasives to improve habitat for birds, and he wanted to allow for that kind of activity in forest blocks. He added that proper management can improve a habitat. Mr. Conner said that Mr. Bolduc proposed some good language for that. Ms. Ostby felt the city should encourage people to maintain these habitat blocks. She noted that East Woods is overgrown with buckthorn. Mr. Gagnon said this should definitely happen on lands the city has purchased. Mr. Newton said a tax stabilization agreement could help accomplish that. Mr. Engels noted that a while ago the Commission discussed a page in the draft about waivers and the DRB. He felt they should get back to that. Mr. Conner said that based on the Commission’s guidance at its last meeting, staff was clarifying the authority for “alternative compliance” in Planned Unit 6 Developments and taking a look through the rest of the waivers for the Commission. In Article 12, the only flexibility for the DRB is what is contained in the Article. Ms. Ostby said that definitions need to be strengthened and other definitions (e.g., core) need to be added. She noted that Tom Bailey’s letter expressed confusion as to what a habitat block is. Mr. Macdonald asked whether Article 12 would be released separately to the public. Mr. Conner said that those who have concerns regarding development may feel better if they get the whole document. Mr. Conner said they almost now have a full draft. The only piece not in the Commission’s hands is the Neighborhood Commercial PUD section. He hoped that in the upcoming month the Commission will get public feedback on the whole thing, even if it isn’t perfect. He noted that the Commission can make changes after a public hearing. Mr. Conner then enumerated some “housekeeping” considerations including consolidating zoning districts and considering Article 9 a TDR section. He noted that the Affordable Housing Committee recommends that TDRs be used more widely in the city. He would like Commission guidance on that. Ms. Ostby suggested holding off on infill PUDs until after Interim Zoning. 6. Meeting Minutes of 7 and 12 January 2021: Mr. Mittag presented a correction to the 7 January minutes in written form. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 7 January as amended and the Minutes of 12 January as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner said the next meeting will include a return to the PUD discussion, a clear description of where there is flexibility and under what circumstances, and what is the likely density in PUDs. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:42 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission February 23, 2021