HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/23/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
23 FEBRUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 February
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; M. Kane, A. Jensen-Vargas, C.
Trombly, S. Dopp, V. Bolduc, J. Bellavance, A. Chalnick, S. Dooley
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 said she attended the City Council, and they were happy for an update. They were
also curious about the Commission’s schedule and are interested in a May completion. They
want another update in April. There was a brief discussion about Articles 10 and 12, and the
Ms. Louisos offered an update to a Council question from December of whether those could be
separated for approval. Ms. Louisos said she told them the Commission was doing it all as a
package at this stage, and would continue to evaluate.
Mr. Macdonald said he attended the second meeting of the Swift/Spear Street committee. A
consultant presented an information sheet that will go to the public with a survey included.
The Committee hopes to present to the Planning Commission at a later March meeting.
Mr. Conner noted he had met with the Parks and Recreation Committee and will go back to
them next month with some specifics. Mr. Conner also noted that last Friday he participated in
a meeting for the regional bike share program. The positive news is that it may be possible to
replace bikes with electric bikes.
Mr. Conner reminded members of the pre-Town Meeting joint meeting of the City Council and
School Board at 7 p.m. on 1 March. There will also be a debate between candidates for Council
and School Board positions.
2
4. Review of possibly updated meeting participation guidelines:
Ms. Louisos noted that it had been brought to her attention that the meeting participation
guidelines were very specific to “in-person” meetings. She sent a draft of guidelines for
Commission members participation and guidelines for public participation. She felt these
should be adopted. The guidelines include the following:
a. Generally stay muted to avoid background noise
b. Raise a hand to speak
c. Try to give every member an equal chance to speak (currently there is not a
balance in how much each person is speaking) and possibly keep a record of
speaking times
d. Avoid repeating the same point
e. Try to keep comments to the policy level rather than phrasing or words;
leave language to staff and the legal team
Ms. Louisos said that Mr. Gagnon will help with check-ins regarding timing.
There were “time permitting” items on the last agenda. Mr. Gagnon will also try to evaluate by
8:30 p.m. whether there are items that won’t be addressed (for the benefit of people who may
be attending to hear those items).
Mr. Mittag suggested members end suggested edits to Ms. Louisos and not use meeting times
for that.
Ms. Louisos explained how members of the public can get attention and suggested they use the
“chat” for comments specifically related to the agenda item under discussion.
5. Visualization and calculation of development in Traditional Neighborhood Planned
Unit Development:
a. Discuss/review of principal “levers” that shape the form of Traditional
Neighborhood Developments, options for Commissioners:
Mr. Conner introduced Make Kane of SE Group who has been helping with the visual
presentation. He said that this discussion will focus on the form of a Traditional Neighborhood,
including how to deal with density.
Mr. Kane noted that they have been testing the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
regulations against sites in South Burlington to see what the ordinance would do to create a
TND form. He then reviewed what they have found with specific neighborhoods as follows:
3
1. Simpson Court/Sunset Avenue:
Zoning: R-4
Developed at: 3.9/acre
Type(s) of housing: All single family homes
Mr. Kane said this is a traditional subdivision neighborhood with no diversity of housing forms.
Buildings relate to the street grid. There is no civic space. There is a sidewalk but no other
form of connectivity.
2. Appletree/Hadley Ave.
Zoning: R-4
Developed at: 4.3/acre
Type(s) of housing: Mostly single family, some multi-family
There are different types of single family homes and some multi-family buildings. There is no
sidewalk, but there are long alleys. Mr. Conner noted this neighborhood has diversity in lot
sizes which work well together. The duplexes and triplexes are “hidden within.”
3. Village at Dorset Park:
Zoning: SEQ-NR
Developed at: 6.5/acre
Type(s) of housing: Single family, duplexes, 4 plexes
Though there is diversity of housing types, there is no “integrated diversity”’ all single family
homes are together, etc. There is a modified grid with opportunities for future connections
(this is an element of a TND). There are some amenities. This development is moving toward a
TND.
4. South Village, Phase I:
Zoning: SEQ-NR
Developed at: 8.9/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, 2-family, 3-family, multi-family
There is no civic open space though there are open spaces. There is connection to existing
circulation systems.
4
5. O’Brien Hillside Phase I:
Zoning: R-12
Developed at: 8/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, 2-family
Mr. Kane noted there is a 3-acre park in the center of this development. It does not have a
strong grid (due to steeper terrain). There could possibly have been improved connectivity, but
development is organized around a central space. It takes advantage of existing network
systems. It does advance some TND principles though it does not have a number of diverse
housing types.
6. Rye Meadows:
Zoning: SEQ-NR
Net Density: 6.1/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, cottage, 4-plex
There is a park in the center of the development. It also has a street grid, but there could be
better connectivity to other neighborhoods. There is a diversity of unit types on a block. The
“cottage court” is integrated into the plan and has its own central green. Mr. Conner noted
that commercial buildings on Hinesburg Rd. create a noise buffer between Rt. 116 and the
residential neighborhood. Any one of those buildings could become a neighborhood shop. The
stormwater pond is a buffer to the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Kane noted the opportunity to
connect to other developments.
Mr. Conner explained the “net density” concept which will be the focus of future regulations.
This eliminates common areas, wetlands, park land, roads, stormwater pond, and commercial
development to determine the density of the actual residential areas.
7. “5 Sisters” (Howard/Catherine Streets in Burlington):
Developed at: 10.5-12/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, 2 family, 3 family, 4 family
Mr. Conner noted that there is some on-street parking. Almost every building has the feel of a
single family house.
Mr. Kane then showed an approach from Ithaca, New York. It is developed at 8-12 units per
acre. Most buildings are multiplex but look more like single family homes. There is a sidewalk,
parking in the rear, a central green, a mini-market and gas station.
5
Mr. Kane then showed a large-scale TND from Bradburn, Colorado which has a diversity of
forms, a central green, large multiplex buildings, consistency of character, and alleys to allow
for connectivity/circulation.
Mr. Kane then explained that they did a test of a South Burlington parcel, a property off Spear
Street which is the right size for a TND. It has R-2 zoning, a wetland, a habitat block/corridor,
existing development around it, and a multi-use path. It also has a “jog” for a challenge. The
land area is 16.26 acres. After the removal of restraints, it has a buildable area of 9.16 acres of
which 17% would be civic open space and about 85% residential. Mr. Kane stressed that what
they came up with is abased on draft regulations, not the zoning/regulations that exist now,
and that this parcel was selected as a sample without discussion with the property owner.
Mr. Kane said that for purposes of the illustration, they set a target density of about 8 units per
acre, of which 4.15 could be single family homes (about 30 units), 1.32 acres could be multi-
family (about 10 units), .61 could be a “cottage court,” (about 5 units) and 1.5 acres could be
duplexes (about 12 units). Mr. Conner noted there would be at least 3 housing types, with a
minimum of 15% of each type. 50% can be of one building type. Mr. Kane added that a small
building could be put in the open space. These were selections made by SE Group to fit within
the proposed regulations, as a developer would do.
Ms. Ostby asked why not just have target density of 12/acre. Mr. Conner said the more you go
to the high end in density, you bump up against other constraints (e.g., multi-purpose buildings
can only be at the corners, and there are a limited number of corners). Mr. Gagnon added that
this allows for different building types, and a percentage of each.
Mr. Kane note that other things in the regulations will limit or encourage density (e.g., lot
shape, parking, etc.). He then showed a concept of what the “test” development could look
like, including a shared parking lot for multi-lexes. The key points of this development are a
grid to support on-street parking, parking in the rear with carports, the “cottage court”
integrated into the plan, a central civic space, a variety of housing types, an alley to reduce curb
cuts, the preserved buffer and habitat corridor, and a larger multiplex building with shared
parking.
The question arose as to how to communicate this in the regulations. Mr. Kane noted the
inclusion of block diagrams, defining the characteristics of buildings, height and mass,
placement, etc.
Ms. Ostby asked what the density could have been under the current regulations. Mr. Conner
said mathematically it would be 2 units per acre but 4 per acre with a PUD. 64 units would be
allowed but without guidance as to how those units would be arranged. Mr. Kane also noted
6
that under the current regulations there would be setback requirements, etc. He stressed that
the new plan is not very much off numerically, but the characteristics are very different.
Mr. Conner then showed a TND “Potential Development Calculator” and noted this leads to
effective density based on housing types. It provides total residential land acreage and at least
3 housing types. He also showed how housing types can be adjusted to meet the requirements.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas noted that if the community being designed is facing south, there would be
solar. She said there are companies that specialize in panels over carports and garages. Mr.
Kane said the plan he showed was north-south oriented.
Ms. Ostby said they will need to show how the building type approach is equaling out the
density concern. Mr. Conner said he is working with CCRPC to give a rough build-out
calculation which should answer that concern.
Ms. Dooley said this approach promotes developments that function as neighborhoods.
6. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session:
a. Discuss options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently
applicable into PUDs” consider possible expansion/replacement of current
affordable housing density bonus structure
b. Summary/review of provisions for waivers/alternative development standards in
the draft LDRs (time permitting)
Mr. Conner said that Inclusionary Zoning is now in effect in the Transit Overlay District. It
provides for offsets and a bonus structure. Elsewhere in the city, there is an “affordable density
bonus.” Both establish the same maximum density. In the example the Commission just saw, if
you keep the bonus, it would have to be modified to be compatible with the new calculations.
There is also the option to apply inclusionary zoning elsewhere in the city. Mr. Conner
reminded members that State law requires incentives with inclusionary zoning, and that can be
accomplished with the new PUD types. The question is what kind of incentives to offer. For
example, one large inclusionary unit (multi-bedroom) could equal 2 inclusionary units.
Mr. Riehle said his concern is there would be more incentive for a developer to building multi-
family buildings instead of single-family homes, and you won’t find single-family or cottage
homes. He wanted to see areas more attractive to young families. Mr. Conner replied that the
incentives can foster what the city wants. If you want 3-bedroom homes, you can incentivize
that.
7
Mr. Conner noted there is now an application for O’Brien Eastview. They have to meet the
inclusionary requirement. Their affordable units will be 3-bedroom units. Each of these will
count as 2 affordable units. They will build 10 larger ones to meet the requirement. This is
what also makes financial sense to them.
Other possible incentives could be allowing 55% of one building type or eliminating zoning
permit fees, or having the proposed development go first in the review process.
Members were asked to think about applying inclusionary zoning to other city locations. Mr.
Gagnon said he would want to know the advantages/disadvantages. He was leaning toward a
“yes.”
Mr. Macdonald said it seems to make sense to have the same approach citywide, if there aren’t
unintended consequences.
Mr. Engels asked about Article 18 in relation to this discussion. Mr. Conner said Article 18
includes the 2 tools for affordability: inclusionary zoning and density bonuses. That Article
would have to be refined.
Mr. Trombly said he appreciated this discussion. He felt it would be helpful if they could hear
concerns. He stressed that the housing market is not now meeting the need. He offered the
services of the Affordable Housing Committee to help provide clarity.
Ms. Dooley seconded those thoughts. She noted that due to sequencing of putting affordable
units in South Village, most will be home ownership. Developers are getting some experience
with this, and the Commission may want to talk with developers. She favored one set of rules
instead of 2.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas said she is a resident of South Village, and one great thing there is the store
that sells milk, etc. She felt it was good to have a small grocery so people don’t have to get in
their cars for every need. This could also serve as a community hub with a bulletin board.
Mr. Conner noted that one feature of a TND is to allow a small portion of the neighborhood to
have what Ms. Jensen-Vargas described, a small retail store, small market, small restaurant, etc.
Regarding the summary/review of potential waivers, etc., Mr. Conner referred to the table that
describes every place in the regulations where there are flexibility options. Mr. Gagnon
suggested members review tis and add a brief discussion at the beginning of the next meeting.
Ms. Dooley felt the word “waiver” gives the wrong impression. She acknowledged you can
never write rules to take into account every situation, but she suggested using a different term.
8
7. Minutes of 15 December 2020, 26 January and 9 February 2021:
Mr. Mittag was concerned that the minutes don’t indicate what was approved. It was noted
that when there is no formal motion to approve, there could be a “straw poll.”
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 15 December 2020, 26 January and 9 February
2021 as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Other Business:
Ms. Louisos suggested members reserve time for a meeting every week as there is a lot of
material from consultants that they have not yet gotten to. Mr. Conner noted there is likely to
be a Wednesday meeting in March regarding the Interstate study.
Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission reserve Tuesdays at 7 until mid-April, and that the first
meeting in March be on Wednesday, 3 March, due to the election of 2 March. Mr. Mittag
seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mittag suggested restricting agendas to what can
reasonably be accomplished in one meeting.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:17 p.m.
Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission March 9, 2021