Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/09/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 MARCH 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 March 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; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; R. Gonda, M. Cota, V. Bolduc, I Genzhiyev, A. & A. Chalnick, S. Dooley, S. Dopp, R. Greco, J. Bellavance, S. Partilo, A. Jensen-Vargas, D. Peters, L. Yankowski, R. Brinkerhoff, C. Trombly, D. Seff, D. Crawford, B. Sirvis, J. Simson 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: Mr. Cota introduced himself as the new City Council member and invited Commission members to reach out to him at any time. Ms. Louisos commented that it is good to have another City Council member with a DRB background. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby noted that the renovation of the People’s Bank building will result in half of the building becoming residential. She thanked Mr. Conner for spending time to explain how TDRs would work with building types. She also noted that she held another phone information session regarding the “calculator” concept. Ms. Louisos said she spoke with the City Council Chair and they will look to schedule a joint session with the Council in the next few weeks regarding the “calculator”, planned unit developments, and other work under Interim Zoning. 4. Commission reflections on Open Meeting guidance: Q & A. with City Attorney Andrew Bolduc: Ms. Louisos advised that Commission members had watched a video on the Open Meeting Law before this meeting. 2 Mr. Mittag asked if it is a requirement that all documentation that is to be discussed is available to the public before a meeting. City Attorney Bolduc said yes it should be but is not “fatal” to the meeting warning if it isn’t as long as the public has a chance to see it and respond to it. This is a Constitutional requirement. The Commission is at all times accountable to the public. Mr. Riehle asked about reaching out to other Commission members to get feedback from them. Mr. Bolduc said that is a “chain meeting” and should be avoided. Mr. Gagnon asked about email and sending something of interest to other members. “Reply all” is a violation. Mr. Bolduc said that just distributing information is OK. A member can ask “should we address this at a future meeting?”, and that can be discussed over email as it is only about what will be on the agenda. Ms. Louisos asked whether they are still OK with virtual meetings and whether there will be a time limit. Mr. Bolduc said that for the time being, all virtual meetings are OK. He would advise if that changes. He did not that there is a move in the Legislature to make that a permanent option. Mr. Conner noted that if the Legislature doesn’t extend the time limit, there can be a “hybrid” option in which at least one Commission member would need to be physically present at the “live” meeting site. Mr. Conner asked whether any other requirements have been made by the Legislature other than those which are pandemic-related. Mr. Bolduc said the Legislature hasn’t changed anything regarding social media at this time. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns and the Secretary of State’s office have pamphlets and guidance on the Open Meeting Law. Both talk about social media and conversations between members. He cautioned members to be very careful about commenting. Ms. Louisos said members should be careful about posting anything and to make it clear you are speaking as an individual, not as a Planning Commission member. Mr. Bolduc added that this applies on the staff level as well. He further cautioned members to know what “hat” they are wearing and whom they are addressing. Mr. Conner said that in his 12 years with the city he is most proud of how the community takes these things seriously. He felt it reflects well on the community. 5. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session: a. Review overall Project Schedule and discuss possibility of advancing Environmental Standards (Articles 10 & 12 and related amendments) in advance of others: Mr. Conner said that although a lot of things are intertwined, he was comfortable with advancing Articles 10 and 12 along with some definition updates, etc. These Articles were 3 designed to stand along and are fairly self-contained. Some subdivision standards support Articles 10 and 12 but don’t rely on them. Taylor still has a few questions for the Commission, and these could be warned in the next couple of meetings. Ms. Ostby said it seems the Commission will want the opportunity to do a last connection of Articles 10 and 12 with the PUDs. This could result in a conversation regarding density. She was concerned with releasing 10 & 12 too soon. Mr. Gagnon felt that if the PUDs are just 2 or 3 weeks behind, he would like to keep everything together. Mr. Conner said he expects the last pages of the PUDs later this month. There is still a discussion to be had as to how the pieces worth together. He noted a potential gap in April (re: impending parenthood) when the Commission can have some discussion of things on the “to do” list without him being present. All in all, he felt the PUDs were likely a few moths behind rather than a few weeks. Mr. Riehle said it gets confusing to go from one topic to another. He felt the process shouldn’t have taken so long. Mr. Mittag said that as they have moved to Article 15, it has become more complex with unintended consequences from the impact of the regulations. And some things haven’t been touched on yet. He felt everything is intertwined. He added that he’d never looked at Chapter 9 until a few days ago and didn’t know that was connected to Article 12. He felt they should complete Article 12 and then look at that. Mr. Macdonald agreed with Mr. Riehle and Mr. Mittag and felt he didn’t have a full wrap-up on Article 12. Mr. Conner reminded members that if they adopt something, it can be changed. He didn’t recommend doing that too often, but regulations can always be adjusted. Mr. Mittag noted there will likely be changes after the public hearing. He favored focusing on one thing at a time. Ms. Ostby said the benefit of the City Council getting Articles 10 and 12 is that they may have to make a decision about certain parcels and may have some other open space conversations. Ms. Greco said it is easier to absorb one article at a time. She added that if the Commission is having a hard time grasping things, imagine the public. Ms. Dooley was concerned about how much time is left in Interim Zoning and was worried about having separate processes as each can have more or less time. She felt the Commission had a head of steam on the PUDs. She didn’t see separating things as a time-saver. 4 Mr. Gonda said he has tried to follow the progress of the proposals but has found it confusing. He noted that Mr. Conner gave 2 updates to the Natural Resources Committee, and they are also befuddled. Concerns include: not seeing that the Open Space Report was taken into account, and the focus on “acreage” as opposed to “quality” when considering protections. Ms. Louisos felt there would be more productive public comment if the Commission were more focused. Mr. Mittag said he has a lot of questions to get clarified. He didn’t feel there had been a decision as to whether some of his recommendations were accepted or not. He also said there are things in Mr. Conner’s memo that he hadn’t thought about. Mr. Conner suggested having a “straw poll” on recommendations so there is a record of the Commission’s decisions. Mr. Gagnon then moved to proceed with completing Articles 10 and 12 and related items in order to advance them to public hearing and to the City Council as a first priority. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon said it would be good to have a final mark-up before warning for public hearing. Mr. Conner said the next step will be as clean a draft as possible. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see a clean version without “bubbles.” Mr. Conner said the Commission can make any changes after the public hearing, as long as they are not things the Commission has never discussed. Ms. Greco asked if the public will get a clean version before the public hearing. Mr. Conner said the public hearing will be warned 15 days in advance, and the document must be available to the public. Ms. Louisos reminded members of the possible joint work session with the Council. She suggested this take place after a clean version is released but before the public hearing. Mr. Conner noted that the Commission would not have to warn a second public hearing if they make changes after its public hearing. If the City Council makes changes after their public hearing, they must warn a new public hearing. Mr. Engels said it would be good to have a document accompany what is sent to the City Council to explain what is being sent and to include pictures. Mr. Conner said there is a 2-page document that described things. He will consider pictures. Mr. Mittag said the deletion of Article 9 will have a big impact on Article 12. He stated there is more work to be done than they think. 5 b. Continue discussion of options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently applicable into PUDs; consider possible expansion/replacement of current affordable housing density bonus structure: Mr. Riehle asked if there is an option to donate land in lieu of inclusionary units. Mr. Conner said there is. Then if the city has land available for housing, developers could be solicited to develop it without having to consider the cost of the land. This has not yet been done. Ms. Louisos said she was comfortable with what is in Mr. Conner’s memo. It doesn’t feel like they would be layering density on density. Mr. Macdonald expressed concern about incentives and the statement that incentives could alter the planned character of a PUD. Mr. Conner said incentives can be part of the regulations. He cited how this works in City Center. This satisfies both the State statute and the intent of the statute. Mr. Mittag asked if he is required to build 16 inclusionary units and builds 3-bedroom units, does he have to build only 8. Mr. Conner said yes but with “an asterisk.” The justification is that this provides family housing. Mr. Mittag felt it was counterintuitive as the city wants as many units as it can get. Mr. Conner said housing studies identify affordably family housing as a big gap. He noted the popularity of 4-bedroom units on Market St. Mr. Ostby added that the new O’Brien development has 3-bedroom homes as inclusionary, and they will be perpetually available to families. Ms. Dooley corrected the above statement and noted that three 3-bedroom inclusionary units count as 2 inclusionary units. Mr. Riehle asked what happens with TDRs in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Conner said that today affordable units don’t have to buy TDRs. That could be continued as an incentive. Mr. Riehle asked what then happens to TDRs. Mr. Conner said this would only apply to the affordable units. You could still use TDRs in the rest of the SEQ. There is also thought of expanding TDRs throughout the whole city. Mr. Gagnon said that at this point he would support TDRs in the whole city. Mr. Conner said it would be helpful to have Commission guidance as soon as the Commission is comfortable with that. Inclusionary requirements need to be incorporated the sooner the better. Mr. Macdonald asked if inclusionary units would be dispersed among building types. Mr. Conner said they need to be thoroughly integrated into the neighborhood but can be in one 6 building type. They cannot all be in one 20 unit building if there is only one such building. They also need to have the same average number of bedrooms as the rest of the development. Mr. Mittag said he wasn’t ready for city-wide inclusionary zoning until he knew the impact on the SEQ. He felt it was a big change to go from voluntary to mandatory. Ms. Louisos stressed that density is not being increased with inclusionary zoning, and the city is not giving up anything. There is no reason not to consider expanding it further. Mr. Mittag felt that combined with PUDs it could make a huge difference. Ms. Ostby said that today the only way to get affordable housing is to tie it to a density bonus. With inclusionary zoning, affordable units are tied into the underlying density. Mr. Conner said that is correct. Under State law, there must be an “incentive,” but that does not necessarily have to be a bonus. Mr. Conner noted that where inclusionary zoning exists in City Center, it does not increase density. Mr. Gagnon moved to direct staff to move ahead with exploring “a” and “b” on staff’s memorandum to have something ready for when work on Articles 10 and 12 is complete. Ms. Ostby seconded. Members discussed the option to remove “increase base density” from the list of incentives. Mr. Conner said he would ask the City Attorney about that. No one element must be in there, and he comfortable there is a good slate of options. The Court might say the city is not meeting the standard. Mr. Conner also noted that the consultant may have other ideas. Mr. Mittag said a property owner might not want to increase the base density. Ms. Ostby was comfortable with removing that option, if possible. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. c. Consider proposal from Commissioner Ostby to consider a basic vs. expanded Conservation PUD: Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with people who have 50% of their acreage in hazards or level 1 resources in the SEQ. The focus was to be on those parcels being most impacted. She was concerned with expanding it to take out buildable land so that it would never be developed. She said some people would say they shouldn’t conserve anything permanently because the world changes. Mr. Mittag said that once something is on the books, it’s hard to get rid of it. He felt they need every square inch of meadow, etc. from a climate mitigation point of view. He wouldn’t support Ms. Ostby’s idea. 7 Ms. Louisos said this would be a great conversation when they have the Conservation PUD language in front of them. Mr. Chalnick felt a landowner should have the option to conserve land. d. Overview of related amendments to PUD/Subdivision/Environmental Protection standards updates; Commission prioritization: Mr. Conner asked members to review the memo and think about which subject areas they want to delve deeper into. There are some site plan amendments (e.g., many towns give modification authority to the DRB, especially regarding dimensions). Mr. Conner noted that much of Article 9 (SEQ) is based today on how a PUD should be arranged. If you adopt the TND form of PUD, very little remains in Article 9. What does remain is how TDRs and environment protection work. He has heard that some of the SEQ design elements should be city-wide. Mr. Mittag didn’t see how they could delete such an important part of the LDRs unless those protections are transferred to Article 12. Ms. Louisos suggested putting this on a future agenda. Mr. Conner noted the SEQ is almost self-contained. His suggestion would to place rules where they are logically found. The Commission wanted Article 12 to address natural resources in the city. Ms. Ostby said she couldn’t find the portion of the minutes where there was a recommended change from Industrial-Open Space zoning to Mixed Use. She felt they would need to discuss the Official City Map and in particular Swift Street Extension. Mr. Conner said the area referred to in the memo is immediately south of the Interstate. Article 12 standards on that property would have the western portion in a forest block. Ms. Dopp questioned potential development in the NRP. Mr. Conner said that as drafted nothing about the amount of development is proposed to change in the NRP. There might be a slight modification to the building envelope. Mr. Riehle asked when they would get to the items on Mr. Conner’s memo. Ms. Louisos said these will be addressed when they get into PUDs more. Some items are updates; some are new items. Mr. Conner said they are most closely related to PUDs, though some (e.g., changes in State rules regarding subsidiary dwellings) are not. 6. Provide direction on selection of name for new street adjacent to Library/City Hall: Ms. Ostby suggested going to the Marcotte School students for ideas. Members liked that idea. 8 Ms. Dooley spoke to the issue to naming streets for individuals to erase prior racial injustice. She cited Lavinia Bright, the first woman of color to serve in the Vermont Legislature was from South Burlington. Ms. Dopp noted the possibility of former Librarians. Members agreed to go to the Marcotte students with two topic areas: names that are complementary to Garden Street & Market Street, and names for people of historical significance to South Burlington. 7. Meeting Minutes of 23 February 2021: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 February 2021 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: Mr. Conner reminded members of tomorrow’s I-89 study meeting to provide feedback to CCRPC on evaluation criteria. He encouraged members to attend. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:22 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 31, 2021