Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/27/2021PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL 2021 Page 1 of 6 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 April 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: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; T. Newton, CCRPC; C. Shaw, C. Thrall, D. Long, C. & A. Long, F. MacDonald, A. Strong, D. Kaufman, C. Trombly, J. Jimenez, J. Bellavance, R. Greco, S Dopp, Dave, K. Ryder, S. Dooley, A. Chalnick, A. Hart, L. Ravin, D. Seff, Larry K., D. Martinez, Michael 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: Mr. MacDonald reported that he attended the third meeting of the Swift/Spear Streets Committee. The consultant came back with the results of the survey and presented 3 alternatives. Mr. MacDonald said he suggested the consultant report to the Planning Commission in late June. Ms. Ostby noted she attended the Economic Development Committee meeting last night. The Committee asked why they had not heard from the Planning Commission. Mr. Mittag, who also attended that meeting, said he thought the Committee expected the Planning Commission to do some work that he feels the Committee should do. He also asked them always to consider integrating climate change into their discussions. Ms. Louisos noted that the City Manager had asked her to attend the Economic Development Committee meeting. She was surprised when the agenda made it seem like she was participating in discussions regarding the airport. The Committee seemed disappointed that the Planning Commission hadn’t done anything about the airport in the past. There is a request from the Airport to look at areas now zoned residential. Ms. Louisos said she is looking to bring forward a proposal to form a sub-committee to include Planning Commission and City Council members and others. This will be on one of next month’s agendas. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL 2021 Page 2 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL2021 PAGE 2 Ms. Louisos also announced that Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner is now a father. Mr. Engels noted that he and Ms. Ostby visited the Long property that is being proposed for development. He felt field trips should be mandatory as there is nothing like being there and seeing the property. He noted the same family has owned and lived on the property since the late 1800s. Mr. Engels also said he would be happy to serve on an Airport committee. 4. Presentation & pubic input forum on draft Environmental Protection Standards Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Ms. Louisos noted this was a public input session, not a place for Commission members to debate. She also noted that Taylor Newton from Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission was present to help with technical questions. Mr. Gagnon asked that there not be repetitive comments. Ms. Louisos added that emailed comments and comments in the “chat box” are gathered and will be distributed to members following the meeting. Ms. Ostby noted there had been a question as to whether farming is allowed in a Class 3 wetland. Mr. Newton said he would check on this. He assumed it would have to be a larger farming operation to meet the agricultural exemptions. Ms. Ravin, representing UVM, said UVM has been following the Commission sessions. The University has several large parcels, almost all covered with habitat blocks. They want to be a good steward of the land but also a good steward of UVM which raises the question of UVM’s expectations to use those parcels over many years. Ms. Ravin stressed that UVM is anxious to work with the city regarding protection and usable value of UVM land. Mr. Jiminez, a resident of Butler Farms, said he is alarmed by the floodplain overlay district as it seems like it’s going right up to his property. He asked why a floodplain would change so that they are limited as to what they can do with their property. Are they prohibited from putting up a shed or greenhouse? PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL 2021 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Louisos said the 500-year flood plain already exists and is identified by FEMA. What is new is that it is now included in city regulations. The aim is to protect a homeowner’s investments and to avoid having new homes with that risk. Mr. Newton said the 500-year floodplain is considered a “B-1 Flood Plain.” It was previously not regulated by the city. He noted that page 10 of the LDRs has a list of exempted development (e.g., maintenance of existing structures, etc.). New accessory structures are allowed in the B-1 area but would have to meet standards (pages 13-14) including being less than 500 sq. ft. in size, securing a zoning permit, and being “flood-proofed.” No DRB hearing would be required. Mr. Thrall, who lives near Mr. Jiminez, asked for a definition of “substantial improvement.” Mr. Newton said it is a FEMA definition: an improvement that is greater than 50% of the value of the structure. He added this may be a higher percentage in the B-1 area. Mr. MacDonald said it is 75%. Mr. Thrall asked what a “fully enclosed area below grade” is. He said they have an unfinished basement they were hoping to finish. Mr. Newton said “fully enclosed” is anything with a door to it that is below grade. There is a technical bulletin from FEMA that defines what is/is not a fully enclosed basement. Mr. Newton said the rules would allow finishing the basement as long as it is not a “substantial improvement,” meaning it does not exceed 75% of the value of the home. Mr. Chalnick asked what is newly protected on the interactive mapping. Ms. Louisos acknowledged it is hard to see where new areas are beyond the NRP areas. Ms. Greco suggested a map of the city with magic marker tracing around the newly protected areas. She also wanted to see any current protections that have been taken away. Ms. Ostby noted that on one map there are some blue-hatched areas of riparian that are not now protected. She noted that the maps do the best they can, but areas would have to be field-delineated. Mr. Strong asked what newly protected areas are wetlands. Ms. Louisos said she would see if that can be provided. Mr. Long thanked Ms. Ostby and Mr. Engels for coming to look at the Long property. They are planning to develop the 39 acres they own on Spear Street. 22 of those acres are already conserved. The new regulations take away 6 more acres, and they are concerned that with the wetland buffer increase, they will lose value of their property. He cited the need to have a balance as there is also a citywide need for housing. There has been a decrease of 55,000 people under the age of 25 in Vermont. The state now has the 3rd “oldest population” in the country. There is a need for young people to stay in Vermont. He could not understand why South Burlington has to have wider buffers than the State regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL 2021 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Dopp was concerned that grasslands don’t seem to be adequately addressed in the regulations. Ms. Louisos said some of those lands do have protection as buffers and other protections thought they are not separately protected. Ms. Greco said that agricultural land should also be protected. Ms. Dooley noted that there was a statement made at a different committee that technically there are no grasslands in Vermont. Mr. Strong said that is incorrect. Ms. Louisos explained how the Commission addressed protection of riparian areas under the direction of the person who came up with Biofinder. Ms. Greco asked whether time of year matters for wetland designation. Ms. Louisos said you cannot do a wetland delineation outside the growing season. Ms. Dooley asked if there is native grassland in Vermont. Ms. Louisos said Mr. Strong says the Champlain Valley has 360,000 acres of managed grasslands, some of which is in New York. It is managed mainly for dairy. Mr. Seff asked if South Burlington has had a disproportionate amount of development in the past. Mr. Newton said CCRPC has been tracking the number of new homes in past years. There have been a lot of new housing starts in South Burlington in the past 5 years. Whether this is a disproportionate share depends on how you look at political boundaries. The goal is to look at housing and environmental protection regionally. There are also reasons for development in South Burlington. Mr. Newton stressed that CCRPC has no regulatory authority over communities. Their aim is to help communities meet their goals and to try to concentrate development in areas already developed, not in rural areas. Mr. Gagnon suggested checking the CCRPC website for housing starts per town. Ms. Ravin asked when UVM’s comments will be addressed. Ms. Ostby asked if the Commission is waiting for something from UVM. Ms. Ravin said UVM will get something specific to the Commission. Ms. Louisos said as the regulations are written, UVM is not treated any differently than any other property owners. Mr. Riehle noted the Commission has been waiting for years for UVM plans for their properties. Ms. Ravin noted the UVM master plan is currently being updated. Ms. Ostby added that Arrowwood did not look at ownership of land, just the resources on the land. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL 2021 Page 5 of 6 5. Review of possible questions to share with City Council as follow-up to the joint Council/Commission meeting: Ms. Louisos noted the City Council will be having a follow-up discussion on 3 May regarding the joint meeting. She felt it would be helpful if the Commission could give the Council a “prompt” for that discussion. She referred to a draft of different options and a map of what would still have development potential. Mr. Riehle said his preferred would be to give a landowner a choice of a TND or a Conservation PUD. Mr. Mittag said he thought the northern end of the SEQ is not correctly shown. Ms. Louisos said that is not part of the SEQ zoning district. It is Industrial-Open Space zoning. She noted that there is a difference between what is called the Southeast Quadrant and what is in the SEQ zoning district. Ms. Ostby noted the Affordable Housing Committee has suggested adding a review every 25 years which could change what is conserved with specific criteria. Mr. Riehle said that in reality it could change every year with changes on the City Council. Mr. MacDonald questioned whether 70% of a Conservation PUD has to be covered with Level1 or hazards. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t think the Commission had a specific level of resources. Mr. MacDonald said that should be a question for the Council. Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission is comfortable with someone with no Level 1 or hazards to have a Conservation PUD. Ms. Louisos said it is clear that would be taking otherwise developable land and making it a Conservation PUD. Ms. Dooley noted that comments from the Affordable Housing Committee will be forwarded to the Council separately. The Committee is particularly concerned with the option to have only Conservation PUDs in the SEQ, as this is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In a straw poll of members, there was unanimous approval of continuing to offer the choice of a TND or Conservation PUD. Ms. Ostby did express concern that this could lead to “unpredictability.” PLANNING COMMISSION 27 APRIL 2021 Page 6 of 6 Ms. Dooley was concerned that the “choice paragraph” was not balanced, and you get the negative sides of the choice, not the positive. 6. Other Business: No other business was presented. 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 May 11, 2021