Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 09/23/2021South Burlington Planning Commission 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Special Meeting Thursday, September 23, 2021 City Hall, 180 Market Street, Auditorium 7:00 pm The Planning Commission will attend this meeting in person. Members of the public may attend in person or digitally via GoToMeeting. Participation Options: In person: South Burlington City Hall Room 301, 180 Market Street Interactive Online (audio & video) https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc-2021-09-23 Telephone (audio only): (571) 317-3122; Access Code: 230-010-045 AGENDA: 1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. *Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:20 pm) The Planning Commission will be reviewing the complete Land Development Regulations at this and upcoming meetings. Topics may cover all aspects of the Regulations as they relate to the work on Master Plans, Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Environmental Protection Standards, and others. Not all topics below will be addressed at this meeting. 5. *Meeting Minutes: August 18, August 24, August 31, 2021 6. Other Business: a. Review Project Schedule b. *Update on Spear Street Solar, LLC 7. Adjourn Respectfully submitted, Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning * item has attachments South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines 1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. 2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently presenting / commenting will have their video on. 3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an item, the Chair will ask for public comment. 4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat. 5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission. 6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda. 7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. 8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint. Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat. 9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time. 10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to explore an issue, provide input and influence public opinion on the matter. 11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com. 12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice- Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official meeting minutes. 13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission. 14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently focused to help guide participants. 15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end that will be covered “if time allows”. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo DATE: September 23, 2021 Planning Commission Special meeting 1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. *Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:20 pm) Included with this week’s packet is a working draft of the Land Development Regulations. Staff has posted two versions of the draft on the project website: a “clean” version (all changes “accepted”) and a “redline” version showing each change from the current adopted LDRs. The redline version also includes various staff notes to the Commission. The draft posted initially (Sept 18th) includes everything EXCEPT the PUD chapters and the building types. Staff & Sharon Murray are actively working on the updates to these based on Commission feedback. https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/departments/planning_and_zoning/PUD_/_Master_Plan_P roject.php As these remaining pieces become available we will post them and notify the PC. We’re also verifying that written Commissioner comments have been either included, voted on, or made available for Commissioners to see if they remain outstanding For the meeting on the 23rd, staff and Jessica have discussed the goal of having the “rest” of the LDRs reviewed and, if possible, completed: that is, the accompanying regulations to the PUDs, but not the “remainder” of the items you were discussing at the last meeting on 9/14. We recognize that this puts the Commission a little “out of order”, but in terms of timing it was important to have the rest of these reviewed in time to make edits. Also, two Commissioners will be absent on 9/23 and the discussions on the applicability of PUD types, the handful of zoning changes (Hill Farm & adjacent, NRP boundaries), and the text accompanying warrant a full Commission. To help Commissioners navigate, please also find attached a quick 2-page summary of the various amendments. 5. *Meeting Minutes: August 18, August 24, August 31, 2021 6. Other Business: a. Review Project Schedule b. *Update on Spear Street Solar, LLC 2 7. Adjourn LDR Working Amendment List 9/18/2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A B C D H I Number Title Description LDR Section Overall status Drafting Status 9/23/21 LDR-21-01 Solar Ready Roofs Require solar ready rooks per CBES Appendix CA 3.15 PC approved for next round 8/31/21 Included in Draft LDR-20-01 Environmental Resource Standards Update Natural Resource Standards, add Forest Blocks & Forest Block Connectors; establish criteria for limited infrastructure incursion 3.04; Article 12 PC completing review 9/2021 Included in Draft LDR-20-02 Subdivision Standards Update and re-write of Subdivision Standards & procedures Article 15B PC reviewed fall 2020; minor process changes. Included in Draft LDR-20-03 Master Plan Standards Update and re-write of Master Plan Standards Article 15A PC reviewed fall 2020; minor process changes. Included in Draft LDR-20-04 Planned Unit Developments Update and re-write of PUD standards and applicability Article 15C Draft under development. PC guidance on thresholds and density approach 8/25 Included in Draft. Applicability outside SEQ not finalized by PC. Additional Edits may be required following PC action LDR-20-06 Open Space Types in PUDs Apply certain open space types to PUDs (& Subdivisions). Relates to LDR-19-06 Appendix E Draft complete. Graphics to be added Included in draft LDR-20-07 Street standards Replace Street standards from City Center FBC, Southeast Quadrant, and General with citywide standards Article 9, Article 11, Article 15 Draft complete. Graphics to be added Included in draft LDR-20-08 Required setback on Arterials & Collectors Separates required setbacks from the subject of Planned Rights-of- Way (previously required together). Eliminates larger setbacks (50') from most streets and relies on underlying zoning. Clears conflict with SEQ standards 3.06, Article 9 Staff draft complete Included in draft LDR-20-09 Planned Rights-of-Way Provides greater clarification for how a planned ROW is to be measured, and notes that "existing" ROW is a typical and not necessarily the actual existing along all roadways 3.06 Staff draft complete Included in draft LDR-20-10 Building envelopes for SEQ-NRP Establish building envelopes for any allowed development in the SEQ-NRP district Article 9 Staff draft ready Commission ok'd 10/2020. minor revisions completed. Included in draft LDR-20-11 Site Plan Standards; waivers Updates general site plan standards to ensure that cross- references to related standards are included. Revises waiver standards to allow site plan review to stand "on its own" [currently many properties use PUD as a tool to seek waivers from standards], and to set clear waiver guidelines to the DRB; establishes standards for when adjacent streetscape improvements are needed. 14.04; 14.07 Ready for PC review. Includes limited new allowances for "modifications" that mirror the limited allowances for subdivision ok'd by PC (intended to give an avenue for minor changes without projects having to be a PUD) Included in draft LDR-20-15 R2 Zoning District Removed PUD density increase in R2 district and instead applies via PUD standards 4.02 Conceptual applicability identified. To be include in next round Underlying zoning district proposes to make general references to allowed PUD types and the densities associated with each LDR Working Amendment List 9/18/2021 2 3 A B C D H I LDR-21-01 Solar Ready Roofs Require solar ready rooks per CBES Appendix CA 3.15 PC approved for next round 8/31/21 Included in Draft 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 LDR-20-16 R1 Zoning Districts Eliminates subdistricts of R1 (R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, R1-Lakeshore), removes PUD density increases, and instead applies, where allowed, through PUDs. R1-PRD and R1-Lakeshore become R1 and PUDs are addressed via PUD standards. R1-Lakeview is consolidated into Lakeshore neighborhood. 4.01 Conceptual applicability identified. To be include in next round Underlying zoning district proposes to make general references to allowed PUD types and the densities associated with each LDR-20-17 Residential Design Re-locates residential design standards from SEQ to apply citywide; modifies garage scale to principal facade 3.16 PC approved 8/2021 Included in draft LDR-20-18 Technical corrections LDR-20-18C 3.06F remove redundant text for structures requiring setbacks; LDR-20-18D 3.06J clarify administrative/DRB review for pre-existing lots; LDR-20-18G 3.07 Height of Accessory Structures; LDR-20-18H 3.07 Height Standards update cross-references; Throughout ; LDR-20-18J Article 6 & Section 13.11 relocate and clarify when drive-throughs are permitted / prohibited [no policy change proposed]; Throughout PC voted to ok for public hearing 8/31/21 Included in draft LDR-20-21 Minor Amendments LDR-20-21D 3.06 corner visibility; LDR-20-21A 13.25 allows retaining walls within 5' as a conditional use; LDR-20-21B 13.09 Eliminates requirement for special review of Bus Shelters; LDR-20- 21C 3.09 Allows RVs to be placed in the same locations as an accessory structure on a property, plus the driveway; LDR-20-21E 3.07, 6.02, 6.03, 13.03 update FAA approach cone language; LDR- 20-21F 13.16 Earth products: clarify that stormwater system; LDR- 20-21G 13.18 Utility cabinets and similarmaintence is exempt; LDR- 20-=18E Buffer strips 3.06I PC voted to ok for public hearing 8/31/21 Included in draft LDR-20-22 Accessory Dwelling Units; pre-existing small lots; conditional use review criteria for 3-4 unit buildings Amendment LDRs to comply with S.237 3.05, 3.10, 14.10 PC can review and decide whether to include Included in draft LDR-20-25 Accessory Structures Increases allowance for # of accessory structures on a lot and references total SF of accessory structures as part of total lot building coverage instead of 50% of ground floor area of principal building; removes special reference to garage connection 3.10 PC can review and decide whether to include Included in draft LDR-19-07 Solar canopies in Parking areas Would parking areas with solar canopies to have modified landscaping requirements 13.06 PC voted to ok for public hearing 8/31/21 Included in draft LDR-20-26 Table of Uses / Dimensions Update Update the Table of Uses & Dimensions to remove PUD references, add uses enabled by TND Appendix C Ready for PC review.Included in draft LDR-20-28 Expand Inclusionary Zoning Citywide Expands the applicability of inclusionary zoning citywide to all new development/ conservion to residential exceeding 12 dwelling units. Article 18, Article 15C PUDs PC voted to inclulde spring 2021 Included in draft LDR Working Amendment List 9/18/2021 2 3 A B C D H I LDR-21-01 Solar Ready Roofs Require solar ready rooks per CBES Appendix CA 3.15 PC approved for next round 8/31/21 Included in Draft 23 24 25 26 27 LDR-20-12 Expand Use of TDRs Expand applicability of TDRs citywide New Article 11 Conceptual applicability identified. To be include in next round Updated usage within SEQ in current draft, plus test allowance for lot coverage in Urban Design overlay LDR-21-03 Allow Limited Neighborhood Residential into larger residential bldgs with MP Would expand the allowance for a small retail / serve use with a Master Planned development. Currently only allowed as a stand- alone building. Proposed to allow, in high density districts, with a larger residential building Article 14 PC to review Included in draft LDR-20-04a Conservation PUD Type Conservation PUD type Article 15C Draft under development. PC guidance on thresholds and density approach 8/25 Drafting updates underway. To be provided when complete LDR-20-04b TND PUD Type (plus infill version) TND PUD Type Article 15C Draft under development. PC guidance on thresholds and density approach 8/25 Drafting updates underway. To be provided when complete LDR-20-05 Building Types Establish building types for applicability in PUDs (and possible elsewhere later) Appendix E Commission has reviewed; staff draft 90%. Need to calibrate with PUDs Drafting updates underway. To be provided when complete SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 18 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 18 August 2021, at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos; T. Riehle, M. Ostby (acting Chair), M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Murray, Consultant; J. Nick, S. Dooley, C. Trombly 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. Nick said it would help to know the Commission’s next steps Ms. Ostby said that this meeting would focus on Conservation PUDs and how things link with subdivisions and master planning. Mr. Conner added that at the next meeting he will have a master list of scheduling which he can send to Mr. Nick. Mr. Macdonald asked when they are going to go back and finish Chapters 10 and 12. Mr. Conner said the meeting after next. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted that she had mailed the letter to the solar consultant after the City Attorney looked it over. Mr. Conner: Last night, the City Council established a Climate Action Task Force. They will be looking for a Planning Commission member to serve. The Task Force will be developing a plan and will be asking for input from various committees. This is a very high Council priority. Mr. Mittag said he would be interested in serving on the Task Force. 4. Continue Review of Land Development Regulations: a. Conservation PUDs; their connection with subdivisions and master plans Mr. Conner said the Commission has a lot of tools to work with. He suggested members make each tool as functions as they want it to work. In September, the Commission can discuss where to apply those tools. Ms. Murray said the draft reflects the discussions at past meetings. She asked members to look at pages 2 and 3 and noted that the list applies where there is 50% or more resources on a property. The requirement in a Conservation PUD is to conserve 70%. The question is what goes on the remainder of the property. Planning Commission 18 August 2021 2 Mr. Conner noted that the Hazards, Level 1 and Level 2 resources may be only 32% of the land. He suggested the other 18% could be buffers. Ms. Murray said there way also be something that has local interest. Mr. Conner said they also have to consider continuity so you don’t have “spots of conservation.” He also cited the importance of providing guidelines to the DRB. Mr. Riehle said the landowner may have a different priority than what should go there, and you just may have to rely on the landowner. Ms. Murray said there is no prioritization of the resources beyond Hazards & Level 1. It may not be needed. If something is really important, it may be possible to kick it up to a Level 1. Mr. Conner suggested deleting #4 and then not prioritizing the rest. Ms. Murray noted there is also a requirement for a meeting with neighbors to see what is important to them. Mr. Conner suggested the applicant indicate why they selected what they did. Ms. Murray said would be a submission requirement. Ms. Murray said the proposal is to allow transfer of development rights (TDRs). This can be done within the parcel or to another area, but not both. Mr. Conner said you can’t do half and half or do part now and some later. Ms. Ostby asked why not. Ms. Murray said you can split it, but you can’t “double dip.” Mr. Trombly asked if the Conservation PUD would be required if there is 70% resources. Mr. Conner said in a Conservation PUD, you have to conserve 70%. The Commission is reserving discussion on when it may be required possibly to next month. Ms. Murray said areas for encroachment (e.g., a solar display) can’t count as part of the 70%. Mr. Conner added that there are very limited times when you can put a stormwater installation in a buffer, but it won’t count to the 70%. Mr. Mittag asked about a required installation that the landowner doesn’t control like a power line going through. Mr. Conner noted a Velco swath could be farmed. Ms. Ostby said encroachment of a certain kind can be beneficial and enhance the environment like a solar display. She questioned whether to count them. Mr. Mittag said you can farm under a solar display. Mr. Conner said he was leaning to keeping it very strict except for a power line that the applicant has no control over. Mr. Nick asked if this is an effort to force the Hill Farm into a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said they are not deciding tonight where Conservation PUDs should happen. Mr. Nick noted that the Regional Plan says this is an area where development should happen. Ms. Ostby said a letter to the Commission could be helpful. She anticipated discussion would occur at the 14 September meeting. Ms. Murray noted that in a Conservation PUD management of the land is important as it says how the resources will be protected. There will have to be a management plan. Mr. Mittag said he would Planning Commission 18 August 2021 3 eliminate landscape architectures from the list as he didn’t think they have the expertise to manage resources. Ms. Murray said some landscape architects do specialize in areas of conservation. She added you wouldn’t want a civil engineer doing it. Ms. Louisos asked where the Management Plan would go. Ms. Murray said it could be in the Land records or the Homeowners Association records. Mr. Conner said it should be clarified if it is to go in the Land Records. A majority of member agreed to remove landscape architects from the list. Mr. Trombly said 70% of the land could be turned over to the city or to the HOA for monitoring. What would that cost be? Ms. Murray said the HOA could lease farmland and make money. But there could be costs. Mr. Trombly said those costs impact affordability and narrow the range of who can afford to live in a Conservation PUD. Mr. Mittag said it would depend on the type of resource. Mr. Conner added with a wetland, there may just have to be assurance that there are no encroachments. But he did acknowledge the validity of Mr. Trombly’s point. Ms. Murray said sometimes a management fund is required. Mr. Conner said he would like to discuss this further but not now. He noted South Village has done some interesting things. Ms. Ostby said they do have to keep costs in mind. Ms. Ostby said that with an affordability bonus, the density in the 30% of a Conservation PUD could be significant. She felt it would be good to have a picture of that. She didn’t think that potential for density has been envisioned. Mr. Conner said that in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) you wind up with about 4 units an acre net in the developable are. With bonuses, it could be 6 per acre. But that’s after you deduct for roads. He felt Ms. Ostby’s point was appropriate when you are dealing with Shelburne Road. Ms. Ostby asked if it is sure the development opportunity is the same as without a PUD, the same number of units. Mr. Conner said it is but with 2 caveats: the acreage for hazards come out. Also, in the Conservation PUD, in the Conservation PUD it does not become a receiving area for external TRDs. Ms. Ostby asked why not. Mr. Mittag asked why not if it is used to come up to the density. Mr. Conner asked how high they are willing to go with TDRs. Mr. Mittag suggested possibly setting a maximum density, as much as possible that looks OK. Ms. Ostby said if the Commission decides some places can only be a Conservation PUD, this becomes an issue. Mr. Conner said that if the 30% which is developable becomes a TND, you get more density but with higher standards. Ms. Dooley asked whether Conservation PUDs are compatible with Inclusionary Zoning. Mr. Conner said Inclusionary Zoning will apply city-wide if you build 12 or more units. How bonuses work with a TND is a bit tricky. With a development of 22 units, 2 have to be affordable. For those units the developer gets 2 offset units for a total of 24 units. There is also a bonus if the developer chooses to have more affordable units. Mr. Trombly asked the thought process in applying a maximum density. Mr. Conner said the purpose of a Conservation PUD is not to reduce what could be bult. You get that reallocated, more clustered. Planning Commission 18 August 2021 4 Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission is open to allowing TDRs in a Conservation PUD. Ms. Murray said if you do that, you are increasing the maximum density in the SEQ. Ms. Ostby said they could say a TND is required if you want to bring in TDRs. Mr. Conner suggested saying only up to what the property could generate as a whole or some percentage more. He added he was leaning toward requiring design standards so you get more units but better quality. Ms. Murray felt that made sense. Ms. Murray said she would welcome feedback regarding design standards. Ms. Ostby suggested flexibility regarding entrances facing the street. Mr. Conner said he would like to be able to break out policy level comments separately from things that are just technical. 5. Minutes of 13 July and 27 July 2021: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 and 27 July as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. The motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner reminded members of meetings on 24 and 31 August and possibly 7 September. The next meeting will focus on Infill PUDs. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:11 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; D. Leban, J. Nick, J. Larkin, S. Dooley, other members of the public 1. Emergency Evacuation Plans: Mr. Conner provided emergency evacuation information 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Leban noted that she had sent a copy of infill housing information from Portland, Oregon. She said the Commission should consider what kind of housing they want and then modify the regulations to accommodate it rather than the other way around. She felt architects should be consulted to have designs fit a neighborhood. Mr. Nick said he understands the effort to conserve land but asked whether the city knows what is already conserved. He felt it would be wise to have that number. He also drew attention to an article in Vermont Digger which quotes Mr. Conner and Charlie Baker of CCRPC regarding gearing new development to urban areas. Mr. Nick said South Burlington is a popular place to live and work. He felt the Hill Farm is clearly infill development and he was concerned with what he sees as an attempt to limit development on this property. He cited the need to develop close to Burlington rather than creating longer commutes with more greenhouse gases. He is concerned that there is no talk of a higher use mixed PUD, which is what he presented as a concept for the Hill Farm several years ago and what was positively received. Mr. Conner noted the Hill Farm is zoned Industrial-Open Space which has limited residential use. Mr. Riehle felt the Commission should talk about that. Ms. Louisos suggested Mr. Nick send an email regarding his vision for that land. Mr. Conner said Industrial-Open Space may not be the right zoning, and the Commission may want to establish a new zone there that allows for Planning Commission 24 August 2021 2 more residential. Mr. Macdonald thought the Neighborhood Commercial PUD might work there, but the Commission hasn’t gotten to that yet. Mr. Conner said all the pieces for Neighborhood Commercial PUD exist, but they are not fully written out yet. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby said there seems to be confusion among the City Council regarding whether the regulations make affordable housing perpetual. She felt it should be clarified that the regulations create perpetual affordable housing. Mr. Conner said there could be a question when someone chose to make something affordable. Mr. Conner noted that Colin McNeil has been appointed City Attorney to replace Andrew Bolduc who became Deputy City Manager. Mr. McNeil has worked with the city before. He will start the first or second week in September. 5. Continued Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Conner said this is the first review of Infill PUDs. They are really intended to operate in a way to complement other PUDs. They allow for a traditional neighborhood with modifications of the TND when standards would be difficult to meet. They also serve to insert something into an already built environment. As such, there may be a major utility line or some buildings that would have to be worked around. Ms. Ostby asked why a standard TND wouldn’t work. Mr. Conner said the standard TND requires full blocks and a certain amount of open space which may not be able to be accommodated. He added that the Infill PUD would only be applied to a smaller piece of property (e.g., 10 acres). If there is already a park across the street, that could count as the required park. Ms. Ostby asked what is “in it” for someone with a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner supposed a 10-acre piece of land, 40% of which is covered with wetland and forest. In a standard subdivision, you can only subdivide from the remaining 6 acres. In a Conservation PUD, you protect 70% but get the density from about the whole property. Ms. Ostby asked if you can put a TND into the developed area. Mr. Conner said you could. Ms. Ostby asked if an Infill PUD would work there. Mr. Conner said it could be a “mini-TND.” It could be 4 acres or less, instead of needing 10 acres. Ms. Ostby was concerned that addressing anything under 4 acres during Interim Zoning would be a lot to go through including things the Commission hasn’t had to address so far (e.g., road frontage). She said if you don’t have to address road frontage, it would be OK, but that’s in the current regulations. Mr. Conner said all forms lean very heavily Planning Commission 24 August 2021 3 on frontage on the street. Ms. Ostby said the 2-4 acre parcels on the map don’t usually have the possibility for street frontage because of the shapes of the parcels. Mr. Conner said buildings can fronton a street or cottages can face a “courtyard.” The regulations wouldn’t allow a building that was just “stuck there” with no relationship to the neighborhood. Ms. Ostby said if it’s not as complicated as she thinks it is, she’s OK with it. Mr. Engels asked if an Infill PUD can be in an open area. Mr. Conner said that is a good question. Mr. Conner said there could be a green site on Shelburne Rd. where everything around it is built up, and you might want to go with a traditional PUD there. Ms. Louisos said she likes this option for sites that aren’t big enough to support other PUDs. She wanted to be sure development is happening efficiently. She felt concerns should be addressed, but the idea should not be thrown out. Mr. Riehle questioned where the green space will be in City Center when there are 1000 units there. He wanted to see a space for kids to throw a ball around. Mr. Conner said subdivisions and PUD types require 10% of the space to be devoted to “civic space.” Where to have a city- wide park is another question. Mr. Conner added that the Infill PUD does give the DRB the ability to reduce certain minimums when they are accessible within a quarter mile. In a 10-acre PUD, you have to provide for those things. He also noted that staff always encourages people to think creatively (e.g., working with adjacent properties to get something better for both properties. Ms. Louisos asked what happens if what is next door to a property is something the city doesn’t want. Does the Infill developer have to match that? Mr. Conner said that is a good question and is very important on the residential side. Ms. Ostby asked what about a piece with one large house and whether that would lead to “McMansions.” Mr. MacDonald recalled the Highland Terrace neighborhood where neighbors were not happy with infill development. He felt there will be some feedback. Mr. Conner said Highland Terrace is a place where they can look at underlying zoning. What is being built is exactly what the zoning calls for. Mr. Conner said the issue is you want to build in the character of a neighborhood when that character is great, not when it isn’t. He added that with what Ms. Murray has written you do get development but you have to meet the character of the neighborhood, and you have to be creative. Planning Commission 24 August 2021 4 Mr. Conner noted that if the zoning doesn’t match what is around it, that zoning will have to be reconsidered to solve the issue. Ms. Ostby said that under base density, the minimum required density is 4 per acre or the maximum allowed in the underlying zoning. She asked if the zoning is 2 per acre whether that number becomes 4 per acre. Mr. Conner said it does otherwise the economics won’t work. Ms. Ostby felt that makes sense with a larger parcel, but with 2-3 acres, there is not a lot of room. Mr. Conner said the next paragraph allows the DRB to be more flexible in certain circumstances. He stressed that a PUD is always a negotiation. Ms. Ostby said she felt this could be a very good thing but questioned why they would create something that have problems. She thought that as it is written, it is giving very strong motivation for someone to do an Infill PUD. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will be discussing where these are acceptable. Ms. Ostby questioned whether to allow infill in an R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Conner responded that what they are seeing now is 9 or fewer units being built on 5 and 6 acre parcels in order to avoid Act 250. Those parcels can never be built on again, and that is not efficient use of land. The Infill PUD can address that. Mr. Conner then reviewed some input from Mr. Mittag. He generally liked the Infill PUD but felt there should be more design flexibility. He also felt that areas on Shelburne Rd. should be integrated in and drive-throughs should be prohibited. The parcels should also have 25% or fewer resources (Level 1, 2 or hazards). Mr. Conner noted that drive-throughs are prohibited in most places in the city. Ms. Ostby felt that with Shelburne Road and residential mixed us, there should be more distance from the road because of noise issues. She cited friends who have moved from a beautiful apartment in the new Larkin building on Shelburne Road because of the noise. Mr. Conner said that is not easy to address though he understands the importance. Mr. Riehle said he generally likes from p. 5 on, though he thought the DRB will have challenges. Ms. Ostby questioned the requirement to orient a building to the street particularly when the views are to the rear and to address privacy and noise mitigation. Mr. Conner noted that 2 years ago the Commission required doors to the street. Ms. Ostby said they now have experience. There are large parcels with views to the back of them in the Auto zoning area. Mr. Larkin acknowledged that there have been noise complaints from residents of the Shelburne Road building, but the majority of people are OK. He said the complaints wouldn’t Planning Commission 24 August 2021 5 preclude them from doing that kind of building again. When a building is nearer to the road, they can get more units in, and they can provide a lower price point on some units. Mr. MacDonald said he is fairly comfortable with the Infill PUDs. They just need to work out some details. Ms. Ostby questioned whether an Infill PUD will work in the buildable area of a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said they could say a “cottage court” can be built on a smaller piece of acreage. Ms. Ostby asked whether 4 families could get together, tear down their homes, and build something like this. Mr. Conner said they could but they would have to meet all the regulations including replacing all the 4 dwelling units. Ms. Leban asked how you add a unit to a one-story ranch house. She felt you shouldn’t want to match that. She asked if there is an exception to “contextual obligations.” Mr. Conner said the solution to that is not at the PUD level; it is at the zoning level. You can have a triplex that looks like a single family home, but that is another discussion. Ms. Leban asked if there is an allowance for increased density for an efficiency apartment regarding affordability. Mr. Conner noted that accessory units don’t count for density by State law. Any single family dwelling on its own lot can have an accessory apartment that meets certain requirements. Ms. Dooley said what is especially important in the TDNs is the promotion of strong neighborhoods. She said she supports no drive-throughs. She also stressed that Kirby Cottages are below the Infill PUD threshold. Ms. Louisos read from the regulations regarding preserving neighborhoods and noted there are standards that try to achieve that. Ms. Ostby asked if she is alone in her concern with building orientation with regard to Shelburne Road. She noted that if you build housing in the old Hannaford off Shelburne Road, you are facing Lowe’s, and there are beautiful views in the other direction. She felt that the decision to have buildings front on a road should be reconsidered in instance such as this. Mr. Riehle noted that some buildings on Hinesburg Road have created a “front door façade” with the actual entrances to the side and rear. Ms. Ostby said a grove of trees would be appealing as you drive down Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner said you can’t change the regulations just for the PUDs. In a straw poll of members, 3 felt the regulation should stand as written, 1 wants it changed. Mr. Riehle abstained. Mr. Riehle said he agrees with Ms. Ostby regarding trees, and he was torn about allowing a greater setback. Mr. Conner stressed that the aim is to continue the pattern of development. Planning Commission 24 August 2021 6 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner said that the hope is for the next meeting to bring back the TND, Conservation PUD, and Infill TND. Ms. Murray may also have the Commercial ready. The meeting following that will deal with all the other things, what has to be done, what is already done, etc. One of the things that will come up next week is “carving out” parcels. Ms. Ostby felt they should have a straw poll as to whether to allow Infill PUDs in unbuilt areas. Mr. Conner said there is also the question of whether to allow a Conservation PUD in a buildable area. Mr. Mac Donald asked how they will define “unbuilt.” Is it no building? What about one building? Mr. Conner said if the Commission says no infill, they can go back to the underlying zoning. Mr. Louisos said the word “infill” may be the problem. She felt the tool is important, but she wasn’t sure it was necessarily “infill.” Ms. Ostby said size is the only difference between this and a regular TND. Ms. Louisos suggested possibly calling it a “small TND. Mr. Conner said he’d like to think about that. Regarding the Williston changes, Mr. Conner noted they are considering reducing but not eliminating parking standards. Mr. Macdonald noted they are also considering cannabis sales. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:32 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 31 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 31 August 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street and 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; S. Dooley, J. Nick 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on emergency exit from the building. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of a response regarding the letter sent about the solar array. It will be on the next agenda. Ms. Louisos also noted that at its next meeting the City Council will hear the revisions to the Official City Map. Mr. Riehle said the Commission should talk about the letter received from Jeff Davis’s attorney. Ms. Louisos said they can put it under “other business.” 5. Swift Street/Spear Street Intersection Study: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history. She noted that the Bike/Ped Committee made a recommendation for a roundabout as the safest, though most expensive, option. Ms. Ostby noted that UVM has ideas in its Strategic Plan for the barn area to which the main access is on the Spear Street side. The roundabout would remove that, and UVM will want to maintain that as a safe access for cars. Ms. Louisos said the details for that could be worked out. Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the roundabout option recommended by the Bike/Ped Committee as the safest. Mr. Conner noted the next level will be for design which will provide a more detailed design. A representative from UVM asked to be included in the future discussion as the roundabout will remove their access to Spear Street and the Wheelock parcel. They are also concerned with bike and pedestrian safety. Mr. Engels said he will vote against the motion as there is o evidence that this is not a safe intersection. There have been no injuries at this site, and it will cost $1,000,000 more than other options. He felt there were much better ways to spend that money. Ms. Ostby was concerned about the amount of land it will take from the northeast corner. She wants to be sure the City Council knows that. Mr. MacDonald said the roundabout actually takes the least amount of right-of-way. In the vote that followed the motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Engels voting against. 6. Continued Review of Proposed Land Development Regulations: Mr. Mittag moved to approve all of 5c. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. A. Habitat Blocks: Ms. Louisos noted the draft contains the changes the Commission asked for. Mr. Mittag suggested under “standards” in 12.02c to use “extreme” instead of “unnecessary” or “extraordinary.” Mr. Conner said he will run that by the City Attorney. In a straw poll, members were unanimous to let the City Attorney decide, as long as the language sets a high bar. In Sect. 12.05c5 Ms. Ostby asked if it is OK to have such a structure in a connector. Mr. Conner said this is separate from relocating a habitat connector. There are times when 150 feet can’t be met. The DRB can make a judgment when there is an obstacle to planting in an area that requires restoration work. Mr. Riehle said 2 inch caliper seems small for a tree. Ms. Ostby said that is the biggest size you can move around safely. She suggested deferring to the Arborist on this. Mr. Conner said the Arborist can take a look. He also noted that planting a larger tree may not always be a good idea. Ms. Ostby asked why “institutional” is included in 12.06.2a and not in residential. She felt it should be in “b” not “a.” She then moved to move Industrial and Ag from 12.062a and 2a1 to 12.06.2b1 and 2b. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner noted that one change that was made was to make habitat blocks and connectors as overlays. Ms. Ostby questioned whether on p. 27 the prohibiting of basements in new-builds was only for commercial. Mr. Conner said it was for both commercial and residential. If you meet the definition for “substantial improvements,” you must fill in the basement. You can said it only applies if you completely rebuild the house. Language now is at the cost of 100% of the value of the house. Mr. Gagnon suggested saying “at the appraised value of the house.” Mr. Connor felt that makes sense. He also noted that any change has to be cleared by the State so federal standards are not violated. He will check on “appraised value.” Mr. Riehle questioned why a recreational vehicle has to be fully licensed and asked if that refers to a go- cart. Mr. Conner said it means an RV. Ms. Ostby said she would like to check the overlay map with the Arrowwood mapping to verify that the connectors are where they should be. Mr. Nick asked where they wound u with recommendations for removal/retaining. Ms. Louisos said it is where it was mapped in the draft that went out. Mr. Nick asked if the “pink areas” were adopted. Mr. Conner said the Commission made adjustments in October. Then in June, Arrowwood reported on those changes and made recommendations. The Planning Commission did not accept those changes in a 3-3 vote. The applicable map is the one warned for public hearing for this parcel. Mr. Nick said their concern is that of their 42 acres, 38% is almost a taking. He said there is no forest along the Interstate. All the invasives have been removed. There is also no provision for a consultant they would hire to debate this. Mr. Nick added it seems counterintuitive to have habitat along the Interstate corridor. He was not sure what the Commission was trying to accomplish. The finger along the Interstate is no longer a habitat block. He also noted this area is identified by the Regional Plan as a “growth area.” Ms. Ostby moved to reconsider the straw poll on habitat block on map #12 to accept Arrowwood’s changes (areas in yellow), adding in the lower and removing the upper, and remove the area outlined in the yellow rectangle identified as “retain.” Mr. Riehle seconded. Mr. Engel noted that the state says straw polls are just as valid as formal votes, so they don’t have to redo anything. Mr. Nick noted the retained portion is a meadow, not a habitat block. Ms. Louisos said in this case the Commission cut it out because it isn’t forest. The Core is defined as the edge of the habitat block. Ms. Ostby said Arrowwood said in 10 years there would be forest there. Mr. Nick said they would never develop on the Interstate piece. He said they can hire a consultant with another opinion. He considers this a “taking” as 42 acres are being “taken.” Ms. Ostby said that the density from those acres can be used in the developable portion. Mr. Conner said that only applies in a Conservation PUD with 70% of the land remaining undeveloped. Mr. Mittag said the retained portion could be narrower based on the Google map. In the vote that followed, the motion was defeated 3-4. Mr. Gagnon then moved to remove the area shown on the Arrowwood map as “remove.” Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regarding Article 12, Mr. Mittag asked to delay discussion so he can relook at his notes. Ms. Louisos noted the Council wants to see all the parts together. 7. Continued Review of Draft Conservation PUDs” Ms. Ostby felt they don’t have to give so much in the purpose statement because Article 12 does so much. He found it wordy and confusing. Mr. Conner said he had issue narrowing it. Ms. Ostby said the last 2 bullets are most important. Mr. Mittag felt it reaffirms Article 12 and reinforces its strength. Ms. Ostby said then it should be in all the other PUDs. Mr. Conner said the difference is that hazards and level 1 and level 2 resources are excluded from PUDs; here it is the protected part of the PUD. Mr. MacDonald said he felt mentioning Article 12 strengthens it. Mr. Engels suggested the language “conserve the city’s most important resources.” Members agreed to that. Ms. Dooley said under Conservation PUD the word “are” is used. She asked if there is a “has to” or “may do” difference and whether there can be a Conservation PUD that doesn’t have to meet all the criteria. Mr. Conner said the purpose statement gives context, and he is comfortable with the list as it is. It is intended to be read together to provide context. Under C2, Mr. Mittag felt it should read “where any portion of it is in the Southeast Quadrant.” Ms. Louisos said the spot she would be concerned about is Village Residential zoning where they talked about having neighborhoods. Members then considered the ‘carve out’ piece. Mr. Engels said he wants to remove it. Mr. Conner said Sharon drafted it based on what she thought the Commission was looking for. On a one-time basis, someone could subdivide off a couple of parcels. Mr. Gagnon recalled they talked about that for someone setting aside a piece for family members only one time. Ms. Ostby felt this was part of the big conversation on the 14th. Mr. Conner noted that even a “carve out” would have to be near the roadway and be subject to subdivision standards. Mr. Mittag said he was OK with what Sharon wrote as long as there is no minimum density. Mr. Conner noted that if a driveway goes past 2 houses on the property, it has to become a road. He added that it would have to be a Conservation PUD. Mr. Engels felt the DRB would have a hard time dealing with this. Ms. Dooley urged the Commission to think about unintended consequences. There is no requirement that the “carve off” would have to be for the owner’s kids. Members agreed to continue the discussion on the 14th. Regarding TDRs, Mr. Conner reminded members that in a Conservation PUD, all the density that would otherwise be developed goes into the 30% that is not conserved. This works out to about 4 units per acre. If the Commission allows TDRs beyond that, there has to be a decision on net density. Alternatively, there could be a TND on the buildable portion. There would be no upper cap because that development depends on building types. The difference is that the first option is based on underlying zoning, and the TND sets a higher bar of design and you get what fits. Mr. Conner cautioned not to have the 2 options “bleed” into each other or people will take the easier one. Mr. Mittag felt you shouldn’t put a TND in a Conservation PUD because it “muddies the waters.” Ms. Ostby countered that the landowner is preserving 70% of the resources, and to do that they get a greater density in the 30%. Mr. Conner added that with the first option you can still have a minimum of 2 building types, civic space, etc. Ms. Dooley said in a TND there is no offset/bonus for inclusionary units. She questioned how many units a person could build under the current zoning and would like that answer for the next meeting. Mr. Conner said Ms. Dooley’s question is a tricky one. Many properties are not building to the maximum density now, and he wasn’t sure he could run the math that would make people confident. Ms. Ostby said Sharon’s numbers don’t include offsets and bonuses. She said that if they go the TND route and had a minimum density, development could be phased. Mr. Conner said that is built into it. A developer would be vested in the current rules for 10 years; after that, they would be subject to the rules at that time. Ms. Ostby said that would ensure that what is built immediately is clustered. She felt that in a non-TND very large homes could be built. Mr. Conner said that part of the goal for the next meeting is to determine where the Commission is with PUD types. He said he would probably recommend that the upper net density not go much more than 8 to 10 per acre. Ms. Ostby said she would like the Energy Committee’s input on that. Mr. Conner noted that shared walls are more energy efficient as are compact neighborhoods with shops nearby. Mr. Mittag asked if they can require solar for new construction. Mr. MacDonald reminded members that they passed an amendment for solar-ready. Ms. Louisos said installation of solar is tabled till after Interim Zoning. Mr. Conner said Sharon noted the city doesn’t have control over solar fields. If you put it in the 70%, you can’t count it as your conservation amount. He also reminded members that the city does not control installation of solar, but if there is a developed energy plan, there can be more of a role in the process. 8. Climate Action Plan Task Force: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission has been asked to choose a representative. Mr. Mittag expressed his interest in this. Ms. Ostby questioned whether the representative would be representing him/herself or the Commission. Mr. Mittag said the assumption is the Commission. Mr. Conner said the expectation is that decisions would come to the Commission, but the Task Force would not need authorization for everything they do. Mr. MacDonald then moved to appoint Mr. Mittag to the Climate Action Plan Task Force to represent the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Mr. Riehle noted receipt of a letter from the attorney representing Jeff Davis and Jeff Nick. He said he found the tone offensive. Mr. Mittag said the land was bought 20 years ago when there was very little knowledge of climate change. Ms. Ostby said that parcel in part of the Interim Zoning area and would have to go to the City Council anyway. Mr. Mittag felt the Commission has tried to do the best for them taking into account the rest of the community. Mr. Gagnon questioned whether there is a potential for unintended consequences. He also noted potential issues with UVM land where they want to build dorms and felt the Commission should be aware of potential issues there as well. Members then reviewed the schedule. The next meeting is on 14 September. Mr. Conner said they should be voting for a public hearing in early October. Mr. Mittag said the Commission is also concerned with affordable housing and felt that to achieve this they need to go up to 10 stories at least with green space around it. Ms. Louisos felt this would be good to add to the work plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:36 p.m. ________________________, Clerk