Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/18/2021SOUTH 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. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022