HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/30/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
30 SEPTEMBER 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Thursday, 30 September 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; H. Riehle, C. Trombly, S. Dopp, N. Hyman, S.
Dooley, A. Chalnick, D Peters, K. Lane, other members of the public
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instruction on exiting the building in an emergency.
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:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos noted the City Council will hold a public hearing on changes to the Official City Map at their
4 October meeting.
5. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Mr. Gagnon suggested that if something has already been discussed and voted on, it is done, and the
Commission should focus on things that have not been decided or voted on.
Conservation PUDs:
Mr. Mittag felt the requirements on p. 4 and 5 for a Conservation PUD were onerous and could
discourage people. Mr. Conner noted that one suggested Ms. Murray had was that if the conservation
area can’t be located within one 30% block, a second one could be allowed. Mr. Gagnon asked if this is
consistent with what the Commission has done in the past. Mr. Conner said there are regulations to
insure transitions, spacing, etc. The current SEQ standards are quite extensive, and they were used as a
model.
Ms. Ostby said she had a similar concern and questioned whether they had fully vetted this so it isn’t
being made difficult for people. Mr. Gagnon said he felt the prescriptiveness is there to get what the
2
Commission wants it to look like. He also felt the research was similar to what had to be done in the
past.
Mr. Conner said the Master Plan is the newest and most significant thing being asked for, so that the city
gets a picture of what the whole area will look like. Mr. Gagnon felt it was important to have that. Mr.
Conner acknowledged that with 4 acres, there may be a lot for someone to do, but with 25 acres it’s
what people may be used to. Mr. Gagnon added that the public will get to comment; if they think it is
crazy, they will let the Commission know.
Mr. Riehle said that people with the smaller amounts of acreage should be made aware of the public
hearing. Mr. Conner said that over the next few weeks, “manageable pieces” will be brought to the
public. Ms. Ostby suggested the possibility of some listening sessions as they had in the past.
Mr. Mittag suggested adding on p. 6 “…up to a maximum of 6 units per acre.” Mr. Conner said that is
addressed later on that page. He added that in an R7 zone, it is up to 7 units per acre.
Mr. Mittag questioned the words “buildable area” on p. 6. Mr. Conner noted that in a Conservation
PUD, there is a developable area (the 30%) which is the basis for the density. The “buildable area” is
what is left when things such as roads have been taken out. He suggested the possibility of doing a
graphic to make that clearer.
Mr. Riehle asked if sidewalks will be required on both sides. Mr. Conner said in a Conservation PUD,
only on one side.
Mr. Mittag moved that in Section 15CA5, “based on buildable area” be changed to “developable area.”
Mr. Riehle seconded. The vote on the motion was 3-4, and the motion was deemed to have failed.
Ms. Ostby said the Commission hasn’t discussed conservation mechanisms. She felt they need to do
that. Ms. Louisos said it is OK to have different descriptions of how to conserve land. Ms. Ostby said
that if there are fees for conserving land, perhaps the Council should eliminate those. Mr. Gagnon said
they have talked about it to some extent and wanted to allow some flexibility. He cautioned against
eliminating that flexibility.
Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with the permanence of conserved land. She was OK with hazards
and level 1 resources but questioned the other 20%. She felt there should be some different kinds of
conservation mechanisms. Ms. Louisos said the 20% could be used for farming, and language could be
drafted to allow for that.
Ms. Louisos said there is no permanence if it isn’t in a PUD. It’s just one Planning Commission / Council
away from change. Mr. Conner said he thought what was being said it that the holder of the
permanency / easement have some mechanism to alter it. Ms. Louisos said what can’t be controlled is
the future. She felt that is also part of the TDR discussion. Mr. Conner said that Ms. Murray suggested
that if the Commission thought something might change, to let the public know that.
3
Ms. Ostby suggested that when a Conservation PUD is required, that there be a range of between 60-
70% for the conserved area. This would give the landowner some flexibility. She felt some of the
parcels are actually closer to 50% resources than to 70%.
Ms. Ostby then moved that when a Conservation PUD is required, to allow a range for the conserved
portion of between 60 and 70%.
Mr. Conner noted this could eliminate the ability to bring TDRs into that area. Mr. Gagnon was
concerned this would lead to other language to be changed.
There was no second to this motion.
Mr. Mittag said that in Section 6, there are things the Commission talked about but never resolved such
as reducing the number of acres for a TND. Mr. Conner explained the difference between a TND and an
Infill TND and said it is difficult to get a TND on fewer than 10 acres.
Mr. Ostby noted that a TND is recommended in areas where there are goods and services located within
a quarter or half a mile. She asked if there are not those services, should the developer be required to
provide them. Mr. Conner said he’d like to talk about that with Ms. Murray.
Ms. Dopp asked if a TND has to include all the things on the list of “characteristics”. Mr. Conner noted
the Commission did talk about a possible “point system” but wasn’t ready to do that. Staff was asked to
clarify that these should be taken as a whole, not as individual requirements that each must be met.
Mr. Mittag referred to the tabulation of building types on p. 8 of 10 and recommended increasing the
heights and number of stories of buildings to all more efficient use of land. He suggested a detached
unit up to 3 stories, town house up to 4, neighborhood store up to 3, a civic building up to 4. Ms.
Louisos suggested doing that as part of the TDR process as it might not apply in all parts of the city. Mr.
Gagnon was not opposed when it made sense but cited the need to be careful of context, where there
might be areas where that doesn’t fit in.
Mr. Riehle felt it would be fine in the center of the city but not in the SEQ where there are “unofficial
view corridors.”
Mr. Trombly noted the city missed its affordable housing goals and cited the need to consider higher
buildings in some areas of the city.
Mr. Conner suggested adding some building types, e.g. a 10-plex, in addition to heights. Ms. Murray
cautioned about not having more areas of the city look like City Center by overwhelming small blocks of
development.
Mr. Ostby said she felt it was important for every housing unit to have some private outdoor space and
to add that to what buildings should include. Mr. Conner said there is no problem with that for single
and 2-family buildings. It gets trickier with small multiplexes. He noted that one requirement of a TND
4
is nearby park or civic space. He said there could be a group of town homes that front on a park space.
Ms. Ostby suggested adding the requirement for a number of sq. ft. of private outdoor space, and see
what happens at the public hearing.
Ms. Ostby asked whether a carriage house has to be behind the primary house. Mr. Conner said it will
end up that way because of the requirement to build the main house up close to the road.
Mr. Hyman asked whether he could build a home on his 32 acres for each of his 2 children and whether
septic and wells would be OK. Mr. Conner said with one or 2 homes the sewer ordinance doesn’t
prohibit private sewer and water. Mr. Conner also explained that since Mr. Hyman’s land is in the NRP,
there can be a total of 3 homes on it. There must also be a conservation plan to show how the land is
being cared for.
6. Possible Action: Review/approve Planning Commission Report and warn Public Hearing on
proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Mr. McDonald asked about accessory structures. Mr. Conner said currently an accessory structure can
be no more than 50% of the ground floor of the main house. This “punishes” the owner of a small
house. The language allows for an accessory structure to be no more than twice the size of the main
house so long as overall building coverage maximums on the lot are still met. Mr. Riehle said that is not
logical with 4-5 acres for someone who wants to put a barn there. Mr. Conner said they can say that for
lots more than 1 acre, they can say the accessory structure be no more than 10% of the total acreage.
Mr. Mittag felt that LDR-21-05 was spot zoning for the benefit of one landowner. Mr. Gagnon said they
voted on it, and it is in the record.
Mr. Mittag said he would prefer in LDR-21-01 to have required solar insulation instead of solar ready.
He acknowledged they had voted on this.
Mr. Mittag was concerned that prime ag soils are not protected in Article 12. He also was concerned
with protected of trees on public land. Ms. Ostby said there are now habitat blocks. Mr. Conner said if
there is forest management, it is outside of the city’s control.
Mr. Gagnon cited the need for a management plan for conserved lands so they don’t “go to pot.” Ms.
Ostby felt that would be a next step. Mr. Conner supported a separate statement on that.
Mr. Gagnon then move to accept the report and the changes to the Land Development Regulations and
to warn a public hearing on 26 October 2021. Mr. Macdonald seconded. The motion passed 4-3 with
Messrs. Mittag, Riehle and Engels opposing.
Mr. Mittag added that had there been an opportunity to vote on this package after the public hearing.
Had there been an opportunity to vote on the final package, he said, he might have been willing to vote
for the public hearing. Mr. Conner stated that the Commission will in fact be required to vote on the
entire package in order to submit it to the City Council following the hearing, and apologized for any
5
confusion on the matter. As the motion to warn the hearing had passed regardless, Ms. Louisos elected
to proceed with the rest of the agenda.
Mr. Conner said the goal is to have to LDRs to the City Council for their 1 November meeting. They can
then warn for their public hearing within the Interim Zoning timeline.
7. Meeting Minutes of 14 September 2021:
Members agreed to postpone consideration of the minutes until the next meeting.
8. Other Business:
There was no other business presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:35 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022