Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/22/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 MARCH 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 March 2022, 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, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; T. Bailey, M. Simoneau S. Dooley, S. Dopp 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on emergency exit from the building. 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. Ostby noted there will be trailers in the elementary school parking lots. They will be used for administrative offices. Mr. Conner said that the school district was told “if you need them, just do it.” Mr. Engels reported that the Airport Rezoning Task Force conducted a straw poll of the 3 options provided by the consultant. Five members voted to say “no.” One member voted to delay action until there is a new Comprehensive Plan. There will be a public input session on April 7th. The consultant is preparing a comment sheet which will go to the public at that session. The Task Force will have its final vote on 21 April. Mr. Riehle asked whether the City of Burlington has participated in the sessions. Mr. Engels said Nick Longo has been there. Ms. Peterson added that Mr. Longo and Larry Lackey have participated. Mr. Lackey made the initial presentation on behalf of the Airport. Ms. Peterson noted the public input session will be advertised in The Other Paper. An updated draft will be available to the public. 5. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: LDR-21-1, LDR- 21-2, LDR-21-3, LDR-21-4: Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner noted that staff received 3 email comments and a comment from the Committee on Spaces for Dogs. 2 Mr. Conner said the legal review has been completed and resulted in a few little edits. One significant edit allows balconies and porches as a site amenity, but they can count for only half of the total site amenity requirement. Ms. Peterson added that the balcony has to be a 6’x8’minimum size. Mr. Bailey noted that it is complicated to do something that overlaps a district where there is already a traffic overlay. He liked the context, but said that what appears to be lacking is an understanding of what the outcome will be. Ideally, it would be incentivizing housing in these areas, but when you deal with infill, you cannot have the same economy of scale. He didn’t want it to become “un-doable.” He recommended a technical review outside of house to see how this will work for people who are trying to build. This is especially important now that the city has $1,000,000 in money for housing. He liked some of the details but noted that each one adds an expense to what is already expensive. Mr. Simoneau said that at this point in time, increased density is not being addressed. If the Commission approves this based on status quo zoning, and then you increase the density, how will it affect the PUDs that have been approved. The question is: what comes first, the PUDs or the densities. He noted that the Spear Meadows project anguished for 15 years because abutters were angered that R-4 zoning could be doubled by TDRs. People need to know up front what the density can be and that it will not be exceeded. Mr. Simoneau also said that reading through all the stuff the developer has to address, including authoring a report, it will cost money and will work against affordable housing. He felt the expense is not necessary and that the regulations are trying to quantify something that is at least in part subjective. Ms. Louisos said the context analysis is one way to support “context,” how the planned project fits the vision of the area. Mr. Simoneau suggested a “check box” method, not a narrative, something more like the Form Based Code area has. Mr. Conner noted the General PUD is never required. The applicant is getting broad authority to waive a lot of requirements. The context report tells the Board what to think about. As there was no further public comment, Mr. Macdonald moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Mittag said the impact on surroundings can be significant which is why the context report is important. Ms. Ostby felt the Commission should set up a sub-committee to see the impact of these regulations. She said she is all for streamlining and lowering hurdles. She loved the “check the box” idea if that could be incorporated into the process. She felt that would add clarity to the public as well. Mr. Macdonald asked if there isn’t already a maximum density. Mr. Conner said R-2 became R-4 when there was a PUD. He noted that R-12 could become more than R-12 with inclusionary units and bonuses. He also noted that some communities don’t use a number. They call it “medium density neighborhood” or “high density neighborhood.” Mr. Riehle asked if there could be a map of absolutely maximum density. 3 Mr. Engels said everything the Commission does gets interpreted by the DRB. He said he would like to hear from them about what the Commission has done. Regarding technical review, Mr. Mittag said the city has professional staff, and the Commission has done due diligence. He felt technical review was a bad idea. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations as presented with recommended legal and technical changes provided in the meeting packet and to submit the amendments and the Planning Commission Report to the City Council. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner said he would like to look for opportunities to streamline things. Ms. Peterson noted there are some thing required in the context analysis that are required elsewhere in an application. 6. Planning Commission Work Plan: Mr. Macdonald asked if the Commission hadn’t moved “review of east-west roads” down in terms of priority. Ms. Peterson said that will be reflected in the work plan for next year as that discussion happened after the October/November work plan meeting. Mr. Conner stressed that this is a work plan, and they may not necessarily get to every item. Ms. Louisos noted that some items are just to “make a plan” to do it. Ms. Ostby said there are still some things from Interim Zoning that the Commission hasn’t done. Ms. Peterson said that is the last item on the list. Ms. Ostby asked if there will be an “infill PUD.” Mr. Conner said the idea is that the General PUD becomes the last PUD. Infill in pre-existing neighborhood may not be a PUD. 7. Initial Policy Discussion on TDR Update: Ms. Louisos noted staff’s review of the history to date. Ms. Ostby noted an item left out of the February 3rd recommendation, to create a new definition of what a dwelling unit is and what square footage should be. She felt it was important to talk about that. Mr. Mittag said the Commission was grappling with trying to define it by size and abandoned the idea. He also noted the report of the TDR IZ committee was done in 2019, and they have learned a lot since then, so they shouldn’t be too attached to that report. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned that a TDR unit from a house could now be used for a studio apartment which does not address the “missing middle.” Mr. Mittag noted that Spear Meadows has used TDRs. Mr. Conner said they do have some triplexes and new homes there, which is close to the “missing middle.” 4 Ms. Louisos raised the question of whether TDRs should be used only for residential units. Mr. Mittag said they should be very flexible including commercial and industrial units. This could be additional square feet of lot coverage or an additional story. Mr. Conner raised the question of allowing more units on Shelburne Road with TDRs. This could take the form of just allowing more density. Mr. Engels asked the status of TDRs. Mr. Conner said there haven’t been a lot of additional dwelling units in the last 2 years, maybe 10 or 12. He noted the Commission had added land to the NRP, but they also said TDRs could not be used from hazards. Ms. Peterson said her understanding is that there is a bottleneck with receiving areas and that if they were expanded there would be more interest in TDRs. Ms. Ostby said the Commission has an obligation not to make it difficult for people to sell TDRs, and that would involve expanding receiving areas. Mr. Riehle said lot coverage is an issue because of quality of life and other issues. Ms. Ostby questioned whether someone who wants a bigger house shouldn’t have to buy more TDRS. She suggested doing it by square feet. Mr. Macdonald said then there is no incentive to do it. Ms. Ostby questioned whether it is bad to incentivize small buildings. Mr. Conner said he would have to talk with legal people. There are regulations as to what can be transferred. There was a court decision that density as a number of units per acre is OK. He wasn’t sure about square footage. Mr. Macdonald asked about weighting a TDR from an area the city wants to conserve. Ms. Peterson said there is a difficulty in determining what that is. There is also a “spot zoning” issue when adjacent parcels are treated differently when there is very little difference between them ecologically. Mr. Conner said TDRs from agricultural areas can be used. He has seen a couple of instances where a developer has taken advantage of this when it meets both state and local requirements. Ms. Louisos asked how members felt about having TDRs count for more. Ms. Ostby said as long as it doesn’t harm the seller. Mr. Mittag said it is a negotiation between the buyer and seller. Mr. Conner cited the need to be sure the market is balanced. Mr. Riehle noted a buyer can just buy the TDRs and bank them and not say how they will be used.. Mr. Conner noted the TDRs are not severed until they are used. Mr. Conner asked if members were comfortable with using TDRs for additional lot coverage as well as for additional dwelling units. The maximum added lot coverage would be 10%. Mr. Riehle felt they should incentivize going “up” not “out.” 5 Members were OK with adding more units in the same size building. They also wanted to discuss having bigger buildings. Ms. Peterson said they should also discuss the value of TDRs in commercial buildings and in mixed use buildings. Mr. Macdonald said they need to simplify and stimulate the market. Mr. Mittag favored a “full but basic” ordinance now and dealing with nuances later. Mr. Conner said if the Commission said you could double the density city-wide, would this by OK in the Orchards. Mr. Macdonald felt there could be negative consequences. Ms. Louisos suggested doing something the Commission is comfortable with and then looking further. Ms. Dopp asked how many TDRs are out there. Ms. Ostby said that can’t be answered easily at this time. Mr. Mittag added that what they knew in 2019 has changed. 8. Meeting Minutes of 23 February 2022: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 23 February 2022. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 6- 0. 9. Other Business: Mr. Conner advised that Mr. Gagnon has stepped down from the Commission. There will be interviews on 4 April for a replacement. Members agreed to wait until a new member is added before voting on a new Vice Chair. 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 April 12, 2022