Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/26/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 APRIL 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 April 2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels, A. Chalnick ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; R. Greco, S. O’Brien, D. Peters 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions 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. Louisos welcomed new Commission member Andrew Chalnick. Ms. Louisos advised that the recent updates to the LDRs have been warned for 2 May. Ms. Peterson added that the updates to the Official Map have been warned for the first meeting in June. Mr. Conner noted that the DRB held a special meeting last night to reconsider a revised application from Beta, and this morning they issued an approval. Ms. Ostby noted that the City Council has decided to take up the issue of air B&Bs as a priority in the next fiscal year. Ms. Louisos advised that the CCRPC will have a public meeting on 10 May, 6-8 p.m. regarding the I-89 study. This conflicts with a Planning Commission meeting and Ms. Louisos asked whether the Commission wanted to reschedule. Members agreed not to reschedule. 5. Committee Reports: Mr. Mittag reported that the Climate Action Committee is moving ahead and tomorrow will complete the first draft of the transportation section. Buildings and thermal are already in draft form. Mr. Chalnick added that there are different pathways and actions to help achieve the goals. The intention is 2 to present to the public for feedback in early June and to present to the City Council in September. Mr. Conner suggested there could be something on the Planning Commission agenda while the report is still in draft form to keep the lines open. Ms. Louisos added that this could help as they begin work on the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ostby noted that the Affordable Housing Committee is moving to monthly meetings. She will not continue as liaison and suggested the Commission appoint someone else. Ms. Louisos suggested doing this at their organizational meeting. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council has been doing work to help create more structure and consistency among all committees. One piece they have endorsed is that each policy committee would have a Council liaison. The Council Chair would be the Planning Commission liaison. Ms. Peterson advised that the next Affordable Housing Committee meeting will be on 18 May. 6. Consider the Working Draft of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) section of the LDRs: Ms. Peterson said no changes have been made to the draft, though she did pull out some major policy questions: #1. Should residential districts R-7, R-12, and R-7NC be receiving areas for TDRs? Ms. Peterson noted these are primarily residential districts. Mr. Conner added that they are also in the Transit Overlay District. Mr. Riehle asked whether this would include the St. John Vianney area. Mr. Conner said that is R-4 and would not be included. Mr. Chalnick asked if these are PUD areas. Mr. Conner said if a property is more than 4 acres in R-7 and R-7NC, it must be one of the new PUDs. In the TND PUD, there is no density limit, so it wouldn’t intersect with TDRs. In the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), you need TDRs for increased density. Mr. Conner added that TDRs are a great tool, but it represents an expense for an area that has unlimited development. Ms. Ostby said she was opposed to having TDRs used only in the Urban Overlay District and supported TDRs being used in R-7, R-7NC, and R-12 wherever there is an opportunity. Ms. Peterson said they could use the TDRs in the areas under 4 acres, which are not required to do a TND. She added that the simplest way to increase density on a parcel is just to increase the density. This would allow more units on smaller lots. Mr. Conner said these tend to be multi-unit housing areas already. Future infill in the future would likely be a unit in the backyard in an R-1 or R-4 district. Mr. Chalnick asked if there is a difference between “base” and “maximum” density. Mr. Conner said there is only base density in the SEQ. There is also an inclusionary bonus you can get city-wide (which is another conversation). 3 Mr. Macdonald asked about the number of “over” and “under” 4-acre parcels. Mr. Conner showed a map of the districts in question that are in the Transit Overlay District and identified some vacant parcels. He noted the district is mostly built out. There are a few parcel on Quarry Hill Road that are R-7 but not in the Transit Overlay District and some south of the Interstate and west of Hinesburg Rd. These areas are so newly zoned, Mr. Conner recommended that no changes be made to them. Ms. Louisos recommended sticking to the Transit Overlay District for now. Mr. Conner noted that the Quarry Hill Road open land is up against the single family homes on East Terrace. Mr. Chalnick asked how close dense areas are to sensitive areas. Mr. Conner provided an overlay and showed and overhead photo and identified vacant parcels. He suggested that possibly in the future some of the commercial buildings could be converted to some housing. Mr. Mittag noted they could get extra density if there was redevelopment in built up areas if they didn’t limit it. Mr. Conner asked members to consider circumstances where they would want to put some physical “guideposts,” (e.g., 4-story buildings where there was a single-family home. In a straw poll, members were comfortable with providing up to 50% more density in R-7, R-7NC, and R- 12 in the Transit Overlay District. Mr. Conner noted they will have to reconcile this with Inclusionary Zoning. Ms. Ostby noted that a 3.9 acre parcel would not have to follow design regulation and a 4.0 acre parcel would. She felt this could create an issue. #2. How should TDR use be incentivized in specific areas? Ms. Louisos suggested that in the SEQ they could have a 1-for-1 basis for TDRs but offer more than one unit for a TDR in other areas. Mr. Mittag suggested ½ unit in the SEQ to keep as much open space as possible. Ms. Ostby said she did not favor any incentivizing. Mr. Chalnick asked how many TDRs there are. Ms. Peterson said the last number (1400) is out of date as it was before the recent LDR amendments. Ms. Louisos said the goal was to find new locations for these RDRs to go. Mr. Conner said he would advocate for more receiving than sending areas. Mr. Macdonald said the goal is to create a more robust market for TDRs. He was OK with going down to 2 units per TDR on the top line instead of 3. Mr. Conner noted the relative cost of a TDR in a small apartment will be higher than in a home. He added that it is hard to say what the market will do. Mr. Chalnick asked if it can be done on a square foot basis instead of a unit basis. Mr. Conner said that is tricky because you get caps on your units before you get capped on the bulk of what you build. He noted that this is why people “underbuild.” A majority of members favored 2 units on lines 1 and 2 and one unit on line 3 and 4. 4 Ms. Ostby asked about tying some TDRs to a number of bedrooms, with an incentive. Mr. MacDonald said that with too many strings, a developer will just decide to build commercial. Ms. Peterson suggested tying the number of bedrooms to the underlying zoning, so it doesn’t apply only to TDRs. Mr. Conner asked about excluding housing for the homeless and for seniors which is almost always one bedroom. Ms. Louisos said there should be a full discussion on this, including the pitfalls. Ms. Ostby suggested starting simply, 1-for-1 for TDRs and see what happens. She said you can always go up. Mr. Chalnick said the price of a TDR is too high for that. Ms. Ostby said they don’t know that. Mr. Mittag said $12,000 for a TDR is not much compared to the extra profit from a unit. Ms. Louisos suggested a conservative course and see what the public has to say. Members agreed to put 1 on the top line. Messrs. Macdonald and Chalnick still preferred 2. Mr. Conner asked what members wanted as the maximum amount of development in these areas: no maximum in the highest density district; an increase, but not unlimited, in transitional areas; no change in the SEQ. Ms. Ostby was OK with this as long as all the requirements for amenities are met. Ms. Peterson noted that the number of units determines the amenities. Mr. Riehle asked if someone tears down and rebuilds, would they have to have amenities that aren’t there now. Mr. Conner said they would. Ms. Ostby questioned whether they are forcing smaller units with the incentives. She added that she would be happier requiring a mix of unit sizes. She suggested allowing more height with more bedrooms. Mr. Conner cautioned against having more than 2 ways to use TDRs in order to make the process understandable. Mr. Chalnick said it would be helpful to see what the city would look like if all this is built (e.g., traffic, schools, etc.). Ms. Ostby said it would look different from what it would look like if there were all large houses in the SEQ. Mr. Chalnick asked if the population would go from 20,000 to 40,000. Ms. Peterson said none of this increases units in the sending areas; it just moves it. Mr. Chalnick felt it did increase because in reality many of the 1400 TDRs will not be used. Mr. Conner said they were contemplated. If you make it 2 for 1 or 3 for 1, it will increase. But he noted that none of this will happen in 2 year’s time, and it won’t massively shift the market. Mr. Mittag asked about the impact on infrastructure if 1400 units are built. He felt that is more sophisticated planning than they have been doing. He noted the areas will be seeing lots of ‘climate refugees’ and they need to be prepared for that. He suggested that 1400 units may not be enough. Mr. Riehle stressed the importance of parks as they build out. He suggested asking the Economic Development Committee to look into infrastructure, etc. 5 Mr. Mittag suggested incentivizing car dealerships to go elsewhere so the areas they use for car display can be built for housing. #3. Can we reduce minimal lot sizes? Ms. Peterson noted this is allowed by State Statute; however, South Burlington’s ordinance does not speak to this. Mr. Conner said the most common use of this is in smaller towns where they zone by acreage. Mr. Mittag said he didn’t see the need for it and was concerned with further fragmentation. Members agreed not to consider it at this time. 7. Consideration of Commission Work Plan: Ms. Peterson reviewed the list of things members raised to flag as new projects: a. Review recommendations from Climate Action Task Force to see how or if they need inclusion in the LDRs b. Address the 1.8 acre issue in the SEQ c. Consider regulation of ownership for new development to require owner-occupancy d. Diversity of housing types e. City growth targets and how they match with the Comprehensive Plan, LDRs, etc. f. Adding uses in commercial districts; clarifying definitions; changing boundaries g. Summaries of LDRs to be more user friendly Ms. Peterson then showed what is already in the work plan. Mr. Riehle suggested giving some things to other committees. Ms. Peterson noted that half of the Commission time will be spent on the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ostby said she would like to hear from other committees/experts/etc. to be briefed on things related to the Commission’s work. Ms. Louisos felt a lot of that will happen with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. 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 9:30 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission May 10, 2022