Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/14/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 JUNE 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 June 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. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels, A. Chalnick ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dooley 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: Ms. Dooley asked about a potential change to the LDRs regarding the number of units that could be on a small lot in the SEQ. The new LDRs reduced this number from 4 to 1.2. Ms. Dooley said she spoke with Ms. Emery who was supportive of changing this number back to 4. She asked what needs to happen for the Commission to relook at that change. Mr. Conner said the Commission voted to put on their draft work plan for the coming year. The plan has gone to the Council as part of the policy priorities. Ms. Dooley asked whether the Council could ask the Planning Commission to prioritize this item; Mr. Conner said that yes, the Council can ask that certain items be prioritized; Mr. Conner added that this year, the Comprehensive Plan is likely to be the top priority for all committees. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner announced that City Planner Kelsey Peterson has given birth to a healthy, happy baby girl. Ms. Peterson will be back at the end of August/beginning of September. Zoning Administrator Dalila Hall will be moving on. She has been with the City for 4 years and will be missed. Staff is working to fill that spot and get some support. Mr. Mittag asked that Mr. Conner relay the Commission’s thanks for all of her work. Ms. Louisos noted that 180 Market Street is now a year old. 4. LDR Amendment: Minor Technical Changes LDR-22-06: a. Clarify Uses in 13.03 Table on Bicycle Parking b. Move Section 15.A.20 (Performance Bonds) to Article 17 c. Renumber Section 13.05 to correct double “A” section 2 d. Delete 17.04C Subdivision Approvals header e. Correct Appendix E, Subdivision Requirements Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minor Technical Changes, LDR-22-06, as presented, for inclusion in the next round of amendments and public hearing. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. LDR-22-05 Transferable Development Rights: Review of Draft: Mr. Conner noted 2 items that were left for consideration: The first is how likely PUDs are to be used in the R-7, Swift R-7 and Allen Road areas. Mr. Conner said there is only one potential scenario where this would be feasible. The second is whether TDRs could be used for additional height. Staff’s recommendation is to open a discussion. Mr. Conner stressed that they don’t want to have very tall buildings next to neighborhoods of “lower” homes. He noted that his recollection is that in the SEQ, any density higher than 1.2 requires a TDR. The regulations are being checked to verify that. Ms. Louisos recalled that she described it that way in the public hearing. Mr. Conner said that was the intent. Mr. Macdonald asked about the height limit in the C-2. Mr. Conner said the height limit is 28 feet or 40 feet unless the DRB allows a taller building. In C-1, the 5 stories are allowed, and that is a cap. Mr. Mittag asked if a developer has to buy TDRs to get the extra height. Mr. Conner said only if they are asking for additional units. Mr. Chalnick said that if it isn’t too complex, he thought it would be a good idea to require a TDR for the additional height. He asked if that would be too hard to administer. Mr. Conner explained how an initial discussion occurs with a developer which most often does not involve a firm plan. Mr. Conner noted that where there is R-12 density, it is hard to do that in 28 feet. He stressed that if a developer can get the extra height for free now, if it is changed, there is additional cost to the project. Mr. Mittag said that if you restrict places where TDRs can be used, you are not serving the people who gave up their development capability on their property. Mr. Chalnick said he realized that if you charge for extra height, a developer could choose to have more smaller units in a lower building and avoid the cost of the extra story. Mr. Mittag stressed the need to have a separate register of TDRs to be sold. This would be at the owners’ choice. Mr. Conner said this could be on the website. He noted that all TDR transactions are recorded in the city’s land records, and t here is a map telling where easements have been severed. 3 Mr. Mittag asked about the use of TDRs in R-1, etc. Mr. Conner reminded the Commission that last year they decided not to include the use of TDRs in low -density districts. Legal costs would be equal to the TDR cost. Mr. Mittag suggested relooking at that. He felt it would make TDRs easier to sell. Mr. Engels asked how many TDRs have been sold. Mr. Conner said fewer than 100. Many more (about 600) have been used within a property to reassign density (e.g., South Village). 6. Transfer of Development Rights and Technical Amendments: Possible Action to Approve Planning Commission Report and Warn A public hearing on proposed amendments LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06: Mr. Conner said the City Attorney would have a legal review in time for a public hearing. Ms. Louisos moved to submit amendments LDR-22-05 and LD-22-06 and the accompanying report included in this evening’s meeting packet including clarifying language regarding TDRs within TNDs in the Southeast Quadrant, and to schedule a public hearing for Monday, 8 August 2022. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Comprehensive Plan: Structure: Mr. Conner showed a concept for the Comprehensive Plan structure. He noted that the terminology will be more oriented toward people and families and not as abstract as in the past. Climate change would be woven throughout, not in its own chapter. Mr. Mittag said he would add “resilience” under section “d” and add Climate Change Mitigation under section “b.” Mr. Riehle questioned how to connect some outlying neighborhoods (e.g., Country Club Estates, Bartlett Bay, Stonehouse). Mr. Macdonald said one word he does not see is “neighborhood.” He noted that infill in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods will be a “sticky subject.” Mr. Conner suggested that in the meeting with the City Council that can be raised as “pedestrian connected neighborhoods.” Mr. Engels said he would like to see the 2016 Chamberlin Neighborhood report in there someplace. He also would like to see identification and acknowledgment of all the neighborhoods in the city and their characteristics. He stressed the need to give the Chamberlin neighborhood “its due.” 4 Mr. Chalnick felt it is important enough to “call out” climate change. He would change “d” to “ecosystems.” Ms. Louisos noted that climate change relates to every item under land resources. She suggested possibly putting climate change up front under the visions and goals section so it isn’t hidden in a list at the bottom. Mr. Conner explained why it is important that it gets woven throughout the document. Mr. Macdonald agreed that it should be identified up front with the notation that it “touches everything.” Mr. Conner noted that section “b” is more about people, and section “c” is what supports that. He added that instead of just having topics, there is recognition of what is meant by those topics. For example, instead of “transportation,” there is “community connections.” 8. Comprehensive Plan: Key Topics: Members reviewed and added to the list of key topics, including: a. Addressing climate change b. Cleating greater emphasis on people, community, equity c. Chamberlin neighborhood and its interface with the Airport d. Creating greater measurability in plan objectives e. Assuring consistency of objectives and policies within the plan f. Addressing housing affordability g. Addressing economic activity and resiliency h. Connecting neighborhoods i. Identifying neighborhoods and their characteristics Mr. Conner suggested a possible visioning session as a kickoff to all of this. He suggested committees have a facilitated discussion with the community followed by neighborhood meetings (e.g., SEQ, Lakeshore, Chamberlin) to hear concerns in those areas. Mr. Conner noted that staff has the OK to find a facilitator to make it happen. Mr. Mittag suggested possibly identifying individuals from neighborhoods who could represent their neighborhoods at other meetings. Mr. Engels cited the need to develop a vision for the city. Mr. Conner said th at is what the joint meeting with the City Council will do. Mr. Macdonald felt they will get more people at neighborhood meetings than at a general visioning meeting. Mr. Riehle said he didn’t see people from Country Club Estates or Lakeside coming to those meetings. 5 Mr. Chalnick said there should be a place where in the beginning people can come and talk unrestrained about what interests them. 9. Minutes of 10 May 2022: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 10 May 2022 as written. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Riehle abstaining. 10. 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 8:42 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission August 8, 2022