Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/08/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, 8 August 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, P. Engels, A. Chalnick ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Epstein, L. Bailey, S. Dopp, Z. Kahn, L. Murphy, D. Peters 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions for 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: Mr. Epstein suggested it is time to update the rules regarding bicycle parking, in light of city goals, increasing use, and the growth in the e-bike market. Ms. Louisos suggested the Bike/Ped Committee look at this and see if they can provide some language. Mr. Epstein suggested they also look at what Local Motion has done on the subject. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to speak to the Bike/Ped liaisons about this. One challenge will be how e-bikes get stored because they are heavier. 4. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: No announcements or reports were presented. 5. Public Hearing: Possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. LDR-22-05 update to regulations of Transfer of Development Rights, including but not limited to expanding the receiving areas for TDRs, assigning value for TDRs, updating process for sending and receiving TDRs and clarifying existing applicability in receiving areas b. LDR-22-06 Minor and Technical Changes: • LDR-22-06A-E: clarify uses in 13.03 Table on Bicycle Parking • Move Section 15A.20 (Performance Bonds) to Article 17 • Renumber Section 13.05 to correct double “A” subsections • Delete 17.04C Subdivision Approvals headers • Correct Appendix E, submission requirements 2 Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner noted that there were a few minor changes made by legal counsel including clarifying language regarding TDRs in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): density increase that exceeds the assigned density of a parcel requires a TDR (Article 19). Ms. Bailey expressed concern with having a TDR policy. She said the city has made a large portion of the SEQ non-developable. Future residents are paying extra for their homes to people who didn’t want to develop their land anyway. Mr. Mittag said the city has an obligation to people who agree not to develop. Ms. Bailey said the right to develop has been sold, but the land it has been severed from can never be built on again. She was concerned that in 30 or 40 years, there will be different needs. She felt this should not be “in perpetuity” as it could be “stealing from our grandchildren.” Mr. Riehle asked if there were a time limit, would the property owners have to pay back the money. Ms. Bailey thought not because the benefit has happened. Ms. Dopp was glad TDRs can be transferred out of the SEQ. She felt it never made sense to transfer them with in the SEQ. She also felt that if landowners got money for TDRs and they were reversed, they should have to pay back the money. Mr. Conner explained the process for the use of TDRs in a development. He also showed a map of “sending” and “receiving” areas and identified locations and what is allowed in those locations. Mr. Mittag asked why they didn’t include Dorset St. north of Kennedy Dr. Mr. Conner said those are the R-4 districts like the Orchards, and the Commission decided not to apply TDRs there. Ms. Ostby felt that Comprehensive Plan discussions were the appropriate time to discuss these issues. This is a very specific public hearing. She suggested some strategic questions: why TDRS are in perpetuity and not the 30 years of State law, whether to add more protection for the easements so they are permanently protected, and discussing whether a TDR should be tied to a unit size. As there was no further public comment, Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with the possibility of having a whole building of studio apartments and not having diverse housing stock. Mr. Conner said the Commission had talked about a minimum percentage of 2-bedroom units or even more, but they did not want to hold things up. Ms. Ostby said they could require 2 or 3 different size units, but she felt that did not fit with this public hearing. Mr. Conner noted that a mix of 2 or more bedroom types is required in the general PUD. Mr. Mittag questioned whether “objectives” are defined. Mr. Conner noted that the City Attorney suggested removing that sentence entirely. Mr. Mittag asked the purpose of Section 20 and whether to define where “priority areas” are. Mr. Conner showed the new language proposed by the City Attorney to address that. 3 Ms. Ostby suggested including a map in this section. He was comfortable with referencing Table 19-1 which members felt was better than a map and suggested adding “as indicated in Table 19-1” to the language. Members agreed. 6. Possible action to approve LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06 and submit to the City Council: Mr. Riehle moved to approve LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06 as drafted and amended tonight and send to the City Council. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Presentation of South Burlington commuting patterns, business district profiles and demographics prepared by Koleigh Vachereau: Mr. Conner said the commuting pattern in the city is very interesting with 2 main stories: a. It is very unlikely that people live and work in the same census block b. The majority of people live within 10 miles of work Mr. Conner said this suggests it is important to think of a 10-mile circle and to think of transportation with that in mind. Mr. Riehle said he hoped that CCRPC looks at this. Infrastructure should be based on 10 miles, but it is suicidal to bike on some roads (e.g., Van Sicklen). Members briefly discussed where to possibly put park/rides. 8. Discuss initial request for possible zoning amendment in the Shelburne Road former Hannaford property: Mr. Murphy, representing Tesla, said his client wants to use the old Hannaford on Hannaford Drive which has been empty for 4 years. The issue is that the C-1 Auto zone ends just below this property, and there is no room within that zone for a new dealership. Mr. Murphy asked if it is possible to extend the zone 2 parcels to the north for a Tesla dealership. He noted that staff’s concern was that both properties could be used that way, and Mr. Conner had asked him to explore some possibilities for this use without extending the zoning boundary. He suggested the following possibilities: a. A more limited zone for “green products,” a C-1 Green Zone b. An EV only auto zone c. An “adaptive reuse” zone that could address buildings vacant for a long time if there is no increase in impervious surface d. Extension of the existing auto zone Mr. Kahn, Tesla’s Senior Policy Advisor said they are trying to bring Tesla to the Vermont market. This would help meet the goals of the Climate Action Plan. It would also assure Tesla owners that there is a place to get their vehicles serviced. 4 Mr. Conner reminded members to think about the use, not the user, and noted that he had discussed with Mr. Murphy that the Commission’s responsibility is to look at possible changes to zoning in their overall context. Mr. Riehle asked how many square feet Tesla is looking at. Mr. Kahn said they would take over the whole Hannaford building. The façade would look different, but they would lease the existing building, 40,000 sq. ft., for sales, service and distribution. Ms. Ostby asked if an EV auto zone would be permissible; if it is, could EV requirements be put on current auto zones. Mr. Conner said the Commission response is to consider why a use should/should not be allowed and why to allow it in one area and not in another. He asked members to consider the policy objective they would be trying to achieve. Mr. Murphy said the underlying zone would still be commercial. It would just be adding a use that is not there now. He said an added benefit is that the property is not on Route 7. Mr. Chalnick favored option 3 because it would reuse an empty building and be beneficial to climate action goals. Mr. Mittag said this would meet the objectives of the Climate Action Task Force: no new impervious, no new stormwater structure, increased tax revenue, new wage earners. In the interest of transparency, he noted that he is a Tesla owner. It would be good for him not to waste energy to get his car serviced. Mr. Riehle asked what kind of housing could be built there now. Mr. Conner said 15 units per acre. Mr. Riehle said the property is “screaming housing,” and if Tesla doesn’t come to South Burlington it will go somewhere else in Chittenden County. Mr. Murphy said if there were a legitimate possibility for housing, the property wouldn’t be sitting empty for 4 years. He also noted there are restrictions imposed by Hannaford on the property so that nothing competes with their use. Mr. Mittag asked if Tesla would consider building workforce housing behind Olive Garden. Mr. Kahn said they are not housing builders. He stressed that this is the one property that fits their needs. He also noted that when Tesla comes in, other dealerships start looking at EVs. Mr. Chalnick said it would be a “climate tragedy” to tear down the existing building and release all the carbon into the air. Mr. Murphy said the more complicated this becomes, the more difficult it will be for Tesla to move forward. He asked members to focus on a solution that is beneficial to the city. Mr. Kahn added that speed is important to them. 5 Mr. Chalnick asked about the possibility of solar on the roof and over parking spaces. Mr. Kahn said he would have to check on that. Mr. Conner said it sounds like there is Commission interest in further discussion and suggested doing some thinking and getting back to Tesla. Mr. Mittag suggested members submit their ideas to staff in writing. Mr. Chalnick invited Mr. Murphy to further refine his ideas, particularly option 3, the adaptive re-use. Ms. Louisos concurred that this would be ok. 9. Overview of City Council’s Bylaws for Committees: Mr. Conner noted the City Council has adopted bylaws for all committees. Most of them are standard. They have asked for a quarterly report on committee progress. The Council also gave thumbs up for residents age 15 and older to serve on committees. 10. Meeting Minutes of 14 June and 12 July 2022: Mr. Mittag noted that in the Minutes of 12 July, it was he who nominated Mr. Engels, not Ms. Ostby. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 14 June and 12 July as written or amended. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted the next Commission meeting will be on 23 August. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission August 23, 2022