HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/24/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
24 JANUARY 2023
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 January 2023, 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, A. Chalnick, D. Leban
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner;
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:
Mr. Mittag noted concern with House Bill H-68 which is trying to remove barriers to housing. He said it
contains some “bad things” that would undo some of the work on environmental protection and climate
action that South Burlington has done. Mr. Chalnick said the bill provides that in a district served by
water and sewer, 5 units per acre would have to be allowed which would override the city’s
Conservation PUDs. The bill also requires that accessory dwelling units be allowed anywhere except
flood plains, etc. Mr. Mittag said the bill could eliminate the value of TDRs. Ms. Leban said that bill
came out of the Energy Committee, not the Housing Committee.
Mr. Conner said the Commission can provide feedback regarding that bill. He noted that he and the City
Manager are watching this bill. Ms. Louisos said he Commission could discuss it at the next meeting.
Ms. Peterson noted that is 3 weeks from this meeting.
Members then decided to have a special meeting on 31 January at 7:00 p.m. specifically to discuss this
bill.
Mr. Chalnick noted that he has submitted a petition to run for the City Council. If elected, he would
have to leave the Commission.
Mr. Chalnick also advised that he had attended the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting which
was OK for an organizational meeting but a bit unfocused. It was unclear what people thought they
should be focusing on.
2
Ms. Peterson advised that the full schedule for Comprehensive Plan public session has been posted. The
first meeting is on 2 February. She will send a sheet for members to indicate which meetings they plan
to attend.
Mr. Conner provided the following updates:
a. The City Council has adopted a proposed FY24 budget.
b. The Council has given the go-ahead regarding regulating fuel in existing buildings
c. The Council adopted an amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance to add school impact fees
to pay for modular units at 2 elementary schools to address overcrowding. The Ordinance
will take effect in July at half the rate and on 1/1/24 at the full fee.
Mr. Conner noted that because there are so many public meetings, there will be only one staff person at
Commission meetings.
Mr. Conner also noted that he is working on the solar piece.
5. Public Hearing:
Mr. Mittag moved to reopen the continued public hearing on LDR-22-09. Ms. Louisos seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an email from Sarah Dopp with a question about the language
regarding the 50-foot minimum.
Mr. Mittag said he hadn’t understood the unintended consequences of the language he had proposed.
Ms. Peterson stressed that if members have language to propose, it should be sent to her or to Ms.
Louisos, not to all members, because of open meeting rules.
Ms. Peterson then showed a diagram regarding the difference between using 50 feet and using the lot
line. She said you don’t get more by applying the lot line concept. She then indicated what happens
when you reduce from 100’ to a 50’ setback. Mr. Chalnick said a simple rule would be to grandfather it
at 50 feet. Ms. Peterson said that is what staff is recommending. It is easy to understand and it solves
the problems for those existing small lots. She then showed that language, and a straw poll of members
showed they were OK with it.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Dopp said it was important to convey that the 100-foot buffer is the standard but that there are
exceptions.
3
Ms. Easton asked what happens with a one-acre lot. Ms. Louisos said the 100-foot buffer applies. Ms.
Easton said people try to be good stewards, but sometimes something comes up and there is a repair
needed that affects only 40 or 50 square feet. She felt the regulations should allow small changes to the
property that are environmentally responsible. She said there has to be a middle ground.
Mr. Mittag then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Chalnick said he wondered whether the discussion of what kind of encroachments would be
considered was theoretical or specific (e.g. decks, sheds). Ms. Louisos said it was theoretical. Mr.
Chalnick asked if people have asked for anything else. Mr. Conner said there were a few requests for
deck extensions, a pool, and a shad. Someone wanted to attach a patio to a deck.
Mr. Chalnick said he had sympathy for the less impactful things, but he would not want to see
impervious surfaces. He also would not disapprove of a house being built on an undeveloped lot.
Mr. Mittag felt a pool would have a big impact on the buffer. He would also have a problem with a shed
on a slab of concrete. Portable ones would be OK.
Ms. Leban said they also need to start thinking about solar panels and geothermal which can make a
wetland work better. Ms. Louisos acknowledged there are things they haven’t thought of. The big
concern is the 100-foot buffer where it can be. She did not want to make it so complicated they would
be fighting with owners of small homes as to what is in their backyards which could turn people against
the bigger movement.
Mr. Conner noted that there is already a regulation that no more than 30% of lot can be impervious.
Mr. Mittag said that makes him more comfortable.
Mr. Conner then addressed the discussion regarding steep slopes and whether to exempt a very small
piece. Ms. Louisos said she was OK with the 50 feet.
Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the LDR amendment #LDR-22-09 and the Planning Commission
report and submit them to the City Council. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Presentation of TIF District:
Ms. Blanchard said the city is at a milestone where it can incur debt in the TIF District. She showed a
map of the District and explained the nature of the TIF District as allowed by the State. The City is
allowed to keep 75% of the growth in the District to service the TIF bonds until 2037. The 4 remaining
projects in the District to be voted on at the March election are:
1. The east-west crossing bridge over I-89
2. The Williston Rd. streetscape
3. Garden Street
4. City Center Park II (shared use path and boardwalk over the wetland
4
The total of the 4 projects to be voted on is $15,086,430. Two of the projects are 100% TIF eligible.
Williston Rd. streetscape is 50% and the bridge is 30%. Those not funded at 100% are eligible for federal
funding.
Garden Street: Construction is planned for 2024 and involves improvement of the street between Trader
Joe’s and Healthy Living. There will be a future connection of Garden St. to Midas Drive (which will also
become Garden St.). This will include the straightening out of the connection to White St. Ms.
Blanchard showed a map of what the future reconstructed area will look like and noted the
accommodations for bikes. Mr. Conner noted that the White St. alignment will also create a small
gateway park.
East-West Crossing over I-89: Construction is estimated for 2025. The bridge will run from Staples Plaza
to the CVS edge. This project already has $9,800,000 of federal funding. A plan for approval will be
submitted this summer.
Williston Road Streetscape: Construction will be in 2024 and will include a shared use path. The project
is eligible for federal aid in addition to 50% TIF funding.
City Center Park II: The project includes a lighted shared use path and also a boardwalk. Ms. Blanchard
showed the location. Mr. Conner noted that the wetland crossings have been approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and by A & R. Construction is planned for 2023-2024. He showed a picture of what
the boardwalk will look like. It will be concrete, so it can be plowed.
Ms. Blanchard then showed the revenue model. She stressed that a “yes” vote in March will not
increase property taxes.
Future City Center development includes the Catamount Run project and the UVM Medical Center
project which together will provide 476 housing units by 2026 in a combination of one and 2-bedroom
units. Both projects will contribute to the Grand List and to the TIF.
Mr. Conner noted all completed development is already contributing revenue to the TIF. He also noted
that the Catamount Run project will have a non-residential first floor which can be office, café, shops,
etc. The Prospect Place project currently being developed will include a first floor childcare facility and a
coffee shop.
Ms. Leban asked where children from the project will go to school. She has heard people say not to vote
for the TIF because it takes money from the schools. Ms. Blanchard said that is not the case. What
money is taken from the schools is made whole by the State. Growth in City Center has always been
included in the school demographic numbers.
Mr. Engels asked about affordable units. Mr. Conner said that all affordable units were “front-loaded”
substantially above what is required. What is being built now is market value.
5
Ms. Blanchard then showed a model of anticipated TIF income through 2037. She noted that in 2018,
the city received TIF income of $72,639.84. At buildout, it is anticipated that the city will receive
$5,923,110 on an annual basis. Ms. Blanchard then indicated the properties that could still be
developed. Mr. Conner noted that the city has a reserve fund available to fill in any gaps.
Ms. Blanchard then reviewed the public information sessions that will be held prior to the vote.
7. Meeting Minutes of 10 January 2023:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 10 January 2023 as written. Mr. Chalnick seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
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 9:32 p.m.
Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission March 21, 2023