Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/11/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 JANUARY 2022 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 January 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; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; S. Dooley, J. Bellavance, D. Peters, T. Bailey 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. Louisos advised that at last night’s City Council meeting, Council members discussed the LDRs. At least 4 Council members had questions regarding PUDs. Questions included where PUDs don’t apply in the city at this time and potential changes in multiple PUDs as projects go forward. Ms. Louisos said she told the Council that the Commission is actively working on PUDs. Ms. Ostby said the majority of Council members seemed inclined to move forward and take up issues as they arise. Mr. Mittag noted that the Council will vote on 7 February. Ms. Ostby noted she had attended the Affordable Housing Committee meeting yesterday. They expressed concern with unintended consequences in Conservation PUDs where you can only build one “McMansion” because it is a small property and you can only build one house. Mr. Mittag said it would require another public hearing to change that, but they could address it as a future amendment. Mr. MacDonald said he would like to hear directly from the Affordable Housing Committee on that. Mr. Gagnon felt comments and concerns from the Affordable Housing Committee should be addressed to the City Council now. Mr. Conner said procedurally would be a “little messy” for the Planning Commission to weigh in upon the Committee’s request. Other committees have brought things to the Council, and there might be some resentment over the procedure if the Commission weighed in at the request at one. He suggested 2 taking up the issue after the City Council takes action or wait until the Council asks the Commission to take it up. Ms. Dooley said if she had felt the Commission had been aware of these consequences in their proposal, she would feel differently about putting it on the agenda. Mr. Conner: The City Council has completed its review of the proposed FY23 budget and CIP and will meet next week to vote on it. There was an interesting discussion on the two “pennies” items (e.g., paths). Because of reappraisal, the one cent now represents a greater portion of the budget. Council members questioned whether to ask for public input. There was also a member of the public who spoke regarding cannabis sales. The Economic Development Committee may have input on this. Mr. Bailey noted that the Economic Development Committee had a straw poll regarding cannabis sales (it was not on their agenda). The majority recommended that the Council put it on the ballot to see if the public approves, then go through the normal zoning process. The speaker was looking to operate a retail site on Farrell Street. Mr. Conner noted that if the public votes and approves it, the Commission will have to decide where this use would be allowed, etc. The State Cannabis has very basic guidelines for municipalities. 7. Land Development Regulations: a. Discuss and review revised Infill Redevelopment District PUD draft b. Consider to achieve increased residential density including Transfer of Development Rights and changes to zoning district standards Ms. Peterson said they have cut out a lot of complexity from the original Infill PUD draft and made it more flexible. They realized that certain good projects could not go forward because there is no general PUD, especially on Shelburne Road, Williston Road and Kennedy Drive. The revised draft focuses on walkability, efficient use of space, etc., and is appropriate to smaller parcels. Mr. Conner said they felt the original Infill draft was too complex, a view he heard from Commissioners last fall as well, and was very oriented toward small infill buildings tucked in among buildings, which is not what the city has. The solution may be a little more direction in the PUD. The focus is on outcomes (e.g., what is next to it, a civic space, what works well in the context of what is around it). There is also an opportunity to address the issue raised by several City Councilors regarding infill properties on Shelburne Road. If there is no PUD available, how do you modify a PUD? Mr. Conner said the Infill PUD as updated and simplified is really the original PUD with more “heft” to it (more than just requiring “innovation”). The City Council Chair might be willing to add a general PUD next week or a few weeks after that, but that would require another public hearing. Ms. Louisos said this issue seemed to be outside of policy more like a missing piece. Mr. Mittag said he thought they could do it in a short time and have a public hearing on that only. 3 Mr. Gagnon liked where the language is heading but he worried about doing it for next week. He agreed it is a high priority, but he wanted to minimize the chances of unintended consequences. Ms. Ostby said they need to hear from the Bike/Ped Committee regarding safety. Children can’t cross Route 7 to get to Orchard School. She didn’t see anything about safety in the draft. She was also concerned about noise. She noted that the rebuilding of the Hilton on Williston Road will block noise from the residential building. Ms. Ostby also stressed her concern for private outdoor space. She felt these issues need to be addressed before a building “is plopped down.’ Ms. Louisos noted the City Council was looking for a “bridge tool” while the Commission is working on a permanent tool with all the details. Mr. Conner said the question is since there are no PUDs in certain places, how does the DRB deal with a request for a change. Mr. Mittag said they also have to think about what could mitigate climate change, possibly a solar requirement or electric instead of gas. Ms. Ostby said there is a difference between a development that is mid-stream and now doesn’t have a tool and something that is not far along. She asked whether they could do something to address the immediate need and not make it available to new projects. Mr. Gagnon asked whether they can grandfather existing regulations for those mid-stream. Mr. Conner said the City Council could chose to ask for that. Staff feels that if the Commission likes the direction they are going, it could be wrapped up quickly. There are opportunities to do things on Shelburne that have been bothering people for a long time, but not with the current situation (e.g., the Pizza Hut property). Ms. Ostby said she thought they could add something to the draft like some private/semi-private space. She also asked where a school bus would stop if there are children in a building. It can’t stop on Shelburne Road. Mr. Riehle questioned density on Shelburne Road. He said if they go up 4 or 5 stories, where will people recreate. He added that it is incumbent on the Planning Commission to talk about the quality of life. He wanted people to be able to “touch a piece of grass,” not just be jammed in. Mr. Mittag said they will need to have green space around each of the buildings. Mr. Conner said 15% could be a park or outdoor barbecue with benches, like the old Olympiad property. Ms. Ostby said the Commission should also be considering where they want safe bike connectivity. Mr. Conner said 2 or 3 pieces are coming together this spring to address this, guidance that isn’t existing in the regulations at this time. There will also be an updated transportation demand management piece. 4 It has incentives and requirements for developers to address. He did not want to wait regarding zoning until those new elements are in place. Ms. Ostby suggested requiring a path behind buildings on Shelburne Road. Mr. Mittag asked whether they can expect sidewalk and bike spaces on major roads when development happens. Mr. Conner said Larking Terrace created a 12-foot sidewalk on Shelburne Road. There is a sidewalk on Williston Road, but it is not that wide, and it would be a substantial project to change that on a 2-mile stretch. Mr. Engels said the original intent of PUDs was to have development where there is access to services, such as the Larkin building and the NEFCU building. He felt that is what they should be encouraging. Mr. MacDonald liked the simplified language being presented. He did not want to miss the opportunity to fill a ‘stopgap.’ Ms. Peterson noted that she had done some work on a more general PUD for a stopgap that would apply to areas where other PUDs are not available. Mr. Conner said that if what is in the Commission’s packet is in the right direction, it could be done pretty quickly. Mr. Gagnon noted that people want to add different things, and that will require more direction and thought. He thought a month was a more reasonable time frame. Mr. Conner outlined some options: either the Commission says it’s great and give it to us next meeting, or “we’re on this,” and we’ll have something in March, or “don’t make any promises,” it’s 6 months out. Mr. Gagnon felt they can put together something good in 6 weeks. Mr. Mittag was OK with extra meetings. Ms. Ostby asked why the old PUD regulations can’t be used in the interim. Mr. Conner said that would have to be a City Council decision and would have to be written into the regulations. He added that he would give the Council the 3 possible scenarios. Ms. Ostby said that if the Council approves the regulations with no changes, those areas/people will have no regulations in place. She also asked whether they should be asking for input from committees. Mr. Gagnon said there would have to be a deadline for responses if they’re going to get it done in 6 weeks. Mr. Mittag asked whether the Commission should attempt to define where they want infill. He also asked why limit it to less than 4 acres. Ms. Peterson said if the Commission goes with an Infill PUD, they would have to identify where it is applicable. If they go with a more general PUD, the 4 acre limit would not be relevant. 5 Mr. Mittag was concerned that the language eliminates the chance for a developer to be innovative. Mr. Conner acknowledged that they struggle with that the most. He said he is doing more research on that issue. Mr. Conner said at the next meeting staff will provide an updated more general PUD with a wider applicability. From there, the Commission can decide what to ask other committees to work on and can decide whether to add anything (e.g., TDRs). Mr. Conner noted that staff would also like to look at the NCD. The feeling is the full NCD type may not be necessary. Mr. Mittag said that might be justified. He could think of only one parcel where it is reasonable. Mr. Conner said that is what they found. Mr. Conner said if the Commission is comfortable, the idea of a general PUD is very adaptable for TDRs. Staff could provide a “two month version” or a longer discussion. 5. Opportunities for Input from Affordable Housing committee: Ms. Louisos suggested holding off until next week’s discussion. 6. Consider recommendations to City Council to approv3e submittal of FY23 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Project requests: Mr. Mittag felt that the second item, study of east-west transportation in the SEQ has been done many times and that the money could be used for other projects. Mr. Riehle suggested using it for the Staples bridge. Mr. Gagnon noted they Commission had a specific discussion regarding doing this when Swift Street was changed. He was OK with having it lower down on the list. Ms. Ostby felt that money could go to safety concerns. Mr. Mittag suggested safety, noise and lighting. Mr. MacDonald said he wouldn’t like to see the east-west transportation study removed. Ms. Louisos said she could go either way, but she didn’t want it to get “lost.” Ms. Louisos asked if the money can be used for technology support for something like lighting. Mr. Conner said if the Commission is considering making any other changes to the official city map, he was OK with removing the east-west study. If they are looking at changes, the study should be done. Ms. Ostby moved to submit the work projects list excluding item #2. Ms. Louisos seconded. Mr. Riehle suggested using the money for a study of lighting safety on places like Kennedy Drive. Mr. Conner said they could ask for Kennedy Drive. Mr. Riehle asked to amend the motion to include a request to use that money for a study of street lighting safety at specific areas to be identified. The makers of the motion agreed to the amendment. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-2 with Messrs. Gagnon and MacDonald voting against. Both felt that with the elimination of Swift Street, that study needs to be done. 6 7. Approve Minutes from meetings of 18, 24 and 31 August, 9, 23, 28 and 30 September, 26 October, 2 and 30 November, and 14 December: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes as enumerated in the agenda. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 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 March 8, 2022