HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/23/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
23 FEBRUARY 2022
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 23 February
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; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; J.
Bellavance,
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 advised that Mr. Gagnon will be leaving the Commission due to his work/travel
schedule. Ms. Ostby said it would help is the Commission discussed what he brought to the
table and to ask the Council to consider that. Mr. Conner noted that the City Manager will be
putting together a structure for that across the board. She also noted that reappointments will
happen a bit earlier this year.
Mr. Conner noted that the city will be migrating tech-wise to Office 65. The first step will be to
move the South Burlington email addresses. Members will be contacted to be sure this works
for them.
Mr. Engels noted that the Airport Rezoning Task Force held 2 hours of public testimony. People
in general do not support a zoning change. Mr. Engels also noted there is a group in the City of
Burlington associated with their City Council who have a “no Airport expansion” organization.
The outcome of that will depend on the Burlington election.
2
Ms. Ostby asked about the protocol for Commission members weighing in on issues. Ms.
Louisos said it is best if members indicate they are speaking as individuals, not as Commission
members.
5. Review of Draft Amendments to the LDRs related to a General Private Space/Site
Amenity requirements, and design standards in Site Plans:
Ms. Louisos said the hope is to warn this for public hearing at the end of tonight’s discussion.
Mr. Mittag asked about orient a building for maximum solar exposure. Ms. Louisos said there
are other areas where there is discussion about encouraging solar. Mr. Mittag said there is no
point in using “encourage” because it will be ignored. It should say required.
Mr. Conner said in that instance, he didn’t see an issue. There is also a concern with orienting
buildings to site amenities, but the concern is not to have buildings be haphazard without a
purpose.
Ms. Ostby read from the Comprehensive Plan regarding heavy landscaping facing the street on
Kennedy Drive. She felt that should be honored. Mr. Conner said there may not be many
neighborhoods involved. He did note that the O’Brien neighborhood did keep to some of that
requirement. Ms. Ostby said she was thinking of the corner of Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Dr.
Ms. Ostby also referred to pedestrian orientation and asked if there can be differentiation
between when it’s on a major arterial and when it’s on a smaller road. Ms. Louisos suggested
adding “safety” to “connections and walkability.”
Regarding civic space/park, Mr. Riehle said he thought a quarter of a mile distance may be a
long way for the elderly or others with special needs.
Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with a 50% credit if people have to cross a major road to get
to a civic space/park. She felt there has to be a safe way to get there.
Mr. Conner suggested saying 500 feet and not requiring crossing a 4-lane road. Members
agreed to that language.
Ms. Peterson reminded members there is still a need of on-site open/civic space.
Ms. Ostby asked whether civic space would be for residents only or open to anyone going by.
Mr. Conner said it depends on the use. Mr. Mittag said if it is private property, they can
exclude the public if they choose.
3
Ms. Ostby said she was pleased with the private balconies. Mr. Conner said they added two
amenities: private balconies and an “indoor/public space.”
Mr. Mittag questioned the requirement of no less than 100 sq. ft. of open space per unit for any
number of units. Ms. Peterson said that comes from the Form Based Code. Ms. Louisos felt
they should keep it because it is consistent with Form Based Code. Mr. Mittag felt that was a
mistake but could live with it. Members agreed to keep it.
Under “authority limitations,” Mr. Mittag asked about the use of Inclusionary and TDRs for
additional density. Mr. Conner said that can be added. Ms. Louisos asked whether this should
be “planned density.” Mr. Conner said that might be too subtle. Mr. Mittag suggested adding
the word “maximum” density. The following language was suggested: “…incorporate a density
that supports a walkable, mixed use development in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.”
Mr. Mittag said that the last “bullet” should be #1. Other members agreed. Members agreed
that compatibility with the Comp Plan should be #1 and Affordable Housing #2.
Ms. Ostby referred to the “housing mix” and recommended that if it is a large apartment
building, there should be a requirement for varying numbers of bedrooms. Mr. Conner said
that may be hard to reconcile with Inclusionary bedroom requirements. Ms. Louisos suggested
not being to prescriptive. Mr. Conner suggested including this dialog with the Affordable
Housing Committee.
Ms. Peterson noted there are parts of the city that have different types of housing needs. She
cited the student population as an example. Mr. Conner said it is very tricky to be tracking all of
this. The more that is required, the harder it gets to be sure it is done right.
Mr. Mittag said they are trying to be more flexible with the General PUD and suggested leaving
it as is for now.
Ms. Dooley said this is more complicated that she thought. She asked if there is room for
student housing close to UVM and whether the city has a priority for student housing. She is
still uncomfortable with buildings that have only studios and one bedroom units.
Ms. Bellavance supported a joint learning session with the Affordable Housing Committee as
big issues would benefit from shared learning.
Mr. Engels asked how high people can building in the city. Mr. Conner said on Shelburne Road
it is 5 stories. Most of Form Based Code is also 5 stories but 6 in the area near City Hall. He
4
noted that the next jump would probably be to 8 because of the need for steel. Ms. Ostby said
the community would want to weigh in on that.
Ms. Ostby asked whether there are allowable uses they should add flexibility to. Mr. Conner
said there are a few topic areas such as cultural centers, food producers, cannabis sales.
Regarding the NC-R7, Mr. Mittag felt they shouldn’t fiddle around with that. They made a
decision the landowners don’t like, but leave it that way and come back to it in the next round
of amendments. Mr. Conner said this is a somewhat unique situation for when the Commission
does elect to discuss, and staff feels there is some merit to thinking about it. It is a transition
area, but there is a question as to how you encourage development to be closer to the
Interstate. He suggested the possibility of something on both the east and west side of the
road. The property owner is very interested in seeing a transition in this area. Members
agreed not to address it in this round of amendments.
Regarding solar orientation, Mr. Conner showed the proposed language from other PUDs and
said that can be copied here. Members were OK with adding that language.
Ms. Louisos questioned what to do about Kennedy Drive landscaping. Mr. Conner suggested
:consistent orientation to the street and consistent setbacks. He also suggested saying a larger
setback on Kennedy drive and maintaining existing trees. Ms. Peterson said Kennedy Drive
does have a 100-foot right-of-way and requirement for a 50-foot setback. Mr. Conner felt that
covers the issue.
Members then reviewed the changes/additions from this meeting. Mr. Conner noted they also
have to make a definition change where there are 2 definitions of “inclusionary units.” The old
one will be deleted. Member were OK with that.
6. Consider possible action to Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Land
Development Regulations and approve accompanying Planning Commission Report:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the report and warn a public hearing on regulations as modified
for 22 March 2022. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
7. Meeting Minutes of 8 February 2022:
Ms. Louisos moved to approve the Minutes of 8 February 2022 as written. Mr. Mittag
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
8. Other Business:
5
Mr. Conner advised that last night the City Council had a dialog around how they would like to
see the ARPA money spent. Some of it will go for Affordable Housing. They would welcome
input on other suggestions.
Ms. Ostby suggested a fund for owner-occupied condos.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:13 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 22, 2022