Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/28/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2023 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 November 2023, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels, D. Leban, L. Smith, F. McDonald ALSO PRESENT: K. Peterson, Senior City Planner; R. Doyle, D. Peters, L. Bailey, V. Bolduc, N. & K. Wright 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: There were no Commissioner announcements. Ms. Peterson advised that the City Council reviewed and passed the LDR amendments. At its next meeting, the Council will get an updated City Plan 2024 which will reflect edits they wanted. It is hoped they will warn their public hearing. 5. Review of potential amendments to comply with S-100: Ms. Peterson said this is the first presentation of potential amendments to bring the city into compliance with S-100. The hope is to present additional pieces at the next meeting (which will be the only meeting in December). Staff is trying to move quickly to come into compliance, but there is time. They are holding both SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2023 2 meetings in January for this effort, but the hope is also to bring the Transportation Management piece to the second January meeting. Mr. Smith asked if there is a place in the schedule to address the Tree Ordinance presented to the Commission by the Natural Resources Committee. Ms. Peterson said she guessed that would be in February. Members then considered specifics of the S-100 potential changes: Regarding Hotels: Mr. Smith said he was told short-term rentals aren’t regulated by the State, but this seems to indicated short-term rentals are hotels, and hotels are regulated by the State. Mr. Mittag also questioned whether an Airb&b is now a “hotel.” Ms. Peterson said she had noticed that. She will do some research. She read the State definition of “hotel.” Mr. Smith said that seems to cover Airb&bs. Ms. Peterson agreed and said she would check with legal as to what South Burlington is requiring. She suggested the City align its definition of a hotel to equal that of the State. Ms. Louisos questioned whether it would be good to keep short term rentals separate from hotels so the City can regulate them differently. Mr. Smith said his concern is that they are not being taxed like hotels, and by the State definition they should be. Mr. Peterson said Airb&bs do collect the Rooms & Meals taxes. Ms. Leban said the term “self-contained” in the definition of short term rentals could be confusing. She also questioned asking people to open up their homes to emergency housing. Ms. Peterson said the law says the City cannot prevent them from opening up their homes, but it does not require them to do so. Ms. Peterson noted that exceptions from the “hotel” definition include such things as hospitals, post-operative care, seasonal workers, non-profit summer camps, etc. Mr. Smith suggested eliminating the phrase “not related by marriage” as he felt that could get “dicey.” Members agreed to eliminate that phrase. Ms. Peterson noted that “group homes” fall into a separate category as they are generally for people who need some assistance. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2023 3 Ms. Peterson also noted members could choose to keep all of the language or shorten it and refer to the state definition. Members agreed to keep it all. Emergency Shelters: Mr. Mittag said this should be added to Appendix “C.” Mr. Smith suggested expanding the list of places that could be used a emergency shelters to include DAUs, a vacant mobile home in someone’s backyard, etc. Ms. Peterson said that would be up to the individual owner. The request is for what would otherwise be a change of use approval; there would be no change of use required for an individual home owner. Ms. Leban asked about offices and noted people lived in their offices during the pandemic. Ms. Peterson said this is a “fill these first” list. She couldn’t imagine one couldn’t get an after-the-fact- approval for using an office as an emergency shelter. This just says you automatically can have emergency shelters in these places without any paperwork. Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs): Mr. Mittag asked if an accessory structure covers an ADU. Ms. Peterson said the dwelling part of it makes it a bit different. It doesn’t need to be detached (e.g., basement, attic). Staff wanted there to be no ambiguity. Mr. Smith felt limiting the size in larger houses makes sense. Ms. Peterson noted that the State minimum for an ADU is 30% of the principal dwelling unit, but it can be more. Members discussed whether to have a different standard for larger and smaller principal dwellings. Following the discussion, they agreed that to allow 50% of the square footage of a principal home of up to 4000 sq. ft. or 1200 sq. ft., for an ADU, whichever is larger, and to allow 30% of a principal home of 4000 sq. ft. or more. Parking Spaces: Ms. Peterson noted that generally the City is in compliance. You cannot require more parking in areas with public water and sewer. A studio/1 bedroom unit can require .75 parking spaces per dwelling unit; a multi-family (2 bedrooms +) can require 1 parking space per dwelling unit. Administrative Minor Subdivisions: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2023 4 Ms. Louisos noted that S-100 will allow for minor subdivisions to be handled administratively. Mr. Smith noted that this was an issue in Burlington and asked what is the largest subdivision that could be reviewed administratively. Ms. Peterson noted that the Administrative Officer could put something to the DRB if a question arose. She stressed that an administrative approval would have to be for a plan that meets every letter of the law. She then showed the definition of a ‘minor subdivision.’ She again stressed that all the subdivision rules would still apply. Mr. Bolduc noted that the Affordable Housing Committee asked him to come to this meeting to indicate that S-100 allows administrative approval of minor subdivision and for the administrative officer to forward the application to the DRB, if appropriate. 6. Preliminary discussion of potential changing/combining of zoning districts: Mr. Mittag questioned the table on Allen Road. Ms. Peterson explained that you can have a lot with 12 units but they can’t be single family homes. You could have an acre with one single family home and the rest of the lot multi-family units. Ms. Peterson asked if the Commission is comfortable with staff coming back with suggestions regarding consolidating of zoning districts where it makes sense (e.g., Swift St./Allen Road and all low-density districts). When the base density has to be 5, it makes no sense not to combine. The hope is to change zoning boundaries to where the Commission wants there to be municipal water/sewer. Members should look carefully at the water/sewer map. Ms. Peterson then showed the current zoning map. She said it doesn’t make sense to separate R-7 and R-7 with some commercial if small-scale commercial is going to be allowed in R-7 and other residential districts. There is the potential to consolidate the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) down to 2 or 3 districts instead of 5. R- 1 Lakeshore and R-1 Lakeside are similar and both will have to go up in density. Ms. Peterson indicated some areas where the Commission may decide to leave unchanged. The question is how much appetite there is for consolidation. She questioned whether there is a reason for 2 parts of Shelburne Road to be differently zoned and whether there are particular uses that should be regulated differently. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2023 5 Ms. Louisos suggested that areas zoned R-1 that don’t have municipal water/sewer can remain R-1. Ms. Leban noted that some areas won’t see changes because they already pretty much built. Ms. Peterson agreed. She said the biggest changes could be in R-1 and R-2 zones where a property could be subdivided and a second home built on the second lot. Mr. Engels suggested properties could be zoned T-2, T-3 and T-4. He asked if the change in zoning would result in streamlining the LDRs. Ms. Peterson said it would where warranted. She stressed that the first need is to comply with S-100 in the most streamlined way possible. Ms. Peterson noted there could be 5 duplexes on a lot, so the density would become 10/acre. This will have to be worked out. Mr. Mittag noted that one of the targets of the Climate Action Plan is 12/acre. Ms. Louisos said she is not welded to uses, per se, but there are some uses people care about (e.g., car dealerships), and there may not be a desire to expand those. Also Queen City Park. Ms. Peterson suggested that C-1Air and Air Districts should probably stay separate as they are not well suited for mixed uses or education facilities, etc. But that discussion can come after the residential discussions. Ms. Peterson reminded members that if an area is served by water/sewer, it has to be 5 units per acre. There can just be “a little residential here.” Ms. Leban asked how this co-exists with conservation areas. Ms. Peterson said the Conservation PUD cannot continue to exist as it is now structured. Ms. Leban noted that on Hinesburg Road, water/sewer only go part way, so this wouldn’t apply in those areas. Ms. Peterson said you can zone the water/sewer area larger than they are now as “future planned water/sewer areas.” Ms. Peterson noted that if you are within 200 feet of a sewer line, you are required to connect to it. S-100 says just about the opposite. She said she would advocate that sewer/water service not define zoning areas. This will get discussed more when they have the maps SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 NOVEMBER 2023 6 7. 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 9:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk