Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/23/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 OCTOBER 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 October 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; J. Louisos, Chair (via phone); A. Klugo, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: : P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, R. Greco, N. Hyman, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Item #7 was deleted from the Agenda as staff had not had the chance to inform the applicants of this item. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby noted she had toured the Winooski Valley Park District area off Van Sicklen Road that is a “created wetland” resulting from mitigation on the part of the Airport. Ms. Louisos noted that at the City Council meeting a member of the public misrepresented the Commission’s discussion on interim zoning the previous week. Ms. Louisos stressed that all Commissioner’s opinions are appreciated, and members do not question each other’s motives but believe everyone is free to say what they feel is best for the city. The Commission has a non-judgmental atmosphere. The speaker at the Council meeting accused a Commission member of “bullying.” Ms. Louisos said that didn’t happen, and she wanted to be sure that all members feel comfortable in speaking. Mr. Conner: On Election Day, Vince Bolduc, a St. Michael’s professor, will be having his class perform a survey of various topics. There are significant community items on the November ballot, and there are currently presentations about those items being held in the community. Tomorrow Mr. Conner with attend the South Burlington Land Trust’s monthly meeting. 5. Recap of City Council Discussion of growth and development in South Burlington and consideration of Interim Bylaws and related studies: Mr. Conner reviewed the City Council discussion. He noted that the Council then approved a resolution and directed the City Attorney to prepare a draft Interim Bylaw with a public hearing to be held on 13 November. The studies involved are largely those voted on by the Planning Commission at its last meeting plus the completion of the PUD study. Interim zoning would take effect when published in The Other Paper and would cover all construction of new dwellings outside of the Transit Overlay District plus Meadowlands and the Belter industrial parks and the Airport. The time-frame is different from what the Planning Commission proposed, 9 months instead of 6, with the ability to renew at 3-month intervals. Mr. Conner noted that these periods can be shortened by Council action. Ms. Ostby felt the Council should submit a map with all documents so people know what property is involved. She also hoped that in all communication it is made clear that this is not city-wide and is intended to be as brief as possible. Referring to comments made at the last City Council meeting, Mr. Klugo stated that his company is a commercial builder. He also noted that there the Commission is diverse and includes members with different perspectives who all come together for the public good. 6. Commission consideration of update to FY2019 Work Plan: Mr. Gagnon noted that some items that were of “lower priority” are now bubbling up higher, and some things will have to be bumped. Mr. Klugo questioned what other critical items the Commission should attempt to finish. Mr. Conner recommended Item #20 [projects that arise throughout the year]. He noted the Commission will have to complete with such things as street names, required public hearings, and other things for which they have a legal responsibility. Mr. Klugo asked about possible special meetings. Mr. Conner said they can try. Mr. Riehle said there should be flexibility if something very urgent occurs. Mr. Klugo suggested this is especially true of things where they might lose funding. Mr. Conner added things that are related to a contract. He inquired about the annual meeting with the DRB. Ms. LaRose suggested reviewing this around the New Year to see where things stand. The Commission will have to decide whether to ask people to come back in April or June with requests. Ms. Louisos supported dealing with #20 and with things related to grants and contracts. She hoped members would allow flexibility for her and for staff to make those decisions do the city doesn’t miss out on opportunities for studies and/or funding. 7. (formerly #8) Discuss recommendations to City Council regarding proposed Interim Bylaw studies to be undertaken: a. Completion of Planned Unit Development regulations b. Prioritization of open land c. Analysis of transfer of development rights (TDR) program d. Economics/cost-benefit of land use assessment Regarding the PUD regulations, Mr. Conner said staff assumed the Commission would like to be the lead on that, and staff would prioritize this for the Commission’s work. It will be a significant item, and there won’t always be a recommendation. Ms. LaRose noted that to date the Commission has worked with committees on various points. She asked if the Commission anticipates one big meeting with everyone and then return to smaller working groups. Mr. Mittag felt there are several months work left on this and that the Commission should focus on open land, then TDRs which is what the public wants. Mr. Klugo said if the PUD studies aren’t done, properties that are to be developed will be developed without the new standards. Ms. Ostby agreed that PUDs should be pushed back. Mr. Klugo stressed the danger in “going through this linearly.” Mr. Gagnon agreed and noted that the PUD things aren’t just related to land that will be saved. There may be lands the city doesn’t want to purchase or land in the Transit Overlay District that isn’t covered by interim zoning. He felt the studies should run parallel. Ms. Louisos agreed and felt they are all #1 priorities but questioned how to do this. She felt the bulk of the PUD work should be done by the Commission. Ms. Ostby said much of the TDR issue is outside the Commission’s expertise legally and they will need help with what they can and can’t do. Mr. Mittag suggested having a lead Commission person for each of the items. Mr. Conner said the PUD study will be a featured Planning Commission agenda item through the coldest part of the winter. Mr. Klugo asked how many of the open items are in the consultant’s contract. Mr. Conner said the consultant is pretty far along but they will want guidance on some items. Mr. Klugo said for each item they will have to identify the goals to be accomplished. He suggested having flip charts and a process to work through this. Ms. Ostby suggested having 2 members focus on one project. With regard to open land, Mr. Conner suggested a process to take place with a new separate working group of people who have been through an interview with the Council (e.g., Natural Resources, Bike/Ped, Economic Development, Recreation/Parks Committees, etc.) plus one or 2 Commission members who could bring information back to the Commission. Mr. Conner suggested that TDRs require a 2-phase process: 1. Understanding what is possible 2. Deciding what action to take The first part requires a small project team (Commission, Council, consultant, etc.). Questions to be considered are: 1. Is the objective to create a stronger demand for TDRs? 2. Is there to be a shift from the current receiving areas? 3. Does this work outside the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ)? Regarding the economics issue, Mr. Conner noted staff has initiated conversation with Regional Planning as to what could be the scope. Mr. Klugo felt this can’t be done in a narrow scope. Ms. LaRose agreed that just to look at tax dollars doesn’t work. Mr. Gagnon suggested that members think about this for a few weeks and come back to the next meeting with ideas. Ms. Ostby noted there are areas in the work plan that seem to fit into the interim zoning study areas, such as open land, scenic views, river corridor studies. Ms. Greco noted that the concern of the public is with open space and there are dozens of studies regarding the economic benefits of conserving open land. She cited a study done in September, 2018 in Vermont which showed a 9-1 return from conservation. Mr. Chalnick agreed, and said the goal is to preserve open space, and that is what the Council’s resolution is. Mr. Hyman said the land should be conserved for future development. There doesn’t have to be a rush now. Another member of the public cited the need for space for recreational activities. Mr. Mittag said he would like to cull the PUD list so it is more focused. Mr. Gagnon said he generally agreed and suggested members come back with what they would like to cull. He also asked them to rank the all of typologies in order of priority. Mr. Conner noted the Council talked about the inefficiencies of some of the small developments which fall under the Act 250 threshold. He cautioned against dismissing some of the more compact types of development. Regarding open lands, members were OK with staff recommendations regarding working groups. Mr. Klugo said he would defer to working groups to make recommendations on the lands to be conserved. Ms. Dopp noted that the Natural Resources Committee did a checklist a few years ago. Mr. Conner asked whether the Commission wanted to assess where there should be active recreation areas considered as the Council charge did not include this. Mr. Klugo said that committees should be asked for their top 3 needs/recommendations. Commissioners agreed that this should be examined. Mr. Conner noted that the purpose of interim zoning is to allow tools to come into place. Mr. Klugo said what is being said is that the existing tools aren’t working. Mr. LaRose said they may not be the right tools for conservation. Mr. Klugo cited the Open Space Fund. Ms. LaRose noted that interim zoning requires a “regulatory tool.” If you don’t have that, you haven’t met the goal. Mr. Klugo cited the need to understand the framework the Commission needs to operate under. He added that if the city and property owner can’t agree on the value of the land, what tool is there to prevent an owner from building on the land. Mr. Riehle felt that is a legal issue for the City Attorney. Mr. Conner said staff’s recommendation is that for this to be successful, in some manner there have to be tools that come out of it. He added that staff may have this information. Mr. Klugo said it would be fruitless for the Commission to discuss this without the knowledge that staff has. Regarding TDRs, Mr. Mittag felt the ordinance needs to be completely rewritten. He supported having a working group deal with policy on this. Mr. Klugo said he wants a sustainable TDR policy that works for South Burlington. Mr. Klugo then moved to have Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Louisos summarize the Commission’s recommendations and submit them to the City Council. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. It was agreed that members would see the recommendations before they are submitted to the Council for individual comments. 8. Status Report on PUD’s: Mr. Conner said the first things to be discussed are: 1. What is “in” and “out”? 2. How is density to be measured? Ms. LaRose said the next discussion will focus on what is critical. 9. Consideration of approval of street names in Cider Mill II: Mr. Mittag moved to accept staff’s recommendation with a spelling correction. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Riehle voting against. 10. Minutes of 9 October 2018: Members agreed to defer consideration of the minutes. 11. Other Business: Mr. Mittag asked if there is a way to get agendas before late on Friday? Mr. Conner said staff will discuss this. He noted the current system works well because the Planning Commission and DRB alternate. Ms. LaRose stressed that staff is always willing to meet individually with members. a. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed not to meet on 13 November so they can attend the City Council’s public hearing on Interim Zoning. The next Commission meeting will be on 27 November. a. 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan Update, public hearing on 15 November, 7 p.m. Mr. Conner said no action is needed on this item. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.