HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/23/2019SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
23 JULY 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 July 2019, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair (via phone); T. Riehle, M. Ostby, Acting Chair; M. Mittag, A. Klugo,
D. MacDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; T. McKenzie
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Ostby provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
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. Ostby noted this area has the highest level of median house pricing.
Mr. Conner directed attention to his written report. He also noted the “SoBu Night Out” events every
Thursday at Veterans’ Memorial Park.
5. Planned Unit Development/Master Plan/Subdivision Standards:
a. Building Typologies:
Ms. LaRose said this information hasn’t yet been sent to the PUD consultant. She added that the biggest
question is how much detail should there be for this since people often like an area because of building
types.
Mr. Mittag asked if there are other communities dictating building types. Ms. LaRose and Mr. Conner
noted Burlington, Winooski, Essex and Brattleboro.
Mr. Riehle said PUDs are more of a suburban thing, and since he is not a professional, he would like to
know what professionals think. Ms. Ostby felt that a lot of the information on the chart was more for
the city than for suburbs.
Mr. Conner said one of the primary uses of building types is to establish standards at transitions.
2
Ms. LaRose thought you can have a building of a certain size and not know how many units there are
inside. She cited the converted Victorian homes in St. Johnsbury where you can’t tell there are smaller
units in them.
Mr. Klugo said that what he might think is “bad,” someone else might think is “good.” You can’t
legislate taste. He felt the you can define materials (e.g., no plastic fences), and the quality of the
materials will dictate the quality of the development. The issue, he felt, is going to be the traffic. Mr.
Klugo also noted that the idea behind Form Based Code was predictability. People felt they were going
to a neighborhood where they want to live, that had a “predictable minimal level of design.” It may not
be ideal, but it is OK. He felt the Commission should focus on the right to be flexible and sustainable.
He cited large factory buildings in other cities being converted to many contemporary uses. He also
cited the quality in commercial spaces, noting that you can use a residential door in a commercial
building.
Ms. Louisos questioned whether categories are mutually exclusive and asked about mixed uses. Ms.
LaRose said they are designed to be exclusive, but she would take another look at that.
Ms. LaRose then questioned whether these building types would have a place outside of PUDs and
whether they should be required whether or not they are in a PUD. Mr. Klugo said a PUD is an
organizing tool. It is about place marking….images we have that go with a place.
Another of Ms. LaRose’s questions is whether some building types should track closer to the Form Based
Code standards or whether building development outside the FBC could be slightly less defined. For
example, is there enough, too little or too much focus on window treatments, glazing, doors, etc.
Mr. Klugo felt that again the focus should be on materials. Mr. Mittag suggested picking out a “menu”
of attributes from the FBC. Mr. Klugo suggested lists of options (e.g., balconies, porches). Ms. Ostby
cited the need to celebrate individuality.
Ms. LaRose noted that vinyl siding is not allowed in the FBC. She questioned whether commissioners
thought it should be prohibited elsewhere. Mr. Klugo cited a nice neighborhood in Saratoga which is all
vinyl but you’d never know it. There are also stone features, etc. He also noted the question of
affordability.
Mr. Mittag said products have improved, and the benefits of vinyl are unmistakable. He noted that his
development now allows certain brands of vinyl (approved in the past few months).
Mr. Klugo cited the possibility of a developer who wants to build homes with more modern materials.
He said it is how those materials are used that matters. He would never say no to any rational material.
He stressed the importance of not having a “one size fits all.”
3
Members then considered the possibility of relaxed setbacks, possibly having building types be located
close to the street and possibly having reduced lot sizes or lot frontages (i.e. having buildings be
required to be closer together).
Ms. Ostby felt setbacks didn’t matter as long as all homes followed the same line. Ms. LaRose suggested
that different PUD types could have different setbacks.
Mr. Klugo showed pictures of his favorite neighborhood in Birmingham, Michigan, with different styles
of homes and with 2-story commercial buildings knitted into the neighborhood. There were also multi-
family buildings, some infill, etc. What he felt makes it work are the trees and the equal setbacks. Mr.
Conner noted there also aren’t 2 and 4-car garages facing the street.
Mr. Riehle asked how you preclude having 10 houses all the same. Mr. Klugo noted that the houses he
showed are being re-developed. He wanted to provide the opportunity for this to happen 20 to 25
years from now.
Mr. MacDonald noted that every house on Pheasant Way has a different setback, and he felt this
provides variety. Mr. Klugo felt there are tools to make adjacent houses look different even though you
can tell they are from the same builder. Mr. Riehle noted the eastern part of the Chittenden Cider Mill
development are all very similar houses. Mr. Conner said they were built before the new standards.
Mr. Conner noted that the Affordable Housing Committee is interested in weighing in on these issues.
Mr. Klugo explained that the ADA standards are different for 3 or 4 unit buildings. He
said that rowhouse/town house designations should be different for 1-3 units and for 4-12 units because
of how you have to design them to meet the code (e.g., entrances).
b. Review table of proposed PUD applicability by zoning district:
Mr. Conner questioned what should happen with the R-1 District which is just a short stretch on Spear
Street. All other zones are 4/acre or more with a PUD, but the R-1 on Spear Street (west side) has no
density increase through PUDs. If TNC is allowed in R-1, then development at 4/acre would be allowed
in this area.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether now is the time for a density change in R-1. Mr. Riehle suggested that
one part of the city could have a character all its own. He felt people should have the right to have
those big homes and pay those big taxes. Mr. Klugo agreed. Mr. Conner noted that meant PUDs would
not be applicable in that district.
Mr. Conner asked members to think about what they would like to see at the south end of Shelburne
Road, possibly something that changes it from an industrial district that allows housing to a mixed
commercial-residential district. He also suggested that perhaps a campus PUD is not appropriate here.
6. Discuss City Center Portion of Official Map:
4
Mr. Klugo advised that the FBC subcommittee is still working on this project and is not yet ready to make
a recommendation. He also noted that the City Council acted to remove the streets from the city map.
7. Staff Update on Possible Solar Requirements Associated with New Construction:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He noted that a meeting was held with developers, including one
solar developer. All are moving in the direction of solar, but the biggest obstacle involves appraisals and
banks which is making solar out of people’s reach. Mr. Klugo noted Councilor Tom Chittenden’s idea of
having the city own the solar installation and having the home owner pay into it because now there is
no incentive for homeowners to install solar when they may not own the home when the solar
installation begins to ‘pay back.’
Mr. Conner said the feeling at the meeting was that there is more viability for solar with commercial
buildings early on.
8. Preparation for Joint Meeting with City Council and Interim Zoning Committees:
Mr. Conner outlined the format for the meeting and noted that after the meeting the Commission will
start to get final reports from the IZ groups.
Mr. Klugo was concerned that the Planning Commission won’t have a chance to meet prior to the joint
meeting to discuss such things as TDRs. He felt it put the Commission in an awkward position. Mr.
Conner suggested the Commission may need a more in-depth presentation from committees after that
meeting. Ms. LaRose noted this is only step one to tie things together. Mr. Klugo said that point should
be made at the start and to see the meeting as a “listening exercise.” Ms. Louisos felt members
shouldn’t be afraid to add questions and comments.
9. Reports from Committee/Working Group Liaisons:
Mr. Klugo: Form Based Code Committee is working on a package to bring to the Commission
consisting of about 4 items for the Commission to review and warn.
Ms. Louisos: The Natural Resources Committee has made a lot of progress re: forest areas and
agriculture. They are coming up with a 2-tier system: higher and secondary class recommendations.
They are also looking at mapping.
Mr. Mittag: The TDR Committee will meet on Tuesday to prepare for the joint meeting and to get their
report into a form to present.
10. Meeting Minutes of 9 July 2019:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 9 July 2019 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
5
11. Other Business:
Mr. Conner drew attention to the solar array applications in the meeting packet.
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 on August 13, 2019