Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/14/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 JANUARY 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 January 2020, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, A. Klugo (via phone) ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley, M. Simoneau, L. Nadeau, P. O’Brien, R. Jeffers, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, J. Larkin, R. Greco 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos 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: The Staff report was included in the meeting packet. 5. Continue Review of proposed Land Development Regulations amendments: a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay district, all lands within the City Center Form Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards (LDR-19-13A); and (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all remaining parts of the City Mr. Mittag felt the definition of the expanded area is vague and could lead to problems down the road. He suggested fixing the Transit Overlay District on the map. He noted that Form Based Code is already in the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Ostby felt that should be looked at in the future after interim Zoning. Other members agreed. Mr. Mittag said he also had a question about “above grade living space.” Ms. Jeffers suggested “conditioned space” as an alternative. Mr. Conner said the circumstances where this would come up are very small. The 90% was a previous option. Mr. Klugo felt 90% was a very high number. Mr. Conner said it is relative to the market rate. Mr. Klugo suggested a minimum on the Inclusionary unit of 720 sq. ft. Mr. Conner said the aim is not to have to inclusionary unit bigger than the market rate, which could happen. He suggested saying “no less than the average of the market rate units.” He still favored the 90%. Mr. Klugo said they could always come back and adjust it. Ms. LaRose said she favored “habitable area” over “conditioned area.” Members were OK with that. Ms. Greco questioned why this would include areas outside the Transit Overlay District and felt “vicinity” was too vague. Mr. Conner said the legal review was OK with the language. He suggested adding a map and saying “as shown on map.” Members were OK with that. Mr. Langfeldt said their concern is that things change, sometimes dramatically. They try to get the inclusionary units built before the market units. Coverage is also a serious issue. He was also concerned that it’s been “years” since they were told the new PUD standards were imminent. Ms. Ostby suggested a 6-month check-in, and if the PUDs are not complete then, to address it at that time. Mr. Gill said they are already building smaller units, roads, etc., and so much land has to be untouched. Additional units are not always possible. Mr. Mittag said that problem could be solved by the PUDs. Mr. Langfeldt said they can’t use the additional unit offset because of the 25% coverage issue. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the TDR and PU language would address coverage issues. Ms. LaRose said the PUD language will address how coverage is calculated. Coverage is not based on each individual lot; they are looking at coverage holistically. Mr. Conner said the R-1 area is the issue. Mr. Gagnon said this is a very valid concern; they can’t encourage something and then “knock it out.” Ms. Ostby felt it was important for this to go forward now so it can be used as a “check” when they look at other things. She felt this gives the Commission the mathematical foundation it needs. Mr. Langfeldt noted that language can depend on its interpretation. Ms. Ostby said the Affordable Housing Committee needs to continue to look at this. It is a living document. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that they support the effort, but the offset is not attainable. Mr. Simson noted that their issue is the only one in the city where this arises. He felt the committee can work with staff to address it. He added that the offset is consistent with State Statute. He thought they should be able to craft a change independent of the PUD. Ms. Louisos noted that for low coverage districts, coverage could increase by 10%; for the inclusionary ownership development by 15%, for inclusionary rental development only for the offset units. Mr. Gagnon said he was on board with that. Mr. Klugo said they would need a test to be sure the numbers work. Mr. Gagnon moved to table the discussion and come back with amended language at the next meeting. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Ostby opposing. Ms. Jeffers suggested some language changes as follows: At the beginning of Article II, she suggested “purchased by” instead of “owned by.” At the end of that paragraph, add “with a deed covenant and affordability in perpetuity.” On p. 6, in the second reference, change “above grade” to “habitable” On p. 10, item #5, change to “affordable and an inclusionary unit.” (Ms. Dooley noted they don’t use “affordable” in the inclusionary section). 6. Possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council: This item was postponed to a future agenda. 7. Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report work session and recommendations: Ms. Louisos noted there had not been previous discussion of the report, and the City Council had some questions. Mr. Gagnon said the Council was on board with the report and recommendations. They now need to be sure the Commission understands the recommendations and the ramifications. These will be the foundation of what the Commission uses to go forward with its work. Mr. Klugo noted there was a lot of work done to clarify the recommendations, and he was generally supportive. He did question the use of “could” vs. “shall.” He felt the map is a very good took. He noted that the parcels in pink have been identified by the Open Space IZ Committee as priority parcels. He felt there should be a mechanism that if the city does not purchase one (or more) of these properties, it (they) should go back to the property owner with original development rights. Ms. Louisos felt that was a very good point. She noted there might be other tools to conserve those properties. Mr. Mittag said some may not be legally possible. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly limiting development on those properties to certain types of PUDs. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t want to do anything to negatively impact a property owner’s assets. Mr. Nadeau said the what he is seeing will have a major impact on the value of people’s property. Mr. Gagnon noted the Open Space Committee is having a public presentation of its report on January 23 at the High School. Ms. LaRose noted that report is still being drafted. Mr. Langfeldt asked what is to say that the same thing that happened with receiving areas last time doesn’t happen again with people being upset at having TDR receiving areas next door to them. Mr. Conner suggested the Commission first discuss what is meant by each recommendation and what is needed to advance the recommendation. He added they also need a “magnitude” discussion, how many receiving areas are being talked about. Mr. Gagnon said they first need to know how many TDRs are needed in receiving areas, then where to put them, then hear concerns from people in that area. Mr. Klugo said the first question is how you want an area to look, then decide on how many. He asked what could happen that can’t happen now. Mr. Mittag said an R-4 could go to R-7. Mr. Conner questioned whether there are areas in the city that are “underserved,” where more can be done than is currently being done. Mr. Klugo also noted that asking developers to spend money on TDRs can make affordability questionable. Mr. Gagnon said TDRs could go in commercial areas. Mr. Klugo said he would support that. Mr. Gagnon suggested changing “dwelling unit” to “transfer unit” and getting commercial and square footage into the definition. Mr. Simoneau said the properties identified by the Open Space Committee have “an owner.” The properties were identified because there are characteristics to conserve. They Committee isn’t saying the entirety of those properties are to be preserved. He noted that there is another group looking at those properties, and the hope is to get both groups together to create equity for the owner as well as open space. Ms. Louisos noted that one of the new PUDs could apply to some of the identified properties. Mr. Larkin said they should also consider early on issues such as stormwater on site, traffic, etc., as limiting factors. Mr. Conner felt “new sending areas” was a good place for the Commission to consider what tools are available to them. Mr. Larkin asked whether anyone has contacted any landowners to tell them their property is a high priority for open space? Mr. Gagnon said “not officially.” He noted that when developers go through a process, they have to notify landowners what is being proposed. He felt the city should do the same thing. Ms. Louisos noted that there could be areas in the SEQ that would no longer be receiving areas, and that land could be developed at a lesser level. She didn’t think that was an efficient use of land. Mr. Conner noted this is a massive policy change and has to be carefully thought through. Ms. Ostby noted that “connecting buyers and sellers” was not in the Commissions purview. Mr. Mittag said landowners should be contacted to see fi they want to list TDRs for their properties (it is voluntary). Mr. Gill urged the Commission to look at which recommended parcels make sense for open space. Mr. Gagnon said that will be the Commission’s job and may involve changes to the Comprehensive Plan, LDRs, etc. 8. Review and possibly approve CCRPC Unified Work Program candidate projects to City Council: Mr. Conner noted that staff had made some adjustments including adding scoping for underground utilities on one stretch of Williston Road. Mr. Conner also noted that CCRPC would be willing to assist the Commission with certain projects. He added that the Council has approved the proposed FY21 budget which includes funding for this. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the CCRPC Unified Work Program projects and to submit it to the City Council. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Staff status report on PUD/Master Plan/Subdivision Regulations: There is a full draft of Master Plan language, and staff is expecting PUD language in the next few weeks. The objective is to have everything by the end of next month. Ms. LaRose noted the proposed language is being tested against known projects. Mr. Gill asked who is identifying Class 1 Agriculture. Ms. LaRose said there is a group dealing with that. She added that agriculture is “very tricky” and they hope to have an answer soon. It is not likely to reflect only soil types. Mr. Gill noted that every piece of land in Vermont has been farmed at one time or another. 10. 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 9:43 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 28, 2020