Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/06/2021 - SM - JM With P&ZSOUTH BURLINGTON JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MEETING MINUTES 6 APRIL 2021 1 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 6 April 2021, at 5:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting Interactive Technology. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; D. Macdonald, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Baker, L. Ravin, J. Bellavance, A. & A. Chalnick, A. Strong, B. Sirvis, R. Gonda, A. Jensen-Vargas, C. Trombly, S. Dooley, Wayne, R. Greco 1. Agenda: additions or deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements/Staff Report: There were no announcements or Staff report. 4. Presentation of Draft Environmental Protection Standards; Council questions and feedback: Ms. Louisos said they have set 27 April for a listening session for the public. That will be followed by a formal public hearing. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission began work on these standards in 2012 to the standards were more legally defensible. In 2016, maps were added to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also commissioned a study from Arrowwood to define habitat blocks and to set standards for how to address them. Ms. Louisos then defined the 3 categories of environmental protection: a. Hazards: areas where there should be no development due to some danger (e.g. 100-year flood plain) and/or are regulated at the State and Federal level. The Commission added the 500-year flood plain to this category and streamlined rive and buffer standards. The Class 2 wetland buffer was also expanded in certain areas, and steep slopes have been regulated. 2 b. Level 1 Resources: These include habitat blocks which, with a few exceptions, would not be built on, and habitat connectors. These resources are based on the Arrowwood study. c. Level 2 Resources: These include the 500-year flood plain, Class 3 wetlands, some steep slopes, and a definition change for stream buffers. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is working with CCRPC to help review and be consistent with State and Federal standards. Ms. Louisos then showed a series of maps as follows: a. Current protection standard areas and SEQ-NRP zoning where very little, if any development is allowed b. Current environmental protection areas, SEQ-NRP, conserved and public land (e.g., parks) and areas already built/approved/in review c. Draft Environmental Protection Areas (hazards, Level 1 & 2 and current SEQ-NRP) d. The above map with the addition of conserved and public lands (e.g., parks) e. The above maps plus built/approved/in process areas f. Draft of current environmental protection areas and current NRP zone (it was noted that the protected areas go from 17% of the city to 26%, not including existing conserved and park lands g. The above map including conserved & park lands bringing the percentage of land with some level of protection to 42%. Ms. Louisos stressed that the maps are approximate and require on-ground delineation. h. The above map plus built areas and areas still available for development Mr. Conner then explained the zoning of the NRP and what can/cannot be built there. Sen. Chittenden asked whether people who own newly designated nondevelopable lands have TDRs now. Mr. Conner said that depends on where things go with PUDs. Development can occur on a developable portion of a property. Mr. Conner stresses that nothing in this draft changes anything about the use of TDRs and which areas are sending or receiving. Mr. Conner also noted there is now a higher bar for crossing a stream. “Restricted infrastructure encroaching” is granted only when there is no other access to a piece of land, and an applicant would 3 have to meet a number of criteria including hardship, 30% of the property is on the other side of the stream, failure of other methods to access the property, etc. The crossing would then have to be narrow. A question from the Council focused on the total land covered by Articles 10 and 12. Mr. Conner said that figure is 4,449 acres, a portion of which is already conserved. Ms. Louisos then explained how the new regulations relate to the Comprehensive Plan, one of the legal tests for LDRs. She showed the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and explained the various areas for low, medium, and high intensity residential and commercial development. She then showed the same map with the conserved areas indicated. Sen. Chittenden asked whether there is a map that shows neighboring communities. Mr. Conner noted that the RPC has mapping for villages and downtowns, etc. Ms. Emery asked why housing isn’t allowed in business parks. Ms. Louisos explained that there is land reserved for uses that are not compatible with residential for various reasons (i.e. noise, hours of use, outside storage, commercial traffic). Mr. Conner added that the nature of business parks is evolving. The Commission discussed how much land should be reserved for uses that can only locate away from housing. Ms. Ostby noted that these are areas for jobs. Ms. Louisos then showed other maps from the Comprehensive Plan and noted areas where rare species have been found. These are regulated by the State and by Act 250. She also indicated some agricultural lands and grasslands that are not covered by Article 10 and 12 due to the concern to meet other goals. She noted changes to Article 9 where references to Maps 7 and 8 have been removed so there is no longer confusion. Mr. Cota said he was glad to see that last change as it is very important for the DRB. He asked if there is field delineation so it can be determined what resources are actually on people’s land. Ms. Louisos said that because the Arrowwood study was done by remote observation, there are options for landowners as to how a line can be adjusted without damage to a habitat block. There are specific criteria to do this, and major changes would require a biologist to weigh in. Mr. Conner noted that field delineation is very good for wetlands, but habitat blocks and forested areas are new. He said the draft tries to create certainty so there aren’t “battling experts.” Mr. Barritt asked if there is anything to prevent logging in habitat blocks. Mr. Conner said there isn’t, but any logging has to be part of a forestry operation. The State would look at any logging to be sure it is ongoing (not just to create a lawn) and that the staging area is appropriate. 5. Overview of proposed Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and related subdivision and master plans: function, role, and appearance of different types: Mr. Conner showed the guidelines for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) type of PUD. These include: 4 a. Principally residential development over 65% of the buildable area b. Fairly compact development c. Removal of NRP, Level 1 and Hazards from the developable area d. 15% “civic space” (e.g., park, central green area) e. 5% mixed use (e.g., a community building) f. 15% unallocated (e.g., wetland, stormwater pond, etc.) Mr. Conner then showed a chart of what a TND could look like, how it could be laid out with a mix of building types, central civic space, etc. He said that density in a TND is dependent on the lot layout. A mix of building types would be required, and there would be a minimum density to set a target pattern on a neighborhood scale to ensure that the infrastructure is financially sustainable and to provide certainty. Mr. Conner then explained the nature of a Conservation PUD where 70% of the land must be conserved. The land owner is then entitled to build on the 30% the total amount of development that would have been allowed on the entire property based on the underlying zoning. Ms. Louisos noted that the footprint of development in a TND and a Conservation PUD would be different. Mr. Conner said that for properties with a lot of resources, a Conservation PUD may be the more appropriate choice. Ms. Emery asked how a TND would work with TDRs. Mr. Conner said it would remain the same as today. A person could reserve some portion of a property for future possible development. Ms. Emery asked if there are any new TDRs. Mr. Conner said there may be, but that hasn’t been fully sorted out yet. Ms. Louisos added that they are not currently adding TDRs. Ms. Emery said she would like to see more industry and “noisy” manufacturing along Shelburne Road. She also wants to bring residential close to Tilley Drive, including employees for nearby businesses. She felt that residential development should go near transit, and she was all for density in areas with transit. She wasn’t comfortable with 10 units per acre where there is no mass transit. She felt there were many ways to bring in affordable housing. She added that areas further out should be left for future development. Ms. Greco said she did not agree with short-term planning. Mr. Barritt noted he had seen more electric cars on the road today and anticipated seeing many more in the future which could affect the concern with fossil fuels. He said he supports both the TND and Conservation PUDs and felt they would lead to new, responsible development and protection of resources. Mr. Riehle said one question that needs to be addressed with the School Board is how many more homes can be built before there is a need for a new school. Ms. Riehle said that can be a topic for a Steering Committee meeting. 5 Mr. Cota asked whether a property owner/developer can choose between a TND and a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said there are circumstances when an option makes sense (e.g., when there is 80% wetland). Elsewhere it is open for discussion: should it be a developer’s choice? Mr. Cota asked if there are mitigating factors such as “meet these criteria and you can have a TND.” Mr. Mittag said he would like to see a choice to build fewer units and conserve more. Mr. Cota cited the Ewing plan to conserve a portion of the land and have the rest for development. Mr. Strong asked about protection for riparian connectivity. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is looking at every location where there is a water resource and are creating buffering, actually the largest buffers in the state. Also, instead of using state-level data, the Commission looked at where there is actual habitat. This goes beyond what was done in the past. Ms. Riehle said she had some concerns with aspects of what the Commission is recommending and was puzzled by allowing a road across a resource even though there are standards. When questioned, the Council asked to receive Articles 10 & 12 first and then get the PUDs as a second package. The joint portion of th meeting ended here by common consent at 7:03 p.m.