Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 10/12/2021South Burlington Planning Commission 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Meeting Tuesday, October 12, 2021 City Hall, 180 Market Street, Auditorium 7:00 pm The Planning Commission will attend this meeting in person. Members of the public may attend in person or digitally via GoToMeeting. Participation Options: In person: South Burlington City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-10-12 Telephone (audio only): (786) 535-3211, Access Code: 273-143-957 AGENDA: 1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. *Review and discuss policies & priorities / work plan for remainder of FY 2022 (7:15 pm) 5. *Review initial feedback / big picture legal items regarding draft LDR amendments warned for public hearing (7:40 pm) 6. *600 Spear Street Solar notice of application; Commission comments or action (8:30 pm) 7. Street name Request: Larkin Way (8:40 pm) 8. *Meeting Minutes: August 18, August 24, August 31, September 14, September 23, September 28, September 30 (8:45 pm) 9. Other Business (8:50 pm) 10. Adjourn (8:55 pm) Respectfully submitted, Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning * item has attachments South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines 1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. 2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently presenting / commenting will have their video on. 3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an item, the Chair will ask for public comment. 4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat. 5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission. 6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda. 7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. 8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint. Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat. 9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time. 10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to explore an issue, provide input and influence public opinion on the matter. 11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com. 12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice- Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official meeting minutes. 13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission. 14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently focused to help guide participants. 15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end that will be covered “if time allows”. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo DATE: October 12, 2021 Planning Commission Special meeting 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) Staff announcements: • City Planner: We’re pleased to report that we have hired for the City Planner, slated to start November 8, 2021. Introductions to follow! • Climate Action Task Force. The Council appointed the final committee membership. We are looking forward to kicking this off asap. • Official Map. The Council on 10/4 adopted the amendments to the Official Map as proposed by the Planning Commission • LDR outreach: Staff has prepared various outreach materials. We will include Commissioners on them as they are released. 4. Review and discuss policies priorities / work plan for remainder of FY 2022 (7:15 pm) Enclosed please find a first cut at the Commission’s work plan for the remainder of FY 22 (through June 2021). The color-coded groups are intended to reflect draft priorities. Please review, add, remove, and be prepared for a discussion on these. [note: in this workplan, staff combined the TDR, NCD PUD, Infill PUD, and related zoning amendments into a single item because fundamentally, they all relate to how to foster and support high quality focus of development in the city’s priority areas). 5. Review initial feedback / big picture legal items regarding draft LDR amendments warned for public hearing (7:40 pm) Staff has met with several property owners; and Commissioners have likely had discussions as well. This will be a forum to discuss feedback received to date. Several of the discussions staff has had have been about “limited” development on relatively large parcels, at or around the thresholds between the planned “carve out” and the use of the Conservation PUD and how the proposed subdivision & street requirements would apply. Legal review is under way; staff will update as it continues. 6. *600 Spear Street Solar notice of application; Commission comments or action (8:30 pm) See enclosed memo & materials 2 7. Street name Request: Larkin Way (8:40 pm) Along Shelburne Road there is a series of building that include the Holiday Inn Express, Smart Suites, Pulcinella’s restaurant, the former Comfort Suites, and other buildings. The owner has been informed that as they pursue an approved conversation of a part of the lot to apartments, the various buildings will now need to have their own addresses on a separate, named “street” rather than being all Shelburne Road addresses. The property owners have requested Larkin Way. Staff finds no conflicts with the street name. 8. *Meeting Minutes: August 18, August 24, August 31, September 14, September 23, September 28, September 30 (8:45 pm) 9. Other Business (8:50 pm) Discuss meeting schedule/ hearing process & action 10. Adjourn (8:55 pm) Adopted Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2022 Update 10/8/202112345678910M N O P AF AH AI AJ AK AMPC PriorityProject Description FY 22 Commission Role / ActionPotential & Confirmed ResourcesComp Plan GoalsComp Plan Sub Goal 1Comp Plan Sub Goal 2Comp Plan Sub Goal 3FY 22 Size1Master Plan / Subdivision / Planned Unit Developments Part A [TND, Conservation PUD]Development of new Master Plan, Subdivision, PUD standards ‐ including TND and Conservation PUD, and associated stds: street types, civic space types, building types (for TND), site plan, uses, etc.Provide support as needed to Council during adoption process.Affordable & Community StrongAffordable with housing for allMulti‐modal transportation systemConserve natural resourcesLarge1Other amendments in Draft to CouncilList of amendments outside Master Plan/Subdivision/PUD and Environmental Protection StdsProvide support as needed to Council during adoption process.Affordable & Community StrongLarge1Environmental Protection StandardsAdopt / revise standards for Habitat Blocks, Habitat Connectors, steep slopes, wetlands, river corridors, floodplainsProvide support as needed to Council during adoption process.Clean & GreenConserve natural resourcesHigh neighborhood quality of lifeLarge2Airport Parkway area zoning amendmentPossible re‐zoning of area east of Airport Parkway near Kirby Road Ext to an Airport useReceive recommendation from committee; if applicable, hold hearing and approve.Consultant Engaged; Committee setOpportunity OrientedSupport broad & diverse economyHigh neighborhood quality of life2 Meet with DRB Annual meetings with DRB Hold joint meeting with DRB. Opportunity OrientedQuality infrastructure & servicesSmall2Replace Transportation Overlay District with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Replace the existing traffic overlay district that sets a cap on rush‐hour vehicle trips along major roadways with new tools to encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modes. Includes providing consultants & project team with broad direction for desired outcomesReview draft prepared by consultant; revise, and if applicable hold hearings and approveConsultant work nearly completeWalkableMulti‐modal transportation systemQuality infrastructure & servicesPrioritize higher intensity areasMedium2Streamline / Incentivize Development/Redevelopment in Built AreasDevelop tools to support infill/redevelopment in built / designated areas. Tools may include NCD PUD; Infill/Development PUD; TDR program expansion; process streamlining; zoning changesEstablish goals & preliminarily identify geographies. Review status, function, and pros/cons of tools. Develop and adopt standardsAffordable & Community StrongPrioritize higher intensity areasAffordable with housing for allMulti‐modal transportation systemLarge2 Climate Action PlanPreparation of City's first Climate Action Plan Support as needed to the Task ForceConsultant engaged; Task Force SetClean & GreenEnergy efficiency & clean productionLeader in public educationPrioritize higher intensity areasSmall2Climate Action Transportation Implementation PlanPreparation of Transportation Implementation Climate Action PlanProvide support & Input as requested to development of Transportation Implementation plan; prepare policy/regulatory updates as neededFunding set Clean & GreenEnergy efficiency & clean productionMulti‐modal transportation systemMedium1 Adopted Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2022 Update 10/8/20211M N O P AF AH AI AJ AK AMPC PriorityProject Description FY 22 Commission Role / ActionPotential & Confirmed ResourcesComp Plan GoalsComp Plan Sub Goal 1Comp Plan Sub Goal 2Comp Plan Sub Goal 3FY 22 Size11121314151617181920213Solar Requirement on new buildingsSecond half of the recommendation for commercial buildings to include a minimum solar Assign group / staff to reviewEnergy, Economic Development CommitteesClean & GreenEnergy efficiency & clean productionMedium3Projects that Arise through the yearReserving time for other projects that fall within the PC's area of responsibilityOpportunity Oriented3 Update City‐Wide Official MapUpdate the official map from its current 2004 edition. Smaller project would be to align with Comprehensive Plan, medium project would incorporate bike‐ped committee recommendations, larger project would be to streets & public spaces citywide. Includes review of East‐West RoadsAdvisory city committees WalkableQuality infrastructure & servicesMulti‐modal transportation systemMedium3Zoning Amendments‐ Initial requestsInitial requests from the public to consider amendments; determination of next actionOpportunity OrientedSmall3 Full review of UVM PropertiesWould consider possible amendments to the I/A zoning district in conjunction with UVM for right‐sizing the zoning for all of their landsInitiate dialogue with UVM regarding long‐term visionOpportunity Oriented Medium3 FBC area amendmentsUpdate FBC based on experience, feedback, and initial work of 2019 FBC committeeReview, or assign to a FBC sub‐committee; review and possible amendmentsAffordable & Community StrongEstablish City CenterHigh neighborhood quality of lifePrioritize higher intensity areasMedium3 Priority Parcels for Conservation Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Recommended parcels for consideration to Council. Council is following upProvide support to Council as needed / requestedClean & GreenConserve natural resourcesTransparent & open governmentSmall3Comprehensive Plan progress check‐inReview status on achieving objectives and implementing strategies from 2016 Comp PlanRequest committees / departments provide assessment within their areas; Commission review within their area; overall reviewOpportunity OrientedQuality infrastructure & servicesLeader in public educationMedium3Request to remove scenic view from parcel recently re‐zoned SEQ‐NRWould remove a segment of the scenic view overlay district on a portion of a parcel along Hinesburg Road Consider Request, make change if appropriateOpportunity OrientedSmall4Consider Site Amenities associated with Site Plans for new buildingWould replace the lot coverage standards citywide with intentional Site Amenities to complete Civic Space required via subdivision / PUDRec & Parks Committee; Affordable Housing CommitteeAffordable & Community StrongHigh neighborhood quality of lifeMedium4 2024 Comprehensive PlanUpdate of Comprehensive Plan as required by State LawEstablish a structure for the update of the Plan; major topicsOpportunity OrientedQuality infrastructure & servicesMedium2 Adopted Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2022 Update 10/8/20211M N O P AF AH AI AJ AK AMPC PriorityProject Description FY 22 Commission Role / ActionPotential & Confirmed ResourcesComp Plan GoalsComp Plan Sub Goal 1Comp Plan Sub Goal 2Comp Plan Sub Goal 3FY 22 Size222324252627282931324 Edlund Parcel rezoning requestConsider rezoning of Edlund Tract from I/A to a residential districtOpportunity Oriented5 Parks Master PlanIdentify Function of existing parks and needs for future parks. Support Role to Rec & Parks Committee; possible review and implementation in City Official MapRecreation & Parks, Bike‐Ped?Affordable & Community StrongHigh neighborhood quality of lifeQuality infrastructure & servicesSmall5 Planning Commissioner itemsWould set aside time for Commissioners to bring new or different ideas to the Commission not Opportunity Oriented5 Williston Road Network Study(1) set/ revise location of planned supporting streets, (2) revise FBC & Official Map to match, (3) possibly revise how buildings and streets are Review City Center Official Map & City Center FBCCCRPC Consultants, staff project teamWalkableEstablish City CenterMulti‐modal transportation systemQuality infrastructure & servicesLargeDefining density & housing units within zoning districtWould consider changing the definition of density using building types at the zoning district level (only proposed to apply to PUDs at the moment)Affordable & Community StrongAffordable with housing for allHigh neighborhood quality of lifeReview Temporary use & structuresWould review the City's regulations regarding the number, frequency, and allowance for various kinds of temporary structures & usesOpportunity OrientedSupport broad & diverse economyTilley / Kimball / Community Drive Transportation & Land Use StudyProject looking at short, medium, and long term transportation needs to support planned development in this areaIntegrate results into Official Map, Comp Plan, TDM standardsOpportunity OrientedSupport broad & diverse economyMulti‐modal transportation systemQuality infrastructure & servicesLargeIndustrial ZoningWould look comprehensively at how the City is planning for space for future industrial areas as areas that aren't near housing are limited in the City. Ties somewhat into the Tilley Drive project, but only somewhatOpportunity OrientedSupport broad & diverse economyScenic ViewsEstablish scenic view protection overlays, including a methodology, analysis of priorities, and standards for foreground, middle ground, and backgroundClean & GreenConserve natural resourcesHigh neighborhood quality of lifeLargeWaterfront developmentWould work with property owners to plan the conditions for a future mixed‐use waterfront area along the lake.Opportunity OrientedSupport broad & diverse economyHigh neighborhood quality of life3 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Spear Street Solar, LLC, 600 Spear Street, PUC case #21-3624-NMP DATE: October 12, 2021 Planning Commission meeting Earlier this summer, the Planning Commission received pre-application notice of, reviewed, and provided comment on a proposed 500 kw solar array at 600 Spear Street. A complete application was filed with the Vermont Public Utilities Commission on August 31, 2021, accompanied by a response letter to the Planning Commission. Subsequently, staff had two rounds of follow-up discussions with the applicant and/or their representative, resulting in two supplemental emails to the Planning Commission. The materials included in this Planning Commission are: • Plan sheets from the application filing of August 31, 2021 • Planning Commission letter to Spear Street Solar, LLC, dated August 13, 2021, following review of the plans submitted for the 45-day pre-application notice • Letter to Planning Commission from applicant representative, dated August 30, 2021 • Email to Planning Commission from applicant representative, dated September 28, 2021 • Email to Planning Commission from applicant, dated October 6, 2021 The applicant, in their October 6th email, indicated a willingness to provide a perimeter trail for use of future tenants of the property, and to make the minor adjustments to the plans necessary to accommodate this. The full Public Utilities Commission filing is available here: https://epuc.vermont.gov/?q=node/64/162506 Next steps / Commission options: The Planning Commission may elect to do any of the following as a next step: a) Take no action b) Provide feedback to the applicant and Public Utilities Commission supporting the plans as proposed, along with the applicant’s offer regarding the perimeter trail c) Submit a comment letter to the Public Utilities Commission and applicant with any outstanding questions or feedback; deadline is October 20th. d) Submit a request to the City Council that the City request the Public Utilities Commission hold a formal public hearing on the application and/or file for formal Intervenor Status in the application, with specific topics of concern. Note that typically an Intervenor will then engage subject matter experts to prepare and submit formal testimony on specific Section 248 review criteria. Deadline for requesting public hearing and/or filing for Intervenor Status is October 20th. 180 MarketStreet South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com To: T. Alex Bravakis Solar Consultant to Spear Street Solar Farm 2 Spring Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 alex@novusenergydev.com Date: August 13, 2021 The South Burlington Planning Commission met on July 27, 2021, and reviewed the 45-day Notice of Application to be filed with the Vermont Public Utility Commission for Spear Street Solar, LLC’s proposed Spear Street Solar Farm to be located at 600 Spear Street in South Burlington. By unanimously approved motion, the Commission authorized the drafting of this letter to provide the following comments: • The project presented is a great proposal. • There should be no fence. • The existing vegetation located along the easterly property boundary and parallel to the Interstate should be maintained in the final design as shown on the current plan. • A walking space should be provided for residents, at least a loop around the solar facility. • Flowering plants that attract pollinators should be planted throughout the solar array facility. Sincerely, Jessica Louisos, Chair, South Burlington Planning Commission 1 Paul Conner Subject:Re: 600 Spear St Solar Dear Paul:   This is intended to follow up on the issues concerning our proposed solar generating facility at 600 Spear St.  We’d like  to address certain aspects of the project that we understand are still of concern to the City.    Fencing    We know that the City understands the importance of having a safe and secure project.  Scrim is not a viable option for  this project.  There are severable undesirable side effects from using scrim, including higher maintenance costs (e.g.,  pest control), but, as explained by our consultant, it would also severely reduce the solar production from the backside  of the bi‐facial type of panels we need to use.  There are other physical constraints (tree shading), so we need to  maximize output and minimize costs in order to make this installation economically feasible.      Our proposed use of agricultural fencing would be the ideal solution to the code, security and animal habitat  requirements and concerns.  It will allow free transit of small mammals.  Our wildlife habitat consultant has advised that  larger animals do not use this part of the tract (adjoining the Interstate) as a connector or transit point.  Finally, presence  of the ag type fencing (with wood posts) would also be in keeping with historical uses of the property and adjoining  active farm operations currently maintained by UVM.      We hope that the City can accommodate this feature.    Perimeter Trail    We are willing provide a complete pedestrian path (trail) circuit around the exterior perimeter of the project.  This will  require a small shift of the planned solar array to allow for space around the fence near the wetland buffer.  This will  provide an amenity to future tenants at the property.  It has been our experience with our facility in Burlington that the  perimeter fence path around the facility is a popular feature.    Please let me know if the commission or staff have any remaining questions or concerns.  We look forward to the  possibility of getting this project started soon.    Thanks.    Frank      FJ von Turkovich  300 Swift St.  S. Burlington, VT  05403    Tel. Office:  (802) 229‐3431  Tel. Direct mobile:  (802) 578‐2536  fvonturkovich@fvtlaw.com      2 From: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>  Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:43 PM  To: Von Turkovich, Frank <fvonturkovich@fvtlaw.com>  Subject: 600 Spear St Solar  [EXTERNAL EMAIL] This is an external email. Links or attachments may not be safe to open.  Hi Frank –    Following up on our discussion yesterday, can you, or your team, update me on the following:    1. Type of fencing proposed  2. 10’ spacing around fence perimeter – will it go around the entirety   3. Establishment of that 10’ as a walking path via an easement    I would like to be able to report this to the PC in their packet that goes out Thursday so that they can decide  how/whether to participate in the process moving forward.        Paul Conner, AICP  Director of Planning & Zoning  City of South Burlington  180 Market Street  South Burlington, VT 05403  (802) 846‐4106  www.sbvt.gov    Notice ‐ Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e‐mail, e‐mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in  matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as  public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in  error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.       ***********************************************************************************************  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail and any attachments are intended only for the individual or  company to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential or  prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that  any use, dissemination, or copying of this e‐mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have  received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all  copies from your system. Thank you.  ***********************************************************************************************  1 Paul Conner From:Alex Bravakis <alex@novusenergydev.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 28, 2021 10:49 AM To:Paul Conner Cc:Frank von Turkovich; Andy Raubvogel Subject:EXTERNAL: Spear Street Solar, LLC - Project Fencing Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Paul,  I'm writing to follow up on the call we had concerning the use of a fence around the proposed 500 kW solar array  known as Spear Street Solar, LLC (“SSS”).  After discussing this with my team, we wanted to let you know the  reasons why an Agricultural Style fence around the solar project is necessary and appropriate and would not cause  undue adverse impacts (as opposed to the use of a “scrim”  on the backside of the panels).    1.   Wildlife:  SSS retained an ecologist, Art Gilman, to review any potential environmental impacts of the  Project.  Mr. Gilman has decades of experience studying plant and wildlife habitat and is widely   known in  the field. He visited the Project site and surrounding area and did not identify any “necessary wildlife  habitat” as that term is used and applied in Act 250 and Section 248, nor did he make note of any specific  wildlife crossings or corridors.  Likewise, the Agency of Natural Resources reviewed and commented on the  45 Day notice and also did not raise any issues or concerns with respect to wildlife.  In addition, SSS has  proposed an agricultural style fence style that has sufficient openings (minimum 6” by 6”) which will allow  small mammals to pass through.  As for large mammals, given the absence of any specific corridors or  necessary wildlife habitat, SSS believes it would be best to not facilitate large wildlife moving through the  solar field, in order to avoid their potential injury or damage to the equipment.     2.   Solar production:  Due to environmental constraints (primarily wetlands) this project has a very small project  footprint. As a result, in order to make the project financially feasible, we will be utilizing bi‐facial modules  which will allow this system to be as efficient as possible.  As you may know, bi‐facial modules have the  ability to not only capture solar energy on the front of the panel, but also have solar cells on the back side to  capture reflectance from the ground and snow for additional production. Using scrim on the backside of the  array (instead of a fence) will directly block a portion of the solar paneling on the back side and thus decrease  production. In addition, because these modules have mid‐level combiner boxes (J boxes), two large bands of  scrim (one for each row) would be required, thus effectively eliminating any gain in power production from  the (rear) bi‐facial modules.      2 3.    Safety and Security.  The property owner has the responsibility to restrict access by the public for both safety  and security reasons.  Part of this obligation is required by code (National Electrical Code) and insurance  requirements, but common law liability exposure and basic site security are also important factors.  We all  would rest better knowing that the general public would not have access to the array for any reason.  One  kid swinging a stick or climbing on the racking can do a lot of damage to himself, the modules and the  system.  The presence of a locked fence prevents an unauthorized person from accessing the site area and  putting themselves in harm’s way by purposely or inadvertently tampering with the project equipment.  It is  SSS’s understanding that financing entities, potential partners, and insurance carriers would expect/require a  project of this size to be fenced, as are similarly‐sized solar projects in South Burlington and elsewhere in  Vermont (including the project that is just south of our project, on the same side of Spear St).  Thus from a  safety and security perspective, we believe a locked fence is necessary.       Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss further.  Best regards,    Alex Bravakis Representing Spear Street Solar, LLC _______________________________________________ Novus Energy Development, LLC 2 Spring Street Montpelier, VT 05602 (M) 347-891-0296  (F) 802-223-4689 alex@novusenergydev.comwww.novusenergydev.com   Novus Energy Development, LLC 2 Spring Street ⎮Montpelier, VT 05602 alex@novusenergydev.com⎮www.novusenergydev.com Tel. 347.891.0296 August 30, 2021 Jessica Louisos, Chair City of South Burlington Planning Commission 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re Spear Street Solar Farm 500 kW Net Metered Solar Array 600 Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont Dear Ms. Louisos: This letter is in response to comments received from the South Burlington Planning Commission on August 13,, 2021, regarding the 45-day Notice of Application for a proposed 500kW solar array located at 600 Spear Street in South Burlington (the "Project"). Our company is providing technical advice and support to the applicant, Spear Street Solar, LLC, and we would like to address the comments that the commission submitted to the PUC. First, let me say that the applicant appreciates the support provided by the commission. Standing alone, the development of community-based solar generation will have a positive effect on the city and state, but having it become available as a carbon offset to possible nearby housing development will further enhance its benefit. Here are our responses to the commission's comments: Fencing: Electrical safety codes and security requirements necessitate the installation of a fence around the solar field. We are, however, willing to use an "agricultural" style fence, which consists of wooden posts and woven wire fencing with 6" square openings. This type of fencing is often found on solar arrays that go through PUC approval process due to its low visual impact on Vermont’s rural landscape. In addition to its visual compatibility, this type of fencing allows small mammals to pass through the array, minimizing its impact on the natural environment. The applicant is willing to bear the added cost of this feature in order to try to address the commission's concerns. Vegetation: The Project proposes keeping a dense (40’ wide) section of trees and shrubs along the eastern property line to shield the Project from drivers on I-89. Although some of the taller trees within this section may be removed or, where possible, trimmed, to limit shading on the array, all trees and shrubs - up to 25’ in height - will be left undisturbed. Our visual expert (landscape architect) has reviewed this plan and has confirmed that it will keep the Project well screened from the interstate highway. Other vegetated zones around the Project will be likewise carefully managed to minimize shading while still providing adequate screening. Walking Path: We intend to maintain a 10’ wide open section along the outside of the Project fence line (up to the wetland buffer) that will be available for residents to use as a walking path. SBPC Page 2 The path will not continue into the Class II wetland and buffer due to environmental restrictions, but users will be able to travel freely around the Project and into the adjoining woods. Pollinator Plants: We understand the importance of using pollinator friendly plants where practical. To that end, we are willing to use pollinator friendly plants in any areas outside of the array whenever it is necessary to add additional vegetation. Visual mitigation plans for the Project have been revised to include pollinator species. If you would like to discuss the Project in further detail or if you have any questions about the information presented in this letter, please feel free to contact me. If this response satisfies the commission's concerns, would you be willing to acknowledge by sending an e-mail to me confirming same? We will then take care of providing that acknowledgement to the Public Utilities Commission along with a copy of this letter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, T. Alex Bravakis Authorized Representative for Spear Street Solar, LLC cc: F. von Turkovich ________________ SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 18 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 18 August 2021, at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos; T. Riehle, M. Ostby (acting Chair), M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Murray, Consultant; J. Nick, S. Dooley, C. Trombly 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. Nick said it would help to know the Commission’s next steps Ms. Ostby said that this meeting would focus on Conservation PUDs and how things link with subdivisions and master planning. Mr. Conner added that at the next meeting he will have a master list of scheduling which he can send to Mr. Nick. Mr. Macdonald asked when they are going to go back and finish Chapters 10 and 12. Mr. Conner said the meeting after next. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted that she had mailed the letter to the solar consultant after the City Attorney looked it over. Mr. Conner: Last night, the City Council established a Climate Action Task Force. They will be looking for a Planning Commission member to serve. The Task Force will be developing a plan and will be asking for input from various committees. This is a very high Council priority. Mr. Mittag said he would be interested in serving on the Task Force. 4. Continue Review of Land Development Regulations: a. Conservation PUDs; their connection with subdivisions and master plans Mr. Conner said the Commission has a lot of tools to work with. He suggested members make each tool as functions as they want it to work. In September, the Commission can discuss where to apply those tools. Ms. Murray said the draft reflects the discussions at past meetings. She asked members to look at pages 2 and 3 and noted that the list applies where there is 50% or more resources on a property. The requirement in a Conservation PUD is to conserve 70%. The question is what goes on the remainder of the property. Planning Commission 18 August 2021 2 Mr. Conner noted that the Hazards, Level 1 and Level 2 resources may be only 32% of the land. He suggested the other 18% could be buffers. Ms. Murray said there way also be something that has local interest. Mr. Conner said they also have to consider continuity so you don’t have “spots of conservation.” He also cited the importance of providing guidelines to the DRB. Mr. Riehle said the landowner may have a different priority than what should go there, and you just may have to rely on the landowner. Ms. Murray said there is no prioritization of the resources beyond Hazards & Level 1. It may not be needed. If something is really important, it may be possible to kick it up to a Level 1. Mr. Conner suggested deleting #4 and then not prioritizing the rest. Ms. Murray noted there is also a requirement for a meeting with neighbors to see what is important to them. Mr. Conner suggested the applicant indicate why they selected what they did. Ms. Murray said would be a submission requirement. Ms. Murray said the proposal is to allow transfer of development rights (TDRs). This can be done within the parcel or to another area, but not both. Mr. Conner said you can’t do half and half or do part now and some later. Ms. Ostby asked why not. Ms. Murray said you can split it, but you can’t “double dip.” Mr. Trombly asked if the Conservation PUD would be required if there is 70% resources. Mr. Conner said in a Conservation PUD, you have to conserve 70%. The Commission is reserving discussion on when it may be required possibly to next month. Ms. Murray said areas for encroachment (e.g., a solar display) can’t count as part of the 70%. Mr. Conner added that there are very limited times when you can put a stormwater installation in a buffer, but it won’t count to the 70%. Mr. Mittag asked about a required installation that the landowner doesn’t control like a power line going through. Mr. Conner noted a Velco swath could be farmed. Ms. Ostby said encroachment of a certain kind can be beneficial and enhance the environment like a solar display. She questioned whether to count them. Mr. Mittag said you can farm under a solar display. Mr. Conner said he was leaning to keeping it very strict except for a power line that the applicant has no control over. Mr. Nick asked if this is an effort to force the Hill Farm into a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said they are not deciding tonight where Conservation PUDs should happen. Mr. Nick noted that the Regional Plan says this is an area where development should happen. Ms. Ostby said a letter to the Commission could be helpful. She anticipated discussion would occur at the 14 September meeting. Ms. Murray noted that in a Conservation PUD management of the land is important as it says how the resources will be protected. There will have to be a management plan. Mr. Mittag said he would Planning Commission 18 August 2021 3 eliminate landscape architectures from the list as he didn’t think they have the expertise to manage resources. Ms. Murray said some landscape architects do specialize in areas of conservation. She added you wouldn’t want a civil engineer doing it. Ms. Louisos asked where the Management Plan would go. Ms. Murray said it could be in the Land records or the Homeowners Association records. Mr. Conner said it should be clarified if it is to go in the Land Records. A majority of member agreed to remove landscape architects from the list. Mr. Trombly said 70% of the land could be turned over to the city or to the HOA for monitoring. What would that cost be? Ms. Murray said the HOA could lease farmland and make money. But there could be costs. Mr. Trombly said those costs impact affordability and narrow the range of who can afford to live in a Conservation PUD. Mr. Mittag said it would depend on the type of resource. Mr. Conner added with a wetland, there may just have to be assurance that there are no encroachments. But he did acknowledge the validity of Mr. Trombly’s point. Ms. Murray said sometimes a management fund is required. Mr. Conner said he would like to discuss this further but not now. He noted South Village has done some interesting things. Ms. Ostby said they do have to keep costs in mind. Ms. Ostby said that with an affordability bonus, the density in the 30% of a Conservation PUD could be significant. She felt it would be good to have a picture of that. She didn’t think that potential for density has been envisioned. Mr. Conner said that in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) you wind up with about 4 units an acre net in the developable are. With bonuses, it could be 6 per acre. But that’s after you deduct for roads. He felt Ms. Ostby’s point was appropriate when you are dealing with Shelburne Road. Ms. Ostby asked if it is sure the development opportunity is the same as without a PUD, the same number of units. Mr. Conner said it is but with 2 caveats: the acreage for hazards come out. Also, in the Conservation PUD, in the Conservation PUD it does not become a receiving area for external TRDs. Ms. Ostby asked why not. Mr. Mittag asked why not if it is used to come up to the density. Mr. Conner asked how high they are willing to go with TDRs. Mr. Mittag suggested possibly setting a maximum density, as much as possible that looks OK. Ms. Ostby said if the Commission decides some places can only be a Conservation PUD, this becomes an issue. Mr. Conner said that if the 30% which is developable becomes a TND, you get more density but with higher standards. Ms. Dooley asked whether Conservation PUDs are compatible with Inclusionary Zoning. Mr. Conner said Inclusionary Zoning will apply city-wide if you build 12 or more units. How bonuses work with a TND is a bit tricky. With a development of 22 units, 2 have to be affordable. For those units the developer gets 2 offset units for a total of 24 units. There is also a bonus if the developer chooses to have more affordable units. Mr. Trombly asked the thought process in applying a maximum density. Mr. Conner said the purpose of a Conservation PUD is not to reduce what could be bult. You get that reallocated, more clustered. Planning Commission 18 August 2021 4 Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission is open to allowing TDRs in a Conservation PUD. Ms. Murray said if you do that, you are increasing the maximum density in the SEQ. Ms. Ostby said they could say a TND is required if you want to bring in TDRs. Mr. Conner suggested saying only up to what the property could generate as a whole or some percentage more. He added he was leaning toward requiring design standards so you get more units but better quality. Ms. Murray felt that made sense. Ms. Murray said she would welcome feedback regarding design standards. Ms. Ostby suggested flexibility regarding entrances facing the street. Mr. Conner said he would like to be able to break out policy level comments separately from things that are just technical. 5. Minutes of 13 July and 27 July 2021: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 and 27 July as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. The motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner reminded members of meetings on 24 and 31 August and possibly 7 September. The next meeting will focus on Infill PUDs. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:11 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; D. Leban, J. Nick, J. Larkin, S. Dooley, other members of the public 1. Emergency Evacuation Plans: Mr. Conner provided emergency evacuation information 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: Ms. Leban noted that she had sent a copy of infill housing information from Portland, Oregon. She said the Commission should consider what kind of housing they want and then modify the regulations to accommodate it rather than the other way around. She felt architects should be consulted to have designs fit a neighborhood. Mr. Nick said he understands the effort to conserve land but asked whether the city knows what is already conserved. He felt it would be wise to have that number. He also drew attention to an article in Vermont Digger which quotes Mr. Conner and Charlie Baker of CCRPC regarding gearing new development to urban areas. Mr. Nick said South Burlington is a popular place to live and work. He felt the Hill Farm is clearly infill development and he was concerned with what he sees as an attempt to limit development on this property. He cited the need to develop close to Burlington rather than creating longer commutes with more greenhouse gases. He is concerned that there is no talk of a higher use mixed PUD, which is what he presented as a concept for the Hill Farm several years ago and what was positively received. Mr. Conner noted the Hill Farm is zoned Industrial-Open Space which has limited residential use. Mr. Riehle felt the Commission should talk about that. Ms. Louisos suggested Mr. Nick send an email regarding his vision for that land. Mr. Conner said Industrial-Open Space may not be the right zoning, and the Commission may want to establish a new zone there that allows for Planning Commission 24 August 2021 2 more residential. Mr. Macdonald thought the Neighborhood Commercial PUD might work there, but the Commission hasn’t gotten to that yet. Mr. Conner said all the pieces for Neighborhood Commercial PUD exist, but they are not fully written out yet. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby said there seems to be confusion among the City Council regarding whether the regulations make affordable housing perpetual. She felt it should be clarified that the regulations create perpetual affordable housing. Mr. Conner said there could be a question when someone chose to make something affordable. Mr. Conner noted that Colin McNeil has been appointed City Attorney to replace Andrew Bolduc who became Deputy City Manager. Mr. McNeil has worked with the city before. He will start the first or second week in September. 5. Continued Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Conner said this is the first review of Infill PUDs. They are really intended to operate in a way to complement other PUDs. They allow for a traditional neighborhood with modifications of the TND when standards would be difficult to meet. They also serve to insert something into an already built environment. As such, there may be a major utility line or some buildings that would have to be worked around. Ms. Ostby asked why a standard TND wouldn’t work. Mr. Conner said the standard TND requires full blocks and a certain amount of open space which may not be able to be accommodated. He added that the Infill PUD would only be applied to a smaller piece of property (e.g., 10 acres). If there is already a park across the street, that could count as the required park. Ms. Ostby asked what is “in it” for someone with a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner supposed a 10-acre piece of land, 40% of which is covered with wetland and forest. In a standard subdivision, you can only subdivide from the remaining 6 acres. In a Conservation PUD, you protect 70% but get the density from about the whole property. Ms. Ostby asked if you can put a TND into the developed area. Mr. Conner said you could. Ms. Ostby asked if an Infill PUD would work there. Mr. Conner said it could be a “mini-TND.” It could be 4 acres or less, instead of needing 10 acres. Ms. Ostby was concerned that addressing anything under 4 acres during Interim Zoning would be a lot to go through including things the Commission hasn’t had to address so far (e.g., road frontage). She said if you don’t have to address road frontage, it would be OK, but that’s in the current regulations. Mr. Conner said all forms lean very heavily Planning Commission 24 August 2021 3 on frontage on the street. Ms. Ostby said the 2-4 acre parcels on the map don’t usually have the possibility for street frontage because of the shapes of the parcels. Mr. Conner said buildings can fronton a street or cottages can face a “courtyard.” The regulations wouldn’t allow a building that was just “stuck there” with no relationship to the neighborhood. Ms. Ostby said if it’s not as complicated as she thinks it is, she’s OK with it. Mr. Engels asked if an Infill PUD can be in an open area. Mr. Conner said that is a good question. Mr. Conner said there could be a green site on Shelburne Rd. where everything around it is built up, and you might want to go with a traditional PUD there. Ms. Louisos said she likes this option for sites that aren’t big enough to support other PUDs. She wanted to be sure development is happening efficiently. She felt concerns should be addressed, but the idea should not be thrown out. Mr. Riehle questioned where the green space will be in City Center when there are 1000 units there. He wanted to see a space for kids to throw a ball around. Mr. Conner said subdivisions and PUD types require 10% of the space to be devoted to “civic space.” Where to have a city- wide park is another question. Mr. Conner added that the Infill PUD does give the DRB the ability to reduce certain minimums when they are accessible within a quarter mile. In a 10-acre PUD, you have to provide for those things. He also noted that staff always encourages people to think creatively (e.g., working with adjacent properties to get something better for both properties. Ms. Louisos asked what happens if what is next door to a property is something the city doesn’t want. Does the Infill developer have to match that? Mr. Conner said that is a good question and is very important on the residential side. Ms. Ostby asked what about a piece with one large house and whether that would lead to “McMansions.” Mr. MacDonald recalled the Highland Terrace neighborhood where neighbors were not happy with infill development. He felt there will be some feedback. Mr. Conner said Highland Terrace is a place where they can look at underlying zoning. What is being built is exactly what the zoning calls for. Mr. Conner said the issue is you want to build in the character of a neighborhood when that character is great, not when it isn’t. He added that with what Ms. Murray has written you do get development but you have to meet the character of the neighborhood, and you have to be creative. Planning Commission 24 August 2021 4 Mr. Conner noted that if the zoning doesn’t match what is around it, that zoning will have to be reconsidered to solve the issue. Ms. Ostby said that under base density, the minimum required density is 4 per acre or the maximum allowed in the underlying zoning. She asked if the zoning is 2 per acre whether that number becomes 4 per acre. Mr. Conner said it does otherwise the economics won’t work. Ms. Ostby felt that makes sense with a larger parcel, but with 2-3 acres, there is not a lot of room. Mr. Conner said the next paragraph allows the DRB to be more flexible in certain circumstances. He stressed that a PUD is always a negotiation. Ms. Ostby said she felt this could be a very good thing but questioned why they would create something that have problems. She thought that as it is written, it is giving very strong motivation for someone to do an Infill PUD. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will be discussing where these are acceptable. Ms. Ostby questioned whether to allow infill in an R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Conner responded that what they are seeing now is 9 or fewer units being built on 5 and 6 acre parcels in order to avoid Act 250. Those parcels can never be built on again, and that is not efficient use of land. The Infill PUD can address that. Mr. Conner then reviewed some input from Mr. Mittag. He generally liked the Infill PUD but felt there should be more design flexibility. He also felt that areas on Shelburne Rd. should be integrated in and drive-throughs should be prohibited. The parcels should also have 25% or fewer resources (Level 1, 2 or hazards). Mr. Conner noted that drive-throughs are prohibited in most places in the city. Ms. Ostby felt that with Shelburne Road and residential mixed us, there should be more distance from the road because of noise issues. She cited friends who have moved from a beautiful apartment in the new Larkin building on Shelburne Road because of the noise. Mr. Conner said that is not easy to address though he understands the importance. Mr. Riehle said he generally likes from p. 5 on, though he thought the DRB will have challenges. Ms. Ostby questioned the requirement to orient a building to the street particularly when the views are to the rear and to address privacy and noise mitigation. Mr. Conner noted that 2 years ago the Commission required doors to the street. Ms. Ostby said they now have experience. There are large parcels with views to the back of them in the Auto zoning area. Mr. Larkin acknowledged that there have been noise complaints from residents of the Shelburne Road building, but the majority of people are OK. He said the complaints wouldn’t Planning Commission 24 August 2021 5 preclude them from doing that kind of building again. When a building is nearer to the road, they can get more units in, and they can provide a lower price point on some units. Mr. MacDonald said he is fairly comfortable with the Infill PUDs. They just need to work out some details. Ms. Ostby questioned whether an Infill PUD will work in the buildable area of a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said they could say a “cottage court” can be built on a smaller piece of acreage. Ms. Ostby asked whether 4 families could get together, tear down their homes, and build something like this. Mr. Conner said they could but they would have to meet all the regulations including replacing all the 4 dwelling units. Ms. Leban asked how you add a unit to a one-story ranch house. She felt you shouldn’t want to match that. She asked if there is an exception to “contextual obligations.” Mr. Conner said the solution to that is not at the PUD level; it is at the zoning level. You can have a triplex that looks like a single family home, but that is another discussion. Ms. Leban asked if there is an allowance for increased density for an efficiency apartment regarding affordability. Mr. Conner noted that accessory units don’t count for density by State law. Any single family dwelling on its own lot can have an accessory apartment that meets certain requirements. Ms. Dooley said what is especially important in the TDNs is the promotion of strong neighborhoods. She said she supports no drive-throughs. She also stressed that Kirby Cottages are below the Infill PUD threshold. Ms. Louisos read from the regulations regarding preserving neighborhoods and noted there are standards that try to achieve that. Ms. Ostby asked if she is alone in her concern with building orientation with regard to Shelburne Road. She noted that if you build housing in the old Hannaford off Shelburne Road, you are facing Lowe’s, and there are beautiful views in the other direction. She felt that the decision to have buildings front on a road should be reconsidered in instance such as this. Mr. Riehle noted that some buildings on Hinesburg Road have created a “front door façade” with the actual entrances to the side and rear. Ms. Ostby said a grove of trees would be appealing as you drive down Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner said you can’t change the regulations just for the PUDs. In a straw poll of members, 3 felt the regulation should stand as written, 1 wants it changed. Mr. Riehle abstained. Mr. Riehle said he agrees with Ms. Ostby regarding trees, and he was torn about allowing a greater setback. Mr. Conner stressed that the aim is to continue the pattern of development. Planning Commission 24 August 2021 6 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner said that the hope is for the next meeting to bring back the TND, Conservation PUD, and Infill TND. Ms. Murray may also have the Commercial ready. The meeting following that will deal with all the other things, what has to be done, what is already done, etc. One of the things that will come up next week is “carving out” parcels. Ms. Ostby felt they should have a straw poll as to whether to allow Infill PUDs in unbuilt areas. Mr. Conner said there is also the question of whether to allow a Conservation PUD in a buildable area. Mr. Mac Donald asked how they will define “unbuilt.” Is it no building? What about one building? Mr. Conner said if the Commission says no infill, they can go back to the underlying zoning. Mr. Louisos said the word “infill” may be the problem. She felt the tool is important, but she wasn’t sure it was necessarily “infill.” Ms. Ostby said size is the only difference between this and a regular TND. Ms. Louisos suggested possibly calling it a “small TND. Mr. Conner said he’d like to think about that. Regarding the Williston changes, Mr. Conner noted they are considering reducing but not eliminating parking standards. Mr. Macdonald noted they are also considering cannabis sales. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:32 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 31 AUGUST 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 31 August 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dooley, J. Nick 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on emergency exit from the building. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of a response regarding the letter sent about the solar array. It will be on the next agenda. Ms. Louisos also noted that at its next meeting the City Council will hear the revisions to the Official City Map. Mr. Riehle said the Commission should talk about the letter received from Jeff Davis’s attorney. Ms. Louisos said they can put it under “other business.” 5. Swift Street/Spear Street Intersection Study: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history. She noted that the Bike/Ped Committee made a recommendation for a roundabout as the safest, though most expensive, option. Ms. Ostby noted that UVM has ideas in its Strategic Plan for the barn area to which the main access is on the Spear Street side. The roundabout would remove that, and UVM will want to maintain that as a safe access for cars. Ms. Louisos said the details for that could be worked out. Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the roundabout option recommended by the Bike/Ped Committee as the safest. Mr. Conner noted the next level will be for design which will provide a more detailed design. A representative from UVM asked to be included in the future discussion as the roundabout will remove their access to Spear Street and the Wheelock parcel. They are also concerned with bike and pedestrian safety. Mr. Engels said he will vote against the motion as there is o evidence that this is not a safe intersection. There have been no injuries at this site, and it will cost $1,000,000 more than other options. He felt there were much better ways to spend that money. Ms. Ostby was concerned about the amount of land it will take from the northeast corner. She wants to be sure the City Council knows that. Mr. MacDonald said the roundabout actually takes the least amount of right-of-way. In the vote that followed the motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Engels voting against. 6. Continued Review of Proposed Land Development Regulations: Mr. Mittag moved to approve all of 5c. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. A. Habitat Blocks: Ms. Louisos noted the draft contains the changes the Commission asked for. Mr. Mittag suggested under “standards” in 12.02c to use “extreme” instead of “unnecessary” or “extraordinary.” Mr. Conner said he will run that by the City Attorney. In a straw poll, members were unanimous to let the City Attorney decide, as long as the language sets a high bar. In Sect. 12.05c5 Ms. Ostby asked if it is OK to have such a structure in a connector. Mr. Conner said this is separate from relocating a habitat connector. There are times when 150 feet can’t be met. The DRB can make a judgment when there is an obstacle to planting in an area that requires restoration work. Mr. Riehle said 2 inch caliper seems small for a tree. Ms. Ostby said that is the biggest size you can move around safely. She suggested deferring to the Arborist on this. Mr. Conner said the Arborist can take a look. He also noted that planting a larger tree may not always be a good idea. Ms. Ostby asked why “institutional” is included in 12.06.2a and not in residential. She felt it should be in “b” not “a.” She then moved to move Industrial and Ag from 12.062a and 2a1 to 12.06.2b1 and 2b. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner noted that one change that was made was to make habitat blocks and connectors as overlays. Ms. Ostby questioned whether on p. 27 the prohibiting of basements in new-builds was only for commercial. Mr. Conner said it was for both commercial and residential. If you meet the definition for “substantial improvements,” you must fill in the basement. You can said it only applies if you completely rebuild the house. Language now is at the cost of 100% of the value of the house. Mr. Gagnon suggested saying “at the appraised value of the house.” Mr. Connor felt that makes sense. He also noted that any change has to be cleared by the State so federal standards are not violated. He will check on “appraised value.” Mr. Riehle questioned why a recreational vehicle has to be fully licensed and asked if that refers to a go- cart. Mr. Conner said it means an RV. Ms. Ostby said she would like to check the overlay map with the Arrowwood mapping to verify that the connectors are where they should be. Mr. Nick asked where they wound u with recommendations for removal/retaining. Ms. Louisos said it is where it was mapped in the draft that went out. Mr. Nick asked if the “pink areas” were adopted. Mr. Conner said the Commission made adjustments in October. Then in June, Arrowwood reported on those changes and made recommendations. The Planning Commission did not accept those changes in a 3-3 vote. The applicable map is the one warned for public hearing for this parcel. Mr. Nick said their concern is that of their 42 acres, 38% is almost a taking. He said there is no forest along the Interstate. All the invasives have been removed. There is also no provision for a consultant they would hire to debate this. Mr. Nick added it seems counterintuitive to have habitat along the Interstate corridor. He was not sure what the Commission was trying to accomplish. The finger along the Interstate is no longer a habitat block. He also noted this area is identified by the Regional Plan as a “growth area.” Ms. Ostby moved to reconsider the straw poll on habitat block on map #12 to accept Arrowwood’s changes (areas in yellow), adding in the lower and removing the upper, and remove the area outlined in the yellow rectangle identified as “retain.” Mr. Riehle seconded. Mr. Engel noted that the state says straw polls are just as valid as formal votes, so they don’t have to redo anything. Mr. Nick noted the retained portion is a meadow, not a habitat block. Ms. Louisos said in this case the Commission cut it out because it isn’t forest. The Core is defined as the edge of the habitat block. Ms. Ostby said Arrowwood said in 10 years there would be forest there. Mr. Nick said they would never develop on the Interstate piece. He said they can hire a consultant with another opinion. He considers this a “taking” as 42 acres are being “taken.” Ms. Ostby said that the density from those acres can be used in the developable portion. Mr. Conner said that only applies in a Conservation PUD with 70% of the land remaining undeveloped. Mr. Mittag said the retained portion could be narrower based on the Google map. In the vote that followed, the motion was defeated 3-4. Mr. Gagnon then moved to remove the area shown on the Arrowwood map as “remove.” Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regarding Article 12, Mr. Mittag asked to delay discussion so he can relook at his notes. Ms. Louisos noted the Council wants to see all the parts together. 7. Continued Review of Draft Conservation PUDs” Ms. Ostby felt they don’t have to give so much in the purpose statement because Article 12 does so much. He found it wordy and confusing. Mr. Conner said he had issue narrowing it. Ms. Ostby said the last 2 bullets are most important. Mr. Mittag felt it reaffirms Article 12 and reinforces its strength. Ms. Ostby said then it should be in all the other PUDs. Mr. Conner said the difference is that hazards and level 1 and level 2 resources are excluded from PUDs; here it is the protected part of the PUD. Mr. MacDonald said he felt mentioning Article 12 strengthens it. Mr. Engels suggested the language “conserve the city’s most important resources.” Members agreed to that. Ms. Dooley said under Conservation PUD the word “are” is used. She asked if there is a “has to” or “may do” difference and whether there can be a Conservation PUD that doesn’t have to meet all the criteria. Mr. Conner said the purpose statement gives context, and he is comfortable with the list as it is. It is intended to be read together to provide context. Under C2, Mr. Mittag felt it should read “where any portion of it is in the Southeast Quadrant.” Ms. Louisos said the spot she would be concerned about is Village Residential zoning where they talked about having neighborhoods. Members then considered the ‘carve out’ piece. Mr. Engels said he wants to remove it. Mr. Conner said Sharon drafted it based on what she thought the Commission was looking for. On a one-time basis, someone could subdivide off a couple of parcels. Mr. Gagnon recalled they talked about that for someone setting aside a piece for family members only one time. Ms. Ostby felt this was part of the big conversation on the 14th. Mr. Conner noted that even a “carve out” would have to be near the roadway and be subject to subdivision standards. Mr. Mittag said he was OK with what Sharon wrote as long as there is no minimum density. Mr. Conner noted that if a driveway goes past 2 houses on the property, it has to become a road. He added that it would have to be a Conservation PUD. Mr. Engels felt the DRB would have a hard time dealing with this. Ms. Dooley urged the Commission to think about unintended consequences. There is no requirement that the “carve off” would have to be for the owner’s kids. Members agreed to continue the discussion on the 14th. Regarding TDRs, Mr. Conner reminded members that in a Conservation PUD, all the density that would otherwise be developed goes into the 30% that is not conserved. This works out to about 4 units per acre. If the Commission allows TDRs beyond that, there has to be a decision on net density. Alternatively, there could be a TND on the buildable portion. There would be no upper cap because that development depends on building types. The difference is that the first option is based on underlying zoning, and the TND sets a higher bar of design and you get what fits. Mr. Conner cautioned not to have the 2 options “bleed” into each other or people will take the easier one. Mr. Mittag felt you shouldn’t put a TND in a Conservation PUD because it “muddies the waters.” Ms. Ostby countered that the landowner is preserving 70% of the resources, and to do that they get a greater density in the 30%. Mr. Conner added that with the first option you can still have a minimum of 2 building types, civic space, etc. Ms. Dooley said in a TND there is no offset/bonus for inclusionary units. She questioned how many units a person could build under the current zoning and would like that answer for the next meeting. Mr. Conner said Ms. Dooley’s question is a tricky one. Many properties are not building to the maximum density now, and he wasn’t sure he could run the math that would make people confident. Ms. Ostby said Sharon’s numbers don’t include offsets and bonuses. She said that if they go the TND route and had a minimum density, development could be phased. Mr. Conner said that is built into it. A developer would be vested in the current rules for 10 years; after that, they would be subject to the rules at that time. Ms. Ostby said that would ensure that what is built immediately is clustered. She felt that in a non-TND very large homes could be built. Mr. Conner said that part of the goal for the next meeting is to determine where the Commission is with PUD types. He said he would probably recommend that the upper net density not go much more than 8 to 10 per acre. Ms. Ostby said she would like the Energy Committee’s input on that. Mr. Conner noted that shared walls are more energy efficient as are compact neighborhoods with shops nearby. Mr. Mittag asked if they can require solar for new construction. Mr. MacDonald reminded members that they passed an amendment for solar-ready. Ms. Louisos said installation of solar is tabled till after Interim Zoning. Mr. Conner said Sharon noted the city doesn’t have control over solar fields. If you put it in the 70%, you can’t count it as your conservation amount. He also reminded members that the city does not control installation of solar, but if there is a developed energy plan, there can be more of a role in the process. 8. Climate Action Plan Task Force: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission has been asked to choose a representative. Mr. Mittag expressed his interest in this. Ms. Ostby questioned whether the representative would be representing him/herself or the Commission. Mr. Mittag said the assumption is the Commission. Mr. Conner said the expectation is that decisions would come to the Commission, but the Task Force would not need authorization for everything they do. Mr. MacDonald then moved to appoint Mr. Mittag to the Climate Action Plan Task Force to represent the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Mr. Riehle noted receipt of a letter from the attorney representing Jeff Davis and Jeff Nick. He said he found the tone offensive. Mr. Mittag said the land was bought 20 years ago when there was very little knowledge of climate change. Ms. Ostby said that parcel in part of the Interim Zoning area and would have to go to the City Council anyway. Mr. Mittag felt the Commission has tried to do the best for them taking into account the rest of the community. Mr. Gagnon questioned whether there is a potential for unintended consequences. He also noted potential issues with UVM land where they want to build dorms and felt the Commission should be aware of potential issues there as well. Members then reviewed the schedule. The next meeting is on 14 September. Mr. Conner said they should be voting for a public hearing in early October. Mr. Mittag said the Commission is also concerned with affordable housing and felt that to achieve this they need to go up to 10 stories at least with green space around it. Ms. Louisos felt this would be good to add to the work plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:36 p.m. ________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 SEPTEMBER 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 September 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Murray, Consultant; D. Seff, R. Greco, S. Dooley, L. Kingsbury, C. Trombly, A. Chalnick, C. Jensen 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on exiting the building in an emergency. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: An attorney representing UVM noted that he had sent a letter with a number of concerns regarding the scope and effect of the proposed regulations on UVM lands. He also noted that earlier today he had submitted a letter regarding UVM’s views of the regulations. Their concerns focus mainly on the scope of environmental protection standards, especially habitation blocks in relation to UVM lands. The wording of the regulations raises concerns regarding legal and statutory requirements. The hope is that with additional clarification from the Planning Commission that UVM’s concerns can be alleviated. They are particularly interested in Conservation PUDs. Mr. Conner said he saw the letter briefly. He believed some comments date back to things that happened in May and may have been modified. He will check on that. Ms. Louisos said she will make sure the letter is distributed to all Commission members. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Riehle noted a Tree Equity Campaign beginning in Burlington, Colchester and other communities regarding tree planting. He thought South Burlington might have some people join in this tree-planting process. Ms. Ostby noted that Spear Meadows is beginning construction on 1 October and suggested some residents might go in and transplant some greenery to their own parcels. 5. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Applicability by Zoning district: 2 Mr. Conner showed a map of “Conservation PUD Applicability by Zoning District (DRAFT)” indicating where Conservation PUDs would be allowed. This gives a sense of the parcels being talked about. Conservation PUDs would be mandatory in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) parcels indicated and would incorporate the NRP part of the SEQ. Mr. Conner then showed a second map with rough approximations of parcels that would be impacted (4 acres or more not already built out). Mr. Mittag asked if there are any areas northeast of the Airport that would be eligible. Mr. Conner said those areas could be TNDs. Mr. Conner noted there are 2 properties along the Lake that are potentially open to a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner then showed the same map with resources indicated and a map of TND applicability. He noted that what is not shown is the NCD (Neighborhood Commercial). It would apply in places like Williston Road, Shelburne Road and the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. The Hill Farm could be an “either/or.” He recommended the Commission advance what they are comfortable with and getting to the NCD and TDRs in the next few months. Mr. Mittag asked if the Belter Farm were in a flood plain, could there be a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said that area is Mixed Industrial/Commercial, similar to Ethan Allen Industrial Park. Ms. Louisos noted 2 PUD types are applicable to the lakeshore so there could be a choice. Ms. Louisos also noted that in the developable portion of a Conservation PUD with a TND in that area, there would have to be a minimum density to make it viable for a developer and for the city. Mr. Mittag said they can get about 8 units an acre. Mr. Conner said with a TND, there has to be civic space, roads, etc., and with additional units for affordability, you get more design standards. Ms. Ostby suggested that where a Conservation PUD is required, have the conserved portion be 60-70% and give the owner up to 40% developable so you get about 5 units an acre and it isn’t so densely developed. Mr. Conner said the more you can conserve of open space, the better. He had no issue with 6 units an acre. Ms. Ostby said when there is a choice, make it 70%. Ms. Murray noted that the Town of Warren has a “hamlet” concept. She said you can have a pretty high density development surrounded by conserved land, similar to South Village. Mr. Gagnon said he would prefer something on the higher density side rather than 2 large “monster houses.” Mr. Conner said there is an option to set a minimum density, not very high, but something so you don’t get the 2 large houses. He said the plan is to have a Master Plan. The owner would have the right to build for 10 years under the rules at the time the plan is drawn up. After that, the rules in place at the later time would govern. 3 Mr. Mittag said 2 big houses in the 30% isn’t profitable. He added that in the southwest corner, there is a new “McMansion” built almost every day. Mr. Trombly, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, said the Committee had a discussion about this topic. A developer told them that without a minimum density, they would probably build large houses. He said the question is what kind of housing the city wants in the 30%. He added that at their 27 September meeting, the CCRPC will have a presentation of “housing inequality.” Mr. Trombly urged the Commission to maximize the housing types in the 30% area and noted this was the unanimous recommendation of the Affordable Housing Committee. They encouraged 4-plexes that fit into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon encouraged a minimum density so there can be a combination of housing types. Mr. Conner noted that with a “land-based” approach, density reverts to the underlying zoning. There is a maximum of 4-plex units in a building. There could not be a 12-plex. With a TND approach, you can have a mixture, but not a 20-plex. There would have to be at least 3 building types. In the land-based approach, you would still need to have a mix of housing styles. Ms. Ostby suggested some kind of minimum, possibly restricting the size of a single family house. Ms. Murray said there could be a minimum density instead of a full-blown TND. A straw poll of members showed that a majority favored requiring a variety of housing types. Ms. Dooley, Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan’s vision is for affordable housing. She did not think this mean affordable everywhere except the Southeast Quadrant. She also noted that people were unhappy not only with the loss of natural resources but with how development has happened, specifically the absence of “neighborhoods.” She encouraged the Commission to think more positively about a minimum density as a way to counterbalance the 70% conservation of land. She stressed that if there is no minimum density, the landowner is at the mercy of the neighbors. Ms. Dooley then asked about the “carve-out” in a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner explained that a designated amount of land could be removed from a property without considering designing the rest of the property. The size of the carve-out would be kept small, just enough to accommodate a house. Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure where the minimum density went away as it was presented to both the City Council and the public. In a straw poll, the concept of having a minimum density in the 30% developable portion of Conservation PUD passed 4-3. Ms. Louisos then moved to include the minimum density of 4 units per acre in the developable portion of a Conservation PUD. Ms. Ostby seconded. 4 Ms. Mittag moved to amend the motion to be only 2 units per acre. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Louisos said 4 units/acre would make for a walkable neighborhood. Mr. Trombly questions whether 2 units/acre serves the city’s housing need or whether it would restrict those houses to people who can afford them. Mr. Chalnick asked if a minimum density is allowed. Ms. Murray said it is common around the country and has been adopted largely to protect the investment and to create walkable neighborhoods. Members voted on the amendment which failed 3-4. Members then voted on the original motion to include a minimum density of 4 units per acre in the developable portion of a Conservation PUD. The motion passed 4-3. Regarding the “carve-out,” Mr. Gagnon asked if there would be a minimum acreage. Mr. Conner suggested a 10-acre parcel or more with one carve-out of no more than 4 acres. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the language as currently written. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Macdonald moved to retain the language but reduce the 4 acres to 2 acres to be carved out. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion failed 3-4 Mr. Mittag moved to allow a 4-acre carve-out from a parcel of 6 acres or more. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Ms. Ostby noted you then can’t have a Conservation PUD. Mr. Mittag then amended his motion to allow a 4-acre carve-out from a parcel of 8 acres or more. Mr. Gagnon seconded. The motion failed 3-4. Mr. Engels moved to eliminate carve-outs. Ms. Ostby seconded. The motion failed 3-4. Ms. Louisos moved to allow one carve-out of 1 acre where there is a requirement for Conservation PUD. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion failed 3-5. Mr. Ostby suggested creating a sliding scale to create a carve-out with a minimum one acre for 5 acres or more with a sliding scale at increments of ½ an acre. Mr. Conner then asked members what they would support in the way of a carve-out. The responses were: Mr. Engels – no carve-out; Mr. Mittag – 1 acre for every 10 acres of parcel size; Mr. Gagnon, Mr. MacDonald, and Ms. Louisos – 2 acres with 6 acres or more; Ms. Ostby – 2 acres with no minimum acreage; Mr. Riehle – at least one 1-acre carve-out with a minimum of 4 acres. 5 Ms. Louisos then moved that with a minimum of 4 acres, to allow a carve-out of up to 2 acres as long as there are 4 acres remaining. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members then considered whether to require a Conservation PUD in the SEQ. Mr. Conner said the draft language is to require the Conservation PUD in the SEQ when there are 4 or more acres except for land zoned Village Residential or Village Commercial, in which case the owner can choose. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the language as written with the noted exceptions of VR and VC zoning. Mr. Mittag seconded. Ms. Ostby asked how many parcels have 70% or more natural resources. Mr. Conner said not very many. Ms. Ostby said the Conservation PUD is usually required where there are 70% resources. This language says even land with those resources would have to have Conservation PUD. She felt Article 12 and the NRP are very robust, and she had an issue requiring a Conservation PUD that are so far from 70% natural resources. Mr. Chalnick noted that some resources (e.g., meadows) are not protected by Article 12. Ms. Jensen expressed concern with fairness and noted that conditions have not been verified on the ground. She felt the Commission is severely restricting the rights of landowners. She said if the citizens and the city are so concerned with resources, they should buy the land. Mr. Mittag said it is important to keep open land for the health of those who follow us. Mr. Gagnon then restated the motion to require a Conservation PUD on parcels of 4 or more acres in the SEQ, NR, NRP, and NRN zones. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-1. Mr. Gagnon then moved to allow the option for a Conservation PUD or a TND in the Village Residential and Village Commercial zoning districts. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-1. Mr. Conner confirmed that for parcels under 4 acres, the underlying zoning plus TDRs would apply. The Commission could said that TDRs are not allowed. Mr. Gagnon was OK with allowing them if the property is adjacent to a developed area. Members were OK with the draft language as long as a landowner can’t get more than the 30% would allow. Mr. Engels noted he had sent in some suggested language changes including adding open meadows and grasslands to 15.06C1 and requiring a Conservation PUD on 4 acres or more even if some is in the NRP and requiring a Conservation PUD with 25% resources. Mr. Conner noted the first suggestion has already been voted on. Mr. Gagnon suggested saving the other suggestion for a future discussion. 6 Ms. Louisos noted that staff recommends that the Neighborhood Commercial not be included in these LDRs but be taken up after Interim Zoning. Members felt they were not yet ready to discuss this. Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Murry has added a “smaller TND” concept to the language, similar to the “infill PUD” concept. Mr. Mittag said that is where affordable housing can be done. He suggested taking this up after Interim Zoning. Mr. Conner suggested including this only where TNDs are allowed. Ms. Murray suggested having graphics where dealing with infill PUDs as there are concerns with design standards. Mr. Conner stressed that 2-4 acre parcels need more analysis when the Commission has time to look at them in order to get a better product. Mr. Conner then outlined the areas still to be done: a. Zoning adjacent to the NRP b. I-O area c. Applicability of TNDs to the rest of the city d. Lakeshore: what to require e. “housekeeping” items 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted the next 3 Commission meetings are on 23 September, 28 September, and 30 September. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:28 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 SEPTEMBER 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Thursday, 23 September 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dooley, D. Peters 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner: Met with UVM representatives today. They have a question regarding exemptions for educational facilities under state law. Mr. Conner said he has talked with the city’s legal counsel, and will be in a position to discuss that with the Commission next week. The deadline to warn a public hearing is coming up. Mr. Conner asked that the Commission have everything done by next Thursday with Monday, 4 October, as an “emergency date.” He noted that the Commission can make changes following the public hearing. Mr. Gagnon asked Mr. Conner to update the voting rules as there were only 5 members present. Mr. Conner said that in order for a motion to pass, there must be a majority vote of the whole commission, in other words, 4 votes. Any 3-2 vote will be “bumped” till the next meeting. 4. Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Members reviewed each of the sections as follows: Definitions: Person. Mr. Mittag felt that the second paragraph was overcomplicated. Mr. Conner said this is making it clear about not getting around the inclusionary rules. Mr. Mittag asked why in the definition of a PUD does it say you can deviate from it. Mr. Conner said the nature of a PUD is that there can be deviation. What is different in this version is that there are no specific standards, and these standards deviate from the underlying zoning. Mr. Conner noted that the legal people will be looking at all of this and will be sure nothing undermines the standard. 2 Mr. Conner noted that Section 3 introduces all the pieces of the regulations. He also noted that Ms. Louisos had pointed out that the Form Base Code map is missing. The section on existing small lots has been updated to match the new state laws. If there is connection to water and sewer, a house can be built. Under the section on Existing and Proposed Streets and Rights of Ways, Mr. Conner explained that wider rights of way are required to allow for such things as the future addition of a sidewalk. The text says that on all of these streets, there is a 50-foot setback. However, on Patchen Rd. there are places where the minimum setback is behind existing homes. Staff’s suggestion is to narrow the right-of-way and to reduce the setback. Mr. Gagnon asked what Public Works things about that, and how does it relate to the master bike/-ped plan. Mr. Conner said he did work with the Director of Public Works in putting this together. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with sections that seem to be removing the right-of-way. Mr. Conner said the right-of-way is not being eliminated. This is saying that if the right-of-way is 66 feet, it will stay at 66 feet even if there are some places where the existing right-of-way is less than 66 feet. Mr. Conner said he will check with Public Works to be sure rights-of-way are where the city wants them. He noted that regulations for Market Street call for a 50-foot setback, and this is being ignored. A 50- foot setback eats up a lot of property when the aim is to conserve land. Mr. Engels asked if property owners are responsible for maintaining the city’s right-of-way. Mr. Conner said that is true in most cases, but not on Dorset Street and a few other streets north of Kennedy Drive. The city does plow the sidewalks. Mr. Engels noted that if someone wants to do something, like plant flowers, in the right-of-way, they need to get permission from Public Works. There is a statement in that permission that if the city has a future project in that right-of-way, the city can remove what the property owner has put in. Building Heights: Mr. Conner noted there are more robust standards for allowing a variation. Regarding RV’s Mr. Mittag noted that someone he knew had complained about an RV parked in a neighbor’s driveway which they felt was being used to accommodate guests. They felt the RV should be hidden. Mr. Conner said that in winter, an RV needs to be behind a house; at other times, it can be wherever an accessory structure can be located. Mr. Mittag felt there should be difference if it is a temporary residence. Multiple Uses & Multiple Structures on a Lot: Mr. Conner said that today, one must have DRB approval to have more than one house on a lot. The new regulations simply require meeting the underlying zoning. 3 If you are a PUD, you can have multiple buildings on a lot. With future TNDs, in order for that to work, staff recommends there not be an allowance for multiple buildings on a lot, unless it is something like the Airport. Mr. Gagnon noted that on his street, someone built a second accessory residence behind the house. Mr. Conner said that is not precluded. Vermont law says any lot with a single family home can have an accessory structure on it. Ms. Ostby was OK with the change as long as it doesn’t create hurdles for cottage-type housing. Accessory Structures and Accessory Dwelling Units: Mr. Conner noted that not every accessory unit is in an accessory structure. The proposed language for accessory dwelling units matches changes in State law which allows up to 900 sq. ft. or 30% of the square footage of the principal structure, whichever is greater. The quirk in the city’s regulations is that the city allows as a condition use, for the accessory structure to be closer to the property line. In the new regulations there are standards which limit the height of the accessory building to 15 feet and not allowing the entry to the accessory unit to be pointed toward the property line. Ms. Ostby said she takes issue with the word “subordinate,” meaning the accessory unit must be behind the house. She noted a house could at the back of a lot. Mr. Conner said it would be hard to prove a unit is ‘secondary’ if it is in front of the house. Mr. Gagnon said he would have issues with allowing something smaller in front of a house. Accessory buildings such as sheds and garages: Mr. Conner noted that today you are limited to 2 accessory structures on a property with the total square footage not to exceed 50% of the square footage of the first floor of the main structure. A separate garage is limited to half the square footage of the house. An attached garage can have more. All of that has now been removed. What prevails is the total coverage on the lot. There can be no more than 2 accessory structures. You can still have a shed with an accessory unit. Square footage is determined by the underlying zoning. This could be a problem with a very large lot, and there may be some language added so you don’t have huge garages with a very small house. Language will be worded (with legal help) so the only time people can live/sleep in a building is if it is approved for use as an accessory structure. Mr. Conner noted that today in an R-1 district, there can be one unit per acre; however, with a PUD you could have 4 or 7 units per acre. The proposal is to remove this and require that if you become a PUD, you are subject to PUD regulations. This also applies in an R-2 district. The determining factor is which PUD you would choose. Ms. Ostby asked whether this is precluding the use of TDRs. Mr. Conner said that is a very separate conversation. If you want to see mixed development neighborhoods, adding the complexity of requiring TDRs could preclude that from happening. 4 Mr. Conner said there aren’t many parcels that will be clamoring to be a TND. Mr. Gagnon said if it isn’t made mandatory in some areas, there won’t be a market for those TDRs. Mr. Mittag said TDRs should be usable city-wide. Mr. Conner said if you require TDRs in some areas, people will go with fewer buildings or one large house instead of 2 smaller houses. He added that properties on Shelburne Rd. are limited today by the allowable number of units per acre. There is a possibility of allowing more units as this would work better in the higher density areas. He suggested possibly holding off on TNDs in R-7 and higher districts. Mr. Mittag questioned the prohibition against supermarkets in some areas. Mr. Conner said they are allowed up to a certain size defined by square footage…10,000 or 15,000 maximum per use. Mr. Engels asked about drive-thrus. Mr. Conner said they are allowed for banks in Commercial districts. In the Form Based Code district, they are allowed in the rear in a 2-story building with access in the rear. Mr. Engels said he was thinking about the pandemic when they became important. Mr. Gagnon said drive-thrus for a pharmacy might be good. City Center/Form Based Code District: Mr. Conner said not much has changed there other than updates to the corners of streets and the consolidation of street standards. Southeast Quadrant: Mr. Conner noted that a lot of the SEQ standards have been moved to other chapters where they apply. SEQ Residential North has its own standards because of the settlement of the lawsuit. Mr. Mittag said he did not understand Section 9-3. Mr. Conner said the Commission talked about a density cap, and this may be the opportunity to do that in an R-1 district. There could be Inclusionary bonus units or TDRs and would allow for TDRs outside the SEQ. Mr. Conner also noted he was asked to be sure the density that evolves in the SEQ doesn’t come out more than 4 per acre. He felt this has been achieved but will check to be sure. Mr. Conner noted there have been minor adjustments to the NRP District, specifically how the very limited development that is allowed can take place. You can only subdivide a lot if it was in existence in 1992. You can then build one house on it. If you have more than 15 acres, you can build 3 houses. In the new regulations, the 3 units can be in a triplex. The regulations say you need a conservation plan, but they don’t say how much of the land you can do anything on. What is proposed is the requirement for a building envelope of limited size. Members were OK with this. Mr. Mittag felt that “primary natural communities” should be included in 9.31.2d. Mr. Conner said that is not a defined term. What was needed is a defined term that is legally defensible. Overlay District: 5 No changes were made here. Things were just moved around. Mr. Conner noted that Article 11 has become the “new home” for street types, civic spaces, etc. Site Plans: Mr. Conner noted that under today’s regulations, a person has to call in an engineer for a very small change (e.g., adding a bike rack). That is expensive, so it has been simplified to allow the change to be added to the next site plan. Regarding conditional uses, multi-family units can no longer be denied because they don’t meet the character of a neighborhood. This is now State law. In Article 15, Mr. Conner said some of this will be in the discussion for the next meeting. Mr. Mittag said he would like to discuss requiring solar, not only solar ready. Mr. Conner noted there is no longer an “affordable housing bonus.” Affordable housing now falls under Inclusionary Zoning city-wide. Mr. Conner then addressed the issue of childcare facilities, specifically related to request received by the Commission where a residence is being replaced by an educational use and the applicant was concerned with having to provide a replacement residential unit. Mr. Conner noted that in this instance, because the property is actually in 2 zoning districts, and the unit in question is in the Commercial district, childcare is allowed there. Mr. Conner noted that there is a State goal to advance affordable childcare. Ms. Dooley was concerned that childcare facilities tend to be of short duration. She wanted to provide that if the childcare use ends, the applicant would have to follow the housing replacement process. Master Plans: Mr. Conner noted that in South Village, there is an allowance for a small commercial use, one building of up to 6000 sq. ft. He questioned whether there could be space in a multi-family building for a small coffee shop of up to 6000 sq. ft.. Members were OK with this but questioned the possibility of security issues if they coffee shop were open to the general public. Mr. Conner said that at the next meeting, members will be seeing PUD language, PUD applicability, and zoning districts. 5. Minutes of 18 August, 24 August, and 31 August: Members agreed to defer approval of the minutes. 6. Other Business: 6 a. Update on Spear Street Solar: Mr. Conner said the city received a letter back from its inquiry. They felt it was required to have a fence. They were OK with small openings for wildlife. It was noted that over a certain voltage, the areas must be fenced; with lower voltage, a mesh netting is allowed. Mr. Conner noted this use is right on the border, and they are worried about it becoming an “attractive nuisance.” It is very high voltage. Mr. Conner suggested the possibility of a fence near the residential area. Mr. Mittag noted that one solar field has a 16-inch opening at the bottom for wildlife. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 September 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Murray, Consultant; L. Ravin, S. Mathias, C. Trombly, S. Dooley, M. Simoneau, A. Mack 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency. 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: Ms. Mathias advocated for more open land and reduced impact on land and water. She felt Net Zero should be required for all new buildings along with a reduced footprint to cover the cost. She was concerned with the increase in impermeable surfaces (e.g., sidewalks on both sides of a street). 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner noted receipt of the supplication for the solar array at 600 Spear Street along with comments regarding the Commissions feedback. This will be on the next regular agenda. 5. Continued Review of Draft Land Development Regulations: Adjustments to the SEQ-Natural Resources Protection sub-district (NRP): Mr. Conner noted the possibility of expanding the NRP into the area west of Dorset Street. He indicated this on a map. Ms. Ostby questioned how this lines up with areas where Conservation PUDs are required. Mr. Mittag said the Commission already voted on these as areas for additional conservation. He then recommended areas west of the floodplain as NRP with a 200-foot residential buffer to development at Nowland Farm Rd. Mr. Gagnon noted There is a small village residential (VR) area at the south end (he identified this on the map). Mr. Conner said that area has also been identified as a potential habitat block connector. Ms. Ostby said the connector can be moved to the north. Mr. Gagnon said that might actually be a better connector in that location. Mr. Macdonald asked whether the city has had any conversations with these property owners. Mr. Conner said that has not happened. Ms. Ostby said the parcels in the middle of the high resource area 2 are hard to access without a reasonable connection. Mr. Mittag said there are 4 or 5 landowners who might make their own arrangements. He felt the Commission should make a proposal and see what people think about it. Mr. Conner said the line between the Village Residential (VR) and Neighborhood Residential (VR) is in the middle of the hazards. East toward Dorset Street is VR or Village Commercial (VC). The northernmost parcel has land on each side. The 2 middle parcels are only on one side. They would become entirely NRP. The southernmost parcel has land on both side. Ms. Ostby felt this was worrisome as the Commission hasn’t addressed TDRs. They don’t know how the middle parcels would have access, so NRP may be the only option. She added that density would have to go someplace. Mr. Macdonald said he was not keen on using that method to conserve that land. Ms. Louisos said the Commission doesn’t have to do anything here. If someone wants to change the zoning to NRP, put a motion on the table. Mr. Gagnon asked what the current zoning is. Mr. Conner indicated the NR areas which could have up to 4 units per acre. In the draft, the middle areas would have to be a Conservation PUD. The question is how to address the subdivision regulations which require connectivity. Ms. Ostby asked where the 30% development would fit. She felt they would have to fit connecting to each other. Mr. Conner said what you would get over time is a set of small neighborhoods in there, and it would be difficult for the “middle” to find a point of access. Mr. Gagnon then moved to make the northern lot 200 feet from Nowland Farm Road Neighborhood Residential (NR). Also that part of the property line of property #0570-01675, from the northern point of that property down to Dorset Farms would be NR. In addition, move the wildlife connector north to the northern property line of parcel #0570-01675. Mr. Mittag seconded. Mr. Conner noted that everything east of the stream is Village Residential (VR) with a small Village Commercial (VC) piece. Ms. Ostby noted that along the road there could be up to 6 units per acre and connection to the neighborhood below. Mr. Gagnon said that is what he intended. Mr. Mittag wasn’t sure moving the connector was a good idea as there is a home there. He suggested moving it to the south. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-2. Ms. Ostby then moved that in the area just voted on, in the remaining parcels to the north and south, to allow a TND rather than to require a Conservation PUD. Ms. Louisos seconded. Ms. Ostby said this would give landowners more flexibility and would allow for more of a neighborhood feeling which they may not get in a Conservation PUD. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Mittag abstaining. 3 Other SEQ NRP Boundary Changes: Ms. Louisos showed a map of what was agreed on at earlier meetings. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. MacDonald said since these things were already agreed on, they would hesitate to go back. Mr. Gagnon suggested using the map they have for the public hearing. Ms. Ostby agreed. She added that at some point she would like to know how many units of TDRs they have added. Mr. Engels moved to include all the “blue areas” on the map as NRP. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Parcels on the west side of Hinesburg Road zoned Industrial-Open Space: Mr. Conner identified this area on a map. Ms. Louisos noted that staff is recommending changing the zoning district to align with a more mixed use. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see a TND of NC allowed. Mr. Conner said the proposal is for a Neighborhood Commercial 7 which would allow offices, smaller retail, etc. He also suggested the possibility of an area to reserve for light industry. Mr. Riehle asked if any part of that is in the SEQ. Mr. Conner said from a zoning perspective, no. Mr. Riehle asked if the potential change would allow for a hotel. Mr. Gagnon said a hotel is not allowed in the R7NC. Ms. Ostby asked what the Comprehensive Plan envisioned for this area. Mr. Conner said the “blue” area was mostly non-residential; the “orange” was medium density mostly residential; the “yellow” was lower density residential; the “green” was primarily conservation. Mr. Conner moved to change the zoning for this area to R7NC. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Mr. Mittag felt that this area is within the conservation area on maps 7 & 8. Mr. Gagnon said it looks like the Commission has already protected the resources. Mr. Mittag questioned making it R7 all the way to the south with no buffer to the nature park to the south. Ms. Ostby asked if there is a way to make sure if the motion passes to follow the Comprehensive Plan as to where residential would be. Mr. Conner said commercial activity would like up to Hinesburg Road. Ms. Murray added that this is what would typically happen. Mr. Engels asked if a Conservation PUD could be allowed there. Mr. Conner said it could, but it does not allow for a mix of uses. It would be entirely commercial or entirely residential. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-3. New items from this meeting packet: Mr. Conner said the first big question is the applicability of PUD types outside the SEQ zoning district. Mr. Mittag said they had discussed eliminating the 50% threshold. He felt this would make it impossible for someone to have a Conservation PUD. Ms. Ostby noted that anyone can conserve 100% of their land 4 on their own with the Land Trust. She felt the Commission needs to be sure they are not eliminating the benefit of having a neighborhood (e.g., walkability, etc.). There could be just a row of 9 houses to get under the Act 250 requirement. Ms. Louisos stressed that in the higher developed areas, they need to be sure of following the development standards. Ms. Ostby noted this is the offset for having taken off the areas with a lot of resources. Ms. Murray said that is especially true with Level 1 resources and it offsets the impact to the landowner. Ms. Ostby moved to accept the underlying zoning districts per the upper part of Table 15C-1. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 4-3. Mr. Gagnon then moved to accept the second part of the Table 15C-1 for the TND development. Mr. Mittag seconded. Ms. Ostby asked if there is still the possibility to enable these areas to accept TDRs. Mr. Conenr said yes for parcels below the TND threshold. Above that, you are close to what a TND can be, especially with Inclusionary Zoning. Ms. Ostby asked if that is a concern. Mr. Conner said there aren’t that many places where a TND is likely to exist until you get to an infill TND, which is another conversation. He added that the most significant opportunities for use of TDRs will be along Shelburne and Williston Roads. He then stressed that the more places the Commission takes out of being TNDs, the more the Commission’s work on TNDs doesn’t happen. Ms. Ostby was concerned that if there isn’t a market for TDRs, they will have to reduce the NRP protection. Ms. Murray noted that on page 9 there is a provision to allow TDRs into a PUD. The only place there would be an issue is where density is capped. Mr. Conner asked if there is any reason for a developer outside the SEQ to buy TDRs under the current draft. Ms. Murray said more density. Mr. Conner said there is no density limit. Ms. Murray said the DRB could adjust height to allow this. Ms. Ostby felt it should be a priority to take this up once they are past the public hearing. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 7-0. Mr. Mittag felt that on p. 2, line 7, the word “styles” should be changed to “types.” Mr. Conner said in a PUD, you have both. Mr. Riehle felt both should be kept and cited 15 duplexes in Dorset Farms that are all the same color. He felt they need to encourage something else. In Section 15.CO4 Ms. Ostby moved to change “riparian” to “waterways.” Ms. Louisos seconded. Mr. Gagnon supported the motion noting that there has been previous concern with the word “riparian” and people have been misusing that word. 5 In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4—3. Ms. Ostby wanted to be sure the development portion of a Conservation PUD is contiguous. Mr. Conner noted there could be a parcel with 2 roadways with development adjacent to each. Ms. Murray said this is addressed at the top of p.5. Mr. Mittag felt they should reconsider what they did with carve outs. He recommended one carve out of no more than 4 acres. Mr. Gagnon noted the vote to approve what they have was 6-1. Mr. Mittag then move to return to the original text as drafted by Sharon with one carve out of 4 acres for any parcel of 10 acres or more. Mr. Engels seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-5, and the motion was deemed to have failed. Mr. Gagnon asked if they will be able to get this wrapped up on Thursday. Mr. Conner said he felt they could get to everything except Infill PUDs. Mr. Conner then updated members on a letter received from UVM. There are 2 areas of issues: The first relates to changes in Article 12, which Mr. Conner felt the Commission has already addressed. The second is more significant. State Statute 24.VSA4413 places a limitation on regulatory authority of municipalities on “educational land.” The only things the municipality can control are height, bulk, parking, and setbacks. The DRB map impose reasonable conditions to protect wildlife and natural features as long as they don’t impair the function of the educational facility. It was pointed out that city tradition does not “pre-apply” to 4413. Mr. Conner said that after speaking with the City Attorney, it was recommended that the regulations be updated and clarified to indicate that 4413 does apply and modifies the Land Development Regulations to comply with that Statute. Mr. Conner said that if UVM comes in with a plan, the DRB could review it in light of the regulations and they can approve it as long as it does not disagree with UVM’s plan. Mr. Conner stressed that it is the use that is the determining factor. The educational uses are allowed under state law. The DRB can impose reasonable conditions as long as they don’t preclude the proposed function/use/intent of the development. He also noted the city can’t regulate style. Ms. Ostby asked if there could be a 1500 room dorm in a habitat block. Mr. Conner said he can’t answer that on the spot. Mr. Mack, attorney for UVM, said depending on the language proposed for the LDRs, they may have some additional comments. Mr. Conner said he will try to send that language out tomorrow. UVM can comment immediately or at the public hearing. 6 Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission meet on Thursday, 30 September, at 7 p.m. to finish discussion on the PUDs and wrap things up to warn for a public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Meeting Minutes Members agreed to postpone action on the minutes. 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 9:50 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 30 SEPTEMBER 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Thursday, 30 September 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; H. Riehle, C. Trombly, S. Dopp, N. Hyman, S. Dooley, A. Chalnick, D Peters, K. Lane, other members of the public 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction on exiting the building in an emergency. 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. Louisos noted the City Council will hold a public hearing on changes to the Official City Map at their 4 October meeting. 5. Continued Review of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Gagnon suggested that if something has already been discussed and voted on, it is done, and the Commission should focus on things that have not been decided or voted on. Conservation PUDs: Mr. Mittag felt the requirements on p. 4 and 5 for a Conservation PUD were onerous and could discourage people. Mr. Conner noted that one suggested Ms. Murray had was that if the conservation area can’t be located within one 30% block, a second one could be allowed. Mr. Gagnon asked if this is consistent with what the Commission has done in the past. Mr. Conner said there are regulations to insure transitions, spacing, etc. The current SEQ standards are quite extensive, and they were used as a model. Ms. Ostby said she had a similar concern and questioned whether they had fully vetted this so it isn’t being made difficult for people. Mr. Gagnon said he felt the prescriptiveness is there to get what the 2 Commission wants it to look like. He also felt the research was similar to what had to be done in the past. Mr. Conner said the Master Plan is the newest and most significant thing being asked for, so that the city gets a picture of what the whole area will look like. Mr. Gagnon felt it was important to have that. Mr. Conner acknowledged that with 4 acres, there may be a lot for someone to do, but with 25 acres it’s what people may be used to. Mr. Gagnon added that the public will get to comment; if they think it is crazy, they will let the Commission know. Mr. Riehle said that people with the smaller amounts of acreage should be made aware of the public hearing. Mr. Conner said that over the next few weeks, “manageable pieces” will be brought to the public. Ms. Ostby suggested the possibility of some listening sessions as they had in the past. Mr. Mittag suggested adding on p. 6 “…up to a maximum of 6 units per acre.” Mr. Conner said that is addressed later on that page. He added that in an R7 zone, it is up to 7 units per acre. Mr. Mittag questioned the words “buildable area” on p. 6. Mr. Conner noted that in a Conservation PUD, there is a developable area (the 30%) which is the basis for the density. The “buildable area” is what is left when things such as roads have been taken out. He suggested the possibility of doing a graphic to make that clearer. Mr. Riehle asked if sidewalks will be required on both sides. Mr. Conner said in a Conservation PUD, only on one side. Mr. Mittag moved that in Section 15CA5, “based on buildable area” be changed to “developable area.” Mr. Riehle seconded. The vote on the motion was 3-4, and the motion was deemed to have failed. Ms. Ostby said the Commission hasn’t discussed conservation mechanisms. She felt they need to do that. Ms. Louisos said it is OK to have different descriptions of how to conserve land. Ms. Ostby said that if there are fees for conserving land, perhaps the Council should eliminate those. Mr. Gagnon said they have talked about it to some extent and wanted to allow some flexibility. He cautioned against eliminating that flexibility. Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with the permanence of conserved land. She was OK with hazards and level 1 resources but questioned the other 20%. She felt there should be some different kinds of conservation mechanisms. Ms. Louisos said the 20% could be used for farming, and language could be drafted to allow for that. Ms. Louisos said there is no permanence if it isn’t in a PUD. It’s just one Planning Commission / Council away from change. Mr. Conner said he thought what was being said it that the holder of the permanency / easement have some mechanism to alter it. Ms. Louisos said what can’t be controlled is the future. She felt that is also part of the TDR discussion. Mr. Conner said that Ms. Murray suggested that if the Commission thought something might change, to let the public know that. 3 Ms. Ostby suggested that when a Conservation PUD is required, that there be a range of between 60- 70% for the conserved area. This would give the landowner some flexibility. She felt some of the parcels are actually closer to 50% resources than to 70%. Ms. Ostby then moved that when a Conservation PUD is required, to allow a range for the conserved portion of between 60 and 70%. Mr. Conner noted this could eliminate the ability to bring TDRs into that area. Mr. Gagnon was concerned this would lead to other language to be changed. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Mittag said that in Section 6, there are things the Commission talked about but never resolved such as reducing the number of acres for a TND. Mr. Conner explained the difference between a TND and an Infill TND and said it is difficult to get a TND on fewer than 10 acres. Mr. Ostby noted that a TND is recommended in areas where there are goods and services located within a quarter or half a mile. She asked if there are not those services, should the developer be required to provide them. Mr. Conner said he’d like to talk about that with Ms. Murray. Ms. Dopp asked if a TND has to include all the things on the list of “characteristics”. Mr. Conner noted the Commission did talk about a possible “point system” but wasn’t ready to do that. Staff was asked to clarify that these should be taken as a whole, not as individual requirements that each must be met. Mr. Mittag referred to the tabulation of building types on p. 8 of 10 and recommended increasing the heights and number of stories of buildings to all more efficient use of land. He suggested a detached unit up to 3 stories, town house up to 4, neighborhood store up to 3, a civic building up to 4. Ms. Louisos suggested doing that as part of the TDR process as it might not apply in all parts of the city. Mr. Gagnon was not opposed when it made sense but cited the need to be careful of context, where there might be areas where that doesn’t fit in. Mr. Riehle felt it would be fine in the center of the city but not in the SEQ where there are “unofficial view corridors.” Mr. Trombly noted the city missed its affordable housing goals and cited the need to consider higher buildings in some areas of the city. Mr. Conner suggested adding some building types, e.g. a 10-plex, in addition to heights. Ms. Murray cautioned about not having more areas of the city look like City Center by overwhelming small blocks of development. Mr. Ostby said she felt it was important for every housing unit to have some private outdoor space and to add that to what buildings should include. Mr. Conner said there is no problem with that for single and 2-family buildings. It gets trickier with small multiplexes. He noted that one requirement of a TND 4 is nearby park or civic space. He said there could be a group of town homes that front on a park space. Ms. Ostby suggested adding the requirement for a number of sq. ft. of private outdoor space, and see what happens at the public hearing. Ms. Ostby asked whether a carriage house has to be behind the primary house. Mr. Conner said it will end up that way because of the requirement to build the main house up close to the road. Mr. Hyman asked whether he could build a home on his 32 acres for each of his 2 children and whether septic and wells would be OK. Mr. Conner said with one or 2 homes the sewer ordinance doesn’t prohibit private sewer and water. Mr. Conner also explained that since Mr. Hyman’s land is in the NRP, there can be a total of 3 homes on it. There must also be a conservation plan to show how the land is being cared for. 6. Possible Action: Review/approve Planning Commission Report and warn Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. McDonald asked about accessory structures. Mr. Conner said currently an accessory structure can be no more than 50% of the ground floor of the main house. This “punishes” the owner of a small house. The language allows for an accessory structure to be no more than twice the size of the main house so long as overall building coverage maximums on the lot are still met. Mr. Riehle said that is not logical with 4-5 acres for someone who wants to put a barn there. Mr. Conner said they can say that for lots more than 1 acre, they can say the accessory structure be no more than 10% of the total acreage. Mr. Mittag felt that LDR-21-05 was spot zoning for the benefit of one landowner. Mr. Gagnon said they voted on it, and it is in the record. Mr. Mittag said he would prefer in LDR-21-01 to have required solar insulation instead of solar ready. He acknowledged they had voted on this. Mr. Mittag was concerned that prime ag soils are not protected in Article 12. He also was concerned with protected of trees on public land. Ms. Ostby said there are now habitat blocks. Mr. Conner said if there is forest management, it is outside of the city’s control. Mr. Gagnon cited the need for a management plan for conserved lands so they don’t “go to pot.” Ms. Ostby felt that would be a next step. Mr. Conner supported a separate statement on that. Mr. Gagnon then move to accept the report and the changes to the Land Development Regulations and to warn a public hearing on 26 October 2021. Mr. Macdonald seconded. The motion passed 4-3 with Messrs. Mittag, Riehle and Engels opposing. Mr. Mittag added that had there been an opportunity to vote on this package after the public hearing. Had there been an opportunity to vote on the final package, he said, he might have been willing to vote for the public hearing. Mr. Conner stated that the Commission will in fact be required to vote on the entire package in order to submit it to the City Council following the hearing, and apologized for any 5 confusion on the matter. As the motion to warn the hearing had passed regardless, Ms. Louisos elected to proceed with the rest of the agenda. Mr. Conner said the goal is to have to LDRs to the City Council for their 1 November meeting. They can then warn for their public hearing within the Interim Zoning timeline. 7. Meeting Minutes of 14 September 2021: Members agreed to postpone consideration of the minutes until the next meeting. 8. Other Business: There was no other business presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. ___________________________, Clerk