Planning Commission

8/8/2024 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Abby Bleything, Vice-Chair; Connor Daley; Sarah van Ryckevorsel; Joe Perron; Brendan Sage City Staff Present: Ravi Venkataraman Guests Present: Kristine Lott, Mayor; Ruth Steinmetz Call to Order by: Abby Bleything Meeting Start Time: 6:32 PM Minutes Recorded by: Ravi Venkataraman II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes The April 25 th , June 13 th , and July 18 th meeting minutes were tabled for consideration at a future meeting because the commissioners who were present at those meeting were absent currently. V. Discussion: Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) - Replacement Units (Section 5.16) Ravi introduced the topic, noting that the document has been significantly changed since the joint Housing Committee and Planning Commission meeting in late June. Mayor Kristine Lott questioned the applicability of the section in the Downtown Core and Gateway Districts, and suggested that a payment in-lieu option could be offered for nonresidential projects that provide a city-wide benefit. Sarah Van Ryckevorsel said that depending on how this section is applied, the changes in use could change the feel of the area. Ravi asked the commission if they would like to apply this section throughout the city. Abby Bleything said that she wants this section to be applied throughout the city to retain housing opportunities, but also give developers options through the payment in-lieu. Connor Daley and Abby asked about the scaling based on dwelling unit size of the payment in-lieu and the typical amount given for payment in-lieu. Ravi said that Burlington’s payment in-lieu for affordable housing units is $35,000 but more research is necessary for market-rate units and that this discussion may be better during the next joint Planning Commission and Housing Committee meeting in September. Joe Perron asked about keeping a cap on the number of bedrooms within the replacement units to a project, and whether it would be viable to require a five-bedroom unit to be retained if a five- bedroom house were to be removed. Abby noted that the goal of this section is to retain units with more bedrooms. Brendan Sage added that the city has few five bedroom houses in the city  meeting in September. Joe Perron asked about keeping a cap on the number of bedrooms within the replacement units to a project, and whether it would be viable to require a five-bedroom unit to be retained if a five- bedroom house were to be removed. Abby noted that the goal of this section is to retain units with more bedrooms. Brendan Sage added that the city has few five bedroom houses in the city and the cap may not be needed. Joe highlighted the loss of buildings in the city recently without plans for redevelopment, that some sort of timeframe is needed to require units to be built once it’s removed, and that a mechanism is needed for replacing units that have been lost recently. Ravi concurred about establishing a timeframe. Ravi and Brendan explained that this section can only be applied to developments after the regulation goes into effect and cannot be applied retroactively due to due process. Connor and Abby asked about situations in which permits are pulled but no development happens, and the mechanisms to keep developers accountable for the replacement units. Brendan and Ravi said that time limits could be placed to require the replacement units to be built within a certain amount of time from when a unit is removed. VI. Discussion: H. 687 Related Amendments – ULUDR Section 5.10 and Article 8 Ravi went over the changes, saying that the changes are minor. The commission did not have any questions, and chose to bundle these changes with forthcoming anticipated changes to the regulations. VII. Discussion: Introduction to Transportation Demand Management Options Ravi reviewed the TDM section of the current regulations, the memo contents, and posed the discussion questions of whether to require TDM strategies for larger developments and how many strategies to require from developers. Abby said that she is interested in requiring including TDM strategies as a requirement for larger developments. Sarah asked about whether the city could allow seasonal bike parking during the warmer months in parking spots. Ravi said that the city could but he has not seen an example of that in private developments yet. Connor asked if the city could convert vehicle parking into bike parking seasonally in the garage. Kristine said that the garage is fully leased to nearby establishments but that it doesn’t see a lot of public use. Abby said that adding bike parking to the garage would be a good idea. Connor asked about the GMT rest stop on Winooski Falls Way and whether it could be converted into bike parking. Kristine suggested including an incentive to maintain bus stops for new developments. Sarah asked if the TDM options could be more pointed, specifying to the developers that they must include particular TDM strategies. Ravi said that they could but the regulations would have to specify a connection between the required TDM strategy and the context for requiring it. Brendan asked if the TDM requirements were barriers to development in other cities. Ravi said that he had not heard of this to be a barrier, but added that the TDM strategies offset the cost of building parking and that the other examples do not require as much parking. Ravi suggested that a parking reduction would probably be needed for projects including TDM strategies to effectively offset costs, to incentivize usage of the strategies, and to reduce vehicle trips. Ravi said that he’ll bring draft ordinance text to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. VIII. City Updates A. Updates from the Mayor Kristine reviewed the items discussed during the last City Council meeting—the approval of the EV charging planning grant application; the just cause eviction charter change vote; the council’s policies, priorities, and strategies for this fiscal  A. Updates from the Mayor Kristine reviewed the items discussed during the last City Council meeting—the approval of the EV charging planning grant application; the just cause eviction charter change vote; the council’s policies, priorities, and strategies for this fiscal year; and the ways to engage with City commissions. Sarah asked if Main Street businesses affected by construction could use vacant storefronts on Winooski Falls Way temporarily. B. Updates from the Inclusion and Belonging Commission No updates from Ruth Steinmetz. C. Updates from City Staff Ravi reviewed the grant opportunity for public EV charging planning. Ravi overviewed future discussions on the LaFountain and Dion scoping study and Certified Local Government application during the September 3 rd City Council Meeting. IX. Other Business A. City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments No discussion. X. Adjourn Motion by: Sarah Second: Joe Meeting End Time: 8 PM