Planning Commission

1/23/2025 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Sarah, Mike, Abby, John City Staff Present: Guests Present: Anne Nelson Stoner; Sarah Muskin; Kristine Lott, Mayor Call to Order by: Meeting Start Time: 6:32 pm Minutes Recorded by: II. Changes to the Agenda None. III. Public Comment None. IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 3-0 Motion by: Sarah Second: Abby V. Discussion: Presentation by Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) on the development of Regional Future Land Use Maps Sarah Muskin presented on Act 181, its the changes to Act 250, and the new regional plan requirements. Mike asked for definitions of smart growth and environmental justice. Sarah explained that smart growth encourages development within downtowns, the development of walkable neighborhoods, and the protection of natural resources. Anne Nelson Stoner reviewed the statutory definition of environmental justice, which emphasizes equal access to a healthy environment, and the prevention of undue disproportionate impacts on groups of people. Sarah reviewed the regional future land use mapping requirements per Act 181, and the future land use categories used for the map. Mike asked about current state designation areas and their status. Sarah explained that the future land use categories will eventually replace the state designation areas, which will provide similar Act 250 exemptions. Sarah reviewed the three tiers within the future land use mapping framework, and the current interim Act 250 exemptions. Sarah Van asked about the cultural and archaeological elements of Act 250. Sarah said that those requirements would no longer exist in exempted areas unless municipalities choose to have that as part of their review process. Sarah reviewed the implementation timeline of Act 181. Sarah overviewed the housing targets  Sarah Van asked about the cultural and archaeological elements of Act 250. Sarah said that those requirements would no longer exist in exempted areas unless municipalities choose to have that as part of their review process. Sarah reviewed the implementation timeline of Act 181. Sarah overviewed the housing targets requirement per the Home Act. Sarah reviewed the draft future land use map for Winooski. Sarah Van asked about how Winooski can protect green spaces. Sarah explained that the future land use map can be used as a base for developing the municipal plan and that Winooski can identify open spaces in the municipal plan. Sarah said that Winooski can choose where exemptions can apply. Mike asked about the location of rural conservation areas. Sarah said that the rural conservation areas are from the state Agency of Natural Resources data, and that CCRPC is happy to make refinements accordingly. Sarah reviewed the enterprise area definition, the rationale for not including enterprise areas currently—as it has no benefits compared to areas planned for growth—and that the city can designate areas as enterprise areas. Abby asked about the difference between village area and planned growth area. Sarah reviewed the definitions for both terms, and that areas that have both water and wastewater infrastructure are defined as planned growth areas. Sarah asked the Planning Commission about the public engagement process. Abby said that the Planning Commission may want to have further discussion about what would be lost with Act 250 exemptions. Kristine suggested a handout that simplifies the impacts on residents, and that Sarah could reach out to the schools to help with engagement. Sarah said that CCRPC is also conducting regional focus groups, and that she could connect with Winooski Housing Authority. Kristine suggested sharing information to various language group communities for feedback on whether they would want to engage. Sarah asked if another meeting with the Planning Commission is needed. Mike suggested another meeting to do a deeper dive on the tiers and their impacts. Mike suggested holding a joint meeting with the Housing Commission on this subject. Sarah suggested returning in March to present to the Housing Commission and Planning Commission jointly. Mike recommended having materials available during Town Meeting Day. VI. Discussion: Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) Sections 4.17 (Transportation Demand Management) Ravi reviewed the draft TDM regulations and changes to the parking reductions. Mike and Abby expressed reservations about parking reductions. Abby asked about the rounding of the reductions. Ravi said that that needs to be added in with a rounding down based on the sentiments of the commission. Kristine expressed support for the draft regulations, as it aligns with the recommendations developers provided and it encourages people to shift away from vehicles. Mike and John asked how much parking developers include in projects in places without parking requirements, referring to discussions during past meetings. Ravi said that he had compared regulatory requirements and actual conditions in South Burlington, which showed an overall 20% reduction in parking but varied based on use and context. Kristine noted the statistics on residents who don’t own a car and how developers had commented that that number seems higher on their properties in the gateway based on utilization. Mike asked about the role of the DRB. Ravi clarified permitting processes and that for most  Kristine noted the statistics on residents who don’t own a car and how developers had commented that that number seems higher on their properties in the gateway based on utilization. Mike asked about the role of the DRB. Ravi clarified permitting processes and that for most projects in the C-1 and C-2, projects that would be subject to these regulations would require DRB review. Sarah Van asked about the reversibility of the regulations. Ravi explained the vesting of rights and the permit process. John asked the commission about concerns about parking in the past people raised during the joint housing/planning commission meeting. Mike and Kristine noted the previous city-wide winter parking ban that raised parking issues from individuals. Mike noted public concerns about the development on the corner of Bellevue and Main Streets. Abby noted public concerns raised around the development on Manseau Street. Mike identified public concerns raised about CCV student parking. Abby said that if the City had curb management policies city-wide in place, removing parking minimums would make sense because parking would not overflow into the streets and developers would design by considering all the parking amenities needed on site. Sarah said that she is comfortable with 20% parking reduction. John expressed support, noting that on the design side, configuring in parking is challenging to make projects work. Mike asked about the developers’ reactions. Ravi said that they seemed ambivalent, adding that current best practices are to remove parking requirements altogether and letting the market decide on the amount of parking a project needs. Ravi added that based the city’s bike/ped and transit infrastructure, he feels that parking minimums are needed until those systems are robust enough while also providing flexibility to developers to address the ongoing housing crisis. Abby asked who manages bike/ped planning and infrastructure, and curb management in the city. Ravi said that bike/ped planning and development is with him, Public Works, and the Municipal Infrastructure Committee. Ravi said that curb management would be with Public Works, the City Manager, and City Council. Mike asked about the tiers and whether the parking reduction can be scaled. Ravi said that this framework has no scaling for parking reductions. John asked Abby about whether the regulations adequately incentivizes alternative transportation modes and whether there are ways to increase investment into bike/ped infrastructure. Abby reviewed the lack of integrated bike/ped infrastructure in the city and how the Winooski Alliance for Active Transportation is looking into ways to increase investment in bike/ped infrastructure. Mike expressed reservations about parking reductions considering the lack of bike/ped infrastructure, the frequency of transit, the current modeshare in the city, and the limited right-of-way space. Ravi said that the goal with these regulations is to push for incremental investment into other transportation modes while the city builds out the bike/ped infrastructure network. Motion by John, seconded by Sarah, to hold a public hearing on the proposed TDM regulations with a clause on rounding down the parking reductions if the calculation results in a fractional number on March 13 th . Voting: Unanimous. Motion carried. VII. City Updates A. Updates from the Mayor Kristine reviewed the last City Council meeting—the budget, the pause on the replacement units regulations work, the just cause eviction ballot item.  A. Updates from the Mayor Kristine reviewed the last City Council meeting—the budget, the pause on the replacement units regulations work, the just cause eviction ballot item. B. Updates from the Inclusion and Belonging Commission N/A C. Updates from City Staff Ravi reviewed recent DRB items, the public hearing on the Act 181 related changes to the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations set for Monday, and the February joint Housing/Planning Commission meeting he and Housing Initiative Director Jazmine Hurley are looking to schedule. VIII. Other Business None. IX. Adjourn Motion by: Abby Second: Sarah Meeting End Time: 8:14 pm