Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/16/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 16 MARCH 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 16 March 2021, at 7:00 p.m., 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. Bellavance, A. Jensen-Vargas, A. & A. Chalnick, R. Greco, S. Dopp, N. Hyman 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: Ms. Ostby advised she had attended last night’s City Council meeting at which Interim Zoning was discussed. She felt it was clear the Council is waiting to hear from the Commission, but she felt there were things the City Council could be doing independently which they are not doing and which would be very helpful to the Commission. Mr. Riehle noted there are 224 units in the DRB hopper pending or about to go through. He asked how many units there are in the city now. Mr. Conner estimated 9000. Mr. Riehle said “growth is happening.” Mr. Mittag said there are also projects being built now. Mr. Conner: On Thursday evening there will be a public meeting regarding the CCRPC I-89 study. Next Tuesday, there will be a presentation to the Planning Commission by the Swift/Spear Street Study Group. Materials will be provided in advance. Mr. Conner said he testified at the Senate Transportation Committee last week regarding a bill to formalize the definitions of electric bikes and what level of control municipalities would to have (e.g., use on rec paths). 4. Commission discuss and prepare feedback on I-89 Corridor Study Interchange Evaluation Criteria: Ms. Louisos noted that feedback needs to go to the CCRPC by next Monday. 2 Mr. Riehle said what comes to mind is a “Pandora’s box” regarding Exit 12B which would connect to Tilley Drive and Swift Street over wetlands in both cases as well as other issues. Mr. Mittag said when he brought up the wetland issue, he was told it is not a problem, but when he walked the area he could not see how it can be avoided. Ms. Louisos said she had mentioned that there were no metrics specific to South Burlington. She felt it would be good to know how the options contribute to/detract from City Center. Mr. Riehle said safety re: bike/ped is still his concern and which option is best for that. None seem to him to be good. 14 and 12B seem the most difficult regarding those safety concerns. Mr. Engels thought 13B was a good idea: no cloverleaf with still an on/off to I-89. He also felt the city should have a direct say since all the interchanges are in South Burlington. Mr. Conner reminded members that the reason for the input is the evaluation criteria, to put data behind why one option is selected over another. Mr. Macdonald said he would be OK with 12B, but he didn’t think it will happen. He was OK with 13 but not either option. He felt it is better to do something where there is a “start.” 13 also puts people closer to City Center and on a 4-lane road direct to the Airport. Ms. Louisos said a partial interchange is more feasible from a time-line point of view. Mr. MacDonald questioned whether that is the case. Mr. Conner said that is the interesting question. Pare of the metric is when bridges need to be upgraded/replaced. He felt Exit 13 is probably more of a project that the one over Williston Road. There is also the issue of on-going appeals. Ms. Ostby said there was talk of a time-line and they were told “new” would take longer. She noted all of this is 15 years out and timing should be considered. She also hoped CCRPC can work out the commercial vs. residential traffic issue. She was concerned with converting I-189 to a boulevard because of the high volume of truck traffic. Mr. Conner noted that some options give land back for natural resources, etc. There may be a way to evaluate the amount of truck traffic that is brought closer to or further from homes and what that means for quality of life. Mr. Mittag asked if they will have the opportunity recommend sequencing. He felt 13 would give the city the biggest bang for the buck and it solves some traffic problems. Mr. Conner said there is already some prioritization, doing things that preclude the need for any of the major options. Ms. Dopp said that some time ago she heard a CCRPC person say one of the 3 options would be dropped out. Mr. Conner said the objective is to have options at each intersection, one at 14 and one at 12/13. Ms. Dooley noted that the prospect of appeals was a major factor in the abandonment of the Circ Highway. 3 Ms. Greco felt the CCRPC should focus on non-car options. She felt there is time to mull this over. She noted this was talked about 10 years ago at a meeting. Ms. Dooley said there are now 6 goals and a plan to weigh them all equally. She also noted that Mr. Baker said safety should come first. Ms. Dooley questioned “whose safety?”. Mr. Conner said safety for all users. He heard that one of the Exit 13 options is less safe with the U-turn, though it is much less expensive. Ms. Ostby said a U-turn is so unexpected that people will get “lost” and frustrated and then hurt. People expect an off-ramp. She felt it is what provides the most predictable path for drivers. Ms. Louios felt “familiar design” is a good way to phrase that. Mr. Mittag noted he has asked whether the metrics of loading could change because of people working from home. Ms. Louisos said travel may be less “carcentric” 30 years out. Ms. Ostby noted the trend to autonomous truck traffic and the potential to see more commercial than “people” traffic. Mr. Mittag noted the possibility of seeing drones for deliveries in the future. Members were OK with Ms. Louisos and staff compiling comments for CCRPC. These will be circulated to members. Mr. Riehle asked when the vote will be. Mr. Conner said the CCRPC will attend the meeting on the 29th. He will check in regarding the timeline. Ms. Louisos said it looks like an April to June timeframe. Mr. Mittag asked whether they should do a “ranked” choice of the goals. Ms. Louisos suggested members who want to do that should send their rankings to her. Mr. Chalnick felt the differences in the options were so small. Ms. Ostby said that Charlie Baker had said 12B doesn’t benefit Hinesburg and that the existing Exit 12 is better. She asked if benefit to other towns should be a consideration. Mr. Engels then moved to authorize Ms. Louisos to submit a letter to CCRPC with the Commission’s comments. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session: a. Review updated Environmental Protection Standards following Commission guidance and related amendments: Ms. Louisos said she had a discussion with the Council Chair about the timeline and how helpful it would be than when a Commission public hearing is warned there can be a joint meeting with the Council that would include a deeper view of the PUD work as well. The first week in April was talked about for an update, then warning the public hearing. Ms. Louisos added that in the next few meetings she would like to get a draft out for public comment. 4 Ms. Ostby said that while the Commission agreed to focus on Articles 10 and 12, they didn’t agree on a separate public hearing for 10 and 12. Ms. Louisos said that would be a good topic to discuss at a joint meeting with the Council. Mr. Gagnon said 10 and 12 could still go to the Council and they could hold onto it until they get the PUD stuff. Ms. Louisos stressed that the Commission should focus on policy rather than “nitty gritty” word choices, etc. Members then reviewed specific areas as follows: Definitions: It was noted that there are places where there is reference to “forest blocks” instead of “habitat blocks.” Ms. Ostby felt the “historic site” should be defined. Ms. Louisos said “core habitat” may also need to be defined as it is referred to later on. Description of Districts: Ms. Louisos noted that an old city map had been referred to. Now there is specific information as to what to use. Ms. Ostby said they should indicate what the new Natural Resources Map is replacing. Mr. Conner suggested that be done via a memo. Regulations are the regulations in effect. Mr. Mittag said that where “undue adverse affects” is used, reference to the test (304h) should be made. Mr. Conner said he will see how to draft that some way. Mr. Engels asked whether “building envelope” is the building or the lot. Mr. Conner said that as used here it is the are of the lot allowed to be built within. Article 9 Items: Mr. Mittag felt that environmental protections in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) are being removed and they shouldn’t be offering less than what was there before. He felt the old language regarding prime ag soils, grasslands and shrub lands should be included as Level 2 resources. Ms. Louisos said that Articles 10 and 12 would be applicable across all districts. Mr. Engels said he read the Interim Zoning Ordinance and it seems to be a “open space ordinance.” He felt they should be looking to improve open space. He felt it was the Commission’s work to turn the work of the Open Space Committee in LDRs. Ms. Louisos said the Committee evaluated individual properties, and the Commission felt it was more important to indicate under what criteria things would be protected. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission has taken data from a number of sources and have written regulations to be more protective of natural resources (e.g., streams and wetland buffers). For the City Council, the Commission is to provide the regulatory piece. Regarding open space, Mr. Gagnon noted there are other tools available (e.g., purchase), and what is needed are underlying regulations for the land to be used and to strike a balance. If an owner wants to conserve or to sell land for development, there should be a mechanism to do both. Mr. Gagnon also noted that the Comprehensive Plan had many goals, some of which conflict with each other: open space vs. affordable housing. The Commission is trying to strike a balance and has written regulations leaning toward protecting resources but not to the exclusion of everything else. Ms. Louisos said that maps 7 & 8 were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as a guide for studies and goals which could eventually be part of the LDRs, part of a purchasing plan for the city, etc. She didn’t think anyone ha the sense that maps 7 & 8 were to be regulatory, and they didn’t put a lot of 5 thought into what was on those maps. Articles 10 and 12 are vetting that now. Ms. Louisos noted that the group that compiled those maps did not have consensus. She added that unfortunately those 2 maps replaced map #6 which was referenced in Article 9. She said map 7 shouldn’t have been regulatory in the first place, and the Commission is now being very specific about what is being regulatory. Ms. Louisos also felt the Natural Resources Committee can work on finding specific grasslands to protect. She stressed that the Commission has protected river resources, added the 500- year flood plain, and done work on habitat blocks and connectors. Mr. Mittag said the Commission never discussed dispensing with Chapter 9. It just happened. It is the current regulation that people have relied on, and he felt it would be “highhanded” to dispense with it. He felt that would result in less environmental protection than now. Mr. Gagnon disagreed that things are being given up. He said he personally wouldn’t regulate grasslands. Ms. Ostby said when she looks at the riparian on Map 7 and what the Commission is protecting, everything is covered and the Commission added to it. She also noted that people can petition the Commission to reconsider other things. Mr. Engels noted that what is redlined out in 906B3 is what the DRB used to rule in favor of the neighbors re: Dorset Meadows. Mr. Mittag acknowledged that riparian is covered, but he still felt agriculture, meadowlands and scrub lands are important. Mr. Macdonald said the Commission had a robust discussion as to what was to be protected in hazards, level 1 and level 2. He agreed not to rewrite Article 9. Ms. Louisos added there is no comprehensive mapping of grasslands, and the maps in the Comprehensive Plan were not vetted for LDRs. Ms. Ostby said the Commission “put a stake in the ground” and it is up to the City Council to give a different directive. Mr. Gagnon noted that the definition of agricultural soils covered everything in the city, so the Commission had decided not to use it. He felt the Commission can agree to disagree. Mr. Riehle agreed they should vote and move on. Mr. Mittag cited a difference between “primary” and “prime ag” soils and noted the latter is more restrictive. Primary soils are everywhere. Prime ag are very limited. Ms. Dopp said “prime ag” is a very specific term. She also noted the IZ Committee commented that open space recommendations should be reflected in the LDRs. She suggested reviewing the Committee’s criteria to make their judgments. Ms. Ostby said that is what the Arrowwood Report did, and the habitat blocks are in those parcels. Mr. Chalnick asked about the history of preserving lands in the SEQ. Mr. Conner showed the 2006 plan map and noted there were 3 primary “natural communities”: the Great Swamp, the Cheese Factory Road Swamp and Van Sicklen Avenue areas. He noted that the references in the Comprehensive Plan can’t be from this source and must be from the 2016 map. Mr. Conner then showed the 2016 map #7 6 and the draft map in this meeting’s packet. He identified various elements in each (e.g., wetlands and buffers, 500-year flood plain). He also indicated in the new map features such as habitat blocks, river corridors, steep slopes, etc. Ms. Ostby said from what she saw, nothing from map #7 isn’t covered by more in the current map. She felt great looking at the 2 maps. Mr. Conner then showed map #8 which identifies primary ag soils, 500-year flood plain, Great Swamp as identified by the State, including different types of forests, and “uncommon species.” Ms. Ostby then moved to accept the resources currently listed in Articles 10 and 12 to put forward in the draft for public comment. Mr. Gagnon seconded. The motion passed 4-3 with Messrs. Mittag, Engels and Riehle voting against. Mr. Mittag then moved that rather than accept the changes in Chapter 9.06 that the protections offered in the current regulations, namely prime agriculture soils, grasslands and shrublands be included in the protections in Article 12 under hazards, level 1 or level 2, and not to abandon those protections. Mr. Engels seconded. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see this as the only way to cover those things, and she didn’t think a whole new section was needed. Ms. Greco asked if there are more or less areas protected. Ms. Louisos said some areas are bigger, and there are different definitions. Mr. Conner noted that the Comprehensive Plan spoke to “primary areas” but the Land Development Regulation gave no direction as to how to interpret that because there is no specific standard for interpretation. The grasslands, prime ag and shrublands in Map 8 were secondary, and were not tested as to relevance. Mr. Conner then enumerated what is now being covered that was not previously covered including: 500-year flood plain, measurements from streams for buffers, no incursion into wetlands, habitat blocks throughout the city, steep slopes over 20%. He said this is substantially more than is currently protected. Mr. Conner said that to regulate what Mr. Mittag wants would need specific standards or it would be difficult to uphold. Ms. Dooley noted that Mr. Mittag’s motion contradicts what the Commission just approved. Mr. Mittag acknowledged that. Mr. Engels asked Mr. Conner to indicate what protections are lost. Mr. Conner said the text in Chapter 9 refers to a Comprehensive Plan map which refers to statewide data. It is hard to say what is gained or lost. In the vote that followed the motion was defeated 3-4 with Ms. Ostby, Ms. Louisos, and Messrs. Macdonald and Gagnon voting against. Members agreed to pick up at the next meeting from where they have left. Off. 7 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:49 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 31, 2021