Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/23/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 MARCH 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 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; D. Hall, Zoning Administrator; M. Pasaren, L. Wood, N. Anderson, D. Seff, S. Dopp, R. Gonda, D. Hernberg, M. Cota, J. Charest, B. Britt, S. Kumar Sarepalli, T. Barritt, S. Dooley, S. Partillo, D. Albrecht, A. & A. Chalnick, D. Long, R. & T. Davis 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Louisos asked to add to Other Business a check of the upcoming schedule. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. & Mrs. Davis, owners of the Davis Studio on Shelburne Road, addressed the Commission regarding a potential to the LRDs. Davis Studio includes an arts-based pre-school, and they wish to renovate a building now used with a residential use to an educational use. They noted that in addition to affordable housing, quality affordable childcare is also a city priority. Their request is to add “childcare” to the list of exemptions for replacement of housing that is a discontinued use. Ms. Louisos explained the procedure for members to decide whether to add this to a future agenda. Mr. Riehle said the request has merit. Ms. Ostby noted the Commission recently discussed adding childcare to PUDs. Mr. Mittag suggested sending a written request. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Mittag said that Land Trust is asking for help with Green-up Day on 1 May. Mr. Conner announced that the city has just received two grants: The first would construct a crossing of Kennedy Drive by Edge Fitness by narrowing the street and putting in an island. The second would expand the bike path south on Spear Street. Mr. Conner also noted that new e- 2 bikes arrived today. Mr. Gagnon asked whether they will be allowed on bike paths as they often go too fast for safety of others. Mr. Conner noted that he testified at the Vermont Senate regarding defining e-bikes and to set upper speed limits and give municipalities the ability to address their use on shared use paths. That bill has come out of committee. Mr. Riehle asked about the “dip” on Spear St. Mr. Conner said that may be part of the I-89 discussion. Mr. Britt said it is part of the proposed diamond interchange. Mr. Charest of the Regional Planning Commission said it is an option that would remove that bridge. They haven’t moved to correct the dip yet. Ms. Ostby noted she had seen a “very competent” biker riding in the left lane. She felt this will be happening more often. 4. Swift Street/Spear Street Intersection Improvement Scoping Study presentation & feedback: Ms. Hall introduced the study team. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. MacDonald represented the Commission on that team. Mr. Sarepalli said the Committee worked with a consulting team to get a conceptual plan for the intersection. The have posted a plan on-line and are seeking public comment. They will then create a plan to make that intersection safer. Alternatives will be brought to the Planning Commission for considerations of safety, affordability, etc. Ms. Hall encouraged people to take the on-line survey. There are 180 responses to date. Ms. Hall then showed an overview of the project area. Ms. Louisos commented that the summary of existing conditions was excellent. Mr. Macdonald noted that the Committee did consider the impact of the Spear Meadows development on the intersection as well as the Kwineaska development. Mr. Charest added that those numbers were added in as “general background growth.” Ms. Ostby raised the question of considering a rotary for that intersection. She did not feel that would be good for bike/ped. Mr. Charest said that is a great comment. He then noted the difference between a “rotary” and a “roundabout” and said traffic in the roundabouts moves slower. They are new to Vermont and are safe for drivers and pedestrians. Some designs are safer for bikes as well. He added that CCRPC will be prepared to do some education to the public as to how roundabouts work. 3 A note in the chat box questioned timing of the traffic light at that intersection, specifically for southbound traffic, and said that a certain times of day traffic backs up because the light doesn’t change for 3 cycles while cross traffic keeps going. Mr. Riehle raised the possibility of wider bike paths for electric bikes, perhaps divided down the middle with one side for the e-bikes. Mr. Britt said national standards have increased the width for bike paths from 8 to 10 feet and South Burlington will strive for that standard where possible. Mr. MacDonald asked whether the Bike/Ped Committee provided information to the Swift/Spear Committee. Mr. Britt said they just learned about this study from Front Porch Forum. Their next meeting is 8 April, and they will provide feedback after that. They would also like to have a representative on the team. Ms. Ostby said there should also be consideration of “orange posts” between bikes and the road on faster roads. 5. Continued Land Development Regulations work session: a. Continued review of updated Environmental Protection Standards following Commission guidance and related amendments: Ms. Louisos said she hopes they can get to where a public hearing can be warned at the next meeting. She noted that the Commission will be losing staff help sometime after that. Mr. Mittag said he wanted to cover things from Chapter 9 before they move on. Ms. Louisos said they should look at mapping which is a big piece of pubic outreach. Mr. Conner noted there are some resources, including agricultural ones, that are weaved into the PUDs from an incentive or requirement perspective. Mr. Conner then showed a series of maps as follows: 1. NRP current regulated: Mr. Conner indicated the NRP district 2. Currently added covered lands 3. Including what is built and approved to be bult (Mr. Conner indicated land neither built on nor conserved 4. Proposed hazards, level 1, level 2 and conserved lands, parks, and built on land 5. Existing protected areas compared with proposed (Mr. Conner noted co- existing). Mr. Conner showed a close-up of the Allen Rd. area and indicated the expansion of the wetland buffer and how it changes the property. Mr. Mittag asked to see the current NRP overlayed with the proposed. Mr. Macdonald said he remembered some slight adjustments, nothing major. 4 Mr. Chalnick asked how reliable wetland mapping is. Mr. Conner said the mapping is an indicator as to what is potentially out there. Wetlands must be delineated by the State wetlands person. Ms. Louisos said the regulations would require that on-ground delineation. She added that from what she’s seen they can be a little bigger than what is mapped. Mr. Conner said the larger ones are usually closer to streams. Mr. Mittag asked when the delineation takes place. Mr. Conner said that under the current regulations, delineation takes place at the time of development. He added that wetland delineations are good for only 5 years. When delineations are done, the results are added into the State data base. 6. Future land use map: Mr. Conner indicated the very low, low, medium, higher intensity use areas 7. Conserved and NRP lands superimposed over the Future Land Use map and Article 10 and 12 (Mr. Conner indicated lands owned by UVM, specifically the Miller Farm) 8. Built environment superimposed over the Future Land Use and conserved/NRP/resources 9. Map 7 of Primary Conservation Areas. Mr. Conner said this identifies what was thought to be wetlands, steep slopes, riparian connectivity, etc. 10. Map of NRP and Resources superimposed over Map 7 11. Map 8 of Secondary Conservation Areas. Mr. Conner identified various areas and showed the conserved, NRP and Chapter 10 & 12 resources superimposed over that map. He identified portions of the Hill Farm, Auclair Property and Cider Mill II. He noted that only a few areas of prime ag soil in the SEQ are not protected, some of which are in private ownership. Both Ms. Louisos and Mr. Gagnon noted there is no scientific basis for what is on Map 7. Mr. Mittag said they have to live with that map because it is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Macdonald said that any wetlands shown would still have to be delineated. Mr. Conner said it would and any wetland found to be wider would have the buffer added to that. Ms. Ostby noted that what is in Chapters 10 & 12 covers most of what is in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Louisos said she has always known that the lines regarding riparian areas wouldn’t perfectly match up. Members then questioned what they need to do to bring this to the public for comment. Mr. Albrecht asked for a FAQ section to help the public understand the document. Mr. Gagnon said a “plain language summary” is being worked on. Mr. Conner said it will be a one-pager followed by a page or 2 regarding history. Mr. Mittag said that at the last meeting it was said that farmland is protected by 906C. He noted that section says “encouraged” and suggested that be changed to “required.” Ms. Louisos said the Commission said they would include agriculture in the PUDs. Mr. Mittag said 5 he felt it belongs in Chapter 12 as it’s an environmental protection. Ms. Louisos noted that in some places agriculture is classified as “land use,” not “environmental.” Mr. Mittag said Act 250 regulates prime ag soils and noted that the city has to mitigate them on the new soccer field. Ms. Louisos said any large development would have to go through Act 250, so that would be addressed. Members then continued their review of specific areas of Chapters 10 & 12 as follows: Chapter 10: Ms. Ostby asked for a definition of “historic sites.” Mr. Conner said this is defined in the definitions. Ms. Louisos said she would like to see a standard that fencing doesn’t block animals. Mr. Conner said he can do that. Mr. Gagnon recommended checking with Public Works regarding fencing issues. He noted that if you have stormwater ponds with steep slopes it can be dangerous for small children. Mr. Conner said the regulations are silent on that, and it can be looking at on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Macdonald said the 2 diagrams on setbacks and shadow are hard to follow and suggested simplifying these for the public. Mr. Conner said these were provided by the State. He added the “shadow” idea may be superfluous. In Section E2, Ms. Ostby asked why the DRB can grant waivers for wetlands. Mr. Conner said “waiver” will be changed to “modifications.” This applies only to Class 2 wetlands in the City Center District and to Class 3 wetlands. It is a trade-off in City Center and applies to Class 3 if they can demonstrate they meet the criteria. Habitat Blocks: Mr. Mittag asked about habitat block buffers and noted these are stressed in the Arrowwood report. He favored a 300-foot buffer, where possible, to make the habitat blocks work. Ms. Ostby said the habitat blocks have “cores” and areas outside the cores to protect the cores. Mr. Conner said Arrowwood identified 26 habitat blocks and used metrics to identify their quality. One metric was that the block was at least 300 feet from a road or a house in order to have a greater core. Ms. Ostby said she felt the current blocks include a 300 foot buffer. Ms. Ostby said that since the Commission is creating habitat blocks, some mathematical information would be good in the definitions. That way, if the mapping leaves one out, there is a way for the public to bring it to the Commission’s attention. 6 Mr. Gagnon reminded members that when Arrowwood did their study it was a “drive-by,” not on-ground. He noted that an applicant can go to the DRB to modify the mapping and delineate what is actually on the ground. There is also language to allow for removal of invasives. He felt habitat blocks were well defined and there is latitude for field delineation. Mr. Conner noted that in order to qualify for an “Arrowwood block,” there had to be 50% trees. He said that people can remove trees in a forestry operation, and if that happens and what is left is less than 50% trees, the claim can be made that it is no longer a habitat block. One idea is that in a Conservation PUD, 70% of the land would be protected. The Commission could choose certain areas of the city where a Conservation PUD is required, and 70% of that land would have to be protected. He noted that as the Commission moves toward more “aspirational resources,” this becomes a policy question. Mr. Riehle asked how those areas of the city would be identified. Mr. Conner said they could look at the most important resources. He added there are not that many areas of the city that would be involved as there wouldn’t be contiguous areas to support it. Mr. Riehle said a buffer in one place might not be as important as one in another place. It would have to be customized. Ms. Louisos then moved that the Commission not include in the draft for public comment additional buffers around habitat blocks. Mr. Gagnon seconded. The motion passed 4-3 with Messrs. Riehle, Mittag and Engels opposing. Members then briefly considered passing Articles 10 & 12 on to the Council prior to completing work on the PUDs. Mr. MacDonald asked if the Council could “sit on” Articles 10 & 12 until the Commission got them the PUDs. Mr. Conner said the Council would have one hear in which to take action on what is given to them. If they don’t, it would no longer be valid. Mr. Mittag was concerned there is “wishy washy” language in the draft. Mr. Conner said he will check in the legal review. Mr. Mittag said he would provide some examples. Mr. Conner said there will be a section in the memo regarding rare/endangered species, which the Natural Resources Committee is looking into. He recommended addressing this only if someone wants to disturb a habitat block. Ms. Ostby asked about the next step. Ms. Louisos said Mr. Conner will incorporate what was discussed into a final draft for the Commission to view at its next meeting and then warn for public hearing. Mr. Conner raised the question of warning the public hearing before meeting with the City Council. Mr. Gagnon felt it should be ready to warn but held until after the meeting with the Council. Mr. MacDonald agreed. 6. Other Business: 7 Mr. Conner noted the City Council has a special meeting on Monday 29 March. Members then agreed to a special Commission meeting on Wednesday, 31 March, at 7 p.m. Mr. Conner noted he will need time to prepare the report that goes with draft to the Council. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:56 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission May 11, 2021