Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/27/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JULY 2021 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 July 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, 19 Gregory Drive 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: D. Hall, Zoning Administrator; S. Murray, Consultant; J. Charest, S. Sarepalli, CCRPC; C. Trombly, L. Kingsbury, M. Emery, L. Ravin, S. Dopp, A Chalnick, S. Dooley, B. Britt, A. Holland, 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. Trombly advised that there was an open house at the new Habitat for Humanity house on Hinesburg Road as well as link to a 3-D tour of the building. The building conforms to the Form Based Code and is very quiet despite the busy area. The Executive Director has noted the challenges in South Burlington of finding lots or buildings to purchase and also the city’s fees from which they got no relief despite a request. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos: Reminded members of the joint meeting with the City Council on 3 August, 6:30 p.m. Ms. Hall noted the DRB is also meeting that night, but the city went ahead with the conflict because the next night is Rosh Hashana. The Council/Planning Commission meeting will be in the new Senior Center. 4. Swift and Spear Street Intersection Study Update: Mr. Sarepalli reviewed the design principles outlined at the last presentation and then showed the results of the second public opinion poll. The largest support was for a roundabout with a “shifted intersection” option ranking second. Mr. Sarepalli then showed what the various options would look like. He also noted that opposition to a roundabout is centered on bike/ped concerns. There was support for a “Walk” signal with all traffic stopped. Mr. Sarepalli also noted that the level-of-service with a roundabout is good. Based on this analysis, the project team is recommending that the Planning Commission choose between a roundabout or a shifted intersection. The Project Team recommended that the Commission select one of the top two rated options to advance to the next stage of analysis, a scoping study. The Project Team listed additional items for consideration for additional study depending on the preferred alternative. For instance, eif the roundabout is chosen, there would need to be additional study for bike/ped safety. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 JULY 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Riehle said one concern of his is the continued accommodations being made for cars. His concern with a roundabout is that it accommodates only cars. He said that if the roundabout is the final choice, he highly encouraged a path that is not shared but is separated for bikes and pedestrians. Ms. Ostby said she is concerned about roundabouts and is trying to educate herself. She noted that the Bike/Ped Committee has not been able to look at this study and comment on it, and the people she talked to on that Committee did not support a roundabout. She did not want the Commission to make a decision until they hear from the Bike/Ped people. Ms. Ostby also noted that 85 respondents to the poll is not a tremendous number. She stressed that this is a very unusual intersection with unusual traffic patterns. Ms. Hall said she coordinated with Ashley Parker to get materials to the Bike/Ped Committee. Mr. Gagnon said he is an advocate for roundabouts as they eliminate idling and he finds them efficient. He felt a well-designed roundabout is safe for bicycles. He noted there is also a signalized crossing where the bike path crosses Spear Street. Mr. Mittag said he favors the kind of roundabout on p. 19 of the presentation. Anything less than that he wouldn’t be happy with. Mr. MacDonald said he would also like to hear from more than 85 people. He noted that the roundabout takes up the least amount of right-of-way. He also noted there is a question of how to handle cyclists who ride on the road and not on the bike path. Ms. Louisos felt a roundabout can be a good option if designed well. She often walks through the Waterbury one and it works well with the crosswalks in place. She didn’t like the Jeffersonville roundabout as it doesn’t have the same pedestrian accommodations. She asked if there is time on the schedule to get feedback from the Bike/Ped Committee. Ms. Hall said this study is coming to a conclusion. Mr. Sarepalli said they are looking to finalize the report. Mr. Gagnon asked if there is funding to go beyond the study into a design phase. Ms. Hall said the hope is to get scoping. The team would like a decision on a preferred alternative that could then be advanced to a scoping level study. Mr. Britt noted the Bike/Ped Committee meets on 11 August. Ms. Louisos said the Commission could hear from them at its 18 August meeting. Mr. Sarepalli said that schedule can be accommodated. Ms. Ostby said she can see 3 hurdles: safety for bike/ped, lack of comparable intersections to this one (she noted the other roundabouts had 3 feeders while this has 4), and the cost is $1,000,000 more than PLANNING COMMISSION 27 JULY 2021 PAGE 3 the shifted intersection alternative. She felt the roundabout would have to be significantly safer to be worth $1,000,000. Mr. Charest said that the speeds in roundabouts tend to be slower than any traditional intersection with a typical design speed of 25-30 mph. He said that handling of traffic can be a problem with roundabouts in certain situations, but this one performed the best of the 4 options they studied. He also noted that the data says roundabouts can be safer for pedestrians. The data for bikes is is less available but is improving and is dependent on the design. Mr. Riehle asked if a design with separate bike lanes is an option. Mr. Sarepalli said it can be evaluated in a scoping study. Mr. Engels asked if there have been no fatalities at that intersection, how can a roundabout be safer? Ms. Hall said there have been a lot of accidents, mostly rear-enders. Mr. MacDonald added that bike/ped access isn’t great, especially with the volume of traffic. Ms. Ostby noted there is a new roundabout in Malta, NY, and the nearby hotel warns guests not to walk or run there as there have been accidents and it is not safe. 5. Continued Review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Ms. Louisos noted that the bulk of the discussion at this meeting will focus on Conservation PUDs. Ms. Murray said she tried to focus on some of the questions raised at the last meeting as to how Conservation PUDs could apply. The thinking is that this would be a type of overlay and would be elective where 50% of the parcel is covered with hazards, etc. It could also be for some subdistricts in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). 70% of the land would have to be open space. 30% could be developed. The density from the 70% would apply to the 30%. Ms. Louisos noted that Ms. Murray had suggested 3 options regarding whether or not to require the open space to be permanently conserved: i. Identify the land on a plat as “protected open space.” This would allow for a change in regulations and the property owner reconsidering. ii. Have a recorded easement with a 3rd party to manage this. iii. Dedicate the land fee simple to the city or to a qualified third part. Ms. Louisos suggested that one approach would be to keep those three options open for the applicant. Mr. Mittag said he felt #2 and #3 provide adequate protection, and #1 does not. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 JULY 2021 PAGE 4 Ms. Ostby noted that with a Conservation PUD, the hazards are already protected. The land that is not necessarily protected is not tied to a resource. Ms. Ostby said permanency can be good, but the future is not known. If zoning needs to change at some point in the future, that would be for a future panel to discuss. Ms. Murray noted that the land in the SEQ requires a management pln. This could be tailored to protect resources in the conserved area. Mr. MacDonald asked if the Conservation PUD is just for the SEQ or is it citywide. Ms. Murray said originally it was to be limited to the SEQ and lakeshore areas. Then there was discussion about land with 50% resources, which changed the nature of a Conservation PUD. Ms. Murray added that conserving 70% of the land may not be appropriate in some areas. In the SEQ, it only makes sense in residential districts. Ms. Louisos said the Commission decided to nail down what the “tool” is and then revisit the map and see where to apply it. The other piece is to determine where in the city this could be appropriate if more than half of a parcel is covered with resources. Mr. Gagnon said he agrees with keeping options open for the future. He did not think tying a Planning Commission’s hands in the future is a good idea. Mr. Engels said the only way to conserve land is a conservation easement. Mr. Riehle said he agreed and wanted to see permanent preservation of land. Mr. Engels noted all the farms in Charlotte with signs that indicate that the land is permanently conserved. Ms. Louisos said she felt options #2 and #3 were a good idea, and the non-hazardous land could still be used for farming. Mr. Mittag said that is a responsible way to act for climate change mitigation. Ms. Ostby noted that the Charlotte lands are conserved individually by the owners, not by regulations. She said anyone in South Burlington can do that as well. She then added that she was concerned that if the only PUDs are Conservation PUDs, and the land is permanently conserved, it is putting off the TDR conversation. Mr. Gagnon said he favors conservation. An individual land owner can conserve land. The city can buy land and conserve it as can private groups of concerned citizens. He added that when development is limited in South Burlington, it pushes development out to Milton, Starksboro, etc. which increases vehicle miles traveled and contributes to global warming. Ms. Murray said the language of the options could be recrafted to determine when they would apply. She added that Option #1 should be there in any case because it is shown on the plat. Ms. Louisos added that a person would have to do Option #2 or #3. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 JULY 2021 PAGE 5 Ms. Ostby said she would be opposed to forcing a PUD where there are no resources to protect. Ms. Murray said that is a good point. Originally the Conservation PUD was elective. Then it was mandatory in the SEQ. She suggested it could be elective everywhere. Ms. Ostby felt there is more about the Conservation PUD that they need to understand. Mr. Mittag said they shouldn’t sacrifice South Burlington land to keep people from moving to other places. In a straw poll, 4 members favored permanently conserving areas in the Conservation PUD, 1 opposed, and 2 abstained. Ms. Louisos said they can revisit this if people’s feelings change. Ms. Murray said there has been discussion regarding relying on an underlying zoning for the build area. An option would be to define building types (e.g., single family, duplex, etc.). Ms. Ostby said they had talked about requiring single family homes in the mix, and she would oppose that. Mr. Riehle disagrees and felt some single family homes should be required. Ms. Murray said single family to 4-plexes are allowed now. She added that with enough land, there could be a Conservation PUD and a TND. Ms. Louisos felt that sounded reasonable. Mr. Mittag said they had talked about 4 acres as a minimum for a Conservation PUD. That would leave only one acre to build on, and that would not be much of a neighborhood. Ms. Murray said that is not the aim of a Conservation PUD. Ms. Louisos added that it is important to have the Conservation PUD available for a 4-acre parcel if 50% of it is covered with resources. It is a conservation tool. Ms. Louisos asked if TDRs could work in the development portion of the land. Ms. Murray said that could be an option. Ms. Louisos asked about spots outside the SEQ. Ms. Murray asked whether the Commission favors strictly residential neighborhood development or underlying zoning. Ms. Ostby said the goal is to make it work. She also wanted to ensure that the developable 30% is contiguous. Ms. Murray said that is the intent. Regarding building types, Ms. Murray said they have added a smaller house type. They need to be sure there is enough density to support types of housing. Ms. Ostby felt a developer should be allowed one housing type. Mr. Mittag said developers have said they are being too proscriptive, so some flexibility is a good idea. Ms. Louisos felt that over a certain acreage, there should be multiple types, possibly more than 10 acres, more than one type. There was general agreement on that. Members opposed adding density from another parcel to the 30%. They also stressed that the 50% has to be hazards, level 1 and level 2 resources. Other land could be added to make up the 70%. Mr. Mittag asked about level 3 resources and where those get worked in. Ms. Murray said there could be a list of things no regulated but considered important to the city. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 JULY 2021 PAGE 6 6. Other Business: Spear Street Solar, LLC, Proposed Spear Street Solar Farm Ms. Louisos noted the city received a Public Utility Commission site plan for a solar farm on Spear Street. A site plan from the proposal was displayed for all to view. The City has 45 days in which to provide feedback. Mr. Riehle said there should be no fence and there should be a hedgerow along the Interstate. Mr. Mittag said the solar farm will provide power for the development in front of it. Ms. Hall noted the DRB just looked at that proposal, and it is still being reviewed. Ms. Ostby felt some pathways would be nice. Mr. Mittag added pollinators under the solar panels. He noted there is a treeline parallel to the Interstate. Ms. Louisos moved that the Commission respond to the pre-sharing site plan with the following: no fence, planting of pollinators, maintaining vegetation along the Interstate, and a walking area around the periphery. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: The following meeting schedule was outlined: 3 August – Joint meeting with the City Council (live, in person) 10 August – No meeting 18 August – In person meeting 24 August – In person meeting 31 August – Special in person meeting 14 September – In person meeting As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:03 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission August 18, 2021