Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/14/2023 PAGE 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 November 2023, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels, D. Leban, L. Smith, F. McDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; N. Atherton, Planner; R. Doyle 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: The first public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan will be at 6:30 on 16 November, in Room 301. Commission members are welcome to attend. Mr. Conner: Attended with Ms. Baker and Ms. Blanchard the Community Development meeting. There was lots of discussion regarding S-100 and work around the State regarding the “missing middle” housing. Staff is anticipating the annual offer from CCRPC for transportation planning projects. Commission feedback will be solicited, and the City Council will have to approve the choice(s). Ms. Louisos reminded members that there will not be a second meeting in December. Mr. Conner said staff is putting together next year’s calendar of meetings. 5. Presentation on Transportation Demand Management (TDM): PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 | PAGE 2 Mr. Conner reminded members that this is one of the CCRPC-funded projects. South Burlington’s existing framework for managing traffic is at a level of service (LOS) “D” throughout the city. The Traffic Overlay District sets a hard cap on the number of vehicles that come and go from a parcel in the PM peak hour, but it disincentivizes infill development and leads to less investment in those areas of the city. The key goals of TDM include: a. Match the level of requirements to the size of the project b. Direct private investment toward meeting the City’s transportation goals in areas that the City has identified as ready for development c. Work toward CP goals of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and enhancing equity For larger projects, there is very little guidance as to how to meet the standards. The elements of a better framework include: a. Keep traffic impact fees b. Create a new LOS requirement depending on the location in the City c. Right-size the scale of review d. Create a TDM program with a menu of options Traffic impact fees: a. Retain existing traffic impact fees for new developments b. Base fees on PM peak hour trips c. Fund projects under the CIP Replace Traffic Overlay District with Street Classification: a. This will allow for different levels of congestion tolerance in different places b. Roadway tiers Sort projects into three categories: a. Small: No additional TDM over LDR minimums No traffic study required Simplify traffic calculations b. Standard: Required to reduce total site trips by 5% from proposed new total No traffic study required PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 | PAGE 3 c. Large: Required to reduce total site trips by 14% from proposed new total Traffic study required Developers would be encouraged to reduce vehicle trips through use of TDM policies. This would be vetted during site plan review and would give applicants greater choice in determining the best option for the site. TDM options include: a. Sheltered bike parking b. Fleet of bicycles on site c. Preferential parking for car-pooling or other high-occupancy vehicles d. Transit subsidies/discounts e. Car-share membership f. Flextime to avoid typical commuter peaks g. On-site childcare h. Participation in guaranteed “ride home” program Mr. Conner said those who can’t meet a lot of the TDM options would have higher impact fees. Another option is a fee that someone might pay to meet their minimums. The fee could be used by the city for a project. The TDM process would include: a. Identifying a land use type b. Specifying the size of the development proposal and the number of trips to mitigate c. Determining the change in peak hour trips mitigation Mr. Atherton then showed a map of the Traffic Overlay. He said that proximity to transit would count toward trip mitigation. Large projects would be required to submit a transportation management plan. Questions for the Planning Commission to consider: a. Are there enough TDM menu options? b. Should certain policies be restricted to certain types of development? c. Are there other activities and infrastructure that should receive credit for mitigation? d. Is too much/too little credit being given for proximity to transit? e. Should TDM policies be optional or required? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 | PAGE 4 Mr. Conner said staff is working on regulations which will be brought to the Planning Commission. He cited the problem with some expansions that may result in one or two more trip ends and that trap owners into large expenses. Mr. Conner noted that they are looking at treating City Center the way shopping malls are treated regarding traffic counts. Mr. Smith said he loves the TDM management idea, but he questioned whether putting in a bike rack would guarantee reduced traffic. He suggested decoupling parking costs from unit costs. A person would pay less rent if he didn’t have a car. He noted that as long as his car is cheaper to run, he will use it. Mr. Conner said some housing has dedicated parking, some has shared parking. When there is shared parking, there are fewer spaces needed. Mr. Atherton cited the difficulty in monitoring some TDM options. The question is how much staff to dedicate to compliance. Mr. Smith said “peak hour traffic” says nothing about daily congestion. He cited Dorset Street as an example. Mr. Conner said there is nothing that requires use of “peak hour traffic” as a measurement. Mr. Doyle said different parts of the city experience different peak trip times. He cited the difficulty of pulling out of Brookwood when UMall traffic is backed up. Mr. Mittag said ride-share programs of large developments are very difficult to monitor. Mr. Conner said ride-share programs for 10 homes may not result in very much; for a larger development there could be value. Ms. Leban said the lowest traffic creator is a multi-use building. Ground floor offices generate very little traffic. She felt they need to encourage that. Mr. Conner said the tricky thing is that the more sophisticated a development is, the more they see how they can use the manual. Mr. Mittag asked if they know how many peak hour trips have been added at Market Street. Mr. Conner said they will know that soon as counts are being done. Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure they were ready to answer some of the questions. She felt the list of TDM options was only a partial list possibilities. Mr. Conner said one possibility is that TDMs would be optional, but you would get credit for them. Mr. Mittag felt there should be a minimum requirement for each project. Mr. Engels said they can’t promote development and restrict traffic at the same time. He felt they need to restrict development. Mr. Mittag said a growth management program is essential. He didn’t want to restrict development; he wanted to manage it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 | PAGE 5 Mr. Engels said people moving into new development will not be bike riders. They will have 2 cars. Mr. Smith said he would like to see TDM incentivized, to move from cars to effective alternate transportation. He questioned how you get cars off the street.. Mr. Conner suggested that if you put in TDM and reduce trips, you get a credit. There also have to be neighborhood amenities so people don’t have to get in their cars to get to them. Mr. Duncan MacDonald said he would favor anything that would support small businesses. It is very frustrating not to be able to do something that makes sense. Mr. Atherton said the idea is to have a simple calculator available for small businesses. Mr. Conner said that whether a hair salon is 4 or 7 trips is inconsequential. He suggested: “If you are this small, this is your number.” Small businesses would also not have to pay to have a study done. Mr. Leban said it bugs her that because the density is too low, you can’t get public transit. Mr. Doyle said any way you can make it simpler is great. He cited the need to make things effective (not putting showers next to furnaces). Mr. Conner said bike parking needs to be near entrances. For the interiors, it has to be available for all users. The regulations don’t dictate where beyond availability. Mr. Doyle also cited the need to protect people from the weather (e.g., shelters) while waiting for transit. Mr. Atherton said this will be brought back to the Commission in mid-January with some draft language. He also noted this presentation will be made to the Bike/Ped Committee. 6. Climate Action Plan for Transportation: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He noted the plan was put together by an advisory group including local policy makers, technical people, etc. He cited the ambitious goals of the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030 and by 95% by 2050. A survey was done as part of the plan. It received 269 responses. There were also focus groups for seniors, retail workers, etc. Actions identified by the Climate Action Plan include: a. Existing EV charging b. New EV charging c. EV adoption d. Micro-transit e. TDM and increase in CATMA membership PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 | PAGE 6 f. Investment in public transit g. Lane reductions h. Park & Rides i. Higher density mixed development j. Parking management k. Bike/Ped plan Supporting action could include: a. Student EV education b. Community EV education c. Car-Share Vermont Mr. Conner showed an example of a High Impact Action Implementation Plan which includes parking management, bicycles, EVs and car pools. He also showed possible ways to track targets to see where progress is/is not being made. He noted that some projects have a Planning Commission component (e.g., how do we make it easier to install EV components?) There will also be some that require City Council investment consideration. Ms. Leban said she is “0 for 2 in trying to operate an EV charging station and has given up. There is a requirement for a pass code and nothing said you needed a particular card. She said there needs to be State-wide consistency as to how these work. Mr. Atherton acknowledged that there is work to be done. Ms. Leban said there is a 48-cent a kilowatt hour fee to charge in Stowe. Some tell you the fee; others don’t. Some charge $2.00 just to hook up. A member of the public asked if the city has authority regarding pricing. Mr. Conner said the City only has authority granted to it by the State, so his guess is “no.” 7. Meeting Minutes of 24 October 2023: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 24 October 2023. Mr. Duncan MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: Mr. MiƩag said he read that the amount of walking being done today is 20-30% less than pre- COVID. He had thought it would be the opposite. Ms. Leban said this also has to do with people not wanƟng to use public transit. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:02 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 14, 2023 | PAGE 7 ___________________________________ Clerk