HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2020South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Special Meeting Tuesday, March 3, 2020
7:00 pm
South Burlington Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street
AGENDA:
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:04 pm)
4. Announcements and staff report (7:09 pm)
5. Review and discuss possible regulatory direction of findings of 2020 South Burlington Habitat Block
Assessment and Ranking (7:12 pm)
6. Establish calendar for public outreach plan for Planned Unit Development / Natural Resources
amendments to the Land Development (8:25 pm)
7. Review and approve minutes of prior meetings (8:35 pm)
8. Other Business (8:37 pm)
9. Adjourn (8:40 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to
ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to
call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Commission review of Habitat Block possible regulatory implementation
DATE: March 3, 2020 Special Planning Commission meeting
This past week representatives from Arrowwood Environmental presented their findings and responded to
questions about their recently completed Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking report.
The Report, the powerpoint presentation, and CCTV’s video recording of the presentation can all be found on
the PUD/Natural Resources Project Website.
[as an aside, for ease of use and sharing, we’ve made a new link to this page: www.sbvt.gov/LDRupdates ]
In addition, on that page we have now also posted a link to the Map Viewer that includes all of the different
information: possible hazards, level 1 resources, parcels, habitat blocks (and connections as shown in the
presentation), current zoning, and for reference, the priority parcels recommended by the Open Space
Interim Zoning Committee. For quick access, here is a direct link to that Map Viewer.
Broad Regulatory Perspective to Date
The Commission previously, on February 3rd, broadly affirmed a series of working decisions. The Commission
was clear with its vote that as more information is known and parts of the PUD project come together, there
may be modifications, but this provides a starting point
This Meeting’s Objectives:
• To examine the ranked habitat blocks individually and collectively and determine how the Commission
would like to proceed
• To provide direction, for the purposes of crafting draft regulatory language, on Habitat Blocks:
a) Should certain parts of the City / property circumstances be exempted (or have ability to reduce)
from Habitat Block restrictions?
b) Should certain habitat blocks, either lower-ranked ones or isolated ones, be excluded from
regulation or treated as Level 2 resources?
c) How should properties with significant amounts of Habitat Blocks (and/or Habitat Blocks &
Hazards, combined), be regulated?
d) How should connections, as discussed last week at the presentation, be addressed?
2
a) Habitat Block regulation in certain parts of the City / Property circumstance:
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the following possible exemptions from Habitat Block
regulation in certain parts of the City. These could be exempted altogether or have a reduced standard
for review.
1. Habitat Blocks within the City Center Form Based
Code. In the map below, this area is shown in deep
purple. The habitat block is purple, and the FBC T4
zone is in the rusty brown color. These areas have
been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as priority
areas for development.
Where wetlands, streams, and river corridors exist,
those standards would still apply.
2. Habitat Blocks located on existing parcels of less than
one (1) ( one and a half - 1.5?) acre in size with one
or more existing dwelling units. There are a number
of parcels on the edges of the forest block; most of
them are 0.25 to .05 acres in size. In rare
circumstances, a parcel of between 0.5 and 1 acre
exists with a home on it. In most of these cases, the
property is home to a stream or other similar
feature, which would prohibit development.
Applicable areas would remain subject to stream &
river standards. Staff recommends this exemption for
practical implementation purposes. Staff has found
no cases of a parcel less than 1 acre in size,
developed with a home, that is located in a core
portion of a forest block.
3
Habitat Blocks located within 30’ (50’?) of an existing
principal building on the same parcel. There are a number
of areas where portions of back yards or fringes of
commercial parcels include habitat block edges. In
practice, these areas are often used either as functional
backyards, lunch spots, etc..
As above, these areas would remain subject to stream and
river standards.
Staff recommends this exemption for practical
implementation purposes. Staff has found no cases of a
parcel less than 1 acre in size, developed with a home,
that is located in a core portion of a forest block.
b) Individual habitat blocks, either lower-ranked ones or isolated ones
In developing the concept for forested blocks, the Commission’s natural resources working group had
contemplated two tiers of forest blocks; those with the greatest value and those worthy of a measure of
conservation but not at the same level. The Commission is encouraged to review the entire list of 26
blocks and determine if certain blocks should either be exempted or reduced in regulation due to their
value to the community.
At last Tuesday’s meeting, Arrowwood Staff were asked whether they saw a natural “break” in the
ranked habitat blocks for their value. Their response was that the rankings do provide guidance as to the
value of each block, and that in addition policy makers should review the role they may have in serving as
stepping stones between blocks. Some may be more isolated than others.
Examples: Lowest ranked blocks (purple to lighter blue)
Isolated Blocks (eg: 18, ranked #23; 25, ranked #25)
Blocks entirely contained within public property (16, ranked #10; 15, ranked #13)
1. Staff recommends that the Commission consider first weather there may be two or more tiers (or
certain blocks eliminated).
2. If yes, then staff would recommend a smaller working group meet to review the 26 habitat blocks in
detail and report back with ideas in 1-2 weeks.
c) Properties with significant amounts of Habitat Blocks (and/or Habitat Blocks & Hazards, combined)
Throughout the City there are properties that have significant amount of Habitat Block and/or Hazards
located upon them. On these parcels, the ability for development potential (density) to be relocated from
one portion of a property to another portion is limited and in some cases is not possible if development is
prohibited.
4
Attached are two analysis maps that staff requested the CCRPC prepare for the Commission’s review of
this question. Both highlight properties with greater than 50% of their land area containing Natural
Resources identified by the Commission.
• The first map shows parcels with 50% of more in habitat blocks, in 10% increments
By the numbers. There are approximately 30 parcels that are at least 80% covered by Habitat
Blocks. Of these:
o 8 are publicly owned (City or Winooski Valley Parks District) or conserved (Nature
Conservancy)
o 1 is UVM-owned and designated as open space (east woods)
o 3 are association common land
o 5 are entirely contained with the SEQ-NRP district (separately from lists above)
o 3 are on extremely steep slopes and are effectively inaccessible.
o Approximately 9 do not fall into the categories above. A few of these have significant
amounts of land in the NRP and/or Hazards, however the forest blocks extend beyond those
boundaries.
• The second map shows Habitat Blocks plus hazards, with the same scale as above.
By the numbers. There are a number of additional parcels that exceed 80% of the land when
Hazards are added to the list. Many of these are small single family homes. There are, however,
perhaps 10-12 additional properties that fall outside the categories as described above that due to
the (possible) existence of these hazards, exceed 80% of the parcel.
Evaluation and options
The Planning Commission’s working group on natural resources spent some time on this topic prior to
having the Habitat Block report, in anticipation of findings such as those above.
These areas, and those with less (but still greater than 50% resource land), could be candidates for
Conservation PUDs or as being some form of NRP zoning (allowing for limited development and/or sale
of TDRs). The conservation PUD type is intended to promote a heavy focus on retention of Natural
Resources, but does allow for a portion of the land – that which is least impactful to the resources) to be
developed upon.
Conservation PUD were initially contemplated for properties exceeding 50% “primary” and “secondary”
resources (roughly described as Hazard and Level 1 today). This was developed prior to the
consideration of Level 1 resources (notably Habitat Blocks) as their own designated areas - tentatively
no-build for principal buildings - on a property rather than being considered as part of a PUD in its
overall evaluation. The Commission should now discuss how it wishes to address properties with high
proportions of resource coverage. Possibilities previously discussed:
a) Consider required Conservation PUD type with permitted limited encroachment into Habitat
Blocks in least impactful areas (density allowance TBD)
o Use land allocations (pie chart) to establish amount of conserved resource land and
developable area; consider Conservation PUD standards to establish construction
parameters
5
b) Consider designating as Natural Resource Protection District (LDR article 9)
o NRP allows 1 home on parcels <15 acres & 3 homes on parcels >15 acres
o NRP is a Transfer of Development Rights sending area
1. Staff recommends the Commission review the above, give initial guidance as to what the
Commission is looking for as an outcome in these cases, and direct staff to review and return to the
Commission with detailed review of one or more tools to accomplish Commission objectives.
d) Consideration of connections between Habitat Blocks, as discussed last week at the presentation?
At last week’s presentation by Arrowwood Environment, there was discussion about the role of
connections between the various Habitat Blocks. The presenters discussed that they had performed a
simplified assessment of connections between habitat blocks. These are included on the Map View
above. Aaron Worthley asked that we share the following caveat about the connections a& supporting
habitat:
Important note: These 2 layers (connecting and supporting habitat) were developed as components of a
scoring and ranking method in support of the primary goal- identifying and ranking Forest Habitat Blocks.
These are 2 of the 10 parameters contributing to the ranking. Identification of these features was NOT the
primary goal of this project and therefor we did not spend considerable time reviewing and correcting the
output. The connecting and supporting habitat were derived directly from landcover data provided by
others, and were not field verified, or subjected to thorough QA review or manual correction.
Investigation of potential wildlife corridors with boundaries sufficient to stand on their own in the
regulatory arena would be a separate project.
As part of this discussion, Jessica asked to take a look at how these connections relate to identified
Hazards. Users of the Map View can overlay these. Staff has prepared a rough overlay of these resources.
1. Staff recommends the Commission discuss broadly how it would like to use these findings prior to
discussion of specific tools.
Parcels with 50% or More of the Area in Habitat Blocks
SHELBURNE RDSPEARSTDORSET STHINESBURG RDEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
NPercent of Parcel Area in Habitat Blocks
50% to 59.9%
60% to 69.9%
70% to 79.9%
80% to 89.9%
90% to 100%
Parcel Boundary 2018
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Source: Parcels, 2018, South Burlington; Habitat Blocks,
Arrowwood Environmental, 2020;Map created by M.Needle
using ArcGIS. All data is in State Plane Coordinate System,
NAD 1983.
Disclaimer:
The accuracy of information presented is determined by its
sources. Errors and omissions may exist. The Chittenden
County Regional Planning Commission is not responsible for
these. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved
by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor.
This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-
ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and
may indicate relationships between features, but is not a
replacement for surveyed information or engineering
studies.
Path: D:\Projects20\SouthBurlington\InterimZoningNRAnalysis_20200219\InterimZoningNRAnalysis_20200219.aprx 2/22/2020
Parcels with 50% or More of the Area in Habitat Blocks +Hazards
SHELBURNE RDSPEARSTDORSET STHINESBURG RDEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
N
Percent Covered with Hazards + Habitat Blocks
50% to 59.9%
60% to 69.9%
70% to 79.9%
80% to 89.9%
90% to 100%
Parcel Boundary 2018
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Source: Parcels, 2018, South Burlington; Habitat Blocks,
Arrowwood Environmental, 2020;Map created by M.Needle
using ArcGIS. All data is in State Plane Coordinate System,
NAD 1983.
Disclaimer:
The accuracy of information presented is determined by its
sources. Errors and omissions may exist. The Chittenden
County Regional Planning Commission is not responsible for
these. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved
by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor.
This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-
ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and
may indicate relationships between features, but is not a
replacement for surveyed information or engineering
studies.
Path: D:\Projects20\SouthBurlington\InterimZoningNRAnalysis_20200219\InterimZoningNRAnalysis_20200219.aprx 2/22/2020
Hazards‐ 100‐Year floodplains & Flood Hazard Areas‐ Class II wetlands & 50’ Buffers‐ Streams & setbacks‐ River Corridors‐ Steep Slopes (20%+)Habitat Blocks, Hazards, ConnectionsHabitat BlocksHabitat Blocks over Hazard AreasHabitat Block ConnectionsHabitat Block ConnectionsOver Hazard Areas