Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/13/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 APRIL 2021 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 April 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; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; D. Leban, T. Woodard, G. Babcock, R. Greco, Wayne, D. Peters, Ewelina, A. Crocker, E. Sutherland, E. Borsellino, K. Borsellino D. Weaver, S. Dopp, M. Janusczyk, C. Trombly, J. Stinnett, G. Kjelleren, D. & S. Haggerty, J. Necrason, T. Doyle, C. Chamberlain, D. Weaver, J. Dahls, L. Ravin, Laura, S. Dooley, Sue, Ted, T. Doyle 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 said she did a summary on South Burlington Community Watch comparing Article 12 mappings. Ms. Louisos said she will do another submission to The Other Paper with one of the maps. There was no staff report. 4. Consider changing the date of Public Hearing on LDR-20-01 (Environmental Protection Standards) to avoid conflict with another city meeting: Mr. Mittag moved to change the previous 18 May public hearing date to Thursday, 20 May, due to a conflict with the DRB meeting. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Discuss and prepare feedback to City Council on I-89 Corridor Study Interchange alternatives: weighing of objectives and preferred options: Planning Commission 13 April 2021 2 Mr. Conner noted the City Council had a presentation from the RPC with updated metrics and 7 new criteria. There is a question as to whether all 7 goals should be weighted equally; the City Council seemed to feel the Safety should be weighted more. Mr. Rabidoux said the attempt now is to narrow down alternatives. The Committee has spent dozens of hours getting to this point. The Council is looking to advance certain designs and would prefer input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Rabidoux noted he is on the project technical committee. Ms. Louisos noted that the new information provided includes total scores which point to one of the alternatives. She presented the scoring page on the screen. Ms. Ostby asked if a change to Exit 14 is a “given.” Mr. Rabidoux said it would be a leap to assume there will be two $40,000,000 projects located 2 miles from each other. He felt the Exit 14 and either 12B or 13 will be competing for the funding pot. Mr. Mittag said his take is for something at 14 and one of the other two. If that’s not the case, the job gets harder. Mr. Rabidoux said 14 is an existing asset. It will need some level of investment at some time. Mr. MacDonald said that makes the decision easy. 14 is functional. 13 is existing, and completing it is a no-brainer. However, the cost is astronomically higher than the other two. Mr. Rabidoux said it is easier to build from scratch than to ‘retro.” Mr. Engels said he was glad to see the scoring was high for a diamond interchange at 13. He felt that was the best thing they could do. 14 has been redone a few times. It is time for 13 to be fully viable in all directions. Mr. Riehle said he would lean that way as well as it is better for City Center. He was not sure he was comfortable with all the forecast numbers for jobs, etc. Mr. Mittag felt 13 was the best option as it gives quick access to City Center and a direct line to the Airport. The total cost is less than 12B. Mr. MacDonald said he was just looking at the construction costs. Ms. Ostby said the second best thing for South Burlington would be the bike/ped crossing south of 14. She asked if retail could be included if that crossing were fully enclosed. Mr. Rabidoux said that would be a pipe dream in Vermont. The State doesn’t have full-service rest areas. He would be surprised if the city got permission to commercialize that space in any way. Planning Commission 13 April 2021 3 Members supported telling the City Council of their support for an enclosed bike/ped crossing. Mr. Engels asked Mr. Rabidoux if the city is tracking the infrastructure bill in Congress. Mr. Rabidoux said both he and Mr. Conner have provided testimony to Chittenden County representatives. There is a list of projects queued up. Mr. Rabidoux added that the current list has some “strange strings” attached to it. Mr. Rabidoux noted that the State wants the city to take over Routes 7 and 116. He said that before that happens, he would want the State to increase the “per mile” compensation the city gets from the State. Mr. Conner asked members if they want to push for one of the alternatives at Exit 13. Ms. Louisos noted that almost all members mentioned the diamond option, and it had the highest score. Public comment was then solicited. Both Ms. Dopp and Ms. Leban supported the diamond option at Exit 13. Ms. Ostby the moved that the Planning Commission support the Exit 13 single point diamond option as its top priority. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission support continued study and implementation of a pedestrian crossing at Exit 14. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Review and discuss Swift Street Extension and other east-west connections currently included in the Comprehensive Plan and/or Official City Map: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted that since the road was put on the official map, a number of issues have arisen including forest blocks, transportation goals for bikes, and access for emergency vehicles. Mr. MacDonald asked what would trigger that road being built. Mr. Conner said significant development on the Hill farm property will trigger the requirement for that road because it is on the official map. He added that the Hill Farm is a very large property and would require multiple accesses. Mr. Mittag said there could be 2 accesses from Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Conner acknowledged that to be correct. Mr. Mittag also noted that when the official map was done there was really only one east-west road. There are now others including Midland Avenue. Planning Commission 13 April 2021 4 Ms. Ostby said a lot has changed in 40 years. The west side of Dorset Street has become a gathering place. She felt that anything that cuts through will create safety issues for children and change the tone of the area. Mr. Riehle agreed. He felt that Kennedy Drive is underutilized. Mr. Gagnon agreed with not continuing with Swift St. Extension because of its closeness to Kennedy Drive. But he noted it is quite a distance from Kennedy Drive to Cheesefactory Road and wondered if another normal speed cut-across is appropriate in that stretch. He asked Mr. Rabidoux whether that would be appropriate from the point of view of Fire Department access, plowing, etc. Mr. Rabidoux said the more connectivity you have, the better. He urged the Commission to decide on what is the greater good. He said that as the city grows, there will need to be money for city employees and vehicles or there will be less service. Mr. Gagnon said he would opt for looking at an efficient way to get across. Mr. Conner said that is a good observation. Swift Street Extension would take traffic from a road not at full capacity. He said he wouldn’t advocate for a high-speed east-west road, but connectivity is important. Ms. Ostby said she supports what Mr. Gagnon recommends, but the challenge is that any alternative will go through the NRP. She favors better access for the Fire Department. The question is which habitat block will be the least impacted. She also noted that such a road could reduce Shelburne Rd. traffic. Mr. Mittag asked about Old Cross Road Extension and noted the city has a right-of-way almost all the way through. He added that Swift St. Extension would have a significant Class 2 wetland to cross. He felt it was not the right place for a road. Mr. MacDonald agreed that Swift Street Extension doesn’t make sense any more, but he agreed with Mr. Gagnon about the need for a functional east-west connection between Kennedy Drive and Cheesefactory Rd. Ms. Louisos noted there is another such road shown on the map almost half-way between those 2 roads. Mr. Conner showed the map with an approved connection that is beginning construction now. It is very circuitous. He also indicated other planned connections. Planning Commission 13 April 2021 5 Mr. Gagnon then moved to proceed with steps to remove Swift Street Extension from the Official City Map. Ms. Ostby seconded. Ms. Louisos said it might be helpful to retain a path right-of-way to accomplish walkability goals. She wanted to be sure that option isn’t removed. Mr. MacDonald asked what the negatives are about removing Swift St. Extension. Mr. Conner enumerated these as follows: a. There is only one emergency access in/out of Village at Dorset Park b. People who live in Butler Farms and want to take kids to hockey practice have to take the long way around c. With fewer connections, there is more pressure on existing roads over time Mr. Conner said the negatives may not outweigh the positives. He urged the Commission to be as clear as possible as to whether they want a right-of-way or a path, etc. Mr. Gagnon then amended his motion to include the words: but retain accessibility for a bike/ped use path for connectivity. Mr. Mittag noted that in 30 years there have been no problems at Village at Dorset Park. Mr. Engels asked what is there now. Ms. Ostby said there is a stream that is not passable, but there is a path on the other side of the stream. Ms. Louisos then reviewed comments in the “chat box” as follows: Ms. Greco: More roads is counter to the Comprehensive Plan. Donald: We owe it to future generations to oppose the Extension. Cathy: It is safer to remove the road. Kelly: Remove it. Tom: What is the procedure to remove the road? Ms. Louisos said there would be a draft at a future meeting. It would then be warned for public hearing by the Commission and then for public hearing by the City Council. That would take Planning Commission 13 April 2021 6 several months. Mr. Conner said there would also have to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so things line up. Mr. Riehle asked if the DRB would have to take into account a path. Mr. Conner said until there is an official change, the DRB is in a tricky situation. Ms. Dopp said she supports removing the road and agrees with a bike/walking connection. Mr. Conner said he would advise the owners of the Hill Farm, and they can weigh in at the same time as everyone else. In the vote that followed, the motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Gagnon then moved to ask staff to put the question of alternate connections on an agenda after work on the LDRs and PUDs is complete. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner noted that when the Commission adopted the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the road connection from Deerfield to IDX Drive was determined to be removed. It is still on the Official City Map. He suggested removing that road at the same time as Swift St. Ext. Members agreed. 7. Meeting Minutes of 23 March and 31 March 2021; Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 and 31 March. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: A. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Shelburne Zoning Bylaw, Thursday, 22 April 2021, 7 p.m. via zoom: Mr. Conner noted Shelburne is trying to streamline things. They are no longer going to require a zoning permit for interior renovations. He noted that staff is looking at things learned from COVID, like letting small changes happen quickly (e.g., outdoor seating). As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:52 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission on May 11, 2021