HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 12/14/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
14 DECEMBER 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 December, at 7:00
p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; I. Blanchard,
Community Development Director; D. Peters, J. Bellavance,
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Mr. Gagnon 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:
Ms. Ostby attended the Bike/Ped Committee meeting last week and noted the lack of light on city
streets. Chief Burke was asked to inform the Committee regarding bicycle accidents. Ms. Ostby said it
would be good to have the Chief speak to the Planning Commission as well.
Mr. Gagnon advised that Ms. Louisos had provided a presentation on the new LDRs to the City Council.
He also noted that Ms. Ostby will represent the Commission at the 20 December Council meeting.
5. Initial discussion on the Chittenden Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) projects proposal
for the coming year:
Mr. Conner said this in an initial discussion to get general feedback. He then explained the process. The
projects now being discussed would start in July, 2022. CCRPC can provide 80-100% of the funding for
transportation projects; for other projects the city can get their services at a discounted rate. For
projects with competitive grants, CCRPC reviews the projects and figures out how to match up the
requests with the dollars. Last year, South Burlington got almost all of its requests.
Mr. Conner then reviewed possible projects for the Commission to consider:
#1. A master plan design for “landing points” of the new bike/ped I-89 bridge
2
#2. An east-west transportation study in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) south of Swift Street.
Mr. Conner asked members if there are specific focuses they would like to emphasize that are not
typical transportation things. Ms. Ostby suggested anything that could alleviate Shelburne Road traffic.
Mr. Macdonald suggested getting feedback from Public Works, Police and Fire Departments. Mr. Riehle
expressed concern with dividing the SEQ into quadrants which loses the rural aspects. Ms. Ostby
suggested looking at this in conjunction with the Town of Shelburne. Mr. Conner said he would be
happy to reach out to Shelburne folks
#3. Bike/ped improvements. Mr. Conner noted the Commission has identified areas where
crossings are a concern. Ms. Ostby suggested crossings near the high school. She noted there is a State
Statute that allows communities to reduce speed limits to 25 mph near schools. She felt that should be
considered. Mr. Conner said there would have to be a rigorous analysis for that, and there would have
to be an ordinance as well. He will talk to Public Works about it.
#4. Traffic signs, stop signs, etc. Mr. Conner said there would have to be an analysis to do them.
#5. “Catchall” for miscellaneous projects.
Mr. Riehle was concerned that since South Burlington is identified as a growth area, as the city grows
there may not be sufficient parks, areas for dogs, etc. Mr. Conner said that one of the City Council’s
priorities is just that. It may not be for this particular funding source.
Mr. Gagnon asked whether CCRPC has looked regionally at open space connections. Mr. Conner said
there is work going for that.
Ms. Ostby noted they had talked about looking at demographics for the future. Mr. Conner said there
have been talks about collaborating with the School District regarding demographics. He noted that the
city is 2 years out from a new Comprehensive Plan, and there needs to be the right data to support that
update.
6. Map Discussion regarding priority areas for infill development:
Ms. Peterson said this is the next step after the LDRs, specifically density infill and where in the city
there is infrastructure to support that density. The first focus should be on the goals and then the tools
to accomplish those goals.
Mr. Mittag suggested having TDRs available city-wide then removing areas where they are not feasible.
He was not sure how applicable the map is. Ms. Peterson said the map is not a statement of where
TDRs should or should not be sent. It is just the areas that could accept more density. Ms. Ostby said
some of those areas are very controversial and may never happen . She questioned the top of Spear
Street for greater density.
Mr. Gagnon was concerned that they are already discussion tools.
3
Mr. Mittag suggested focusing on the Williston Road and Shelburne Road corridors, and possibly also
the northern part of Dorset Street.
Mr. Conner said there are 2 things to consider: areas where there is agreement on infill potential and
the issue of neighborhoods. He noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has offered to participate
in this discussion, and they are aware that this is a very community-oriented discussion.
Ms. Ostby said she is not comfortable with that discussion and cited bad roads, bad lighting, and other
safety issues. Mr. Gagnon agreed that is a concern. Mr. MacDonald said he agreed with greater density
on Shelburne and Williston Roads, but also understands the issues Ms. Ostby has raised. He asked
where safety standards are built in.
Mr. Conner said that is a multi-layered discussion. Shelburne Road is underserved by parks and there is
a question of finding a reasonable destination people can get to. Mr. Conner also noted that the city
does not have a lighting standard though there are some general rules to provide guidance (e.g. lighting
of crosswalks). Mr. Gagnon said there will be 2 sides to the lighting issue, and it will be a difficult
discussion. Ms. Ostby cited the need to make people comfortable with where they are living.
Ms. Peterson noted that in more traditional zoning, commercial uses were separated from residential
uses. The hope is to identify some areas where some commercial development could have some
residential added to it. The zoning of Shelburne Road is for larger commercial lot. Ms. Peterson
questioned whether the Commission would want to add some residential in any of those areas and
create mixed use, walkable neighborhoods. Mr. Conner said they might also add the corner of
Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive to that mix.
Mr. Riehle questioned the quality of life and suggested the old Hannaford building off Shelburne Road as
a possible place for commercial below and several stories of residential above. He noted there is a lot of
open space around that building.
Ms. Peterson asked whether to focus on large parcels for redevelopment or look at some smaller parcels
as well. Mr. Conner noted that for the last year, there has been a high demand for those smaller
properties. Ms. Ostby noted some properties are already zoned Commercial-R-12. Ms. Peterson added
that there are already allowance for the DRB to make that residential density possible.
Mr. Macdonald asked about the UMall property. Mr. Conner said the company that owns it is interested
in selling it. It is in the Form Based Code District. He added that the City Council is interested in “getting
it right” there.
Ms. Ostby recalled that they were told to avoid adding density to current residential areas. Ms.
Peterson said the concern is changing the nature of an existing neighborhood, though there are
opportunities for transition areas.
Mr. Riehle asked if communities can zone so there can’t be children in a dangerous area. Ms. Peterson
said that could run into legal questions.
4
Ms. Ostby asked if there is any possibility near the railroad tracks west of Shelburne Road. Ms. Peterson
said there tend to be federal issues near railroad tracks. Mr. Conner said there are some dedicated
easements along the east side of the railroad.
Ms. Bellavance said she was concerned with safety issues along Shelburne Road and suggested the
Commission connect with the Bike/Ped Committee to make roads safer.
7. Consider proposal for change in Form Based Code Area:
Ms. Blanchard said the city has been watching the area develop and has observed that the corner of
Hinesburg Road and Market Street is underdeveloped. All the lots are under 2 owners. Many options
have been looked at. It is a T-3+ zone, unique in the city. Ms. Blanchard said one way to facilitate
development would be to extend the existing T-4 zone to echo the T-3 residential area across the street.
Mr. Conner said the reason for the T-3+ was to allow a fourth story in the T-3 area. He suggested the
option of lowering the density to T-3 and then allowing building up behind it. He noted that
development would have to be “on street,” which raises an official map issue. At present, the 2
property owners would have to agree on a street, but if it is on the official map, that wouldn’t have to
happen.
Mr. Gagnon asked what is wanted from the Commission. Mr. Conner said the objecting is that if the
idea has merit, Ms. Blanchard would discuss the idea with the property owners with a decision to be
made at some point in the future.
Mr. MacDonald asked if the road would go on the official city map. Mr. Conner said it would and would
then become city policy.
Mr. Mittag asked why not go up instead of down to T-3 and why not T-3+. Mr. Conner explained there is
a lot which requires a town house style. Developers are struggling with that. There is also the issue of
looming over the buildings next door.
Ms. Ostby said there is so much opportunity for a neighborhood there with some of the things a TND
can offer. She felt it would be a safe area and there could be something really creative.
Mr. Conner noted that the official city map shows a crossing over the Interstate. It is not very clear, and
there is a desire to update the map to show this more clearly. Mr. Gagnon asked if there is any thought
to having an access as a direct line to Dorset Street instead of a loop. Ms. Blanchard said there is a spur
to be designed with the project to connect this project with the infrastructure around it. Mr. Conner
added that they could do something short term and update it later. He drew in a possible line. Mr.
Mittag said this is what a number of people recommended at a visioning session.
8. Other Business:
Ms. Peterson advised that the Airport Rezoning Task Force will be meeting on Thursday at 7:00 p.m.
5
Mr. Gagnon noted the next Planning Commission meeting will be on 11 January 2022.
Mr. Conner cited the amount of work that the Planning Commission has put in over the past year.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:03 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022