Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/22/2019 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 JANUARY 2019 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 January 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair, B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design, R. Greco, S. Dopp, J. Morway, A. Chalnick, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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 comments unrelated to the agenda 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner noted that work on long-range transportation planning for the Tilley Drive / Community Drive / Kimball Ave area was continuing and that staff was working with neighboring communities on an updated version of the bike share program for 2019. 5. Report from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Open Space IZ Committee Mr. Gagnon reported that the committee had elected its leadership and set regular dates and times for meeting. The committee set several action items for upcoming meetings, including developing and reviewing a map of land set aside through conservation, TDRs, development reserved areas‐ those "off the table" for discussion, and therefore those “on the table” for discussion; had discussed the existence of other resources such as the Natural resource scorecard; and began discussion of criteria for evaluating priority land. Mr. Macdonald asked whether their scope was city-wide or just the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Gagnon replied that it was city-wide a. Transfer of Development Rights IZ Committee Ms. Ostby provided an overview of the first two meetings. The committee has selected a temporary chair, pending further discussion upon return of member Mr. Mittag. Ms. Ostby handed out a series of notes and question for follow up. They are looking at preparing a map that would identify which plots have sent TDRs, which plots within NRP still hold TDRs and how many, and which plots are in developable areas and could receive TDRs. Ms. Ostby then asked what happens if the TDR committee proposes a different objective. Who determines this? Council? PC? TDR committee? Ms. Louisos said that this was a good question. Mr. Conner said it would potentially depend on the scope of the change, and that he would follow-up on this question. Mr. Chalnick said he was still not certain exactly what the TDRs protect as the NRP zoning district already doesn't allow significant development. Mr. Klugo said that when looking at success in a TDR program, the City will need to look at what the market is demanding. 6. Continued Review of Natural Resources Standards in Land Development Regulations: a. Commission debrief of presentation by Jens Hawkins-Hilke, area-wide resources Commissioners noted elements of the presentation that stood out to them. Ms. Louisos said that what jumps out at her was that Jens said up front that he was an expert in some areas, but not all areas. The Commission will want to make sure we want to look holistically. For example, steep slopes. Mr. Gagnon noted the concept of connectivity. That doesn't necessarily mean conserving an entire block, but making connections between. Mr. Riehle said he would like some more clarity on what kind of a swath is needed. Mr. Gagnon reported that it is difficult because it is species specific. Ms. Ostby discussed Act 171; looking at this as an amazing opportunity - though not required until the next comp plan update, would suggest that the open space committee check out the resources. She also said she liked his note about isolated islands being important for people even if they are "dogged," and the note about adaptation of species with climate change. Ms. Louisos noted "Significant natural communities" and other things that are not fully mapped such as rare and endangered species. What to do about those? Might need ground delineation. Mr. Klugo noted that this underscores the need for a regulating plan. As we look at natural resources, we need to look at where we want parks, where we need roads. At some point the city needs to build the roads, not just defer to the developer when there's a place where we want a road or not. He added that he supports biodiversity and also need to think about where we want to have homes. Regulating Plan goes right in between the Comp Plan and the Regulations. Ms. Louisos said she attended a transportation and wildlife seminar in the fall: there is a lot of research on water crossings in particular. Ex: shelf for wildlife in culverts to keep animals out of water. Ms. Dopp noted that the presentation also noted importance of trees. b. Follow-up from 12/11 review of natural resources; mapping; direction on next steps Ms. Louisos provided an overview of what the Commission had discussed at its December meeting and the specific request it had made to staff to prepare mapping showing the resources included as Primary and Secondary in the Attachment to the 2014 Open Space Report which served as the report recommendation. Commissioners followed with a discussion of the relative roles of the Commission and the Open Space Committee, and of the resources available via mapping and reports. Mr. Riehle inquired as to why there appeared to be changes to the South Burlington Natural Resources online mapping tool that had been sent out and how these had come to be. Ms. LaRose noted that staff had asked the CCRPC to update the first draft which had shown data from various sources including the City’s Comprehensive Plan, to focus on the “raw data” of mapped areas per the Commission’s request and to show the most updated and accurate data available. Mr. Conner added that the CCRPC was working under contract to the City at the request of the City Council to extend our resources, and that changes were only being made at staff’s specific requests. Ms. Louisos reiterated that the mapping was prepared based on the Commission’s guidance, and also noted that the Commission has the full authority, from its starting point of the mapped resources, to consider all of the recommendations and analyses from the Open Space report and beyond. Mr. Klugo asked if the Commission can have a master schedule. Ms. Louisos said she would work with staff to develop one. Mr. Klugo also asked if the Commission options with Sharon Murray’s work – recommendations plus alternate options? Ms. Murray said, yes, keeping in mind that there are 4 pieces to the PUDs: Subdivision Regs, PUDs, Master Plans, and Housekeeping items. Ms. Peters said she hoped we don't lose the vision as we get into the weeds. Interim zoning was confined to a timeline that was pretty tight. Ms. Greco shared her concern of the source of what is contained in the Commission’s list of primary and secondary resource from the Open Space Report. Ms. Louisos replied that the Commission had decided to start with the Attachment D and can always adjust. Ms. Ostby said she continues to feel as though she doesn't have the expertise to weigh in, advocated for adoption of recommendations in Open Space report. Staff and Sharon Murray- report author- discussed why that would not be a good idea as available data and thoughts have progressed and recommendations within haven't yet been publicly discussed. Ms. Ostby expressed concern about making updates to the LDRs that didn't exactly match the Comp Plan map or language. Ms. Louisos expressed regret that the Commission in 2015/2016 didn't have a more thorough discussion of the maps or the recommendations before adoption and encouraged the Commission to do so now. She reminded the group that the Comp Plan is a guidance document and that other language in both the comp plan and the Open Space report indicate that the City should have a discussion on these items and take action, and that the City is having that discussion now. 7. Planned Unit Development project: presentation & discussion of outline for PUD standards, Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design Ms. Murray answered questions in previous agenda item and provided feedback on the mapping of various resources and the changes in data availability since the 2014 Open Space report. 8. Minutes of January 8, 2019 meeting Ms. Gagnon moved approval of the 1/8 meeting minutes. Mr. Riehle seconded. Approved. 9. Other business: a. Town of Colchester Planning Commission public hearing on draft Town Plan, February 5, 2019, 7 pm No comments 10. Adjourn As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:41 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission February 19, 2019K Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Natural Resource Elements in Land Use Regulations DATE: January 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting At its December 11th meeting, the Planning Commission started work towards creating a classification of conservation resources within the LDRs and potentially adding resources to those that are regulated. As previously noted, classifying land according to primary and secondary conservation areas is a useful tool in assigning the various levels of protection of a type of resource. How resources are classified into and between these two categories varies by community according to their own priorities. The 2014 Open Space Report made basic distinctions: ▪ Primary Conservation Areas include environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas that are off-limits to development, regard-less of their setting or context – for example, surface waters, wetlands and designated buffer areas; very steep slopes (>20% or 25%); flood and fluvial erosion hazard areas; and sites that host or support rare, threatened and endangered species. (p. 52) ▪ Secondary Conservation Areas are those other resource areas also identified for conservation or protection, in which limited encroachment may be allowed in accordance with siting and management practices that are intended to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts of development – for example primary agricultural soils, natural communities, wildlife corridors and scenic viewsheds. (p. 52) The 2014 Open Space Report acknowledges that the Open Space Committee did not reach consensus on which specific resources should be listed as primary or secondary. The report provides several options, including draft language from a 2012 grant project (see very early draft here, disclaimer that it is based on regulations in place in 2012) and from the South Burlington’s Natural Resource Committee’s conservation scorecard, as well as a new report recommendation (page A-3). The 2014 report concludes with a recommendation that the City should provide further review and discussion related to the assignment of resources into primary and secondary designations. The Commission agreed to begin the discussion using the recommended list from within the 2014 Open Space Report. Below please find some suggestions (redlined with comments in blue) to the list based on 2 commissioner discussion on the 11th, feedback from Jens Hawkins-Hilke who presented to the City on January 8th, and from preliminary mapping of the resources provided by staff at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Pulling out the potential conservation resource areas (updated mapping will be available at the meeting on the 22nd): PRIMARY 1. Very steep slopes (>20 [25]% ) Suggest 25%. Mapping shows that there are very few areas between 20 and 25% within South Burlington, and the 2012 CCRPC work recommends 25%. Some surrounding municipalities have 20% as threshold. No strong staff recommendation on either though. a. Not currently regulated in SB LDRs b. Some specific standards proposed via 2012 work with CCRPC c. Not common in South Burlington d. Commission action on 12/11/18: Commission previously discussed and expressed interest in regulation, but wanted to understand the scale and applicability. 2. Surface waters, shorelines, required setbacks a. Streams regulated in SBLDRs via Article 12 (page 210)* b. Shoreline regulations limited to required erosion control measures for properties adjacent to Lake Champlain c. Commission action on 12/11/18: recommended streams be measured from the top of the bank, 50-100’ depending on size/impairment. 3. Wetlands (Class 1, 2) and (?) required setbacks (‘setbacks’=buffers) a. No Class 1 wetlands in South Burlington b. Class 2 wetlands are regulated in SBLDRs via Article 12* c. Commission action on 12/11: see Class III wetlands in Secondary classification 4. Flood hazard areas (1% chance flooding/yr) a. Currently regulated via SBLDRs as part of an overlay district. b. Commission action on 12/11: no major changes were identified as needed 5. Fluvial erosion hazard areas/ River Corridors a. Not currently regulated in SB LDRs. b. Commission action on 12/11: Jessica recommended keeping as primary. State is currently mapping. Jessica will continue to work with Paul. 6. Rare, Endangered, Threatened Species Habitat a. Not currently regulated in SB LDRs b. Included in 2012 CCRPC draft as recommendation to avoid adverse impact c. See mapped area. Jens recommended text references here rather than making decision on map because ground truthing is critical- state resource map often has changes or errors. 7. Water Supply SPAs (Zone 1) a. Not currently regulated in SB LDRs b. Included in 2012 CCRPC draft as recommendation to avoid adverse impact c. Commission action on 12/11/18: Commission wanted to see mapping of these areas. 3 Recommended commission action: conclude discussion and direction related to Primary Natural Resources, in light of possible regulations under site plan, subdivision, PUD and release to seek NRC feedback on Commission direction. SECONDARY 1. Steep Slopes (15% to 20%) a. See notes above related to slopes. 2. Riparian areas a. Not currently regulated in SB LDRs b. Included for consideration with relation to Wildlife connectivity and riparian buffers in the 2012 CCRPC report c. Was previously linked to Valley Bottoms layer. This appears to have changed. At 12/11 meeting Jessica stated that River corridor layer is better. d. See updated map from ANR Biofinder 3. Wetlands (Class 3) and required setbacks a. Currently regulated in SBLDRs, article 12.02E. b. No changes proposed in subsequent studies. c. Commission on 12/11 discussed possible updates to Class III buffer regulations- are they necessary? 4. Flood hazard areas (o.2% chance flooding/yr) a. Mapped as subset of Flood Plain Overlay District but not currently regulated 5. Primary Agricultural Soils a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS. b. Regulated by State of Vermont c. Covers most of the City 6. Farmland [10+] acres in use w/in past [5] years a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS. b. Commission had an active discussion on 12/11. Some thought about how active farmland could be used when lotting a property, but not excluding from development potential. 7. Tree/Forest Cover (=> 20,000 square feet) a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS. b. Will share updated map from CCRPC which has various breakdowns of size. 8. Water Supply SPAs (Zone 2) a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS. 9. Natural Communities a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS except as mapped in the SEQ NRP 10. Significant Wildlife Habitat a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS except as mapped in the SEQ NRP 11. Wildlife Connectivity Corridors a. Not currently regulated by the South Burlington LDRS except as mapped in the SEQ NRP 12. Scenic Viewsheds (from public vantage points) a. Currently protected via Scenic View Overlay district b. Project funded in 2019 to review definition and application of scenic views 13. Intermittent streams/ swales- added as suggestion by Commission on 12/11/18 4 Recommended commission action: Items 1-4, 8 are commonly regulated at the site-specific level within municipalities. The others may likely require a higher level of area-wide planning. For the latter, we recommend returning to this at the conclusion of the review of the 2012 Natural Resources standards (CCRPC is revisiting this now) and after further guidance is given for new standards related to PUDs and subdivision (PUD project). We’ll discuss the wildlife layers further at the meeting. *South Burlington Land Development Regulations can be found online here. The State of VT ANR Biofinder map is useful in helping to understand the general locations of some of these resources. It is important to understand that some of these are part of subjective modeling. Adopted standards by the city would likely include provisions ground delineations and assessments. This link explains how the map works. The guidelines associated with using biofinder for land use planning were consulted as part of the 2014 Open Space Report. Staff will present an outline of development review options (site plan, master plan, subdivision) that will reference the use of Primary and Secondary resource areas in the creation of lots, infrastructure, and site planning. From 2014 Open Space Report: Type Description Development/Management Considerations Primary Conservation Area Hazardous and environmentally sensitive areas , to be confirmed through field verification, including: Very steep slopes (>20 [25]% ) Surface waters, shorelines, required setbacks Wetlands (Class 1, 2),required setbacks Flood hazard areas (1% chance flooding/yr) Fluvial erosion hazard areas Rare, Endangered, Threatened Species Habitat Water Supply SPAs (Zone 1) Primary Conservation Areas supersede and overlay other zoning districts and transect zones and are coded as T1 zones regardless of the underlying transect zone. Conservation PUDs required in: [Districts] “No-build “ areas to be excluded from development, except as specified in the land development regulations, to avoid hazards to life and property and adverse impacts to resources identified for conservation. Subdivisions (lot lines), road, utility and recreation corridors, fence lines and driveways must be sited and configured to avoid resource fragmentation and encroachment within these areas, except as specified in the regulations. Contiguous open space areas are to be maintained or re- established as needed to conserve resource functions, values. Allowed uses, facilities and activities must be sited, developed and managed to minimize risk and to avoid adverse impacts to resource functions and values. Primary resource conservation areas are to be set aside and identified as conserved open space on site plans and subdivision plats. Secondary Conservation Area Resource areas identified for conservation and protection, to be confirmed through field verification, including: Steep Slopes (15% to 20%) Riparian areas Wetlands (Class 3) and required setbacks Flood hazard areas (o.2% chance flooding/yr) Development – including subdivisions (lot lines), road, utility and recreation corridors, development envelopes, buildings, fences and walls and other structures – are to be sited, designed and maintained to minimize resource fragmentation and encroachment within these areas, and undue adverse impacts to resource values and functions. 5 Primary Agricultural Soils Farmland [10+] acres in use w/in past [5] years Tree/Forest Cover (=> 20,000 square feet) Water Supply SPAs (Zone 2) Natural Communities Significant Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Connectivity Corridors Scenic Viewsheds (from public vantage points) Secondary Conservation Areas supersede and overlay other zoning districts and transect zones and may be coded as T1 or T2 Conservation PUDs required in: [Districts] Contiguous open space areas are to be maintained or re- established as needed to protect resource functions, values. Best management practices must be used to mitigate adverse impacts of development on resource functions and values. Off-site mitigation may be allowed for development within secondary conservation areas located in City Center (T3, T4 and T5 Transect Zones), and Transit Overlay [Other?] District as needed to accommodate planned forms and densities of development. Clustering and/or development envelopes will be required as needed to limit development encroachment and adverse impacts in other zones/districts. Secondary resource conservation areas are to be set aside and identified as conserved open space on site plans and subdivision plats. PUD Article: Working Outline [draft 1/14/19 for PC] South Burlington PUD Project, Phase II Authority and Purpose  Statutory Reference – § 4417 (Planned Unit Development)  Intent – Relevant comp plan, statutory references – flexibility w/in defined parameters PUD Types  Listing/Brief Descriptions – Conservation, TND, NCD, Infill, Redevelopment ▪ Table: PUD Type(s) by Zoning District Applicability  Single or multiple parcels  Mandatory – PUD Type by District (for subdivision of parcels=5+ acres)  Elective – Infill, Redevelopment; parcels <5 acres  Exceptions Review Procedures  Application Requirements (ref master plan, subdivision, site plan provisions) o PUD Type (may vary by type) – plans, supporting documentation o Requested Modifications/Waivers o Scoring Worksheet o Plan/Pattern Book – Design Specifications, Typicals  PUD Review Process o Pre-Application Meetings – neighborhood, staff; required report (ref master plan) o Coordination/Sequence of Review ▪ Master Plan (all PUDs w/ noted exceptions – e.g., infill) ▪ Subdivision Plan (major subdivisions)  PUD Scoring – Calculations, Minimum Score  Amendments – Minor, Major General Standards (Applicable to All PUDs)  Comp Plan Conformance (plan policies, maps; as defined in Ch. 117)  Context (ref Master Plan, Subdivision, Site Plan Standards) o Zoning District(s) o Existing Conditions o PUD Type o Compatibility – complementary pattern, density, uses, forms o Boundary/Transition Zones o Integration of a infill PUD into larger PUD  Connectivity (ref Master Plan, Subdivision, Site Plan Standards) o Pedestrian Shed (¼ mile), Transit Shed (½ mile) o Street Types (ref street types, standards) ▪ Table: Street Types by PUD Type o Block, Intersection Standards  Density – ref District, PUD Type o Calculations – Total Land Area, Density Transfers – to be assigned per use allocation area based on buildable area o Residential; Nonresidential; Mixed Use -- or regulate via allowed building types o Min (Zoning District Max or TOD), Max by Right, Bonus o Allowed bonuses (affordable housing, TDR, LEED certification, public amenities, etc.)  Design – Modifications, Waivers o Ref PUD Types/Tables (below) o Dimensional Standards – lot area, width/frontage, setbacks, coverage; building height/stories (ref in relation to allowed building types) o Parking Standards o Infrastructure Standards – streets, bike/ped, low impact development, etc. o Open Space Standards – District, PUD Type o Encroachments – setbacks, wetlands, surface waters, floodplains, others  Uses – ref District, PUD Type o Land Use Allocations (ref master plan) – undevelopable, residential, nonresidential, surface parking, open space, renewable energy ▪ Table: Land Use Allocations by PUD Type o Allowed Uses – District, PUD Type o Housing Mix – Minimum by PUD Type  Building Types/Forms – to be defined o Building Types by Use Category (residential, nonresidential, other) o Building Types by PUD Type ▪ Table: Building Types by Use Category/PUD Type  Open Space (ref subdivision, site plan standards) o Minimum Requirements by PUD Type ▪ Table: Open Space Types by PUD Type Legal Documentation (ref Master Plan, Subdivision, Site Plan)  Management Agreement(s), Development Agreement, Dedications, Sureties PUD Table(s)/Graphics (develop template w/ Mark) – Tie to scoring worksheet  Purpose  Context – Rural, Suburban, Urban; Zoning District(s)  Defining Characteristics  Land Use Allocation  Density/Intensity (min/max)  Allowed Uses  Design Standards/Elements o Existing Conditions o Connectivity –Streets/Street Types, Bike, Ped, Transit o Blocks, Lots o Building Types, Height, Orientation o Parking o Open/Civic Space Types o Other SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 JANUARY 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 January 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; K. Dorn, H. Riehle, T. Barritt, D. Kaufman, S. Murray, S. Dooley, D. Leban, L. Yankowski, J. Kochman. S. Dopp, D. Angus, R. Greco, Alison Chalnick, Andrew Chalnick, D. Murdoch, T. Zylka, S. Swanson, A. Strong, T. Bailey, J. Hawkins-Hilke, B. Milizia, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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: Mr. Angus expressed frustration with trying to deal with a commercial building that is located in an R7 zoning district. He felt the zoning was an oversight and was dismayed at the inability of the city to address a problem as it arises. Mr. Gagnon explained that the Commission’s agenda is taken up with issues charged to them by the City Council. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: There were no announcements or staff report. 5. Consideration and possible approval of recommendations to the City Council for FY2020 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program Requests: Mr. Conner explained that annually the Commission makes recommendations to the Council which then makes requests to the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) for projects related to transportation. Mr. Riehle asked about the Van Sicklen Road proposal. Mr. Conner said it is just for traffic counts. Mr. Riehle stressed that Friday is a very busy day, and that should be included to get an accurate count. 2 Ms. Ostby said she thought item #3 – scoping of the bicycle-pedestrian bridge over I-89 - was covered by the TIF. Mr. Conner said only a small portion is TIF eligible. He also noted that this request was not funded this year. There also could be local funding involved as a federal grant can require a local match. Mr. Klugo felt it was good to be focusing on wrapping up projects. Mr. Klugo then moved to approve the recommendations as presented and submit them to the City Council. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Special presentation and discussion with Jens Hawkins-Hilke, Conservation Planner with the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife: Mr. Hawkins-Hilke stressed that he is not an expert on the ecology of South Burlington, so he will be presenting a “big picture view.” He also noted that his presentation is directly related to Interim Zoning. He also cited the JAM Golf decision and the need for the city to be crystal clear in its regulations. He suggested always including a map. “Significant Wildlife Habitat” means different things to different towns. Basically, it relates to those natural features that contribute to the survival and/or reproduction of the native wildlife of a community, including but not limited to: deer watering areas, habitat for rare species, riparian areas and surface waters, wetlands and vernal pools, wildlife travel corridors, high elevation bird habitat, ledge, talus, and cliff habitats, tree/forest cover, natural communities, significant wildlife habitat, grassland. Secondary conservation areas often cover larger areas of secondary ecological importance where lower regulatory standards are appropriate. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke noted that the State has an on-line mapping site identified as BioFinder. This gives a larger ecological context (e.g., interior forest blocks, landscape connectivity, surface waters/riparian areas). Vermont is 78% forested. Forest blocks are areas of natural cover surrounded by roads, development and agriculture. The largest ones are along the Green Mountains. Burlington and South Burlington have some of the smallest forest blocks in the state. However, there is more biological diversity in the Champlain Valley than on higher elevations. Even tiny forest blocks have more species. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke showed a map of South Burlington forest blocks of 20 or more acres. He suggested that secondary standards should apply here (e.g. limiting driveway lengths, encouraging cluster development, looking for interaction with wildlife crossings). Vermont is losing about 11,000 acres of forest a year. With the onset of climate change, Vermont will get warmer and wetter. Average temperatures are projected to rise 9-13 degrees in winter by the later part of the century. Precipitation has also increased 15-20% over the past 50 years. 3 Mr. Hawkins-Hilke noted that Act 171 requires towns to identify forest blocks and habitat connectors. There is a need to plan for land development in those areas to minimize forest fragmentation. Connectors can be small forest blocks, wildlife crossings, and riparian areas. These should be looked at in South Burlington. There should not be isolated areas of habitat. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke then showed a map of bobcat migration including a crossing at Route 116. In Shelburne He felt that development should be limited right near that crossing as an example of connectivity. Mr. Riehle asked how wide a riparian area/hedgerow needs to be. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke said the wider the better. The width is also related to species. He then cited Potash Brook, the Winooski River and Muddy Brook as major features in the pattern and showed an aerial map of priority wildlife crossings. He noted that this may not be 100% accurate as current science is not good enough to get to a strong regulatory standard. He also showed a random forest block and indicated where development is appropriate and would not affect connectivity. Primary conservation areas are often smaller and need higher regulatory standards. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke showed a map of “flagged areas” in South Burlington. Characteristics of these areas include: very steep slopes (more than 20%), surface water shorelines, wetlands, flood hazard areas, fluvial erosion hazard areas, rare endangered species protection, water supply source protection. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke showed a map of water resources in South Burlington (from BioFinder). He said the stream network is the most important resource in the city; everything related to wildlife is connected there. He also showed a graph of the water pattern during Hurricane Irene and noted that Middlebury was spared what Rutland experienced because water had more places to go. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke noted there is no statewide map of significant natural communities in Vermont. The ones in the best condition and the rarest ones are labeled by the State as “State Significant Natural Communities.” There is information on natural communities in the 2004 Arrowwood Inventory Study. A member of the audience asked if that study has “aged out.” Mr. Hawkins-Hilke said “yes/no” and suggested it be checked before basing a zoning standard on it. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke then showed a map of South Burlington wetlands which are critical to biodiversity. He said these areas should have a buffer around them and stressed that having development to completely circle a wetland significantly diminishes its wildlife functions. With regard to rare species, Mr. Hawkins-Hilke showed a map of where these have been found. He stressed that they have not been looked for everywhere in South Burlington. Mapping these areas is easy with plants. With animals, there is a “circle of spatial uncertainty,” rather than a regulatory map. Grasslands exist only to the extent that they are managed, and they often do not fit with town planning because they are ephemeral; how grasslands are managed year-to-year has a significant effect. These resources do exist in South Burlington, but Mr. Hawkins-Hilke could not say exactly where do to their nature. 4 In concluding, Mr. Hawkins-Hilke suggested 3 resources: “Conserving Vermont’s Natural Heritage,” “Mapping Vermont’s Natural Heritage” (being printed now to indicate how to use BioFinder for land use planning), and “Community Strategies for Vermont’s Forests and Wildlife.” Ms. Ostby asked if there can be an analysis of the impact of density. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke said there are no specific number regarding density, but it is part of the consideration regarding wildlife. There should be high density in some areas but not in others. Ms. Dopp asked about combinations of resources in an area that might have many features. Mr. Hawkins-Hilke said it depends on whether there’s overlapping. There can be conflicting uses that have different ecological conditions. He also noted that there are some places in South Burlington that are “loved to death” by people, but it may be important to get people out of them. 7. Brief Summary and Overview of Planning Commission’s Work during Interim Zoning Period: Planned Unit Developments and Master Plans, Subdivisions and Natural Resource Standards, Site Plan Study: Mr. Gagnon said the Commission is primarily working on the PUD process, and there are many pieces involved in that. The goal is to update Chapter 12 of the Land Development Regulations. The Natural Resources Committee will be invited to review the draft. Ms. Ostby said it would be interesting to know how much density an area can take and still be environmentally sound. 8. Other Business: a. Burlington Planning Commission Public hearing on proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 9 January 2019, 6:45 p.m., at Burlington City Hall b. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaws, 10 January, 7 p.m., Shelburne Municipal Complex No action was taken as these items were for information only. 9. Adjourn to Interim Zoning Committee Meetings: Ms. Riehle noted the time limitation of Interim Zoning and hoped all work can be done quickly without cutting corners. Mr. Gagnon stressed that tonight’s meetings are organizational only to elect officers (Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk) for each group. Mr. Dorn noted that clerks will do meeting minutes. He also stressed that the meetings are all open to the public. Mr. Kaufman stressed that Interim Zoning is not to stop development in the Southeast Quadrant, but to do it in the best way. 5 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:52 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk 1 MMMEEEMMMOOORRRAAANNNDDDUUUMMM TO: Chair of Planning Commission Milton Burlington Essex Town Essex Junction Winooski Westford South Hero South Burlington Charles Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC VT Department of Community Development FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: January 7, 2019 RE: Notice of Draft 2019 Town Plan Planning Commission Hearing Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7 P.M. on the third floor of the Colchester Town Hall at 781 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering the draft 2019 Town Plan. The draft plan can be found in its entirety on-line at tinyurl.com/2019TownPlan or at the Town Offices at 781 Blakely Road, Colchester, VT 05446. In accordance with 24 V.S.A.§4384(c), the 2019 Draft Town Plan does not alter the designation of any land area from the 2014 Town Plan last amended in 2017.This 2019 Draft Town Plan is consistent with the goals of 24 V.S.A. §4302 and plan elements of §4382: §4382(a) – Required Elements §4302(c) – Goals Description and Locations (1) – Objectives, Policies, Programs N/A Every section in the 2019 Town Plan begins with a vision statement reflecting the original goals of the 2012 Heritage Project Continuing; each section utilizes a goal statement and objective statement before discussing the section’s topic. Each chapter ends with a list of policies and actions for attainment of these goals and objectives for the duration of the plan. 2 §4382(a) – Required Elements §4302(c) – Goals Description and Locations (2) – Land Use Plan Goal 1 – Historical Development Goal 10 – Natural Resource Use The land use plan found in The Lands of Colchester Chapter contains future land use (under section A Land Use Plan for Now and the Future) and current land use descriptions (under section Planning our Neighborhood Areas). Development plans for these areas can also be found in this section. Maps 2, 3, 4 and 5 display relevant information for this section. Much of the language throughout the Planning our Neighborhood Areas section satisfies the Historical Development goal, especially the subsections about Fort Ethan Allen, Colchester Village, and the section titled Our Rural Lands. Land use descriptions in the Our Rural Lands and The Lands Between sections discuss the usage of natural lands for development and other transformative usage. With mention of the goals to maintain the rural character of these neighborhoods, these sections satisfy Goal 10. (3)- Transportation Plan Goal 4 – Transportation Goal 6 – Land Resource Quality Goal 7 – Energy The transportation element can be found in the Getting There Chapter. This Chapter focuses on the Transportation goal as seen in sections Maintaining the System and Planning for the Future of the System. This chapter also touches on energy usage and emissions in the Energy and Transportation subsection. (4) – Utility and Facility Plan Goal 12 – Public Facilities & Services Goal 8 – Recreation The Systems and Connections Chapter details utilities and telecommunications. The Serving Colchester Chapter also mentions the services provided by the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department such as programs and park maintenance. 3 §4382(a) – Required Elements §4302(c) – Goals Description and Locations These two chapters address the Public Facilities and Services goal. The section Parks & Recreation in Serving Colchester: Governance outlines the structure behind park management for recreation and conservation in Colchester. (5) – Natural and Historical Preservation Goal 5 – Historical and Natural Areas Goal 8 – Recreation Goal 10 – Natural Resource Use The historical and natural elements can be found within the Who We Are Chapter and the Natural Heritage Chapter. While the Natural Heritage Chapter primarily discusses the natural resources present in Colchester, the section titled Water Resources mentions the recreational value of Lake Champlain and other waterways in the Town. The goal of Historical and Natural Areas is mentioned in the Our Culture section of the Who We Are Chapter. In the Natural Heritage Chapter, this goal can be found in the Flora & Fauna and Natural Areas sections. (6) – Educational Facilities Plan Goal 3 – Education and Training Access Goal 8 – Recreation The Cultivating Colchester Chapter focuses on fulfilling the Education and Training Access goal, to provide access to public education (under subsections Education – Colchester School District and Higher Education) and continued education and training for all residents of Colchester. The recreation goal is addressed in the second half of this chapter, under the heading Recreation and Wellbeing. This section outlines Colchester’s structured and non-structured opportunities and their impact on creating a healthier community. (7) – Program for plan implementation N/A These programs for implementation are found at the end of each chapter under 4 §4382(a) – Required Elements §4302(c) – Goals Description and Locations “policies” and “actions.” The full list: 1. The Lands of Colchester 2. Natural Heritage 3. Our Homes 4. Powering Colchester 5. Who We Are 6. Serving Colchester 7. Cultivating Colchester 8. Our Place in Vermont 9. Our Economy 10. Getting There 11. Systems & Connections Maps (8) – Regional Cooperation N/A One of our goals is to plan mutually with our bordering municipalities. The Our Place in Vermont Chapter is dedicated to this. Each bordering municipality’s plan is discussed and possible conflict is explored in each relevant section. (9) – Energy Plan Goal 6 – Land Resource Quality Goal 7 – Energy Goal 11 – Housing The energy element can be found in the Powering Colchester Chapter. As it provides background on and sets policies for energy use throughout the plan, this chapter seeks to satisfy the Energy Goal. Regarding Goal 6, Land Resource Quality, the Powering Colchester Chapter mentions population distribution and growth centers in the Transportation Trends subsection. In the subsection titled Heating, Cooling, and Sealing the Cracks, the topic of housing and weatherization is discussed. Housing energy efficiency is discussed as a way to provide safe and more affordable cost of living. (10) – Housing Element Goal 11 – Housing Goal 2 – Economy The housing element can be found in the Our Homes Chapter and it primarily focuses on goal 11, of housing. Sections such as Condition of Housing Stock, 5 §4382(a) – Required Elements §4302(c) – Goals Description and Locations Home Values, and Housing Affordability provide background on this part of Colchester, and the Current Trends and Future Needs discuss what the Town is planning for. The Economy Goal is addressed in the Housing Affordability and Future Needs section of the chapter. (11) – Economic Development Plan Goal 2 – Economy Goal 9 – Agricultural and Forest Industries The Economic Development element can be found in the Our Economy Chapter. Present economic descriptions are described in the section titled History of Our Economy and Present. Future pathways are described in the Future section. Policies, projects and programs necessary to foster economic growth can be found at the end of the section under Policies and Actions. The Town’s Economic Development Plan is referenced and agricultural and forest industries are mentioned in the Future section. (12) – Flood Resiliency Plan Goal 14 – Flood Resiliency Flood Resiliency is not a standalone chapter in the 2019 Town Plan, but rather is part of the Natural Heritage chapter. Flood resiliency is mentioned in the section titled Floodplains. This section outlines the standards Colchester has developed regarding new or rebuilt structures in the Floodplain and Shoreland Districts.