Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Natural Resources & Conservation Committee - 12/02/2020 NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2020 AT 6:00PM Electronic meeting attended by Ashley Parker, Ray Gonda(Chr), David Crawford, Corey Santorello, Colin McIntosh, Jessica Grillo, Jean- Sebastian Chaulot, Larry Kupferman, Drew Shatzer & Lisa Yankowski (phone) Attending: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning for the city of SB 1) Welcome & virtual meeting review done by Ashley. 2) No additions, deletions or changes. 3) No public attendees. 4) Motion to adopt minutes subject to a couple of minor changes from 11/2/20- Lisa, 2nd-Jess. Adopted unanimously. 5) Update &discussion with Paul Conner, on the draft amendments to the LDRs’ Environmental Protection Standards. Paul presented several interactive maps showing the current areas of protection around the city. Rivers & streams, wetlands, river corridors that include areas they may expand into, no build areas and areas where development is allowed. Other maps showed developed areas, areas with restrictions and undeveloped areas with no restrictions. The DRB can allow some incursions into some areas except Class III. Ray inquired if there are any Class I areas in the city- no. - 12/8/20, the Planning Commission is planning to areas to protect based on the Arrowwood Report. This will include areas off limits to development to protect key natural areas that were identified. Concessions will allow denser development in other areas, (ie: cautionary building in with the 500 yr flood zone or slopes). There is no new development allowed in 100 yr flood plains. Jess asked scenic views/corridors are taken into account and what about chemical runoff. -Paul said that communities do not have the ability to restrict uses of pesticides and some chemicals. But SB does have a comprehensive storm water system to help alleviate this issue with the capacity to manage future development. Scenic view protection does have some height restrictions. The Planning Commission wants to add more protection and the NRC should consider this. Larry wanted to know if Interim Zoning affected any of the work. Interim Zoning was to allow the city to step back and re-evaluate natural resources within our boundaries. Lisa asked about interim zoning affecting some of the current development that currently occurring. Areas along Kennedy Dr, Williston Rd, Kimball Ave & Shelburne Rd were exempt for up to ¼ mile on either side, from interim zoning. -Jess inquired about a map with connectivity between natural areas. Are these areas that may be privately owned maintained? -Our charge is to provide feedback on the LDRs and using the maps we saw: What are the areas that need protecting the most? The Planning Commission is waiting for it before finalizing 6) Discussion SD-20-40 500 Old Farm RD- O’Brien Eastview. - The committee will split into working groups to answer the questions on the scorecard for this proposed development. The scorecard was included in materials for this meeting. #1 &2- Lisa, Jean & Drew, #4 & 5- Larry & David, # 3 & 6- Ray, Jess & Drew. Ray feels #7 has been adequately satisfied by the developer. The groups should email their results to Ray for collating and discussion at our next meeting. 7) Meet the Natural Resources & Conservation Committee members Ray- taught high school physics, worked as an engineer at IBM. Has been involved in environmental activities, chaired the Sierra Club, worked on protecting rapids & rivers creating portages to protect the rivers. Larry- municipal experience In Burlington, VT, has volunteered on several committees in SB, has been very involved in the relationship between the private & public sector. Jean- his focus is trees & the canopy. David- has a background as a municipal project manager. He hopes to help make the new NRC Conservation Committee happen & be respected. Colin- resident for 3 yrs, wants to see natural resources protected while learning how the local government & committee work together. He’s been a project manager at Dealer.com and teamwork facilitator. Lots of public speaking experience. Jessie- worked in international development where development intersects with nature. She wants to invest & understand more about where she now lives, how to balance the needs, perspectives of people living in the margin areas. Drew- wants to an advocate for those with no voice, like the environment. Wanted to be an activist and got into environmental studies. Has worked in habitat restoration & environmental policy. Corey- wants to become more familiar with SB since he grew up in Ryegate, VT. Graduated from Lyndon State with degrees in Natural Science & Biology, has interned with Fish & Wildlife, studied animal behavior in the grasslands of the Dakotas. Lisa – grew up Queen City Park, in SB, including Red Rocks Park before the city owned it. Graduated with degrees in Biology & Elementary Ed, classes including Botany, Field Botany, Plant Physiology & Environmental Science. Was usurped into the NRC when the Red Rocks Advisory Committee was disbanded. Has been involved in various issues in SB. Helps oversee Red Rocks Park. Is SB rep to the Scenic Byway Council. 8) Ray has developed a new work plan for 2021 using the 2020 plan with modifications based on the committees charge from the city. Ref the plan included in the information packet. 9) Member & staff reports: see information from Ashley, sent in the information packet. 10) Future agenda items: - The Audubon Society would like to meet with us. - Work on the new work plan for 2021. - Work on the Score card for the O’Brien Eastview Project. - Work on developing & maintaining a vision for conserving the city’s natural resources. - Look at connectivity between areas of habitat areas. Is connectivity lacking? The next meeting is January 6, 2021 at 6pm. Get any information to Ashley and Ray early due to the holidays. David moved to adjourn, 2nd- Lisa. Adjourned 8pm 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Natural Resources and Conservation Committee FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Update on Status of draft Land Development Regulation Environmental Protection Standards DATE: December 2, 2020 NRC meeting The Planning Commission has been working on a series of amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), related to the design and arrangement of larger subdivision & neighborhoods and the conservation of identified key natural resources. In January 2020, prior to the pause created by the pandemic, City Planner Cathyann Larose and Planning Commission chair Jessica Louisos had met with the NRCC to provide an overview of the work done to date on these subject areas. This summer, the Commission picked up their work, reviewing a staff draft of updated regulations that had been prepared in the spring and addressing key outstanding issues of conservation and development. A brief background: Zoning is one of the tools available to the City to conserve natural resources. The use of regulations, together with other tools such as land acquisition, conservation easements, and management plans, has been a part of the City’s zoning for a long time. The City has long regulated certain natural resources, notably water- oriented elements (wetlands, streams, floodplains, and water-oriented development along the lake), and more recently, in the mid-2000s, established a “Natural Resource Protection” zoning district that covers approximately half of the land area of the City’s Southeast Quadrant. In the early 2010s, the City engaged in an initial analysis of other natural resources to be identified and possibly regulated on a City-wide basis. In 2016, the Planning Commission, working with a consultant, completed a preliminary report of how to revamp its use of Planned Unit Development as a project review and design tool, and the following year began a significant project to overhaul the City’s subdivision and planned unit development standards. As the Commission dove into this work, it became clear that the subjects development design and natural resource conservation were closely connected. The Commission determined that they should be addressed together, in a cohesive update to the Regulations. Following the adoption of Interim Zoning by the City Council in late 2018, the Council and Commission hosted speakers on the subjects of wildlife and natural resource conservation. From a habitat perspective, it was identified that key in South Burlington resources included water-adjacent areas (along streams, rivers, and Lake), and in a series of forested areas which likely serve as either habitat block or connectors between them. The Commission reviewed a number of options for how to proceed, and in the fall of 2019 agreed upon a working list of natural resources to regulate, and incentivize for conservation, in the revision of the Regulations. Among those were Habitat Blocks, which volunteers had identified but which had not been mapped or assessed on a city-wide basis in the past. 2 The City hired Arrowwood Environmental to prepare a Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking report. The report was completed in late January 2020 and identified a total of 26 blocks measuring 20 acres or more in size. Arrowwood presented their findings to the City Council and Planning Commission in February 2020. Project Components: As noted above, the update to the Land Development Regulations being undertaken involves several pieces that are intended to work together to promote thoughtful, affordable, compact development and conservation of key natural resources. The four principal components are: • Subdivision Standards (for divisions of land) • Master Plan Standards (for larger projects) • Planned Unit Development Standards (required or optional, supporting guided flexibility to support creative, compact development) through different PUD types applicable in different areas of the City • Environmental Protection Standards (applicable to all development) Since the late summer, when the Commission and committees began to meet again, the Commission has held a series of work sessions to develop the direction and guidance on each of these, to prepare them for committee & community input. The Commission has reviewed draft text for each except PUDs, and reviewed draft language for all of these except the PUD text, which is slated to be provided by the City’s consultant at the end of this month. Environmental Protection Standards: The draft Land Development Regulations divvy natural resources into three broad categories, which together fall under the umbrella of “environmental protection standards.” These categories are: • Hazards. Hazards includes resources which are typically regulated at the State and Federal level and are consider hazardous for construction upon. They include 100-year floodplains, class I & II wetlands and their buffers, stream buffers, river corridors and very steep slopes. The Planning Commission has identified undeveloped 500-year floodplains in this category as well. • Level I Resources. Level I Resources are locally-identified natural resources to be restricted from development. The draft regulations include identified Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors, initially identified through the Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking and adjusted by the Planning Commission through their work sessions on balancing policy priorities, into this category. • Level II Resources. Level II Resources are those which should be carefully managed but which are typically either smaller in size or which can be built within through careful design. These include, in the draft text, intermittent stream buffers, 15-25% slopes, class III wetlands and buffers, and 500- year floodplains in built-up areas. The City, with the help of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, has been analyzing all of these resources (full list below) along with a number of other data layers, through a public Interactive Map Viewer. Staff encourages Committee members to look through these. The Commission is presently working through final elements of this work, including how a Conservation Planned Unit Development type (see below) can support the purposes of these Environmental Protection Standards and address circumstances where a property has significant Level 1 Resources on site, and where the City may wish to incentivize additional conservation on a property beyond minimums. 3 How the Environmental Protection Standards would apply The table below lists each of the regulated natural resources. Each has its own standards both for how the land is to be used (for example, stream buffers must be left in a natural state), and under what circumstances incursions are permitted. Broadly speaking, development must avoid Hazards and Level I resources (as well as the aforementioned Natural Resources Protection District). In a subdivision, with few exceptions, these areas must be set aside into their own conservation parcels, and are excluded from the definition of the parcel’s “buildable area.” In a site plan, they must be avoided. Level II resources, meanwhile, may be included within a lot or development, but the applicable Environmental Protection Standards still govern. For example, development is permitted on a slope of 15- 25%, but must include slope stabilization. The table below outlines each of these resources. Those resources shown in italics are either newly regulated as of 2019 or are proposed for regulation. Regulation Section Building Lot Restrictions Buildable Area Initial Identification Field Verification / HDA Hazards Floodplain (1% and 0.2% B1), Floodway 10.01 Yes No FEMA FIRM Yes River Corridor 10.07 Yes No ANR Atlas Yes Surface Waters, Buffers 12.02 Yes No ANR Atlas Yes Class I, II Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 Yes No ANR Atlas Yes Very Steep Slopes (25+%) 12.09 Yes No ANR Atlas If impacted RTE Species Habitat 12.04 By Species By Species Site Mapping If Impacted Level I Resources Habitat Blocks 12.05 Yes No City LDR Map Optional Habitat Connectors 12.06 Yes No City LDR Map Optional Level II Resources Floodplain (0.2% Zone B2) 10.01 Yes Yes FEMA FIRM If Impacted Class III Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 No Yes ANR Atlas If impacted Steep Slopes (15 to 25%) 12.09 No Yes ANR Atlas If impacted Intermittent Streams, Buffers 12.02 No Yes Site Mapping If impacted Incentives, Options, Special Circumstances: The Regulations include options for land owners, as well as incentives and tools to address special circumstances. PUD Types: There are three types of PUDs proposed to be included, and available as options in various parts of the City. The Traditional Neighborhood and Neighborhood Commercial are both focused on compact development at different scales and intensities. Hazards and Level 1 resources are excluded, and the remainder of the property is intended to be build upon in a compact, pedestrian-oriented manner, complete with active park space, a mixed of housing, etc. 4 The Conservation PUD prioritizes the land conservation component of the design. In selecting this option, a landowner sets aside 70% (or more) of the land for conservation. To reach the minimum of 70%, the landowner includes all Hazards and Level I resources, and then adds other natural resources on the site (level II, and then supplemental buffers, agricultural soils, farmland, and cultural resources). This tool also address circumstances where a parcel contains a significant amount of Habitat Blocks and Connectors. In these cases, in order to provide reasonable economic value to the property owner, resources covering more than 70% of the land may be re-designated as buildable area, so long as they are not affecting hazard areas. The objective is to assure that a property owner These, again, are prioritized. The development within a Conservation PUD has fewer design standards. Incentives: The Commission has also been examining options for how to incentivize additional conservation through a Conservation PUD. This might include lowering or eliminating certain minimum block / street layout standards in exchange for conserving more than 70% of the parcel by choice. Next steps: The Commission is completing its work sessions this fall. Staff expects to have an updated draft of the Environmental Protection Standards out for committee review in December, and actively welcomes feedback and input.   575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com           TO:    Natural Resources Committee    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐20‐40 500 Old Farm Road Preliminary Plat Application    DATE:    November 30, 2020 Joint Committee Meeting      Project Overview:  O’Brien Eastview, LLC has submitted preliminary plat application #SD‐20‐40 to create a planned unit  development of 102.6 acres at 500 Old Farm Road consisting of 126 units in nine (9) three‐family buildings,  eleven (11) two‐family buildings, 77 single family homes, and three existing single family homes to be retained.   The project includes nine units of inclusionary housing, ten development lots in the C1‐LR zoning district  ranging in size from 0.73 to 2.46 acres, nine development lots in the I/C zoning district ranging in size from 1.90  to 4.52 acres, three lots totaling 18.83 acres which will remain largely undeveloped or contain stormwater  management features, and three lots totaling 6.28 acres which will be predominantly managed as active  recreation space (approximately 0.5 acres of the recreation lots will be dedicated to stormwater management  features).  The project also includes more than a mile of new local and collector roadways, and proposes to  realign the north end of Old Farm Road to relocate it’s northern terminus at Kimball Avenue farther from the  intersection of Kimball Avenue and Kennedy Drive.  Committee Role in Project Review:  As described in the DRB Policy for Committee Review of Development Review Applications (available online),  the purpose of the applicant meeting with committees is for the committees to provide input to the DRB on the  layout, design, or other regulatory components of the proposed development project.  In addition to the  committees’ specific recommendations, the feedback to the DRB should describe the intent and objectives of  the committee in making those recommendations.  The purpose of including objectives is to allow the DRB to  continue to consider the committees’ recommendations as the project evolves over time.  Project elements for consideration by the Committee:  Staff wishes to draw the Natural Resources Committee’s attention to the following aspects of the project for  feedback.   Outline of natural resources on the property  o The project area is historically a farm, with a centrally‐located Class II wetland transitioning to an  unnamed tributary to Potash Brook.  The wetland area is currently moderately forested with  what the applicant represents as lower quality vegetation and is  disconnected  from  other  forested areas.    o The eastern edge of the project area contains a forested area that is proximate to the main stem  of Potash Brook.    #SD‐20‐40  2    o The applicant is proposing a stormwater management feature on the north side of Kimball Ave  adjacent to Potash Brook.   In January 2020, the NRC developed a document which recommended various considerations to avoid  or minimize natural resource degradation.   This document pertains to preservation of tree stands for  habitat, provision of native vegetation, and creation of vegetated buffers.  It also addresses minimization  of impervious surfaces and the use of decentralized stormwater treatment practices.  Finally, it talks  about reducing physical and light incursions into habitat areas.  Staff recommends the committee apply  these principals to their review of the project.    Staff particularly requests feedback on revegetation of the lots planned as to serve as open space (as  contrasted to those designated for active recreation), taking into consideration the proposal to include  walking trails within these areas.   what  else? Staff  notes  the  applicant  is  required  to  provide  a Maybe  something  about  any  recommendations for use of the landscaping minimum budget to support habitat, such as pollinators,  etc.  Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    Abbreviated Early Natural Resources Considerations Question to members: How did Eastview designers do in following these guidelines? 1) Protect existing high quality native trees with wildlife habitat and pollinator values. 2) Plant a mix of native trees with wildlife habitat and pollinator values where appropriate and possible; remove or manage invasive species. 3) Protect wildlife corridors and habitat along wildlife corridors, particularly streams. 4) Minimize production of impervious surfaces. Use light colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to minimize warming of runoff waters. 5) Reduce driveway lengths by minimizing setback distances. Possible minimizing dreiveway acreage by sharing. 6) Minimize vehicular crossings of wildlife and stream corridors to avoid habitat fragmentation. 7) Minimize use of outdoor lighting for both reducing sky-brightness at night and disturbance of nocturnal wildlife.