The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 06/08/2021South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Meeting Tuesday, June 8, 2021 7:00 pm IMPORTANT: This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting. Participation Options: Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-06-08 Telephone (audio only) (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 148-045-069 AGENDA: 1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. *Swift-Spear Intersection Study: presentation of findings and alternatives under consideration; initial feedback from Commissioners & the public (7:10 pm) 5. *Official Map: Review proposed updates to Citywide Official Map and possible action to approved Planning Commission Report and warn public hearing on proposed amendments: (7:40 pm) a. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a planned 60’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road at two (2) locations b. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. 6. Continue review of draft Environmental Protection Standards (LDR-20-01) and related amendments to the Land Development Regulations (8:05 pm) a. Commission discussion with City Attorney / Deputy City Attorney regarding takings & related subjects (8:05 pm) b. Continued review of public feedback on draft LDR amendments, including staff initial findings regarding grasslands and agricultural soils (if time allows) (8:35 pm) 7. Appoint neighborhood representative to Airport / Kirby Road Ext Re-Zoning Request Task Force (9:00 pm) 8. *Minutes: May 11, May 20, May 25, 2021 (9:05 pm) 9. Other Business: (9:10 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:12 pm) Respectfully submitted, Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning * item has attachments South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public 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. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently presenting / commenting will have their video on. 3. 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. 4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat. 5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission. 6. 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 to complete the agenda. 7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. 8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint. Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat. 9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time. 10. 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 influence public opinion on the matter. 11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written comments will be circulated 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. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com. 12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official meeting minutes. 13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission. 14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently focused to help guide participants. 15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end that will be covered “if time allows”. 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: Planning Commission Meeting Memo DATE: June 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting 1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) Staff Updates: • This week we welcomed Jessie Baker, incoming City Manager, to the team. She will formally take over as City Manager following Kevin Dorn’s retirement at the end of June. • Staff is preparing for the anticipated move to the new Library & City Hall building on Market Street in July • Staff has been invited to meet with the Affordable Housing Committee on Tuesday 6/8 to provide an update on the Commission’s work on the Environmental Protection Standards • Staff met last week (5/27) with the South Burlington Rotary Club to give an update on planning, public works, and development review work in the community 4. *Swift-Spear Intersection Study: presentation of findings and alternatives under consideration; initial feedback from Commissioners & the public (7:10 pm) See attached memo and slides. 5. *Official Map: Review proposed updates to Citywide Official Map and possible action to warn public hearing on proposed amendments: (7:40 pm) a. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a planned 60’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road at two (2) locations b. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. See attached memo and draft documents for the Commission’s consideration 6. Continue review of draft Environmental Protection Standards (LDR-20-01) and related amendments to the Land Development Regulations (8:05 pm) a. Commission discussion with City Attorney / Deputy City Attorney regarding takings & related subjects (8:05 pm) The City Attorney / Deputy City Attorney has been invited to discuss the subject of takings with the Commission. If Commissioners have specific questions that you would like for them to consider in advance of the meeting, please let me know asap. 2 b. Continued review of public feedback on draft LDR amendments, including staff initial findings regarding grasslands and agricultural soils (if time allows) (8:35 pm) Staff will provide an update on work, relay initial findings concerning grasslands & agricultural soils, and gather Commission feedback on what the Commission would like to do with areas that may contain these features. Should the Commission elect to proceed, staff will discuss options including providing direction to applicants and the DRB within existing open space / lot coverage standards, regulation of the resources themselves, and the SEQ-Natural Resources Protection District and Conservation PUDs as options for the Commission. 7. Appoint neighborhood representative to Airport / Kirby Road Ext Re-Zoning Request Task Force (9:00 pm) As discussed at your last meeting, Bernie Gagnon and staff have been working to bring a proposed list of people to the Commission for possible appointment to the Task Force as neighborhood representatives. 8. *Minutes: May 11 and May 20, 2021 (9:05 pm) See enclosed minutes includes a modification to the May 11th minutes proposed by Monica Ostby. 9. Other Business: (9:10 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:12 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Dalila Hall, Administrative Officer Date: June 3, 2021 Re: Swift/Spear Feasibility Study update on 06/08/2021 The Study Project Team will attend the June 8th meeting of the Planning Commission to provide an update on the study’s progress and on the community survey that collected public input about the intersection. The team will review several alternative intersection alignments and highlight how each affects safety and mobility for all users. The team will debut an updated community survey which aims to collect additional input from the community about the various alternatives. This survey will be open through the last week of June. The goal of this meeting is to receive initial feedback from the Commission about the alternatives and to respond to any questions. In early July, the team will incorporate all feedback and conclude the study with a recommended alternative that could then be further developed. Included for review at the meeting is Alternatives Review document, the link for the community survey is embedded in this document and is due to go live on June 4th, 2021. A summary of the results from the April 2021 survey is also included. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study Alternatives Review Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 2 Existing Layout Stream Buffer Existing Path Contours (1ft) Utility Pole Existing ROW N 1 in = 60 ft Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear StExisting Pavement Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 3 Design Principles Think big! »Potential right-of-way acquisition. »Incorporate planned bike & pedestrian facilities. »Forecast traffic volumes to 2033 design year. Improve safety & function for people on foot & bicycle. »Maintain or shorten street crossing widths. »Maximize street crossing options. »Do not increase vehicle speeds where people have to cross the road. Improve safety & function for people driving. »Improve sight distance. »Improve or maintain traffic operations. »Design vehicle: City Bus & WB40. Larger vehicles can use the intersection, but would cross the centerline or use a truck apron. Constructability. »Minimize natural resource impacts. »Gain community support. »Cost/budget feasibility. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 4 Existing Alignment N 1 in = 60 ft Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 5 “Tee” + Slip Lane Alignment N 1 in = 60 ftSwift S t Spear StSw i f t S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 6 Roundabout + Shifted Intersection Alignment N 1 in = 60 ft Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 7 Roundabout New Proposed Path Planned Bike Lanes Connect to Path Path Reconstruction New Swift St Alignment Crosswalks on Every Street Planned Path N 1 in = 60 ft Spear StSwift S tSpear StSwift S t Utility Pole Relocation Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 8 Roundabout Spear StSwift S tSpear StSwift S t IMPROVEMENTS AT A GLANCE Safety »New Swift Street alignment improves sight distance. »Studies have shown roundabouts result in more than 90% reduction in fatal crashes, 76% reduction in injuries, and a 35% reduction in overall crashes. Walking & Bicycling »A 2-stage crosswalk (with a median refuge island) is provided on every leg of the intersection. »Provides the shortest crossing distances of any alternative. »A separated shared use path for people on foot or bicycle is provided around the perimeter of the entire intersection. Driving »Roundabouts can handle 30-50% more traffic than signalized intersections. »Anticipated “worst case” level of service (LOS) and delay is LOS C with 32.4 seconds of delay (existing: LOS E with 67.9 seconds of delay). Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 9 Roundabout COSTS AT A GLANCE Right-of-way Impacts »0.6 acres required, impacting 3 adjacent property owners. Construction Cost »Planning-level estimate: $2.5 million.Spear StSwift S tSpear StSwift S t Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 10 Shifted Intersection Planned Bike Lanes Connect to Path New Swift St Alignment Planned Path N 1 in = 60 ft Path Reconstruction New Proposed Path Crosswalks on Every Street Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 11 N 1 in = 60 ft Exclusive Pedestrian Phase: All traffic stops while both crosswalks have “WALK” Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear StShifted Intersection Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 12 IMPROVEMENTS AT A GLANCE Safety »New Swift Street alignment improves sight distance, but does not resolve all issues. Walking & Bicycling »A crosswalk is provided on every leg of the intersection. »Exclusive Pedestrian Phase stops all vehicles while people cross the road. Driving »Anticipated “worst case” level of service (LOS) and delay remains the same as existing: LOS E with 67.9 seconds of delay. Shifted Intersection Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 13 COSTS AT A GLANCE Right-of-way Impacts »0.66 acres required, impacting 3 adjacent property owners. Walking and Bicycling »Exclusive Pedestrian Phase increases the wait time for pedestrians. Construction Cost »Planning-level estimate: $1.7 million. Shifted Intersection Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 14 “Tee” New Swift St Alignment Path Reconstruction Planned Path Planned Bike Lanes Connect to Path New Crosswalk N 1 in = 60 ft Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 15 “Tee” Leading Pedestrian Interval: people get 7 seconds to start walking while all vehicle traffic is stopped. After 7 seconds, parallel vehicle traffic gets a green light for through & right turns. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 16 Change Lanes to Through/Right & Left Protected Left Turn Phases for All Directions N 1 in = 60 ft Spear StSpear StSwift S t Swift S t “Tee” Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 17 N 1 in = 60 ftIMPROVEMENTS AT A GLANCE Safety »New Swift Street alignment improves sight distance. Walking & Bicycling »An additional crosswalk on the western leg of Swift Street »Leading Pedestrian Interval gives people a head start to walk across the road, and reduces wait times for pedestrians. Driving »Anticipated “worst case” level of service (LOS) and delay is LOS D with 44.2 seconds of delay (existing: LOS E with 67.9 seconds of delay).Spear StSpear StSwift S t Swift S t “Tee” Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 18 N 1 in = 60 ftCOSTS AT A GLANCE Right-of-way Impacts »0.96 acres required, impacting 3 adjacent property owners. Walking and Bicycling »There are high volumes of drivers making lefts and rights at this intersection, who will conflict with pedestrians crossing the road. However, people walking get a head start with the Leading Pedestrian Interval. Construction Cost »Planning-level estimate: $1.8 million.Spear StSpear StSwift S t Swift S t “Tee” Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 19 Slip Lane Path Reconstruction Planned Path Planned Bike Lanes Connect to Path New Crosswalk New Slip Lane Shortened Crosswalk N 1 in = 60 ft Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear StNew Swift St Alignment Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 20 New Right Turn LaneChange Lanes to Through/Right & Left New Slip Lane No Protected Left Turn Phases (for any direction) N 1 in = 60 ftSlip Lane Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 21 N 1 in = 60 ftSlip Lane Exclusive Pedestrian Phase: All traffic stops while both crosswalks have “WALK” Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 22 N 1 in = 60 ftSlip Lane IMPROVEMENTS AT A GLANCE Safety »New Swift Street alignment improves sight distance. Walking & Bicycling »An additional crosswalk on the western leg of Swift Street and exclusive pedestrian phase is provided. »The crossing distance of the southern leg of Spear Street is reduced. »Exclusive Pedestrian Phase stops all vehicles while people cross the road. Driving »Anticipated “worst case” level of service (LOS) and delay is LOS D with 44.4 seconds of delay (existing: LOS E with 67.9 seconds of delay). Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 23 N 1 in = 60 ftSlip Lane COSTS AT A GLANCE Right-of-way Impacts »1.19 acres required, impacting 4 adjacent property owners. Walking and Bicycling »Exclusive Pedestrian Phase increases the wait time for pedestrians. »There is an uncontrolled crossing of the bike lane and slip lane entrance. Construction Cost »Planning-level estimate: $2 million. Swift S t Spear StSwift S tSpear St Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 24 Design Principles Think big! »Potential right-of-way acquisition. »Incorporate planned bike & pedestrian facilities. »Forecast traffic volumes to 2033 design year. Improve safety & function for people on foot & bicycle. »Maintain or shorten street crossing widths. »Maximize street crossing options. »Do not increase vehicle speeds where people have to cross the road. Improve safety & function for people driving. »Improve sight distance. »Improve or maintain traffic operations. »Design vehicle: City Bus & WB40. Larger vehicles can use the intersection, but would cross the centerline or use a truck apron. Constructability. »Minimize natural resource impacts. »Gain community support. »Cost/budget feasibility. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 25 Design Principles - Goals Met Think big! Improve safety & function for people on foot & bicycle. Improve safety & function for people driving. Constructability (includes cost). Shifted Intersection Tee Slip LaneRoundaboutNo Build Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 26 Improve safety & function for people on foot & bicycle.Improve safety & function for people driving Constructability Average Crosswalk Width (ft) Crossing Options Crossing Type Path Connectivity Improvement Improves Sight Distance Proven to Reduce Crashes Traffic Operations (Worst Case)Add’l ROW (acre) Existing Path Reconst- ruction (ft) Planning Level CostAlternativeScenarioLOSDelayQueue No Build 36 2 / 4 Exclusive Ped Phase (sig)No change No No 2033 AM E 67.9 844 (NB)0 0 - Roundabout 35 4 / 4 Median Refuges (unsig)4 approaches Yes Yes 2033 AM C 32.4 924 (WB)0.60 545 $2.8 million Shifted Intersection 54 4 / 4 Exclusive Ped Phase (sig)4 approaches Yes, but not all No 2033 AM E 67.9 844 (NB)0.66 575 $1.7 million Tee 43 3 / 4 Leading Ped Interval (sig)2 approaches Yes No 2033 PM D 44.2 535 (NB)0.96 785 $1.8 million Slip Lane 37 3 / 4 Exclusive Ped Phase (sig)2 approaches Yes No 2033 AM D 44.4 942 (AM)1.19 795 $2 million Comparison Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 27 Morning Peak Hour 2023 AM 2033 AM Alternative LOS Delay (s) v/c ratio Queue (ft) (approach)LOS Delay (s) v/c ratio Queue (ft) (approach) No Build E 65.3 0.87 874 (NB)E 67.9 0.90 844 (NB) Roundabout C 21.4 0.71 535 (WB)C 32.4 0.78 924 (WB) Shifted Intersection E 65.3 0.87 874 (NB)E 67.9 0.90 844 (NB) Tee D 38.2 0.84 797 (NB)D 40.5 0.89 906 (NB) Slip Lane D 40.3 0.71 776 (NB)D 44.4 0.75 942 (NB) Afternoon Peak Hour 2023 PM 2033 PM LOS Delay (s) v/c ratio Queue (ft) (approach)LOS Delay (s) v/c ratio Queue (ft) (approach) E 61.1 0.77 722 (EB)E 62.3 0.81 716 (EB) A 9.1 0.50 134 (NB)B 11.7 0.60 206 (NB) E 61.1 0.77 722 (EB)E 62.3 0.81 716 (EB) D 40.3 0.89 417 (NB)D 44.2 0.94 535 (NB) D 37.9 0.70 582 (WB)D 39.6 0.68 805 (NB) Traffic Analysis What do you think? »Tell us by taking the online survey in the StoryMap, or follow this link: tinyurl.com/swiftandspearsurvey Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 1 Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study Local Concerns Community Input Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 2 Community Input »221 unique survey responses »88% from zip code 05403 (South Burlington) »The remainder of the responses were from adjacent zip codes within Chittenden County. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 3 Community Input »Though most people drive through this intersection all the time, many people said they walk and ride their bike some of the time. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 4 Community Input Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 5 Community Input »People driving feel mostly safe at this intersection. »Most people walking and bicycling feel unsafe at this intersection, while some feel mostly safe. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 6 Community Input Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 7 Community Input »Sight distance is the biggest factor making people feel unsafe. Vehicle speeds & traffic congestion play a role, too. »Sidewalk & crosswalk locations, vehicle speeds, traffic congestion, and sight distance all make people walking and bicycling feel unsafe. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 8 Community Input Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 9 Community Input »In general, many showed support and excitement for this project. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 10 Community Input »Many others called out the need for improved infrastructure for walking or bicycling. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 11 Community Input {{ »Several people pointed out that they see people ignoring or missing the “no turn on red” sign on Swift Street, and many people pointed out that there are lots on conflicts between people turning at this intersection. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 12 Community Input {{ »There was voiced support and opposition for roundabouts, though more support. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 13 Purpose & Need Purpose The purpose of this project is to investigate opportunities to improve travel through the Swift & Spear intersection for all ages and abilities, no matter if they travel by foot, bicycle, or automobile. Need Several factors contribute to the need of this project. »In the past five years, there have been 11 crashes at this intersection, and the segment of Swift Street passing through this intersection is designated as a high crash location by VTrans. »The 2020 CCRPC Bicycle and Pedestrian Study proposes new infrastructure along Spear Street. At this location, there is a transition between bike lanes transition and a shared use path. Ensuring the intersection safely supports this transition is crucial to safe and functional operation of the facilities. »There are significant sight distance limitations on every approach of the intersection, making many people driving feel unsafe at the intersection. »The location of crosswalks at this intersection also makes people walking and bicycling feel unsafe. This feasibility study is a chance for the City of South Burlington to think big and plan for long-term improvements to the Swift & Spear intersection. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study | 14 Design Principles Think big! »Potential right-of-way acquisition. »Incorporate planned bike & pedestrian facilities. »Forecast traffic volumes to 2033 design year. Improve safety & function for people on foot & bicycle. »Maintain or shorten street crossing widths. »Maximize street crossing options. »Do not increase vehicle speeds where people have to cross the road. Improve safety & function for people driving. »Improve sight distance. »Improve or maintain traffic operations. »Design vehicle: City Bus & WB40. Larger vehicles can use the intersection, but would cross the centerline or use a truck apron. Constructability. »Minimize natural resource impacts. »Gain community support. »Cost/Budget feasibility. 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: Official Map Potential Amendments DATE: June 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting At the Commission’s April 13th meeting, the Commission voted to have staff prepare an amendment to the Official Map to replace the presently-planned roadway connection between Swift Street Extension and Hinesburg Road with a planned recreation path only. At that same meeting, staff also recommended the Commission consider removal of a planned roadway connection between IDX Drive and Deerfield Ave, which had been removed from the Comprehensive Plan in 2016 but had not yet been removed from the Official Map. Commissioners concurred. Enclosed with your packet is a proposed amended Official Map for possible public hearing by the Commission. The yellow highlighted areas are the proposed changes. Staff is recommending the following based on the Commission’s direction: a. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a planned 60’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road at two (2) locations b. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. Staff is recommending that the ROW be planned at 60’. This width would provide sufficient width for the recreation path, including any needs to meander, and also reserve the space for a future generation to make decisions as needed. Swift Street Extension has an 80’ ROW, while Swift Street itself is approximately 50’. 60’ is a typical commercial ROW width. Staff is also recommending that the recreation path be planned to connect to Hinesburg Road in two locations: where it is presently down on the Official Map at Langdon St, and along the Hill Farm where the current Comprehensive Plan shows a roadway. This week staff is reaching out to the Police and Fire Chiefs to let them know about the proposed amendment and will share any feedback they provide either at this meeting or with the public hearing should you vote to hold one. Also enclosed is a draft Planning Commission Report. The Report is required to accompany draft amendments and presentation presents the Commission’s conclusions as to the proposed amendments’ conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 One final note: you will see that certain other elements of the Official Map appear differently than the existing one. Under state law, an Official Map is amended automatically when a subdivision plat is approved and recorded on the applicable parcel, or if the legislative body elects not to pursue acquisition of land when a project is denied for non-compliance with the Official Map. In addition, there are a handful of minor adjustments to the official map which were previously approved by resolution of the City Council (following recommendation by the Planning Commission), as permitted by State Law. And finally, we have updated infrastructure such as existing roads, recreation paths, and parcel data to current conditions and updated designations of land. None of these represent policy changes. Possible action: “I move to warn a public hearing to amend the Official Map as shown in our packet and described by OM-21-01 and OM-21-02, for XXX date [recommend July 13], and to approve the accompanying Planning Commission Report.” Block Standard Applicability Non-Exempt #4 #7 #1 #5 #6 #8 #9 #10 UVM Hort. Farm Legend Commuter Rail Station Policy Change Proposed Road Planned Street Right of Way New/Changed Road Network Common Open Land Golf Course Institutional & Agricultural Lands Proposed Park & Open Space Existing Park and Open Space Tax Parcel Boundary-2021 Recreation Paths Easement Existing Recreation Path Existing Trail Planned Path or Trail Proposed Rec Path City Boundary Form Based Code Area (346 acres) The following notations are hereby incorporated into the Official Map: 1. Blue circle #1 refers to the proposed realignment and reconstruction of Airport Parkway to facilitate circulation between Lime Kiln Road and the Airport. 2. Blue circle #2 refers to the provision of a dedicated off-ramp at Exit 14 to serve the Hill institutions. 3. Blue circle #4 refers to provision of a northbound on-ramp at Exit 13. 4. Blue circle #5 refers to creation of an appropriate internal roadway network for development of the O’Brien farm property and provision of between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an immediately adjacent area. 5. Blue circle #6 refers to development of Exit 12B at Hinesburg Road and a dead-end at Old Farm Road. Blue circle #6 also refers, along with blue circle #7, development of an appropriate roadway network to service Exit 12B and facilitate connections to Williston Road, Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue. 6. Blue circle #8 refers to development of an internal roadway network linking Queen City Park Road with Fayette Drive through the Martin’s Foods and Southland properties. 7. Blue circle #9 refers to development of an appropriate roadway system between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street through the Marceau and Chittenden properties. 8. Blue circle #10 refers to acquisition of right-of-way and completion of a reconfigured intersection at Spear Street and Swift Street. 6/3/2021 0 0.5 10.25 Miles City of South Burlington Official Map (Citywide) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Official Map Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing *******, 2021 In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Official Map. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on *****, 2021 at 7:00 pm, via GoToMeeting electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Official Map: A. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a planned 60’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road at two (2) locations B. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” 2 A. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a planned 60’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road at two (2) locations. Brief explanation of the proposed amendment: This amendment would remove the planned roadway connection from Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road via Landon Road depicted on the present official map. This planned infrastructure would be replaced on the Official Map with a 60’ wide right-of-way and planned paved multi-use path maintaining this same link to Landon Road and adding a second link to Hinesburg Road north of this point as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies that relate to transportation infrastructure in this area: Maps & Analysis • Map 10, Planned Infrastructure Improvements, shows a “planned roadway” in this location connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road. • Summary of Proposed Transportation Improvements, cross-referenced to Map 10, discusses the planned roadway as follows (p. 2-69): • Map 6, Planned Rec Lanes and Paths, shows a “Proposed Rec Path” connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road via Langdon Road. 3 • Map 11, Future Land Use, depicts the area immediately east of Swift Street Extension and the Village at Dorset Park / Veterans Memorial Park as “Very Low Intensity, Principally Open Space.” • Maps 7 & 8, Primary and Secondary Conservation areas, indicate the presence of water features, deciduous forest, and habitat blocks in the area immediately east of Swift Street Extension and the Village at Dorset Park / Veterans Memorial Park. • The Southeast Quadrant Future Land Use section discusses the subject of east-west roads as follows pp 3-36 to 3-37): “East-West and Neighborhood Connector Roads: One of the most difficult issues for South Burlington has been the provision of east-west connector roads between Spear Street, Dorset Street, and Hinesburg Road, and provision of connections between adjacent subdivisions. “Despite the fact that a network of east-west roads has been shown on the City’s Official Map and included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 40 years, at the present time, the only full connection between the north-south roads in the SEQ is Cheese Factory Road. Nowland Farm Road terminates at Dorset Heights; Swift Street terminates at the Village at Dorset Park; and Midland Avenue terminates within Dorset Farms. “The lack of east-west roadways means, effectively, that the SEQ presently has over 1,000 housing units and regional traffic moving through a farming community’s roadway network. The lack of east-west connections increases travel times and miles traveled between, for example, Butler Farms and Village at Dorset Park, or Dorset Farms and Shelburne Road. When east-west and neighborhood connector roads are lacking, school bus routes and emergency service responses also are lengthened, and there is less physical connectivity between neighborhoods, creating an isolating development, transportation, infrastructure and social network in the SEQ. “The flip side of this discussion relates to the potential environmental impacts of new roadways on wetlands and other environmental resources, and the desire of many residents to have as little “through traffic” as possible able to drive through their neighborhoods. Proposed roadway connections between new and existing neighborhoods are a frequent source of conflict in the development review process, and, against the policy of the City, the DRB has in some cases allowed one-way or “emergency only” roadways as a way to allow projects to proceed. “Also, wetland regulations are often interpreted in a manner that considers connector roads an “unnecessary impact” or an easy way to reduce wetland impacts. This interpretation is often self- defeating from an environmental perspective, since it leads to greater vehicle miles traveled by new residents when neighborhoods do not connect to other neighborhoods and the street network. “One key issue where there has been increasing agreement on all sides is the need to design east-west and neighborhood connector roads with narrower profiles and other environmental design features, such as box or open-bottom culverts instead of pipes for wetland and stream crossings, narrower road profiles (especially at crossing points), wildlife-friendly landscaping, and other traffic-calming features. Th ese approaches, which can be incorporated with the City’s public service and roadway maintenance practices, should become “standard operating procedure” for new development in the SEQ. “With these issues in mind, the Planning Commission evaluated the planned crosstown roads on the Official Map in 2003 and proposed a series of amendments that were adopted by City Council in December, 2003. This Comprehensive Plan reaffirms that the remaining proposed roadways through the SEQ that are shown on the Official Map should be constructed.” 4 Comprehensive Plan Goals: • Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options while accommodating the automobile; • Promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and recreational assets; Comprehensive Plan Objectives: • Objective 18. Connect neighborhoods with one another via road segments and with commercial areas for local, slow speed circulation. • Objective 31. Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through careful site planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts to critical wildlife resources, and that incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife habitats as conserved open space. • Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development. Comprehensive Plan Strategies: • Strategy 37. Due to increased development and the desire to protect natural resources, update the South Burlington Planned East-West Roads Analysis • Strategy 43. Work with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission to complete transportation network analyses and network studies for areas anticipated for development and transportation need, including examination of an I-89 Interstate interchange at Hinesburg Road or other location. • Strategy 45. Develop and build a City-wide sidewalk and recreation path plan that identifies and prioritizes gaps to link various neighborhood and community focal points. • Strategy 67. Substantially restrict new subdivision and development from primary resource conservation areas to include hazardous and environmentally sensitive areas identified, mapped and regulated by the City. Minimize the adverse impacts of new subdivision and development, including resource fragmentation and encroachment, within secondary resource conservation areas, to include those resources of state or local significance as indicated on available resource maps, identified in available inventories and studies, and confirmed through site investigation. • Strategy 68. Redefine open space in new developments such that usable, quality open space shall be required. Qualifying open space should include civic spaces, recreation, wildlife habitat, and usable agricultural lands. • Strategy 137. Through the development review process, land conservation initiatives, and development of Zoning Map amendments for the SEQ, work towards the addition of supplemental conserved areas adjacent and connected to existing open space lands. • Strategy 138. Maintain measures in the LDRs and SEQ zoning map to ensure that open spaces in all developments affecting secondary natural areas be designed in a manner to ensure continued connectivity between other open spaces and the preservation of “stepping stone” or other pockets of important wildlife habitat. • Strategy 139. Consult the Arrowwood Environmental SEQ Environmental Assessment regarding environmental resources, conditions, and possible strategies for protecting wildlife habitat values through conservation, restoration and development. 5 In the time since the adoption of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the City has completed planning studies which have further informed the transportation and natural resources subjects referenced above. These include: • 2020 VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan, prepared by VHB • 2020 South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking, prepared by Arrowwood Environmental The Tilley Drive study provides an analysis of the impacts of a Swift Street Extension connector to Hinesburg Road both being constructed and not being installed. The report identifies pros and cons of each and concludes that a final decision on the connection should be based on a wide range of factors: “As shown in the above figure, the addition of the Swift Street Extension pulls traffic away from Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road and increases volumes along upper Dorset Street and Swift Street as traffic takes advantage of the new east-west connector. Traffic volumes along Kennedy Drive between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road are expected to decrease by approximately 24% while volumes on VT 116 adjacent to Tilley Drive are expected to decrease by approximately 15% with the Swift Street Extension in place. Future evening peak hour traffic volumes on Swift Street east of Dorset Street are expected to increase from approximately 125 PM peak hour trips to approximately 1,200 PM peak hour trips with the addition of the Swift Street Extension.” (p. 25) … “With the Swift Street Extension added in as an additional connector road, additional east-west connectivity would be provided in this area. The need for east-west connectivity, which has been identified in South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, would be enhanced by this connection. In addition to meeting the east-west connectivity need, the Swift Street Extension would also enhance emergency vehicle access to the area. “However, the extension of Swift Street would also have implications for residents of the Village at Dorset Park who would see evening peak hour volumes along Swift Street increase from approximately 125 PM peak hour trips to approximately 1,200 PM peak hour trips with full land use build-out of the study area. The Swift Street Extension would also draw traffic off adjacent arterials designed to handle higher traffic volumes (e.g. Kennedy Drive is expected to see traffic volumes reduce approximately 24% with the Swift Street Extension in place). Additionally, as shown previously in this report, the Swift Street Extension would also have environmental impacts to potential wetlands, habitat blocks, and threatened species. “The Swift Street Extension could be designed and constructed in a manner that discourages cut- through trips (i.e. through traffic calming and/or curvilinear features), however the environmental impacts would remain. The decision of whether to proceed with the Swift Street Extension should be based on a wide-range of factors including both traffic and environmental impacts, along with broader policy implications (e.g. merits of enhanced connectivity vs. concerns over cut-through traffic, connectivity to a future educational complex, future development of the Hill Farm parcel, emergency vehicle connectivity), costs, and public input.” (pp 36-37) The 2020 Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking identifies 26 habitat blocks of at least 20 acres in size in the City and provided an evaluation of their relative value in supporting a diverse suit of wildlife within the City based on 10 different evaluation criteria. The Habitat Block that includes a portion of this planned 6 infrastructure ranks #7 and received high individual rankings for size, connectivity, and amount of core habitat. Upon review of all of the information above, the results of recently-completed reports, and an assessment of the competing objectives within the Plan, the Planning Commission concludes the following concerning removing the Planned Roadway shown on the present Official Map, retaining a 60’ planned public right-of-way, and extending the recreation path to two connection points at Hinesburg Road: • The amendment, on balance, conforms with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. • The amendment will not affect the availability of safe and affordable housing and is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan as no changes to those subjects are proposed. • The amendment continues to carry out proposals for planned community facilities in a manner that reflects the Plan’s overall goals and priorities while reserving options for the future. The recreation path finally, will provide connectivity for pedestrians & cyclists between neighborhoods as well as to Veterans Memorial Park and Wheeler Nature Park, while the reserved 60’ right-of-way retains flexibility for future generation to review and assess needs at that time. B. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. Brief explanation of the proposed amendment: This amendment would remove the planned roadway connection between IDX Drive /Sebring Road and Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. This proposed changes was previously considered in development of the Comprehensive Plan and is no longer proposed in the Plan that was adopted in 2016. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. As noted above, this proposed connection was eliminated in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment therefore directly implements that policy decision. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The removal of this connection will not have an effect upon proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. As noted above, this proposed connection was eliminated in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment therefore directly implements that policy decision SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 MAY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 May 2021, at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, Acting Chair for this Meeting; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; L. Ravin, C. & A. Long, A. Chalnick, Ryan, J. Giebink, K. Ryder, D. & D. Long, J. Bellavance, R. Greco, S. Dopp, Wayne, F. MacDonald, L. Kingsbury, S. Dooley, D. Peters, D. Rosensweig 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: At the Affordable Housing Committee, O’Brien Brothers brought an update on Inclusionary Zoning. They are hoping to be able to take advantage of COVID funding. There was also a presentation regarding how the State looks at wetlands. UVM students will be releasing a report of a comparison of regulations of the state’s most populated towns. Ms. Ostby also said the Commission should start to think about getting back into “PUD mode.” Ms. Louisos: Updated the Commission last week’s City Council meeting included the extending of Interim Zoning until 13 November. The Council encouraged the Commission to finish its IZ work before that date. They are also interested in coming back to PUDs after the environmental standards. Ms. Louisos provided updates on the Commission’s I-89 comments and an update on Swift Street Extension discussions. Mr. Conner: Regional “bike-share” has officially become an e-bike program. They will add more sites in the area and are now at the Airport. There is an effort to reach lower income constituents. Mr. Gagnon suggested the Commission have a discussion regarding e-bikes on roads and bike paths. 4. Discussion and responses to public input on Land Development Regulations: Mr. Gagnon said that tonight’s meeting was to answer questions and listen to public input. There would be no policy discussions. He also noted there were copies of letter received from the public in the meeting packet. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 MAY 2021 2 Mr. Conner showed a map indicating existing and new environmental protection standards, areas that are already conserved, and the NRP District. This is the source of the numbers posted on the website. He drew attention to what has been added (e.g., the additional 50 feet of buffer). Mr. Gagnon said the maps will be available on the website. Ms. Ostby noted these maps are not going to end up in Article 12. They are interactive tools and demonstration of where the resources are. The important thing is to look at the language. Mr. Conner said that is generally correct. The habitat blocks are mapped, similar to a zoning district. Some maps are FEMA controlled; if FEMA changes, South Burlington changes. Mr. Conner added that the expectation is to have a map that the DRB can use. He also noted that the wetlands on this map would be a starting point for someone to hire a wetlands consultant for field delineation. Mr. Gagnon said the Library is not open, and people can check maps there. He suggested printing this map in an enlarged form and posting it in the Library and other places for people who do not have computers. Mr. Conner said that can be done. Mr. Engels noted UVM property on both sides of Swift Street (in light and dark blues) and said that has now been added as part of the 974 acres of newly protected land. Mr. Gagnon stressed that the acreage figures are approximations. Mr. Engels said there should be accurate information. Mr. Conner said the only way to do that is to field delineate the whole city. What is provided is the best estimate given State information. Mr. Mittag said the public expects that the 974 acres is accurately represented in the information the Commission has been putting out. Ms. Louisos said that every time the Commission has talked about number, it has been a “plus-minus” basis. Ms. Ostby suggested indicating on maps what is “actual” and what is “estimated.” Mr. Conner then showed a map of wetland and buffers as proposed, then added other protections. Mr. MacDonald noted these are all Class 2 wetlands. Mr. Mittag said people want a very simple map of what is newly protected and felt the Commission should try to provide that. Mr. Gagnon said they have also been asked to show that plus what was previously protected. Mr. Conner said it is technically possible, but it will look strange. Mr. Gagnon felt it could be even more confusing and misleading. Mr. Conner said it is hard to get accurate numbers on things that can be a matter of feet. Mr. Macdonald said the information people are looking for is on this map, everything in light blue is new. Mr. Chalnick noted an area near the high school that is conserved which isn’t shown on the map. He also questioned the 974 acre calculation and said the blue area doesn’t seem to be that much. Mr. Gagnon said this can be verified by the RPC. Ms. Greco said for those without skills to interpret the interactive map, it is hard to do. She also noted that “protecting,” “preserving” and “conserved” mean different things. If there is no conservation easement, it can be changed by a City Council at any time. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 MAY 2021 3 Mr. Conner noted that wetlands are regulated by the State and the Army Corps of Engineers and the Feds, and they are part of the 974 acres. The buffers were expanded from 50 to 100 feet, which is counted in the 974 acres. These are wider and more stringent than state rules. Ms. Dopp asked for a simple paper map of what is newly protect3ed and a map of any area that will lose protection. She felt very little Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) is additionally protected and that was what people wanted, to protect the SEQ from more housing development. Mr. Conner noted that “detail” and “readability” do not always go together. He also noted that a Level 2 resource is not a “no build” area. Ms. Dooley said she had no problem with the maps, but the “silent majority” may have a problem with them. She felt the “little strips” of conserved areas add up to much more than it appears. Francis MacDonald was concerned that habitat blocks were looked at differently and the buffer was subtracted from the blocks which seems contrary to protecting habitat. Ms. Ostby said the habitat blocks that are mapped are not only the “core.” Mr. Conner confirmed this. He noted that Arrowwood’s method was to include mature areas and those in transition to forested areas. Ms. Ostby said they have not disregarded buffers to habitat blocks. She said there is confusion as to whether there should be delineation of those blocks. It should be clear this is not a field delineation. It is based on the Arrowwood report. Regarding a map of what is no longer protected, Ms. Ostby said there is a question of how much grassland was actually protected. If Conservation PUDs are accepted, grasslands can be Included. She was concerned that a map of what is no longer protected would be misleading. Mr. Conner said it is not as simple as “it was and now it is not.” Ms. Ostby said there is a question as to whether the City Council thinks a Conservation PUD should be the only choice in the SEQ. If so, mapping would be much different. Mr. Gagnon said that will have to be sorted out in a policy discussion. Mr. Engels asked if the Commission will indicated what is removed from the Arrowwood report. Mr. Macdonald said this is not something that was “lost.” It was never protected before. Mr. Conner noted that grasslands outside the SEQ have never been protected. Ms. Greco said some people don’t understand this and don’t see what the Commission understands. Ms. Ostby was concerned that the more alternate maps created to try to explain, the more confusing it seems to become, and that the information is in fact present in the existing maps. Mr. Gagnon said they will take the map from this meeting, blow it up, and put a legend to it. There will also be a map of what is newly protected. Mr. Conner said staff will try to do that. He said there is nothing in the new draft that that reduces protected areas in Article 10 and 12. There is no reduction in streams, flood plains, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 MAY 2021 4 Ms. Louisos said there is a question as to where Article IX applies. She stressed that it applies only to the SEQ. Mr. Conner said he can draw a box around the SEQ zoning district on the maps in Article 9. Mr. Engels noted the vote in the Commission was 4-3. He felt it would be great if they could all agree, but if not, they should say it was 4-3. Mr. Gagnon agreed. Mr. Macdonald said that Chris Shaw had a good point when he asked whether large landowners in the SEQ have been invited to the table. Mr. Conner said there have been no direct mailings to property owners, but there has been information in The Other Paper, City Newsletter, etc. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission has heard from some of those landowners. Mr. Conner said it would be easier to mail to everyone in the city, but that is a big undertaking which is why The Other Paper is used. Mr. Gagnon suggested a “blast” before the public hearing. Ms. Ostby read from Mr. Shaw’s letter about the importance of letting people know what can and cannot be done in the 500-year flood plain. She felt that should be clarified. Ms. Ostby also recalled the issues that led to the 4-3 vote: 9.06(b)(3), designating buffers around habitat areas, and including prime ag, grasslands and farmlands. Ms. Louisos said she did tell that to the Council. 5. Meeting Minutes of 23 and 31 March, 6, 13, and 27 April 2021: Mr. Macdonald noted he should not be listed as present at the joint meeting with the Council. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 23 and 31 March, and 6, 13, and 27 April 2021 with the above correction. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted the Colchester Planning Commission item involves “tweaks” to the Form Based Code which the City should keep an eye on to see what they are learning. There is also an item regarding electric vehicle charging. Mr. Conner reminded members and the public that the Planning Commission public hearing next week is on Thursday, 20 April. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:08 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 20 MAY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, 20 May 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; L. Nadeau, J. Kochman, N. & J. Necrason, L. Kingsbury, Wayne, J. Nick, R. Greco, C. & A. Long, K. Van Woert, D. Long, K. Boyle, L. Marriott, S. Dopp, S. Crowley, J. Bellevance, R. Gonda, L. Ravin, R. Kay, C. Shaw, S. Dooley, M. Meyer, C. White, M. Cota, J. Simson, L. Kupferman, D. Seff, A. Hart, A. & A. Chalnick 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: Mr. Conner advised that the Swift/Spear Intersection evaluation project team will present to the Planning Commission on 8 June. Ms. Louisos noted that she will be away for the next 2 meetings. Mr. Gagnon will chair those meetings. 4. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Conner noted a few changes suggested by the Legal Department and made by staff. There had been feedback regarding how to make habitat blocks more clear as a mapped line. Two notable changes were recommended: a. Put them on their own map b. Be clear in footnotes that there has not been field delineation and explain how the habitat blocks were decided upon. Other changes, as shown in the markup, are minor wording and grammatical clarifications. Taylor Newton, from the CCRPC and consulting for the City on this project, tidied up some definitions (e.g., mature forest) and clarifying exemptions (i.e., what was pre-approved) and also making it clear that items on the Official City Map are qualified to be exemptions. These have been reviewed by the City’s Legal Department and are in the marked up draft. PLANNING COMMISSION 20 MAY 2021 2 Mr. Mittag then moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Maconald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hart, speaking on behalf of the University of Vermont (UVM), said they have been looking at the proposed LDRs and how they affect UVM lands. He noted that Richard Kate has provided a letter in which he raised a number of UVM issues. Mr. Hart said UVM’s first concern appears to be the UVM lands are considered “public lands.” It may appear that way, Mr. Hart said, but that is not the case. Those lands are identified as land bank parcels that UVM is counting on developing. UVM needs to protect its interests in those lands and cannot support any amendments that reduce what is now allowed. The amendment which Mr. Hart said most affects UVM is that which creates “habitat blocks.” There are three UVM parcels, totaling 181 acres, that are close to 100% habitat blocks. Mr. Hart noted there are provisions in the amendments that seem to protect property owners against the harsher impacts of the new regulations, but those provisions may not be available to UVM as they exclude “public” land which is not defined, and they provide very little comfort. There may be some relief in the PUD regulations, but that hasn’t happened yet. And, Mr. Hart noted, there is also a statement in Article 12 that says if there is a conflict between habitat block and PUD, the stricter rule applies. The provision in 12.05c that deal with hazards exceeding 70% of a property allows for 30% relief. Mr. Hart said that for UVM that would not be much relief and expressed concern that the wording left that amount open to the DRB’s interpretation with not guidance. Ms. Ostby asked if UVM has any land in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Conner said there is one parcel at the southeast corner of Swift and Spear Streets. Mr. Mittag said the UVM lands have a “public interest,” though not a legal interest regarding climate change. There would be concern if the trees were cut down. Mr. Shaw felt that the PUDs should be on the table at the same time as the regulations regarding habitat blocks and other environmental standards. Otherwise, there is a disconnect. He felt there is objective data missing from the 2018 Arrowwood study that was present in the 2003 Arrowwood study. Mr. Shaw felt there was also very real litigation potential regarding habitat blocks which is why he felt they have now been put on a separate map. He urged the Commission to be very careful of this as the city got very badly burned in the past. Mr. Shaw also spoke to the potential for people to move to other towns and then have to commute to jobs in the Burlington/South Burlington area. Ms. Greco said survival depends on saving as much natural area as possible, and she didn’t feel the new draft does that. She also felt it ignores many of Arrowwood’s recommendations and doesn’t provide protections for lands identified by the [Interim Zoning] Open Space Committee. It also removes protection from agricultural and grasslands and riparian. She felt the new regulations don’t address why Interim Zoning was begun as almost no land in the SEQ that could be protected was. Ms. Greco noted PLANNING COMMISSION 20 MAY 2021 3 that Vermont is losing forest land for the first time. There are 36 endangered species and 16 threatened. Mr. Gonda felt habitat blocks should have buffers around them 50 or 100 feet. He noted there is a wildlife corridor through the Long property, and if that is developed it will be eliminated and animals won’t be able to cross Spear St. Mr. Kay cited the wildlife friendly area near Dorset Heights. He also said that he had concern that development could damage the well that his area shares with Dorset Heights. Ms. Van Woert said she is still confused by what is in and what is out. She felt lands that are ecologically and recreationally important should be prioritized. Mature forests should be protected. She added that the “wildlife corridors” in Cider Mill are impossible for critters to use. She didn’t feel those corridors are well enough defined. Mr. Chalnick felt buffers should be added to habitat blocks and that grasslands should be protected. He felt the regulations are insufficient. He said we are seeing the result of not caring about wildlife. The planet has lost 60% of its wildlife. Things seem to be OK in Vermont, but nothing compels the city to allow people to make millions by destroying the natural world. He felt the new regulations only protect 30 acres in the SEQ. Ms. Dooley felt there is a disconnect on the part of people regarding the purpose of Interim Zoning and what they want things to be. People feel the purpose was to prohibit any future development in the SEQ. She said that was not the case. Ms. Dooley supported the proposal to remove language in Chapter 9 regarding lands no longer protected and felt there is documentation that says that is not a good basis for regulatory decisions in terms of precision. She noted the city learned the hard way the consequences of having LDRs that are not precise enough. She saw no rationale for not making Articles 10 and 12 work. Ms. Dooley noted that she wrote regulations for the State of Vermont for 25 years that became law. Ms. Dooley questioned the long narrative descriptions regarding habitat blocks and substituting the maps. She said the maps were not based on field delineation, which is troubling to her. She noted that applicants have to do field delineation for wetlands, but not for habitat blocks. She felt that was not fair. Ms. Dooley also concurred with Mr. Shaw’s comment regarding which beings we are putting the greatest priority on. She felt there should be an “accommodation,” not an “either-or.” She also agreed with people who felt it was hard to assess these regulations without the PUD regulations. She hoped the City Council would go through them together. Mr. Francis MacDonald said stewardship of the land is much more important now. He felt the city is “chipping away” at what the Comprehensive Plan outlined and that the new regulations “chip away” at the edges. He stressed the value of buffers and asked that the boundaries of the studies be honored. PLANNING COMMISSION 20 MAY 2021 4 Ms. Marriott noted names of places that are no longer true (e.g., Butler “Farms” and “The Orchards”). She felt affordable housing needs to be in the city center and small. She specifically didn’t like the sentence in Article 12 which allows a road in a wetland, if necessary. Ms. Dopp noted that Arrowwood defined some properties and mapped habitat blocks and connectors. She felt pieces of those shouldn’t be “lopped off” to look better or to suit a developer. She felt the Hill Farm should be protected and not “monkeyed around with” as it is a very large natural area. She read the purpose statement for Interim Zoning and said it was not all about the SEQ. She acknowledged that certain landowners may feel aggrieved, such as UVM, but said that regulations can’t please everyone. Ms. Chalnick urged protection for grasslands. She said 30% of birds have disappeared because of loss of grasslands. Most of Vermont’s grasslands are in the Champlain Valley, and species will decline if they are not maintained. Ms. Meyer said she wants her kids to stay in the area. She sees lovely property being developed. She didn’t think there was a plan. Ms. Louisos noted that Tom Bailey has provided information on forest management. He also wanted to wait until the PUDs were done. Mr. Seff quested the status of TDRs and noted they can be a resource protection tool. He said history in South Burlington has moved density from one open field to another. He asked if there is a proposal to change the TDR program to move density to more developed areas of the city. Ms. Louisos said that is already in place in the traffic overlay district. Mr. Conner noted that all letters received by the Planning Commission have been compiled and posted on the city’s website, and tonight’s comments will be added to those. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will now close the public hearing and will talk through the comments received and possibly make changes. The regulations will then be sent to the City Council which will hold a public hearing. When that hearing is warned, the regulations will be in effect. Ms. Ostby moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Review public input and consider possible changes: Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure the Commission will get to the point tonight of submitting the new LDRs to the City Council. She noted that some input has been discussed in detail and there were areas where all members were not in agreement. She stressed that all members care about the future, though not necessarily in the same way. She also stressed that different pieces fit together as a whole. Ms. Ostby said it is important to name the maps so they are not confusing. She questioned using “habitat blocks” and “natural resources map” as both are natural resources maps. PLANNING COMMISSION 20 MAY 2021 5 Mr. Conner noted there are 2 different maps because habitat blocks/connectors are not subject to field delineation and are more like an overlay district. Ms. Ostby suggested adding the word “overlay” to that map. Mr. Gagnon said he has a problem with city-drawn lines. Arrowwood was based on a ‘windshield survey.” He said there can be invasives that look like habitat but aren’t. He felt there has to be some field delineation of habitat blocks to be sure what needs to be protected is protected, and if good stuff grows in the future, we aren’t missing it. Mr. Mittag acknowledged that the “windshield survey” could be a problem down the line. He felt Arrowwood should do an accurate map and that grasslands should be accurately mapped. Mr. Riehle noted that Middlebury was putting in a solar farm and the State stopped them to make them prove they weren’t infringing on habitat. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Gagnon and with Mr. Mittag. He felt there could be legal issues and questioned whether there is the science to back them up. Mr. Engels said they have used Arrowwood studies for 15 years. Ms. Ostby agreed and said the Commission agreed to accept the report and accept the “line.” She asked if there is a legal concern with using the Arrowwood report. Mr. Conner said the city has to show there is a rational basis for a decision. He added that they did discuss a clear way to present it and whether an overlay district is a better way. He felt there are pluses and minuses. Mr. Gagnon said he doesn’t want to throw out the Arrowwood report; he felt there could be room for delineation so as not to ignore invasives or good habitat. Ms. Louisos noted they specifically called it a habitat block instead of “forest block” because members new it was uneven. Mr. Mittag noted that a number of people talked about what isn’t protected. Members briefly considered the comments provided by Taylor. Mr. Mittag moved to accept legal comments and comments from Taylor. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mittag noted that Mr. Gonda pointed out a habitat area not on the map and asked whether they should protect it. Ms. Louisos said there is a lot of development there with very small properties. Mr. Conner noted that Arrowwood didn’t talk about connectors to the west of Spear St. Mr. Mittag said Francis MacDonald talked about wildlife seen there. Mr. Gagnon reminded members they had just decided to use the Arrowwood report. Ms. Ostby felt they had removed a habitat block cited by Arrowwood (#18) which she felt should be put back in to stay true to the report. She remembers Arrowwood saying “the fingers” aren’t so critical and are not the ones keeping the core safe. Ms. Ostby felt it would be great to get Arrowwood’s assessment of what the Commission is proposing. Mr. MacDonald said he remembers discussion of the rationale for removing the “finger” on the Long property. PLANNING COMMISSION 20 MAY 2021 6 Ms. Louisos noted that #18 is not connected, and there is no way to connect it to anything. Mr. MacDonald noted that the Official City Map connects a roadway from South Village to South Point through the Long property. Ms. Ostby then moved to ask Arrowwood to determine if elements the Commission has eliminated cause harm to the core habitat. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner noted that that request has been received and noted that as there is a budget freeze still in effect he will need to confirm the expense. Members then each discussed what stood out for them in the public comments: Mr. Gagnon: 1. Grasslands 2. define wetland and buffers and differences from State standards 3. UVM comments Ms. Ostby: 1. Grasslands, 2 areas on map 8, one already protected 2. why the wetland buffer is different for residential and commercial property 3. timing in conjunction with the PUDs Mr. Mittag: 1. Grasslands 2. Prime Ag soils 3. supporting habitat (buffers around habitat) Mr. MacDonald: 1. UVM – one of the largest property owners in the city 2. grasslands 3. concern with approaching a “taking” and finding other ways to conserve Mr. Riehle: 1. The issue of “taking” and possibly finding incentives 2. UVM issue 3. supporting habitat Mr. Engels: 1. Letter from Daniel Seff re: 906(b)(3) 2. letter from Francis MacDonald 3. testimony from person who regretted loss of field Mr. Conner city a potential issue of “unintended consequences” with regard to grasslands and ag soils and suggested a possible other approach to the issue via an overlay district or modification of the NRP if the Commission decides to go in that direction. Ms. Louisos: 1. How the NRP encompasses some of the resources 2. Looking at stormwater treatment in an extra 50’ foot wetland buffer PLANNING COMMISSION 20 MAY 2021 7 Ms. Ostby noted the Commission is recommending a TND of Conservation PUD. She asked what would happen if the City Council says only a Conservation PUD. Ms. Louisos said there is a need to discuss the Conservation PUD so that Chapter 12 isn’t the only way to do something. Mr. Conner suggested discussion the NRP at the same time. With regard to grasslands, Mr. Conner noted that different entities have mapped grasslands very differently. They are also an “evolving entity.” 6. Minutes of 4 May 2021: Mr. Macdonald move to approve the Minutes of 4 May 2021 as written. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. __________________________ Clerk