Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/22/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 APRIL 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Harrington, Acting Chair; T.Riehle, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, S. Dooley, B. Bull, E. Farrell, J. & F. Kochman, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, H. Tremblay, B. Etherton, Mr. Meyers, Mr. Pannu, G. Benoit 1. Agenda Review: Item 5c was moved to 5a. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: There were no announcements and no staff report. 4. Land Development Regulation Amendment Request - Self storage in Mixed Commercial-Industrial District: Ms. Quest moved to consider this request after a decision is made as to whether form based codes should go city-wide. Mr. Pannu expressed concern with deadlines as they had hoped to build soon due to limited construction time. Mr. Conner noted the Commission is meeting with Paul Dreher next week and could pose this question to him and possibly decide on whether to put it in the next round of updates. Mr. Meyers said they have the same concern with time. [Click here for Letter from Mr. Jeff Myers] Mr. Gagnon noted that staff was to look at what other areas might be impacted and possibly whether to open this up to others, or whether there might be unintended consequences. Mr. Conner said he can have that for next week. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 5. Review “Redline” Draft Land Development Regulations, including: A. City Center Inclusionary Zoning Standards: Ms. Calcagni stressed that “affordable housing” is not the same as “low income housing.” Affordable housing addresses those earning between 80 and 120% of the median income. She also noted that in South Burlington, nearly one-third of homeowners and one-half of renters spend more than therecommended 30% of their income on housing. The average home price in the city is $310,000, and the average condo price is $186,000. Some strategies that are typically used to get affordable housing include increased densities, bonuses, reduction in fees, and inclusionary zoning. Because there will be no density limits in the City Center, Ms. Calcagni said the Committee felt inclusionary zoning was the most effective way to get affordable housing there. The Committee then considered what inclusionary zoning should look like in the City Center. They decided that it would kick in with developments of 12 units or more, and that 15% of those units should be affordable to people in the 80-120% of median income. Specifically, they felt that 5% should be for those in the 80% range, 5% for those in the 80-100% range, and 5% for those in the 100-120% range. The Committee also thought that the affordable units should look similar to other units in architecture style and outward appearance. The units should also remain affordable in perpetuity. Partnerships with non-profit housing developers would be encouraged. The Committee then considered alternatives that might be due to financial hardship or physical site constraints. Developers could then build affordable units off-site for developments of equal or greater value. Payment in lieu of affordability would not be allowed. Developers could also get credit for 3 affordable units for every 2-bedroom units they provide. The developer would have to submit an application with the required information, and this would have to be verified by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Calcagni noted that all of the above criteria assume that the city will continue to make investments in City Center infrastructure, and the criteria are for City Center only. Ms. Quest asks what would happen if a person’s income goes up. Ms. Dooley said income is verified every year A unit could be reclassified as “not affordable” and the next available unit would then be reclassified as “affordable.” This would happen only if the resident’s income goes out of the affordable range. Commission members felt this would work only if all the units were identical, so that a “higher quality” unit didn’t become affordable while a unit of lesser quality would be sold/rented to those with a higher income. Mr. Etherton asked how to keep track of all of this after the development is finished and maybe sold to someone else.. Mr. Farrell said the regulations run with the land. Whoever owns the development inherits the regulations. He did acknowledge that there is a responsibility for the city administration in this as well. Mr. Simoneau commented that this proposed process is less onerous than Burlington’s ordinance. Mr. Farrell added that the bargain is that the city does the infrastructure investment and the property owners accept inclusionary zoning. Mr. Benoit noted that the Commission hasn’t voted on whether to do this. Mr. Conner said they will have to vote on what goes to public hearing and what goes to the City Council. Mr. Conner noted that there is a tool from the state regarding “neighborhood development areas,” which would apply to City Center. The city can get benefits if they prove there are certain rules in place. This could allow a developer to be exempted from some Act 250 reviews. Mr. Riehle asked if the Committee was unanimous in its recommendation. Ms. Calcagni said it was, though one member was absent for the vote. Ms. Dooley noted the Committee is now working on a housing trust concept for those earning 70% of median income and below. B. City Center Form Based Code: Members considered the “red‐line” copy of the code provided by staff. Mr. Conner said it includes all changes requested by the Commission and integrates work of other committees (e.g., Open Space, Affordable Housing, etc.). It sets out all basic standards then provides references to other chapters. Two pieces of “open space” are not included: what can be bought (e.g., a bench) and payment to district‐type fund. Mr. Conner said staff recommends that all uses that are prohibited today remain prohibited for buildings that have not been converted to form based code. Ms. Harrington said Section 803b seems confusing to her. Mr. Conner said he would look at it. Ms. Harrington asked if outdoor café seating not in a public right‐of‐way would be considered “open space.” Mr. Conner said that was open for discussion. Mr. Riehle said this is a “gathering place,” and he was not adamant about taking it out. Ms. Benton felt it added to the “feel” of open space. Audience members generally opposed this. Mr. McKenzie noted that in section 814d, it says open space land must be “developable.” He asked about a gravel path through a wetland buffer which could be a nice public amenity. Mr. Conner said they could say “accessible public path” which could include gravel, woodchips, etc. Mr. McKenzie also felt that amenities in a development, such as a community garden, should count as “open space.” Mr. Benoit questioned what “habitable landscaping” means. Mr. Conner said he thought it was trying to reference a situation when there is a foot and a half of grass around a building which would not be considered “open space.” Mr. Kochman objected to a roof garden being considered “open space.” Ms. Kochman was concerned that the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee hadn’t yet made its report and felt this discussion was premature. Mr. Gagnon stressed that it will be impossible for everyone to get what they want. Ms. Dopp noted Bernie Paquette’s memo regarding trash receptacles. Mr. Conner said this is a very complex issue. Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the bulk of the manual and the awkwardness of not having definitions with given articles. Mr. Conner said they are trying to work on readability. C. Stormwater Low Impact Development Standards: Mr. Conner noted this is exactly what the Planning Commission originally saw plus some “bits and pieces” that remove obstacles to low‐impact development. He also noted that Tom DiPietro is getting equipment to measure soil compaction before making regulations. D. Additional Amendment Throughout LDRs: Mr. Conner noted some things were done for clarity. 6. Overview of Proposed Public Outreach Plan for the Draft Regulations: Ms. Harrington noted that next week the Commission is meeting with Paul Dreher regarding city-wide form based codes. Mr. Conner questioned how close the Commission is to releasing the form based code document to the public. Mr. Gagnon said he wanted to read it in detail and maybe make that decision at the April 29th meeting. Mr. Benoit noted that the Form Based Code Committee hasn’t discussed anything outside the City Center. Mr. Conner suggested public outreach include something big in the Other Paper, mailings to adjacent property owners, postings on Front Porch Forum, etc. Ms. Greco suggested making copies available at the Library, City Hall lobby, etc., possibly something less than the 360 page document. 7. Other Business: A. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner noted the special meeting on 29 April He suggested future meetings be determined at that time. B. Other: Ms. Dopp noted the approach of Green Up Day. Ms. Dopp also noted that roads in the Cider Mill are laid out with gravel, and the Clair Solar project is taking shape. It looks like it is up against backyards of houses. She also questioned the area of the wildlife corridor. Mr. Conner noted the developer is required to put in buffers. The wildlife corridor is between the berm and the trackers. 8. Minutes: No minutes were available for review. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: LDR Amendment request initial review – Allow mini (self) storage in the Belter Industrial Park (presently Mixed Commercial-Industrial District) DATE: March 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting The city recently received a request from Jeff Meyers to allow self storage in the Belter Industrial Park (Ethan Allen Road & Commerce Ave behind the Airport). The area is presently zoned Mixed Commercial-Industrial. The request follows a similar request in November 2013 fron Mr. Jasdeep Pannu for the same use in the same area. Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s Policy on Public Requests for Amendments, staff performed an initial examination of the request. Brief analysis and recommendation: The land Development Regulations do not presently permit self storage as a stand alone use in this district. The proposed location is within the Belter / Ethan Allen business park, but the present zoning district also includes significant portions of Williston Road east of Kennedy Drive and the majority of Kimball Ave. Staff recommends that this request be considered alongside other changes to the Land Development Regulations being considered city wide under the Form Based Codes project. That project is actively underway. The Planning Commission may also provide general guidance to Mr. Dreher as he develops draft regulations for these parts of the city. 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: Redline Draft Amendments to Land Development Regulations DATE: April 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed with this week’s packet, as promised, is a (nearly) full Redline version of the Draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The notes below are broken down into topic areas to make these LDR amendments a little easier to review. 1. How the Amendments are formatted: The basic key to the amendments is this: • Added, changed or moved text is in red and underlined • Text to be removed or moved is in red strikethrough • Notes directed to the Planning Commission and other readers, highlighting certain items, are in shown in red bubbles on the right side of the page. A little more detail (and exceptions) on the format of these amendments: • Everywhere except Article 8 (see below), the Key above shows exactly what is proposed to change from the current Land Development Regulations, word by word. • In Article 8 (the Form Based Code and related Building Envelope Standards), all changes that have been made AFTER the Form Based Codes (FBC) Committee’s submittal to the Planning Commission in November are shown according to the key above. (This will allow everyone to easily track the changes that have been made since then). • In Article 2 (definitions), you will see that there are a LOT of notes on the side of the page. These notes describe what happened to each definition. In many cases, these are definitions that were proposed as part of the draft FBC in November, that have since been moved into this part of the regulations. Because moving text makes it look like it’s changed, we wanted to be clear about what has changed from the last draft and what hasn’t. To the extent that we could, changes since November in here are marked with a double underline. • Also in Article 2 (definitions), there are lots more changes that are unrelated to the FBC. To be consistent and minimize confusion, we’ve added notes to just about all of these also, explaining what’s been changed. 2 • In Articles 13 (Supplemental Standards) you’ll see that staff moved Affordable Housing Bonus standards a new chapter (18) for clarity. These standards appear deleted here. • In Article 18 (Affordable Housing Standards), the format is similar to the definitions. A double underline or double strikethrough shows a staff change that was made AFTER the Affordable Housing Committee voted. In 18.02, you’ll see the standards that were moved from Article 13. 2. Notes on the draft City Center Form Based Code: The bulk of the amendments to the LDRs in this round are directly related to the draft City Center Form Based Code. As you’ll see, there are draft amendments in many parts of the regulations, creating cross-references, eliminating the Central Districts and Design Review Districts, updating the tables of uses, and weaving the “process” parts of the FBC into the LDRs. You’ll find that there are several notations throughout on relatively minor elements staff wanted you to be aware of. A few items that staff wanted to highlight for you at this time: (a) The draft Code incorporates all (we think) of the specific requests / determinations made by the Planning Commission over the past few months. We’ve been marking them off as we go. If we’ve missed any, please let us know! (b) There are a couple of missing pieces of the FBC in this draft that we’re working on diligently and hope to have to you within 2-3 weeks. They are: • The Street Typologies & related process • Open Space Amenities Palette • Open Space buy-out procedure (c) In several parts of the Draft FBC, the Planning Commission asked staff to take a “stab” at it based on the direction provided. In some cases, this is the first time you’re seeing the actual text. These include, but are not limited to: • Section 8.02 – Building Envelope Standards for Corner Lots • Section 8.02 – Block standards and when a block standard can be exceeded • Section 8.06 – Open Space Standards (including ability to use some of the landscaping requirements for creating urban open spaces) • Article 13 – spelling out what does and doesn’t apply in the FBC. • Section 13.06 – notably states that any parking lot landscaping in the FBC district cannot be counted towards the landscape budget minimums. 3 • Article 14. - FBC Administrative Review & public notification process. • Article 15. - FBC Subdivision review process (DRB) and standards for what the DRB is to look at when reviewing a subdivision. (d) There are a couple of new adjustments to the FBC Map in T1 and T5. For T1, the map shows the most recent wetlands information, as requested, along with a caveat. For T5, staff found that the district was not uniform in depth (it went off at an angle). Paul D recommended with use 150’ from Market Street where this was the case. Staff then adjusted where the 150’ line was close to another property. Paul D’s description, asking whether 100’ or 150 would be more appropriate: “There are pros and cons to both. If we say a building can be in only one Transect, 100' will definitely limit building size and may limit the types of buildings/uses built. Building could be in two zones...that is only slightly problematic because buildings in T-5 can be taller than T-4. !50' will definitely provide more flexibility and bigger buildings--most buildings with a rear loading area will likely be in the neighborhood of 150'. I think I would recommend 150'. It will allow for a more T-5 behavior/structures wrapping the corner.” (e) There are still a few unresolved issues in the draft FBC. Most notably, there is the question of how the UMall property will be addressed given the 1-story lease requirements that exist on site. In other cases, staff is continuing to do a lot of “testing” to see how the Code is working. 3. Notes on the draft Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing amendments: Enclosed, in Article 18, is the draft Inclusionary Zoning regulation as approved by the Affordable Housing Subcommittee. Gretchen and possibly additional members of the Subcommittee will be on hand to walk you through the Ordinance. In brief, the regulation: (a) Applies to housing developments of 12 of more units; (b) Requires that 15% of housing units be permanently affordable in accordance with a ramped scale of percentage of median income for the region; and, (c) Applies only to the FBC District. Also included in the draft amendments to the LDRs is another small, but significant amendment. You will find in Article 2 (Definitions) a change in the definition of affordable housing for rental units. The change raises the percentage of median income that can qualify as “affordable.” 4. Notes on the draft Stormwater Low Impact Development amendments: As discussed back in December, the draft LDR amendments include the new requirements for stormwater management that the Planning Commission has been working on for the 4 past 2 years. You saw and “ok’d” a draft of the first “half” of this language in late 2013 – the portion that: • Sets the new threshold for being reviewed (1/2 acre of disturbance) • Sets the basic requirement for how much rainfall must be soaked in (infiltrated) on site (the first 0.9 inches of a rainfall) using Low Impact Development Techniques. • Lists the exceptions, where infiltration is not possible or recommended. This can all be found in Section 12.03. This full redline draft also includes the other “half” of the amendments, as discussed but not shown in December. These are the pieces that were highlighted in the report from the city’s consultant, Stone Environmental, about removing “barriers” in the current Regulations to meeting the objectives above. As a reminder, the Planning Commission endorsed an approach that focuses on the standard for water infiltration; how to meet that standard is not prescribed. A couple of additional notes: (a) One significant piece from the Stone report is NOT included in the current draft: standards for requiring soils to be uncompacted after development is complete. In reviewing this, staff from Planning & Zoning and the Department of Public Works felt that the effectiveness of this requirement should be tested before being adopted, as we are not aware of any other communities in the state with such as requirement. As such, DPW plans to purchase the measuring equipment and will do some testing on what the effects of “uncompacting” soils would be before recommending it as a standard. (b) One of the recommendations from the report was for us to look at our cul-de-sac standards. DPW is now looking into new standards for turn-arounds. Our current cul-de- sac specification is considered to be very large (and therefore creates a large impervious surface) compared with other communities in the region. These new specs will not be ready until the summer. The PC could decide to include them, or not, following the public outreach portion of the project. 5. Notes on the revised definitions: In addition to the new FBC definitions, we’ve gone through the full set of definitions to clean them up, clarify, and remove redundant ones. We think this will help everyone a lot, by taking at least some of the clutter and confusion out of these. 6. Notes on an Airport Zone process-related amendment: 5 Staff is proposing a process-related change to applications on the terminal portion of the airport (in the AIR district). At present, ALL applications must be as PUDs, involving a sketch, preliminary, and final plat review. We’ve proposed to remove the requirement for PUDs in all cases; that would allow for many of the projects to be reviewed in a single step. Medium- sized-plus projects will still go before the DRB, while very minor projects would be administrative (treating the airport, process-wise, the same as everyone else). Staff believes that by doing this, we can save quite a bit of time and energy for staff, the DRB, and the Airport, while keeping an open, public process. You can find this amendment in Section 6.02. 7. Notes on revised Submission requirements Staff has taken a crack at consolidating all major submission requirements into a single chart, instead of having pages and pages of text that is hard to follow. This has been on our to-do list for a while, and was made necessary by the FBC. As part of that, we’ve re-worked some of the actual requirements, removing outdated items, clarifying where appropriate, etc. We did NOT do a line-by-line “track changes” for these as there were just so many pieces from different places being pulled together. We crossed out all of the ones within the text and showed all of them as new in the chart (Appendix E) We still have a few dangling submission requirements for very specific applications (such as inclusionary zoning, or homes within 3’ of a property line in the Queen City Park neighborhood). These won’t easily fit into the chart. We’re still looking at how to organize. 8. Notes on amendments to Residential Care and Group homes Last fall, a potential project was presented to staff that highlighted some lack of clarity in the definitions and function of the city’s regulations on Group Homes. State Law clearly prescribes that homes serving 8 or fewer persons must be treated as single family homes if they meet certain conditions. The law gives some flexibility for other types of Group homes. South Burlington’s LDRs are especially unclear on how group homes serving more than 8 persons are to be review. You’ll see these amendments in the new Definitions (Group Home, Residential Care Home, Shelter…), through the revised standards (Section 13.12), and through the updated Table of Uses (Appendix C). In identifying WHERE larger group homes should be allowable (as conditional uses), staff took a stab and listed every district that allows for multi-family housing. 9. Notes on some Technical fixes: This round of amendments, like many, have a series of technical fixes proposed. They include: 6 • Heights of buildings in the SEQ. We presently have 2 sets of conflicting standards. New standards were adopted in 2011. Staff failed, at the time, to remove the previous standards. This would fix that omission. • Remove requirement for DRB to issue a letter approving underground parking. The DRB must approve any such development anyways. Statement is redundant. (Article 13) • Delete subdivision expiry information; that is no longer consistent with state Law (Article 17)