Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/20/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 20 MAY 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 20 May 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Benton, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, R. Greco, T. McKenzie 1. Agenda Review: 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. Louisos: noted receipt of a letter from Tim McKenzie regarding items on the Agenda. Ms. Quest: attended the Energy Fair. South Burlington won the most points in Vermont. Ms. LaRose: The Open Space Committee voted to approve the first draft of their report which will be available in a few days and will come to the Planning Commission soon after some edits are made. 4. Discussion and consideration of providing feedback on concepts for City Committee structure under consideration by City Council: Mr. Riehle said efficiency in government makes sense and it is important to consider staff time, but he was concerned the three “mega‐ committees” won’t have as much input. He would ask that the Council structure committee so as to get as much diversity as possible. Mr. Gagnon understood where staff is headed. He felt the ability for the system to work depends on who is involved in the committees. He also liked the idea of more citizen‐related committees that aren’t “officially recognized.” Ms. Louisos noted the current system has worked well for the Planning Commission which can give a project to a committee and have it worked on. Mr. Gagnon said that can still happen. Ms. LaRose explained that it took 2-1/2 years to do a Tree Ordinance3 and years to do other projects. The Market Street “shopping around” took 5 months. If committees had gotten together in the first place, it could have been a better process. She felt it is important to start prioritizing. People with different interests need to be brought together at the beginning of a discussion. Mr. Riehle suggested the following possible language for a response to the City Council: As we have found the work of the various 12 citizens’ committees an important resource to our work, and we understand the need for efficiency and staff time, we encourage the City Council to find a happy balance between efficiency and the need for diverse citizen input which we think is critical. Ms. Quest moved that Mr. Riehle’s language be sent to the City Council as an expression of the opinion of the Planning Commission. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continue Review of “Redline” Draft Land Development Regulations, including: a. Discuss potential addition: self-storage units in the Commercial-Industrial District outside of the Transit Overlay District b. Draft Open Space standards for City Center FBC c. Modifications to the “red­line” draft provided to the Commission in April related to permit and DRB approval expirations, group homes and reasonable access to housing d. Other elements of the “red­line” draft provided to the Commission in April, including the City Center Form Based Code, Stormwater Low Impact Development Techniques, City Center Inclusionary Zoning standards, and others e. Determine public outreach schedule for draft amendments Self-storage potential addition: Ms. Louisos said Paul Dreher didn’t see this as a problem. She also noted that Mr. McKenzie suggested adding some land near the Airport for self-storage. Mr. Gagnon noted the caution with that because of transit corridor issues. Mr. Riehle moved to accept staff’s proposal for self‐storage units in the Commercial‐Industrial District outside of the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Open Space Standards: Mr. Conner outlined three things to focus on: a. Language regarding how a small property or T-5 property, who could not meet the open space requirement, could buy into a system b. Detailed list: specifies what it means to be a “plaza,” “community garden,” etc. c. Question of how that space should be used (what is public? Private? Is “common” the same as “public”?) Ms. LaRose noted that the Open Space Committee recognized multiple kinds of open space, not necessarily all “green” space. The question is when a space meets the standard and how to code that. The Committee looked at spaces; all members were not agreement as to what was “open space.” Is Trader Joe’s plaza open space? Is the green roof on the Airport open space? What about Healthy Living’s eating area which is enclosed in the summer? What about balconies that contribute to open space by having people sitting on them. Ms. LaRose then reviewed some of the thoughts of the Open Space report: “Public Realm” – can be publicly or privately owned; must be be publicly accessible and/ or visually accessible “Private Realm” – for occupants only (e.g., the dog park at the Farrell development) “Publicly Accessible” – Trader Joe’s Plaza, which is privately owned but with public access. Mr. Gagnon raised the question of “native land” which is undevelopable. If you have a property with a large wetland, if you leave that alone, that’s open space. Mr. Conner read from the regulations which indicate that you don’t count a wetland unless it is upgraded as a public amenity or a wildlife amenity. Ms. Louisos noted the list of what is open space. She felt if it isn’t on the list, it isn’t open space. Mr. Riehle said he didn’t see Healthy Living as open space. Mr. Conner said that is private. If the wall were 3 feet instead of as high as it is, it would visually add to the street. Mr. McKenzie said he didn’t see why you’d exclude a wetland or the wetland buffer. He asked about private lawn space that is open to residents of a building. Mr. Gagnon felt there should be credit for a natural area. Mr. McKenzie said there should also be full credit for a setback from that area. Ms. LaRose said there is also a difference between small and large properties. Mr. Conner noted that wetlands and buffers are appropriate in some way, if they are “managed.” He asked if developable woodlands would be appropriate. Mr. Gagnon felt they would. Mr. Conner then asked if this would apply to woods of any size. He said staff recommends 5000 sq. ft. minimum (which is like the size of most backyards). Ms. LaRose said it would have to be an “intentional space,” not just a strip of land behind the building. Ms. Quest suggested a 50% credit if it is improved in some way. For fully developable land, the credit should be 100% if it is improved in some way. Ms. Calcagni felt that if woods are enhanced with a trail, they should count. Members agreed that 50% of the open space requirement can be woods that are otherwise developable and that 50% of the wetland buffer can also count as open space. Members than considered public realm (which could be open to the public) and privately owned (one for those tenants) open space. Mr. Gagnon felt the T-5 residential open space should be mostly for people who live there. T-5 non-residential should have some public access to open space. Members agreed that both T-4 and T-5 residential open space can be all private with no minimum. T-5 non-residential should have some visible open space that is not necessarily accessible, but 75% of open space should be accessible. In T-4, 25% can be private, 75% public. In T-3, 100% can be private. Mr. Conner then introduced the concept of “buying” open space. One mechanism for this would be to take the average value of all City Center properties up to 2 acres and figure out the average value when they apply. Then take 5% of the value per acre (if that is the percentage agreed on). Members were OK with that concept. [Click here for Draft Minutes for February 25, 2014] [Click here for Draft Minutes for April 8, 2014] [Click here for Draft Minutes for April 22, 2014] [Click here for Draft Minutes for April 29, 2014] As the hour was late, members agreed to continue the agenda at the next meeting. By common consent the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 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: Consideration of allowing self-storage units in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District – Ethan Allen Drive / Commerce Ave DATE: May 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting The Commission recently held a brief preliminary discussion of two requests to allow self- storage units in the Ethan Allen Drive / Commerce Ave area. At the meeting on April 29th, 2014, Paul Dreher of Dreher Designs indicated that such an amendment would not likely conflict with work he is doing regarding the update of the Land Development Regulations. Staff, therefore, based on Commission direction, has drafted the following amendment for consideration: Permit Self Storage in the Mixed Industrial –Commercial District outside of the Transit Overlay District. Areas affected: Commercial-Industrial areas behind the airport, including Berard Drive, Airport Parkway north of the residential areas, Ethan Allen Drive, Commerce Ave, and a small portion of Lime Kiln Road. Purpose of limitation to “outside of the Transit Overlay District”: Staff recommends the use be limited to this area because other parts of the current Mixed Industrail Commercial District are located along and adjacent to Williston Road. In the past, the Commission has expressed a desire to promote business that provide greater on-site employment along this corridor, which is well-served by transit. Action required: Should the Commission agree, staff would incorporate the above into the draft amendments to the LDRs presently under consideration (the “red-line” provided at the April 22nd meeting). A straw poll indicating direction to staff would be sufficient. Urban Garden Urban Park Plaza/Square GreenPocket/Mini ParkPlaygroundOutdoor Café/ Restaurant SeatingView and/or Sun Terrace Snippet Indoor Park/Atrium Courtyard Green RoofPublic Sitting Area in a Pedestrian Walkway Description Intimate sheltered landscaped area. Large open space with predominantly natural elements. Primarily hard-surface space. Informal public, civice space or common/shared private spaceSmall open area tucked between buidlings on a separate lot or portion of a lotSmall open space that serves the recreational needs of children in the immediate vicinity.To be filled in…in progressAccessible and open area on upper level with seating and gathering amenities. Small, sunny sitting space. Interior open space where at least one wall facing the street consists entirely of glass. Common Open Space area on a portion of a lot. To be filled in…in progressSitting area on a sidewalk of a pedestrian -oriented street in a lunchtime mall or in an exclusive pedestrian walkway. Size 1,500 to 10,000 sq.ft. Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. 0.5-2 acres5,000-20,000 sq. ft.Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. To be filled in…in progress500-3,000 sq.ft. Varying sizes permitted. Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft. Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to be counted against open space requirement cannot exceed twice the area of the glass wall projected onto the floor plane. 5,000-20,000 sq. ft.To be filled in…in progressVarying sizes permitted. Location & Access On ground level, adjacent to sidewalk, through-block pedestrian way, or building lobby from at least one side of its perimiter.Accessible from at least one street at Access from several locations encouraged. Park interior to be visible from entrances. Outdoors and within Public Realm. High Visibility. Accessible from a public street at grade or 3' above or below street level connected to street with generous stairs.Fronts on and is accessed from a public right-of-wayFronts on and is accessed from a public right-of-way. Pedestrian accessible.Accessible from Public Right-of-Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. To be filled in…in progressSecond floor or above. View terraces should only be located in places which have spectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors. Must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways and elevators. On new or existing building site. Accessible from public streets.Building interior adjacent to Sidewalk or public open space. Accessible from street level. Provide several entrances to make the space availble and inviting to the general public. Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three sides (outer) or four sides (inner)To be filled in…in progressAs identified in the Pedestrian Network Plan. Other locations must be approved. Seating*, Tables, Etc. One seating space for each 100 sq.ft. of garden area, with a minimum of 3.Provide formal and informal seating, on sculptured lawn. Moveable chairs desirable. One linear foot of seating space per each linear foot of plaza perimeter. One half of seating to consist of benches. Four seating spaces per quarter acre, rounding up. One seating space for each 1000 sq.ft. of park size.Provide formal and informal seating. Fixed benches desirable. To be filled in…in progressOne seating space for every 25 sq.ft. of terrace area. If functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, stairs, benches, chairs. Provide one seating space for every 20 sq.ft. of floor area, one table for every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At least one half of seating to consist of movable chairs. To be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…in progressIf functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, benches, chairs. Landscaping, DesignGround surface primarily of high quality paving material. Install plant material such as: trees, vines, shrubs, seasonal flowers to create garden-like setting. Water feature desirable. Provide lush landscape setting with predominantly lawn surfaces and planting such as: trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers. Provide a water feature as major focus. Landscape is generally secondary to architectural elements. Use trees to strengthen spatial definition and to create peripheral areas of more intimate scale. Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material. Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. To be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…in progressTerrace may take one of the following forms: complex architectural setting which may include art works; flower garden; space with trees and other planting. Surface will predominantly be hard pavement. Add planting where appropriate. Shade trees to be kept minimal as primary purpose is to serve as bright and sunny.Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material. Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. To be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…in progressUse rich paving material in interesting patterns. Include plant material Commerical Services, Food Not permitted. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. Not permitted Not permittedTo be filled in…in progressNot permitted Not permitted30% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted Not permittedTo be filled in…in progressSunlight and Wind Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Shelter from wind. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Shelter from wind. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Shelter from wind. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Shelter from wind. No requirementsSunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Sunlight to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. Shelter from wind. No requirementsSunlight to sitting areas for most of day.No requirements except as noted for street façade to be wall of glass. Ideally shall be south-facing.To be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…in progressSunlight to the siting areas at lunchtime. In windy locations provide wind baffles. Public Availability & AccessibilityIn progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/privateIn progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. Other Security gates, if provided, should be an integral part of the design. Security gates, if provided, should be an integral part of the design. May double as open air farmer's market.To be filled in…in progressIn wind exposed locations provide glass enclosure to create comfortable environment. Credit each Seat as 25 s.f. of open space. buildings up to 100,000 g.s.f. may satisfy 100% of requirement with "snippets"; larger buildings may satisfy up to 20%. Insure proper ventilation. Install heating to make space comfortable in cool weather. Construct glass wall to be fully or partially moveable. To be filled in…in progressCredit each seat as 25 s.f. of open space *Seating dimensions are as following:Height: 12" tp 36"; ideally 17" Depth" 14" one-sided; 30-36" double-sided Width" 30" of linear seating are counted as one seatTABLE 1 - GUIDELINES FOR URBAN OPEN SPACE To be filled in…inprogressIn wind exposed locations provide glass enclosure to create comfortableenvironment. Credit each Seat as 25 s.f. of open space.buildings up to 100,000 g.s.f. may satisfy 100% of requirement with "i t"lInhecoCpapending f e. In progress, pending discussion of public/privateIn progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. In progress, pending discussion of public/private. Inofmost of the ea from to mid-helter NorequirementsSunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Sunlight to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. Shelter fromwind. No requirementsSunlight to sitting areas for most of day.Nfoglfae may be taurantg up no 0% of the es Not permittedNot permittedTo pron…inTo be filled in…in progressTo be filled in…inprogressTo proom a of-wayaccessed froma public right-of-way. Pedestrian accessible.Public Right of-Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. prospaces acre, One seating space for each 1000 sq.ft. of park size.Provide formal and informal seating. Fixed benches desirable. To pro0% of estauramore thnd tabrovideo creatse richncorpoater feplane.be filled in…in ogressSecond floor or above. View terraces shouldonlybeOn new or existing building siteAccessibleBuildingSidewaccessrovidemake thviting rovidevery 2able forea. Ato consbe filled in…inogressNot permittedNot permitted30remanbe filled in…inogressTerrace may take one of the following forms: complexarchitectural setting which may include art works; flower garden; space with trees and other planting. Surface will predominantly be hard pavement. Add planting where appropriate. Shade trees to be keptminimal as primary purpose is to serve asbright and sunny.PrtoUInwaogressterraces should only belocated in places which havespectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors.Must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways andelevators. building site. Accessible from public streets.SiAcPrminbe filled in…inogressOne seating space for every 25 sq.ft. of terrace area.If functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, stairs, benches, chairs. Prevtaarto 575 Dorset Street South Burlingto n, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner DATE: May 20, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting SUBJECT: City Center Open Space Planning At a previous meeting, the Commission reviewed a palate of options within the redline version of the proposed code for open space regulations, restrictions, and requirements in City Center. These are all potential tools available for identifying and creating opportunities for private civic and/or green spaces in the City Center area. As supported previously by the Commission, and in alignment with the Open Space Committee’s working definition, these will continue to be collectively referred to as Open Space. Updates and Questions There are several distinctive factors that potentially separate the look and feel of open spaces, dependent on transect location and general use. In the red-line version that the Planning Commission reviewed at the prior meeting, these include such qualifying characteristics as the percentage of open space required, whether the open space must be located on site or may be located off-site, whether there is a buy-out option in lieu of providing open space on site under certain limited circumstances, and whether the open space must be publically accessible, contribute to the public realm, or be held and accessed in private. Commissioners sought further discussion and clarification on three items: 1. How much of the required open space should be accessible to the public, contribute to the public realm, and / or be allowed to be available only to residents / tenants in each district. For example, would a rooftop garden that was accessible only to occupants be acceptable in residential building in T5? Does a “terrace” seating area fenced off but visually accessible to the public count in T4? In whole or in part? See the chart below for the current draft on this: "Users" of Open Space Amount Private for Amount Amount Total Open Space District / Use occupants only (1) in Public Realm Publicly Accessible Required Min Max Min Max Min Max T5 Residential 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 60-100 s.f. / unit T5 Non-residential - 0% 100% (2) - 0% 100% 5% of building s.f. T4 Residential 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 60-100 s.f. / unit T4 Non-residential 0% 25% 75% 100% 0% 100% 6% of building s.f.(3) T3 Residential 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 90-100 s.f. / unit AND Max 75% lot coverage T3 Non-Residential 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% Max 75% lot coverage 2 (1) The Regulations contain requirements in some cases for some of this to be "commonly" available to residents (2) Updated from last meeting. The last draft was silent on this item. (3) Off-site allowed only up to 20,000 s.f. of building space on a lot 2. How do the “open spaces” get defined specifically? Please see attached chart for the start of a draft detailing qualifying open space. Staff, together with the City’s Open Space consultant, are continuing to modify this to fit South Burlington’s relative size and needs. 3. How would a “buy-out” option work? Below is a draft attempt at this language. It spells out when a buy-out is acceptable (per the Commission’s discussion in early March) and strives to establish a value equivalent to that of the open space that would have been provided. E. Open Space Credits (1) Applicability. In lieu of providing Open Space as required by these Regulations, an applicant may provide a contribution to a designated City Fund for use in the acquisition and/or capital improvements for Open Space within the City Center District, subject to the following conditions and requirements: (a) In the T5 and T4 Districts, a contribution may be provided in lieu of Open Space for any parcel of less than two (2) acres in size. (b) In the T5 District, a contribution may be provided in lieu of Open Space for any parcel of two (2) acres or more, but such contribution shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the required Open Space. (2) Amount of Contribution. The amount of contribution shall be calculated as follows: Open Space Percentage Requirement per Table 8-1 multiplied by the mean current assessed value of the land of all parcels of two (2) acres or less within the T5 and T4 Districts. 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: Group Homes, Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing, and clarifications to permit approval expiry following “Red-Line” draft DATE: May 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting This memo addresses a handful of amendments to the “red-line” draft of the Draft Land Development Regulations presented to the Planning Commission on April 22nd related to Group Homes, Reasonable Access to Housing, and permit approval expiry. A. Group Homes & Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing The “red-line” draft of the LDRs included some potential clarifications to group home standards in the city. At the meeting, staff requested that we take a second look at the draft in order to more comprehensively address the issue and ensure compliance with both State and Federal law governing such uses and other, related issues. Commissioners agreed. Briefly, the amendment accomplishes two objectives:  It would match the City’s Land Development Regulations with the Statutory enabling laws in 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 in terms of residential care and group homes being considered single family homes under certain circumstances. The current LDRs largely meet this, but this amendment would match the wording exactly.  It would replace a number of unclear categories of housing within the current regulations – such as group homes that are not covered under 24 VSA Chapter 117, community residences and shelters, and others – with a new standard for “reasonable accommodation to ensure reasonable access to housing.” This new standard would highlight and provide a process for the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board (as applicable) to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to housing in accordance with Federal and State Fair Housing laws. B. Approvals and Permit Expiry It was recently brought to staff’s attention that the current Land Development Regulations include standards regarding the expiry of approvals for zoning permits, site plans, conditional uses, variances, etc. in two separate places within the Regulations. These standards are in part redundant and in part conflicting. 2 The issues are:  when DRB / Zoning Administrator (ZA) approvals for items such as site plans, variances, conditional uses, miscellaneous applications, and design review applications expire; and,  when zoning permit approvals expire. The current regulations generally state that the first list (approvals) expire six months after the DRB or ZA has issued the approval unless (a) a zoning permit has been applied for and issued for construction, (b) a one-time extension has been sought and approved by the DRB or (c) the DRB approved a longer time frame to obtain the zoning permit for a multi-phase project. Similarly, zoning permits for any project, expire after six months unless the applicant can provide objective evidence of the intent to pursue the project. The existence of standards in two places, however, muddy this and include some unclear provisions for how many extensions can be granted, and whether an applicant can provide evidence of an intent to pursue a project as a way to extend the DRB approval of a project. Staff has reviewed this and proposes a consolidated standard that would state the following: 1. DRB / ZA approvals expire six months after the DRB or ZA has issued the approval unless a. a zoning permit has been applied for and issued for construction; b. a one-time extension has been sought and approved by the DRB / ZA; or, c. the DRB / ZA approved a longer time frame to obtain the zoning permit for a multi-phase project. 2. Zoning Permits expire after one (1) year unless, viewed as a whole, the work, time, and expenditures invested in the project demonstrate a continued good-faith intent to presently commence the permitted project. How does this differ from the current standard? The first part is essentially the same as the current practice, but adds an authority for the Zoning Administrator to grant the extensions, and clarifying that there is no ability to show an “intent to pursue” at this stage. The approval will expire if none of the three options above is met. As noted, this has largely been the practice and the lack of clarity poses legal muddy waters for the city today. The second part is also largely the same, but adds six months to get the project started – up to a year now - (this can often be a challenge when permits are issued in the fall) and also replaces the current standard for “objective evidence” with the wording above that has been established by the Vermont Supreme Court as the test. C. The Draft Language for the amendments above The amendments are embedded within the full draft of the Land Development Regulations. Staff proposes to provide the full text with the complete next “red-line” draft to save on the complexity of seeing amendments in pieces but can also share it at the Commission meeting from the working document if Commissioners wish. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 FEBRUARY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 February 2014, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; M. Simoneau, B. Maynes, S. Dopp 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: Ms. Dopp noted that at a recent meeting the South Burlington Land Trust had a dialog between citizens and Green Mountain Power regarding tree cutting on Swift Street. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Conner updated members regarding Form Based Codes. The Planning Commission asked for written feedback on street types. Feedback has been received from the Stormwater Department. Highway and Fire Department comments are coming. Mr. Conner also noted that staff is working with Paul Dreher on pieces of the puzzle including minor amendments, incongruities, etc. These will come to the Planning Commission. 4. Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District Presentation: Mr. Conner introduced Ilona Blanchard, City Project Director. Ms. Blanchard noted that TIF relies on a sense of place, so design is important. Revenue projections are based on a conservative model that uses historical growth and averages future assessed value. The margin on revenue is very slim. Less development in the TIF district would result in fewer projects; more development would result in more ability to build public projects. Approved potential projects for the TIF district include: Stormwater street restoration Dumont Park Central green Market Street Garden Street Williston Road streetscape 2 Parking garage A pedestrian/bike bridge Community Center/City Hall/Library facility Ms. Blanchard showed the area where development would be located. There would be 741,400 sq. ft. of development involved in the TIF district itself plus an environmental assessment area and area ouside the environmental assessment area for a total of approximately 1,200,000 sq. ft. On land owned by South Burlington Realty, both commercial and residential development is possible. A total of approximately 75,000 sq. ft. would be non-taxable (potential municipal) development. There are very few properties projected to “tear down and redevelop.” Ms. Blanchard noted that to come up with projections, a market study was done which looked at historical rates. About 27,000 sq. ft. of retail is absorbed annually. South Burlington has 1/3 of the County’s retail but only 26% of production in the past 18 years. About 34,000 sq. ft. of office space is absorbed annually. Residential use is estimated at 1200 sq. ft. per unit. In total, this would result in $56,000,000 in annual revenue. Ms. Blanchard noted there are years when revenues don’t match payments. Revenue is needed to cover the bond plus interest plus any rolling of capital. If development can be compressed into 10 years, there would be no years in which revenues don’t match payment. Ms. Blanchard concluded by saying that the TIF district is dependent on the private sector. More committed private development equals more building projects. Ms. Dopp asked how much control the people of the city will have over the realization of the vision. Ms. Blanchard said if the city can offer incentives through the TIF process, that can happen. Mr. Conner added that staff is working to bring in a panel of people with familiarity with development to respond to economic questions. 5. Consider Modification of Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee membership: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of this item from the last meeting’s discussion. Ms. Harrington moved to take the motion to modify the Sustainable Agriculture Committee membership from the table. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. A friendly amendment changed the designation to the South Burlington Land Trust. In the vote that followed, the amended motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Riehle voting against. 3 6. Update on Transferable Development Rights Subcommittee work and recommendation: The Committee is recommending expansion of receiving areas to other areas of the city to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. This would not include the City Center area (as there is no density limit, there would be no incentive to increase density). Specific receiving areas have not been identified by the subcommittee. Ms. Louisos said that both recommendations of the subcommittee make sense to her. Other members agreed. Mr. Riehle moved to not have TDRs in the City Center/form based codes area. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner suggested that staff get input from Paul Dreher regarding potential receiving areas and pass this along to the TDR subcommittee and the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle moved to accept Mr. Conner’s proposal. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Update on Affordable Housing/Trust Fund Subcommittee Work and Recommendations: Ms. Calcagni said the money in the trust fund would be for those at 60% or lower income level. The committee is close to having specific recommendation. Ms. Calcagni also noted the committee is talking about inclusionary zoning, specifically in the City Center. It is hoped that they will complete work by the end of April. Ms. Louisos asked if there are concepts everyone on the committee agrees with that could be put out for public comment. Ms. Calcagni said she is OK with the. Some on the committee might not be. Ms. Louisos asked if anyone on the committee is completely opposed to inclusionary zoning. Ms. Calcagni said it is a question of whether to wait for it/spring it on people. Mr. Conner said they should be as up front as possible that this is on the table. Ms. Louisos suggested language...”...something we’re strongly considering which is not in the code right now...” Ms. LaRose stressed that details can make or break developments. She also noted there can be a distinction made between the TIF boundary and the City Center boundary. 4 Mr. Gagnon suggested having a “place holder,” and stressed that the committee should get it right rather than fast. 8. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: A. Discuss Private Open Space concepts for City Center Form Based Code B. Continue Review of City Center Form Based Code Ms. LaRose noted that staff is close to having language for private open space. The thought is to have different standards for T4 and T5 and to treat open space differently on small and large parcels. There is a pallet of open space options, and staff is working on minor tweaks to this. Ms. LaRose noted that the Open Space Committee addressed 4 components of open space: 1. Resource conservation (e.g., buffers) 2. Working lands/urban foot/forest 3. Parks/recreation 4. Civic space (not necessarily green) Ms. LaRose said there could be combination of any of these in a given area. There is also the possibility of certain amenities qualifying as open space. For a development that doesn’t have open space potential on the lot, there is a possible “buyout option) to provide money to go into a fund for public open space. Mr. Simoneau felt there has to be a way to simplify this. Everything else in the code is so precise. He felt the buyout option concept was OK, if everyone does it. Members felt the basic pallet was OK. Staff will come back with more details. 9. Minutes of 7 December, 10 December, 14 December, 14 January, 25 January: It was noted that in the minutes of 14 December, near the bottom of the page, the line should read “could be attached.” In the same minutes on p. 4, members agreed to use the language “large building height exemptions.” In the minutes of 25 January, Ms. Harrington noted it was she would asked about the opportunities for students. Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes as written and/or amended. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. _____________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 APRIL 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 8 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, B. Maynes, P. Engels, K. Nolan 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 & staff report: Ms. Quest: UVM is forming a “sustainable committee”; they have received a Gold Award for sustainability. Mr. Conner: City Hall renovations continue. The Recreation Department has moved into their new space downstairs. The hope is to have a display area upstairs for ongoing projects. Staff is working toward a full draft of the Form Based Code for the next Commission meeting. 4. Debrief of March 25th panel and identify any recommended changes to draft City Center FBC based on this discussion: Ms. Quest asked about having retail on the first floor when there is no residential base. Mr. Conner said there is more flexibility than just retail; there can be commercial uses as well. He added that a successful downtown core exists when pedestrians feel comfortable walking to the end, and residential uses are not very interesting to people. Mr. McKenzie said one thing the FBC Committee wanted to leave room for is an anchor store at the far end to draw traffic. They were also not limited to retail on the ground floor and felt commercial uses such as a stockbroker, doctor, service use, etc. would be appropriate. Mr. McKenzie added that at some point, the highest and best use will be retail; the question is how to get there. He noted that the office vacancy rate is now very high in the area. 2 Mr. Riehle asked if housing coming before commercial space could create “foot traffic.” Mr. McKenzie said it would as it creates a demand for things like coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. Mr. Gagnon said the key point is to get some infrastructure in first and to make the permitting process easier for developers. Mr. McKenzie said it would be helpful if a developer could get a permit when a project meets all the criteria, without having to go through a hearing process. Ms. Quest asked about the possibility of civic buildings. Mr. Conner said the TIF and other things are working toward that. Ms. Dopp noted that the upstairs spaces at Maple Tree Place are empty. Mr. McKenzie said the mixed use that he sees working best is an office building next to a building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. He also noted that new construction is 30% more expensive than refurbishing older buildings. Ms. Louisos said that the need for surface parking was mentioned a number of times. Mr. McKenzie said parking standards in Form Based Codes are below what a retailer would need and probably below what a retailer would accept. Mr. Conner noted that staff is working with the Regional Planning Commission and Campus Traffic Management to look to and start to put in place a long-term plan for transportation management. A shuttle bus service is one option being considered as well as leasable parking spaces in an area. Mr. McKenzie stressed that an “anchor store” is not a “big box” store; it would be about 12,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. 5. Update on Work of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, including development of inclusionary zoning and other work: Ms. Calcagni said the Committee has a complete Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which will be voted on and will be ready for the red-line FBC presentation. They will then get back to work on the potential for an affordable housing trust. Basically, the Inclusionary Zoning requirement is for developments of 12 units or more to have 15% of units affordable. Units would be geared to people earning 85-100% of the median income. Mr. Conner reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to allow for inclusionary zoning. 6. Discuss potential parameters for City Center and public open space: Mr. Conner reviewed what currently exists in the way of open space within a 5 to 8 minute walking distance of the core of Market Street. This includes J. C. Park, Dumont Port, 15 acres of 3 open space asked for by a federal assessment (Potash Brook, buffer, wetlands associated with it, etc.), the potential Market Street stormwater facility. Ms. Quest said she was confused about the official city map. Mr. Conner explained that a landowner is required to accommodate whatever is on the official city map. If a plan for development does not do this, the plan is denied. The city then has 45 days in which to purchase the property. If the city does not purchase the property, the plan goes back to the DRB with no restrictions. Members then discussed the functions of open space including: a gathering spot, multi-purpose area, civic buildings. Ms. Greco noted there was public comment about what people wanted and that should be looked at again. Mr. Maynes asked if Trader Joe’s and Pier I are in the TIF district. Mr. Conner said they are the first properties that would be eligible to generate money for the TIF. Healthy Living predates the TIF. Mr. Maynes asked how much business would be required to generate money for a $3,000,000 town green. Mr. Conner said the CIP has an initial estimate of that, including impact fees. Mr. LaRose stressed that the Planning Commission is not in a position to decide whether there should be a parking garage. The City Council is the only one “writing checks.” Members agreed that there should be public open space adjacent to civic buildings. Mr. Conner then addressed the “framing” of open space. He noted that some small spaces feel large. He noted an area in Boston that looks fine when it is full of people but looks empty otherwise. Both Swanton and Fair Haven have very large greens, and there is never anyone in them. Ms. Quest added that Maple Tree Place is smaller than downtown Burlington but is usually empty so it looks larger. Members felt that there should be open space adjacent to a street which could be closed for event purposes. Members agreed on the need for seating and for a “concentration of people.” Ms. Dopp suggested a “spur path” to take people to Williston Road. Mr. Riehle felt that the Civic Center area should have public amenities. Mr. Conner noted that Burlington is working on an outdoor seating area in conjunction with a pub. Members then considered the appropriate size for open space. They felt the heights of surrounding buildings was a factor as well as the surrounding uses. Mr. Gagnon suggested a possible minimum size. Ms. Louisos noted there had been a suggestion of space for ice skating. 4 Ms. LaRose said this can be a small area for families or a large area such as Providence has for Friday night events. Mr. Riehle said this is very expensive land and he questioned whether such a space is affordable. 7. Discuss potential elements of City Center area Official Map amendments: Mr. Conner cited the need for accuracy and the burden on a municipality to identify where things should be. He then reviewed specific areas as follows: a. A parallel road to Williston Road on the north side: affected properties would have to be clearly identified. Mr. Conner showed a previous map with one version of a road. The current plan starts on a different property. b. Mary Street: the concept is for a road next to the Double Tree. Various iterations affect different property owners. c. An area where one block is larger than the maximum block perimeter. Mr. Conner asked whether that is OK or whether there should be a road cutting across the property, possibly a rec path connecting to Dumont Park d. Central green space: The City Attorney has said that if the public wants this, there has to be a location determined for it. There is a procedure to amend this by City Council resolution if a different decision is later made. 8. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Conner said he had talked with Paul Dreher about uses that would new under FBC and what would happen with an existing non-conforming building where some uses are now not allowed. Mr. Dreher said this can be addressed. The School Board has submitted a list of uses they would not want to see in City Center because of the proximity to Central School. These include: adult uses, junk yards, motor freight terminals, Airport uses, bars/night clubs, bulk storage, cannabis dispensary, fraternity/sorority house, manufacturing/research. Mr. Riehle asked about a wine store. Mr. Conner felt retailing might not be included. Mr. Gagnon did not want to preclude a wine bar, which is a social gathering place. Mr. McKenzie said you can’t tell a hotel they can’t have a bar. Mr. Simoneau said manufacturing and research with hazardous materials is another hornet’s nest. He questioned how you would define “hazardous material.” Mr. Gagnon said there can be hazardous materials in a dentist’s office. He did not want to limit that. 5 Mr. Conner noted that “adult uses” and junk yards are prohibited city-wide. He suggested continuing that prohibition in City Center and other wise allowing the code to dictate where things go. Mr. Gagnon suggested also prohibiting motor freight terminals in all T-zones. Staff will take a crack at how to define and deal with “heavy truck traffic.” 9. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule for City Center and City-Wide Form Based Code: Mr. Conner raised the possibility of a special meeting on 29 April at which Paul Dreher can provide an idea of what the rest of the city might look like. Ms. Louisos said the FBC Committee should be invited to participate in that meeting. There was also discussion of possibly changing the 13 May meeting to 6 May. 10. Continue Discussion of style of writing for city-wide LDRs: Ms. LaRose said Paul Dreher will drive around the city to see how many zones there might be and what possible types of zoning. Mr. Conner said there is a possibility of “transect” zones for many industrial uses. Mr. Connor stressed that regulations do not have to follow any one philosophical line. Mr. Riehle asked about streetscapes. Mr. Conner said the work from the fall workshops on that can be folded in. One question is how UVM land will be addressed. 11. Consider request by Burlington Electric Department to waive 45-day notice period for proposed 500 kw solar array at BTV: Mr. Conner explained that regulation for the 45-day warning period and the ability to waive that. He added that waiving this period does not limit the ability to provide input later. Mr. Nolan of Burlington Electric said the Public Service Bureau may not hold a public hearing on this application. Everything will have to be filed with the application, and the PSB can approve it from that submission. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council could request a public hearing. Mr. Gagnon said if the PSB has a public notification process, he was OK with the waiver. Mr. Nolan noted the solar array would show 12 inches above the parking deck at its highest point. Mr. Riehle moved to grant the request to waive the 45-day notice period for the proposed 500 kw solar array at BTV as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6 Staff will prepare a letter to this effect. 12. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 APRIL 2014 1 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. 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 100% of the median income. She also noted that in South Burlington, nearly one-third of homeowners and one-half of renters spend more than the SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 APRIL 2014 1 recommended 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 80-100% of median income. Further, 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 29 APRIL 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEBMERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Dreher, Consultant; P. Nowak. L. Michaels, G. Beaudoin, P. Engels, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, W. Rapp, T. Duff, L. Ravin, M. Mittag, M. Simoneau, B. Nowak, P. Tompkins, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Quest asked to add a brief discussion of “solar ready roofs” to Other Business. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission Announcements & Staff Report: Ms. Louisos reported that the attended last night’s City Council meeting and reported on Commission activities in the past year. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council has warned a public hearing on the minor amendment to the impact fee ordinance regarding child care facilities. 4. Presentation & discussion with Paul Dreher: Mr. Dreher said the City Center process/thinking is translatable city-wide. “T” zones are universal and can be calibrated to different parts of the city. He said the process will be to look at different districts in the city to see how they might be improved. Mr. Dreher noted that on important thing the Form Based Codes Committee did related to non- conformities for which they did a “case by case scenario.” Language is being written for areas that don’t fall into the transect zones. Ms. Louisos asked where a non-“T” zone might be created. Mr. Dreher said he began with a conversation with John Illick regarding Technology Park and also could include the area behind the Airport and areas of Shelburne Road. He will run these by staff. Mr. Dreher said a non-“T” zone could happen piecemeal and allow for incremental development to occur. This differs from a PUD, which is all pre-planned. PUD standards are not typically concerned with the full range as in a transect zone. 2 One problem at Technology Park is that there is no residential space for visitors. Mr. Illick feels this would make the environment more healthy. Mr. Dreher said there can be standards that would have a T-5 right next to a T-1. Another idea being considered is a PUD centered on agrarian development. Mr. Dreher said he is trying to get the right percentage of each use (T-1 to T-5). This would tend to reduce the need for cars by making it possible to walk to work and services. If a developer sticks to the regulations, the plan would automatically be approved all the way through. Mr. Michaels asked if there will be another meeting where examples of this would be shown. Mr. Dreher said he is on a very tight schedule and suggested talking with staff. Mr. Rapp said the Committee needs to get going on this as there are only 2 months left in Mr. Dreher’s contract. Mr. Dreher noted there are very special things the DRB would still review. Ms. Harrington asked if there can’t be a T-3 next to a T-3. Mr. Dreher said they want the full mix of uses. He noted the Southeast Quadrant is “all houses and roads.” He is trying for a road network with a variety of uses so people don’t have to go to City Center for groceries and where there is the potential for employment. Ms. Harrington felt they didn’t want to set up competition for City Center. Mr. Dreher said there would be smaller groceries to serve the immediate population. Mr. McKenzie noted that even a small grocery store will generate truck traffic, and he questioned whether people want these trucks rumbling through their neighborhoods. Mr. Simoneau noted Burlington has some services in neighborhoods. They also did away with fixed percentages of uses in various neighborhoods as it was found to be onerous. Ms. Ravin noted the densities are much higher in Burlington. She asked if there are parameters for densities in South Burlington. She said what is there now wouldn’t support small groceries. Mr. Dreher said most neighborhoods in South Burlington create suburban sprawl, not density. What they are trying to get is multi-use with a grid street network. Mr. Michaels said that what happens will be dictated by the market. Ms. Harrington asked how quickly policy decisions need to be made. Mr. Dreher said he anticipates getting something to the Commission by the end of June. He felt he could come back for short meetings after that. He said he would make recommendations based on the 3 visioning sessions and meetings held in the city. Mr. Riehle said if Mr. Dreher could provide examples, it would help. Mr. Mittag asked if there will be a policy to prevent competition for City Center (e.g., K-Mart Plaza). Mr. Dreher said the use policy is very liberal in form based codes. He felt it might make sense to layer in some use constraints in various parts of the city. They might say “all uses are allowed except….: or “certain uses on certain street types are not allowed.” There could be a chart of allowed/disallowed uses, though he didn’t recommend that. Mr. Gagnon said he preferred more allowed uses and fewer disallowed. Mr. McKenzie noted there is a difference between liberal uses in an already built environment and a non-built one. Mr. Gagnon said he had no problem with a law office in a home. Mr. Riehle noted areas of Burlington where houses all became offices and totally changed neighborhoods. Regarding the map, Mr. Dreher said there might be more activity allowed at intersections, with some “nodes” along corridors where T-5 is not appropriate. In some pre-existing neighborhoods, there might be some small services (newspaper place, coffee shop, etc.). Ms. Greco noted there are no T-1 zones indicated. Mr. Dreher said that would represent a major downzoning to landowners, and there are some areas that are already protected. Ms. Tompkins asked if the Southeast Quadrant is off the record permanently. Ms. Louisos said it is for the next few months. Mr. Conner added that the next focus will be the Chamberlin area because the city has a grant for that work. With regard to TDRs, Ms. Louisos noted there was a sub-committee that looked into this. Mr. Conner said the task was to see how they could be incorporated. Mr. Dreher said that for TDRs to work there would have to be a density cap or height limits. He suggested having TDRs only in T-4 and T-5 areas. TDRs could result in having impact fees waived or reduced or having an expedited permitting process. A member of the audience felt that wasn’t enough to make the deal happen. Mr. Dreher said they would then probably have to have a density cap. Mr. Dreher noted the overall process would be similar to that of City Center, with limited review by the DRB. Places where there is consensus as to what should happen would have no review. Emerging vision areas could have some DRB review with very strict criteria. T-2 and T-3 zones would be automatic, if they are not proposing single or 2-family houses. The DRB might deal with street types, but would not have broad leeway. Mr. Conner asked if the regulations would create a lot for each principal building, and noted that subdivisions are reviewed by the DRB per State law). Mr. Dreher said they would. Mr. 4 Conner asked if the concept is then that what gets put in each lot could be administrative. Mr. Dreher agreed. Ms. Dopp asked about design review as she thought form based codes was about what “things look like.” Mr. Dreher said there would be enough in the way of visual standards to guarantee architectural quality. They can create “form standards” which have nothing to do with “taste.” Mr. Conner noted the Design Review Board occasionally provides feedback on a special question. They do deal with the City Center design district. Their role in the future is up for discussion. Ms. Quest asked if UVM land would be outside the form based code. Mr. Dreher noted that UVM is one of the largest landowners in the city. Public institutions are considered civic sites and are exempt from certain regulations in City Center. He felt that exempting large tracts of land is not a great idea. He suggested sitting down with UVM to assign T-zones and then hold them in compliance to that. They could identify some non- transect zones. Ms. Quest asked if it possible for them just to stay in the old zoning. Mr. Dreher felt that if they develop in a manner not compatible with form based codes, it could be a problem. Ms. Ravin asked “what is broken, what are they trying to fix?” Mr. Dreher said what UVM has on its land now may not be compatible with form based codes. Mr. Conner suggested making use of UVM’s Master Plan where there are built out elements and making suggestions for those. They can then look at the open lands and consider long-term things. Mr. Rapp felt they should be treated the same as other landowners. Ms. Ravin said there are some state regulations that make UVM different. Also, UVM can hold onto land for many years. She added that UVM welcomes the dialog but the more flexibility, the better. With regard to street typology, Mr. Dreher said he will have something to Mr. Conner this week. With regard to T-zones within existing neighborhoods, Mr. Conner asked the Commission if they would like Mr. Dreher to try to reflect what is there today. Ms. Louisos said yes. They have heard from people about preserving their neighborhoods. Commission members said they would like to see single family homes and some duplexes. Ms. Louisos asked if there can be a pallet of choices for a neighborhood. Mr. Dreher said absolutely. Ms. Greco noted people say they want something like Mayfair Park. Mr. Conner noted you couldn’t build Mayfair Park affordably today. 5 Mr. Dreher said he will attempt to augment the open space requirements to create a sense of place. Mr. Conner asked if allowing self-storage units in the I-O districts would create a conflict (there has been a request for this in the area near the Airport). Mr. Dreher said it would be no problem. 5. Other Business: a. Meeting Schedule: The next Planning Commission meeting is on 13 May. Several Commission members are not available on the 27th, so members were OK with having the following meeting on the 20th of May. b. Solar Ready Roofing: Ms. Quest asked that this be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Conner said there are substantial structural issues that relate to this according to the Fire Chief. He will add it to the next agenda. 6. Minutes: No minutes were presented for review. Ms. Dopp asked about sewage capacity in City Center. Members agreed to have that discussion after the form based code is put out for public comment. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. _____________________________, Clerk