Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/26/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 APRIL 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, J. Kochman, B. Milizia, M. Cuke, R. Agne, D. Leban 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. MacDonald: asked if the bill regarding siting of energy-related projects is still in deliberation. Mr. Conner said he thought there is likely to be a summer study committee, and said he’d get back to the Commission as he hadn’t followed that bill as closely as others. The Legislature was still taking testimony a week ago. Mr. Riehle: noted that Chris Shaw sent the Council Chair and City Manager a piece written by Tony Redington in response to the Chittenden County Transportation Plan. The premise is that roundabouts are safer for bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Redington was critical of the Plan and felt their priority was vehicle-oriented and less about pedestrian safety. Ms. Louisos: will be a presenter at the Resilience Vermont conference at the end of May. Mr. Conner: at the next Commission meeting, 10 May, members of the Bike/Ped Committee and Energy Committee will be present. The Secretary of State hosted Public Service awards for those who have given 20 years of more of service to the community. Former Commission members Marcel Beaudin and Bill Wessel were honored, as was long-standing minute taker Sue Alenick. This Thursday, there will be a Chamberlin neighborhood workshop to present thoughts from the Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee. Mr. Conner testified on House Bill 367 regarding changing the approval period on Comprehensive Plans. The Senate passed a bill allowing for an 8 year period instead of the present 5, with a check-in at 4 years. The thought is to allow more time for implementation. The city got unanimous approval and some excellent comments on the expansion of the New Town Center and Neighborhood Development Area from the Vermont Downtown Board. There is a list of projects likely to be funded by Regional Planning. South Burlington got ~$270,000 worth of projects, but not all of the projects that were submitted. What was funded were the following: Phase 2 Kimball/Kennedy Drive; the overhaul of the traffic overlay district; updates to the traffic impact fees; Phase 2 Williston Road study, linking of traffic lights on Williston Road and Dorset Street; and half (scoping) of the bike bridge (with the remainder to be funded in the following year). What were not funded were: PUD tools, multi-site bike/ped, a natural resources study, and updating the Form Based Code. 4. Public Hearing on potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations and possible warning of public hearing of same: a. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial/industrial districts b. Merger of similar use categories (e.g., retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability c. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC d. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Mr. MacDonald moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Kochman expressed concern with preserving views. She also noted that in the Open Space Report there are recommended numbers of parks per 1000 residents and parks within walking distance of all neighborhoods. She didn’t know if this was in the LDRs or can be put there. Mr. Conner then summarized the amendments and noted a few proposed changes to the draft amendments, based on legal counsel review. Other minor typos and definitions were also changed slightly; each recommended change was included and noted in the draft presented to the Commission in their packet for this meeting. He noted that some allowable/non‐allowable uses in the Table of Uses within the Institutional‐Agricultural don’t line up with the text of the same district. The ones around retail have been adjusted to be consistent with one another; others will be corrected in the next round of amendments. Also cleaned up was the parking table to eliminate uses that will no longer exist. Another change involves parking standards and how a lot can have some parking in front of buildings. In this section, wording was corrected to clarify that the opening statement is a preamble. In addition, the prior draft had included a statement that the “goals” of this section are to be met, but goals were not included. The goals that must be met to allow for this are enumerated in this draft, based on the discussions held by the Commission. Mr. Conner also added that there was one line of text – a note within the Tale of Uses ‐ that had been proposed to be removed from the current regulation by the Commission. The removal of that line had not been marked with a strike-through in the draft but was now shown in the correct drafting format. Members briefly discussed comments by resident Chris Shaw. Mr. Gagnon moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Review feedback provided on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations; discuss possible edits: It was noted that these items were discussed during the public hearing. 6. Possible approval of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Planning Commission Report and submittal to the City Council: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the draft amendments and Planning Commission Report as presented. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Conner noted that these amendments were tentatively placed on the City Council agenda for Monday’s meeting (2 May). 7. Discussion opportunities for collaboration on 2016-2017 work plans with Natural Resources Committee and Recreation-Leisure Arts Committee: Ms. Louisos said the Commission has no special agenda but wants to hear what the Committees are working on. Ms. Milizia noted the Natural Resources Committee just did some major projects including a park management plan, “score card,” and Open Space Plan. She felt this was a good time to look at what other committees are doing in other places. Ms. Milizia also noted that a person who used to be on the Natural Resources Committee and is now at UVM has been invited to speak to the Committee later in the year. There will also be new people joining the Committee as they have been merger with the Red Rocks Park Committee. Ms. Kochman said they have reviewed their thinking on committee structure in response to the City Council looking for a “Public Lands Committee.” Ms. Milizia said it didn’t seem to them to be a “natural fit.” She also noted a very good meeting recently regarding the Wheeler property with a task force of members from various city committees and a consultant. She said it proved to her that this process can work. She said the next thing to look at is how to use the ½ cent from the Open Space Fund that the voters approved for maintenance. Mr. Conner noted that the Council has created that working group which will be comprised of 2 members each from the Natural Resources, Recreation/Leisure Arts, and Red Rocks Park Committees and up to 5 members at large who have an interest in and experience with natural resources planning/budgeting. Mr. Gagnon said one reason the Commission is having these meetings with other committees was concern that committees were working on things that other committees didn’t know about, and the Commission didn’t want people heading off in different directions. Mr. Gagnon also noted that with regard to scenic views, the city didn’t get funding for this, and the Commission felt if this was the case, they could go to the committees for help with that. Mr. Simoneau said they are already working on that. Mr. Conner said there are 2 pieces to that puzzle: identifying the views, and writing a defensible standard to conserve the views (considering what the community is looking to preserve within a view). Mr. Simoneau said a good thing about having a consultant is that there can be an outlined process. He thought maybe staff could do that. Mr. Conner said if there are volunteers in the community interested in doing “field work,” this could be a good thing for them. Committee members could provide oversight for that process. Ms. Milizia felt they could help recruit people. She didn’t want to see Natural Resources consumed by one project. She could see staff helping them to “get their heads around this.” Mr. Riehle felt it wasn’t that confusing. Take the pictures and get the pictures to the Planning Commission. He said there is a time concern as the Commission is trying to be proactive, and there is a lot of activity going on. Mr. Conner felt this was a 2-track process: top priority views and LDR language on those, and then identifying other places in the city with some kind of views. Ms. Louisos suggested that each committee come up with it “Top 5” views. Mr. Simoneau stressed the importance of establishing a credible process in order to get good results. Mr. Gagnon noted there are some “open‐ended” consultants available. He asked if anyone in that group has expertise in this area. Mr. Conner said staff has a firm in mind. Mr. Gagnon suggested the Commission define a scope of work for a consultant to come up with some criteria for view preservation. Mr. Conner said generally speaking an important view has 3 elements: a. Foreground (where height is important) b. Mid-ground (which has more to do with building design) c. Distance (concerns what is in the first 50 feet) Mr. Conner said each element has different things that are important. A matrix can be designed to help measure view with good elements to them. Then, when there is consensus, a consultant can be brought in to measure a point for preserving a view. He stressed that the narrower the scope, the easier it will be to get the job done. Mr. Riehle asked if there are “carrots” that can be offered to landowners for preserving views. Mr. Simoneau said there is “leverage” on both sides of the table. Ms. Leban noted that the Bike/Ped committee was asked a few years ago to document the best view from the bike path. She would try to look back and see how those were done. Mr. Conner said one thing of value could be some specific landscaping standards. He noted that “buildings don’t grow taller but trees do.” He felt if they could go back some years, different choices might have been made regarding tree types. He suggested the possibility of giving “Green‐Uppers” a map with stickers and asking them to indicate their favorite views. Regarding recreation, Mr. Riehle asked if the city is lacking any facilities. Ms. Kochman said there aren’t enough field and tennis courts so they can be maintained. There is also need for programming space with little or no space for pre-schoolers and seniors (who don’t go out at night). Ms. Kochman noted her committee will be having a retreat in June regarding the needs for affordable space for people to go for recreation. Mr. Conner suggested starting to map out the needs city-wide and possibly mapping out what the city should look like in 100 years. Ms. Kochman said the “gap analysis” said the city will need 5 more acres of park land in the next 7 years. Mr. Conner also noted a need for “informal field space” for unorganized play. Ms. Kochman said a lot of things are waiting for the School Board to make a decision. The community was told that if a school was to be closed, it might be usable for recreation and/or community space. Regarding open space, Ms. Louisos noted that in City Center there are specific open space requirements. She felt it makes sense to consider how to define open space city-wide. Ms. Kochman felt Sharon Murray did a great job of indicating what is appropriate for open space in various T-zones. Ms. Louisos asked if one of the committees would be interested in taking a stab at that and having it on their work plan. She also noted that tree standards have been mentioned, having road tree standards, spacing, etc. Ms. Milizia said this has to plan into other things, such as how a tree canopy affects environmental issues. Ms. Kochman felt that scenic views were a good place to start. Mr. Conner said utilizing “Green Uppers” is pretty low‐tech. Ms. Milizia said they can put something on Front Porch Forum and in The Other Paper. Mr. Conner suggested the Commission might want to have views on another agenda. Ms. Kochman noted that she and Ms. Milizia would like to revise the “scenic inventory form.” Committee members supported that idea. 8. Minutes of 12 April 2016: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 12 April 2016 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: Mr. Conner suggested the Commission meet a little earlier for its next meeting as there is a large agenda. Members were OK with meeting at 6 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. _________________________________ 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, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: April 26th Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) a. Staff memo on agenda 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:05 pm) 4. Public Hearing on potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations and possible warning of public hearing on same (7:10 pm) Note: As with all amendments, staff provided the draft to the city’s legal counsel for review. They have provided some edits, which are included in the attached draft. All changes since the version that the Commission voted to warn for public hearing are specifically noted as “comments” on the right side of the page, and further described below. a. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; Staff notes: a few revisions were made for clarity following legal review. None of the changes materially change the standards. The pre-amble is re-worded to be clear that it is describing the purpose of the standard rather than being a review criteria. One of the standards for review had previously described meeting the “goals” of this section. As there were no goals, staff prepared goals based on the Commission’s discussion. b. Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability Staff notes: No significant changes from the draft warned for public hearing, but a couple of clean-up items: • Further clarify the definitions, especially distinction between remaining uses. • Institutional-Agricultural District. It was noted that at present, the Table of Uses in Appendix C is actually repeated (or nearly repeated) in Article 7 of the LDRs. There is some clean-up work to be done and this section should be replaced in a future 2 round of amendments. In the meantime, though, the recommendation was for the uses related to the amendments under consideration be made consistent between the table of uses and this article. That is done. • Parking. It was noted that we had not eliminated parking requirements in Table 13-2 for uses that are proposed to be eliminated. This is no done. All parking standards related to the retail sales category are now under “retail sales.” Staff proposes to keep the distinction between 3,000 and >3,000 SF uses as there was a lesser parking requirement for the small ones. At a later time, the Commission may wish to go back and examine all of the parking standards as a separate project. c. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District No changes proposed. d. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Following the legal review, a handful of minor edits and adjustments to related definitions and typos are proposed. These are all noted in the “comments” on the right side of the sheets as applicable. 5. Review feedback provided on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations; discuss possible edits (7:55 pm) Attached please find the matrix of comments received. The Commission may make any edits (including those provided based on the legal review) to the regulations it wishes based on the feedback. 6. Possible approval of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Planning Commission Report and submittal to the City Council (8:10 pm) Should the Commission wish, it may vote to approve the draft amendments and submit them to the City Council, including any changes at or following the public hearing. Such a motion should also include the Commission’s report, which was previously prepared and approved for the public hearing. Following an approval, the draft would be submitted to the Council. 7. Discussion opportunities for collaboration on 2016-2017 work plans with Natural Resources Committee and Recreation-Leisure Arts Committee (8:15 pm) See the attached responses to the Commission’s questions from the two above-listed committees. The Committees are planning to attend Tuesday’s meeting. 8. Other business (9:05 pm) 9. Minutes (9:10 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:15 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 at 7:00 pm Legend Proposed amendments, shown on the following pages, are marked as follows: Additions are shown in red and underlined Deletions are down in red strikethrough Map changes are noted in text boxes Index to Amendments Amendments are proposed to the sections below. Under each section, one or more descriptions of purpose as described in the public hearing notice are listed. Section 2.02: Definitions Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 3.07: Height of Structures Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 7.01: Institutional and Agricultural District 1-A Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; Section 8.06: Special Standards Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 8.13: T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 8.14: T-5 Building Envelope Standards Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Table 13-2: Parking Requirements, Commercial Uses Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; Section 14.06: General Review Standards Purposes: Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts Appendix C – Uses and Dimensional Standards Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District; (D) Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Overlay Districts Map Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft with recommended Changes for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 2.01 Rules of Construction, Intent and Usage A. In the construction of these regulations, the following provisions and rules shall be applied, except when the context clearly requires otherwise: … (17) Abbreviations. “SF” shall mean “square feet”, “GFA” shall mean “gross floor area”, “GLA” shall mean “gross leasable area”, “DU” shall mean dwelling unit, and “ROW” shall mean “right-of-way” 2.02 Specific Definitions … Building line. Front. The line, parallel to the street line, that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the front lot line. A lot with two or more front lot lines shall have a front building line for each front lot line. Rear. The line, parallel to the rear lot line, that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the rear lot line. In the event that a property has two or more front lot lines and no rear lot lines, the rear building line shall be the line that is both (a) parallel to the side lot line that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the side lot line and (b) parallel to the Primary Building Façade. … Convenience store. A retail establishment, typically less than 3,000 square feet in area, offering for sale prepackaged or prepared food products, household items, newspapers and magazines, and may include sandwiches and other freshly prepared foods for off-site consumption. … Lot line, front. The lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way. Refer to Figure 2-1 for for examples of lot lines for non-standard lots. In the case of a through lot, the lot shall be deemed to have two front yards which shall each meet the required front setback and all other requirements of this ordinance to front yards, and shall be deemed to have two side yards and no rear yard. A corner lot shall be deemed to have two front yards and two side yards and no rear yard. Comment [PC1]: Added for clarity per legal review 4/22/2016 Comment [PC2]: Added word “front” to clarify front vs rear. 4/22/2016 per legal review Comment [PC3]: Added for clarity 4/22/2016 per legal review. Comment [PC4]: Removed proposed words “building line, rear” and inserted simply “rear” for clarity per legal review 4/22/2016 Comment [PC5]: Added clarification that there is only one rear building line for a property. 4/22/2016 Comment [PC6]: Recommended clarification and clean-up of definition based on legal review, 4/22/2016. Adds reference to Table 2-1 and removed the remainder. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft with recommended Changes for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 Figure 2-1, Lots, and Yards, and Lot Lines Retail food establishment. An establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready- to-eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises, and where the consumption of food on site is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats. Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with a retail food establishment. FRONT Comment [PC7]: Adds lot lines to the title of this graphics for clarity, per legal review 4/22/2016. Added missing word “front” to one of images South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft with recommended Changes for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 Retail sales. An establishment engaged in selling goods, groceries, or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Typically such an establishment (A) is a place of business and is engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy, (B) buys and receives as well as sells merchandise, (C) may process or manufacture some of the products for sale, such as a jeweler or baker, but such production or manufacture is incidental and subordinate to the selling activities, and (D) sells to customers for their own personal, household, or business use. Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment short order restaurant as an accessory use with the following limitations on the short order restaurant: 1) it must be located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own; 2) it is limited to 3,000 square feet 3) it is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats; 4) Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with this accessory short order restaurant. A Wholesale Club is considered to be Retail Sales in these Regulations. … Wholesale Club. An establishment, also known as a “warehouse club”, primarily engaged in the bulk retail sale of a general line of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, groceries and appliances, for personal or household consumption or for business use. The patronage of a wholesale club is typically restricted by a membership requirement. … Wholesale establishment. An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in selling goods, products, material, and merchandise stored on the premises to retailers or persons who are the intermediaries between the producer and the consumer; to industrial, commercial, institutional or professional business users; to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies. Under these Regulations, this definition of Wholesale establishment specifically excludes the Wholesale Club use. A Wholesale Club shall not be considered to be a Wholesale establishment. 3.07 Height of Structures … B. Stories. The requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. (1) Where a roofline story is placed on a building that contains or is planned to contain the maximum permitted number of stories below the roofline, the following conditions shall apply: (a) dormers on such story shall not exceed the height of the roof peak, and (b) the total width of the dormers on any single side does not exceed fifty thirty-three percent (33%) of the horizontal distance of the roof line along that side. Vertical extensions that exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the horizontal width (i.e., step dormers) are permitted, but Comment [PC8]: Previous draft has added “This use specifically excludes Wholesale Clubs.” Recommended to replace that proposed language with this for greater clarity per legal review 4/22/2016 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft with recommended Changes for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 are limited to a maximum height of five (5) feet above the average height of the principal roof structure and shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the horizontal width of any side. 7.01 Institutional and Agricultural District I-A … C. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Institutional-Agricultural District. … (i) Convenience store up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (j i) Photocopy and printing shop with accessory retail sales use, up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (k j) Personal service. Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum of 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entrances from one another and no direct passageways from one to another. up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (l k) Short-order restaurant, within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (m l) Retail sales. Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum of 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entrances from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.business up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (n m) Social services (NORTH ONLY) (o n) Accessory uses to the uses listed above in the applicable district (i.e. North only or all) 8.06 Special Standards … C. Drive Throughs. Drive-through service windows are permitted in the back of the building, in mid-block and alley-accessed locations provided they comply with all of the following standards: … (4) Drive-throughs shall conform to all applicable BES and shall not be exempt from any standard in these regulations that requires a minimum of two (2) stories minimum two (2) story requirement standard; and, Comment [PC9]: Modifications made to Section 7.01 to be consistent with the Table of Uses, per legal review 4/22/2016 Comment [PC10]: Recommended clarification. Previous draft had added the word “story.” This draft replaces that portion of the sentence with a more clear overall statement per legal review 4/22/2016 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4‐1 8.13 T‐4 Urban Multi‐Use Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade  Requirements Supplemental (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a) Lot size (b) Lot Width (2)Lot Occupation (a) Percentage of Lot Coverage (b) Units per acre (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a) All Types (2)Building Stories (a) Principal (b) Accessory (3)Floor‐to‐Floor Height (a) First story (b) Upper Stories (4)Build‐to‐Zone See T4 Figures (a) Primary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 12' Max.0' Min., 18' Max. (b) Secondary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 24' Max. 0'. Min., 36' Max. (5)Frontage See T4 Figures (a) Frontage Buildout , Primary Streets 70% Min.70% Min. (Note 1) (b) Frontage Buildout , Secondary Streets 70% Min. within 80' of  Primary Street, 50%  Min. elsewhere 70% Min. within 80'  of Primary Street,  50% Min. elsewhere  (Note 1) (b)Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build‐ to‐Zone 75% Min.100% Max. (c ) Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary  Build‐to‐Zone 0% Min., 25% Max. 100% Max. (6)Entrances See Entrances Figure (a) Average frequency of Public Entrances, non‐residential first  story use 36' Max.54' Max. (b) Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non‐ residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max. (c ) Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first  story use 36' Max.54' Max. (d) Maximum distance between Operable Entrances,  residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max. (7)Glazing See Glazing Figure (a) First Story Min. 40% of the  Width of the Building,  and Min. 7.5' in  Height Min. 20% of the  Width of the  Building, and Min 7.5'  in Height (b)First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min. (c ) Upper Stories 24' Max. 14' Max See Note 2 T4 BES Standard Generally a multi‐use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s).  Housing, retail, and other commercial uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of  freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T‐4 is multimodal oriented with an emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism.  Parking (not including on‐street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street.  None None None None Permitted 2 Min., 4 Max. 1 Max. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT with recommended changes FOR PLANNING COMMISSION  PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 26, 2016 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4‐2 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade  Requirements SupplementalT4 BES Standard (d) Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be  transparent (8) Building Breaks See Bldg Breaks Figure (a) Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80' Min. 3 every 80' (b) Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break 48' Max.48' Max. (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a) Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks See Section 8.04 (a) Perimeter (b) Length (2)Street & Connection Types See Article 11 (a)Neighborhood Street Narrow (b )Neighborhood Street (c)Private commercial way (d)Support Street (e)Commercial Street (f)Avenue (g)Commercial Boulevard (h)Destination Street (i)Market Street and Garden Street (j)Path (k)Pesdetrian Pedestrian Pass (l)Alley (m) All other street types (4)Curb Cuts (not including street intersections) (a)On Market Street (b) On Garden Street (b)All other streets (E ) Parking Standards (1)Parking Amount Requirements (a)Per Residential Unit (b)Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non‐Residential (2) Location & Screening (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e ) (f) (g) (3) Off‐Site Parking (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Where a T‐4 Lot abuts the R4 or R7 Zoning District, the following standards shall apply: (a) A buffer strip shall be required See Section 8.06(E)  18.02(B) See Note 2 Encouraged 2 spaces Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 400' Min. distance between curb cuts 400' Min. distance between curb cuts Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 2,800' Max. 100' Min. distance between curb cuts No parking spaces required for ground floor tenants/ uses less than 5,000 sq. ft.  New construction resulting in additional non‐residential gross floor area or residential units shall meet T‐ 4 Parking Standards New surface parking shall be set back from the primary street a minimum of 25' Parking spaces may be leased from the city or a private landowner New parking spaces shall be screened from all streets and the public realm, a minimum of four (4) feet in  height Parking under structures is encouraged 2 spaces Min. 300' Min., 700' Max. Prohibited (b) Off‐site parking within 1200’ may be used to meet parking requirements for non‐Residential uses.  (c) Shared parking may be used to meet parking requirements (See Article 13).  Parking shall only be permitted in compliance with applicable BES standards for building frontage Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street (a) Off‐site parking within 600’ may be used to meet parking requirements for Residential uses.  South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT with recommended changes FOR PLANNING COMMISSION  PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 26, 2016 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4‐3 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade  Requirements SupplementalT4 BES Standard (b) (c ) (d)NOTE: CORRECTED  "building" to "buildout"  PER LEGAL REVIEW  4/22/2016 (e ) (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. (3) (a) (b) (G) Streetscape Standards (1)General Standards (a)All streetscape features must be consistent within a project.  (b) (c ) (d)Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 (2)Streetscape requirements (a)Benches (b)Bicycle Racks for at least 5 bikes (c )Street Tree Spacing, on center Notes (1) (2)Upper Story Glazing Shall comply with the following standards: Non‐hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or  flowering vegetation.  All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with  requirements of the Department of Public Works. The third story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the rear building  line; and, The fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twenty‐four feet (24’) from the rear  building line.  Small Single Story Principal Buildings. New small single‐story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to  the following requirements: (b)  80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide  (c) The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. Windows may be ganged horizontally if  each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least  7 inches wide.  Along Secondary Streets, parking structures within the build‐to‐zone that do not meet entrance and/or  glazing standards are permitted and shall count towards Frontage Building Buildout requirements,  provided that a minimum of 0.5% of the construction cost is used for original artwork installed on or in  front of the building façade facing said street. Along Secondary Streets, a Streetfront Open Space, as defined within these Regulations, shall count  towards Frontage Buildout requirements. 2 Min. per 100' frontage 1 Min. per 100' frontage 50' Max. average (a) Upper story glazing shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the façade on the primary building facade and  20% on secondary building facades. If a corner lot is 100’ or less in width along the street containing the primary building facade and  greater than two (2) times that width in depth, the required frontage buildout on the BES shall be  reduced by 50% on the street containing the secondary building facade. Such building shall building shall have a frontage greater than 100' and a footprint greater than 10,000  square feet; Such building shall have a maximum footprint of 3,500 square feet; and, Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. No new single‐story sotry building shall be permitted within one thousand (1,000) linear feet in any  direction from any existing single‐story  building approved under this subsection; Large Single Story Principal Buildings. New large single‐story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to  the following requirements: Such building shall be a minimum of 24' in height and shall have the appearance of two or more stories; Such building shall have entries at a frequency of every 50' or less and shall have a maximum distance  between entries of 60'; and, (d) Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum  of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts.  (e) Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding  bay windows and storefronts).  South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT with recommended changes FOR PLANNING COMMISSION  PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 26, 2016 ARTICLE 8CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T5‐1 8.14 T‐5  Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade Requirements Supplemental (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a) Lot size (b) Lot Width (2)Lot Occupation (a) Percentage of Lot Coverage (b) Units per acre (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a) All Types (2)Building Stories (a) Principal (b) Accessory (3)Floor‐to‐Floor Height (a) First story (b) Upper Stories (4)Build‐to‐Zone See T5 Figures (a) Primary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 6' Max. 0' Min., 9' Max. (b) Secondary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 24' Max. 0'. Min., 36' Max. (5)Frontage See T5 Figures (a) Frontage Buildout 85% Min.85% Min. (Note 1) (b) Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build‐ to‐Zone 75% Min.50% Min. (c )Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary  Build‐to‐Zone 0% Min., 25% Max. 50% Max. (6)Entrances See Entrances Figure (a) Average frequency of Public Entrances, non‐residential first  story use 30' Max.45' Max. (b) Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non‐ residential first story use 40' Max.60' Max. (c )Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first  story use (d) Maximum distance between Operable Entrances,  residential first story use (7)Glazing See Glazing Figure (a) First Story Min. 80% of the  Width of the Building,  and Min. 7.5' in  Height Min. 40% of the Width  of the Building, and  Min 7.5' in Height (b) First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min. (c ) Upper Stories (d) Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be  transparent (8) Building Breaks See Note 3 & Bldg  Breaks Figure (a) Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80' Min. 3 every 80' Emphasis is on Market Street with high volume foot traffic. Create a street‐oriented public realm that encourages a dense downtown,  multi‐use/multi‐purpose built environment. Retail and other commercial uses must be on the ground floor, with and mixed uses  permitted above. Parking (not including on‐street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. None None None None T5 BES Standard Permitted 2 Min., 6 Max. 14' Min., 20' Max. 10' Min., 14' Max. not applicable not applicable See Note 2 See Note 2 1 Max. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT with recommended changes FOR PLANNING COMMISSION  PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 26, 2016 ARTICLE 8CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T5‐2 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade Requirements SupplementalT5 BES Standard (b) Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break Recommend every 24‐ 48 feet; 60' Max. Recommend every 24‐ 48 feet; 60' Max. (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a) Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks See Section 8.04 (a) Perimeter (b) Length (2)Street and Connection types See Article 11 (a)Destination Street (b)Support Street (c )Neighborhood Street Narrow (d)Market Street & Garden Street (e)Path (f)Alley (b)Pedestrian Pass (h)All other street types (3)Curb Cuts (a)On Market Street (b) On Garden Street (c)All other streets (E ) Parking Standards (1)Parking Amount Requirements (a)Per Residential Unit (b)Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non‐Residential (2) Location & Screening (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e) (f)NOTE: CORRECTED  "building frontage" to  "Frontage Buildout"  PER LEGAL REVIEW  4/22/2016  (g) (3) Off‐Site Parking (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Upper Story setbacks (a) NOTE: CORRECTED  "principal" to "primary"  PER LEGAL REVIEW  4/22/2016  (b)  (G) Streetscape Standards (1)General Standards 2 spaces Max. 2 spaces Min. Encouraged Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited  100' Min. distance between curb cuts Parking under structures is encouraged Parking shall only be permitted in compliance with applicable BES standards for Frontage Buildout building  frontage New parking spaces shall be screened from all streets and the public realm, a minimum of four (4) feet in  height New construction resulting in additional non‐residential gross floor area or residential units shall meet T‐5  Parking Standards New surface parking shall be set back from the primary street a minimum of 25' Parking spaces may be leased from the city or a private landowner No parking spaces required for ground floor tenants/ uses less than 5,000 sq. ft.  (a) Off‐site parking within 600’ may be used to meet parking requirements for Residential uses.  (b) Off‐site parking within 1200’ may be used to meet parking requirements for non‐Residential uses.  (c) Shared parking may be used to meet parking requirements (See Article 13).  All stories above the fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the  primary principal and secondary secondard building facades.  All stories above the fifth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from all  Alleys.  Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 1,600' Max. 400' Max. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT with recommended changes FOR PLANNING COMMISSION  PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 26, 2016 ARTICLE 8CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T5‐3 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade Requirements SupplementalT5 BES Standard (a)All streetscape features must be consistent within a project.  (b) (c ) (d)Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 (2)Streetscape requirements (a)Benches (b)Bicycle Parking or Rack Spaces (c )Street Tree Spacing, on center Notes (1) NOTE: CORRECTED "on"  to "in" PER LEGAL  REVIEW 4/22/2016  (2) Upper Story Glazing Shall comply with the following standards: (3) Building Break Standards also apply to any façade facing a Qualifying Open Space Non‐hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or  flowering vegetation.  (d) Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum  of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts.  (e) Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding  bay windows and storefronts).  All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with requirements  of the Department of Public Works. 1 Min. per 50' frontage 20 Min. per 100' frontage 30' Max. average If a corner lot is 100’ or less in width along the street containing the primary building facade and  greater than two (2) times that width in depth, the required frontage buildout in on the BES shall be  reduced by 50% on the street containing the secondary building facade. (a) Upper story glazing shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the façade on the primary building facade and 20%  on secondary building facades. (b)  80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide  (c) The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. Windows may be ganged horizontally if  each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least  7 inches wide.  South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT with recommended changes FOR PLANNING COMMISSION  PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 26, 2016 ARTICLE 13 DRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS – RECOMMENDATATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 4-26-2016 TABLE 13-2: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, COMMERCIAL USES Use Parking Space Requirement Notes Agriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rental 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Recreation facility, indoor 0.33 per person in maximum occupancy permitted Recreation facility, outdoor 0.33 per seat or per person in maximum occupancy Auto and motorcycle sales, service and repair 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Artist production studio 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Auto rental, with private accessory car wash and fueling 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Drive-through bank 5.8 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Bed & breakfast, minimum 1 acre lot 2 plus 1.5 per guest bedroom Car wash 2 per 1,000 SF GFA, minimum of 2 2 Commercial greenhouse 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Convenience store, principal use 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Convenience store <3,000 SF within principal structure 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Day care facility 1 per employee plus 0.1 per licensed enrollment capacity General merchandise store 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Equipment service, repair & rental 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Financial institution 3.6 per 1,000 SF GFA Flight instruction 1 per employee (faculty and staff) plus 0.5 per student enrollment capacity Hotels 1 per room, plus 0.33 per maximum occupancy in meeting and banquet rooms Use (continued) Parking Space Requirement Notes Hotels, extended stay 1 per room plus 1 per employee Indoor theater 0.33 per seat Commercial kennel, animal shelter, veterinary hospital or pet day care 1 per employee plus 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Lumber and contractor’s yard 1 per employee plus 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Mobile home, RV, and boat sales, repair & service 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Office, general 3.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Office, medical 5 per 1,000 SF Personal or business service, principal use 2 per treatment station, but not less than 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Personal or business service, up to 3,000 SF GFA per any one principal structure 2 per treatment station (personal service) or 4 per 1,000 SF GFA, whichever greater Pet grooming 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Printing & binding production facilities 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Photocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail 2 per 1,000 SF GFA, plus 5 per 1,000 SF GFA of retail area Radio & television studio 2 per employee Comment [PC1]: Modifications below to remove parking requirements for uses that are proposed to be eliminated and to change “retail business” to “retail sales” for consistency. 4/22/2016 ARTICLE 13 DRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS – RECOMMENDATATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 4-26-2016 Research facility or laboratory 3 per 1,000 SF GFA Restaurant, standard 18 per 1,000 SF GLA Restaurant, short order 12 per 1,000 SF GLA Retail food establishment <5,000 SF GFA 6.7 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA, and supermarkets 6 per 1,000 SF GLA Retail sales business, excluding general merchandise stores 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail sales business up to 3,000 SF GFA within any one principal structure 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail warehouse outlet 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Sale, rental & repair of aircraft & related parts 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Seasonal mobile food unit 8 per employee Service station with convenience store 10 per 1,000 SF GLA 2 Shopping center 5 per 1,000 SF GLA if GLA is 400,000 SF or less 5.5 per 1,000 SF GLA if more than 400,000 SF Taverns, night clubs & private clubs 0.5 per maximum authorized occupancy Motor freight terminal 1 per employee 2 Commercial or public parking facility 1 per employee 2 Warehousing, processing, storage & distribution 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Distribution and related storage, as a minority of floor area accessory to another principal permitted or conditional use 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA for the distribution and storage portion of GFA Wholesale establishments 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA plus any requirements for office or sales area South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft with recommendations for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 14.06 General Review Standards B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. … (2) Parking: … (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. … (vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open Space Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations of the use(s) on the lot; (I) In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the general requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to: 1. Distribution and related storage 2. Light manufacturing 3. Manufacturing 4. Processing and Storage 5. Warehousing and Distribution (II) The parking shall be limited as follows: 1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public street and the building(s); 2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more of the following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Appendix F, except for the location standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area; Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the street right-of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building. 3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review Board pursuant to Section 13.06 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that must be dedicated to installation of Comment [PC1]: Reworded slightly to describe as the purpose for this section rather than a review criteria. 4/22/2016. Legal review complete Comment [PC2]: Replace “in front of the building” with “between a public street and the building(s)” to mirror the start of this section, per legal review. 4/22/2016 Comment [PC3]: Replace “achieve the goals of this sub-section” with this text, while enumerates these goals. Legal review complete 4/22/2016 Comment [PC4]: Reworded this subsection to be clear regarding per South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft with recommendations for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000, and no less than 10% of the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard). 4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. 5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. Comment [PC5]: Added the word “main”, per legal review 4/22/2016 APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C  South Burlington Land Development Regulations   DRAFT For Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016  C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS    The tables on the following pages describe the allowable uses in each zoning district in the City, and the  specific dimensional standards applicable to each. The tables are C‐1, Table of Uses and C‐2, Table of  Dimensional Standards.  APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Residential/Institutional 1RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTSIA(1) PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7‐NC(2)R12 LN QCP SEQ‐NRPSEQ‐NRTSEQ‐NR SEQ‐VR SEQ‐VC(2)Residential UsesSingle‐family dwellingP P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P PTwo‐family dwellingPUD P P P PUD PUD P PP P P PMulti‐family dwellingPUD PUD P PUD PUD PUDCPUD P PAccessory residential unitsGroup home or Residential Care HomeP P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P PAgricultural UsesHorticulture & forestry with on‐premise salesHorticulture & forestry, no on‐premise salesKeeping of livestock on 10 acres or more P P P P PP P P PSingle‐family dwelling related to agriculture P P P P P P PPP P P P PAdditional dwellings for farm employees P P P P P P PPP P P P PPublic & Quasi‐Public UsesCemeteriesCommunity centerPUD P PPCP P PCongregate care, assisted living, or continuum of care facilityC‐TO C C CCultural facilityPUDEducational facilityPUDPCC CEducational support facilitiesPUDFuneral homes, mortuaries, and crematoriumsC CGroup quartersPUDHospicePPMunicipal facilityC PParksPersonal instruction facilityPP (6)Place of worshipPUDP P P P P PPP P PRecreation pathsSocial servicesC‐TO CConditional in all districtsPermitted in all districtsPermitted in all districtsPermitted in all districts; 3 acre minimum lot size in all districts.Permitted in all districtsInstitutionalResidentialSoutheast QuadrantPlease See Section 3.10 for RegulationsSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Residential/Institutional 2RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTSIA(1) PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7‐NC(2)R12 LN QCP SEQ‐NRPSEQ‐NRTSEQ‐NR SEQ‐VR SEQ‐VC(2)Institutional Residential Southeast QuadrantCommercial UsesAdult use Auto & motorcycle service and repair, accessory use, no fueling pumpsCBed and breakfast, min.  1 acre lotC C C CC C CC(3)Family child care home, registered or licensedP P P P P P P P P P P P PChild care facility, licensed non‐residentialPP (6)(4)PCommercial greenhouseC‐ACCCommercial or public parking facility CCConvenience store <3,000 SF within principal structureN‐PUDPFinancial institutionPGolf courseCCCOffice, generalPUD CPUD‐TO P PUD‐TOCOffice, medicalPUD‐TO P PUD‐TOCPersonal or business service, principal useN‐PUD (7)PP (6)Personal or business service, up to 3,000 SF GFA per any one principal structureN‐PUDPCPet GroomingPPhotocopy & printing shops with accessory retailN‐PUDPrivate providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenanceRecreation facility, indoorN‐PUD C CC C CP (6)Recreation facility, outdoorN‐PUD C CCCResearch facility or laboratoryPUDRestaurant, short orderN‐PUDCRestaurant, standardN‐PUDCCRetail sales up to 3,000 SF GFA within any one principal structureN‐PUD (7)P (7)C (6)Retail food estab. <5,000 SF GFAN‐PUDPCSeasonal Mobile Food UnitPService station w/convenience storeCSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Residential/Institutional 3RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTSIA(1) PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7‐NC(2)R12 LN QCP SEQ‐NRPSEQ‐NRTSEQ‐NR SEQ‐VR SEQ‐VC(2)Institutional Residential Southeast QuadrantWaste transfer stationsCSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 1City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDResidential UsesSingle‐family dwellingPUD P P PTwo‐family dwellingPUD P PMulti‐family dwellingPUD PUD PUDPUD PUD PUDPUDAccessory residential unitsGroup home or Residential Care HomePUD P P PAgricultural UsesHorticulture & forestry with on‐premise salesHorticulture & forestry, no on‐premise salesKeeping of livestock on 10 acres or moreSingle‐family dwelling related to agriculturePPAdditional dwellings for farm employeesPPPublic & Quasi‐Public UsesCemeteriesPersonal instruction facilityP PP P P P P P P P PPlace of worshipP P P P P P PPP‐ACCRecreation pathsSkilled nursing facilityC C CCC CSocial servicesC CC C C CCCommercial & Industrial UsesAdult useAgriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rentalPPAirport UsesPPAnimal shelterC CPArtist production studioP PP PPAuto & motorcycle salesPP PAuto & motorcycle service & repairPP PAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialPlease see Section 3.10 for regulationsPermitted in all districtsConditional in all districtsPermitted in all districts; 3 acre minimum lot size in all districts.Permitted in all districtsSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft For Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 2City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialAuto rental, with private accessory car wash & fuelingPPPPPBed & breakfastCCCannabis dispensary (dispensing only)P P P PPP P‐TOCannabis dispensary (cultivation only)PPCar washPChild care facility, licensed non‐residential P P P P P P P P P PCommercial greenhousePUD P PCommercial kennel, veterinary hospital and pet day careCC PPPPCommercial or public parking facilityC C C C CC C C CContractor or building trade facilityPPP PConvenience store <3,000 SF within principal structurePPPPPPPPUDPPPPConvenience store, principal usePPDistribution and related storage, with >15% of GFA in office or other principal permitted use by same tenantCPPPDrive‐through bankPUD PUD PUD PUDPUDEquipment service, repair & rentalPPFamily child care home, registered or licensedP P P PFinancial institutionP P P P PACC P PFlight instructionPP PGeneral merchandise storePUDPUDHotelPUD PUD PUD C CCCHotel, extended stayPUD PUDC CCCIndoor theaterP PIndoor vehicle storage, maximum 10,000 square feetP‐ACCJunk yardLight manufacturingPUDPUD P P P PSee Article 8South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft For Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 3City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialLumber and contractor’s yardPP PManufacturing & assembly from previously prepared materials & componentsPPPPPPUDPP PPMobile home, RV and boat sales, repair & serviceP PMotor freight terminalCPOffice, generalP P P P P P P PUD P PPOffice, medicalP P P P P P P PUD‐TO P P‐TOPersonal or business service, principal usePPPPP(6)(7)PPP (7)PPPersonal or business service, up to 3,000 SF GFA per any one principal structurePPPPPPPP‐ACCPPPet groomingP P P P P P PP PPhotocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail P P P P P P P P‐ACC P PPrinting & binding production facilitiesCP P PPPrivate providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenancePP P PProcessing and storagePP P P P PRadio & television studioP P PC PP PRecreation facility, indoorP P P P P P P P‐ACC P PRecreation facility, outdoorC C C C C C CC CResearch facility or laboratoryP P P P P P P P P PPRestaurant, short orderP P P P P P‐ACC P‐ACC P‐ACC P P‐ACC P‐ACCRestaurant, standardP P P P P P PPP‐ACCRetail sales up to 3,000 SF GFA within any one principal structurePPPPPPPP‐ACCPP‐ACCPPRetail salesP (8)P PP(8)P (6)(7)P (6)(7)P (6)(7)P (7) P (9)P(8)P‐ACCRetail food establishment <5,000 SF GFAPPPPPPPPPP‐ACCSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft For Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 4City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialRetail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarketsPPPRetail warehouse outletPPSale, rental & repair of aircraft & related partsPPSeasonal Mobile Food UnitP P P P P P PP PSelf‐storageP ACC, P‐Non‐TOService station with convenience storeCCShopping centerC CTaverns, night clubs & private clubsP P P P PPP PTransportation servicesPPWarehousing & distributionCCPPWholesale establishmentsC CP PPKey and Notes to the Table above:(1) For all IA District Uses please refer to Section 7.01, Institutional and Agricultural District. "N" refers to the Institutional‐Agricultural North sub‐district.(2) R7 and SEQ‐VC as classified as non‐residential zoning districts, but are included in this table for purposes of efficiency(3) No minimum lot size for bed & breakfast in the SEQ‐VC district(4) Includes C1‐R12 and C1‐R15(5) Educational support facilities in C1 are subject to the dimensional standards of the IA‐North District.  See Article 7.(7) Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.(6) Use is limited to 3,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 9,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.(6)(4) Permitted within a structure existing and approved for use as an 'educational facility' as of July 1, 2013. The structure existings as of July 1, 2013, may be expanded, P = PermittedC = Conditional UsePUD = Allowable within a Planned Unit DevelopmentACC = Allowable as an accessory use TO = Allowable only in the Transit Overlay DistrictNon‐TO = Allowable only outside of the Transit Overlay DistrictSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft For Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 5City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐Industrial(8) Use is limited to 15,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 25,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.(9) Use is limited to 30,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 30,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft For Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 £¤2 £¤7 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 §¨¦89 ¬«116 ¬«11 6 Burlington International Airport HINESBURGRD. -NORTH DORSETPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK DORSETPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK DORSETPARK NOT A VPZ SPEAR ST.- RIDGE DORSETPARKDORSETPARK HINESBURGRD. -SOUTH Overlay Districts ¹ Disclaimer: The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. The City of South Burlington is not responsible for these. Questions of on-the-ground location can beresolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyors. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on the gound. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but it is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. Map updated by M. Brumberg using ArcGIS 10.3. All data is in State Plane Coordinate System, NAD 1983. 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Effective April 11, 2016 P:\Planning&Zoning\Planning\OverlayMap\2016\OverlayDistricts_11x17_2016.mxd South Burlington, Vermont Legend Traffic Major Intersections - Zone 1 High Volume Roadway Segments - Zones 2A, 2B, 2C Balance of Restricted Roads - Zone 3 Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A - 100-year Flood Plain View Protection Zones Dorset Park Hinesburg Road - North Hinesburg Road - South Spear Street - Overlook Park Spear Street - Ridge Other Overlay Districts & Features Transit Route Transit Overlay District Airport Approach Corridors Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Waterbody Tax Parcel Boundaries Roads Correct legend from previous version Remove mapshowingStormwater overlay district as thisdistrict wasremoved from the text in the version adopted 3/21/2016and replaced with city-wide stormwaterstandards DRAFT for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 Public Input provided for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic 1 I am not sure if I can make the public hearing but would like you to forward my concerns to the PC as far as the Proposed Amendment C - Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC. There is a small-scale personal instruction studio directly across the street and it exists in a different zoning area. Why does this retail- designated parcel need to be re-zoned to compete? The designation of this area was designedly made to allow retail sales of a small convenience store, dry cleaners, and short- order take out restaurant to serve both the industrial park and the neighborhood. While the idea of a personal instruction studio can clearly serve both those areas too, I question whether it would "crowd out" the above mentioned retail uses envisioned and make them never happen which is the key downside to this change of zoning. Whether the personal instruction is subject to rooms/meals/local option tax is another matter to consider when the PC considers whether to limit the original design for those uses/revenues.If the PC is comfortable that the envisioned zoning can still generate the retail services IN ADDITION TO this change of zoning, then it shouldn't be a problem, but if this is all that will take place (yoga studios and gyms) then we've further saturated the market for these services in SB and taken away from existing ones that are not as "conveniently located" -- this jeopardizes existing businesses that are not as fortunate for their placement and visibility to the general public -- I fear you are enhancing the prospects of a single business at their request and taking away from existing and productive SB businesses of the same ilk -- it is an unfair use of the request to carve out spot zoning and take advantage of the quiet and existing businesses of this sort all over town that don't get to park themselves in the limelight -- I hope the PC will consider this impact before offering preferential treatment to a new business simply because they worked the system while their competitors struggle in ignorance of the impact on them as they try to keep pace. Chris Shaw 4/9/2016 4/22/2016 Policy SEQ-VC, Personal Instruction Studio 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26th, 2016 In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 26 , 2016, at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; B. Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability C. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District D. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. 2 (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” A. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed amendment would allow for a minor proportion of a parking area to be located to the front of a light-industrial, warehouse & distribution or similar building in the Mixed Industrial- Commercial and Industrial-Open Space Districts. To mitigate the effects of having parking in front of the building, certain additional site design standards would be required, including screening of parking, direct pedestrian access, and enhanced quality of “open space” in the vicinity to provide for useable areas for pedestrians. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are located within the “Northeast Quadrant” Planning Area and the “Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non-Residential” Future Land Use District. Future Land Use for the Northwest Quadrant is described in part, as follows: “Future Land Use. The pattern of land use and development in the Northeast Quadrant has focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers and ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City…” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-22 The Future Land Use District, further, is described as follows: “Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non-Residential. Intended to foster high quality jobs, these lands provide for medium to large scale industrial, educational, mechanical and office park environments, among other related uses. Their aesthetics should reflect quality design and promote South Burlington as a welcoming place to work and do business. Residential uses are largely discouraged. Land coverage provides for sufficient green infrastructure, and respect primary natural resources, with slightly relaxed controls for wider roadways, increased parking, and lot coverages. Multimodal transport services these areas. Development here should be respectful of lower intensity uses where they abut.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-6. The proposed change is consistent with the above descriptions. The proposed amendments will not affect the provision of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. 3 The proposed amendment would not have a direct impact on any planned community facilities. The City does plan to have additional roadways & bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the area. Safe access from properties by pedestrian to these planned facilities is maintained through requirements for direct, separated pedestrian links from buildings to the street. B. Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw These amendments would include two parts: (1) a merger of similar land use categories, and (2) establishing a coordinated set of standards for the size and scale of retail sales uses across all zoning districts that allow them. Specifically, the proposed amendments would consolidate “retail sales”, “convenience store”, “retail food establishment”, and “general merchandise store” into “retail sales”, with an updated definition. In addition, the amendments would further clarify the distinction between “retail sales” and “wholesale establishment” by including a new term, “wholesale club” and stating that it is considered “retail sales” and not “wholesale establishment.” The draft amendments then establish a maximum size (gross floor area) to “retail sales” in some zoning districts that allows for the use, consistent with the purpose of that district and the Comprehensive Plan. The amended Regulations would create five size categories – two small, one medium, one medium-large, and one large. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains a clear Vision & Goals Statement. It includes four principal goals. The fourth goal is excerpted below. “Here and Into the Future, South Burlington is … Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and statewide community. • Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity areas identified within this Plan; • Support a diverse and vibrant economy built on quality jobs, employment centers and a supportive educational and research system; support markets for local agricultural and food products.” P. 1-1. The Comprehensive Plan divides the City into five (5) Planning Areas and five Future Land Use Categories. They are: 4 Planning Areas: • Central District, including City Center and surrounding areas; • Northwest Quadrant, including areas west of the Airport and north of I-89, exclusive of the Central District; • Northeast Quadrant, including the Burlington International Airport and areas north of I- 89; • Southwest Quadrant, including the Shelburne Road corridor; • Southeast Quadrant, including areas south of 1-89 and east of Spear Street. Future Land Use Categories: • Very low intensity, principally open space. • Lower intensity, principally residential. • Medium intensity, residential to mixed use. • Medium to higher intensity, principally non-residential. • Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These Areas and Categories work together to define the future development intent of the different locations within the City. The Future Land Use Categories provide the description of the mix of uses and relative overall intensity anticipated while the Planning Areas provide the context of the surroundings, geographies, resources, and infrastructure. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and with the purposes of the specific zoning districts in which they are located. Smaller size retail are continued in areas intended for smaller-scale development, or where the focus is on industrial or institutional uses. These limits are in place in most cases already and are made more consistent. They are typically found where Planning Areas such as the Southeast and Northwest Quadrants contain Medium and Medium-to-Higher Intensity Future Land Use Categories. They also includes the Industrial-Open Space zoning district, which has long limited retail uses. Zoning districts in this category include the SEQ-VC, R7-NC, C1-LR, Allen Road, Swift Street, IA-North, and I/O. Medium-scale retail is permitted in areas where the Plan’s focus is on employment centers, with some allowance for retail. These are largely areas in the Northeast Quadrant that are also designated for medium to higher intensity principally non-residential or mixed use. Zoning districts in this category include the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District, the C1-Air District, and the C1-R12 District. Future Land Use for the Northwest Quadrant is described as follows: 5 “Future Land Use. The pattern of land use and development in the Northeast Quadrant has focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers and ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City. In addition, future redevelopment should make use of improved transit services. Future development, especially in the Tilley Drive/Kimball Ave/Williston Road/Community Drive area should maximize efficiency of land use and support multi- modal transportation. This area should have clear, efficient access to City Center as part of an integrated, urbanized high activity, pedestrian and transit friendly east-west corridor. In 2014, the University of Vermont Medical Center began exploration of installing a consolidated outpatient facility in this area.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-22 The majority of the area is contained within the Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non- Residential Future Land Use Category. It is described as follows: “Intended to foster high quality jobs, these lands provide for medium to large scale industrial, educational, mechanical and office park environments, among other related uses. Their aesthetics should reflect quality design and promote South Burlington as a welcoming place to work and do business. Residential uses are largely discouraged. Land coverage provides for sufficient green infrastructure, and respect primary natural resources, with slightly relaxed controls for wider roadways, increased parking, and lot coverages. Multimodal transport services these areas. Development here should be respectful of lower intensity uses where they abut.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-6. This area also contains two residential zoning districts within the larger Mixed Industrial- Commercial district. The Comprehensive addresses these areas as follows: “Adjacent Residential Areas. The Northeast Quadrant comes into contact with residential neighborhoods in a handful of key places, notably to the west and northeast of the Burlington International Airport, and with the handful of residential pockets within the Quadrant itself. Sufficient transition tools – in the form of lower intensity uses, buffering, or screening – should be provided to foster the continued compatibility of these areas. The same holds for undeveloped areas to the east of Old Farm Road.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-24 Medium-large retail is proposed to be allowed in the Commercial-2 District. This area is located within the Southwest Quadrant Planning Area and the Medium to Higher Intensity-Mixed Use Future Land Use Category. It is distinct from the more northern portion of these same districts along Shelburne Road in part because it is located further from the Interstate and population centers in South Burlington and Burlington. The Medium to Higher Intensity, Mixed Use Future Land Use Category is described as follows: “Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These lands are intended to be the most compact and most intensely developed in the City and support employment. Residential densities are higher than other designations, as a matter of allowance and as a goal. 6 Housing options are varied, but focus primarily on multi-family dwellings. Uses should be mixed within the block, and mixed within buildings whenever possible. Infrastructure is efficient, and transportation is emphasized towards pedestrians and cyclists and provision of large scale non-shared parking should be discouraged. Open spaces are part of the public realm. Building heights, lot coverages, and other building dimensions are higher than other future land use areas.: Comprehensive Plan 3-7. Future Land Use for the Southwest Quadrant includes the following statement: “South of IDX Drive, the Shelburne Road corridor becomes predominately commercial on both sides, with collector streets leading to residential neighborhoods. These areas should be encouraged for infill development and redevelopment, with a continued focus on business opportunities.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-27 Larger retail, with no explicit limitation on size, remain permitted in several districts. Those include the Commercial 1-Residential 15, Commercial 1-Residential 12 and each of the Form Based Codes districts. The Airport & Institutional- North Districts also permit retail in the context of their overall intent. The FBC Districts and Commercial 1 Districts are located in the following Future Land Use Category: “Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These lands are intended to be the most compact and most intensely developed in the City and support employment. Residential densities are higher than other designations, as a matter of allowance and as a goal. Housing options are varied, but focus primarily on multi-family dwellings. Uses should be mixed within the block, and mixed within buildings whenever possible. Infrastructure is efficient, and transportation is emphasized towards pedestrians and cyclists and provision of large scale non-shared parking should be discouraged. Open spaces are part of the public realm. Building heights, lot coverages, and other building dimensions are higher than other future land use areas.” Comprehensive Plan 3-7. The City Center Form Based Codes Zoning District is largely contained with the Central District as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. In this area, size of uses are not limited; instead, development is managed by the form of the buildings. The Future Land Use Plan for this area includes the following Statement: “The intent for this entire area – developed and undeveloped – is to create an environment that has all of the elements, functions, programing and features to become South Burlington’s principal downtown area.” Comprehensive Plan P. 3-10. The C1-R15 District is located in the Southwest Future Land Use Planning Areas along key sections of major corridors that contain good access to transportation. “The north end of the corridor in South Burlington has seen the most significant redevelopment to date and now includes several newer multi-family buildings amongst commercial areas. Future redevelopment in this area should be consistent with the pattern established by this development and by the single and two-family home 7 neighborhood behind parts of it. South of I-189, the east side of the road includes the well established Orchards neighborhood as well as a series of relatively small commercial lots fronting on Shelburne Road. Continued reuse and redevelopment of these commercial areas should enhance pedestrian connectivity to residential areas while at the same time protecting them from encroachment. The west side of the road includes significantly larger lots and some existing multi-family housing. Mixed use development and redevelopment is encouraged in this area.” Comprehensive Plan pp. 3-26 to 3-27 Where lots are described as being smaller in the above sections, the depth of the zoning district itself will place limitations on the size of certain uses. Based on the analysis above, the proposed amendments are consistent with the above descriptions. The proposed amendments will not have effect on the provision of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. The proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on planned community facilities. The application of scale of uses in these areas is consistent with existing and planned transportation infrastructure in the areas, with more intense users generally permitted in areas with greater transportation access. C. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw This amendment would permit small-scale personal instruction studios and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District. This district is located in two places: along a portion of Dorset Street towards the south end of the City and along a small section of Hinesburg Road south of I-89. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. See discussion above. This zoning district is located within the Southeast Quadrant Planning Area and the Medium-to-Higher Intensity – Mixed Use Future Land Use Category. The purpose of this district is to promote village-scale mixed use development, including retail, housing, office space, and ancillary services. The allowance of these two use categories is consistent with this intent, allowing for neighborhood-scale services such as gyms, dance studios, etc. in these areas. The proposed amendment will have no effect on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. 8 The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. D. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw These amendments include a number of minor corrections to the current Land Development Regulations, including establishing a definition for the term “rear building line”, several typos, and a map correction to remove an overlay district that had previously been eliminated in the text and correct the legend. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities, and have no effect on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Planning Commission Question Response A. What are the largest three projects or (activities) the committee has worked on in the last year or plans to work on shortly? Please describe the goals, outcomes, and any lessons learned throughout the process. 1) The NRC refocused its attention to finishing the Wheeler Nature Park Management Plan, which was then presented to the City Council in 2015, after completion of the Open Space Report in 2014. As a result of the extensive work to achieve both of these outcomes, the NRC and Recreation & Leisure Committees are collaborating on implementing activities outlined in the management plan. The NRC found the process of completing the Management Plan challenging for several reasons. First, developing the Plan had been put on hold for a substantial period, to allow the committee to take up a number of major projects, such as development of the Natural Resources Land Purchase Scorecard, a public education campaign on the JAM Golf “land swap”, and serving as the Open Space Committee. Second, membership Natural Resources committee has traditionally fluctuated between 5 to 7 members and within a fairly short period of time, the committee experienced a substantial change in membership. It was a “newly constituted” NRC that finally, completed the Wheeler Nature Park Plan, requiring additional time during meetings, to familiarize newer members with information collected and processed by another group, who had benefitted from “hands on” time at the Wheeler Nature Park. The NRC learned through this process or series of events the importance of ensuring any project initiated, be allotted ongoing time and attention to achieve completion. This may require appointing a smaller subcommittee to focus on it, when a more substantial and “time-sensitive” project comes along. 2) The NRC has facilitated public outreach activities such as the Chittenden County Stream Team’s “Rain Barrel Workshop”; various trail walks, such as a springtime “nature walk” with Walt Poleman, a UVM professor and Keith Thompson, Chittenden County Forester; a guided trail walk during “City Fest”; a maple sugaring event with UVM students; and public info on the Open Space Fund Ballot question. Over the last year, the NRC has started meetings with brief discussions with community organizations and city departments, such as Walt Poleman, UVM, on the potential of Wheeler Nature Park as a community resource; Craig Lambert, city arborist on insect threat to city trees; former Rec Dept. Director, Todd Goodwin on uses of the Wheeler Homestead; Chittenden County Stream Team stream monitoring, at Wheeler Nature Park. The goals have been to educate the NRC, as well as, inform the public on natural resource issues affecting South Burlington, resulting in more informed and involved citizens and NRC. The committee has learned the importance of gathering expertise to help inform (or conduct) the outreach to ensure confidence that the information provided is reliable and relevant. 3) Most recently, the NRC has begun working to develop and redefine its Mission and Goals. Articulating an official mission statement and list of goals will help the Committee have a better focus on projects and initiatives, as well as, inform others about our role in overall city affairs. Currently, the committee is reviewing the missions and goals of similar committees in nearby communities to assist in identifying areas that might benefit our own mission and focus. In addition, we have begun to identify individuals who have served or provided expertise to similar committees. The NRC’s decision, several years ago, to relinquish its role in advising the DRB on natural resources within individual development projects, has challenged the Natural Resource Committee to galvanize within its mission, an identity that is clearly understood by all. The NRC goals should also include the expertise and policy interests of its members so the Committee is most effective in accomplishing those goals. B. Are you familiar with the role of the Planning Commission? Have you read or participated in the drafting of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan? If so, can you highlight some of the goals, objectives, or strategies that interest you most? The NRC is familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and has contributed significantly to the Plan through the work of the Open Space Committee and is presently, most interested in: • Further refining open space requirements as they relate to current and future land development; • Open space conservation; • Preservation of scenic views for the “greater good” of the public, through the implementation of a “scenic views” inventory based on both objective criteria, as well as, utilizing methods such as “crowd sourcing”; • Preservation and expansion of trees and a tree canopy, on both public and private lands; • Monitoring of stream and wetlands health; • Maintaining biodiversity throughout the city’s natural resources. C. Have you thought about, discussed, or planned for any changes in policy or regulation that You believe would help your mission or goals? There are a number of current policies under discussion and recent policy decisions that affect our mission and goals including: • The establishment of the Wheeler Park Conservation Easement will hopefully, provide a template for other city-owned natural areas; • A more well defined relationship between the NRC and other advisory bodies, such as the Planning Commission, Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee, etc. • A better understanding of the management of trees in the city and possible role as advisory body and/or role as an ad-hoc Tree Committee; D. If asked by the Planning Commission to assist and/or advise on some projects identified as priorities, would you be willing to do so? Most certainly! The Natural Resource Committee views its role as providing advice and recommendations to the City Council, Planning Commission, and Development Review Board, on policies that affect our city’s natural resources. The NRC would be most interested in reviewing the recently created Planning Commission Priority List and identifying items on which the NRC could make progress. RECREATION AND LEISURE ARTS COMMITTEE Response to questions from the Planning Commission Approved by the Committee 4/17/2016 A. What are the largest three projects the committee has worked on in the last year or plans to work on shortly? Please describe the goals, outcomes, and any lessons learned throughout the process. We have given significant attention to many issues in the past year or so, some of which might not be called “projects”. Here are six that come readily to mind: 1. We have provided stability and support to the Department of Recreation and Parks during a two-year period that saw three changes of Director. One lesson learned: a citizen committee can maintain its engagement with key issues and questions in a period of change while a new Director is being sought. 2. We oversaw the creation of a concept plan for modest improvements to the neighborhood park at Baycrest Drive. We were first approached by several residents of that neighborhood with some ideas for park improvements over two years ago. Lesson learned: it is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable to make sure that all citizen views have an opportunity to be heard, but that is vitally important, and can lead to a better outcome than would have been achieved by a less patient process. 3. We paid close attention to the work of the Planning Commission on the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, and worked with the Director of Recreation and Parks to provide significant feedback to early drafts of the Plan. Lesson learned: pay attention to the preparation of documents which are likely to inform and guide the evolution of the city in coming years. 4. We continued the collaboration of our committee with Natural Resources which began with Jennifer Kochman’s selection as our committee’s liaison to the Open Space IZ Committee. Two ongoing collaborations are the work of the Planning Commission aimed at preserving valuable scenic view corridors and the work of the Wheeler Conservation Easement Task Force. We anticipate a major collaboration in the near future on identifying priorities for the use of the $1.3 Million the city has been authorized to borrow for enhancement projects in city parks and open spaces. 5. We were active in advocating for the passage of the “1/2 cent for parks enhancements” item on the March 1 city ballot. This advocacy relates directly to our commitment to the development of a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation in South Burlington. 6. We have continued to advocate for appropriate indoor recreation facilities for the city by starting to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a Foundation that will be empowered to solicit and receive private donations to support Parks and Recreation. Lesson being learned: it takes time and patience to get something like this off the ground. B. Are you familiar with the role of the Planning Commission? Have you read or participated in the drafting of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan? If so, can you highlight some of the goals, objectives, or strategies that interest you most? Yes and yes. Our two greatest goals are (1) to support the health and growth of our parks and open spaces and (2) to support the creation of suitable indoor recreation facilities for the city. All goals, objectives and strategies in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan that bear on these two goals of our committee are of interest to us. C. Have you thought about, discussed, or planned for any changes in policy or regulation that you believe would help your mission or goals? We have increasingly directed our energies toward oversight of parks and open spaces, and in considering this trend have endorsed the idea of requesting a change of name to “Recreation and Parks.” And we are interested in the specifics of LDR’s that will affect the acquisition and allocation of City open space. D. If asked by the Planning Commission to assist and/or advise on some projects identified as priorities, would you be willing to do so? Yes. (Demonstrated most recently by Jennifer Kochman’s involvement in preparation for the scenic views inventory.) Unanimously approved by members of the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee present at the meeting on April 18, 2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEEETING MINUTES 12 APRIL 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a joint meeting with the Development Review Board on Tuesday, 12 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Commission: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo Development Review Board: B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Planning Department; M.Simoneau, J. Kochman, S. Murray, B. Milizia, J. Nick 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. LaRose noted the importance of coordination between the 2 boards in the planning, writing and implementation of regulations. 4. Joint Meeting of Planning Commission & Development Review Board to discuss regulations and trends in implementation: Ms. Quest noted that the last time the 2 groups met they discussed the issue of waivers. She asked if that was still an issue. Mr. Wilking said the issue is more a question of why somethings are a “shall” instead of a “may.” He cited the 200 foot requirement for a private street and said this is very often an issue and can preclude what would otherwise be a good plan. 2 Mr. Cota said another issue is the “density bonus.” Developers feel this is a “given” rather than a “bonus.” Mr. Parsons added that there is a grey area between “base density” and “maximum” density, and this is often a hard call to make. Mr. Wilking said the DRB tries to emulate areas that already exist, but this doesn’t always work. He felt it would be helpful if the DRB understood the intention of some regulations. Mr. Miller said it would be helpful to see the reason for densities next to low density or undeveloped areas. He noted there are people who say a project would “destroy the feel of our neighborhood.” Mr. Belair noted that the regulations are aimed at the future of the community, not for what is there now. Mr. Wilking cited the differences between something like the Rye development vs. an infill project. In the former, you can do what you want because you are dealing with an open space; with infill, you can be adding a multi-family building in a single family neighborhood. Ms. Quest asked how much the DRB listens to neighbors. Mr. Wilking said that depends on the regulations. He noted that a 10-foot buffer can be very close to a neighbor’s back porch, but the DRB has to approve it because it is allowed. Mr. Belair said there have never been buffer regulations between two residential areas. All buffers are between residential and commercial areas. Mr. Parsons cited the conflict between wanting a diversity of housing styles and types but also wanting to understand the neighbor’s concerns. Mr. Belair added that if the regulations allow what is proposed, the DRB has no choice but to approve it. Ms. LaRose stressed that “density” is what you get if everything else works out. She said the thing to look at is “intensity.” She suggested the Board think about the number last. She said the planning commission may at some point consider a possibility of getting rid of “the number” and going with square feet instead. Regarding the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), Ms. LaRose noted that the Planning Commission chose to save some land by putting development elsewhere in the SEQ. In those areas, the goal is to have a relatively high density. She also said that there has to be some “predictability” for homeowners, and that if someone chooses to under-develop, that should not be seen as a given for surrounding properties. 3 Mr. Klugo cited the issue of “buildable land” getting all the units for a larger property that has a lot of “unbuildable” land. Ms. LaRose said the Commission has examined this before, but it would be up to them to decide to re-look at that issue. She also said that how you position things can make a big difference. Mr. Belair suggested some more criteria regarding height. Mr. Wilking said the DRB gives height waivers very often. Ms. LaRose noted that the last change regarding height was to address “incompatible heights.” Mr. Wilking said there are many kinds of situations such as buildings built into a hillside. The DRB often gives a waiver for that, but they also question whether they should be doing that. Mr. Wilking then cited the former Friendly’s site which is being redeveloped. It is at a major intersection, and the new building will be right up to the edge because that is what desired for City Center. This will preclude ever widening the road. He felt there has to be more thought about that, even with residential setbacks. Ms. LaRose noted that the Planning Commission has warned a public hearing regarding parking and when there should be options for the location of parking. Mr. Riehle said there are times when it may be better to have parking in front with a berm or other screening. He cited Trader Duke’s where parking in front looks OK. Mr. Miller said it depends on the “look” you want. For a “city look,” you want buildings right up to the street such as with Trader Joe’s. Mr. Wilking said he had no issue with buildings up to the street in the downtown core. But in a neighborhood where the homes are all 60 feet back from the road and you then put in an infill building at 20 feet back, it looks odd. But the DRB has no option and has to approve it. Members of both boards agreed they should meet once or twice a year. The Planning Commission also wanted to know sooner when any specific issue comes up. Mr. Wilking discussed sending notes to the PC after DRB deliberations. As there was no further business to come before the joint boards, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:05 p.m. ________________________________ ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING MINUTES 12 APRIL 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, consultant; J. Kochman, J. Nick, B. Milizia 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: No announcements or reports were made. 4. Outline scope of work and discuss initial concepts around Master Plan/Planned Unit Development/Node zoning tools throughout the City: Ms. LaRose noted there is a planning grant to address PUDs, master planning, etc. The aim is to address things that are not well defined (e.g. large properties). The standards don’t deal with what might take place one these properties (e.g. mixed use) and how to be sure creativity isn’t hampered. Things that are being looked at include the size of a parcel, geography, tools for a transit district in various areas, needs for large properties in City Center (where “large” might be different from other areas), and how different parts of a development can work together cohesively. Ms. LaRose stressed that this planning grant funds have to be spent by the end of May. 2 Members then suggested some of the larger properties that might be considered including K- Mart Plaza, the waterfront (Farrell property), large pieces in City Center, neighborhood and agricultural nodes. Ms. Murray then reviewed her background. She said that this project involves doing 18 months of work in about 6 weeks. To help with this, the SE Group will also be working on this project. Ms. Murray noted that if there are too many PUDs, it’s time to look at the regulations. She noted that PUDs can serve the function of supporting transit. There can be campus types of PUDs (office/technology), and PUDs can be specific to infill development. Ms. Murray said she has been asked to talk with UMall about their future plans. They are now in the T-4 area, and there is a question as to whether that should be the designation for that property. Ms. Murray said she will try to create a menu/schedule of types of PUDs and indicate where they might go. She would also develop one of those types more fully. She also noted that Form Based Code had as its intent to get away from PUDs (fewer meetings, etc.). There are, however, some examples of Form Based Code with PUDs, especially with infill. UMall might fit into that category. South Burlington currently requires PUDs for properties over 10 acres. Master Plans are required only for some PUDs, though they are recommended for all. PUDs are prohibited in the City Center. Ms. Quest asked about the “tweaks” that people are asking for in City Center. Ms. LaRose said staff is hearing the need for “great flexibility.” She felt that if you do that, all the effort that went into writing the prescriptive code would be meaningless. What is needed is to know what the common issues are and whether there can be “trade-off” options. She stressed that there can’t be a totally flexible tool. Ms. Murray said at this point she wouldn’t consider PUDs for City Center, but there is a need to figure out what will work there. Mr. Klugo asked if they are looking at the problem the right way. It seems “we’re negotiating against ourselves” instead of having a developer propose something and seeing what the issues are. 3 Ms. LaRose said the direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission is to consider the options and be sure that a really great project isn’t “squashed.” Mr. Klugo added that the city is looking for creative projects that benefit both the community and the developer. He didn’t understand making changes to a process that hasn’t yet been tried. Mr. Riehle said he felt they were focusing on “not having a bad project.” Mr. Klugo said the worst projects are those that just check the boxes and have no creativity. Mr. Gagnon said they are also talking about projects outside of City Center and defining parameters in an attempt to stay ahead of the curve. These are 2 different discussions. Mr. Klugo questioned whether they know what they want these large areas to look like and how they all tie together. Ms. Murray said you can “knit them into the community” or buffer them. Ms. Harrington asked how you deal with PUDs if they don’t work well with Form Based Code and Form Based Code is being considered for the rest of the city. Ms. Murray said some things in Form Based Code can apply to PUDs (e.g. building types). Ms. LaRose said staff will bring some ideas on that to the Commission. Ms. Murray noted that under some kinds of Form Based Code you can focus on “pedestrian shed,” based on existing or planned neighborhoods. You can also look at commercial nodes, etc. Mr. Nick suggested broad based vision/goals for the large properties, not overthinking them. Mr. Klugo cited the JAM Golf decision and the problems that type of planning creates. Ms. Murray said developers need to be involved in the conversation. Ms. LaRose said one interesting tool is to design a whole project up front and have it go through the whole adoption process. With this there are usually thresholds and parameters. Mr. Nick noted they have a “specific plan process” similar to that in Williston. Ms. Louisos noted that current zoning doesn’t allow for much mixed use, and that is one outcome the City is looking for. Ms. Murray said that is typical of a PUD. Ms. LaRose also noted that current regulations would permit worst case scenarios. Mr. Gagnon said that is why the Commission wanted to define certain parameters to get something the City wants (e.g. mixed use, open spaces, etc.). He felt the commission has an obligation to provide general parameters and guidance. 4 Ms. LaRose suggested going back to the Hill and O’Brien projects that the Planning Commission saw and pulling out what members like and giving Ms. Murray some of those points and plans. Mr. Klugo said they haven’t talked about options other than PUDs. Ms. Murray said they can talk about them, but the grant money is for PUDs. Ms. Milizia said her problem with the Hill Farm plan was the impact on the view. When you have buildings up near the road, the roof lines interrupt that beautiful view tremendously. She cited the view of the mountains from Wheeler House and said that seeing just the ridge of the Green Mountains isn’t good enough. She stressed considering the context in which a property is located, especially when there are no height restrictions, and building within that context. Mr. Klugo said there are tools at the DRB level for that protection. Members were generally OK with the direction of the work and asked to see a pallet of options to consider. 5. Other Business: a. City of Burlington proposed amendments to Comprehensive Development Ordinance public hearing 26 April 2016: No issues of interest were raised. 6. Minutes of 9 February, 23 February, 29 February and 5 April 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 9, 23 and 29 February and 5 April 2016 as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk