Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/09/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 9 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, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner; E. Langfeldt & Andrew Gill, O’Brien Brothers Agency; Monica Ostby, Resident 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 stated that Mr. Conner was on vacation and unable to attend the meeting. 4. Discuss potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations [Reserved] 5. Discuss concepts for Agricultural Enterprise zoning [Reserved] 6. Other Business: None was shared 7. Minutes of 16 June 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 12 July 2016 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 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: August 9th 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) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 4. Discuss potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:20 pm) a. Request from O’Brien Brothers – Parking in front of triplex / row homes on steep slopes (7:20 pm) See enclosed memo and discussion. b. Agricultural definitions and consideration of new use category- food hubs (7:45 pm) See enclosed memo and discussion. c. Clarification of allowed uses – Institutional-Agricultural District; Municipal District; Parks & Recreation District (8:15 pm) See enclosed memo and discussion. 5. Discuss concepts for Agricultural Enterprise zoning (8:25 pm) See enclosed memo and discussion. 6. Other Business (8:55 pm) 7. Minutes (8:57 pm) 8. Adjourn (9:00 pm) 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: Request for amendment, Triplex / Quadplex parking on steep slopes DATE: August 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting This spring, as you may recall, O’Brien Brothers Agency made a presentation and request for the Planning Commission to consider allowing parking in front of row homes. The subject was presented generally, and then a specific request was made regarding homes in higher-density districts, where steep slopes are present. The full letter from O’Brien Brothers Agency is included in your packet. From Staff’s perspective, there is a small picture and a big picture question here. The big picture question is about what the community wishes to see as the relationship between the fronts of homes and the street. Much of the Planning Commission’s efforts in recent years has been to strengthen that relationship, by focusing on BOTH higher-quality streetscapes (street trees, sidewalks, recreation paths, and narrowed roadways that make for better streets to walk along) and buildings that are oriented to the street (parking to the sides or rear, stories, doors, windows, etc.). In this big picture question, where parking should be placed for ALL building types is important. And perhaps this varies by location. Commissioners have noted, for example, how the new triplexes along Market Street (with parking in the rear and porches out front) have been a very positive addition. In their letter, the O’Brien Brothers Agency notes that for single family homes and duplexes outside the SEQ (and the City Center FBC), there is no standard that prohibits or even discourages garages being the prominent feature of a building. How that should be addressed can be a small picture (align garage doors with front of house) or big picture (where vehicular access should be located) question. The small picture question is presently before the Commission: triplexes and possibly quad-plexes in areas where there are steep slopes. The O’Brien Brothers are correct that at present, a street such as the one they are proposing in the Kennedy Drive area would allow for single family homes and duplexes with garage doors out front. One side effect of the present standards in the LDRs is to discourage triplexes or quad-plexes in a location such as that. Tackle the big or the small? The Commission has indicated that in the short term, it would prefer to address the smaller picture. Staff concurs, and also notes that some small-ish items could be included for consistency city-wide. 2 Proposed LDR language from O’Brien Brothers Agency (underlined): Section 14.06 (B) (2) 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. (viii) The parking area will serve a Townhome or Rowhome structure on land where the average slope of the area proposed for development is greater than 10%. (ix) The parking area will serve a townhome or rowhome in the R1-PRD, R4, R7; R12; R7-NC, C1, C1- Auto, C1-AIR, C1-LR districts. All parking constructed pursuant to Section 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be constructed in such a way that garage doors visible from the public street are located with a maximum outboard street-side variance of 5’ from the average plane of the building. Staff Review Steep slopes The issue brought regarding steep slopes is a valid one, especially on the up-hill side of slopes. A practical effect of the present standard, allowing only single and two-family homes to have parking (and garages) to the front of the building is to encourage those two housing types and dissuade others where steep slopes would require substantial earthwork to put parking to the side or rear. The 10% slope figure was developed by O’Brien Brothers based on the geometry of the ground floor of a building being buried at the back of a house. Considerations: - Staff would recommend that any such standard specific what is meant by “townhome or rowhome” and would suggest limiting this to triplexes or quadplexes at the most. - Staff would also recommend that the Planning Commission consider differentiating between the “up-hill” side of a street and the “down-hill” side. On the downhill side, a development may be able to take advantage of the slope to put the parking around the back, or, if the developer is seeking back yards, to have a side-loaded garage. (see example photo) Higher-density districts: At its initial discussion of this request, the Planning Commission elected to limit its review to the more precise and narrow subject of parking in front of steep slopes. Staff does not recommend that the Commission address the subject of parking in front of townhomes / row homes in high density districts as an overall issue. There are many unknowns to a standard such as this, and it also becomes a big picture question of city policy. 3 Design Features of Garages / Building Facades: The recommendation from the O’Brien Brothers to mitigate the impact of front-facing garages by establishing a maximum distance from the front plane of the house is welcome and appreciated. Staff concurs that such a mitigation would be important. We also underscore their note that with the exception of the Southeast Quadrant and City Center, there is no limitation on garages being “out front” for single and two-family homes. Staff encourages the Commission to consider ways in which garage doors facing a street – whether for triplex and quadplexes on steep slopes as proposed by the O’Brien Brothers – or for single and two- family homes everywhere in the city can present a better street presence overall. Brief background on present standards: - In the Southeast Quadrant, garage doors must be set back a minimum of 8’ front the front plane of the house (Section 9.08(C)). There are allowances for side-facing garages to be closer under certain circumstances. - In the City Center FBC T3 District, a garage door facing a street is only allowed when associated with a single-family home, and in that case, the garage door can only be a single-car garage and must be set back a minimum of 10’ from the REAR of the main building. Considerations for the Planning Commission - Number of Garages. Commission should discuss number of garage bays. If the Commission elects to focus on the smaller-picture for now, perhaps the standards would allow for up to 2- car garages on steep slopes, with some criteria, below. The Commission can, as well, discuss single-car width garages with O’Brien Brothers. Criteria that might apply to 2-car garages, or to ALL buildings with garages facing the street: - Relationship to front plane of house (SEQ states must be 8’ back from main face. A porch can count) - Each garage door is for a single car, separated, with a maximum width. - Garage door must have architectural detailing - Driveway slope (down slightly?, to de-emphasize) - Façade of house must include a prominent porch or full-floor-height window and railing above the garage if main entry is less than a certain proportion of the width of the house. - Heavy landscaping out front and between driveway areas. - Require shared driveways - Require tapered driveways 89 189 89 116 7Shelburne RdSpear StDorset StSwift St Kennedy Dr W h it e St Patche n R d Airport P k w yAi r por t DrOld Farm RdCentral AvC h eesefa c t o r y R d 2 Hinesburg RdWilliston Rd Prepared by PlaceSense September 24, 2007 Sources: USGS DEM Percent Slope <3 3 - 8 8 - 15 15 - 25 >25 1 Mile 8/4/2016 Franklin St - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2641927,-72.5696288,3a,75y,155.44h,82.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2pftRURHmqDF-0WQ9B58ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 1/1 Image capture: May 2012 © 2016 Google Montpelier, Vermont Street View - May 2012 Franklin St 8/4/2016 Manhattan Dr - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4877579,-73.2167447,3a,75y,18.92h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDrPVY6NurLZM8MxuYcCy3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/1 Image capture: Oct 2014 © 2016 Google Street View - Oct 2014 Burlington, Vermont Manhattan Dr 8/4/2016 Chelsea Pl - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4557524,-73.1067946,3a,75y,102.96h,80.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFL4VYqWrFDuPNZOLzcGwkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/1 Image capture: Jul 2011 © 2016 Google Williston, Vermont Street View - Jul 2011 Chelsea Pl 8/4/2016 Lilac Ln - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4587961,-73.1704906,3a,75y,199.05h,84.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0iCs5TlnyEd-Tt0DX6ROTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/1 Image capture: Aug 2011 © 2016 Google South Burlington, Vermont Street View - Aug 2011 Lilac Ln 8/4/2016 Park Rd - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4380079,-73.1693405,3a,60y,97.91h,80.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWpKGG-aw8LnsBCx-jGFHXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/1 Image capture: Jul 2011 © 2016 Google South Burlington, Vermont Street View - Jul 2011 Park Rd 8/4/2016 Songbird Ln - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/South+Burlington,+VT+05403/@44.4486338,-73.1873366,3a,60y,191.12h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swKJHBwVJbz6hmhp7DWFj-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x4cca796...1/1 Image capture: Jun 2012 © 2016 Google Street View - Jun 2012 South Burlington, Vermont Songbird Ln 8/4/2016 Songbird Ln - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4488874,-73.1835672,3a,60y,339.94h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflEpYliOJHMg5I7H3bmToQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/1 Image capture: Jun 2012 © 2016 Google Street View - Jun 2012 South Burlington, Vermont Songbird Ln 8/4/2016 Southwind Dr - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4539128,-73.2245252,3a,60y,278.77h,88.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seu7HCjHylmQlprtczIKBdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/1 Image capture: Oct 2014 © 2016 Google Street View - Oct 2014 Burlington, Vermont Southwind Dr 8/4/2016 Balmoral Ave - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/Balmoral+Ave,+Toronto,+ON,+Canada/@43.68553,-79.394815,3a,60y,357.96h,88.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOIzwb8M4fppTyMRifF9TRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x882b...1/1 Image capture: May 2016 © 2016 Google Street View - May 2016 Toronto, Ontario Balmoral Ave 8/4/2016 Rue Rose Ouellette - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5445805,-73.5643805,3a,75y,158.47h,84.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szPXjwk9u6YjT819InzI_AA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 1/1 Image capture: Jun 2014 © 2016 Google Street View - Jun 2014 Montreal, Québec Rue Rose Ouellette   1   VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL March 11, 2016 City of South Burlington Planning Commission C/O Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403   Re: Public Request for Amendment to City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations Dear Commission Members: Further to the Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Development Regulations, adopted by the City of South Burlington on August 9, 2011, below please find a request for amendment to the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, adopted on May 12, 2003 (the “Regulations”). We kindly request that the City of South Burlington Planning Commission (the “Commission”), consider this request, and while we understand the Commission is very busy, we hope we can present this request at an upcoming meeting. Specifically, we bring one particular issue to the Commission today, which has the potential to significantly improve the aesthetics and functionality of pending development, while simultaneously reducing impervious surfaces and initial infrastructure investments for new neighborhoods, enabling the construction of lower cost and higher density housing in the City’s core areas, while protecting the market driven features that enable all development to occur. We believe the effect of this change will be to further several of the goals in both the existing and proposed Comprehensive Plans for the City. As outlined below we are proposing specific amendments to Section 14.06(B)(2)(b)(i-vi) (the Article) which as written prevents parking between all buildings greater than two units, and a public street (the full text is attached hereto as Exhibit A). As explained below we believe that the Article needs to be refined in order to ensure all development1 can happen in an efficient manner. The below discussion is broken into the following sections for your review: I. Executive Summary; Article Goals; Key Issues and Proposed Remedies; II. Assumed Goals of the Article; III. Discussion of Key Issues with the Article; IV. Proposed Amendments to the Article; and V. Conclusions.                                                              1 There appears to be some language in Section 15 of the regulations pertaining to PUD review that may allow the DRB to waive this requirement within a PUD or Master Plan. It has not been past practice to do so, but the opportunity may exist. While this possible PUD waiver should be investigated too, this waiver would not be available to non-PUD applicants, and therefore the changes recommended herein are still valuable. Further, even within a PUD the ability to grant such a waiver would be discretionary, and for something so intricate to project development, it would seem wise to avoid such discretionary authority.   2   I. Executive Summary; Article Goals; Key Issues and Proposed Remedies a. Assumed Goals: In review of available minutes, the Planning Commission report provided by the City and in discussions with City residents and officials, we have summarized what we believe to be the main goals of the Article. 1. Provide aesthetically pleasing street-scape with large parking lots in rear of multi- family buildings; 2. Limit curb cuts on City streets; 3. Allow for development of traditional style neighborhoods with friendly and inviting facades; 4. Require the use of alleys and shared driveways for multi-family development. 5. Lessen development of “snout” style homes, where garage doors become the focal point of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. b. Key Issues: As you will see, the Article as written has many issues. For the Article to succeed in its goals, it needs to be further defined and expanded. 1. The Article does not differentiate between 60 unit apartment buildings and triplex townhome structures. 2. The Article does not allow the DRB to consider site topography in granting exceptions to the provision. 3. The Article does not consider the demands of the local real estate market, forcing a construction that is less marketable to purchasers and less livable to residents (i.e. no back yards). 4. The Article does not prevent construction of “snout style homes,” it encourages developers to build only duplexes to avoid the requirements altogether. 5. The Article significantly decreases available density for developers seeking to build townhomes and rowhomes, even in the highest density development core of the City. 6. The Article promotes high cost infrastructure development driving up the cost of new housing for all residents in direct contradiction to City goals for more affordable housing. 7. The Article encourages development of significantly more impervious area, in contrast to common-sense goals of minimizing stormwater runoff, especially into the City’s impaired watersheds. c. Proposed Remedies: While the problems posed by the Article seem numerous, several minor changes to the text of the Article can have a significant impact. These suggested changes are outlined below. 1. Amend Article language to allow exceptions for townhome style development on land where site slopes make development of rear-loading garages unfeasible. Suggested exemption allowed where average slopes are greater than 10%. Proposed text would read:   3   i. The parking area will serve a Townhome or Rowhome structure on land where the average slope of the area proposed for development is greater than 10%. 2. Amend the Article to allow exceptions to all townhome development in areas of the City zoned R4 or greater, with the exception of City Center. Proposed text would read: i. The parking area will serve a townhome or rowhome in the R1-PRD, R4, R7; R12; R7-NC, C1, C1-Auto, C1-AIR, C1-LR districts. 3. Amend the Article to provide design criteria for all duplex, rowhomes and townhomes proposed to prevent snout style development as originally intended. Specifically, we suggest that a provision be added to Section 14.06 stating: i. All parking constructed pursuant to Section 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be constructed in such a way that garage doors visible from the public street are located with a maximum outboard street-side variance of 5’ from the average plane of the building. II. Goals of the Article: a. Provide aesthetically pleasing street-scape with large parking lots in rear of multi-family buildings: The City has taken several steps and engaged the community on many occasions around the concepts of street-friendly and street-fronting development. Indeed, we recognize that the goals of the comprehensive plan, the current zoning amendments to the Regulations for City Center, and the thinking of staff and residents are promoting the location of parking to the rear of buildings. This is a well-intentioned goal that needs to be considered. b. Limit curb cuts on City streets serving dense developments: By mandating that parking be located in the rear of buildings a very positive result is that the number of curb cuts on busy public roads are minimized by using shared driveways. This has benefits for pedestrians using sidewalks, bicyclists in the road, and generally for non- motorized transportation. This is certainly a good and well-intentioned goal. c. Allow for development of traditional style neighborhoods. When the Planning Commission passed the original amendment, they did exempt single family homes and duplexes. We assume that this is due to the fact that virtually every single family home neighborhood in the City consists of garages facing public streets. This is a market driven convenience that buyers expect, and exempting single family homes from this review is certainly a good decision.   4   It does not appear that significant consideration was given to townhome and rowhome style developments which also traditionally have garages facing the street. d. Require the use of alleys and shared driveways for new dense townhome style development. While not specifically mentioned in any documents that we can find, much of the discussion around form-based code has included discussion regarding the use of alleyways behind developments for vehicle parking. The idea being to enhance the street-friendly feel of neighborhoods, and re-invigorate the front porch in the community. e. Lessen development of “snout” style homes, where garage doors become the focal point of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. There are examples of local development where garage doors have become the most prominent feature visible to the pedestrian. One example in the City is Juniper Ridge below, and we understand the goal of trying to persuade the design process to prevent this feel for pedestrian traffic. However, it is noteworthy that if these buildings were duplexes, the Article would not prevent them being built. It is also worth noting that despite what some consider a design flaw, this project appears to be well regarded by its owners, and has been very successful with good resale values.   5   III. Discussion of Key Issues with The Article: a. The Article does not differentiate between 60-unit apartment buildings and triplex- quadraplex townhome structures which are drastically different. This is a key problem in the current wording which means that a 60-unit apartment building or a development filled with those buildings is not treated differently with regard to parking lot location than a townhome development. There is no doubt that having parking lots for large buildings located behind them has a real purpose supported by the comprehensive plan. For instance, the Farrell Street Development comes to mind:   6   Locating the parking in the middle of those large buildings significantly improves the look and feel of this development from the public way. However, we have no built local examples of residential style townhome neighborhoods where this is done. Most of the City’s stock of townhomes follows a different prescription like: 1. Brand Farm Drive: This development would be significantly diminished by forcing roads behind the units where owners currently have green space, ponds and tennis courts, where residents and neighbors can interact. In this development all garages and parking front on the public road. As you will also note, the street feels very friendly, front porches with flowers, a sidewalk, etc. 2. Stonington Circle and Wellesley Grove: This development in the R12 district would have significantly fewer units if permitted under the Article. Again we see the neighborhood being used, walked in, etc., and the street feels quite nice.   7   3. Golf Course and Park Road: This neighborhood is one of the best-selling and highest price townhome developments in the City, and would not be permissible under the Article. This neighborhood also provides a great example of how garage doors can be much less imposing if built in the plane (or even recessed as in this case) of the house.   8   4. South Beach Road (“The Landings”): Under the article if constructed today these townhomes would be on a City Road with the driveway on the lake side of the homes. This is difficult to understand or justify. Good development simply requires more flexibility and variety than the Article allows.   9   5. Arbor Road: Again in this neighborhood we see friendly street presence with garages facing the road. These clusters of homes were developed such that small clusters of neighbors orient toward each other. Vehicle access is on the front side, but it is still very neighborly and friendly feeling.   10   6. Woodthrush Circle and Songbird Lane: Here again we have a vibrant, successful and desirable neighborhood that would not be permissible under the current rules. All of the developments listed above have been a great success for the City and all are seemingly desirable places to live. It is not clear why the Article is preventing them from ever being recreated on open and available land. Especially land where topography prohibits the alternate configuration prescribed by the Article. b. The Article does not allow the DRB to consider site topography in granting exceptions to the Article. Whatever your view on the merits of the above developments, site grading can make following the prescriptions of the Article impossible. The Article provides exceptions where the parking requirements can be waived by the DRB during site plan review; however none of these exceptions consider site topography. Consider land that has a significant slope, and how difficult it would be to construct a driveway that drove from a road, up that slope and behind a building. The below illustration shows one possible site topography:   11   If this new neighborhood were developed in today’s regulations they would require rear parking for anything larger than a duplex. With the new road in the front and the steep grade, it would be nearly impossible to construct such access. You would need to install a road behind the home and a ditch next to the road to transport water around the house. This is a very costly endeavor that would fundamentally alter the marketability of the home. Essentially, you would be creating a townhome surrounded by pavement on all sides, with a walkout basement that leads into the City Street. Not exactly where you want your kids playing. Let’s take another look at the Golf Course road townhome to better understand this layout. Under the Article the triplex on the left of the photo would need a rear loading garage. The driveway would therefore head up the hill to the right of the picture. The driveway would require a retaining wall to keep a consistent and drivable grade. In the back of the house the impervious driveway would need to be pitched toward the home and drain into a ditch that would be immediately adjacent to your foundation, such that water would   12   route around front. Alternately very expensive curbing and stormwater catch basins could be used. On the front side, in lieu of the garage, you would have a walkout basement with a view of the City Street. Block-style developments that feature efficient rear alleys are significantly easier to design and build on flat ground, but in many ways this does not alter the fundamental flaw which is the loss of a backyard. While it is feasible to create alley-style developments on flat ground, we would contend that it is nearly impossible on slopes over 10%. To date, we have seen no viable plans for such development. c. The Article does not consider the demands of the local real estate market, forcing a construction that is less marketable in Vermont. Development of rear-loading parking only works when families can still have a private back-yard (lots of sufficient width and depth). No buyer is interested in purchasing a home with pavement on both sides and no yard for their kids to play, or for a private table to eat dinner at, etc. Additionally, the market is not receptive to homes without garages and covered parking. We live in a climate that requires covered parking for viable new development. The provisions of the Article force substantially different construction patterns. An ideal example of a neighborhood developed in conformance with the article might be the below, an example from a builder in Canada: As you will note in this photo, the development proposed is trying to deliver on both the requirements of the market (attached private garages and backyards) and the   13   requirements of the article (no street-facing garages). The result is a rather strange development that has created a very large amount of unnecessary impervious surface. Two entire roads could have been eliminated and homes placed closer together if parking were accessed from the same street as the front doors.   By forcing homes to be developed without either a backyard or a garage easily accessible in a buyer’s vehicle, the Article creates a situation that stops development of townhome products. This is why in many developments before the DRB only duplexes are now being proposed, which will result in the unanticipated effect of limiting architectural variety across the City. A developer simply will not build a neighborhood without backyards and garages. This is a reality of the real estate market the Article must address. d. The Article does not prevent construction of “snout style homes.” As mentioned above, if the goal of the Article as written is to prevent the front-loading garages and snout style homes shown, the Article is a failure. The market requires backyards and garages and in order to produce this, developers are simply building all duplexes. In building a duplex, there is no prohibition on garage location. A better approach for the Article could be to acknowledge this reality, and seek to impose design standards to help develop better street presence for all townhome and rowhome products, including duplexes. e. The Article significantly decreases available density for developers, even in the highest density development core of the City. Further to the above discussion, and especially in small infill areas or lots with steep terrain and high density, the Article forces developers to build only duplexes as free- standing ownership housing. This is contrary to many goals in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, especially in the core area, and areas zoned R4 or greater. It makes sense to encourage mixed-use style developments, ownership units and PUD’s in these high density areas. Removing the ability to create 4-6 unit townhome or rowhome buildings significantly reduces the density available on limited land in the City’s core area. f. The Article promotes high cost infrastructure development driving up the cost of new housing for all residents in direct contradiction to City goals for more affordable housing. Increasing impervious surfaces increases cost. Decreasing density increases costs. These small alley driveways that are duplicative of street access can cost many tens of thousands of dollars. This cost is passed on directly to the end consumer in the form of higher prices, maintenance costs (plowing, repaving, stormwater treatment, etc.). g. The Article encourages development of significantly more impervious area, in contrast to common-sense goals of minimizing stormwater runoff, especially into the City’s impaired watersheds.   14   At face value, it seems unkind to our environment, to force developers to create additional impervious surfaces simply to keep a garage door from the view of the public on a neighborhood street. Additional impervious surfaces create additional stormwater run-off. This makes stormwater systems bigger, more expensive and even more unsightly than the lack of street-side garages that necessitate them. The inefficient use of impervious surfaces should be discouraged, not forced. If a City street is suitable to serve as access to residences, why should an extensive single-loaded driveway be forced to be built effectively doubling the amount of impervious pavement? IV. Proposed Amendments to the Article: a. Amend Article language to allow exceptions for townhome style development on land where site slopes make development of rear-loading garages unfeasible. Suggested exemption allowed where average slopes are greater than 10%. Specifically, amend Section 14.06(B)(2)(b) to include the following exception: i. The parking area will serve a Townhome or Rowhome structure on land where the average slope of the area proposed for development is greater than 10%. b. Amend the Article to allow exceptions to all townhome development in areas of the City zoned R4 or greater. This amendment would allow for the construction of townhomes and rowhomes in the City’s core development areas (excluding City Center that has its own zoning regime) that had parking facing streets. In this way efficient use could be made of streets, less space could be used for pavement, and more space could be used for park land and additional housing. Specifically, amend Section 14.06(B)(2)(b) to include the following exception: i. The parking area will serve a townhome or rowhome in the R1-PRD, R4, R7; R12; R7-NC, C1, C1-Auto, C1-AIR, C1-LR districts. c. Amend the Article to provide design criteria for 2-family homes to prevent snout style development as originally intended. Specifically we suggest that a provision be added to Section 14.06 stating: i. All parking constructed pursuant to Section 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be constructed in such a way that garage doors visible from the public street are located with a maximum outboard street-side variance of 5’ from the average plane of the building. V. Conclusions:   15   While the above proposed amendments seem fairly minor, their result would transform the Article removing all of the current issues with the article outlined above. These changes would: a. Differentiate between townhome neighborhoods and large multi-family buildings. Solidifying standards that have had great results on Farrell Street, while permitting standards that once had great results in other well-loved neighborhoods around the City. b. Allow the DRB to consider site topography in granting site plan review exceptions to the provision. Enabling common sense decisions to be made regarding feasibility for particular pieces of property within the City. c. Enable dense development to occur that meets the demands for access, back yards and ease of parking in the City’s core areas (zoned most densely) where this development is now handicapped by the need to build only duplexes. d. Prevent the construction of snout-style houses by forcing all front-loading garage doors to be located in the same plane as the house. e. Prevent the unnecessary construction of additional pavement and impervious infrastructure. Lowering the cost of new homes for consumers and lessening environmental impacts of impervious areas on the City’s currently impaired watersheds. For all of these reasons we hope that the Commission will consider these amendments for enactment as soon as possible. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator Enclosure Exhibit A ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective September 24, 2013 14-8 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (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. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: a. The lot is located in an approved subdivision where the parking on each lot in the subdivision is proposed to be located between the building or buildings on each ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective September 24, 2013 14-9 lot and the public street so that a significant greenspace surrounded by buildings may be incorporated similar to a college campus style “quad”, as detailed below. b. The parking on any lots that include a part of the greenspace shall be aligned in a similar fashion so that the buildings are located between the greenspace and the parking and so that the parking is located between the buildings and the public street to maintain the integrity and continuity of the greenspace . Prior to gaining approval from the Development Review Board, the applicant for each lot is required to provide a written agreement, such as a shared parking, greenspace and use agreement, from each lot owner in the approved subdivision whose lot will include a portion of the greenspace that provides that each lot owner will comply with this general parking, building and greenspace alignment, layout and design in the future development of each of their lots. c. The minimum required total area of the greenspace shall be 150,000 square feet. For purposes of this subsection 14.06(B) (2)(b)(vi), “greenspace” shall be defined as a consolidated and continuous landscaped area located across more than two lots in the approved subdivision, similar in nature to a common open space, largely surrounded by buildings, but shall not include building or impervious parking areas. The greenspace may extend between buildings, but shall not extend beyond the building line of the principal building on each lot that includes a portion of the greenspace. The greenspace shall consist of pervious surfaces such as lawns, trees, plantings, wetlands, and gardens, and may include impervious landscape features, such as path networks, sculptures, gazebos, water features, footbridges, sitting areas, stone walls, and other features and amenities that may be built within and throughout the greenspace in order to create a more attractive and enjoyable environment. The area of the greenspace shall be calculated by measuring and adding the portion of the total greenspace defined on the site plan for each lot in the approved subdivision that includes a portion of the greenspace. d. Any parking located between a proposed building and a public street shall include landscape screening at least three (3) feet in height above the grade of the adjacent public street, , except as necessary to maintain adequate sight distances. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective September 24, 2013 14-10 (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Agricultural Definitions DATE: August 9, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Last fall, the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee presented to the Planning Commission a short report with a series of requests for incorporation into the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan. Several pieces were incorporated into the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in March 2016. Staff has reviewed the remaining report and requests, in conjunction with additional agriculture-related amendments, and has compiled the attached recommendations. Please note that these recommendations, though phrased in the format of regulatory language, are intended to be an introduction to the topics, forming the basis for an informed policy discussion. Some of the specific allowances, numbers, and allowed locations are meant to be place-holders that will benefit from your thoughts and a more thorough discussion. I will try to highlight known questions herein in order to most efficiently navigate through the pieces. With respect to food hubs, you’ll see the recommendation from the SA subcommittee, as well as expanded draft language from Staff in the interest of clarity and legal defensibility. Points of discussion: 1. Definition of Agriculture- Staff proposes to align this definition with the state definition. This is also reflected in the enclosed Appendix C, which wasn’t previously in line with state legislation on municipal restriction of agriculture and farm use. 2. Food Hubs- a. Vision- Does the propose definition capture its spirit and intent? Should this serve as a location that will also provide local farmers access to retailers and restaurants? b. Food Hub size: Is there an appropriate size for this use and does it vary by geography? c. Food Hub use allowance: The SA recommendation is for allowance in all districts. This is reflected in the draft attached, but Staff encourages the Commission to look through each district and determine applicability. It is worth noting that the more industrial 2 version of this- with access to restaurants and retailers- as well as the more retail version of this- with sales permitted- is already permitted in several districts. 3. Edible Landscaping- See attached. Includes encouragement for use in landscaping and an incentive for use in landscaping of Food Hub structures. Updates to Agricultural Regulations Agriculture: Current Definition: Agriculture (Farming). Shall include any of the following land use activities conducted in accordance with state-defined accepted agricultural practices and/or best management practices: the cultivation or other use of land for growing food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, or horticultural and orchard crops; or the raising, feeding, or management of livestock, poultry, fish, or bees; or the operation of greenhouses; or the production of maple syrup; or the on-site storage, preparation and sale of agricultural products principally produced on the farm; or the on-site storage, preparation, production, and sale of fuel or power from agricultural products or wastes principally produced on the farm; or the raising, feeding, or management of four or more equines owned or boarded by the farmer, including training, showing, and providing instruction and lessons in riding, training, and the management of equines. Proposed Definition: Agriculture (Farming). shall include any of the following land use activities conducted in accordance with state-defined required agricultural practices and/or best management practices: the cultivation or other use of land for growing food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, or horticultural and orchard crops; or the raising, feeding, or management of livestock, poultry, fish, or bees; or the operation of greenhouses; or the production of maple syrup; or the on-site storage, preparation and sale of agricultural products principally produced on the farm; or the on-site storage, preparation, production, and sale of fuel or power from agricultural products or wastes principally produced on the farm; or the raising, feeding, or management of four or more equines owned or boarded by the farmer, including training, showing, and providing instruction and lessons in riding, training, and the management of equines. Purpose of change: To be more timely and reflective of changes in state definitions which take precedence. Relationship to Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee Recommendation: No changes were proposed. Food Hub Current Definition: None Proposed Definition: As proposed by Sus Ag Subcommittee: “A facility that serves as central location for, and that is operated by an entity actively coordinates, the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution and/or marketing of local food in order to provide small to mi-size farmers and food producers wider access to institutional and retail markets, and to increase consumer access to local, fresh, healthy food.” Staff proposal: Definition: A facility that serves as the central location for the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution and/or marketing of local and source-identified food. Additional Regulations: Add new section 13.14, Food Hubs. A. General requirements. A food hub is mostly closely aligned with a farm stand with respect to types of products available. The principal function of a food hub shall be to provide local farmers and food producers predictable and coordinated access to individuals, retailers, and institutions. This is encouraged to be a distribution point for shares in Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs). (1) A Food Hub is explicitly not a “Retail Sales” use. A food hub is not intended for consumers to shop through a wide variety of goods, especially those which are processed or not grown locally, throughout most of the day, week, and year. (2) In addition to the definition found in these Regulations, a food hub may also constitute an organization responsible for the roles listed herein, and may include technical assistance to local farmers in conjunction with its duties as a central location. B. Specific standards (1) Processing activities at the food hub location shall be limited to non-mechanized packaging, provided it is subordinate to the distribution activities. (2) Storage is permissible for terms of less than 30 days. (3) Butchering or killing of livestock shall not be permitted on-site. (4) A food hub may be host to- with no greater frequency than once per week- a farmer’s market without additional municipal review or permitting. (5) Edible landscaping is strongly encouraged; the value of edible landscaping used at Food Hub sites shall be counted towards the minimum landscaping budget as 150% of every dollar planted. C. Permitting (1) Facilities under 5,000 GFA may be reviewed under Section 14.09, Administrative Review. (2) Facilities larger than 5,000 GFA shall require DRB Site Plan review in accordance with Chapter 14 of these Regulations. Amend Table 13-3. Parking Requirements, Agricultural Uses Amend Horticulture & Forestry with on-premise sales to include Food Hub. 1 per employee plus 2 per 1,000 GFA. Amend Appendix C, Uses to reflect new use as permitted in all districts (per SA recommendation). See attached. Edible Landscaping Definition: The use of food-producing plants in the design of private and public outdoor spaces. Proposed changes to definition: none Proposed changes to LDRs: Revise 13.06 G- Landscaping Standards- to add (4) Edible Landscaping is strongly encouraged. See also above, Specific Standards for Food Hubs. Appendix C, Table of Uses Amended to reflect consistency with VT State law regarding allowed agricultural uses. As noted above, also reflected to include allowances for ‘Food Hub’. 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: Clarifications of Allowable Uses in Municipal District, Parks & Recreation District, and Institutional-Agricultural District DATE: August 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting An item on the Commission’s (and Staff’s!) to do list for a while has been the clean up of the table of allowed uses in three zoning districts: Municipal District (MU), Parks and Recreation District (PR), and Institutional-Agricultural (IA) District. The first two largely consist of City-owned property, while the third, (IA), consists solely of land owned by the University of Vermont. The clean-up project is this: for historical reasons, the list of allowable and prohibited uses in the Land Development Regulations for these three districts is duplicated. A list of permitted and conditional uses is contained in Article 7, and a separate, largely identical list is contained in Appendix C, the Table of Uses. In the past, all allowed and prohibited uses were contained within the text of the LDRs. At some point, these were then moved over to form an easier-to-read Table of Uses for all districts. For whatever reason, this wasn’t done for these three districts. So, fast forward to 2016. Enclosed with your packet is a proposed red-line set of amendments, to Article 7 and to the Table of Uses. Staff feels that nearly all of these changes are minor in nature, but we do want to point out a couple of important notes on interpretation: 1. Agricultural Uses. As a separate project from this, staff has prepared a clean-up of agricultural uses (and exemptions) in the LDRs. Those are described in the memo from Cathyann LaRose. As those uses cover all districts, they do overlap with these amendments. 2. Parks & Recreation District Office Uses. Presently, Article 7 allows for “Not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is the provision of educational or research services related to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, natural resource preservation, arts or recreation,” while The Table of Uses allows for “office, general.” Staff believes that the description from Article 7 is clearer and better represents the intent and use of buildings on city parks. The proposed amendment is shown as footnote (10) in the Table of Uses. 2 3. Parks and Recreation, and Municipal District Child Care. Presently, Article 7 allows for child care facilities in these two districts, while the Table of Uses does not. Staff proposes that they be permissible in those two districts. 4. Institutional/ Agricultural Support Facility. Presently, Article 7 contains a permitted use described below: (9) Educational facility with customary educational support facilities, reviewed as a Planned Unit Development in accordance with Article 15 of these Regulations, and including without limitation the following uses in conjunction with a principal educational facility use: (a) Cultural facility (ALL) (b) Group quarters (ALL) (c) Office (ALL) (d) Medical office (ALL) (e) Place of worship (ALL) (f) Recreation facility, indoor (NORTH ONLY) (g) Recreation facility, outdoor (NORTH ONLY) (h) Research facility or laboratory (ALL) (i) Photocopy and printing shop with accessory retail sales (NORTH ONLY) (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. (NORTH ONLY) (k) Short-order restaurant, within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (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. (NORTH ONLY) (m) Social services (NORTH ONLY) (n) Accessory uses to the uses listed above in the applicable district (i.e. North only or all) In the Table of Uses, by contrast, “Educational Facility,” “Educational Support Facility,” and each of the 14 uses from the list above are their own use category. This is problematic for two reasons: (1) the term “educational support facility” is ONLY used in the context of the sentence above, and has no definition of its own, and (2) Article 7 includes a clear intent that all of the uses from that list are a subset of the overall statement that . Staff proposes to adjust the Table of Uses in the follow ways: (1) eliminate “educational support facility” from being its own use category, and (2) attach a footnote to each of the uses above, within the table, that they are only permitted as educational support facilities. That term is now contained within the revised Article 7. 5. Other changes, more minor. a. Article 7 did not allow Hospice as a use, while the Table of Uses did. Staff proposes to not allow them. b. Article 7 and the Table of Uses both allowed short-order restaurants as educational support facilities. The draft also allows a standard restaurant as educational support facilities. c. Some uses have been removed altogether, such as agriculture and power transmission, as they are exempt from local regulation d. Finally, certain uses listed in each of the districts within Article 7 as “conditional” have been made permitted, such as day care. ARTICLE 7 OTHER DISTRICTS South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 7-1 7 OTHER DISTRICTS 7.01 Institutional and Agricultural District (IA) 7.02 Park and Recreation District (PR) 7.03 Municipal District (MU) 7.01 Institutional and Agricultural District I-A A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Institutional and Agricultural District to provide for the educational, conservation, research and agricultural operations of the University of Vermont on its properties within South Burlington. It is the further purpose of the Institutional and Agricultural District to provide for the integration of University-related uses into the City's overall land use pattern through the use of appropriate site planning techniques that promote a beneficial pattern of access, circulation, landscaping, and pedestrian connections between University properties and adjacent neighborhoods. The more intensive nature of the University’s properties adjacent to the main campus along Williston Road and the more open, undeveloped character of the properties farther south of the main campus along Spear and Swift Street are also recognized in these land development regulations. To implement these objectives, properties within the Institutional-Agricultural District are designated as Institutional-Agricultural North (“IANORTH”) or Institutional-Agricultural South (“IA-SOUTH”) on the South Burlington Zoning Map and references are made herein to IA-NORTH and IA-SOUTH properties. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those uses allowed as conditional uses. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Uses. In the Institutional and Agricultural District, principal permitted uses and conditional uses shall be those shown in Table C-1, Table of Uses. C. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Institutional-Agricultural District. (1) Agriculture, forestry and horticultural uses (ALL) (2) Retail sale of agricultural, forest or horticultural products produced on site. Such use shall be subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (ALL) (3) Keeping of livestock (ALL) (4) Single-family dwelling related to agriculture, forestry or horticultural use (ALL) (5) Additional dwelling units for farm employees, subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (ALL) (6) Park (ALL) (7) Recreation path, subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (ALL) (8) Hospice (ALL) ARTICLE 7 OTHER DISTRICTS South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 7-2 (9) Educational facility with customary educational support facilities, reviewed as a Planned Unit Development in accordance with Article 15 of these Regulations, and including without limitation the following uses in conjunction with a principal educational facility use: (a) Cultural facility (ALL) (b) Group quarters (ALL) (c) Office (ALL) (d) Medical office (ALL) (e) Place of worship (ALL) (f) Recreation facility, indoor (NORTH ONLY) (g) Recreation facility, outdoor (NORTH ONLY) (h) Research facility or laboratory (ALL) (i) Photocopy and printing shop with accessory retail sales (NORTH ONLY) (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. (NORTH ONLY) (k) Short-order restaurant, within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (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. (NORTH ONLY) (m) Social services (NORTH ONLY) (n) Accessory uses to the uses listed above in the applicable district (i.e. North only or all) D. Conditional Uses. The following uses are allowed in the Institutional-Agricultural District as conditional uses subject to approval by the Development Review Board as a Planned Unit Development in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7.01 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards. (1) Accessory residential dwelling units (2) Day care facility (3) Municipal building (4) Parking facility (NORTH ONLY) (5) Public utility substation and transmission lines (6) Group home (7) Cemetery (8) Accessory uses to the uses listed above in the applicable district (i.e. North only or all) D E. Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Institutional-Agricultural District, all requirements of this Section 7.01 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards shall apply. E F. Additional Standards. All applications within this District shall be subject to the following additional standards: (1) For properties in the Institutional-Agricultural district west of Spear Street and north of Quarry Hill Road, an undeveloped area shall be maintained for a minimum of sixty-five (65) feet between the boundary of any adjacent residential zoning district and any new non-residential structure. The DRB may require landscaping or other suitable screening in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.06 of ARTICLE 7 OTHER DISTRICTS South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 7-3 these Regulations to ensure adequate buffering between new non-residential structures and adjacent residential districts. (2) For all other properties in the Institutional-Agricultural district, an undeveloped area shall be maintained for a minimum of one hundred (100) feet between the boundary of any adjacent residential zoning district. The yard shall be kept free of buildings, structures, parking lots and facilities, and access drives other than those required to cross through the required yard. The DRB may require landscaping or other suitable screening in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.06 of these Regulations to ensure adequate buffering between new non-residential structures and adjacent residential districts. (3) Educational facilities and educational support facilities in the Commercial 1 district shall be subject to the dimensional standards and requirements of the Institutional-Agricultural North district. (4) Educational Support Facility. Uses listed as allowable within the Table of Uses as Educational Support Facility shall be designed and intended function as a complement to the intended educational use of the property. Such uses shall be secondary to the principal educational use of the property and shall be intended to principally serve students, faculty, and staff of the educational use. 7.02 Park and Recreation District PR A. Purpose. A Park and Recreation District is hereby formed in order to provide for the recreational needs of the City's residents, to provide a balance between developed recreation areas and natural recreation areas, to integrate private parks into the recreation system, and to make recreation areas accessible to all residents regardless of physical ability. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Uses. In the Parks and Recreation District, principal permitted uses and conditional uses shall be those shown in Table C-1, Table of Uses. C. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Park and Recreation District. (1) Agriculture, forestry and horticultural uses (2) Retail sale of agricultural, forest or horticultural products produced on site. Such use shall be subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (3) Keeping of livestock (4) Park (5) Single-family dwelling related to agriculture, forestry or horticultural use (6) Additional dwelling units for farm employees, subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (7) Recreation path (8) Indoor recreation facility (9) Outdoor recreation facility ARTICLE 7 OTHER DISTRICTS South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 7-4 (10) Not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is the provision of educational or research services related to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, natural resource preservation, arts or recreation. D. Conditional Uses. The following uses are allowed in the Park and Recreation District as conditional uses subject to approval by the Development Review Board as a Planned Unit Development in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7.02 and Table C-1, Table of Uses. (1) Public utility substation and transmission lines (2) Day care center (3) Accessory residential dwelling units D E. Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Park and Recreation District, all requirements of this Section 7.02 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards shall apply. E F. Additional Standards. All applications within this District shall be subject to the following additional standardsIn reviewing any Permitted or Conditional Use proposed under this Section shall meet the following standards in addition to those in Article 14 of these Regulations: (1) The proposed use will provide an affirmative public benefit to the City and its citizens. (2) The proposed use will be compatible with and protect the ability to preserve public recreational use and planned open spaces and natural areas on the project site. (3) The proposed use will include areas that may be used or accessed by the general public. 7.03 Municipal District MU A. Purpose. A Municipal District is hereby formed to provide for public schools, municipal services including but not limited to administration, police, fire, water, street, and sewer services, landfills, operations of other municipal corporations as set forth in 24 VSA [municipal corporations such as CSWD], and other municipal uses, excluding public recreation. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Uses. In the Municipal District, principal permitted uses and conditional uses shall be those shown in Table C-1, Table of Uses. C. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Municipal District: (1) Agriculture, forestry and horticultural uses (2) Retail sale of agricultural, forest or horticultural products produced on site. Such use shall be subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (3) Keeping of livestock (4) Single-family dwelling related to agriculture, forestry or horticultural use ARTICLE 7 OTHER DISTRICTS South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 7-5 (5) Additional dwellings for farm employees, subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (6) Community center (7) Public educational facility (8) Recreation path (9) Municipal building (10) Private providers of public services (11) Recreation facility, indoor (12) Recreation facility, outdoor (13) Offices incidental and subordinate to a permitted use listed above D. Conditional Uses. The following uses are allowed in the Municipal District as conditional uses subject to approval by the Development Review Board in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7.03 and Table C-1, Table of Uses. (1) Day care centers (2) Public utility substation and transmission lines (3) Waste handling and transfer facilities (4) Commercial or public parking facility D E. Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Municipal District, all requirements of this Section 7.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards shall apply. E F. Additional Standards. All applications within this District shall be subject to the following additional standards In reviewing any Permitted or Conditional Use proposed under this Section shall meet the following standards in addition to those in Article 14 of these Regulations: (1) The proposed use will provide an affirmative public benefit to the City and its citizens. (2) The proposed use will be compatible with and protect the ability to preserve public recreational use and planned open spaces and natural areas on the project site APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Residential/Institutional 1 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS IA(1)PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7- NC(2) R12 LN QCP SEQ- NRP SEQ- NRT SEQ-NR SEQ-VR SEQ- VC(2) Residential Uses Single-family dwelling P P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P P Two-family dwelling PUD P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P Multi-family dwelling PUD PUD P PUD PUD PUD C PUD P P Accessory residential units Group home or Residential Care Home P P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P P Agricultural Uses Agricultural uses consistent with State- defined "Farming" activity Horticulture & forestry with on-premise sales Horticulture & forestry, no on-premise sales Keeping of livestock on 10 acres or more P P P P P P P P P Single-family dwelling related to agriculture P P P P P P P P P P P P P Additional dwellings for farm employees P P P P P P P P P P P P P Public & Quasi-Public Uses Cemeteries Community center PUD P P P C P P P Congregate care, assisted living, or continuum of care facility C-TO C C C Cultural facility PUD (11) Educational facility PUD P C C C Educational support facilities PUD Funeral homes, mortuaries, and crematoriums C C Group quarters PUD (11) Hospice P P Municipal facility C C P Parks Personal instruction facility P P (6) Place of worship PUD (11)P P P P P P P P P P Recreation paths Institutional Residential Southeast Quadrant Please See Section 3.10 for Regulations Conditional in all districts Permitted in all districts Permitted in all districts Permitted in all districts; 3 acre minimum lot size in all districts. Permitted in all districts Exempt from local regulation in all districts APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Residential/Institutional 2 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS IA(1)PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7- NC(2) R12 LN QCP SEQ- NRP SEQ- NRT SEQ-NR SEQ-VR SEQ- VC(2) Institutional Residential Southeast Quadrant Social services C-TO C Commercial Uses Adult use Agricultural Enterprise P P P P P P P P P Auto & motorcycle service and repair, accessory use, no fueling pumps C Bed and breakfast, min. 1 acre lot C C C C C C C C(3) Family child care home, registered or licensed P P P P P P P P P P P P P Child care facility, licensed non-residential C P P P (4)P Commercial greenhouse C-ACC Commercial or public parking facility PUD (11)C Food Hub P(7)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(7)P(7)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(7) Financial institution P Golf course C C C Office, general PUD (11)C (10)PUD-TO P PUD-TO C Office, medical PUD (11)PUD-TO P PUD-TO C Personal or business service, principal use N-PUD (7) (11) P P (6) Pet Grooming P Photocopy & printing shops with accessory retail N-PUD (11) Private providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenance P Recreation facility, indoor N-PUD (11)C P C P C C C P (6) Recreation facility, outdoor N-PUD (11)C P C P C C Research facility or laboratory N-PUD (11) Restaurant, short order N-PUD (11)C Restaurant, standard N-PUD (11)C C Retail sales N-PUD (7) (11) P (7)C (6) Seasonal Mobile Food Unit P Service station C Waste transfer stations C APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 3 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND Residential Uses Single-family dwelling PUD P P P Two-family dwelling PUD P P Multi-family dwelling PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD Accessory residential units Group home or Residential Care Home PUD P P P Agricultural Uses Horticulture & forestry with on-premise sales Horticulture & forestry, no on-premise sales Keeping of livestock on 10 acres or more Single-family dwelling related to agriculture P P Additional dwellings for farm employees P P Public & Quasi-Public Uses Cemeteries Community center P P PUD P Congregate care, assisted living, or continuum of care facility C C C C C Cultural facility Educational facility PUD PUD C C C Educational support facilities PUD(5)PUD(5) Food Hub P(7)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(7)P(7)P(7) Funeral homes, mortuaries, and crematoriums C C C C C C C C C C Hospice P P P P P P Municipal facility P P P C C Parks Personal instruction facility P P P P P P P P P P P Place of worship P P P P P P P P P-ACC Recreation paths AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Permitted in all districts Please see Section 3.10 for regulations Permitted in all districts Conditional in all districts Permitted in all districts; 3 acre minimum lot size in all districts. Permitted in all districts APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 4 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Skilled nursing facility C C C C C C Social services C C C C C C C Commercial & Industrial Uses Adult use Agriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rental P P Agricultural Enterprise P P P Airport Uses P P Animal shelter C C P Artist production studio P P P P P Auto & motorcycle sales P P P Auto & motorcycle service & repair P P P Auto rental, with private accessory car wash & fueling P P P P P Bed & breakfast C C Cannabis dispensary (dispensing only)P P P P P P P-TO Cannabis dispensary (cultivation only)P P Car wash P Child care facility, licensed non-residential P P P P P P P P P P Commercial greenhouse PUD P P Commercial kennel, veterinary hospital and pet day care C C P P P P Commercial or public parking facility C C C C C C C C C Contractor or building trade facility P P P P Distribution and related storage, with >15% of GFA in office or other principal permitted use by same tenant C P P P Drive-through bank PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD Equipment service, repair & rental P P Family child care home, registered or licensed P P P P See Article 8 APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 5 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Financial institution P P P P P ACC P P Flight instruction P P P Hotel PUD PUD PUD C C C C Hotel, extended stay PUD PUD C C C C Indoor theater P P Indoor vehicle storage, maximum 10,000 square feet P-ACC Junk yard Light manufacturing PUD PUD P P P P Lumber and contractor’s yard P P P Manufacturing & assembly from previously prepared materials & components P P P P P PUD P P P P Mobile home, RV and boat sales, repair & service P P Motor freight terminal C P Office, general P P P P P P P PUD P P P Office, medical P P P P P P P PUD-TO P P-TO Personal or business service P P P P P(7)P P P (7)P P Pet grooming P P P P P P P P P Photocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail P P P P P P P P-ACC P P Printing & binding production facilities C P P P P Private providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenance P P P P Processing and storage P P P P P P Radio & television studio P P P C P P P Recreation facility, indoor P P P P P P P P-ACC P P Recreation facility, outdoor C C C C C C C C C Research facility or laboratory P P P P P P P P P P P Restaurant, short order P P P P P P-ACC P-ACC P-ACC P P-ACC P-ACC APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 6 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Restaurant, standard P P P P P P P P P-ACC Retail sales P (8)P P P(8)P (7)P (7)P (7)P (7) P (9)P (8)P-ACC Retail warehouse outlet P P Sale, rental & repair of aircraft & related parts P P Seasonal Mobile Food Unit P P P P P P P P P Self-storage P ACC, P- Non-TO Service station C C Shopping center C C Taverns, night clubs & private clubs P P P P P P P P Transportation services P P Warehousing & distribution C C P P Wholesale establishments C C P P P Key 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 (5) Educational support facilities in C1 are subject to the dimensional standards of the IA-North District. See Article 7. Non-TO = Allowable only outside of the Transit Overlay District C = Conditional Use PUD = Allowable within a Planned Unit Development ACC = Allowable as an accessory use TO = Allowable only in the Transit Overlay District (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 = Permitted (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. (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. (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. APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 7 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 DRAFT AUGUST 2016 City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial (11) Use is allowed only as an Educational Support Facility. See Section 7.01(E) (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. (10) Use is restricted to not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is the provision of educational or research services related to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, natural resource preservation, arts or recreation 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Agricultural Enterprise Zoning Concepts DATE: August 9, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission was approached by land owners and entrepreneurs this spring to consider amendments to the Land Development Regulations which would re-envision allowances in light of new faces of agriculture and agriculture-related enterprise. The State of Vermont has a broad encompassing definition of agriculture in the spirit of allowing most people the ability to raise or grow just about anything in any location. It does, however, have strict regulatory controls over wastewater and structures that are associated with agriculture. As such, a lot of value-added agriculture or agriculture-related tourism, and agriculture-based products which are not grown on site are not permitted exemptions from local control, and left to a municipality to determine how these uses and products fit into any given community. One of the great challenges in crafting this language has been acknowledging and embracing creativity in new agricultural enterprises without creating parameters so broad that they would permit production facilities that do not meet the vision or intent of this allowance. Staff has considered a breadth of options ranging from zoning district adjustments, floating zones, conditional uses, and new use categories. While there has been some national and regional work towards defining and clarifying how these extraneous uses can be incorporated, Staff quickly discovered that any definition and use allowances and restrictions really need to be tailored to the South Burlington community. The accompanying language reflects some of the basic work of existing publications on this subject, but is predominantly specific to our community and to the guidance that the Planning Commission has previously given. Please understand that these recommendations, though phrased in the format of regulatory language, are intended to be an introduction to the topics, forming the basis for an informed policy discussion. Some of the specific allowances, numbers, and allowed locations are meant to be guided place-holders that will benefit from your thoughts and a more thorough discussion. I will try to highlight known questions herein in order to most efficiently navigate through the pieces. I recommend returning to the ‘questions’ portion below after reading the accompanying language. Points of discussion: 2 1. Known Desires and Concerns: a. Zoning i. Protection against it becoming a basic manufacturing facility ii. High quality architecture that is reflective of more rural setting and downplays size iii. Loss of NRP land; maintaining 1.2 units per acre across the SEQ as per the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan b. Amenities i. Community access to orchards in some way ii. Venue for rental maybe? iii. Community access for events and this to be a gathering place iv. Walking trails connecting to system, including some important view-points c. Attention/Understand and address conflicts: i. Limits on hours of operation & noise of live music ii. Effective buffering from neighbors (existing and future) iii. Clear understanding of future growth Questions for the Planning Commission: - Is there a desire or requirement for integration or compatibility with whatever happens to the north - Should there be a minimum or maximum lot size for this use? - Should there be an allowance for land outside SEQ to be conserved or dedicated as park in as part of the proposed exchange of land? - Are there adjustments to the table of uses? Should this new use be permitted in R1 and R2?? Potential Tools: Addressing zoning:  New proposed use- Agricultural Enterprise o Definition:  Agricultural Enterprise- Hybrid land use with development being directly related to the principal farming activity being conducted on-site. o General Purpose:  Agricultural enterprises highlight both the tangible and tangential benefits of agriculture. They are enhanced with a purpose of recreation, education, or active involvement in farm operations. While still highlighting the connection between farm and plate- or glass- they embrace the changing faces of traditional farming by extending the employment opportunities, educational value, and range of agricultural products. These activities are not explicitly protected under state farming allowances and should be regulated for the hybrid use that they are. o Regulation (add to Chapter 13):  General Regulations:  For the purposes of Agricultural Enterprise use, the principal farming activity shall be limited to edible crops. This explicitly restricts the slaughter of livestock or poultry as constituting the principal farming activity.  At least half of the land’s developable acreage (not counting slopes more than 20% or wetlands) must be in active agricultural production and used or sold on-site by the facility.  The development on the site, including production facilities, must: o Relate directly to the crop being farmed on the site. o Ensure that at least three-quarters (75%) of its consumables are comprised of agricultural products from within the State of Vermont or within a 100-mile radius. o Demonstrate dedication to agritourism, highlighting the importance of agriculture as a community value. o Be open to the public and customers for at least 20 hours per week, for at least 9 months of the year.  The following related uses are permitted: o The sampling and tasting of crops and produce not principally produced on the farm or the resulting products from such crops or produce; o Tours of growing areas and storage and processing facilities; o Hayrides, farm tours, picnic areas and other agritourism activities. o Pub/Restaurant provided it is clearly incidental and subordinate. o Harvest and agriculture related events. Other events shall be permitted through the City’s events permitting process.  Specific Regulations:  Agricultural Enterprise shall be permitted in accordance with Appendix C, Table of Uses.  In the Southeast Quadrant, where residential density is most carefully delineated and where development is most restricted, Agricultural Enterprise must respect the intended purpose of the Zoning District. As the rural character and emphasis on open spaces and agricultural land remains imperative, Agricultural Enterprise shall be permitted only with the following exchange for building square footage: Per 1000 SF GFA of Structure1 Any cumulative combination of: Minimums .5 TDRs recorded and conserved from an approved ‘sending’ zone in the SEQ2 .25 acre of on-site agricultural land which serves the agricultural enterprise and which is in production Minimum 2 acre lots .4 acres of agricultural land in South Burlington common ownership or under contract to serve the agricultural enterprise and which is in production Minimum 2 acre lots .25 acres of land given to and accepted by the City for use as a public park or publically accessible natural area Minimum 2 acres $5000 of off-site infrastructure improvements which enable or enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the site. Minimum $10,000 1 * square footage of interior farmstand dedicated to selling or distribution of fruits or vegetables shall be exempt 2 * these TDRs may not be used in conjunction with any other projects.  In the Southeast Quadrant, any facilities associated with this use shall be located no more than 500 feet from a State designated highway.  There shall be at least one half mile separating lots approved for this use.  No facilities shall be located within designated primary conservation areas, excepting those designated as such for soils and farmland.  Review Standards:  Planned Unit Development (PUD) review shall be required.  The proposed development must submit a plan which demonstrates components of educational and community value. This may include planned community events, walking trails, or interpretive signage relating to historical, cultural, or agricultural significance of the land or production. Other ideas shall be considered by the DRB pursuant to the stated purpose of this use. As a condition of approval, the property owner or designee shall be required to submit a plan to the Director of Planning and Zoning annually.  In residential districts, hours of operation for outdoor events, retail, and restaurant components shall not begin before 8 am or end after 10 pm. Shipping and receiving activities shall be limited to those hours identified in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Production facilities shall be permitted to operate throughout the day and evening.  Shipping and receiving zones, parking lots, overhead lights and dumpster facilities shall be located such to minimize impact on adjacent residential properties. Where these abut a residential building within 250 feet, they shall provide for noise and light buffering.  Parking requirements are reflected in Table 13-2 (under development but anticipating including a maximum marking allowance)  In all permitted districts defined architectural controls shall be required. (THIS SECTION UNDER DEVELOPMENT- will review VC standards for commercial buildings)  Scenic views should be identified and integrated into the site design to allow for use and enjoyment by employees and visitors.  Walking trails shall be delineated on the property where connections can exist to existing or planned pedestrian or natural connections. Other definitions which should be adopted in accordance with Agricultural Enterprise: Agritourism -- act of visiting working farms to engage in outdoor recreation, participate in educational experiences, or enjoy entertainment and hospitality services. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 JULY 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 July 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, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent; G. Goyette; M. Murray, Energy Committee; 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. Harrington: The final report of the Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee will be made to the City Council on 18 July. This will include the report of the Noise Subcommittee. Mr. Klugo: Tomorrow night, White & Burke will present the final report on the economics of school consolidation, 7 p.m., Tuttle Middle School. Ms. Quest: The Committee on how to utilize the funding for open space/parks has been meeting and coming up with good ideas. Mr. Conner: The Wheeler Nature Park Committee is looking at language for a conservation easement. The City Council is expected to make their annual appointments to committees at the 18 July meeting. Last week, a meeting was held with the Recreation Department and David Rafael regarding “wayfinding” in city parks. There will be a style that will be used in all parks. The next city vote on 9 August will include a bond for emergency services (fire, EMS, etc.). 4. Discussion of Culvert Replacement on Moss Glen Lane in Oak Creek Village: 2 Mr. DiPietro advised that the city had received a grant for this work. He showed a map of the area and indicated the existing stormwater ponds and culverts, including the 2 to be replaced. He noted that a 25-year storm event is not the standard, so this work will also provide an upgrade. Mr. DiPietro then showed a picture of the existing culverts and an example of what the new culverts will look like. They will be of the same alignment as the existing culverts but will provide extra capacity. Mr. Goyette noted that a s part of this construction, the water main on top of the culvert will be relocated as will the sewer pipe below. The road will be restored to its original state and curbs will be replaced. A section of the road will be closed while the work happens, but there will be no impeding of access to anyone’s driveway as there is another way around. There will, however be an interruption of service while some utilities are being moved. There will be provisions in case there is a weather event during construction. Mr. Klugo asked about communication with neighbors. Mr. DiPietro said they have used Front Porch Forum, and will do more. Mr. Riehle suggested some signs prior to the construction. Mr. Klugo said the only tried and true way is through the mail. Mr. DiPietro said they are considering that. Ms. Louisos asked whether culvert width was considered. Mr. Goyette said it was. Ms. Louisos also asked about passage for fish in terms of velocity. Mr. Goyette said they had a conversation about this with A & R and will follow their opinions. Mr. DiPietro noted that work in Butler Farms is on deck for when there is funding. Mr. DiPietro then addressed the Szymanski Park area and the plans for improved drainage. The city is partnered with the New York District of the Army Corps of Engineers for this work. A lot of tree clearing has been done, and the pond will be installed next week. Regarding Laurel Hill, Mr. DiPietro said underground storage tanks will be used there. This work should be done before Thanksgiving. 5. Commission debriefing on spring joint meetings with committees; next steps: Mr. Riehle said he would like Bike/Ped Committee people to identify problem areas. Mr. Conner said there are some pieces in that puzzle, specifically what is covered by regulations and what is private and what the city will fund. Mr. Klugo noted that issues raised by the DRB included heights, density, waivers/unintended consequences. In response to a question regarding solar ready roofs, Ms. Louisos said she will check with the Council Chair as the Council had raised this question. 3 Mr. Conner then explained the use of TIF funding for various types of projects/enhancements. Mr. Klugo raised the question of first floor use in the T-5 areas. He said it won’t be possible to lease all the space for retail, noting that this hasn’t worked elsewhere. Mr. Conner noted that the regulations say “non-residential use” not just “retail,” so there is more flexibility. 6. Discuss potential for Transportation Demand Management; CATMA report to the City; and upcoming project of update to LDRs Traffic Overlay District: Mr. Conner responded to the question of what tools exist for diversification of transportation and parking. He noted that two projects are being kicked off this summer: an update to transportation impact fees and an update to the Traffic Overlay District. With regard to impact fees, Mr. Conner explained that they are based on how many evening rush hour trips are incurred. The money from the impact fees is to be used for improvements (e.g. traffic signals) to address traffic impacts. Mr. Conner noted that a use such as Trader Joe’s generates 120 peak hour trip ends; a single family would generate only one. Mr. Conner said the existing ordinance is not very dynamic and focuses mainly on cars. The thinking is to focus more on “transportation” impact rather than just traffic. The intent is to do this in a way to reinforce good design. With regard to the Traffic Overlay District, Mr. Conner indicated its location and explained that it sets a hard cap on the number of rush hour trips that can come and go from a given property. It also gives some credit for improvements that are made. However, the Traffic Overlay District does not line up with current community goals and it has put a hard cap on certain activities on Williston Road. It doesn’t give credit for creative ways to reduce trips, and also doesn’t necessarily gibe with Form Based Code. Mr. Conner noted some buildings that have suffered because of the cap, including the Greer’s property (with Growlers) and Higher Ground/Dunkin’ Donuts/Wooden Spoon. Mr. Klugo cited the issue of traffic from Williston and other communities going through this area. Mr. Conner said the Traffic Overlay District covers only traffic on and off given properties. Mr. Klugo also cited the need for developers to be more creative to make things work. Mr. Conner noted that the future of retail is not so much “to buy things” as to have an experience (e.g, dining, entertainment, etc.). The issue is to have a transportation system to reinforce this trend. 4 Mr. Conner said that Ilona Blanchard is putting together a group of people to take a “deep dive” into Transportation Demand Management. He added that the Commission can set aside time at meetings to bring forth ideas. Mr. Klugo suggested identifying other communities where this is happening and to see if what they are doing can apply in South Burlington. Ms. Murray suggested having something in the LDRs to provide incentives for bike facilities. Mr. Conner said there are many ways this can be done, including what is already being done in Williston. He added that not much is being done nationwide in communities the size of South Burlington. 7. Other Business: a. CCRPC: FY17-20 proposed Transportation Improvement Plan Public Hearing, 20 July 2016, 6 p.m., at CCRPC offices: Mr. Conner said no Commission action is required. He also noted there are not a lot of South Burlington projects scheduled for this year. b. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30VSA248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on an existing utility pole, 1295 Williston Road: Mr. Conner said this is in the area of Al’s. He added that Verizon has been given a “heads up” that in the next few years poles will have to be taller. Mr. Klugo said to be sure that when Verizon says “small” it really is “small.” c. Public Service board comment period through 1 August 2016 on 30VSA248a procedures pursuant to Act 130 – telecommunications facilities: Mr. Conner said this is the first of something the city will be seeing more of. This will update the language as to whether community plans are being given more deference. Mr. Klugo cited the need for more screening. Mr. Conner said he would check on the city’s authority to require that. 8. Minutes of 16 June 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 16 June 2016 as written. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:55 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk