Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/10/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 MAY 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 May 2016, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; C. Frank, D. Farr, D. Leban, R. Neuer, B. Britt, Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee; K. Epstein, Energy Committee; E. Langfeldt, T. Barritt, A. Gill, B. Milizia, J. Dempsey, P. Keating, S. Murray, M. Kane 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: Mr. Barritt asked about standards for duplexes, citing the new duplex near St. John Vianny. He felt there should be standards so the duplexes merge with other buildings on the street. Mr. Conner noted that dimensional and design codes do apply even though duplexes are not reviewed by the DRB. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington: There will be a Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Committee meeting on Wednesday, 6:30 p.m. Mr. Conner: The City Council accepted the amendments approved by the Planning Commission and scheduled a public hearing for 6 June. 4. Initial Review: Request for amendments to Land Development Regulations related to parking in front of 3-unit townhouse residential buildings in certain circumstances: Mr. Langfeldt noted the requirement is now to have parking/garages to the side or rear of buildings, with certain exceptions. He felt there were certain inherent issues raised by this requirement: a. There is no difference in the regulations for a 60 unit building and a 3 unit building b. There is no provision for a waiver c. There are no exceptions for steep slopes d. There is no allowance for a backyard in a lower density housing. Mr. Langfeldt said this can lead to less green space and more pavements with no backyards. He also noted that most people don’t want their children playing in front of the house near traffic. He then showed a picture of what it could look like with tastefully done front-loading garages. He also noted that some of the nicest neighborhoods have front-loaded garages. Mr. Langfeldt then showed a concept of what The Landings could look like if they had to be developed to the existing standards. He said the regulations can lead to less variation, with duplexes repeated over and over again in a “cookie cutter development.” He felt the current regulations create a missed opportunity for the City to achieve more housing growth as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Langfeldt said the current rules also lead to more impervious surface and more stormwater issues, and, with steep slopes, more chance of erosion. He noted that the site on Old Farm Road is very sloped. He showed a concept of what a development could look like under the current rules and stressed that there is much less green space and the loss of space for a backyard and gardening. Mr. Gill added that there is also more impact to the environment with the loss of more trees. Mr. Langfeldt then showed a concept which would allow front-loading garages. He pointed out that there would be 1 road instead of 3. He stressed they are proposing neighborhood streets, not a Williston Road. Mr. Langfeldt then presented a list of proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations as follows: a. Allow exceptions for townhomes and row homes where average slopes are 10% or more b. Allow exceptions for townhomes and row homes in districts of 4 units per acre or more c. Require all parking to be constructed so that garage doors visible from the street are located within a maximum outboard street-side variance of 5 feet. d. Require that double-loaded garages are not side by side on the street-facing side e. Allow discretionary DRB waivers of parking requirements within PUDs for qualitative reasons. Ms. Quest suggested this might be dealt with if there are new PUD standards and new city-wide zoning. Mr. Conner said there are some discrete elements, but other pieces could be explored in the whole concept of the PUD. Mr. Klugo asked what the next steps are. Ms. Louisos said the goal is for the Commission to gauge how it feels about the issue and how it fits in the Commission’s work plan. It can be put on a future agenda or can wait until the bigger picture is dealt with. It could also be rejected. Mr. Klugo felt it was worth discussion, but he also felt it can depend on how a developer chooses to develop a property. Mr. Gagnon also felt it merited further discussion and goes back to the issue of “unintended consequences.” Mr. Riehle agreed. Mr. Klugo cited a project with garages that are 90 degrees to the street (duplexes). Mr. Gill noted that the middle units have no garages which makes sale and even financing difficult. Mr. Conner asked how this applies to the downside slope. Mr. Langfeldt said you are still removing the backyard, and it is not as attractive. Mr. Langfelt said it comes down to the question of whether they are to design homes for the people who live in them or for someone walking by who doesn’t live there. Members agreed to discuss the question in the near future. 5. Presentation and discussion of multi-site sidewalk/rec path scoping studies for Airport Parkway, Allen Road, Dorset Street and Spear Street Jughandle: Mr. Rabidoux noted that last year the city got a grant for a scoping analysis for sidewalks. This will help to prioritize projects in the city as there is a big list of desires regarding paths. Mr. Rabidoux then showed a map of the 4 locations being studied. He also noted there is an increased demand with new development, existing gaps, and areas brought to the attention of Public Works by members of the public. The 4 projects being studied are deemed ready to move forward. Mr. Rabidoux noted they are about to go out to bid on a Hinesburg Road sidewalk which will probably be built this summer. This leaves room to determine the next project. Mr. Dempsey then reviewed each site as follows: Allen Road: Alternative 1: fill in the missing gap; a shared use path outside the right-of-way to include a pedestrian activated signal Alternative 2: Would create a jog to keep within the right-of-way Dorset Street: Fill in the gap; a 10’ to 8’ path with 3‐5’ buffer from the roadway; at each intersection high‐visibility pavement markings; a constrained section where a wall may be needed, still within the right-of-way Airport Parkway: Alternative 1: striped bikelanes and a 6’ sidewalk on the north side; retail road width; possibly a roundabout with bake lanes of the roadway Alternative 2: a T-intersection with stop signs; crossing at the bridge site (Mr. Rabidoux noted this project has the potential to get very expensive and might have to be done in segments) Spear Street: Alternative 1: sidewalk adjacent to the road with 6” curb, continuing to the existing sidewalk. (Mr. Rabidoux noted the challenge is that properties on the east side of the road are very narrow and this could result in issues with property owners). Alternative 2: sidewalk on east side; a buffer to separate the edge of the road from the sidewalk, continuing to existing sidewalk Ms. Quest noted that many people don’t want to lose the 15 feet for the path. Ms. Louisos said it is hard to say which side of the road the path should be on. Mr. Rabidoux noted that this year the city submitted a request for another 4 projects but was turned down. He noted the city now has 30+ miles of rec path and cold probably have 50 or 60 and still not be done. A member of the audience noted the dangerous conditions on Airport Parkway. He felt the bridge is barely wide enough for 2 vehicles. There will be heavy construction starting soon next to Lime Kiln. He felt stop lights and/or speed bumps are needed to slow people down. Mr. Rabidoux suggested this may be a good place for the city to put its new speed monitoring signs. 6. Discussion opportunities for collaboration on 2016-17 work plans with Bicycle-Pedestrian Committee: Mr. Riehle asked when Committee members felt their bike path map would be ready. Ms. Farr Said they felt it would be within the next few months. Mr. Britt added that it will show priorities by quadrant. Mr. MacDonald asked the criteria for prioritization. Mr. Neuer said safety, the number of users, and connectivity. He said they did not consider cost or who would do the work. Ms. Leban added that they did a review of pedestrian crossings in major corridors as well. The only thing they haven’t dealt with are unpaved trails. Ms. Frank noted that one problem in doing things by the number of users is that some paths are so bad they don’t get used. Ms. Leban added that a bridge across I-89 would be very welcome. Mr. Conner noted that the Chamberlin Airport Committee has a priority of getting overland paths to connect streets with each other. Ms. Frank cited the need for the committee to give input when there is a development being considered, but they still don’t know the best way to do that. Mr. Conner suggested one opportunity the Planning Commission and Bike-Ped Committee could work on: the Commission developed a list of street types that could be city-wide. The Bike-Ped Committee could consider how to integrate this into their map. Mr. Neuer noted the new section of Hinesburg Road is designated as a “neighborhood street/bike boulevard. He read the attributes of that designation and noted that can’t happen in that location. Mr. Conner noted that the capacity of Public Works is for one of these projects a year. If the city wants more, there would have to be a bike/pedestrian coordinator. 7. Discuss Opportunities for Collaboration on 2016-17 work plans with Energy Committee: Mr. Epstein noted that the committee has narrowed its focus to concentrate on the Energy Prize. Mr. Riehle asked what the committee feels is the biggest city issue. Mr. Epstein said it is getting people out of cars and having them feel safe. He felt some of this is development related and putting things like groceries, entertainment, etc., closer to where people live. He said it doesn’t work to have all the residences at one end of the city and all the commercial activity at the other end. Ms. Harrington asked where the city stands in relation to the energy prize. Mr. Epstein said they are in the middle of the pack, though he wasn’t sure he trusted the markings. Mr. Rihele asked how many homes there are with solar. Mr. Epstein estimated 150. Mr. Epstein noted that the Williston Land Development Regulations have requirements in their parking regulations for a minimum number of bike parking spaces. They also require lockers and showers for bikers in work places. Regarding solar ready roofs, Mr. Epstein felt this could be added to the State’s Energy Stretch Code when it is next revised. Ms. Louisos noted the City Council is interested in that discussion. Mr. Epstein noted that the Legislature passed the new solar siting bill which gives some deference to communities whose Comprehensive Plan meets certain criteria. He said the Energy Committee will look at the city’s Comprehensive Plan to be sure it meets all of those criteria. 8. Work Session on Planned Unit Development Tools: Mr. Conner introduced consultants Sharon Murray of Front Porch Community Planning & Design and Mark Kane of SE Group. Ms. Murray thanked Mr. Conner and City Counselor/State Senator Riehle for helping to get the 8-year planning cycle passed by the State Legislature. Ms. Murray noted that the deadline for the grant under which they are working is the end of the month. She said they have reviewed the LDRs, Form Based Code, reports from committees (e.g., housing), and identified alternative regulatory tools and approaches. Mr. Conner noted that staff is putting together a large chart of how everything fits together. He also noted there are other funding sources to tie into this, so there will be more done after this grant expires. Ms. Murray then reviewed the history of PUDs and noted they were a creative response to conventional zoning. They allowed for more flexible, planned communities with mixed uses. They also allowed more community involvement and provided incentives for development the city desired. Regulations for PUDs must provide: more standards of review, a statement of purpose, the review process to be used, application requirements, standards of review (e.g., uses, density, design), and standards of infrastructure, amenities, and impact fees. These can be mandatory or incentive based. In South Burlington, PUDs are tied in to zoning districts and are more of a waiver tool than a design tool. Ms. Murray noted where PUDs are allow in the city and where they are prohibited: a. Must have 10 or more acres b. Allowed in R-1 (R1-PRD, R-1 Lakeshore, R-1 Lakeview) c. Allowed in R-2 d. Required in R-12 e. Encouraged in C-1 f. Required in: Airport District; I-O, Institutional Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, and Southeast Quadrant Ms. Murray suggested using PUDs as a design tool and to define different types of PUDs based on the design type. She also suggested applying PUDs as “floating zones” in relation to development context triggered by location and type of a development. Each type of PUD would have standards that modify or superseded the underlying zoning and subdivision standards (e.g., uses, densities, forms, etc.). Ms. Murray then identified 4 types of PUDs as follows: a. Rural (low density, might make sense near Chittenden Cider Mill) b. Suburban c. Urban/Mixed Use d. Transitional One type of PUD would be a Campus/Office Park which creates a unified pattern within a site and can have shared facilities (e.g., parking). Mr. Kane showed a photo of Technology Park. Mr. Conner noted that there are interests of the property owner that line p with the city interests (e.g., park atmosphere), but the tools don’t line up very well. Mr. Kane showed a picture of the Tilley Drive Campus and cited the importance of connection to resources, especially transit. Another type of PUD would be the Traditional Neighborhood Development which is characterized by walkability, high density, more residential then commercial development, interconnected streets, transit/bike/ connections. Pictures of South Village illustrated this. Neighborhood Center Development would feature a commercial node that can be within a certain distance from an intersection. The Farrell Street/Gateway development is an example of this. It is on a transportation route and features a commercial center. It is mostly residential with some office space. Transit Oriented Development features a transit station as its focal point (Ms. Murray noted this is a CCTA priority). It has reduced parking requirements and is generally a good place for senior and affordable housing. Mr. Conner noted the city has a transit overlay district and there are certain uses that can only be placed there (e.g., senior housing, medical facilities). There can be a requirement for shared parking and a TDM program. Mr. Kane noted that some of the requirements can be used as “carrots.” Infill Development tries to replicate/upgrade a current pattern in an already developed area. There are often encumbrances that make them difficult to develop. Mr. Kane showed a picture of the Hayes Apartments on Hinesburg Road and Kirby Cottages. This can also apply to converting old shopping malls to turn them into something more modern and interesting. But they are often hard to design. Mr. Kane showed a photo of UMall. Ms. Murray then outlined some things for the Commission to consider: a. Types of PUDs b. Use/application (size, context) c. Standards (master Plan, Mandates/incentives, design elements) d. Review process (public involvement) Ms. Murray said the Commission should select one type of PUD for her to develop more fully. She said her choice would be the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) though the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) would also be a good choice. Mr. Conner noted that both the O’Brien and Hill properties have elements of both. Mr. Klugo liked the idea of PUDs as a design tool, not a waiver tool. Mr. Conner added it would take the pressure off always having to look at waivers for large setbacks, parking standards, etc. He also noted that the biggest things the city will be looking at in the next 12 months are the O’Brien, Hill and UMall developments. Ms. LaRose suggested members think of each option as a “recipe,” with each one having more of a certain element in it. That doesn’t mean that element will be missing in another option. Mr. Kane added there is also a time-scale issue. With the TND, you have pressures that are current and continuing; the TOD will define long-term development. He also noted that South Burlington is a community that is becoming a city, but it has a long agricultural history. In a poll, members selected the TND to develop more fully. Mr. Conner agreed to work with the consultants to see if both the TND and TOD can be done. 9. Other Business: a. Reconfirm street names: Black Dog Drive and Windswept Lane Ms. Quest moved to reconfirm street names Black Dog Drive and Windswept Lane. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 26 April 2016 : Mr. Riehle moved to approve the minutes of 26 April as presented. 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 10:05 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: May 10th 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 (6:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (6:10 pm) 4. Initial Review: request for amendments to Land Development Regulations related to parking in front of 3-unit and townhouse residential buildings in certain circumstances, Evan Langfeldt, O’Brien Brothers Realty (6:15 pm) Please see the attached request from Mr. Langfeldt and Mr. Gill of O’Brien Brothers Realty. Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s policy, a request for a zoning amendment will be heard by the Commission as soon as possible for an initial review and slotting into one of three categories: amendment to be considered in the short term, amendment to be considered in the longer term or coordinated with another project, or amendment not to be further considered. A copy of the policy is attached. Staff encourages the Commission to hear the request and then to make an initial determination regarding where such a request falls into the Commission’s priority list for consideration. Given the Commission’s emphasis on pedestrian-focused environments, staff would recommend that any change, especially the elements of the recommendations that are most broad-reaching, be carefully considered for impacts and implications prior to action being taken. 5. Presentation and discussion of multi-site sidewalk / recreation path scoping studies for Airport Parkway, Allen Road, Dorset Street, and Spear Street Jughandle, Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works (6:40 pm) Enclosed please find a cover memo and assessment of alternatives for four bicycle / pedestrian projects that the City had requested be advanced for scoping through the 2 CCRPC. No action is required at this meeting other than to acknowledge presentation of the alternatives; feedback on the alternatives is welcome, however. 6. Discussion opportunities for collaboration on 2016-2017 work plans with Bicycle- Pedestrian Committee (7:00 pm) Similarly to the Commission recent meeting with Natural Resources Committee and the Recreation-Leisure Arts Committee, this is an opportunity to discuss potential collaborative efforts with Bike Ped. The Committee has prepared responses to the Commission’s questions; those are included. 7. Discussion opportunities for collaboration on 2016-2017 work plans with Energy Committee (7:30 pm) Similarly to the Commission recent meeting with Natural Resources Committee and the Recreation-Leisure Arts Committee, this is an opportunity to discuss potential collaborative efforts with Energy. The Committee has prepared responses to the Commission’s questions; those are included. 8. Work session on Planned Unit Development tools, Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design (8:10 pm) A follow-up to the Commission’s meeting with Ms. Murray last month to discuss the tools of Planned Unit Development, the Commission’s priorities, and possible alternative approaches. See enclosed materials. More to be provided at the meeting as well. 9. Other business (8:55 pm) a. Reconfirm street names: Black Dog Drive and Windswept Lane There has been some confusion about what the names of these two roadways are. Staff recommends and supports that the Commission affirm that the names are as they are presented in the attached memo. 10. Minutes (8:58 pm) Draft minutes from April 26 are enclosed. 11. Adjourn (9:00 pm)   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. 1 Public Information Meeting Toole Design Group (TDG) was retained by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to study pedestrian and bicycle improvements in South Burlington, VT at the four (4) study locations identified below; 1. Allen Road from Spear Street to the existing shared-use path terminus east of Baycrest Drive; 2. Dorset Street shared-use path from Old Cross Road to the existing shared-use path north of Autumn Hill Road; 3. Airport Parkway from Kirby Road to Lime Kiln Bridge; and 4. Spear Street Jug Handle from US Route 2 to the existing South Burlington shared-use path south of Davis Road. The focus of this feasibility study is to identify requirements associated with pedestrian and bicycle improvements at each of the study locations. TDG has developed base mapping based on available data sources and has conducted extensive field investigations to identify opportunities and constraints. The purpose of the public information meeting is to present the concept alternatives in order to get input and feedback from the public. The comments received will be incorporated into preparing a preferred concept alternative which will also include, an opinion of probable construction costs and an evaluation matrix. Project: South Burlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study Date: May 10, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Planning Commission Questionnaire: Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee 1. What are the largest three projects the committee has worked on in the last year or plans to work on shortly? Please describe the goals, outcomes, and any lessons learned throughout the process. • In 2015 invited members of the public to share bike & pedestrian concerns throughout the 4 SB quadrants. The goal was to identify all of our recreation path, sidewalk, street crossing, and alternate commuter route improvement projects, and assist the city in helping move those projects forward. We are currently identifying priority projects for recommendation to the SB Capital Plan. • Surveyed all of the RRFB (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) installed at crosswalks throughout the city, and made recommendations to the Public Works Director on how they can be made safer for pedestrians. The Bike & Ped Committee published an article in The Other Paper regarding the RRFB’s. The committee found that many drivers and walkers do not understand the purpose of the beacons, and that lack of attention from drivers to these beacons can be hazardous to users. Public Works has recently upgraded many of these signals. • Continue to work to improve communications with the Dept of Public Works, the Planning Commission, the DRB, and to the public through The Other Paper. The goal is to create a better public understanding of the role of the Bike/Ped Committee, and to make South Burlington a better and safer place to walk and ride a bicycle (both on roads and on recreation paths and unpaved trails). The Bike and Pedestrian Committee has also traditionally reviewed developers plans and provided valuable feedback to them about locations for recreation paths and walking trails. We continue to offer this review and ask that the SB Planning and Zoning staff work with us to make sure this happens on a regular basis. 2. Are you familiar with the role of the Planning Commission? Have you read or participated in the drafting of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan? If so, can you highlight some of the goals, objectives, or strategies that interest you most? • Yes, particularly when reviewing areas of the Planning Commission’s duplication of effort with the Bike/Ped Committee’s work on the Comprehensive Plan. • A major Bike/Ped goal is to create interconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the city- especially to schools, parks, and public facilities and to encourage greater use of alternate forms of transportation. Wherever interconnectivity cannot be achieved by private development, we would like to see these connections undertaken by the city. • Members of the Bike & Ped Committee would like to see adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Official Map, as well as adoption of roadway standards that include specific sidewalk, recreation path, and minimum bike lane requirements. Planning Commission Questionnaire: Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee 3. Have you thought about, discussed, or planned for any changes in policy or regulation that you believe would help your mission or goals? • Yes, there are several areas where better policies and regulations would be beneficial. i. More integrated planning with the Capital Budget to complete prioritized bicycle and pedestrian oriented projects. ii. Adoption of street typologies throughout the city that include details about where bike & pedestrian facilities are required, and how they are to be built. iii. Standards for permanent bicycle racks in development projects. iv. Improved signage for bike routes. v. Improved striping of wider bicycle lanes (5’ minimum) for commuters on major city owned travel corridors. 4. If asked by the Planning Commission to assist and/or advise on some projects identified as priorities, would you be willing to do so? Yes. We already try to have at least one Bike/Ped Committee member attend Planning Commission meetings where issues of common interest are discussed. We welcome the opportunity to work together more closely. April 26, 2016 Prepared by Keith Epstein, SBEC chair, after discussion at April 7th SBEC meeting A. What are the largest three projects the committee has worked on in the last year or plans to work on shortly? Please describe the goals, outcomes, and any lessons learned throughout the process. All our projects are aligned with the Energy Committee’s mission, which is to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy in South Burlington. Local investments in energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy create economic benefits and improved environmental and human health. Climate change caused in large part by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (oil, coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc.) is creating economic and environmental damage around the world (see http://www.globalchange.gov and http://climate.nasa.gov). By taking action to integrate energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy into our municipal operations and planning, South Burlington is ensuring our survival and setting an example for communities in Vermont and beyond about how to responsibly address this global crisis while serving the present and future needs of our community. 1) We undertook a major electric and natural gas efficiency program for the municipal, school, and residential sectors organized around the Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) framework, which we call the South Burlington Energy Prize (SBEP). The SBEP is a temporary (2015 and 2016) narrowing of the Energy Committee’s mission to focus solely on projects that contribute to the Prize, and we plan to widen our focus to all efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy projects when the Prize concludes. a. Goal: Win the $5 million prize by: i. Uniting the community around a common goal that benefits us all: Reducing nonrenewable energy use ii. Building community awareness of energy and motivating people to take action on energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy iii. Implementing municipal policies and regulations that drive energy efficiency, conservation, and renewables iv. Involving a large number of stakeholders, to have a broad reach and strong community ownership b. Outcomes: The competition is still ongoing (through 2015 and 2016) i. We have created a wide-reaching community conversation around energy efficiency and conservation, and helped to implement policies that will drive continued efficiency (municipal energy efficiency policy, citywide stretch energy codes, school curriculum, municipal facility upgrades, etc.) c. Lessons Learned i. Energy efficiency (and energy in general) is foreign to most people. ii. Changing energy consumption habits is difficult. iii. Financial payback of energy efficiency is important, but it is not sufficient alone to motivate people to take action on energy efficiency. iv. Energy efficiency affects everyone, so people are excited to learn about it and partner with us to promote efficiency in South Burlington. 2) Build a photovoltaic (solar electric) array on the City-owned closed landfill on Patchen Road. a. Goals i. Generate solar energy for the city and school ii. Utilize land that cannot be used for another purpose iii. Create an economic benefit for the city b. Outcomes i. The solar array is being designed and permitted presently, with scheduled operation by the end of 2016. ii. The city and school will share the energy production. iii. There is little to no financial risk for the city or school. iv. The city, and therefore residents, will see multi-million-dollar savings on electricity bills over the life of the project. c. Lessons Learned i. Contract negotiation takes a lot of time and effort. ii. Different solar providers offer different terms and are willing to take on different risks. iii. The city’s solar developer partner, Encore Redevelopment, is very patient and skilled at navigating the solar development process. 3) We advocated and will continue to advocate for energy-efficient buildings and solar on existing structures through the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. We advocate for planning of development that takes into account the necessary transition in energy use to achieve a low-carbon economy. a. Goals i. Require all new construction in South Burlington to be highly energy efficient. Requiring stretch energy codes is one method. ii. Require all new construction to have solar ready roofs where feasible. b. Outcomes i. Newest Comprehensive Plan addresses energy much better than the previous plans have. ii. Newest Land Development Regulations require all new construction to meet stretch energy codes. c. Lessons Learned i. Collaborative information sharing and discussion works well to accomplish goals. The information session on stretch energy codes with experts from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), Department of Public Service, and Hinesburg Planning educated the Planning Commission, members of the public, and developers about stretch energy codes, while giving everyone a chance to share their opinions and concerns. ii. Solar ready roofs is a much more difficult challenge to implement than stretch energy codes, both from a technical standpoint and from a design control perspective. iii. There is a lot of inertia to keep doing things the way we have been doing them. B. Are you familiar with the role of the Planning Commission? Have you read or participated in the drafting of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan? If so, can you highlight some of the goals, objectives, or strategies that interest you most? Yes we are familiar with the role of the Planning Commission. Yes, we participated in the drafting and revising of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, both as a committee and as individuals. What interests us primarily are the energy goals, objectives, strategies. However, there are many goals, objectives, and strategies that are not in the energy section, but relate to and influence the energy consumption of South Burlington. For example, development patterns influence transportation choices, which affect vehicle fuel usage. People who work, eat, shop, and play close to home are more likely to choose a low-energy form of transportation like walking, biking, or public transportation than those who are forced to live far away from activities. C. Have you thought about, discussed, or planned for any changes in policy or regulation that you believe would help your mission or goals? Yes, we made quite a few suggestions on the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Many were integrated, including the citywide stretch energy code requirement. There is much more to be done, including planning and implementing the transition to a low- energy transportation future. This future includes significantly fewer single-occupancy vehicle trips and much more public transportation, walking, and bicycling. Benefits include, but are not limited to, a more connected community, healthier people, less noise and air pollution, less money spent out of city, state, and country for fuel, and less road maintenance. We want more building-mounted solar electric generation in South Burlington, which means that roof designs need to change. New construction that is not solar ready is a missed opportunity. For example, the new buildings on Market St. at Hinesburg Road have gable roofs that pose a significant obstacle to roof-mounted solar. With some simple changes that likely would cost less than the as-built configuration, the buildings could have an ideal roof for solar panels, thus allowing the building owner to install solar panels. As more building-mounted solar electric generation is installed in South Burlington, less land needs to be occupied for energy generation as we transition to Vermont’s important goal of 90% renewable energy by 2050. D. If asked by the Planning Commission to assist and/or advise on some projects identified as priorities, would you be willing to do so? Yes, definitely. We are looking forward to expanded opportunities for comprehensive energy planning discussion and collaboration, motivated by S.230. 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: PUD/Master Planning Project May 10th Sharon Murray of Front Porch Community Planning and Design will be joining you on May 10th to follow up on the April meeting. Sharon intends to step back and give a more detailed overview of the tool that is a Planned Unit Development (PUD), discuss their potential uses under the LDRs as a design tool for land development, and discuss the various types of PUDS such that you may begin to consider their applicability in various development scenarios in South Burlington. Attached are some background materials that may help inform Tuesday’s discussion – including the PUD topic paper from DHCD’s Implementation Manual co-written by Sharon, a similar guide from Wisconsin that also discusses the “floating zone” application of PUDs, and a Planners Web article. These all focus on PUDs as a development/design tool (vs. a “waiver” tool). Also attached is an initial, annotated list of PUD types for PC discussion. Mark Kane from SE Group, a sub-consultant on the project, will also put together some graphics to help illustrate at least some of these, as they might apply in South Burlington. This initial list is intended to be a broad outline and we are hopeful for suggestive feedback. Staff will also be prepared to offer suggestions on more specific or appropriate language, use, and context. Initial PC Discussion List: Planned Unit Development Types Rural  Conservation/Open Space Intent: to preserve large tracts of open space, including critical resource areas, while allowing for compatible, clustered residential development. May also accommodate the transfer of development rights through the set aside of open space “sending areas” under TDR programs. When tied to operating farms (e.g., South Village) these are sometimes referred to as “Agrihoods.”  Planned Agricultural Development Intent: to allow for more intensive farm-based agricultural or rural enterprise development that supports agricultural operations, including storage and processing facilities, retail sales (markets), agritourism (tours, events, tastings, farm-to-table dining), agricultural education, etc. — for example, vineyards and wineries. Suburban  Planned Residential Development Intent: to allow for more creative residential subdivision layout and design in relation to context (setting, topography, neighborhood). May also be used to provide incentives (e.g., density bonuses) for the development of affordable or cottage housing, multi- family housing, energy efficient housing, solar-ready or group net-metered subdivisions, universal architectural design, etc.  Campus/Park Development Intent: to create an attractive, unified and integrated form of campus or “park-like” development consisting of multiple buildings and facilities connected by walkways or paths, served by shared common areas, parking facilities, transit stops, access roads and infrastructure—e.g., industrial, tech or office parks; educational or other institutional campuses. May also include residential uses (e.g., employee, student housing). Urban/Mixed Use  Traditional Neighborhood Design/Development Intent: to allow for higher density, walkable, mixed use (primarily residential) neighborhood development—typically within a defined “pedestrian shed” (¼ mile radius) –to include a variety of housing types, civic uses/space, and often a small core of neighborhood commercial.  Neighborhood Center Development Intent: Similar to traditional neighborhood development – to create higher density, walkable, mixed use development, including some residential and civic space, that focuses more on commercial development –e.g., commercial “nodes” at road intersections that serve surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., within a ¼ to ½ mile radius).  Transit-Oriented Design/Development Intent: to establish higher density, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods served by public transit (e.g., bus, light rail), located within ¼ mile of existing or planned transit stops. Typically includes reduced and shared parking requirements in association with other forms of transportation demand management. Transitional  Infill Development Intent: to accommodate compatible or complementary forms of infill development which are fully integrated with adjoining neighborhoods and uses. Often also used to promote walkable, higher density, mixed use forms of development (as noted above) in areas undergoing transition.  Adaptive Reuse/Retrofit/Redevelopment Intent: to accommodate the adaptive reuse, retrofit and/or redevelopment of previously developed, underused properties with vested interests (and other development restrictions)—e.g., shopping malls and commercial strips—that typically also have an overabundance of surface parking. The intent of “greyfield development” is to transform these areas into integrated, walkable, mixed or multi-use pedestrian- and transit-friendly neighborhoods or destinations. S. Murray | Front Porch Community Planning & Design May 10, 2016 Implementation Manual •Planned Unit Development •2007 •www.vpic.info VERMONT LAND USE EDUCATION & TRAINING COLLABORATIVE 22-1 Overview Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a tool municipalities use to en- courage or require flexibility, creativ- ity, and innovation in the planning and design of development to achieve a variety of objectives. The PUD concept emerged in the 1960s as a means to accommodate the planning and development of “new communi- ties” that included a variety of uses, densities, and building styles. Zoning at the time typically featured single uses at uniform densities, and subdivi- sion regulations resulted in the cre- ation of large numbers of identical lots. The variety and interest envi- sioned for new, planned communities did not fit well within conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. Under the PUD concept, a munici- pality can provide for planned devel- opment that incorporates a variety of uses, including a mix of housing types, such as garden apartments, townhouses, and single-family homes, as well as other uses that might not otherwise be allowed under zoning. PUDs can also be used to encourage or require clustered development and are increasingly used in more rural settings to protect farmland and open space. Application Chapter 117 (§4417) encourages the adoption and use of PUD provi- sions under local zoning and subdivi- sion regulations for a variety of purposes, for example to promote: • compact, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development, especially in downtowns, villages, and new town centers; • affordable housing; • open space preservation and project compatibility with surrounding rural lands; • flexibility in lot layout and site design, including the placement and design of buildings, parking and cir- culation, open areas, and related design considerations that will “best achieve the goals of the area as ar- ticulated in the municipal plan and bylaws” for a particular site and its surroundings; • the efficient use of public facilities and infrastructure; and • energy-efficient forms of develop- ment. PUD regulations must conform to the municipal plan, and individual PUD projects must promote policies and objectives set forth in the munici- pal plan. Given their broad application, the use of PUDs and associated stan- dards vary by municipality and often New Communities In the mid-twentieth century, some very large developments, with thousands of individual dwellings, were constructed in the United States. It soon became apparent that such developments required a variety of support services, including schools, public facilities, parks, com- mercial centers, and places of em- ployment. The PUD concept emerged as a means of accommo- dating well-planned mixed-use de- velopment, without simply allowing all uses everywhere. Early PUDs were primarily residential, but the concept has matured and is now used for a wide range of develop- ment types. Statutory Authorization:24 V.S.A., §4417 / Type:REGULATORY Related Topic Areas:Capital Improvement Program; Growth Centers; Housing Regulations; Impact Fees; Land Use & Development Regulations; Open Space & Resource Protection Regulations; Public Trans- portation; Subdivision Regulations; Transfer of Developmeont Rights; Zoning Regulations PUDs can be crafted to encourage creative design for compact, mixed-use neigh- borhoods, where private homes and public amenities are part of a single master plan. Flexible standards and density bonuses are typically used to reward devel- opers for providing public benefits. Planned Unit Development 22 Implementation Manual •Planned Unit Development •2007 •www.vpic.info VERMONT LAND USE EDUCATION & TRAINING COLLABORATIVE 22-2 for different areas within a single community. For instance, a PUD in a rural district may focus on clustered design, open space protection, and an overall low density of residential de- velopment, while a PUD in a village district may emphasize a mix of uses, a variety of housing types, pedestrian amenities, and moderate to high den- sities of development. Generally speaking, there are three types of PUDs: Residential PUDs. Planned resi- dential developments, or PRDs, are no longer separately authorized under Chapter 117 but are still allowed as a type of PUD that includes primarily residential uses. In rural districts, PRDs are often used to encourage or require limited, clustered, low-density residential development, while em- phasizing the protection of important natural features and resource lands identified in the municipal plan. (See topic paper, Open Space & Resource Regulations. ) In more urban or village settings, residential PUD stan- dards may allow a mix of housing types and promote a more pedestrian- oriented neighborhood design that in- corporates moderate to high densities of development, street trees, side- walks, and parks. Nonresidential PUDs. Similarly, a municipality may identify certain limited areas or situations for PUDs that include only nonresidential uses, for example, regional commercial centers or industrial parks. In the former, PUD provisions may empha- size compact layout and design, a pedestrian scale of development, urban streetscapes with pedestrian amenities, high-quality landscaping, and shared, unobtrusive parking areas. In the latter, PUD standards could be used to promote a more “campus” style of development with consistent design elements, landscaping, dis- persed parking and loading facilities, public transit facilities, employee amenities such as recreational and day-care facilities, and buffering and screening to minimize physical and visual impacts to neighboring proper- ties and uses. Mixed-use PUDs. Perhaps the most common use of PUDs is to promote, or require, an integrated mix of residential and nonresidential uses at moderate to higher densities of de- velopment, as are found in traditional town and village centers, new town centers, and other designated growth centers. Depending on the vision set forth in the municipal plan, the standards for mixed-use PUDs may emphasize the appropriate mix of uses, such as the siting, orientation, and design of buildings to ensure some privacy for residential uses and to create well- defined streetscapes and public spaces that incorporate pedestrian amenities, public transit facilities, and on- and off-street parking. In some cases, municipalities have created or used PUD provisions for very specific purposes, such as Shel- burne’s “Rural Mixed Use PUD,” which accommodates the unique re- quirements of Shelburne Farms, Stowe’s “Resort PUD” provisions for ski areas and other large resorts, and Middlebury’s use of PUD standards to manage the development of Mid- dlebury College holdings. Under Chapter 117, PUD regula- tions must include the following: •A statement of purpose, in confor- mance with the purposes of the municipal plan and regulations. •Review process(es), to be used in re- viewing the planned unit develop- ment, which may include conditional use review, subdivision review, or both, as specified in the regulations. The timing and se- quence of applicable reviews also must be specified in the regulations. •Application Requirements, including design specifications as included or referenced in the regulations. •Standards for the review of proposed planned unit developments, which may vary the intensity or density of development under the regulations with respect to site location and physical characteristics; the pro- posed type, design, and use of lots and structures; and the amount, lo- cation, and proposed use of open space. Standards must also cover re- quired public and nonpublic im- provements and incorporate adopted impact fee ordinances by reference. The phasing of develop- ment also may be required in accor- dance with municipal plan policies and an adopted capital budget and program. (See related topic papers.) PUD regulations may also include the following: •Modifications, including the authoriza- tion of uses, densities, and intensi- ties of development that are not otherwise allowed under the regula- tions—as long as the municipal plan includes policies that encourage mixed-use development, or develop- ment at higher overall densities than would normally be allowed, or both. •Open Space Standards, including stan- dards for the reservation or dedica- tion of common land or other open Importance of PUD Review Standards Many Vermont municipalities have included PUD (and/or PRD) provisions in their zoning bylaws, often with few associated standards or requirements. This leads to un- certainty on the part of developers and encourages conflict during the review process. Chapter 117 now requires clear standards that are consistent with municipal plan poli- cies and recommendations. PUD Options to Consider 24 V.S.A., §4417(b) Local bylaws may include PUD provisions that: • apply to single or multiple proper- ties, having one or more owners; • are limited to parcels that have a minimum area, or minimum size or number of units; • require PUDs for all new develop- ment within specified zoning dis- tricts, or for projects of a specified type or magnitude. Implementation Manual •Planned Unit Development •2007 •www.vpic.info VERMONT LAND USE EDUCATION & TRAINING COLLABORATIVE 22-3 space for the use or benefit of resi- dents of the proposed development. These standards must include provi- sions for determining the amount and location of common land or open space and for its improvement and long-term maintenance. Open space standards may allow for the dedication and municipal acceptance of land or interests in land for public use and maintenance; or require that the applicant provide for or establish an organization or trust for the long-term maintenance of common land and open space. One of the important features of the PUD enabling provision is that it authorizes municipalities to modify or waive zoning uses, densities, and in- tensities that would otherwise apply to a proposed development. Chapter 117, however, also requires PUD lan- guage to include clear standards for PUD review. It’s important that local regulations be very clear about the type and limits of modifications that can be approved; the reviewing body has discretion only within the bound- aries established in the regulations, which must, in turn, be based on the municipal plan. Considerations Statutory Provisions.PUD provi- sions can be used to encourage—or require—certain types of develop- ment, based on goals and objectives in the municipal plan. These can range from affordable housing to certain forms of development such as transit-oriented or traditional neigh- borhood design. The regulations must clearly spell out standards regarding these objectives. As noted above, Chapter 117 (§4417) includes a number of op- tional provisions that municipalities can incorporate in their PUD provi- sions. For instance, PUDs may be re- quired for developments of certain size or in specified zoning districts. In addition, municipalities may craft their bylaws to allow PUDs made up of multiple properties (which may or may not be contiguous) that are held by multiple owners. South Burlington and Charlotte have used the ability to include noncontiguous properties to facilitate the transfer of development rights from a remote parcel to a more developable parcel as a part of the PUD approval process. Incentives.PUD provisions are often intended to convey benefits to developers in the form of higher den- sities, lower development costs, and reduced infrastructure costs. However, those benefits must be bal- anced by some public benefit that achieves goals or objectives set forth in the municipal plan. The regulations should make it very clear what must be provided to qualify as a PUD before benefits can be realized. The use of density bonuses is a common feature of PUDs and can be effective in achieving affordable housing objectives; Chapter 117 once set a cap of 50 percent on affordable housing density bonuses, but under recent amendments, this statutory limit no longer applies. The regula- tions, however, must clarify what types of housing qualify and the con- nections between the amount of af- fordable housing provided and the amount of density bonuses to be granted. (See topic paper, Housing Regulations.) Density bonuses can also be used as incentives to encour- age the dedication of open space or public facilities such as parks or recre- ation trails. Impacts.PUDs often, by their nature, are larger than other develop- ments in a community and may gener- ate substantial demands on public facilities such as roads, schools, li- braries, water and sewer systems, public safety facilities, and parks. It’s The town of Warren adopted use and design standards for “Crossroad Hamlet” PRDs that apply to residential subdivisions in rural residential districts and are intended to maintain traditional rural settlement patterns. This illustration of a crossroad hamlet is used in the bylaw to show how development can be con- centrated around a crossroads and conserve important resource lands. See topic paper, Open Space & Resource Protection Regulations for more information. Illustration from the Warren Land Use and Development Regulations Implementation Manual •Planned Unit Development •2007 •www.vpic.info VERMONT LAND USE EDUCATION & TRAINING COLLABORATIVE 22-4 therefore important for local PUD review to include determinations that increased demand can be satisfied by existing or planned facilities, for example, as scheduled in the commu- nity’s capital improvement program. Municipalities may also include provi- sions to phase or limit the rate of build-out of PUDs to ensure that the capacity to provide municipal services is available when the development is occupied (see related topic papers). Larger PUDs, particularly commercial and mixed-use PUDs, may also have substantial impacts on surrounding areas. Where PUDs are expected in or near community centers, it’s important for the PUD regulations to include a brief vision or description of the type and density of development anticipated. This can then be translated into specific standards to be used by the reviewing body when approving pro- posed PUDs. Coordination of Review. PUDs are often relatively complex develop- ments that require more than one local approval. Under Chapter, 117 PUD regulations can be applied in as- sociation with subdivision or condi- tional use review, but depending on the types of use or location, site plan approval or even a variance may be required. As noted, under Chapter 117 (§4417), municipalities must specify in their regulations just how multiple reviews will be consolidated or sequenced to streamline the review process. Typically, PUD review is incorpo- rated within or conducted concur- rently with subdivision review—or with conditional use review if no sub- division review is required under local regulations. Conditional use, site plan, or variance review also can be com- bined under final subdivision review—given similar public notice and hearing requirements—for uses that require these approvals. If site plan, conditional use, or variance ap- provals cannot be granted simultane- ously with PUD approval, it may make sense to require such approvals before getting too far into the details of development under advanced stages of PUD review. Vermont communities have the ability to further a wide range of de- velopment objectives through the use of PUD regulations. PUD regulations that are carefully crafted and applied can have many benefits for both the community and local landowners and developers. The challenge is to capture this potential. There are many examples of local PUD regulations available online. Access to municipal websites and local bylaws can be found through www.vpic.info, or contact your regional planning commission for assistance. PUDs are normally used to shift the permitted density from one portion of a property to a smaller area to enable more efficient and concentrated development on a single parcel of land. In Vermont, PUDs can also be used to transfer density from one property to another. Such provisions, if specified in the bylaw, would allow the transfer of development rights from land the community hopes to conserve (sending areas) to land in growth centers (receiving areas), where higher- density development can be used to achieve multiple community goals. Planning Implementation Tools Planned Unit Development The term Planned Unit Development (PUD) is used to describe a type of development and the regulatory process that permits a developer to meet overall community density and land use goals without being bound by existing zoning requirements. PUD is a special type of fl oating overlay district which generally does not appear on the municipal zoning map until a designation is requested. This is applied at the time a project is approved and may include provisions to encourage clustering of buildings, designation of common open space, and incorporation of a variety of building types and mixed land uses. A PUD is planned and built as a unit thus fi xing the type and location of uses and buildings over the entire project. Potential benefi ts of a PUD include more effi cient site design, preservation of amenities such as open space, lower costs for street construction and utility extension for the developer and lower maintenance costs for the municipality. Urban Redevelopment Redesigns for older urban areas face many challenges. Traditional zoning does not have the fl exibility to address the need for mixed uses for buildings, changes in building setbacks, non- motorized transportation, environmental protection and possible brownfi eld regulations all within a confi ned space. The area for redevelopment is planned all at once so land uses complement each other. Using a PUD allows for innovative uses of spaces and structures to achieve planning goals. Figure 1. Plan and photographs of Harbor Park, Kenosha. Potential Uses Traditional Neighborhood Design Preserve openspace Brownfi eld redevelopment Urban infi ll and redevelopment Mixed use development ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Center for Land Use Education November 2005www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/ TOOL DESCRIPTION COMMON USES CREATION Any municipality with zoning authority is able to establish ordinances for PUDs. The municipality must have adopted zoning and subdivision ordinances and should have a comprehensive plan. While a PUD allows for fl exible project design, standards are needed to protect public health and safety and to assure design quality and conformance to an overall plan. Some examples of standards or criteria to be included in PUD regulations include: Areas where PUDs are allowed Developer provision of land and capital improvements for public uses. Dimensions and grading of parcels and a ceiling on the total number of structures permitted in the development. Permissible land uses Population density limits. Amendment procedures. Schedule of development and assurance of completion. Preservation of architectural, scenic, historic, or natural features of the area. The PUD ordinance should clearly spell out the review process, opportunities for public involvement, and procedural guidelines. Besides these standards, the community’s comprehensive plan should provide the overall context within which the proposed development needs to fi t. ADMINISTRATION There are four general steps to developing a PUD: Pre-application conference The developer consults with planning staff for ordinance and process clarifi cation and discusses initial project plans. Site plan review The site plan review consists of a detailed site analysis of existing features, often an on-site walkabout, and a discussion about project goals and possible design solutions. Preliminary development plan The plan includes specifi c documents and maps giving a legal description of the project, a detailed site plan and supporting maps. The plan commission holds a public hearing at which the developer presents the PUD proposal and the planning recommendations are made available for public review. Final development plan The fi nal plan contains the detailed engineering drawings of the entire site and process for completion of the project. The entire site plan for the PUD will be reviewed as a single entity. The plan commission would, at this time, approve recording the plat. • • • • • • • • 1. 2. 3. 4. IMPLEMENTATION What is a fl oating zone? A fl oating zone is similar to a conventional zone in that it describes the permitted uses, setback requirements, and other standards to be applied in the zone. Unlike conventional zoning districts, however, the fl oating zone is not designated on the zoning map. Once enacted into law it “fl oats over” of is available for use in any designated area in the ordinance. When an application for its use is approved, it is affi xed to a particular parcel through an amendment to the zoning map. Report Card: Planned Unit Development Cost Money or staff resources required to implement tool. B The developer usually pays all project costs. Staff time or a paid consultant will be needed to create the ordinance and for project review. Public Acceptance The public’s positive or negative perception of the tool. B Generally accepted if public has input to design of the ordinance and possible issues are addressed. When a PUD is proposed, the public will need to be brought in early in the project so they have time to clearly understand the project and have concerns addressed prior to the fi nal public hearing. Misunderstandings could result in costly delays and even rejection of a project. Political Acceptance Politician’s willingness to implement tool. A Politicians generally accept this as it is market and developer driven. If the public accepts the plan, politicians will also. Equity Fairness to stakeholders regarding who incurs costs and consequences. B PUDs are perceived as fair because the developer pays for all project costs. Concerns arise when the project receives a public subsidy or results in additional long-term costs for the municipality. There could be a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods if the project is not designed properly. Administration Level of complexity to manage, maintain, enforce, and monitor the tool. B The ordinance may be slightly harder to create and a PUD proposal may involve additional meetings as compared to a standard subdivision project. Scale The geographic scale at which tool is best implemented. Municipal to County This tool works for both urban and rural projects. Towns have used this tool when approving a golf course and surrounding development. GRADING EXPLANATION A - Excellent B - Above Average C - Average D - Below Average F - Failing Comments and grades were derived from a Delphi process conducted with practicing planners and educators in 2005 South Pier District, City of Sheboygan The 42-acre brownfi eld site, at the convergence of the Sheboygan River and Lake Michigan was previously used for storage of coal, salt, fertilizer, and petroleum. The land was critical to the economy of Sheboygan as it was the last signifi cant piece of municipal land on the city’s waterfront that remained available for development. After receiving a considerable amount of public input, concept plan design guidelines were created for the mixed-use development (i.e., family resort development, riverfront promenade, lakefront eco park and trails, retail and offi ce development, live/work development, etc.) and construction started. Harbor Park, Kenosha Harbor Park is a 69 acre redevelopment site in downtown Kenosha bounded by downtown Kenosha, Lake Michigan, and the Southport Marina. The project will transform former industrial land into public gathering places, a promenade, visitor attractions, and a residential neighborhood. Goals of the project include creation of a new community civic and cultural focal point, generation of year-round activity to bring people to the downtown area, establishment of a new residential neighborhood and the creation of a family-oriented destination as well as new economic development opportunities. FOR MORE INFORMATION McMaster, Mary (n.d.) Planned Unit Developments. Planners Web Article 490 available at http://www.plannersweb.com/wfi les/w490.html Armstrong, Melissa et al (1992). Community Planning Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Guiding Community Change. Michigan Society of Planning Offi cials, Rochester, MI. Zoning, adapted by Kevin Struck. http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/pubs.html ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Document prepared by Douglas Miskowiak and Linda Stoll, 2006. CLUE gratefully acknowledges all external reviewers. Design and layout by Robert Newby. Figure 1 and photos provided by the City of Kenosha. Figure 2 and photo provided by the City of Sheboygan. This document is part of CLUE’s collaboration with the USDA, NRCS, GEM, and UWEX, entitled, “Partnership for Community Planning – Models for Land Use Education, Planning, and Management.” Figure 2. South Pier District, City of Sheboygan. WISCONSIN EXAMPLES Center for Land Use Education SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 APRIL 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, J. Kochman, B. Milizia, M. Cuke, R. Agne, D. Leban 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. MacDonald: asked if the bill regarding siting of energy-related projects is still in deliberation. Mr. Conner said he thought there is likely to be a summer study committee, and said he’d get back to the Commission as he hadn’t followed that bill as closely as others. The Legislature was still taking testimony a week ago. Mr. Riehle: noted that Chris Shaw sent the Council Chair and City Manager a piece written by Tony Redington in response to the Chittenden County Transportation Plan. The premise is that roundabouts are safer for bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Redington was critical of the Plan and felt their priority was vehicle-oriented and less about pedestrian safety. Ms. Louisos: will be a presenter at the Resilience Vermont conference at the end of May. Mr. Conner: at the next Commission meeting, 10 May, members of the Bike/Ped Committee and Energy Committee will be present. The Secretary of State hosted Public Service awards for those who have given 20 years of more of service to the community. Former Commission members Marcel Beaudin and Bill Wessel were honored, as was long-standing minute taker Sue Alenick. This Thursday, there will be a Chamberlin neighborhood workshop to present thoughts from the Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee. 2 Mr. Conner testified on House Bill 367 regarding changing the approval period on Comprehensive Plans. The Senate passed a bill allowing for an 8 year period instead of the present 5, with a check-in at 4 years. The thought is to allow more time for implementation. The city got unanimous approval and some excellent comments on the expansion of the New Town Center and Neighborhood Development Area from the Vermont Downtown Board. There is a list of projects likely to be funded by Regional Planning. South Burlington got ~$270,000 worth of projects, but not all of the projects that were submitted. What was funded were the following: Phase 2 Kimball/Kennedy Drive; the overhaul of the traffic overlay district; updates to the traffic impact fees; Phase 2 Williston Road study, linking of traffic lights on Williston Road and Dorset Street; and half (scoping) of the bike bridge (with the remainder to be funded in the following year). What were not funded were: PUD tools, multi-site bike/ped, a natural resources study, and updating the Form Based Code. 4. Public Hearing on potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations and possible warning of public hearing of same: a. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial/industrial districts b. Merger of similar use categories (e.g., retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability c. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC d. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Mr. MacDonald moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Kochman expressed concern with preserving views. She also noted that in the Open Space Report there are recommended numbers of parks per 1000 residents and parks within walking distance of all neighborhoods. She didn’t know if this was in the LDRs or can be put there. Mr. Conner then summarized the amendments and noted a few proposed changes to the draft amendments, based on legal counsel review. Other minor typos and definitions were also changed slightly; each recommended change was included and noted in the draft presented to the Commission in their packet for this meeting. He noted that some allowable/non-allowable uses in the Table of Uses within the Institutional- Agricultural don’t line up with the text of the same district. The ones around retail have been adjusted to be consistent with one another; others will be corrected in the next round of amendments. Also cleaned up was the parking table to eliminate uses that will no longer exist. 3 Another change involves parking standards and how a lot can have some parking in front of buildings. In this section, wording was corrected to clarify that the opening statement is a preamble. In addition, the prior draft had included a statement that the “goals” of this section are to be met, but goals were not included. The goals that must be met to allow for this are enumerated in this draft, based on the discussions held by the Commission. Mr. Conner also added that there was one line of text – a note within the Tale of Uses - that had been proposed to be removed from the current regulation by the Commission. The removal of that line had not been marked with a strike-through in the draft but was now shown in the correct drafting format. Members briefly discussed comments by resident Chris Shaw. Mr. Gagnon moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Review feedback provided on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations; discuss possible edits: It was noted that these items were discussed during the public hearing. 6. Possible approval of Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and Planning Commission Report and submittal to the City Council: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the draft amendments and Planning Commission Report as presented. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Conner noted that these amendments were tentatively placed on the City Council agenda for Monday’s meeting (2 May). 7. Discussion opportunities for collaboration on 2016-2017 work plans with Natural Resources Committee and Recreation-Leisure Arts Committee: Ms. Louisos said the Commission has no special agenda but wants to hear what the Committees are working on. Ms. Milizia noted the Natural Resources Committee just did some major projects including a park management plan, “score card,” and Open Space Plan. She felt this was a good time to look at what other committees are doing in other places. Ms. Milizia also noted that a person who used to be on the Natural Resources Committee and is now at UVM has been invited to speak to the Committee later in the year. There will also be new people joining the Committee as they have been merger with the Red Rocks Park Committee. 4 Ms. Kochman said they have reviewed their thinking on committee structure in response to the City Council looking for a “Public Lands Committee.” Ms. Milizia said it didn’t seem to them to be a “natural fit.” She also noted a very good meeting recently regarding the Wheeler property with a task force of members from various city committees and a consultant. She said it proved to her that this process can work. She said the next thing to look at is how to use the ½ cent from the Open Space Fund that the voters approved for maintenance. Mr. Conner noted that the Council has created that working group which will be comprised of 2 members each from the Natural Resources, Recreation/Leisure Arts, and Red Rocks Park Committees and up to 5 members at large who have an interest in and experience with natural resources planning/budgeting. Mr. Gagnon said one reason the Commission is having these meetings with other committees was concern that committees were working on things that other committees didn’t know about, and the Commission didn’t want people heading off in different directions. Mr. Gagnon also noted that with regard to scenic views, the city didn’t get funding for this, and the Commission felt if this was the case, they could go to the committees for help with that. Mr. Simoneau said they are already working on that. Mr. Conner said there are 2 pieces to that puzzle: identifying the views, and writing a defensible standard to conserve the views (considering what the community is looking to preserve within a view). Mr. Simoneau said a good thing about having a consultant is that there can be an outlined process. He thought maybe staff could do that. Mr. Conner said if there are volunteers in the community interested in doing “field work,” this could be a good thing for them. Committee members could provide oversight for that process. Ms. Milizia felt they could help recruit people. She didn’t want to see Natural Resources consumed by one project. She could see staff helping them to “get their heads around this.” Mr. Riehle felt it wasn’t that confusing. Take the pictures and get the pictures to the Planning Commission. He said there is a time concern as the Commission is trying to be proactive, and there is a lot of activity going on. Mr. Conner felt this was a 2-track process: top priority views and LDR language on those, and then identifying other places in the city with some kind of views. Ms. Louisos suggested that each committee come up with it “Top 5” views. Mr. Simoneau stressed the importance of establishing a credible process in order to get good results. 5 Mr. Gagnon noted there are some “open-ended” consultants available. He asked if anyone in that group has expertise in this area. Mr. Conner said staff has a firm in mind. Mr. Gagnon suggested the Commission define a scope of work for a consultant to come up with some criteria for view preservation. Mr. Conner said generally speaking an important view has 3 elements: a. Foreground (where height is important) b. Mid-ground (which has more to do with building design) c. Distance (concerns what is in the first 50 feet) Mr. Conner said each element has different things that are important. A matrix can be designed to help measure view with good elements to them. Then, when there is consensus, a consultant can be brought in to measure a point for preserving a view. He stressed that the narrower the scope, the easier it will be to get the job done. Mr. Riehle asked if there are “carrots” that can be offered to landowners for preserving views. Mr. Simoneau said there is “leverage” on both sides of the table. Ms. Leban noted that the Bike/Ped committee was asked a few years ago to document the best view from the bike path. She would try to look back and see how those were done. Mr. Conner said one thing of value could be some specific landscaping standards. He noted that “buildings don’t grow taller but trees do.” He felt if they could go back some years, different choices might have been made regarding tree types. He suggested the possibility of giving “Green-Uppers” a map with stickers and asking them to indicate their favorite views. Regarding recreation, Mr. Riehle asked if the city is lacking any facilities. Ms. Kochman said there aren’t enough field and tennis courts so they can be maintained. There is also need for programming space with little or no space for pre-schoolers and seniors (who don’t go out at night). Ms. Kochman noted her committee will be having a retreat in June regarding the needs for affordable space for people to go for recreation. Mr. Conner suggested starting to map out the needs city-wide and possibly mapping out what the city should look like in 100 years. Ms. Kochman said the “gap analysis” said the city will need 5 more acres of park land in the next 7 years. Mr. Conner also noted a need for “informal field space” for unorganized play. Ms. Kochman said a lot of things are waiting for the School Board to make a decision. The community was told that if a school was to be closed, it might be usable for recreation and/or community space. 6 Regarding open space, Ms. Louisos noted that in City Center there are specific open space requirements. She felt it makes sense to consider how to define open space city-wide. Ms. Kochman felt Sharon Murray did a great job of indicating what is appropriate for open space in various T-zones. Ms. Louisos asked if one of the committees would be interested in taking a stab at that and having it on their work plan. She also noted that tree standards have been mentioned, having road tree standards, spacing, etc. Ms. Milizia said this has to plan into other things, such as how a tree canopy affects environmental issues. Ms. Kochman felt that scenic views were a good place to start. Mr. Conner said utilizing “Green Uppers” is pretty low-tech. Ms. Milizia said they can put something on Front Porch Forum and in The Other Paper. Mr. Conner suggested the Commission might want to have views on another agenda. Ms. Kochman noted that she and Ms. Milizia would like to revise the “scenic inventory form.” Committee members supported that idea. 8. Minutes of 12 April 2016: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 12 April 2016 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: Mr. Conner suggested the Commission meet a little earlier for its next meeting as there is a large agenda. Members were OK with meeting at 6 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk