Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/13/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 JUNE 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 June 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; L. Krohn, CCRPC; J. Simson, M. Simoneau, S. Dooley, J. Slason, J. Leas 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Gagnon: He and Mr. MacDonald attended the meeting of committee chairs and vice chairs with staff and the City Council. Discussion focused on what each group is working on and the skills needed for the various committees. Mr. Conner: August 13 will be “volunteer night” at the Lake Monsters. All members are invited. Just attended the Airport Sound Committee meeting regarding noise compatibility. There will be different options other than buying/destroying homes. At 6 p.m. tomorrow, there will be a “kickoff” at the Airport. Community members can ask questions, provide feedback, etc. The FAA is being asked to speed up the new noise exposure maps. There is new data around models for the F-35. Whether that data can be used for the new noise exposure maps is being evaluated. The City’s new website will be launched next month. Mr. Conner described some features of the Planning Commission’s “page(s)”. Staff is closing in on the hire of a new development review planner person to replace Lindsey Britt. 5. Presentation of Proposed Housing Replacement Requirements in Land Development Regulations (LDRs): Mr. Simson introduced Affordable Housing Committee members Mike Simoneau and Sandra Dooley. Mr. Simson noted that the City of Burlington has had a housing replacement policy in place for many years. The South Burlington City Council wanted to move forward with a similar policy in order to preserve existing housing after the significant loss of housing in the Chamberlin neighborhood. They also want to prevent loss of housing due to conversion of homes to non-residential use. Ms. Ostby cited the importance of maintaining both affordable and moderately priced homes as well as the character of residential neighborhoods. She said the proposed policy seems to be giving only “affordable” options for a replacement home. Mr. Simson explained the nature of “affordability” and noted that it also has in mind people who work and still cannot afford a home. Ms. Dooley added that a family of 3 with a $100,000 a year income still falls into the range of qualifying for an “affordable” home. Mr. Simson said the new regulations would require replacement of a house torn down or converted to commercial use or the payment of $60,000 into the Housing Trust Fund. This would include homes in the Airport noise mitigation and compatibility program. Certain exemptions would apply as follows: a. Loss/change of use lasting less than a year (tearing down a home to build a larger one) b. Loss due to civil commotion, vandalism, national disaster beyond the owner’s control c. Loss of homes in zoning districts that no longer permit residential use d. Units in City Center, Form Based Code, I-O, I-C, and SW Districts e. Conversion of a duplex to a single family home f. Units in the Burlington International Airport demolition program pursuant to the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program l (all such contracts are enumerated) no later than 1/1/18 g. Accessory dwelling units There is a recommendation to make minor zoning boundary changes where this can preserve some residential use. Mr. Leas asked why the city doesn’t get more than $60,000 from developers who can afford it. Mr. Simson said the Committee felt that getting the money is not the purpose of the new regulations, and they did not want to create barriers in areas that the city has designated for commercial growth. Mr. Conner showed a map of an area where a house would be added to a residential district (Shunpike Road). He also showed a map of homes in the Airport area that are still eligible to be or have recently been purchased by the Airport or Ms. Ostlby suggested a provision where the land for Airport purchased/demolished homes become zoned for another use. Ms. Louisos felt that could create other issues. Mr. Simson said the committee feels that when noise mitigation is explored it may be possible to put some affordable housing into that area. Mr. Riehle said it is important to keep that land zoned “residential.” Mr. Leas felt Burlington should have to pay $60,000 each for the additional 39 homes if they are demolished as they could make a profit from the land if it becomes commercially zoned. Mr. Simson briefly reviewed the approval process. He noted the “piggy‐backing” is not allowed on an inclusionary zoning project. The housing provided must be new housing, either a new housing unit or the conversion of commercial use to housing (or payment of the $60,000). It is recommended that the city contract with Champlain Housing regarding administration of the program. Mr. Conner added that although a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is not usually required for a single family house, it would be required in this instance. Mr. Simson said the hope is the city would use the $60,000 contributions to the Housing Trust Fund to buy a parcel of land and have a developer build affordable homes without having to pay the high cost of the land. Ms. Louisos liked the fact that all replacement housing be affordable. Ms. Ostby noted that this would not be perpetual affordability. Mr. Simson said that was because there is not sufficient staff to administer “perpetual affordability.” Mr. Conner noted that extended stay hotels (e.g., Larkin Terrace) and congregate care facilities are not affected by this regulation. 6. Presentation of Initial Findings of Traffic Overlay District Update Study; Commission discussion: Mr. Conner introduced John Slason of Resource Systems Groups (RSG). Mr. Slason noted that their original focus was to be on the Traffic Overlay District itself, but they realized that broader thinking/discussion was needed. Mr. Slason explained that the current intent of the Overlay District (OD) is to preserve operational capacity and vehicle capacity on principal arteries. The OD looks at how large a parcel is and assigns a hard cap on the number of peak hour trip ends. The strength of this is its simplicity; its weakness is lack of flexibility. Mr. Conner gave an example on Williston Road which can limit land development because of trip numbers. Mr. Slason showed the OD map from the LDRs and noted that it affects Williston Rd, Hinesburg Rd., Kennedy Dr. and Shelburne Rd. Mr. Slason said the key goals of any policy should be: a. That redevelopment of land incorporates appropriate transportation infrastructure that meets the city’s multi‐modal and congestion objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan b. To allow for flexibility in the land uses that can occur within the city and specifically along the highest volume roads and to support Form Based Codes, where applicable c. To maintain sufficient vehicular capacity d. To maintain safety e. To be flexible enough to expand over time Mr. Slason showed a chart of an evaluation of existing transportation. He noted that there are both city criteria and Act 250 review criteria as well. The study outlines three options: #1 – Amend the existing overlay district (OD) #2 – Replace the OD and align with Vermont Transportation policy #3 – Develop more comprehensive standards. It was felt that option #1 is not the best option as it can inhibit development up to the level allowed by the zoning. Under options #2 and #3, the impact to the public is governed by the nature of the land use and the way the site can be configured to minimize its impact. The acceptable level of impact is agreed upon by the community for specific facilities, allowing for variation throughout the city. Trip credits could be allowed for incorporation of TDM measures in specific areas of the city. Option #3 would replace the OD with a “volume to capacity” ratio (a straightforward approach to allowing minor incremental land use changes). This would allow for geographic variations in congestion tolerance and credits for Traffic Demand Management (TDM). This approach does not now exist in the state. Mr. Slason said they strongly support Option #3, but it doesn’t align with state policy. Option #2 is a “close second” in that it allows more congestion in specific areas of the city. Option #1 would be dismissed as it does not meet specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The suggestion is to adopt a policy that allows the city to be ready when the State goes with Option #3. Mr. Slason then enumerated some things to consider: a. How quickly to make changes b. This is a phased approach which may meet some but not all goals c. What is the interest in “leading the State”? d. What policies can evolve as planning and thinking evolve? e. What land challenges are facing the city and do options enable the city to make appropriate decisions? f. What is the vision for the city and can these policies help unlock potential? Ms. Louisos cited the limitations because of “people driving by” and noted that the city can never build what it needs because of commuters. Mr. Conner noted that until it is “too expensive” to drive (e.g., lack of parking, too much traffic/delay, etc.), people will continue to drive.  Ms. Ostby suggested a “dedicated corridor” for commuters and a “park and ride” strategy. Mr. Krohn applauded the creative conversation. Mr. Conner asked the Commission to continue to consider this conversation when they have the “Tilley Drive conversation.” Mr. Slason suggested continuing to refine this approach, but not yet removing the Overlay district capability. Mr. MacDonald asked where CCTA (now Green Mountain Transit) come into this. He felt that a bus on Spear St. would relieve a lot of AM/PM traffic there. Mr. Conner said the conversation about new routes is happening. Something such as a bus pass could increase bus service as could park-and-rides which allow buses to get in and out quickly. 7. Review Commission Skills Matrix: Members suggested the following skills be considered for potential Commission membership: a. Time management b. Communication skills c. Younger members d. Another female e. Good community connection f. Architectural knowledge g. Business orientation Mr. Conner cited the diversity of the Commission in recent years. 8. Minutes of 23 May 2017: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 23 May as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business a. Public Hearing on Amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 27 June 2017, 6:45 p.m. No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. _________________________________ Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-1 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 18. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOUSING PRESERVATION STANDARDS 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning 18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus 18.03 Housing Preservation 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning A. Purpose. Inclusionary zoning to provide affordable and moderate income housing in the City Center Form Based Codes District of the City of South Burlington has been adopted pursuant to 24 VSA § 4414(7) for the following purposes: (1) To implement policies that support achievement of housing goals, objectives, and targets included in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as most recently amended; (2) To affirmatively address the current and anticipated need for affordable housing units among low- and moderate-income South Burlington households that pay more than 30% of their income on housing, as described in state law (24 VSA § 4303(1)); (3) To mitigate the impacts of market-rate housing development that is unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households on the cost and supply of land and infrastructure available for affordable housing development in the City Center Form Based Codes District; (4) To promote the integrated development of mixed-income housing in the City Center Form Based Codes District, including a range of housing options needed to strengthen, diversify, and contribute to the vitality of City Center and the South Burlington community; (5) To ensure that affordable housing opportunities are available in the City Center Form Based Codes District, which is or will be accessible to goods and services and served by existing or planned public transit services; (6) To ensure that affordable housing units developed under inclusionary zoning remain affordable. (7) To provide integrated development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of providing affordable housing units, including eliminating maximum residential densities, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements for residential units within the City Center Form Based Codes District. B. Applicability (1) Covered Development. Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply within the City Center Form Based Codes District to any development, including each phase of development, that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more dwelling units through subdivision, new construction, or the conversion of an existing structure or structures from nonresidential to residential use. For purposes of this requirement, two or more developments shall be aggregated and considered as one development subject to this section if: (a) The developments are located on abutting properties; and (b) The developments are owned or controlled by the same person; and (c) Either: ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-2 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (i) The developments will undergo subdivision, construction, or conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to residential use within the same five-year period, which period shall be measured from the date a proper and complete application is first submitted, or (ii) A master plan exists, as approved by the City, which includes two or more of the developments. (2) Exemptions. The following developments are exempt from these requirements: (a) Projects that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive residential use and occupancy of its students. (b) Institutional, group homes or group quarters housing, including long-term care facilities. (c) The redevelopment of existing dwelling units in a project that produces no additional units. C. Inclusionary Units (1) For covered development, at least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units offered for rent or sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income (AMI) adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the AMI adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 120% of the AMI adjusted for household size. (a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). (b) When the developer proposes to build at least 12 but fewer than 17 housing units, the requirement will be to include two (2) affordable dwelling units one of which shall be affordable to households whose incomes are no greater than 80% of AMI adjusted for household size and the other shall be affordable to households whose income is no greater than 100% of AMI adjusted for household size. (c) When the developer is required to build a number of affordable dwelling units that is not evenly divisible by three, the first “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at the 80% AMI level adjusted for household size and, where applicable, the second “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at 100% AMI level adjusted for household size. Example: The developer is required to build 13 affordable dwelling units. Four dwelling units must be affordable at the 80% of AMI adjusted for household size, four dwelling units must be affordable at the 100% of AMI adjusted for household size; four dwelling units must be affordable at the 120% of AMI adjusted for household size; and the “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at the 80% AMI adjusted for household size. (2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be: (a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off- Site Construction) of this Article, and integrated among market rate units in the development. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-3 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (b) Similar in architectural style and outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development. (i) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural design details used in market rate construction. Similar exterior amenities and landscaping shall also be provided. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units. (ii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard both to interior amenities and to gross floor area. The average (mean) gross floor area of all inclusionary units, however, shall not be less than 70% of the average (mean) gross floor area of market rate units. (iv) Inclusionary units developed as part of a single-family housing development may be accommodated in duplexes or multi-family dwellings that resemble market rate single-family dwellings, as allowed within the City Center Form Based Codes District. (c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. Buildings containing the last 10% of market rate units shall not receive certificates of occupancy until certificates of occupancy are issued for all buildings containing inclusionary units, including when the inclusionary units are provided off-site as provided for in Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article. D. Affordability Requirements (1) Affordability Determinations. Inclusionary units required under this section shall be affordable and marketed to income-eligible eligible households as follows: (a) Housing costs for inclusionary units shall not exceed 30% of annual household income, adjusted for household size. Housing costs used to calculate the affordability of inclusionary units shall include: (i) For rental units – rent (inclusive of any condominium or homeowners’ association fees) and utilities (water, electricity and heating costs). (ii) For sale units – mortgage principal and interest, annual property taxes, homeowner’s insurance, and condominium or homeowners’ association fees. (b) Income eligibility shall be determined based on income guidelines, as adjusted for household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The AMI shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit is available for occupancy. (c) The maximum rent or sale price of an inclusionary unit shall be calculated based on unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) and the HUD formula of 1.5 persons per bedroom, which are used to establish the “Household Size Equivalent”: Table 18-1 HUD Formula for Determining Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-4 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 Unit Size Household Size Equivalent1 Efficiency/Studio 1 One-Bedroom Unit 1.5 Two-Bedroom Unit 3 Three-Bedroom Unit 4.5 Four-Bedroom Unit 6 (d) With respect to inclusionary units offered for sale, sale prices shall be calculated based on an available fixed rate, 30-year mortgage, consistent with a blended rate for banks or other lending institutions offering mortgages in South Burlington, or a lower Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) rate if the developer can guarantee the availability of VHFA mortgages at this rate for all required inclusionary units. The calculated price shall assume a down payment of no more than 5% of the purchase price. (2) Continued Affordability. An inclusionary unit shall remain affordable in perpetuity commencing from the date of initial occupancy, through a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency, to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager prior to recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records. Any deed restriction, covenant or other instrument or agreement ensuring the continued affordability of inclusionary units shall include: (a) Resale Restrictions. Provisions to ensure the affordability of units offered for sale shall include a formula for limiting equity appreciation to an amount not to exceed 25% of the increase in the unit’s value, as determined by the difference between fair market appraisals of the unit at the time of purchase and the time of resale, with adjustments for improvements made by the seller and the necessary costs of sale, as may be approved by the City Manager; (b) Rent Increases. Provisions to ensure the affordability of rental units shall limit annual rent increases to the percentage increase in the median household income within the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, except to the extent that further increases are made necessary by documented hardship or other unusual conditions, and shall provide that no rent increase may take effect until it has received the written approval of the City Manager; 1 The maximum allowable rent or sales price is based on the designated AMI level (80%, 100%, or 120%) corresponding to the “Household Size Equivalent” in the table above that matches the number of bedrooms in the housing unit. The result is that the maximum rent or sales price for a particular affordable unit is the same for all eligible households seeking to rent or purchase that affordable housing unit. For example, the maximum rent or sales price for a one-bedroom unit is determined using the average of the applicable AMI level for one- and two-person households. Note that the applicant household’s income is not used to determine the maximum rent or sales price of a particular housing unit. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-5 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (c) Sublet Restrictions. Provisions for inclusionary rental units shall prohibit the subletting of units at rental rates that exceed affordability limits established pursuant to this section. (3) Reporting Requirements. Annually, the owner of a project that includes inclusionary rental units shall prepare and submit a report to the City Manager that lists the gross rents charged for inclusionary units and the household incomes of unit tenants, and certifies that unit affordability has been maintained as required. E. Developer Options (1) Options (a) and (b) below are available to developers upon request, as necessary to address documented financial hardships or physical site constraints that limit or preclude the incorporation of inclusionary units within a covered development. Options (c) and (d) are available to the developer at his or her discretion. A payment or contribution in lieu of constructing required inclusionary units shall be prohibited. (a) Dedication. The South Burlington City Council, in consultation with the entity designated by the City Council (for example, a permanent South Burlington Housing Committee or South Burlington Affordable Housing Board), may accept as an alternative to the development of inclusionary units, a dedication by the developer of equal or greater value that furthers the purposes of this section. An example might be the donation of developable land in the City Center Form Based Codes District that provides accessibility to transit, employment opportunities, and services. (b) Off-Site Construction. The developer of a covered development may comply with the requirements of this section by constructing, within two years of receiving a permit for the covered development, the required number of inclusionary units on another site within the City Center Form Based Codes District, or contracting with another entity to construct the required number of units in the City Center Form Based Codes District. (c) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. (d) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. F. Administration and Compliance (1) Application Requirements. In addition to other submission requirements applicable to proposed projects specified within this bylaw, applications under this section shall include the following information: (a) A site or subdivision plan that identifies the number, locations, types, and sizes of inclusionary units in relation to market rate units; (b) Documentation supporting the allocation of inclusionary and market rate units, including inclusionary unit set aside calculations; (c) A description of each unit’s type, floor area, number of bedrooms, estimated housing costs, and other data necessary to determine unit affordability; (d) A list of proposed options, if any, to be incorporated in the plan, as provided for under Subsection (E) (Developer Options) of this Article; (e) Documentation regarding household income eligibility; ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-6 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (f) Information regarding the long-term management of inclusionary units, including the responsible party or parties, as required to ensure continued affordability; (g) Draft legal documents required under this section to ensure continued affordability; (h) Construction timeline for both inclusionary and market rate units; and (i) Other information as requested by the Administrative Officer to determine project compliance with inclusionary zoning requirements. (2) Compliance Officer. The Administrative Officer (AO) is responsible for certifying, in writing, whether a development application is in compliance with the inclusionary zoning requirements specified in Subsection (F)(1) (Application Requirements) of this Article. In cases in which the AO determines the application is not in compliance, he or she shall specify the areas of non-compliance. (3) Program Evaluation. In order to monitor and track the success of inclusionary zoning in meeting the purposes of this section and the City’s affordable housing goals and targets, the City Manager shall: (a) Collect and maintain income eligibility guidelines, mortgage interest rate information, and other information necessary to meet the requirements of this section; (b) Monitor and maintain records regarding the status of inclusionary units developed under this Section 18.01; and (c) Prepare an annual written report for distribution to the South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission and posting on the City’s website, to be considered in a public meeting, that summarizes the status of covered projects and inclusionary units approved to date, and sets forth program findings, conclusions, and recommendations for any changes that will increase the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning. 18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus A. Purpose. One of the adopted Comprehensive Plan goals is the availability of quality housing and quality affordable housing to attract and retain a qualified work force. The following provisions are established to enable the City of South Burlington to ensure a supply of standard housing available at below-market rate purchase prices or rents. In this way, a choice of housing opportunities for a variety of income groups within the City can be created in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and these Regulations. B. Applicability. This section shall apply in any Zoning District in which residential development is permitted, with the exception of the City Center Form Based Codes District. C. Density Increase. On a case by case basis and as part of the Planned Unit Development application, the Development Review Board may grant an increase in residential density over the base zoning density, in order to create below market rate housing. The density increases shall be approved on the following criteria and standards: (1) Affordable Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase of no more than fifty percent (50%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for an Affordable Housing Development. The total of below market rate units shall be at least half of the total proposed dwelling units. Where the total proposed dwelling units is an uneven number, the total of below market rate units shall be calculated as at least the total proposed dwelling units, less one (1), divided by two. Such ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-7 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. (2) Mixed Rate Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase of no more than twenty-five percent (25%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for a Mixed Rate Housing Development. For each additional market-rate dwelling unit produced as a result of the density increase, one (1) comparable below market rate unit must be provided. Such application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. Table 13-9 Example of Affordable Housing Bonus Calculation Affordable Project: Mixed-Rate Project: 50% of Total Units Affordable 25% of Bonus Units Affordable Acres 8.35 8.35 Base Density 12 12 Base Units 100.2* 100.2* Bonus Units 50 25 Total Units 150 125 Net Density 17.98 14.99 Affordable Units 74 13 Market Rate Units 74 112 *Partial units always round DOWN to the lower whole number of units D. Criteria for Awarding Density Increase. In addition to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, , and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, the following standards shall guide the Development Review Board: (1) The density upon which a bonus may be based shall be the total acreage of the property in question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or districts. (2) Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section 13.14 shall apply only to properties of five (5) acres or more, and the maximum allowable residential density with or without such a density increase shall be four (4) dwelling units per acre. (3) Development Standards. (a) Distribution. The affordable housing units shall be physically integrated into the design of the development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington. (b) Minimum Floor Area. Minimum gross floor area per affordable dwelling unit shall not be less than comparable market-rate units in the housing development. (c) Plan for Continued Affordability. The standards for Section 18.01(D)(2) shall apply. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-8 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (4) Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going administration of the affordable housing units as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations as may be necessary. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures. E. Housing Types. The dwelling units may at the discretion of the Development Review Board be of varied types including one-family, two-family, or multi-family construction, and studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartment construction. 18.03 Housing Preservation A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to achieve one or more of these goals: (1) To promote the preservation of existing housing stock in residential neighborhoods, particularly the supply of affordable and moderately-priced homes through the use of a housing retention ordinance as referenced in South Burlington’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Strategies 4 and 6; (2) To reduce and mitigate the demolition and conversion to nonresidential use or nonuse of residential structures, and to maintain housing that meets the needs of all economic groups within the City particularly for those of low and moderate income; (3) To meet the specific mandates of 24 V.S.A. Section 4302(11) related to housing opportunities for safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters and to meet the needs of a diversity of social and income groups in each Vermont community; (4) To support the retention of housing units in the City; (5) To preserve the residential character of neighborhoods; and, (6) To offset the loss of housing by requiring replacement of housing units with new construction, conversion of nonresidential to residential use or a contribution to the City of South Burlington Housing Trust Fund. B. Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in sub-section C (Exceptions), this Section 18.03 of these Regulations is applicable to the loss, demolition or conversion to a nonresidential use or nonuse (for example a vacant lot) of any dwelling unit in the City. This includes dwelling units that are demolished, removed, or declared unfit for habitation pursuant to any order, decision or other action of the City or State that is caused by unreasonable neglect or deferred maintenance of an existing or prior owner(s). This Section also applies to any dwelling unit that is demolished or removed pursuant to any municipal, state or federal program, including any air traffic or airport noise mitigation and compatibility program. C. Exemptions. This Section shall not be applicable to: ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-9 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (1) A loss or change of use lasting less than one (1) year, where residential use is restored within that same one (1) year period. (2) Any dwelling unit ordered demolished or declared unfit for habitation because of damage caused by civil commotion, malicious mischief, vandalism, natural disaster, fire, flood or other causes beyond the owner’s control. (3) Dwelling units existing in zoning districts that no longer permit residential uses. (4) Dwelling units existing in the City Center Form Based Code District, the Industrial - Open Space (I-O) District, the Mixed Industrial & Commercial (Mixed IC) District, and the Swift Street (SW) District. (5) The conversion of a duplex to a single-family home. (6) As of January 1, 2018, and no later, any dwelling units the Burlington International Airport has obtained Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding approval for the acquisition, demolition or removal thereof pursuant to the FAA’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This includes the dwelling units identified in FAA AIP grant numbers AIP-92, AIP-94, AIP-105, AIP-108, and AIP-109 whether or not these dwelling units have been purchased or removed as of January 1, 2018. (The street addresses that have been purchased for removal under the above referenced AIP grant numbers are shown in Appendix of the Regulations.) (7) Accessory dwelling units. D. Approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Regulations and unless otherwise exempt under sub-section C of this Section, a person who proposes to remove, demolish, or to convert to a nonresidential use or nonuse, a dwelling unit in a zoning district where such a use is otherwise permitted by these regulations, must obtain a zoning permit in accordance with the provisions of this Section. In addition to any other zoning permit application requirement in these Regulations, the applicant must also submit as part of the zoning permit application: (1) A statement certifying the number of dwelling units to be demolished or converted to nonresidential use and the number of bedrooms existing within each of these units; (2) A demonstration of compliance with tenant or occupant notice and relocation provisions of applicable state and federal law; and (3) A demonstration of compliance with sub-section E, F and G (if applicable) of this Section. E. Housing replacement requirement. In addition to any other requirements for approval under these Regulations, approval of the zoning permit referred to in Sub-section D above requires the replacement of each dwelling unit that is to be demolished or converted to nonresidential use or nonuse with a replacement dwelling unit. Any dwelling unit approved under Section 18.01 or 18.02 shall not qualify as a replacement dwelling unit. This replacement requirement may be satisfied in one of the following ways: ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-10 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (1) Construction of a new dwelling unit. The construction of a dwelling unit within a new structure or a new addition in accordance with sub-section F of this Section; (2) Residential Conversion. The conversion of a non-residential building to residential use in accordance with sub-section F of this Section; or, (3) Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Depositing $60,000 for each demolished or converted dwelling unit into the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund. Beginning on January 1, 2019, the amount of the contribution shall be adjusted by multiplying this amount originally deposited for each unit by a fraction, the denominator of which shall be the “Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” U.S. City Average, “All Items Index,” as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (“the Index”) for January, 2018, and the numerator of which shall be the Index for the subsequent month and year as of the date of submission of the application. In the event that the Index is not then in existence, the parties shall use such equivalent price index as is published by any successor governmental agency then in existence. F. Replacement Dwelling Unit Requirement. In addition to the foregoing, all replacement dwelling units built pursuant to this Section must meet the following requirements: (1) Each replacement dwelling unit shall have at least the same number of bedrooms as the dwelling unit being replaced; (2) Each replacement dwelling unit must be lo0cated within the City of South Burlington; (3) Each replacement dwelling unit must receive a Certificate of Occupancy within eighteen (18) months of the date on which the zoning permit referenced in Sub-section D above is approved; (4) Each rental replacement dwelling unit(s) must be maintained as a leased “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations to prospective occupants who are income eligible at the time they first lease the unit, for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the date of first occupancy. Income eligibility shall be determined based on income guidelines, as adjusted for household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The income eligibility shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit is available for occupancy. (5) Each owner occupied replacement dwelling unit(s) must be sold as an “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations to prospective purchaser/occupants who are income eligible at the time they purchase the unit. G. Performance Guaranty/Letter of Credit. When an applicant proposes to construct a new replacement dwelling unit or convert a non-residential building to a replacement residential unit, the applicant must post a performance guaranty in the form of a letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount equivalent to the amount the applicant would have been required to ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-11 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 contribute to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if the applicant had chosen that option pursuant to Sub-section E(3). Such a performance guaranty shall be valid for no more than two (2) years, after which the full amount due shall be provided to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if such replacement unit satisfying the conditions of this Section has not been granted a Certificate of Occupancy as a dwelling unit. H. Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non- profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going administration of this section as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this section. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures. Addition to Sub-section 17.03 B: “(3) Certificates of Occupancy are required for replacement dwelling units as required in Sub-section 18.03 F(3).” Proposed Amendment to Article 2 (Definitions): AFFORDABLE HOUSING: (A) Housing that is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income does not exceed one hundred and twenty percent (120%) of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), adjusted for household size, and the total annual cost of the housing, including mortgage principal and interest, annual property taxes, homeowner’s insurance, and condominium or homeowners’ association fees is not more than thirty percent (30%) of the household’s gross annual income, adjusted for household size; or (B) Housing that is rented by its inhabitants whose gross annual household income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, as defined by HUD, adjusted for household size, and the total annual cost of the housing, including rent and utilities (water, electricity and heating costs), is not more than thirty percent (30%) of the household’s gross annual income, adjusted for household size. The maximum rent or sale price of an affordable housing dwelling unit shall be calculated based on unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) and the HUD formula of 1.5 persons per bedroom, which are used to establish the “Household Size Equivalent”: HUD Formula for Determining Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices Unit Size Household Size Equivalent1 Efficiency/Studio 1 One-Bedroom Unit 1.5 Two-Bedroom Unit 3 Three-Bedroom Unit 4.5 Four-Bedroom Unit 6 1 The maximum allowable rent or sales price is based on the designated AMI level (80%, 100%, or 120%) corresponding to the “Household Size Equivalent” in the table above that matches the number of bedrooms in the housing unit. The result is that the maximum rent or sales price for a particular affordable unit is the same for all eligible households seeking to rent or purchase that affordable housing unit. For example, the maximum rent or sales price for a one-bedroom unit is determined using the average of the applicable AMI level for one- and two-person households. Note that the applicant household’s income is not used to determine the maximum rent or sales price of a particular housing unit. City of South Burlington Ordinances – Traffic Overlay District and Traffic Impact June 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting 2 Study Background The City issued a call for technical assistance investigating the Traffic Overlay District and perceived limitations that the District imposes on the City to realize the Comprehensive Plan The current intent of the overlay district is to preserve operational capacity on roads of local and regional significance through the controlled growth and development of parcels immediately adjacent to the facilities through the management of access and vehicle trip generation beyond the District regulations[1]. 3 The Traffic Overlay District combines these two, often distinct processes. - Strength is it is simplicity - Weakness is lack of flexibility Land Use Development ( Regarding Transportation ) Impact on public ( assessment of delays, safety, and queuing on adjacent infrastructure) Site Configuration ( site plan review ) Traffic Overlay District The Traffic Overlay District sets a hard cap on the number of vehicles allowed to come and go from a parcel during the PM peak hour. The cap is based on the size of the parcel with limited options to raise that cap. 4 Traffic Overlay District Challenges faced by the Traffic Overlay District • Land development along key corridors within South Burlington has been limited by the traffic overlay constraint, altering market forces and leading to unintended consequences in the development pattern being realized. Form based code recently implemented within the City Center area enables a degree of creativity of land use redevelopment which is often contradictory to the restrictions imposed by the overlay district. • While access management has been improved through driveway consolidation and limiting the number of access points onto arterials, on balance, it has been identified that the limited number of trips based on size of the parcel alone may not provide the sufficient benefits versus the tradeoffs that the City has had to make. 5 Functional Class Key Role with City Planning and Operations US 2: Williston Road Principal Arterial Class 1 Town Highway Primary East-West route through City. Access to City Center, Interstate, Burlington to west and Williston east. Williston Road Transportation Study: Phase 1 (Nov 2015) US 2 Management Plan (2007) VT 116: Hinesburg Road Principal Arterial Class 2 Town Highway Secondary North-South route. Connects to City Center. Residential feeder from south to urban core City Center planning. Exit 12B planning Tilley Drive area Kennedy Drive Principal Arterial Class 2 Town Highway Bypass function of US 2. Access to Exit 13. Airport connection. Connects: Dorset, VT116, US 2, I-89. Shelburne Road Principal Arterial US Route Primary North-South route to Middlebury, Rutland, New York. Significant route of economic importance to region. 2012 Corridor Study Traffic Overlay District 6 What Policy to Pursue: Key Goals 1. Encourage (through an incentive type process) or mandate that the redevelopment of land incorporate appropriate transportation infrastructure that meet the City’s multimodal and congestion objectives as established in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Allow for flexibility in the land uses that can occur within the City and specifically along the highest volume roadways in the City. Support the new Form Based Code, where applicable. 3. Maintain sufficient vehicular capacity on the regionally significant arterials. Balance local needs vs. regional needs. 4. Maintain safety (through access management, driveway design, etc.) for site development, access and impacted intersections. 5. Include the existing Overlay District areas and be able to be expand and adapt to cover the entire City. Changes to the LDRs can be evaluated against these goals. Planning Commission feedback and discussion on goals 7 Existing Transportation Evaluation 8 How are land use developments reviewed and regulated in practice? The following slides walk through how amending the Traffic Overlay District or creating new guidance within the LDRs will affect the way Land Development occurs within the City. These regulations have direct implications for the ability to realize the goals and land use aspirations articulated within the Comprehensive Plan. 9 Option Analysis RSG reviewed the existing methods of local review of land use development regarding transportation. Comparing how the LDRs review proposals – there is a disconnect between the tools and methods within the LDRs to provide the City ways to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan 10 Option Analysis • Reviewed LDRs as it pertains to traffic and transportation review • Identified methods used by Act 250 and VTrans to assess traffic and transportation affects • Identified gaps between goals of the City and the methods used to assess impact. • Reviewed Citywide vs. Overlay District applications of specific LDRs • Developed preliminary options to consider ways to change review of land use changes relative to traffic and transportation 3 General Options emerged from preliminary reviews of different approaches: A: Current system with enhancements B: Alignment with VTrans C: Comprehensive Standards 11 Option A: amending the Overlay District. Changing both its thresholds for the level of acceptable “Impact on Public” and the “Site Configuration” requirements Impact to Public Land Use Development & Site Configuration The iteration between the land use and the site plan design stops when the Impact to the Public is reached (The maximum number of vehicle trips generated is reached. A function of the size of the parcel) 12 Options B & C: The acceptable Impact to the Public is governed by the nature of the land use and the way the site can be configured to minimize its impact. Compared to Traffic Overlay District: Impact to the Public is governed by the size of the parcel and some considerations of the site configuration. Impact to Public Site Configuration Land Use Development The iteration stops when The Land Use and its Site Configuration results in an acceptable level of impact on the transportation system The acceptable level of impact is agreed by the community for specific facilities – allows variation throughout the City Level of Service Policy LDRs LDRs 13 Option Development A: Current system with enhancements B: Alignment with VTrans C: Comprehensive Standards A: Current System with Enhancements: • Maintain (or adapt) the existing system/review process. • Increase the trips allowed within the Traffic Overlay District or enable larger trip bonuses for specific actions (such as TDM, connections, etc.). 14 Option Development A: Current system with enhancements B: Alignment with VTrans C: Comprehensive Standards Option B: Alignment with VTrans • Replace current Traffic Overlay District trip generation constraints or regulations. Amended LDRs incorporate traffic impact review and site plan review. • Adopt the VTrans delay LOS based policy, however develop new LOS criteria to assign higher levels of acceptable congestion in some areas. • Include TDM recommendations, allow trip credits for TDM measures, complying with new VTrans guidance. Require TDM measures in specific areas of the City. • Integrate impact fees, capital plan and traffic overlay more closely. 15 Option Development A: Current system with enhancements B: Alignment with VTrans C: Comprehensive Standards C: Comprehensive Standards • Replace current Traffic Overlay District trip generation constraints or regulations. Amended LDRs incorporate traffic impact review and site plan review. • V/C LOS based policy. A more significant departure from current VTrans policy on traffic impact. Provides a stronger and more simple approach to understand effects of facilities as they near maximum capacity. • Geographic variation in congestion tolerance • Straightforward approach assessing for small / marginal increases in volume relative to capacity. Allows for minor impacts to V/C even if road is at or near capacity. Enables infill and marginal increases in traffic while not precluding all development. • Analysis thresholds based on size and scale of impact. Sets a Citywide threshold for analysis based on the number or % increase in trips created. • Include TDM recommendations, allow trip credits for TDM measures, complying with new VTrans guidance. Require TDM measures in specific areas of the City. • Multimodal Impact Fees: Land uses benefiting from transit and non- vehicle capacity pay impact fees to support those modes. Key Features: - Change of analysis method: Move to Volume-to-Capacity - Straightforward approach to allowing minor incremental land use changes 16 What Policy to Pursue Goal A: Current System with Enhancements B: Alignment with VTrans C: Comprehensive Standards Encourage (through an incentive type process) or mandate that the redevelopment of land incorporate appropriate transportation infrastructure that meet the City’s multimodal and congestion objectives as established in the Comprehensive Plan. Poor Good Best Allow for flexibility in the land uses that can occur within the City and specifically along the highest volume roadways in the City. Support the new Form Based Code, where applicable. Bad Good Best Maintain sufficient vehicular capacity on the regionally significant arterials. Balance local needs vs. regional needs. Best OK Good Maintain safety (through access management, driveway design, etc.) for site development, access and impacted intersections. OK OK Good Include the existing Overlay District areas and be able to be expand and adapt to cover the entire City. Poor Good Good 17 What Policy to Pursue SELECTING AN OPTION: TECHNICAL RSG strongly supports Option C as the most robust technically which would provide the City with a strong suite of tools to analyze the effects while providing the greatest flexibility to develop the land use that aligns with the Comprehensive Plan. The largest hurdle of moving forward with Option C is that it would be a LOS Policy (Volume to Capacity based) that does not align well with current VTrans policy (Delay based) and practice regarding traffic impact. It is not clear how Act 250 permits would be treated at this point in time. Not trivial. Option B is a close second, in that it can allow greater congestion in specific areas of the City and integrate many detailed operational considerations such as queuing, TDM, impact fees, all while operating on a Delay based LOS policy that generally aligns with the current VTrans policy guiding traffic impact studies. Option A should be dismissed because it fails to meet many of the goals we believe the City to be endorsing. SELECTING AN OPTION: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - Complexity and time to develop the LDR amendments:Option C is new in Vermont. May require some extensive public involvement with VTrans and others. - Time and complexity for third parties to comply: Option B is familiar, although more difficult than Option C. - Time required for Staff and DRB reviews: Options B & C would likely require the City to spend additional time reviewing proposals for compliance with LDRs, relative to the Overlay District approach today. 18 What Policy to Pursue SELECTING AN OPTION City of South Burlington Planning Commission Questions to consider: 1. How quickly do we need changes? 2. Is a phased approach of interest which may meet some goals but not all goals? 3. What is your interest in leading the State? (first to debate these policies) 4. What policies can evolve as planning and thinking evolves? (can we make items modular) 5. What land use challenges are facing the City and do these options enable the City to make appropriate decisions? (any specific examples of challenging land use scenarios that should be considered) 6. What is your vision for the City and can these policies help unlock potential? Contacts www.rsginc.com Contacts www.rsginc.com Jonathan Slason Senior Engineer Jonathan.slason@rsginc.com 802-861-0508 Mark Smith Senior Engineer Mark.smith@rsginc.com SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 MAY 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 May 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Hilton, intern (via telephone); S. Murray 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Conner: Staff is interviewing candidates to replace Lindsey Britt. There are plans to put windows into the 2 other conference rooms in City Hall. 5. Presentation of initial findings on R4 Front Yard setback analysis: Mr. Hilton (via phone) explained that he used GIS data to measure setbacks from property lines on several streets in the city. Some of the results were: Baldwin Avenue: 27 properties measured (30 feet is the setback requirement from the right-of- way Average setback 27 feet 26% of setbacks were 30 feet or more 48% were 25-29 feet 19% were 20-24 feet 7% were less than 20 feet Homes in the area were built betwee4n 1954-57 (prior to current zoning standards) 2 Sebring Road: 21 properties Average setback 33 feet 56% were 30 feet or more 10% were 25-29 feet 25% were 20-24 feet 13% were less than 20 feet Most homes were built between 1959 and 1968 Southview Drive: 13 properties Average setback 28 feet 46% were 30 feet or more 15% were 25-29 feet 31% were 20-24 feet Homes were built between 1955 and 1977 or 2002-2004 White Street: 56 properties were measured Average setback 31 feet 36% were 30 feet or more 23% were 25-29 feet 18% were 20-24 feet 23% were less than 20 feet The majority of homes were built between 1928 and 1972 Chamberlin Neighborhood: 345 properties Average setback 26 feet There are 2 setback rules in the neighborhood, 50 feet or 30 feet. A graph was shown indicating where properties fall within the neighborhood. The majority are 30 feet or more. On streets with a 30-foot setback rule, the average setback from the right-of-way is 27 feet. 28% are 30 feet or more; 23% are 25-29 feet; 28% are 20-24 feet, 16% are 15-19 feet; 5% are 0 to 14 feet. Mr. Conner noted that 50% of the homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming. On streets with a 50-foot setback rule (Airport Parkway and Patchen Road), the average setback is 26 feet on Airport Parkway and 21 feet on Patchen Road. Almost no homes have more than a 40-foot setback, and 30% of homes have less than 20 feet. Mr. Klugo asked if any consideration was given to the width of the lots. Mr. Conner noted that the Southeast Quadrant has a minimum depth to width ratio. 3 Mr. Conner noted that at present all that can be done in the Chamberlin neighborhood is a 5-foot set of front steps. The CNAP Committee was concerned with having front porches to create more of a neighborhood feel. This made staff consider the goal of the 30-foot setback. It had been to create a feeling of openness, but Mr. Conner wasn’t sure that is as important a goal today. Mr. Klugo noted that in his neighborhood nobody uses their front porches. Mr. Conner responded that on Market Street, where there are no back yards, people use their front porches regularly. He suggested members think about this information. 6. Planned Unit Development and Master Plan Project: Phase II: Ms. Murray said they have done a detailed review of the LDRs regarding waivers, modifications, etc. She noted that Master Plans are not all that common, and South Burlington is one of the few communities that has a Master Plan provision. Under the current regulations, Master Plans are allowed for projects of 10 acres or more. Ms. Murray said they will be recommending Master Plans for all PUDs and for any project developed in phases. She noted this would not apply to the Form Based Code district as review is more of an administrative process. Ms. Murray then outlined the purpose of a Master Plan as follows: a. Outline overall scope of development b. Conform to specific Comprehensive Plan objectives c. Complement the surrounding area d. Establishes or retains site connectivity e. Incorporates significant site features and known site constraints f. Defines the overall mix. The review process for a Master Plan would include: a. Title report b. Base survey c. Context, site connectivity analysis map d. Existing conditions analysis map e. Land use allocation (distribution, mix of uses, mix of housing types) f. Density allocations (e.g., maximum building areas) g. Infrastructure capacity analysis, allocations (i.e., parking, traffic, stormwater, water, wastewater, other utilities) Mr. Klugo cited the need to have regulations in place so people “do the right thing for the community.” He noted that developers now build 9 units in order to avoid Act 250 review, and this is not always the best thing for the community. Mr. Conner added that the fewer the units, the less you can do with a 4 development (e.g., open space). He questioned whether this PUD project is the way to address that issue or whether it should be another Planning Commission priority. Mr. Klugo asked what tools they can look at. Ms. Murray replied: underlying zoning, Form Based Code, master planning. Mr. Klugo said the question now is “who is driving the roads?” He felt that now it is the developers. Mr. Conner said the Official Map deals with this in part. Ms. Murray added that in the SEQ there are block and road standards. She recommended looking at grid/road plans as part of the Master Plan standard. They will be recommending stronger street standards. Mr. Klugo noted that depending on where a PUD is located, the focus may change. Ms. Murray said that’s who they have to look at both “centers and edges.” She noted they are also working on land allocations for different types of PUDs (residential, non-residential and open space). They also have to consider different types of housing. Ms. Murray then showed a chart of the potential percentage of land use for different developments within different types of PUDs. These included residential uses, non-residential uses (e.g., civic uses, commercial uses, mixed uses, agricultural enterprise), and open space (park space, resource land). One of the next steps will be to see where each of these types fits in the city. Mr. Klugo asked about building types. Ms. LaRose said that was not originally considered as part of this project. Ms. Murray noted they could allow increased density in some of the areas to compensate for additional cost, etc. She suggested a possible schedule of density bonuses for such things as affordable housing. Ms. LaRose noted they will continue to talk about how density is measured, especially non-residential density. They will also discuss how to define residential density and how to adjust the size of units. Ms. Murray said their recommendation is usually to “stick with the basics” and combine that with what kind of development/forms. Mr. Klugo stated that they will never solve the affordability issue through the zoning process. Mr. Conner said the Affordable Housing Committee is trying to address that and see what kind of tools can be applied. Mr. Klugo said they should be focusing on the “livability” of the community. Ms. Murray felt that exclusionary zoning will only push development “out.” Development has to be made easier for developers in order to get affordability. She felt that most developers don’t have the tools to manage affordability. She suggested Commission members reread the report of the original Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Conner noted their conclusion was the only affordable housing that will exist in the future is what already exists today. 7. Continued Discussion of Planning Commission Priorities for 2017-18: 5 Mr. Gagnon questioned whether there is room left after all the things that members agreed they definitely want to do. Mr. Conner said “yes and no.” Some work could be sourced out to other committees in the city. Other projects could be “what to do next” so grants can be applied for in a timely manner. Mr. Klugo said they also have to be aware of things that pop up. Mr. Klugo also noted that the Commission is very thorough and doesn’t just say “yes” to something to get it off their plate. Mr. Conner said the City Council is aware of that and knows that when something comes to them it has been thoroughly vetted by the Commission. This is not always true in other communities. Mr. Conner noted that the issue of whether land use pattern matches the transportation pattern doesn’t have to happen this year; it could involve just setting up a “game plan” for next year. Mr. Klugo was concerned with the hours the Commission has to invest in addition to what other committees do. He noted they can spend a third of the year on one item. He didn’t see them getting through much of what was on the list. Mr. Conner said he would go through the list and see what can be “put off” or “pushed off.” He felt that in some cases, one Commission members might work with staff and then make a presentation to the rest of the Commission. A Commission member might also attend meetings of another committee and report back. Ms. Ostby suggested looking at “themes” for the year. Mr. Klugo suggested looking at things as they appear in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner noted that committees are being asked to define which element of the Comp Plan they are addressing in their work. Members considered themes such as: affordable housing, PUDs, sense of place. Mr. Conner said staff can see how to make the “scenic view” consideration happen. He also suggested letting the Energy Committee bring in whatever they want to consider. Ms. Ostby hoped they could deal with the “south facing homes” situation. Mr. Conner asked members to consider their expectations when they give a task to a committee. 8. Review Changes to LDRs and Official Map made by City Council; prepare Planning Commission reports and provide feedback as appropriate: Mr. Conner explained that the City Council had changed language back to the original Planning Commission report. Mr. MacDonald moved to approve the changes as recommended by staff and to find that reports do not need to be amended. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Minutes of 11 April and 9 May 2017: 6 Mr. MacDonald moved to approve the Minutes of 11 April and 9 May 2017 as written. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Other Business: a. Notice of State Wetland Permit application, City of South Burlington – Market Street Mr. Conner said no action was needed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. ______________________________Clerk The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk Layne Darfler, Planning Technician TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski City Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: June 1, 2017 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendment ZA-17-14 and ZA-17- 15 Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance:  ZA-17-14 Preschool Technical Corrections  ZA-17-15 Article 4 Development Bonuses The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:45 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the hearing to me by close of business on June 26, 2017. Thank you, Meagan Tuttle CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney David White, AICP, Planning Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur Eamon Dunn, Youth Member PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-17-14 Preschool Technical Amendments ZA-17-15 Article 4 Development Bonuses Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 beginning at 6:45pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall,149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows:  ZA-17-14: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to correct two gaps in the CDO regarding preschools by adding standards for use for the NAC-CR zoning district to Appendix A-Use Table, and adding minimum off-street parking requirements to Table 8.1.8-1.  ZA-17-15: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to address duplicity and contradictions between Article 4 and Article 9 regarding development bonuses in neighborhood mixed use and residential zoning districts. In particular, this amendment clarifies the maximum cumulative development bonus allowable for properties in neighborhood mixed use zones by retaining an additional 0.5 FAR bonus, but eliminating a 10 ft height bonus, when providing an additional 5% inclusionary housing over what is required in Article 9. Additionally, this amendment clarifies that development bonuses may be cumulative up to, but not to exceed, the maximum allowable bonuses for properties in residential zones. This amendment also removes the requirement that a residential use created through the adaptive reuse and residential conversion bonuses be conforming to the underlying zoning district, due to the inconsistency this creates in low-density residential districts. Finally, this amendment corrects a footnote which applies a setback to properties in the NAC, NMU, and NAC-R zones when abutting residential uses, but not to the NAC-CR. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington:  ZA-17-14: The first part of this amendment applies to the areas of the City zoned NAC-Cambrian Rise, and the second part of this amendment applies to all Neighborhood, Shared Use and Downtown Parking Districts in which preschools are a permitted use.  ZA-17-15: This amendment applies to all areas of the City within residential and neighborhood mixed-use zoning districts. Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Warning p. 2 ZA-17-14 and ZA-17-15 List of section headings affected:  ZA-17-14: This amendment adds preschools as a permitted use within Appendix A- Use Table for the NAC-CR district, and adds parking standards for preschools within Table 8.1.8-1 Minimum Off Street Parking Requirements.  ZA-17-15: This amendment modifies Table 4.4.2-1; and amends text in Sec.4.4.2.(d)3.A. Inclusionary Housing, Sec 4.4.5.(d)7.C. Adaptive Reuse Bonus, Sec 4.4.5.(d)7.D. Residential Conversion Bonus, and Sec 4.4.5.(d)7.E. Limitations on Residential Development Bonuses. The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-14 Preschool Technical Corrections This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to address two gaps in the Comprehensive Development Ordinance resulting from the timing of the adoption of ZA-17-02 and ZA-17-04 earlier this year. The first is that there are no use standards for preschools in the recently adopted Neighborhood Activity Center-Cambrian Rise, and the other is that there are no parking standards for preschools in the minimum off-street parking standards. This amendment fills in these gaps to be consistent with the use and parking standards for preschools in other neighborhood mixed use districts. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: None of these items establish new policy, and therefore have no impact on the goals and policies related to provision of safe and affordable housing in the Municipal Development Plan. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: None of these items establish new policy, and therefore have no impact on the proposed future land use and densities in the Municipal Development Plan. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: None of these items establish new policy, and therefore have no impact on proposed community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, CFM, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk vacant, Department Secretary TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: May 16, 2017 RE: Proposed ZA-17-14 Preschool Technical Corrections In putting together the April 7, 2017 edition of the Comprehensive Development Ordinance, two omissions were discovered:  There is no use standard (Y, N, or CU) for preschools in the new NAC-CR zone  There is no parking standard for preschools in Table 8.1.8-1, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The NAC-CR zoning amendment (ZA-17-04), with its related use table standards, was adopted before adoption of the preschools amendment (ZA-17-02) that introduced preschools as a new use in the use table. As a result, there is a blank in the use table as to preschools in the NAC-CR zone. Staff recommends making preschools a permitted use in the NAC-CR (as it is in the other neighborhood mixed use zones). The preschools amendment was adopted without a specific parking standard for this newly established use. Staff recommends the same parking standard as that for daycares. New language is underlined in red. Appendix A – Use Table – All Zoning Districts excerpt Neighborhood Mixed Use USES NAC-CR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES NAC-CR School – Preschool Large (over 20 children) (see Sec. 5.4.1) Y School – Preschool Small (up to 20 children) (see Sec. 5.4.1) Y Table 8.1.8-1 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements excerpt pg. 2 of 2 Table 8.1.8-1 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Neighborhood Districts Shared Use Districts Downtown Districts NON-RESIDENTIAL USES Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (gfa) except as noted School – Preschool Large (over 20 children) (per two (2) employees) 1 plus 1 per 5 children 1 plus 1 per 5 children 1 plus 1 per 5 children School – Preschool Small (up to 20 children) (per two (2) employees) 1 1 1 The foregoing amendments, if acceptable to the Planning Commission may be warned for public hearing in June. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-15 Article 4 Development Bonuses This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to address duplicity and contradictions between Article 4 and Article 9 regarding development bonuses in neighborhood mixed use and residential zoning districts. In particular, this amendment clarifies the maximum cumulative development bonus allowable for properties in neighborhood mixed use zones by retaining an additional 0.5 FAR bonus, but eliminating a 10 ft height bonus, when providing an additional 5% inclusionary housing over what is required in Article 9. Additionally, this amendment clarifies that development bonuses may be cumulative up to, but not to exceed, the maximum allowable bonuses for properties in residential zones. This amendment also removes the requirement that a residential use created through the adaptive reuse and residential conversion bonuses be conforming to the underlying zoning district, due to the inconsistency this creates in low-density residential districts. Finally, this amendment corrects a footnote which applies a setback to properties in the NAC, NMU, and NAC-R zones when abutting residential uses, but not to the NAC-CR. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: Generally, these amendments seek to provide clarity in existing policy. The proposed elimination of the requirement that residential uses resulting from adaptive reuse and residential conversion of non- residential buildings be conforming with the underlying zoning is a policy change. This is supported by the Municipal Development Plan Housing Element, which includes the following action item: “Underdeveloped and undeveloped properties located in residential zoning districts should be assessed for suitability of housing development.” Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: Generally, these amendments seek to provide clarity in existing policy. The proposed elimination of the requirement that residential uses resulting from adaptive reuse and residential conversion of non- residential buildings be conforming with the underlying zoning is a policy change. This is supported by the Municipal Development Plan Land Use Element, which contains the following policy: “Encourage the adaptive reuse and historically sensitive redevelopment of unterutilized sites and buildings.” Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: This amendment has no impact on the implementation of proposals for planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, CFM, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk Layne Darfler, Planning Technician TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: June 27, 2017 RE: Article 4 Development Bonuses - Updated At their May 4, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission Ordinance Committee discussed the present Article 4 development bonuses for the Neighborhood Mixed Use and Residential zones (see attached). Downtown bonuses were not discussed, as form based zoning code is anticipated. The Committee recommended keeping the bonuses as incentive for improved project design. Some changes to the Neighborhood Mixed Use bonuses were recommended to eliminate the considerable redundancy with Article 9 bonus provisions. Conflicting language as to the cumulative nature of bonuses was also corrected. In their recommendation to forward this amendment to the full Planning Commission, committee member Wayne Senville asked that the commission consider whether the bonuses distort the underlying zoning and whether the benefits outweigh the potential problems. Deleted language is crossed out, and proposed language is underlined red. Sec. 4.4.2 Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts (a) As written. (b) Dimensional Standards and Density: The density and intensity of development, dimensions of building lots, the heights of buildings and their setbacks from property boundary lines, and the limits on lot coverage shall be governed by the following standards: Table 4.4.2 -1 Dimensional Standards and Density Districts Max. Intensity (floor area ratio1) Max. Lot Coverage Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Front3 Side2 Rear2 Building Height (feet) NAC 2.0 FAR 80%4 0 02 02 Min: 22’, 2 stories Max: 35 NMU 2.0 FAR 80% 05 02 02 Min: 22’. 2 stories Max: 35 NAC- Riverside 2.0 FAR 80% 0 02 02 Min: 22’, 2 stories Max: 35 pg. 2 of 4 (c) As written. (d) District Specific Regulations: 1-2 As written. 3. Development Bonuses/Additional Allowances The following exceptions to maximum allowable base building height and FAR in Table 4.4.2-1 above may be approved in any combination subject to the maximum limits set forth in Table 4.4.2-2 below at the discretion of the DRB. The additional FAR allowed shall correspond to the proportion of the additional building height granted to the maximum available. A. Inclusionary Housing: Inclusionary housing units shall be provided, with applicable additional coverage and density exceptions, in accordance with the provisions of Article 9, Part 1. An additional allowance in the NAC and NAC-Riverside districts may be permitted at the discretion of the DRB for the provision of additional onsite inclusionary housing units. A maximum of an additional 10-feet of building height, and corresponding 0.5 FAR, may be permitted at the discretion of the DRB for an additional 5% inclusionary housing units provided onsite in excess of the requirements of Article 9, Part 1. The total gross floor area dedicated to the additional inclusionary housing shall be equivalent to the gross floor area resulting from the additional allowance. B. Senior Housing: A maximum of an additional 10-feet of building height, and corresponding FAR, may be permitted at the discretion of the DRB in the NAC and NAC-Riverside districts where no less than twenty-five per cent (25%) of the total number of onsite units are reserved for low-moderate income senior households as defined by state or NAC-CR 2.0 FAR 60% Min. 07 Max. 207 106 206 Min: 22’, 2 stories Max: 65’ 1. Floor area ratio is described in Sec. 5.2.7. Measurement of and exceptions to height limits are found in Sec 5.2.6. Bonuses for additional FAR and height where available are described in section (d)3 below, and additional height, FAR and lot coverage is afforded by-right for inclusionary housing projects under Sec. 9.1.12. Actual maximum build out potential may be reduced by site plan and architectural design considerations of Art 6. 2. Structures shall be setback a minimum of 15-feet along any zoning district boundary line that abuts a residential zoning district. Lots of record existing as of September 9, 2015 that are split by neighborhood mixed use and residential zones are exempt from this district boundary setback. 3. Structures shall be setback a minimum of 12-feet from the curb on a public street. 4. Exceptions to maximum lot coverage are provided in (d)2. 5. Notwithstanding footnote 3, the NMU district at the intersection of Pine St. and Flynn Avenue shall have a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet. 6. Side and rear yard setbacks are applicable only to the periphery of the NAC-CR district and not to individual parcels within the district. 7. Front yard setbacks for buildings fronting on North Avenue shall be 20’ min and 30’ max. pg. 3 of 4 federal guidelines, including no less than ten percent (10%) reserved for low- income households. The total gross floor area dedicated to the senior housing shall be equivalent to the gross floor area resulting from the additional allowance. C. Maximum Bonus: In no case shall any development bonuses or allowances granted, either individually or in combination, enable a building to exceed the maximum FAR and maximum building height permitted in any district as defined below: Table 4.4.2 -2: Maximum FAR and Building Heights with Bonuses Maximum FAR Maximum Height NAC 3.0 FAR 45 feet NAC-Riverside 3.0 FAR 45 feet Sec. 4.4.5 Residential Districts (a) – (c) As written. (d) District Specific Regulations: 1-6 As written. 7. Residential Development Bonuses A-B As written. C. Adaptive Reuse Bonus. Development in excess of the limits set forth in Tables 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3 may be permitted by the DRB subject to conditional use review for the conversion of an existing non-conforming nonresidential principal use within a historic building to a conforming residential use subject to all of the following conditions: (i) The building shall be listed or eligible for listing in the United States Department of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places or the Vermont State Register of Historic Places; (ii) The gross floor area shall not exceed the pre-redevelopment gross floor area of the existing structure by more than twenty-five (25) percent; (iii) The density limits of the underlying residential zoning district in Sec 4.4.5(b) above shall not apply. The intensity and extent of development shall be limited by gross floor area maximum in (ii) above and Table 4.4.5- 6 below; (iv) The adaptive reuse and rehabilitation conforms to the requirements of Art 5, Historic Buildings; (v) Neighborhood commercial uses less than 2,000 sqft gross floor area may be permitted by the DRB subject to the applicable requirements of Sec. 4.4.5(d)(5)(A) above. Neighborhood commercial uses 2,000 sqft or larger pg. 4 of 4 in gross floor area shall not be permitted. In combination, the sum of neighborhood commercial uses shall be limited to no more than 50% of the gross floor area of the existing structure; and, (vi) Lot coverage shall not exceed: Table 4.4.5-6: Adaptive Reuse Bonus As written. D. Residential Conversion Bonus. Development in excess of the limits set forth in Tables 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3 may be permitted by the DRB subject to conditional use review for the conversion of an existing non-conforming nonresidential principal use not involving a historic building to a conforming residential use subject to all of the following conditions: (i) Any structure proposed for demolition shall not be listed or eligible for listing in the United States Department of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places or the Vermont State Register of Historic Places; and, (ii) Lot coverage and residential density shall not exceed: Table 4.4.5-7: Residential Conversion Bonus As written. E. Limitations on Residential Development Bonuses: For projects where the conditions of more than one applicable bonus listed above are met, the applicant may use the most permissive exemption to the underlying lot coverage or residential densities applicable, but applicable bonus provisions shall not be cumulative. In no case shall any development bonuses and allowances granted, either individually or in combination, enable a building to exceed the maximum density, lot coverage and building height permitted in any district as defined below: Table 4.4.5-8: Maximum Density, Lot Coverage and Building Heights with Bonuses As written.