Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/24/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 APRIL 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 April 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; R. Greco, R. Gonda, A. Olicky, S. Marriott 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Ostby provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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: Ms. Greco: Attended an event last month regarding growth. She recommended the book “Better Not Bigger” to members as it is written with city planning in mind. Also was concerned with what is happening off Kennedy Drive and elsewhere in the city with the cutting down of trees resembling “a scorched earth environment.” People have expressed concerns to her about the loss of the natural environment. Ms. Ostby noted the Commission will be dealing with its work plan in late May. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Riehle: Distributed the Zoning Administrator’s monthly report which shows a significant increase in permits construction costs over the same month last year. Mr. Conner noted that a lot of the the non-residential renovations last month is attributable to the massive renovations at UMall. Ms. Ostby: She and Sandra Dooley are working on a cottage housing proposal and are on target for late spring. Mr. Conner: Staff has officially received the application for the second large building in City Center (Champlain Housing Trust) at the corner of Market and Garden Streets in the T-4 zone. It will be 4 stories, 60 units, with underground parking and a variety of unit sizes including a 4-bedroom option. Attended the launch of the bike-share program last week. There are 3 sites in South Burlington: Healthy Living, the Airport, and UMall, each with a designated bike rack. 25 of the available bikes with be electric-assist. At last week’s City Council meeting, the Bike/Ped Committee made a proposal for a “penny for paths” tax similar to the Open Space Fund. Their focus is on dealing with the “missing links” in the City’s path system. Ms. Ostby asked for an update on the Williston Road bridge project. Ms. Blanchard said Phase I scoping was accepted by the City Council last week. The recommendation is for a bridge over the south side, crossing at the narrowest part of Williston Road. Mr. Conner showed an overhead photo indicating the project path. Ms. Blanchard said Phase 2 will have to be approved by CCRPC and will be voted on next month. Ms. Blanchard noted the project is eligible for TIF funding at 30%. In addition, a Federal program will be doing a round of funding this year, and this project is a good fit for that. 5. Continued review and possible approval of Library/City Hall/Community Center purpose & need: Mr. Conner noted they have updated the language to include more direct references to the Comprehensive Plan. He distributed written comments from Jennifer Kochman and noted some tweaks were made based on those comments. Mr. Riehle moved to include staff’s recommended changes that followed Ms. Kochman’s comments in the purpose & need statement. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the purpose & need statement including comments from Ms. Kochman. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Continued Discussion of small-scale commercial uses/structures in/adjacent to residential districts: Mr. Riehle asked how “architecturally relevant” would be defined. Mr. Conner said it would be complementary to the environment. Mr. Riehle asked how the DRB would handle a creative “funky” building.  He cited the Pizzagalli building on Shelburne road and the Green Mountain Coffee Roasters building as commercial alternatives rather than a “build to” scenario. Mr. Macdonald asked about a master plan. Mr. Conner said the only entity that can turn a property into a master plan is a homeowner association. He added that in areas with no such association, staff didn’t want one owner to be able to decide to put in a store, so the regulations would require that a commercial use fits into its context, is well thought out, and is endorsed by the neighborhood. Mr. Conner noted that as they get further into the PUD study, one suggested option was a “campus style,” a well thought out plan. Members raised the issue of public use in addition to private (neighborhood) of a commercial venture. Mr. Conner said he would research this. Regarding uses, Mr. Conner outlined the allowable commercial uses in a residential neighborhood as follows: a. Community center b. Restaurant c. Retail sales (category that includes groceries/market) d. Personal instruction e. Child care f. Artist production studio g. Food hub Mr. Conner also alerted members that by current definition, “retail sales” includes all retail uses, and members may want to re‐open that discussion. Mr. Macdonald suggested narrowing the definition. Ms. Ostby asked to “start conservative.” Ms. Ostby asked about signage and cautioned against something like a neon sign. Mr. Conner said he believed allowable commercial signs in residential neighborhoods are very small and would verify this. 7. Overview of short-term housing rental regulation: Mr. Conner noted this is “new territory” and has started because of recent discussion in large tourist locations. The question is to what extent is housing that was intended to be “permanent” changing in character. Mr. Conner felt that South Burlington isn’t there yet. There are a few bed & breakfasts (b&b’s), but not many. However, South Burlington regulations predate “short term” rentals, and people have begun renting out a room in a house. The State defines “short term” as people staying less than 30 days in a row. Mr. Conner said one of the issues is the collecting of the rooms & meals tax. A bill currently in the Legislature would require homes with short term rentals to register. South Burlington does have definitions of B&B’s, hotels, and dwelling units. But these all pre-date the advent of the online booking systems Mr. Mittag noted the possibility of people buying buildings and turning them into B&B’s, resulting in a loss of housing. It was noted that if the owner of the property is required to live there, it still functions as “housing.” Mr. Macdonald suggested that regulations should cover issues such as safety, finances, and neighborhood concerns. Ms. Olicky noted that for the past few years they have been renting their basement which they turned into a legal accessory apartment. She noted that Mr. Belair told them the city doesn’t view long term and short‐term rentals differently. She felt this was a “zoning grey space.” She also noted that they use the space for family who come to visit. Ms. Olicky noted the B&B option offers a challenge as well as a benefit to the community. The home is worth more, so the city gets more in taxes. She encouraged the Commission to make regulations, noting that there may be more of these in the city than staff thinks (6 in her neighborhood alone). She agreed there should be minimum health and safety standards. Ms. Ostby cited the need for a body to oversee this. 8. Discuss possible modifications to bonding requirements for landscaping: Mr. Conner noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has asked developers what could be done to get more affordable housing in the city. One response dealt with the bonding for landscaping. Small bonds are now very hard to get, and if a developer has to bond for a large project, the odds are very small that $100,000 worth of landscaping will fail. One thought is to set a minimum ($10,000), and anything below that would not require bonding. At the upper end, a developer could bond for half of the landscaping amount. Members felt this was a reasonable approach. Mr. Conner said this can be part of the next round of amendments. 9. Brief status update on PUD/Master Plan Project: Mr. Conner said staff received a lot of material from the consultants in the past few weeks, much of it focusing on “how it looks now and what it could look like.” They also received a robust draft of a master plan document. Staff is reviewing this material and will meet with the consultants in the next few weeks and then bring recommendations to the Commission. 10. Consider and possibly approve or support City Council Resolution formally requesting that the U.S. Air Force4 replace the F35A with a safe and quiet aircraft: Mr. Conner noted the City Council action had a May 1 action date, so staff felt it should be on this agenda. Mr. Mittag distributed a proposed draft resolution. He felt it expressed the Commission’s solidarity with the other communities. Ms. Ostby noted that Mr. Gagnon said he would have to recuse himself from this discussion because his firm does work for the Airport. A copy of a letter sent in 2012 to Nicholas Germanos regarding the F35A basing was distributed to members. Ms. Ostby noted that Ms. Louisos felt this letter already addressed the issue on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Gonda felt it was relevant for the Commission to take a stand as the issue involves affordable housing. He suggested the Commission just support the City Council’s action. Mr. Merriott, who lives in the affected neighborhood, also felt affordable housing is an issue for the Commission. He said that as a carpenter he is disappointed with what he has seen in the way of in the new housing going up in the community. He would not buy one of those units. He asked the Commission to support the City Council action and ask for a different mission for the Guard. Ms. Greco said that because the Commission took a stand in 2012 doesn’t mean they can’t take a stand now. She felt the more messages the Air Force gets, the better. She cited the destruction of a neighborhood because of the noise of military planes, and this will get worse with the F35s. Close to 3,000 homes will be affected. Ms. Greco noted that citizens in 6 other states have changed the plan or had the F35 taken from them. There are other aircraft that are quieter and safer being flown in other states. There is assurance that there will always have a mission here. Mr. Macdonald said he did not support the City Council’s action. Mr. Riehle said the affordable housing is such an emotional issue. He was comfortable the Guard will always be here, and he thus supports the resolution. Ms. Ostby had an issue with the Commission taking on a political issue. She felt it was the Council’s purview to address this, and they did. She would stand behind the 2012 letter but wasn’t comfortable with a new resolution. Mr. Mittag said the resolution supports the 2012 letter. He felt it is a Commission issue as the Commission will have to decide how to replace the lost affordable housing. Ms. Ostby said that if the F35 does arrive, a lot will be done to insulate homes. Ms. Greco said the Air Force has said the only mitigation is to take down the homes. Mr. Riehle suggested endorsing the 2012 letter. Ms. Greco suggested resending the 2012 letter and telling the Air Force the Commission is still concerned. Ms. Ostby wanted other Commission members to be able to weigh in on this issue and suggested waiting until there are more voices present. Members agreed to put it on the agenda for the second meeting in May (22nd). 11. Meeting Minutes of 28 February 2017, 12 December 2017, 21 January 2018 and 10 April 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 28 February 2017, 12 December 2017, 21 January 2018 and 10 April 2018 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12. Other Business: The next Commission meeting will be on 8 May. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Commission May 8, 2018 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: April 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Continued review and possible approval of Library / Senior Center / City Hall Purpose & Need (7:20 pm) Enclosed please find an updated draft of the Purpose and Need Statement based on the Commission’s feedback at its last meeting. The updated draft incorporates a more direct link to the Comprehensive Plan and makes greater reference to the educational role of the facility. 6. Continue discussion of small-scale commercial uses/structures in / adjacent to residential districts (7:30 pm) See the enclosed materials. 7. Overview of short-term housing rental regulation (7:50 pm) At its March 27th meeting, the Commissioner asked staff to come back at a future meeting to provide an overview of how short term rentals, including those from booking sites such as AirBnB and VRBO, are considered in Vermont and South Burlington. Enclosed please find a staff memo on the subject. 8. Discuss possible modifications to bonding requirements for landscaping (8:15 pm) See enclosed memo 9. Brief status update on Planned Unit Development / Master Plan project (8:30 pm) Staff will provide a brief update on the PUD / Master Plan project, drafts presently under review, and next steps. 10. Consider and possibly approve or support City Council Resolution formally requesting that the US Air Force replace the F-35A with a safe and quiet aircraft (8:40 pm) This past week the City Council passed a resolution on the subject of the planned basing of F-35 aircraft at the Burlington International Airport. The Planning Commission subsequently received a resident’s request for the item to be considered by this body as well. The Commission’s normal practice in such instances would be to welcome a resident to make a request or provide comment to the Commission under the portion of the agenda entitled “items from the public not related to the agenda.” At that time, the Commission would decide whether to place the item on an upcoming agenda for discussion. In this particular instance, because the Council’s resolution includes a May 1, 2018 action date, the acting chair elected to place the item directly on the Commission’s agenda for discussion, to allow the Commission to discuss the subject this evening if it so chooses. Below is a link to the resolution considered and passed by the Council this past week. Enclosed with the agenda item is the resident letter requesting that the item be placed on the Commission’s agenda. http://clerkshq.com/content/Attachments/SouthBurlington-vt/180416_11.pdf?clientSite=SouthBurlington-vt 11. Meeting minutes (8:55 pm): February 28, 2017; December 12, 2017; January 30, 2018; and April 10, 2018 Staff recently did some “tidy up” of minutes and found a few sets that had not previously been approved by the PC. Thanks for your indulgence to review and consider these older ones, plus the April 10th set. 12. Other business (8:58 pm) a. Upcoming meeting schedule 13. Adjourn (9:00 pm) SOBU SPACES 2020: Library & + Senior Center + City Hall Purpose and Need Statement Purpose: The purpose of the SoBu Spaces 2020: Library + Senior Center + City Hall is to create a central place accessible for individuals to experience, learn, entertain, and share ideas and information. It is to provide resources and programming for all ages, beliefs, and backgrounds; capitalize on creative designs that maximize function and usage; increase opportunities for public engagement and growth; and cultivate a sense of ownership and civic pride while spurring growth and economic development in City Center. The City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan identifies and strongly supports this project purpose: “The community vision for City Center calls for the establishment of one or more public amenities to serve as a focal point for the community… “Planning for City Center includes a new public library, city hall, and/or recreation center, a central gathering place and public events locale… “The presence of these community facilities is an integral component of this area. They will transform a retail area into a true downtown.” (p. 3-12) “Objective 47: Promote interconnectivity and integration of public facilities including schools … to include safe routes for children and neighborhood residents to walk and bicycle to schools, a public library, recreation services, and other city services.” (p. 3-14) “Strategy 102. Construct new city hall, library, and/or recreation center… in centralized, walkable environments in the Central District.” (p. 3-15) “Be a recognized leader in public education offerings and outcomes;” (p. 1-1) Needs: 1. Build attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center. The 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan states: “Establish a city center with pedestrian-oriented design, mixed uses, and public buildings and civic spaces that act as a focal point to the community” (p.1-1), but no public City buildings have been built that are consistent with the plan. Quality architecture, indoor and outdoor gathering space, and public art are needed to enhance the experience of a walkable urban center. 2. Support a dynamic, evolving community. Nearly 19,000 people make their home in South Burlington, a number that has increased over 75 percent since the library was established in 1971 and the city hall at 575 Dorset Street was constructed in 1980. The City also has a growing number of senior citizen but no official center to serve their needs. The City’s population is projected to reach 22,000 by 2030. Since the library was established and today’s city hall built, the vision of the City and manner in which services are provided has changed, and existing spaces no longer adequately meet community needs. 3. Provide spaces where all of South Burlington’s residents and visitors can meet, discuss, participate, learn, and visit. There is a lack of meeting space available for community groups, clubs, small groups of students and/or tutors to gather. South Burlington has no community-owned performance space, thereby limiting the support of the community’s cultural, public and educational activities. Opportunities for public involvement and input are often scheduled in rooms with seating that is uncomfortable and acoustics that are inferior for multi-hour sessions. Meeting spaces predate the internet and offer no built-in recording or streaming capabilities. Current public facilities lack areas needed to offer ongoing educational programs in formal settings, activities in flexible spaces, and quiet conversation in cozy areas. These are needed due to the diversity of interests, abilities and ages within the South Burlington community. 4. Anchor the City Center downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. City Center is currently a collection of shopping centers and individual, detached businesses surrounded by housing. A library, senior center and city hall will provide a community gathering space, services and amenities within walking distance of existing and future neighborhoods. It will also generate foot traffic that will attract social activity, development and economic investment in South Burlington’s designated downtown. Such a developed space will support collaboration within and between the business and residential communities. 5. Strengthen the South Burlington community through abundant opportunities to learn, share and succeed. The library requires significantly more space than its current 7,000 square feet to fulfill its mission to the community through arts, humanities and literacy programs, lifelong learning activities, and providing quality, timely and equal access to information and early childhood literacy. Library services and programs currently lack casual meeting areas as well as meeting rooms to support the gathering of individuals to share interests and knowledge. 6. Meet community need for collections. The library currently occupies a leased space of about 7,000 square feet with a book collection of less than 50,000 volumes. Recent research shows a continuing preference by all generations for physical volumes in addition to e-books and other library offerings such as technology and hands-on programming and maker spaces. The recommended collection size for similarly sized communities is over 90,000 volumes. The current space is too small to accommodate a larger collection or allow for growth. In addition, libraries are trending toward book cover displays to maximize browsing ability and ease of checkout. 7. Provide quality public services; ensure transparent and accessible government. The new library, senior center and city hall will incorporate a great degree of flexibility and adaptability as technology continues to evolve, allowing for greater participation and ease of use. It will be in compliance with accessibility standards and will encourage use by all members of the community. South Burlington lacks space for interactive community events and public voting, and city committees and civic groups to meet after hours. 8. Improve efficiency. Newer buildings offer efficiency and operational savings that do not exist in the current structures. Well-designed buildings that maximize natural light, use products with low toxicity and incorporate airtight, well-insulated areas with little energy or fuel dependency provide increased comfort and productivity of occupants. The building’s efficiency will become an example and learning tool within the community. A co-location offers better integration of staff as well as opportunities for combining spaces for programming and the provision of services across departments. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Neighborhood Commercial Uses DATE: April 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting At its March 27th meeting, the Planning Commission discussed- in moderate detail- the possibility of permitting a small commercial component in residential areas otherwise not zoned for such uses. Members overall discussed a desire to have small, context-sensitive, limited-use and architecturally relevant commercial uses in walking distance to some residential neighborhood. As previously highlighted, this concept potentially meets several of the goals established in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission undertook a hearty discussion (minutes attached) and asked Staff to return with a summary of these thoughts and more detailed language that could be incorporated into a future set of amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The Planning Commission affirmed several aspects of the use. Neighborhood Commercial use The purpose of this use category is to promote small, context-sensitive, limited-use and architecturally relevant commercial uses in walking distance to a residential neighborhood. While these may service a broader geography and limited pass-by traffic, these uses are intended to be easily walkable for the majority of the residential neighborhood. Be part of a master-planned community The proposed use must be approved as part of a master plan. 1. This may be considered as part of a new master plan for the property. 2. If a master plan is already approved, the proposed use must be considered under an amended master plan. 3. As part of master plan approval or amendment, the Board shall consider elements which are related to the successful incorporation of the use into the neighborhood or area which it is expected to serve. These may include: a. Traffic and vehicular access b. Maximum parking allowances c. Pedestrian circulation and access d. Additional landscaping beyond minimum requirements 4. Specific standards. a. The use must be easily accessible by foot or bicycle to most of the neighborhood via sidewalks or multi-use paths. b. New buildings associated with the use shall be located in such a manner as to not disrupt or divide the residential areas of an existing neighborhood. c. Trash enclosures shall be screened on all sides with attractive, high quality fencing. d. Hours of use shall be limited to 6am to 10pm. Be of limited size and scale: The NC use is restricted: 1. Be limited to one building, with a footprint no larger than 6,000 SF. 2. Be limited to two stories or a total building height of 28 feet. 3. Be limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant. 4. Uses ancillary to the proposed use which are fully below grade will not count towards the maximum tenant size. Ancillary uses may include administrative office space, storage space and mechanical space, provided they serve the principal use. Be limited in use: 1. Only the following uses may be permitted: e. Community center f. Restaurant g. Retail sales (staff note- this is what grocery/market falls into) h. Personal instruction i. Child care j. Artist production studio k. Food hub 2. Drive throughs are expressly prohibited. 3. As one of the purposes of the neighborhood commercial use is to serve the adjacent neighborhood in a way which would foster walkability, the Board may not approve a use which already exists within ½ walkable mile. Demonstrate compliance with prescribed architectural standards: Buildings associated with the proposed use shall demonstrate architectural relevance, coordinating or complimenting the residential style of homes in the area. This shall follow the specific standards outlined in 9.10D, (1)-(3). (For PC reference, but not to be duplicated in this section): D. Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District (1) Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. (2) Building Façades (a) Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. (b) Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. (c) Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. (d) All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. (e) Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. (f) Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. (3) Building Setbacks. New buildings with commercial uses must be built within a build-to-zone established no less than fifteen feet (15’) and no more than twenty feet (20’) from the edge of the curb. The area between the building and the curb shall provide for convenient pedestrian access via sidewalk or recreation path; see Section 9.10(C)(1) above. Parking is prohibited between the building and the sidewalk. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Overview of short-term rentals DATE: April 24, 2018 Commission meeting Earlier this spring the Commission asked that staff prepare an overview of short term rentals, how they are addressed at the local and State level, and what our regulations presently say, or do not say, about the subject. Understanding that this is an evolving subject area, below is a brief summary of the subject here in South Burlington: What are they? Under State Statutes (24 VSA §4301), “’Short-term rental’ means a furnished home, condominium, or other dwelling rented to the transient, traveling, or vacationing public for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 days per calendar year.” There is no specific definition for a “short term rental” in South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations. There are several different ways that short-term rentals, broadly, exist here and elsewhere. They can consist of one or more bedrooms within an occupied dwelling unit, or may be an entire building rental. There can be multiple separate rental units within a single building, or “whole house” rentals. They can be for single nights or longer stays, and they can be offered for rent occasionally, seasonally, or year- round. How common are they in South Burlington? A quick review of the most popular online booking sites – AirBnb and VRBO – suggest that at present there are perhaps a dozen short term rental sites available at any given time in the community. The total number likely exceeds this as “booked rentals” do not show up on the searches, and as noted above, some units may only be made available at certain times of the year. How are they treated at the State level? As noted above, State Statutes have a specific definition for what is considered a short-term rental. Taxation laws in Vermont appear to mirror the thresholds described above. As of the past few years, online booking sites have been collecting the State rooms and meals tax for Vermont lodging. The City of South Burlington should be receiving its portion of this tax; the City is in the process of verifying this with the State. State regulation under consideration The Legislature in 2018 is considering a bill that would modify requirements related to short-term rentals. As of April 18, 2018, the State Senate had passed S. 204, and the House committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs was considering the bill this week. The Senate-passed bill would require that all short-term rentals be registered with the State and that the registration number would be required to be posted on all online booking ads. Minimum safety standards would also be required, as they are of all similar accommodations. South Burlington’s regulations The South Burlington Land Development Regulations do not directly address short-term rentals. There are, however, several definitions and uses that relate to this subject. These include: Bed and breakfast. A detached single-family residence with four or fewer rooms for rent, accommodating a maximum of ten guests, for short-term overnight lodging by the day or by the week. The single-family residence must be the primary residence of the owner or operator of the bed and breakfast. Employment shall not exceed one (1) full-time employee in addition to the owner. Only a morning meal may be provided to guests. Bed and breakfasts are also known as tourist homes. Conditional use in: AR, SW, R4, R7, R&-NC, R12, QCP, SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT & SEQ-VC. Dwelling unit. A building or portion thereof designed, used, constructed or occupied as separate living quarters for one (1) household which includes independent and exclusive cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities for a household, and direct access to the unit from the outside of the building or through a common hall. Hotel. A building or part of a building in which (a) living or sleeping accommodations are used primarily for transient occupancy on a daily basis and for compensation to the general public, and (b) one or more common entrances serve all such living or sleeping units, and (c) twenty-four hour desk service is provided, in addition to one or more of the following services: housekeeping, telephone, or bellhop service, or the furnishing or laundering of linens. Permitted accessory uses are restaurants or other public dining facility, bars or lounges, public banquet halls, ballrooms, or meeting rooms. PUD in: C1 R12, C1 R15, & C1 – Auto. Conditional use in: C1-Air, C1-LR, SW, & C2. Hotel, extended stay. A residential hotel containing (1) small furnished apartment type units rented on a short term basis each with a kitchen (including stove with an oven or a microwave oven, minimum twelve (12) cubic foot refrigerator, dishwasher, sink and cooking and eating utensils), bath, living space and separate bedroom/sleeping space, and (2) a common area which shall include three (3) or more of the following: business support facilities, guest only breakfast facilities, lobby, and recreation space and amenities; but specifically excludes public restaurant(s), cocktail lounge(s), and banquet meeting rooms containing more than fifty (50) seats. No more than fifteen percent (15%) of the units shall contain more than one bedroom. Units must be available on a daily, weekly and monthly basis and shall not be rented to the same occupant for more than one hundred eighty (180) days in any three hundred sixty-five (365) day period. PUD in: C1 R12, & C1 R15. Conditional use in: C1-Air, C1- LR, SW, & C2. Household. A group of between one (1) and four (4) unrelated individuals, or one (1) or more individuals related by blood, marriage, adoption and/or fosterage, occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit. Motel. A building or group of buildings which (A) contains living and sleeping accommodations used primarily for transient occupancy to the general public on a daily basis for compensation, with the exception of the manager's or caretaker's unit, and (B) has convenient access to parking spaces for the use of the unit's occupants by way of separate entrances or groups of separate entrances, outside the main building, into the individual units. Not listed as allowed in any district. Residence. The home, abode, or place where an individual is living at a specific point in time. How the City presently interpret these Regulations At this moment in time, the City does not pursue active enforcement of short-term rentals. When asked, staff has provided general guidance to those interested in the subject. This has included: • Regular use of a dwelling unit for short-term rentals would likely not be considered to be a dwelling unit any longer and therefore would need to demonstrate that it falls under another use category and that it is allowable in the applicable district. • At this time, a “part-time” use of a dwelling unit for short-term rentals is not being reviewed by the City. That is subject to change. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Landscaping Bonding Requirements possible modifications DATE: April 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting The City’s Land Development Regulations require that a bond (or other form of surety such as an Escrow of Letter of Credit) be obtained in the amount of any landscaping on private property that is installed commensurate with a project. This is separate from the bonding that is required for any planned public infrastructure. The bonds are held as three-party agreements between the applicant, the City of South Burlington, and the lending institution. The City has the authority to withdraw the bonded amount in the event that a project’s landscaping dies and the applicant for whatever reason has refused to replace it. Landscape bond must be kept in place for a period of three years. The requirement above is in addition to the requirements of Section 13.06(I) of the Land Development Regulations: Landscape Maintenance. Maintenance and responsibility. All planting shown on an approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. Trees with a caliper of less than 5” may be replaced on an inch-by-inch basis with trees of the same genus of at least 2” caliper each. No permit shall be required for such replacements provided they conform to the approved site plan. Replacement of trees with a caliper of greater than 5” shall require an amendment to the site plan. Outline of challenges This past winter the Affordable Housing Committee invited a presentation by a developer sharing ideas on how to assist with overall project affordability. One of the concepts was to reduce some of the bonding requirement on landscaping for very large projects. In a similar vein, staff has witnessed difficulties at the other end of the spectrum: that is, for very small projects, property owners have had significant difficulties in find a lending institution that will issue a small bond. Staff took a look to see how often the City has had to pull/utilize landscape bonds. It is very rare. Possible amendment: Staff proposes that the landscaping bond requirements be modified in two ways: • First, to eliminate the requirement for bonding of small landscape projects entirely. These could be for landscape amount of less than $1,000 or $2,000. In these cases, the projects themselves are typically small and the risk to the City is minimal. • Second, to reduce the bonding requirement for larger landscape amounts. For example, any required landscaping in excess of $10,000 could be lowered to 50% of the value above that figure. The likelihood that more than half of all of the landscaping in a large project fails is very low. Staff welcomes a discussion of these possible amendments at the meeting. The goals would be to relieve financial and procedural burden on developers where such relief does not put the City at significantly increased risk. 1 Paul Conner From:Rosanne Greco Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:00 PM To:Jessica Louisos; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Monica Ostby Cc:Rosanne Greco; Paul Conner Subject:Request for a resolution/statement   > Dear Jessica, Paul, and Planning Commission members, (sorry that I only have a few of the Commissioner’s addresses  handy)  >   > Now that the city of Burlington, the city of South Burlington and the city of Winooski have all passed resolutions  requesting the Air Force cancel the F‐35 and replace it with a safe and quiet military aircraft…one that is compatible with  residential neighborhoods, would the South Burlington Planning Commission please consider passing their own  resolution to send to the Air Force requesting the same thing?  >   > If you would like any documentation on the feasibility of this happening, and any information on neighborhood‐ compatible military aircraft, which are flown by other Air National Guard units in other U. S. states, I’d be happy to send  them to you.  Should we acquire this kind of aircraft, there would be no 65 dB DNL zone.  No more houses would be  taken down, no insulation would be necessary, and no schools — or school children— would have to be relocated.  >   > Thank you.  >   > Rosanne Greco  > 63 Four Sisters Rd  > South Burlington  > H:  497‐0711  > C:  301‐919‐9313    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 FEBRUARY 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 February 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; S. Murray, M. Kane, J. Leas, K. Epstein 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. Leas introduced himself as a candidate for the City Council. He said he was happy to know there is a Plan and Planning Commission and urged the Commission to put people first and keep the heavy economic interests “in their place.” 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington reminded people to vote next Tuesday. Mr. Riehle attended a meeting related to Tilley Drive traffic and other issues. There will be more future meetings. Ms. Harrington, who also attended, said there was a lot of interest in a “park and ride.” Mr. Riehle also noted that Exit 13 was brought up again, and he had explained the concern with a cloverleaf with no place for bikers and pedestrians. He said he would like to see something in writing that if the interchange is built there would be priority given to bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Conner: noted he had attended the meeting with the FAA. Written questions were accepted. He didn’t feel too much new was relayed. If a hos community wants to apply for funds for programs, there is a May 1st deadline each year. The FAA Administrator said he would be happy to attend a future meeting, and he is being invited to a City Council meeting. The large conference is being remodeled to include windows. The Affordable Housing Committee is working through the housing replacement amendment. The Commission should see it in 4-6 weeks. Ms. Louisos noted she had suggested that the Committee have some public vetting before they come to the Commission. 4. Initial Discussion of possible street name changes: Williston Road, Shelburne Road, Hinesburg Road: 2 Mr. Dorn stressed that this is just a discussion item. He noted that last summer, the City worked with a consultant regarding “branding.” The consultants conducted a survey of the public (over 500 respondents). 55% felt South Burlington doesn’t have an “identity,” and 65% felt that was important. Following this, talk began to center on “complete communities” and to identify city shortcomings. South Burlington has a great school system, but it has no “downtown.” There is also no fully developed schedule of community events and less than great signage. Mr. Dorn noted that City Center is now moving forward. One thing that occurred to staff is that the city’s 4 most significant roads are named for other communities (Shelburne, Hinesburg, Williston and Dorset). This made sense a century ago when the roads were directing people to those communities and South Burlington was a “pass through” community. However, South Burlington is now its own community, not just a place to go through to get somewhere else. Mr. Dorn proposed that the Planning Commission begin a dialog regarding those 4 street names. He drew attention to a handout and noted that one suggestion is to name the roads for the 4 quadrants of the city (Gateway, Center, Ridgeline, Lakeshore). This could also help to build local identity. Mr. Gagnon noted the number of people who would have to change addresses on accounts, stationery, etc. Mr. Dorn suggested the name changes could be set out 3 or 4 years to give people time to address that concern and to plan ahead. Mr. Conner noted that name changes are not unprecedented and cited the change of the Town of Sherburne to Killington in the 1990s. Mr. Dorn noted the city is doing more signage and is planning more events this summer to bring people together. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly linking a name change to something major going on the particular road. Mr. Gagnon noted the Williston Road studies begin done to enhance/change that road. Mr. Conner said there will be a presentation to the Commission on that study in late March. Mr. Dorn concluded his presentation by noting that 30% of those polled said they would change the name of South Burlington as part of the identity issue. Agenda items were re-arranged until both consultants had arrived. 5. (formerly #8) Other Business: 3 a. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, Williston Road and Ethan Allen Drive. b. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, 333 Shelburne Road. No issues were raised on these items. c. Meeting Schedule: Members agreed not to make up the earlier February meeting at this time. The next meeting of the Commission will be on 14 March. Ms. Louisos noted she will not be able to attend that meeting. 6. (formerly #7) Minutes of 24 January 2017: Ms. Ostby asked to add to the discussion of replacement housing her concern that a single family home is replaced with a single family home rather than a unit in a multi-family project. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 24 January 2017 with the above addition. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Klugo abstaining. 7. (formerly #6) Review possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations: End of Trip Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Updates: Ms. LaRose introduced language provided by the Bike/Ped Committee. She noted they had spent considerable time on this. The language provides definitions for short and long-term bicycle parking and defines what it is and where it can be. Ms. LaRose noted the current language merely requires a bike rack but doesn’t say what size or how many, which means you can get the same amount of bike storage at a small CPA office as you do at UMall. The proposed regulations would address that and would also include standards for residential and non-residential buildings. Ms. LaRose stressed that no solution is perfect. The Bike/Ped Committee considered 3 options for determining criteria for bike/bed facilities: Option A: tied into to vehicle parking Option B: based on square footage (a problem being a large warehouse that may have only a few employees) Option C: tied in to use The Committee preferred Option C and suggested a “curve” for large buildings. 4 Mr. Gagnon suggested using trip generation rates or building population. Ms. LaRose said the problem is that an office building today could be a day care tomorrow. She thought the Committee might consider using trip generation rates. Ms. Louisos suggested looking at the list of traffic generators and seeing if anything “pops out.” Ms. LaRose noted there are regulations in Burlington and Williston, and the Committee used those as a starting point. Williston’s regulations are based on parking. Mr. Klugo suggested looking at communities South Burlington aspires to be like. Ms. Harrington asked about a building with multi-uses. Mr. Conner said they would add up the usage of each use category. They wouldn’t go by individual tenants. Ms. LaRose said they are trying to reduce the stress on someone moving into a new space, having to wait months to get the DRB’s approval for a small change in a bike rack. Mr. Klugo suggested that upper levels of parking garages could be re-used for bike storage when cars are not used as much. Ms. Ostby noted that in Los Angeles you can swap out parking spaces for bike parking spaces. Mr. Conner said that would be possible. Ms. LaRose noted that in office buildings, some outdoor parking spaces could be moved indoors for bicycles. Ms. LaRose noted these regulations would not apply to City Center at this stage. That will require more study. Mr. Epstein later suggested contacting the League of American Bicyclists for ideas. 8. (formerly #5) Planned Unit Development and Master Plan Project, Phase II: Ms. Murray briefly reviewed Phase I of the Project and advised that the report is on-line. She noted that the recommendations of Phase I focused on PUDs as both a form of development and a process. The existing regulations don’t focus as much on the form. The report also identifies 9 types of PUDs and focuses on the Traditional Neighborhood form. In Phase II, they will develop more of these PUD types based on Commission interest. Members were shown graphics for each of the PUD types. Mr. Kane explained the elements of each drawing. Ms. LaRose suggested viewing everything as a “recipe card” where each type has the same ingredients but is defined by how much of each ingredient it has. Mr. Klugo noted that the drawings reveal that the major roads in the city are east-west which the houses are north-south facing, which is why the city struggles so much with solar. 5 Ms. Murray then briefly reviewed the recommendations from Phase I including discretionary DRB review (use of waivers, focus on PUD as a design, clarify discretionary authority), considered Regulatory Relief (waiver provisions needing more standards, use of PUD provisions to waive or modify LDR requirements), redefining PUD as design (vs. use as a waiver tool) to allow desired forms of development (vs. regulatory relief), clarification of the purpose, use and standards for Master Plans. Ms. Murray said the focus in phase II will be on PUDs: a. Redefining PUDs as a design tool b. Defining types of PUDs c. Developing standards d. Establishing mandates, incentives e. Establishing process, standards for negotiated review The question of “vesting rights” will also be addressed (where/when in an application the applicant is guaranteed that the rules in effect at the time are the rules that will hold throughout). It was noted that there are potential tie-ins to new state legislation regarding “transportation districts.” Under this legislation, a developer who triggers something will have to build it,, but that developer can be reimbursed from funds collected from previous developers. Ms. Murray said they will also be looking at the City Center Form Based Code and a possible master plan concept. They will consider allowing modifications/adjustments, requiring master plans or regulatory plans for major development, and PUD-related “community types. Ms. Murray proposed monthly work sessions with the Commission as well as community forums throughout the year. In March, they are proposing reviewing LDRs and identifying with the DRB any “housekeeping” amendments. They would also develop a working outline of proposed by-law amendments. From April to September, they will prepare draft by-law amendments and graphics. The final draft would be completed by December. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. ______________________________Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 November 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Ostby, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Mittag, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Hainley; B. Shearer; residents 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Louisos noted that due to the snowstorm, the following items would be postponed to the next meeting: • Agenda item #5, 1225 Dorset Street. Requestor asked for the item to be moved to the next meeting • Agenda item #6A, Gene Beaudoin. Requestor asked for the item to be moved to the next meeting. Commissioners agreed to both modifications to the agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No comments. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Commissioners and staff provided brief summaries of recent work and an upcoming webinar. 5. Continued review and possible decision on Request for Boundary Line Determination – Isham Parcel, 1225 Dorset Street: Postponed as discussed above. 6. Consideration of initial requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Requests in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District, Gene Beaudoin, Saxon Partners: i. Request to separate “Wholesale Club” use from “Retail” and to allow Wholesale Club in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District ii. Request to allow multi-family dwelling units in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District, within 500’ of zoning districts that allow multi-family dwelling 2 Postponed as discussed above b. Request to allowed increased lot coverage in the Commercial 1-Auto district, Stephanie Hainley, White + Burke Ms. Hainley and Mr. Shearer provided an overview of their request, to allow for a greater lot coverage in the C1-Auto district. Staff and Commissioners discussed the proposal. Staff was directed to further look into options including connecting a lot coverage increase with a possible requirement for the installation of high quality open spaces similar to those in the City Center Form Based Codes district. 7. Continued Review of proposed amendments to the City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Conner reviewed the proposed amendments as directed by the Commission at its October 24th and November 28th meetings. Commissioners discussed. Mr. Klugo requested that the T3 “carriage house” allowance include a statement that the carriage unit on a lot be visually subordinate to the principal unit. Mr. Conner said that at the next meeting, these and other recent amendments would be ready for the Commission to warn a public hearing if they chose. 8. Continued review and action on 2018 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program requests. Members reviewed the draft list of requests prepared by staff. Mr. Conner provided an overview of the projects. Commissioners discussed the possible east-west roads request. Mr. Conner noted that there is some good information in the 2001 East West Roads study and 2007 Dorset Street Corridor study that remain relevant today and that a review of this information would be a useful first step. Commissioners determined that in order to best clarify what study it might want to request of the CCRPC, it should review these previous studies and discuss the subject in greater detail before making a UPWP request. Mr. Gagnon moved that the proposed project list be recommended to the City Council as presented, without the east-west roads item. Mr. Klugo seconded. Approved 7-0. 9. Road name requests: Long Drive and Short Drive, Highlands Development Mr. Conner outlined the request. Mr. Klugo felt there should be a single street name. Mr. Gagnon moved that Long Drive be approved, and that if the applicant should choose to submit a new name for consideration, that would be considered. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion approved 6-1, with Ms. Ostby voting against. 10. Minutes of 28 November 2017: 3 Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 28 November 2017 as written. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 7-0. 11. Other business: a. Update on cell tower pre-application, Dorset Street Mr. Conner provided a brief status update. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:14 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JOINT MEETING MINUTES 30 JANUARY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission and Development Review Board held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 30 January 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Commission: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag; Development Review Board: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; T. Barritt, S. Dopp 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on evacuation of the conference room should an emergency occur. 2. 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. Commissioner/Board member announcements and staff report: No announcements or reports were presented. 5. Planning Commission Project Updates / Discussion of DRB topics: Ms. Louisos said the Commission has been prioritizing a large list of potential projects including the amount of time estimated to complete the projects. She directed attention to a spreadsheet outlining these projects and noted that the highlighted projects are the ones that the Commission is currently addressing. She also noted a group of amendments that have already been adopted. Ms. Louisos said the Commission always listens to zoning requests from the public, some of which require short-term attention and others longer term. Some of these requests are under current consideration. At its next meeting, the Commission will hold a public hearing on another group of amendments including allowing setback waivers and taller buildings along major corridors. The Commission is also addressing on-going concerns with Form Based Code and has made a commitment to make it work. The Commission also works with other city committees (e.g., Affordable Housing, Bike/Ped) to see how their work can mesh with the work of the Commission. Some of the larger projects are being funded by grant money which is often used to hire consultants. The current Planned Unit Development (PUD) study will bring a major change for the DRB when it is completed. Mr. Behr said he will be very interested to see the different types of PUDs being proposed. Ms. Louisos said there will be 4 to 8 PUD types, each with clear criteria. Some could look like an overlay 2 (e.g. Transit Overlay PUD in a well-developed area of the city or an Agricultural PUD in the Southeast Quadrant). Mr. Behr noted the DRB is currently limited to a 25% parking waiver in an area with a lot of public transit. Some of these developments could require even less parking, but the DRB does not currently have the flexibility to allow for this. Mr. Conner suggested the possibility of credit from transportation impact fees for public transit, bike accommodations, etc. Mr. Wilking urged the Planning Commission not to come up with a maximum parking number. He felt that a developer is not going to build less parking than is needed for the project. Mr. Conner said that there are times when the regulations require more than is needed. Mr. Kochman felt that to rely solely on the developer is “misplaced.” Mr. Wilking said the big issue becomes the second user who may require more or less parking. Mr. Conner then noted some current zoning requests (these are on the website) including a request for small commercial in South Village and R-4 setback standards to allow for front porches. Ms. Louisos then noted other on-going studies including the Williston Road Transportation Study, the Tilley Drive Land Use Study, the scoping of bike/ped projects, and river corridor standards. The Commission also engages in “proactive” projects as time allows. Currently, these include looking at smaller houses in conjunction with affordable housing and scenic view. The Commission is also looking at redefining open space city-wide using Form Based Code standards. Mr. Wilking expressed concern with existing tree replacement standards. He said that if a 14-inch caliper tree is taken down, it has to be replaced with as many as 6 smaller trees, and often there is no room for these trees on the property. He noted an instance where trees were put on Market Street because there was no room on the applicant’s property, and now they have to come down because of road widening and development projects. This happens frequently and seems to make no sense. Mr. Kochman was concerned with the absence of standards for waivers in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs)s. He felt that one good thing that can come out of the PUD project is tidying up the approach to waivers, including standards for each. Mr. Wilking cautioned against tightening things up too much because it can inhibit creativity. With regard to scenic views, Mr. Kochman questioned whether it should be only a “public view” that is considered. Mr. Behr noted the difference between respecting the existing character of a neighborhood vs. the planned character of the neighborhood. Mr. Behr said this happens frequently when considering the character of neighborhoods adjacent to a development. 3 Ms. Keene stressed the issue of authority to deny an application with there are no standards. She asked what the Commission’s expectation is when there are no standards…just say “yes” or “use your judgment”? Mr. Behr said that when the DRB gets a new development adjacent to an existing neighborhood, they do not have the regulation or authority to take that neighborhood into consideration. That is a frequent complaint at DRB hearings. Mr. Behr said they need to address the “edge condition,” similar to the transitions buffers between residential and commercial developments. Mr. Wilking cited the requirement for no more than a 25-foot setback when all the existing homes in the area have 75-foot setbacks. The DRB doesn’t have the authority to change that. Ms. Louisos said that if the end goal is more of a “downtown,” with buildings closer to the road, you have to look toward that future. Mr. Behr said that with infill, you have to consider what is there now. Mr. Wilking cited the placement of CVS 6 feet off the boundary. The problem will arise with the future potential widening of Williston Road. Mr. Conner said that in a recent study a consultant found that the same capacity for traffic could be reached by widening Williston Road or by building a parallel street behind it which would open up more space for development. Mr. Kochman questioned the inability to stop a project because of traffic concerns. He didn’t feel a traffic impact fee is the answer to that problem. Mr. Conner cited the use of traffic impact fees for the bridge behind Trader Joe’s and the match for the Market Street construction. Mr. Wilking cited the need to coordinate intersections. Mr. Barritt noted there will be “adaptive signaling” on Dorset Street later this year. Mr. Wilking also cited issues with bike paths. They can go from “here to there,” but there is nothing to say what happens when it gets to “there.” Ms. Louisos noted the Bike/Ped Committee is working on a new bike/ped map to replace the older one now in effect. Mr. Wilking said a timetable would be helpful as would standards (is it a “sidewalk” or a “rec path”?) Ms. Ostby cited a request from the Affordable Housing Committee that all committees have a chance to look at a plan before it goes to the DRB. Mr. Behr said there would have to be some “bite” in the regulations so a committee’s recommendation can be taken into account. Ms. Ostby suggested a process in which several committees would meet together to consider an application and streamline the process for the developer. Mr. Kochman suggested sharing staff comments with committees. Ms. Keene noted the time issue as committees usually meet only once a month. Mr. Miller suggested that the Affordable Housing Committee work with a group to increase flexibility for developers to reduce their costs. Mr. Wilking noted that “affordable housing” is the most expensive to build. Mr. Kochman said the costs related to administration and fees. Mr. Conner noted that if a development has fewer than 275 houses and 20% are “affordable,” developers are exempt from Act 250 and their wastewater fees are capped. 4 Mr. Behr expressed concern with the timing of affordable housing. In the LDRs, there is a density bonus for affordable housing. But when the DRB sees a Master Plan, they don’t see what is “affordable” and when it will be built. The developer is told they can build up to the base density without building an affordable unit, but they may never build beyond that and will have used up all the land without building one affordable unit. A clear picture is needed of when affordable units are designated and built. If a developer is asking for a density bonus for affordable housing, it should be known where that housing will be and when it will be built. Mr. Behr added that if 10% of housing has to be affordable, 10% of what is built should have to be affordable, along a similar timeline. Mr. Wilking cited another issue with people who deliberately violate the rules, then come in after-the- fact. He felt there should be some sort of punitive action. Mr. Belair said the intent is not to punish but to achieve compliance. As long as progress toward compliance, it is fine. Mr. Wilking felt there should be some other remedy other than going to court. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council will be considering the LDRs an “ordinance” which could trigger a ticketing option for violations. Mr. Wilking asked whether tax policy has any place in Planning Commission planning. Mr. Riehle said there used to be a 50-50 residential-commercial split, but that is not longer in effect. Mr. Barritt noted the City Council is considering a commercial reappraisal for the city. This would be a few years out. Mr. Conner questioned whether there should be more design review. Mr. Wilking felt there should be when a project abuts a “significantly traveled way.” Ms. Louisos noted that on Shelburne Road, the intent is to have corner buildings with a “corner presence.” Mr. Behr said developers are generally willing to listen to DRB requests to make buildings better to look at. 6. Public Comment on Topics Discussed: Ms. Dopp felt the more meetings like this one, the better. Mr. Barritt cited the number of hours put in by the two boards, thanking them for all of their work, and the amount of money coming into the city from redevelopment. He noted that Williston Rd. is on the verge of a lot of changes. He urged the Boards to come to the City Council when a need arises. Ms. Ostby cited the need for a safe way to get from Burlington to South Burlington. Ms. Dopp said it would have to be so attractive that people would use it. As there was no further business to come before the boards, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk _______________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 APRIL 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 April 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Klugo, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; R. Hamlin, S. Chaney, J. & S. Jewitt 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Conner provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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 report: Mr. Macdonald: The South Burlington Business Association (SBBA) met with the City Council a few weeks ago to discuss what SBBA might do for the city. There was discussion of forming a “sustainable economic development committee,” and the Council were receptive to that idea. Mr. Conner: Prior to next Monday’s City Council meeting (6 p.m.), there will be a celebration of the life of City Councilor Pat Nowak who passed away last week. The State will be doing new ortho-photography for Chittenden County beginning 11 April, weather permitting. This will provide better resolution than Google. On 23 May, VLCT will hold a workshop in Rutland for Planning Commissioners regarding legal issues in planning. A number of trees are being removed this week in association with approved projects. This includes the area of City Center along Market Street. Staff is discussion regularly scheduled community outreach, possibly quarterly “brown bag lunches.” A Planning Commission member representative should consider attending if that would work. 2 There will be new bikes & bike racks in town as part of the Chittenden County “bike share” program. People can sign up and get a code to use to get a bike for a short trip. There will be over 100 bikes in the County, some of which will be electric-assist modified. 5. Initial review: requests to 1) change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset Street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential; 2) modify Official Map to indicate accurate location of golf course across a portion of the parcel: Mr. Hamlin noted that only the center third of the parcel (identified on a map) is leased to the Golf Course. The request is to change the zoning for areas to the east and west of the Golf Course portion. Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the request and noted that at an earlier meeting the Commission had confirmed the zoning of the east and west portions of the property as Natural Resource Protection Zone (NRP). Following that decision, the applicant made a request to change the zoning. Mr. Hamlin said the intent is to make the zoning the same as that of the surrounding properties. He identified the location of an easement which would allow the connection of two pieces of road across the western portion of this property. Mr. Chaney noted the elevation changes and said that the higher land was traditionally kept for development. He said it is possible the zoning designation may have been an oversight, assuming all of the land was leased to the Golf Course. Mr. Riehle read a note from Commissioner Mittag who felt the entire parcel is in the NRP zone and the request should be denied. He also felt it is an important wildlife corridor. He also said the Official Map should not be modified because it is a ‘private arrangement.’ Mr. Riehle also read a letter from resident Roseann Greco requesting that the land not be rezoned. She cited the costs of sprawl. Mr. Riehle said he would just go with option #2, correcting the Official Map and not pursuing the zoning change. Mr. Gagnon asked how many acres are involved. Mr. Chaney said approximately a total of 25 for the 2 pieces. Mr. Gagnon noted the area is completely surrounded by development, so he wouldn’t have as much of an issue changing the zoning. He would support putting in on the Commission’s work plan. Mr. Macdonald said he understands Mr. Gagnon’s point but would be hesitant to change the zoning on NRP land in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) for fear of setting a precedent. He asked if there are other parcels in the city where this could become an issue. Mr. Conner said he would do some research on that. Mr. Klugo said this parcel is unique because it doesn’t follow natural contours. The question is how it ended up with the current zoning. 3 Mr. Chaney said local residents have been going onto the property and cutting down trees, marking trails, etc., and creating their own “recreation area.” He was concerned with the liability that poses. Mr. Hamlin said the wildlife corridor would not be closed off. He also would not characterize the surrounding homes as “sprawl.” Zoning currently would allow the building of one house on the western property which would involve more disruption for sewer, water, etc. He felt that was not good planning. Mr. Klugo said he also questioned how the zoning ended up as it did. He would like to add it to the work plan and not close the door on the discussion. He also understood Mr. Macdonald’s concern with opening a “Pandora’s box.” Mr. Chaney said in his research he didn’t find any other parcels that would be in the same situation as most zoning in the city follows logical boundary lines. Members agreed to continue the discussion when there are more members present. Mr. Conner noted there will be an item on the workplan to update the Official City Map. There is a question of whether to indicate private entity lines, and the suggestion is to show no delineation of ownership. The map hasn’t been updated for more than 10 years. Members were OK with staff’s position on the Official Map. Mr. Hamlin noted that the southern road is now non-conforming. If it could be connected, that non- conformity would disappear. The city also has a goal of connecting neighborhoods which would happen if that road could be connected. Mr. Jewitt asked staff to be sure to follow up on how many other parcels could be similarly affected. The owners of those parcels should also be specifically invited to attend that discussion. 6. Review and consider approval of Library/City Hall/Community Center Purpose & Need: Mr. Klugo noted that his company has been short-listed on this project, so he will remain silent. He felt there should be no action at this meeting as any action with only four members present would require a vote from him. Mr. Riehle said he felt Mr. Klugo could ask questions but supported his not voting on any action. Ms. Blanchard said the project proposed to build a Library/City Hall/Community Center on half an acre on Market Street. There have been numerous public input meetings, and architects have been reaching out to stakeholders. A purpose and needs statement has been drafted and the Library portion of it has been approved by the Library Board of Trustees. The project will include the following: 4 a. Space for a senior center b. Public space c. Meeting spaces d. Space for “lifelong learning” e. An anchor for City Center f. Space for book collections g. Quality pubic services h. Improved efficiency/sustainability in a way that can’t occur with current facilities The City has signed a Letter of Intent to purchase the property adjacent to the new Cathedral Square housing project. Ms. Blanchard identified the property on a map and indicated a new street as well. The proposed building will be approximately 45,000 sq. ft. on three floors. Parking will be considered as part of a different project. Mr. Riehle noted that with the construction of Market Street and 2 buildings going up, there will be a lot of chaos. Ms. Blanchard said parts of Market Street will not be a through street. Allard Square is slated to open in November, and the intent is to open the City Hall/Library in 2020. Mr. Klugo asked the status of the adjacent school-owned property. Mr. Conner said the City has a Letter of Intent to purchase a small piece of the school-owned land. This is currently under discussion at the School Board. Ms. Blanchard said the City will work to be sure the school still has the same functionality on their property. Ms. Blanchard then explained the TIF funding for the project. A bond will be presented to public vote in November. Mr. Klugo suggested looking for more tie-ins to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner suggested “life- long learning” and “efficiency.” Mr. Riehle asked if there will be outdoor public space (e.g., sitting area). Ms. Blanchard showed concepts of a plaza area in front of the building. There will also be terraces and a green roof and a large indoor lobby. Mr. Riehle asked if a small coffee shop might be included. Ms. Blanchard said there is nothing to preclude that. Mr. Riehle asked if the project is ‘on schedule.’ Ms. Blanchard said it is. The project could proceed without the school land, even though it is felt to be important. Members were OK with the Purpose and Needs statement. Mr. Conner suggested bringing it back for action at the next meeting and adding more referenced to the Comprehensive Plan. Members agreed. 7. Review draft modifications to Form Based Code T4 District Regulations: Heights and applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District: 5 Mr. Conner reviewed the history noting that the Commission wanted the buffer not to be applicable to highway ramps. They also wanted to see a 5-story building with the 5th story set back (similar to the T5 district). The question is what happens to the side of the building facing the Interstate. There is an exemption from all standards except for the number of windows and the need for architectural variation (building breaks). Mr. Klugo suggested treating that building side as a “front” but with no primary entrance. It could have a secondary entrance. He suggested requiring everything but allowing a pathway for standards they can’t meet. Mr. Klugo said this intersection is the gateway to South Burlington, and he wanted to be sure the building is nothing less than a “gateway.” Mr. Conner showed some possible building concepts. One question is where to measure the 5th story setback from. Mr. Klugo said he wasn’t sure there is a benefit to setting the 5th floor back. He suggested just pushing the glass back and having a seating area there. Mr. Conner showed a concept similar to that idea. He suggested possibly requiring a 5th floor setback at a “gateway” replacing it with a “special feature.” Mr. Gagnon said he agreed with Mr. Klugo: require everything but allow for exemptions. Mr. Klugo asked the goal of item #1d. Mr. Conner said it is to be sure that properties that back onto Barrett Street don’t get a 5th story. Mr. Klugo suggested doing a shadow study or a percentage coverage from the 5th floor. Mr. Conner noted that where this would apply there are single family homes behind the potential buildings. Mr. Klugo suggested just prohibiting a 5-story building within 150 feet of an R-4 district. Staff will continue to work on concepts. 8. Burlington International Airport Noise Compatibility Plan possible element summary: Mr. Gagnon noted that his company does a lot of work for the Airport, so he would not provide much comment. Mr. Conner explained that there are 2 “buckets” into which noise is dealt with. The first is to take down the affected home(s). The second is to get money to adapt homes for noise mitigation in order to support the continued existence of the neighborhood. With the second option, there are then 3 categories of things that can be done: a. Sound barriers (e.g., walls): staff has been told these are most effective next to the source of the noise or next to the noise recipient. In this case, most of the noise in generated when military planes leave the ground. 6 b. Programs that result in the house being insulated for noise: “Purchase Assurance”: Under this arrangement, a home could be sold to the Airport. The Airport would then insulate the home to a standard that lowers the noise impact. The home would then be put back on the market. Or, Insulating the home for the existing owner. c. Programs that provide one-time financial compensation: “Sales Assistance: Under this arrangement, a seller who cannot sell their home at fair market value can gain compensation for the difference, up to an amount. And finally a program where the homeowner is compensated for allowing an “avigation easement” to be placed over the property. The problem is that such houses are deemed to have had “mitigation” and no further investment is possible. What is needed now is community conversation as to what types of programs people want for this area. The City Council is looking to survey the community to see what people have to say. Mr. Macdonald said he would want to see as much of the housing as possible remain in place. Mr. Conner noted that the Energy Committee has been exploring options to provide a double benefit when homes are being insulated for sound to also improve energy efficiency as well with partners such as Efficiency Vermont (as FAA funds may only be used for sound insulation, not thermal insulation). Mr. Conner also noted that mitigation plans are on hold until the new noise maps are completed. Mr. Klugo asked why there isn’t a “business requirement” for sound barriers as there is for other businesses. It was noted that the Airport is exempt from the city’s noise ordinance. Mr. Conner added that except for the military planes, the rest of the Airport noise is below the requirement for mitigation. The first draft of the updated Noise Exposure Maps is due in September. The study will be based on computer modeling, not utilizing actual flights here. The Noise Compatibility Plan, current under development but on pause, will be picked back up when the draft Noise Exposure Maps are completed. 9. Discuss Structure for Review of 2018-2019 Work Plan: Mr. Conner said he has heard from a couple of Commissioners that it is hard to get a handle on the 85 things on the “to do” list, so staff is considering possibly sorting items by themes and also bringing some draft recommendations on priorities. Commissioners agreed. 10. Recent Development Summary: Mr. Conner outlined some recently approved/started development in the City including: Fayette Road, wetland (class 3) impacts related to City Center (the State and Feds have already dealt with class1 & 2), Quarry Hill buildings adjacent to the Interstate ramp (80 dwelling units, of which 15% will be affordable, 7 plus commercial space in the FBC zone, Golf Course subdivision based on the Supreme Court decision and landswap with the city, South Village (60 new homes), and the Airport hotel adjacent to the south side of the parking garage. 11. Other Business: a. Petition of Verizon Wireless requesting issuance of a certificate of public good from the VT Public Utilities Commission: Mr. Conner noted there is still an effort to get some street trees in conjunction with this item. b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner will notify members if there will not be a needed quorum for the meeting of 24 April. 12. Meeting Minutes of 27 March 2018: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 27 March 2018 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:58 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk