Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 JULY 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 July 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; F. Von Turkovich, E. Von Turkovich; B. Sirvis, J. Simson, S. Dooley, L. Yankowski, R. Greco. L. Ravin, S. Dopp, L. Vera, D. Murdoch, W. Daum, other members of the public 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: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Greco expressed concern that South Burlington was overdeveloping, especially in the Southeast Quadrant. She felt this was in contradiction to many reports the city had commissioned and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Riehle expressed concern with what else will already be “in the hopper” for the SEQ before the Commission can get the new PUD standards adopted. Mr. Klugo noted that Planning Commission members can engage in the DRB process as citizens and mention what the Commission is working on. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner noted that next week there will be an event open to the public related to types of development, impacts, etc. 5. Affordable Housing Committee Project Updates: Mr. Simson noted that “affordable housing” means a lot of different things to a lot of people. To explain the Committee’s concern, he also noted that only 35% of people who work for the city of school district live in South Burlington. The Committee is trying to find a way get developers to provide housing for people at or just below the median income level and still make money doing it. The hope is to have the city be in a position to say that a development of at least 12 units must provide some affordable housing. They are suggesting 10% of the units for households with incomes at 80% of median level or less and 5% for households at 100% of the medial level. This would cover all zoning districts. Affordable units would remain so in perpetuity by deed restriction. As an alternative, a developer could contribute $60,000 per required affordable unit to a fund from which the city could help to finance affordable housing. Mr. Klugo noted that the City of Philadelphia has a 1% tax across the board to pay for their inclusionary program. This means that businesses that benefit from those units also help to pay for them. Mr. Simson said that one problem with that in Vermont is that Vermont is not a home rule state, and a community has to go to the State to institute a new tax. Mr. Riehle suggested increasing permit fees. Ms. Dooley said increasing revenue is next on the Committee’s agenda. Mr. Klugo said he would like to see more balance than just targeting residential developers. Mr. Simson then noted that in looking at density bonuses the Committee couldn’t get the numbers to match up. Their thought was if a developer creates 15% affordable units, they would get one additional unit for every affordable unit. They are also considering a density bonus for developments of fewer than 12 units where the developer voluntarily provides inclusionary units or where a developer voluntarily provides more than the required number of affordable units. Mr. Riehle said he wouldn’t like to see the SEQ “bastardized” when it was meant to be open. Ms. Dooley asked whether 2 more units per 10 acres is really “jamming up.” The rules already allow more than the maximum. Mr. Conner explained the current rules for affordable housing. He stressed that these developments must meet other regulations as well. Mr. Simson said the Committee wants to work with the Planning Commission to come up with what works best for the city. He noted that if inclusionary zoning is adopted for the whole city, logic says that most of the $60,000 payments would come from the SEQ. He questioned whether this is something the City would be concerned about if SEQ developers buy their way out. Ms. Dooley noted that buyouts are not allowed in City Center. In the City of Burlington, the thinking is that for areas with little “inclusion, there would be no buyout allowed. Ms. Dooley added that the median income in the SEQ is $130,000. In the rest of the city, the median income is $50,000. She questioned whether the city wants that to continue. Mr. Klugo stressed that in building affordable units the exterior has to connect with the rest of the community so the affordable units don’t stand out. He suggested a possible special meeting on this issue as there are lots of questions and issues involved. He also stressed that the issue isn’t population numbers it is whether the city is doing what it can to create a diverse, sustainable community. Mr. Riehle said they also have to be sure there is the infrastructure to support the populations. Members agreed to scheduling a special meeting on this topic. 6. Continued Initial Review of Request to Change Edlund Property on Spear Street (south of I-89) Zoning from Institutional Agriculture South to a district that allows residential development: Ms. Louisos noted that the applicant’s request is to talk to the Commission before coming back with an actual request. Mr. Von Turkovich said they have no additional information for this meeting but would like to engage with the committee process in the city and then come back to the Commission with a formal request. Mr. Gagnon felt that was reasonable and that it was OK for them to talk with committees. Mr. Von Turkovich then identified the 3 parcels involved and identified the area where development would occur. He stressed that the way the 3 parcels work together is integral to the plan. Mr. Riehle asked about 150 Swift being transferred to UVM. Mr. Von Turkovich said UVM wants to unify the Potash Brook basin. Mr. Riehle said he was shocked that UVM could sell East Woods. Ms. Ostby agreed that there should be some way to protect East Woods. She was also interested in what other committees have to say. Mr. Klugo said he did not think the city can say UVM doesn’t have the right to sell the Edlund property until they do what South Burlington wants with East Woods. He stressed that right now UVM could do more dense development on the Edlund parcel without a zoning change. Ms. Louisos said the bigger issue is whether all the UVM property is zoned the way the city wants it to be. Ms. Ostby said that before she would agree to change the zoning on the Edlund property, she would want to look at all UVM land. She felt the Commission could do this while Mr. Von Turkovich is talking with other committees. Mr. Riehle noted that when he was on the Council in Burlington, UVM and the Hospital were not very good neighbors, and Bernie Sanders (then Mayor of Burlington) called them on it. With so many properties in South Burlington, Mr. Riehle wanted to be sure VUM is a good neighbor. Mr. Von Turkovich said he felt UVM has “very high intentions” with the Edlund property. If the Commission disagreed, it can say “no.” Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is working on new PUD standards, and that discussion should also be had. Mr. Von Turkovich said he has seen some of the draft. The plan is to make this work as a PUD, and they would work within the city’s regulations. Mr. Klugo suggested Mr. Von Turkovich put together a letter outlining the committees they will talk to. Ms. Dopp questioned whether “institutional zoning” can be transferred to a “non‐institutional” owner. Mr. Conner said zoning is independent of ownership. A member of the Natural Resources Committee said the Committee would be interested in discussing this property and would like to have facts. Ms. Dooley questioned how the property is taxed. Mr. Conner said there is a “payment in lieu of taxes” on buildings, however, not on undeveloped land as he understands it. Ms. Greco said she would like to give a presentation on the impact of development, environmentally and economically. Mr. Murdoch said he opposes any development in this forested area. He felt UVM has not been a good neighbor as the city didn’t get wind of these plans until it was too late. Mr. Daum suggested UVM develop Wheelock East where they wouldn’t have to tear down decades old trees. Ms. Ostby read from a letter from UVM in which they cite wetland issues and use of the property for cropland. 7. Walkable Communities: Video and Discussion: Following an introduction, the video was presented. A very brief discussion followed. 8. Review draft updated policy on requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Klugo noted that the concept is to address such requests twice a year. Mr. Conner said this would create predictability as committees would know 30 days in advance if they have any issues. If something urgent came up, it could be addressed. Mr. Klugo felt the only urgent thing would be an issue raised by the city. Mr. Macdonald moved to adopt the Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Mittag having left the meeting earlier). 9. Review modifications proposed by the City Council to the draft amendments to the LDRs in advance of the 16 July Council public hearing; update Planning Commission report and consider input on proposed modifications: Mr. Conner explained that the Council was concerned that the elimination of the 50-foot setback from the Interstate on-ramp could result in residential units without a setback. The amendment excludes residential use within that 50 feet. There is also a minor rewording in one other section to eliminate possible confusion. The changes to the report reflect these edits. Ms. Ostby moved to approve the updated report as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0). 10. Minutes of 26 June 2018: The minutes were not presented for review. 11. Other Business: a. AT&T petition to the Public Service Utilities Commission to modify antenna on and near existing monopole, 2026 Williston Road b. AT&T petition to the Public Service Utilities Commission to replace a 40-foot utility pole with a 45-foot utility pole, Shelburne Road: Members questioned whether there are limits to the heights the poles can go. Mr. Conner noted the city can always “weigh in” on the PSUC process, but it is not the city’s decision to make. Mr. Klugo asked why the pole height is being increased. Mr. Conner said that question can be posed. Ms. Louisos suggested that the antenna will then be able to go on top of the pole; otherwise, AT&T would have to lower all the wires. Mr. Klugo said the city should still ask the question, so the Commission knows of the city’s interest. Mr. Conner said he would tell them the city is concerned about future “higher requests.” As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:41 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission July 24, 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: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: July 10 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. Affordable Housing Committee Project Updates, John Simson and Sandy Dooley (7:15 pm) Members of the Affordable Housing Committee will update the Planning Commission on their work this year, including a broad overview of potential changes to inclusionary zoning and other big-picture concepts. As the Planning Commission set aside time for work on housing affordability this year, this will help both groups to assess timelines going forward. We’ll send along any materials from the Committee as we receive them. No action is expected. 6. Continue Initial Review of Request to change Edlund Property on Spear Street (south of I- 89) zoning from Institutional- Agricultural South to a district that allows residential development; Frank von Turkovich (7:45 pm) This is a continued discussion of the request first presented at the Planning Commission’s June 26th meeting. All materials can be found in that packet. Possible actions remain as listed in the June 26th memo from staff. 7. Walkable Communities- Short Video and Commission Discussion (8:15 pm) Originally scheduled for May 22nd but postponed to a later date due to a long meeting that evening. As a change of pace, staff has a short video to share from national expert on community building Jeff Speck. Paul had the pleasure of seeing the speaker live at a recent conference and found him to be both engaging and in line with the work that the Commission has been considering over the past several years. No action is expected. 8. Review draft updated policy on requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations (8:40 pm) At its June 12th meeting, the Planning Commission discussed draft changes to an existing Commission policy on requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations. Staff has updated the draft to include the suggestions from the Commission. Possible actions: amend or adopt the policy. 9. Review modifications proposed by the City Council to the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations in advance of July 16 Council Public Hearing; update Planning Commission report and consider input on proposed modifications (8:55 pm) Please see attached memo. 10. Meeting minutes (9:02 pm) 11. Other business (9:3 pm) a. AT&T petition to the Public Utilities Commission to modify antenna on and near existing monopole, 2026 Williston Road b. AT&T petition to the Public Utilities Commission to replace a 40’ utility pole with a 45’ utility pole, Shelburne Road 12. Adjourn (9:20 pm) South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 8-9-2011 Draft 7-6-18 Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations Under State Statute, the Planning Commission is responsible for initiating amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations1. The purpose of this policy is to provide a clear, equitable process for the consideration of requests from the public. Amendments to the Land Development Regulations involve multiple steps, including research and evaluation by staff and the Planning Commission, the holding of warned public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council, and ultimately action by the City Council. In most cases, amendments are grouped together for consideration and action. General procedure for review of requests for amendments: 1. Any person wishing to submit a request is strongly encouraged to first meet with staff of the Department of Planning & Zoning. 2. All requests for amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) must be provided in writing, via the Department of Planning and Zoning, for it to be considered by the Planning Commission. Requests may include amendment language or may be a concept for consideration. Requests are encouraged to reference existing regulations where applicable. 3. Upon receipt of a request, staff shall inform the Planning Commission Chair or their appointee(s) and schedule the request for one of two annual public meetings. These meetings should occur at the first meetings in April and October. Requests for amendments must be received at least 30 days prior to the meeting to be considered for the meeting. 4. The Chair/appointees and staff will perform an initial screening of the request and will develop a recommendation for the Planning Commission’s consideration. The Planning Commission shall discuss the recommendations at regularly scheduled public meetings. 5. At the public meeting, the Planning Commission shall consider each request and take one of the following actions: a. Review the proposed amendment for possible inclusion of it in the warning for the next public hearing on amendments to the LDRs; b. Table the request until: i. Rrelated issues are undertaken assessed by the Commission via studies or other amendments; 1 24 VSA 4441 describes this process, and the exceptions thereto. South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 8-9-2011 Draft 7-6-18 i.ii. The next discussion of the annual Planning Commission Work Plan; the proposed amendment may be considered for prioritization in a future annual work plan. b.c. Decide not to pursue the requested amendment. 6. In determining its course of action, the following will be used as guidelines: a. Requests substantively related to an active or planned review of the Land Development Regulations should generally be heard commensurate with that process; b. Requests unrelated to an ongoing LDR review or amendment should be considered for their timeliness and in relation to existing work plans of the Commission. c. Relationship to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Commission should consider the extent to which the request advances stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. To the greatest extent possible, staff and the Commission should identify the related goals. Staff should also identify for consideration any goals which would be obstructed or contradicted in the use of a proposed amendment. b.d.Relationship to the adopted Planning Commission Work Plan for the applicable fiscal year. In utilizing this, the Commission should consider and discuss the anticipated time commitment for the amendment, determine whether such time exists in the work plan, and whether consideration of the amendment results in a delay of a project already included within the work plan. 7. Upon determination byof the Planning Commission that an item will be considered for a more thorough review, staff will prepare a brief report on the request for the amendment. The report will include a short analysis of the requested amendment’s consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, its relationship to the Commission’s work plan, various options and depths of solutions for consideration where applicable, and the anticipated Commission and staff time involved in undertaking any potential additional research on the topic. 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 and Zoning SUBJECT: City Council proposed modifications to Draft Land Development Regulations DATE: July 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Last month the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a series of amendments to the Land Development Regulations, and afterwards voted to send the draft amendments along to the City Council. The Council has warned a public hearing for Monday, July 16th at 7:30 pm on these amendments. They did, however, propose two modifications to the amendments, below (see attached staff memo for details and background): 1. Prohibit residential uses within 50 feet horizontal distance of the Interstate ramp rights-of way 8.03 Land Development and Building Placement … C. Special Requirements, Prohibitions & Exceptions … (4) Residential uses are prohibited within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of ramp rights-of- way, both existing and planned, for Interstate 89 and Interstate 189. As you know, the current Land Development Regulations include a 50’ Interstate Highway Overlay (IHO) District that functions as a “no buildings” area. The proposed amendment approved by the Planning Commission would eliminate the applicability of the IHO district in the Form Based Code T4 area adjacent to Interstate Ramps. This modification would still allow non-residential uses (and buildings) within that 50’ area, but would require that any residential use be at least 50’ away from the Interstate ROW. 2. Technical clarification of applicability of IHO district: 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District to provide for a safe and aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land uses within South Burlington. B. Boundaries of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The Interstate Highway Overlay District shall include the following areas, as depicted in Figure 10-1: (1) all land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights-of-way, and (2) all lands within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the Iinterstate 89 and Interstate 189 exit ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, for Interstate 89 and Interstate 189, as depicted in Figure 10-1except within the City Center Form Based Code District. Staff and the City’s legal counsel took a second look at the overall language that allows building to be placed within 50’ of the Interstate ramps. We found a way to be slightly more clear as to applicability; previously, the language could have been interpreted to mean that the Interstate Highway Overlay District ONLY applied to “exit ramps” and only at the interchange of I-89 and I-189. Commission Review of Modifications The Commission has one required action and one optional action to take regarding the proposed changes prepared by the City Council. 1. Amend Planning Commission report (required): Pursuant to 24 VSA 4442 (b), any time the City Council makes modifications to draft amendments submitted by the Planning Commission, it must deliver a copy of the proposed changes to the Commission and the “Planning Commission shall amend the report prepared pursuant to subsection 4441(c) of this title to reflect the changes by the legislative body and shall submit that amended report to the legislative body at or prior to the public hearing.” The Report serves as an assessment of the consistency of a set of Amendments to the Land Development Regulations with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and its effect on housing. Enclosed is a draft revised Report. Staff’s recommendation is that the Commission consider this change to have minimal impact on housing. Or, in order words, to indicate that the increased height allowance in the T4 district to five stories from four will allow additional housing to be build in the area, while ultimately the prohibition of residential uses within 50’ of the Interstate ramps will result in NO change from the current regulations. 2. Provide Commission Input to the Council (optional): Separate from the formal and specific findings within the Planning Commission Report as described above, the Commission is welcome to provide any input or feedback, generally, on the amendments. As noted in the memo to Council, staff does not see any concerns with the proposed changes. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Updated Amendment & Adoption Report July 10, 2018 In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. Modify landscape performance bonding requirements in all districts B. Modify City Center Form Based Code T4 District: 1. Permit buildings of up to five (5) stories in height 2. Establish Gateway Area architectural standards at Dorset Street/ Williston Road Intersection 3. Modify upper story glazing requirements C. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District D. Establish new use: Limited Neighborhood Commercial, allowable in the following districts: R4, R7, R7-NC, R12, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR E. Eliminate build-to standards for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District F. Minor technical corrections. Following approval and submittal of the amendments above to the City Council, the Council proposed minor changes, including an update of the description as follows: C. Except for residential uses, remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District The Planning Commission reviewed the changes and has updated this Report accordingly. Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments 2 The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” A. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The amendment would eliminate landscape bonding requirements for projects with less than $2,000 in landscaping and would reduce landscape bonding to 50% of the required value of landscaping above $10,000. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The City’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes and supports the existing of landscaping associated with development and also supports efforts to foster housing affordability and economic activity. The proposed amendment retains landscaping requirements while simplifying associated bonding requirements. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendments do not impact future land uses or densities as discussed in the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. B. Modify City Center Form Based Code: 1. Permit buildings of up to five (5) stories in height 2. Establish Gateway Area architectural standards at Dorset Street/ Williston Road Intersection 3. Modify upper story glazing requirements 3 Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed bylaw would increase the maximum height of buildings in the Form Based Codes T4 District from four (4) stories to five (5) stories. This additional floor would not be permitted within 150 linear feet of a building in an adjacent Residential 4 district. The amendment would also establish a Gateway feature, which would apply to properties at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road. Buildings within this gateway would be required to include one or more significant architectural features highlighting the corner. Finally, the amendment would eliminate the requirement for upper story glazing to be placed no closer than 30” from building corners. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing The proposed amendments will support the continued development of a vibrant and pedestrian-oriented environment in the City Center area. “The vision for the Central District is to effectively blend existing neighborhoods, commercial areas, natural areas, underdeveloped properties, and undeveloped lands into the true downtown of South Burlington. This downtown will provide increased connectivity through new cross streets; support an integrated mix of housing, retail, and employment; and be a primary focus point for compact, walkable development within the City.” (P. 3-9) “Objective 40. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic, and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” “Strategy 102. Use design review and/or form-based coding to promote the development of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian-focused and highly functional environments.” “Strategy 4. Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovating approaches to preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing, including…. inclusionary zoning…” “Strategy 5. Increase the supply of safe and affordable housing by allowing higher-density, mixed use and mixed-income development with City Center and transit corridors, allowing multi-unit housing within transitional zones between residential neighborhoods and commercial / industrial uses.” The proposed amendments advance the availability of safe and affordable housing by allowing for greater intensity of development in the T4 District. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. 4 The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as “medium to higher intensity, mixed use”. The increased height allowance is consistent with the Plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” The proposed amendment would not impact any specific proposals for planned community facilities. C. Except for residential uses, Rremove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw Removes the building 50’ setback from the Interstate ramp Right-of-Way for properties in the FBC T4 District. Residential uses remain subject to the 50’ setback, however. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The proposed amendments will support the continued development of a vibrant and pedestrian-oriented environment in the City Center area. “The vision for the Central District is to effectively blend existing neighborhoods, commercial areas, natural areas, underdeveloped properties, and undeveloped lands into the true downtown of South Burlington. This downtown will provide increased connectivity through new cross streets; support an integrated mix of housing, retail, and employment; and be a primary focus point for compact, walkable development within the City.” (P. 3-9) “Objective 40. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic, and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” “Strategy 102. Use design review and/or form-based coding to promote the development of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian-focused and highly functional environments.” The amendment will have a minor positive impact on the provision of sage and affordable housing by allowing slightly greater site flexibility. The amendment is not expected to have an effect on the availability of sage and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. 5 The amendment, as noted above, is consistent with future land uses and densities in the Plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment would have a minor positive impact on the provision of future planned community facilities by enabling planned roadways and development to be accommodated on the sites. D. Eliminate build-to requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The amendment seeks to eliminate language which currently requires that new commercial buildings in the SEQ-VC district be built in a very narrow band of 15-20 feet from the edge of a curb. This has been challenging to implement for all parties. Other setback requirements exist which makes this line somewhat superfluous. (4) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The amendment/deletion is technical in nature and does not impact the municipal plan or the availability of safe and affordable housing. (5) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendment/deletion is technical in nature and does not impact future land uses or densities as discussed in the municipal plan. (6) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendment/deletion is technical in nature and does not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. E. Allow Small-scale commercial uses/structures in / adjacent to master-planned residential districts Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed bylaw amendment would permit small, context-sensitive, limited-use commercial development in master-planned residential areas otherwise not zoned for such uses. Such a use would also require architectural relevance and would be required to be within walking distance of the residential area it would serve. 6 (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The amendment promotes all of the four major visions of the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the South Burlington to be “Affordable and Community Strong, Walkable, Green and Clean, and Opportunity Oriented.” Permitting the location of small restaurants and food markets to be close to or within master planned residential communities creates an opportunity for residents to walk for some of their basic needs. While this serves the whole spectrum of a population, it is especially beneficial to those with income or mobility restrictions. Residents who do not desire or have access to private transportation will have expanded opportunities. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. While the amendment is not targeted towards a specific quadrant of the City of zoning district, it meets overall goals for future land use. In 2016, the City enhanced the language relating to ‘Lower intensity, principally residential’ areas to include “commercial uses” which are “limited to those serving a small or local population.” (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. F. Minor technical corrections Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw Several minor typographic, numbering, and clarifying changes are proposed throughout the document. (4) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The amendments are technical in nature and do not impact the municipal plan or the availability of safe and affordable housing. (5) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendments are technical in nature and do not impact future land uses or densities as discussed in the municipal plan. (6) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments are technical in nature and do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Possible changes to draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations DATE: June 25, 2018 City Council meeting Last week the City Council acknowledged receipt of a set of proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations from the Planning Commission and warned a public hearing for July 16th. At the meeting, some Councilors raised a question / concern regarding the removal of the setback from Interstate ramps. Specifically, the possibility that this change would result in housing being located within 50 feet of an Interstate ramp. In light of this, staff has two possible changes for the Council’s consideration: 1. Residential uses within 50 feet of an Interstate Ramp in the Form Based Codes District: Staff has prepared a possible minor adjustment to the Land Development Regulations that would prohibit housing from being located in this area (thus keeping, for housing, the same prohibition that is currently in place): 8.03 Land Development and Building Placement … C. Special Requirements, Prohibitions & Exceptions … (4) Residential uses are prohibited within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of ramp rights-of- way, both existing and planned, for Interstate 89 and Interstate 189. 2. Clarification of language regarding Interstate Ramp applicability Staff and the City’s legal counsel took a second look at the overall language that allows building to be placed within 50’ of the Interstate ramps. We found a way to be slightly more clear as to applicability; previously, the language could have been interpreted to mean that the Interstate Highway Overlay District ONLY applied to “exit ramps” and only at the interchange of I-89 and I-189. We believe that neither was the intent and so have proposed the following slightly amended language: 2 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District to provide for a safe and aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land uses within South Burlington. B. Boundaries of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The Interstate Highway Overlay District shall include the following areas, as depicted in Figure 10-1: (1) all land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights-of-way, and (2) all lands within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the Iinterstate 89 and Interstate 189 exit ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, for Interstate 89 and Interstate 189, as depicted in Figure 10-1except within the City Center Form Based Code District.* * THE PREVIOUS draft had read: (2) all lands within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the Iinterstate 89 and Interstate 189 exit ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, as depicted in Figure 10-1except those within the City Center Form Based Code District. Procedures for adoption: The Council may make one or both of the changes above without changing the date of the public hearing. Any such amendments would be provided to the Planning Commission for public comment. Should the Council decide to make these changes after the public hearing (or within 14 days the hearing), it would need to warn a new hearing. Recommendations: 1. Staff recommends that the Council determine whether it wishes to pursue change #1 above, and if so, to vote to modify the draft amendments to the LDRs as presented. 2. Staff recommends that the Council pursue change #2 above and vote to modify the draft amendments to the LDRs as presented.