Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/12/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 JUNE 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; A. Strong, R. Jeffers, A. Hart, R. Greco, S. Dopp, 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: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby spoke of the impressive group of people on the Affordable Housing Committee. They are working now on language for inclusionary zoning. Mr. Conner: There will be a presentation regarding land value and related issues at a Special City Council meeting at Magic Hat on 18 July. Red Rocks Park will open on 18 June. SOBU Night Out will begin on 28 June and will be held every other Thursday evening. The official opening of City Center Park is 25 July. The groundbreaking for Market Street will be held on 28 June. The City Council has approved a “penny for parks” ballot item for the August ballot. Voting will begin on 29 June. 5. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Establish new category: “limited neighborhood commercial,” permissible in certain residential zoning districts b. Eliminate maximum setback requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District c. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 district d. Permit buildings of up to five stories in the Form Based Code T4 District e. Establish an architectural Gateway Area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 district f. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts g. Minor technical corrections Mr. Mittag moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Conner noted there had been a few “legal edits” to the language regarding the “limited neighborhood commercial” use and other areas since the Commission last saw the amendments. Mr. Conner explained that in the T4 district, current language allows 4 stories with an architectural feature 14 feet above that. The amendment to allow a 5th story requires that the 5th story be set back 12 feet. He recommended a small adjustment to clarify that the architectural feature does not have to be set back 12 feet. Ms. Greco expressed concern with pulling back on landscaping. Ms. Louisos explained that landscaping is not being reduced, but the bonding amount for landscaping is being reduced. The amount of required landscaping will remain the same. Mr. Strong asked if there are criteria for the “small scale commercial use.” Mr. Conner said there are specific criteria including: uses, architectural features, location of the commercial use at least half a mile from any other building, a Master Plan for the development in which the use will occur, a maximum of 6000 sq. ft of which one single use cannot be more than 5000 sq. ft. There was no further public comment. Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Discussion of draft Amendments of the Land Development Regulations, possible approval of the Amendments and associated Report, and submittal to City Council for consideration: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Amendments to the Land Development Regulations with the changes as noted and associated Report, and to submit them to the City Council for consideration. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Determine whether to include consideration of request to change zoning of parcel at 1255 Dorset Street from SEQ‐Natural Resource Protection to SEQ‐Neighborhood Residential on the Commission’s FY2019 Work Plan: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history and explained the Commission’s police and procedure for such request. She noted that the Commission has 3 options: not to take up the request, to take up the request, or to evaluate whether to add it to the work plan. Mr. Klugo said he would be looking to consider a broader concept, not just this property. Mr. Macdonald noted the Commission had noted the broader context. He felt that at some time the Commission will have to discuss the entire Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Klugo said there are some very challenging parcels coming up, and he would be very hesitant not to include this property in those discussions. Ms. Ostby said anything can be brought up in the future. She felt this issue was “part of the past,” and it “didn’t seem to fit.” Mr. Riehle said where it fits is that it is part of the SEQ. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see any topic in the proposed work plan where this discussion would fit. Mr. Klugo said it may not be in this year’s work plan, but the Commission should leave itself the flexibility to look at it in the future. He added that it is not just about zoning but also involves connectivity, etc. Mr. Hart, attorney working with the Isham family regarding this property, felt this request is commensurate with what the Commission is already looking at. The request is for a parcel owned by one party, and he felt it was a fairness issue. He said that if you treat comparable properties equally, this “jumps off the page as not being treated equally.” Ms. Ostby felt this was a “spot zoning” issue. A member of the public felt this would involve rezoning a natural resource area and that there was no ambiguity as to whether there was a mistake made in the zoning. Mr. Riehle then moved not to take up this project. Mr. Mittag seconded. Mr. Macdonald felt this was part of a future discussion. The applicant noted that there was a misconception that the golf course was the entire parcel, and that isn’t the case. The golf course lease is only for the piece down the center. That may have been the reason for the current zoning. He also noted that there were rights-of-way set aside by previous developments to insure connectivity. Ms. Greco said a lot of people who live near that property bought their homes because of the location and the belief that the land would remain natural. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission had receive communications from members of the public to that effect. Mr. Klugo noted that the Commission can’t just rezone a property. It is a very long, public process. The Commission then voted on the motion which passed 5-1 with Mr. Klugo opposing. Mr. Klugo indicated his vote was based on the issue of procedure. 8. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on Planning Commission FY2019 Work Plan: Mr. Riehle suggested the possibility of extra meeting when scheduled meetings are cancelled due to the weather. Other members felt that makes sense. Mr. Conner stressed staff limitations and noted there are some items that require more intensive attention than others. Members considered the time allotted to requested zoning changes and suggested these might be done twice a year at a pre-determined time. Mr. Klugo raised the potential to leverage subcommittees and other city committees to ease the Commission’s work load. Mr. Conner noted that the inclusionary zoning piece being considered by the Affordable Housing Committee will take up a big piece of time. Ms. LaRose noted she had met with the Natural Resources Committee regarding open space and the Committee’s work plan. They are committed to working on Planning Commission projects 50% of their time and would like a “heads up” on those projects. Ms. LaRose will be meeting this week with the Bike/Ped Committee and next week with Parks/Recreation and will have the same discussion with them. In discussion zoning requests, Mr. Conner noted the importance of staff bringing all of the “unintended consequences” to the forefront. Ms. Louisos felt that discussion of the Official Map should have committee input. Mr. Conner said some things are “no brainers”; some things committees have been working on; things such as east-west roads are very complex. Members agreed to add Affordable Housing as a priority item and to combine east-west roads and the official map and a secondary level. Staff was asked to re- organize the work plan by project priority. Mr. Conner will present a work plan for action at the next meeting. 9. Review Commission Policy on Initial Consideration of Zoning Amendments: Mr. Macdonald felt that if there is preliminary work done, it will reduce the time the Commission needs. Mr. Conner noted that most requests come from a developer or land owner. Mr. Klugo said he would advocate to hear requests a couple of times a year rather than on an “as received” basis, and to allocate time for each discussion. Members were OK with hearing requests twice a year. They also agreed to a 2-step process: a pre-meeting with staff prior to a full Commission hearing. They suggested a check-list be created to be sure everything is considered. Commissioners asked staff to bring back a draft policy that reflects these concepts. 10. Vermont Transportation Board request to municipalities for feedback on regulation of private aircraft facilities: Mr. Conner explained that there are an increasing number of private aircraft facilities, and they are moving closer to municipal areas. There is also very little guidance in how to address these uses. Ideally, the state would like municipalities to say what they do and don’t want. Mr. Conner noted that South Burlington does not address this issue at all. Mr. Klugo said he felt this was a safety issue and that to delay in addressing it would make it more complicated to deal with. He suggested that staff come back with ideas on how to address it. Members agreed. 11. Meeting Minutes of 22 May 2018: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 22 May as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12. Other Business a. Pre-application notice of Green Mountain Power to relocate and rebuild a substation, 5 and 7 Shamrock Road: Mr. Conner noted that screening is proposed on the north side. There is a single-family home south of the site. It is eligible for Airport buyout. Discussions are being held with the owners. Mr. Klugo suggested asking for more landscaping. Other members agreed. b. Draft Amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission: Mr. Conner noted most of the changes involve downtown Burlington. No comments were made. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:56 p.m. Minutes approved by the Commission on June 26, 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: June 12, 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. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:15 pm) Enclosed are the public hearing notice, the Report as approved by the PC last month, and the draft amendments as approved WITH proposed edits as recommended following the legal review. In each case, staff marked in the “comments” sidebar exactly how each change differs from the draft you voted to send to a public hearing. Staff recommends the Commission open the hearing, receive a summary (if you wish) of the changes, hear from any public, and close the hearing. As of Friday pm, staff had received no public comments on the draft. 6. Discussion of draft Amendments of the Land Development Regulations, possible approval of the Amendments and associated Report, and submittal to City Council for consideration (7:30 pm) The Commission is welcome to make any additional changes it wishes to the draft. Staff recommends that if the Commission is comfortable with the changes as presented, that the Commission move to “approve the amendments, as presented, along with the accompanying Report, and submit them to the City Council for their consideration.” 7. Determine whether to include consideration request to change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential on the Commission’ FY 2019 Work Plan (7:40 pm) Following prior discussions on this subject, the Chair has asked that the Commission make a determination on this request. Staff recommends that the Commission focus its discussion on whether and in what format to take up this request as a formal project in FY 2019, and not the discussion of the merits. Options could include: - Elect not to take up the request any further in FY 2019, but keep it on the list of candidate projects to be consider when the Commission does its work plan a year from now; - Take up the request as a project in FY 2019 - Elect not to take up the project. 8. Continued Discussion and possible action on Planning Commission FY 2019 Work Plan (7:50 pm) Commissioners are providing staff with their “top 15” projects. We will send these to you on Monday. At this meeting, Staff recommends that the Commission complete a “FINAL DRAFT” of the work plan. We’re still gathering feedback from committees on work they may be able to take on, and so staff recommends that the Commission hold it final final action until June 26th. 9. Review Commission policy on Initial Consideration of Zoning Amendments (8:20 pm) Based on Commission discussions of making efficient use of time, considering zoning change requests with a view to the Work Plan, and bringing a closer connection of proposed zoning amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, staff has a set of proposed adjustments to the Commission’s Initial Zoning Review policy. 10. Vermont Transportation Board request to municipalities for feedback on regulation of private aviation facilities (8:35 pm) Please see the enclosed letter. Staff will brief the Commission on the subject at the meeting in greater detail as well. Options for the Commission would include (a) providing feedback to the Transportation Board by July 1, (b) taking no action, or (c) considering some local zoning amendments to specifically address private aviation facilities. Staff recommends that the Commission consider at least option 3 in the next year, and perhaps option 1 as well. 11. Meeting minutes (8:50 pm) 12. Other business (8:55 pm) a. Pre-application notice of Green Mountain Power to relocate and rebuild a substation, 5 & 7 Shamrock Rd b. Draft amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission 13. Adjourn (9:00 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Public Hearing Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:00 pm PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 12 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont to consider amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The amendments affect all parts of the City. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following: A. Modify Landscape performance bonding requirements in all districts, eliminating requirements for small projects and reducing requirements for large projects B. Modify City Center Form Based Code T4 District: i. Permit buildings of up to five (5) stories in height ii. Establish Gateway Area architectural standards at Dorset Street/ Williston Road Intersection iii. 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. Specific Sections to be Amended 8.11 Non-conformities 8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards 9.09 SEQ-NR Sub-District; Specific Standards 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) 15.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts and Letters of Credit 13.28 Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use [new] Appendix C: Table of Uses Map 4: Overlay Districts Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the Department of Planning & Zoning, City Hall, 2nd Floor, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM Monday through Friday except holidays, and on the city website at www.sbvt.gov. Jessica Louisos, Planning Commission Chair May 15, 2018 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Draft Amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations [includes proposed changes for PC public hearing 6/12/2018, as marked, following staff & legal review] Key to amendments: Additions in red underline Deletions in red strikethrough Comments on use of these draft amendments in red italics with the word COMMENT A. MODIFICATIONS TO LANDSCAPE PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIREMENTS 15.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts and Letters of Credit. B. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit required by these Regulations, including but not limited to Landscaping and Site Restorations or rehabilitation, Earth Products and required demolition and removal of buildings. (1) Before issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer shall furnish the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to guarantee all landscaping and plantings as required under Article 14, and any site restorations or rehabilitations as required under Article 3 or Article 13, for a period as described in this section. (a) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of $2,000 or less, no performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be required. (b) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of over $10,000, the required amount for performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be $10,000, plus fifty percent (50%) of the landscaping budget amount over $10,000. Example: a development with a total required landscaping budget of $20,000 shall have a performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit of not less than $15,000. B. MODIFICATIONS TO CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE T4 DISTRICT: 1. Permit building 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 Commented [PC1]: Added “$10,000, plus” based on legal review. draft 2 8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements Supplemental (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a)Lot size (b)Lot Width (2)Lot Occupation (a)Percentage of Lot Coverage (b)Units per acre (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a)All Types (2)Building Stories (a)Principal (b)Accessory (3)Floor-to-Floor Height (a)First story (b)Upper Stories (4)Build-to-Zone See T4 Figures (a)Primary Build-to-Zone 0' Min., 12' Max.0' Min., 18' Max.See note 3 (b)Secondary Build-to-Zone 0' Min., 24' Max.0'. Min., 36' Max.See note 3 (5)Frontage See T4 Figures (a)Frontage Buildout , Primary Streets 70% Min.70% Min. (Note 1)See note 3 (b)Frontage Buildout , Secondary Streets 70% Min. within 80' of Primary Street, 50% Min. elsewhere 70% Min. within 80' of Primary Street, 50% Min. elsewhere (Note 1) See note 3 (b)Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build-to-Zone 75% Min.100% Max.See note 3 (c )Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary Build-to-Zone 0% Min., 25% Max.100% Max.See note 3 (6)Entrances See Entrances Figure (a)Average frequency of Public Entrances, non- residential first story use 36' Max.54' Max.See note 3 (b)Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non- residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max.See note 3 (c )Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first story use 36' Max.54' Max.See note 3 (d)Maximum distance between Operable Entrances, residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max.See note 3 24' Max. 14' Max T4 BES Standard Generally a multi-use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T-4 is multimodal oriented with an emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism. Parking (not including on-street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. None None None None Permitted 2 Min., 4 5 Max. 1 Max.draft 3 (7)Glazing See Glazing Figure (a)First Story Min. 40% of the Width of the Building, and Min. 7.5' in Height Min. 20% of the Width of the Building, and Min 7.5' in Height (b)First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min. (c )Upper Stories (d)Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be transparent (8) Building Breaks See Bldg Breaks Figure (a)Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80'Min. 3 every 80' (b)Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break 48' Max.48' Max. (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a)Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks See Section 8.04 (a)Perimeter See note 3 (b)Length See note 3 (2)Street & Connection Types See Article 11 (a)Neighborhood Street Narrow (b )Neighborhood Street (c) Private commercial way (d) Support Street (e) Commercial Street (f) Avenue (g) Commercial Boulevard (h) Destination Street (i) Market Street and Garden Street (j) Path (k) Pedestrian Pass (l) Alley (m) All other street types (4) Curb Cuts (not including street intersections) (a) On Market Street (b) On Garden Street (b) All other streets See Note 2 See Note 2 2,800' Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Prohibited 300' Min., 700' Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Encouraged Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 400' Min. distance between curb cuts 400' Min. distance between curb cuts Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 100' Min. distance between curb cuts Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street draft 4 (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Where a T-4 Lot abuts the R4 or R7 Zoning District, the following standards shall apply: (a) A buffer strip shall be required See Section 8.06(E) (b) (c ) (d) (d) (e ) (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. (3) (a) (b) (4) (5) Such building shall be a minimum of 24' in height and shall have the appearance of two or more stories; Such building shall have entries at a frequency of every 50' or less and shall have a maximum distance between entries of 60'; and, The third story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the rear building line; and, The fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twenty-four feet (24’) from the rear building line. Along Secondary Streets, parking structures within the build-to-zone that do not meet entrance and/or glazing standards are permitted and shall count towards Frontage Buildout requirements, provided that a minimum of 0.5% of the construction cost is used for original artwork installed on or in front of the building façade facing said street. Along Secondary Streets, a Streetfront Open Space, as defined within these Regulations, shall count towards Frontage Buildout requirements. Such building shall have a frontage greater than 100' and a footprint greater than 10,000 square feet; Such building shall have a maximum footprint of 3,500 square feet; and, Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. No new single-story building shall be permitted within one thousand (1,000) linear feet in any direction from any existing single-story building approved under this subsection; Upper Story setbacks. Except where located within a Gateway Area, all stories above the fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the primary and secondary building facades. Small Single Story Principal Buildings. New small single-story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: No building located within one hundred and fifty feet (150') from the R4 or R7 District boundary shall exceed four (4) stories in height. Large Single Story Principal Buildings. New large single-story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: Gateway Area. Within a Gateway Area, corners of buildings located at street intersections shall include one or more significant architctural features, such as but not limited to, vertical projections, changes in materials, top-story open spaces, and/or first-floor prominent features. (G) Streetscape Standards (1) General Standards (a) (b) (c ) (d) Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 (2) Streetscape requirements (a) Benches (b) Bicycle Parking (c ) Street Tree Spacing, on center All streetscape features must be consistent within a project and be compatible with adjacent features erected following adoption of this Code. Non-hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or flowering vegetation. Permitted May be used to meet short-term requirements of 13.14 50' Max. average All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with requirements of the Department of Public Works.draft 5 . Notes (1) (2) Upper Story Glazing Shall comply with the following standards: (3)Standard does not apply to a building façade abutting an Intertstate or Interstate ramp (d) Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts. (e) Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding bay windows and storefronts). (b) 80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide (c) The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. Windows may be ganged horizontally if each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least 7 inches wide. (a) Upper story glazing shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the façade area below the roofline on the primary building facade and 20% on secondary building facades. If a corner lot is 100’ or less in width along the street containing the primary building facade and greater than two (2) times that width in depth, the required frontage buildout on the BES shall be reduced by 50% on the street containing the secondary building facade. Commented [PC2]: Note 3 above was approved by the PC but was cut off the from the formal PC warned hearing. No action required, just being noted. draft 6 C. REMOVE APPLICABILITY OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT RAMP SETBACKS FROM PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE FORM BASED CODE T4 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, as depicted in Figure 10-1except within the City Center Form Based Code District. D. LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE Article 13: Supplemental Regulations ….. 13.28 Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use The purpose of this use is to promote small, context-sensitive, limited and architecturally relevant commercial uses in walking distance to a residential neighborhood. While these uses may service a broader geography and limited pass-by traffic, these uses are intended to be easily accessible by walking from the majority of the Planned Unit Development in which the use is located. A. Applicability. 1. As permitted in Appendix C. 2. The proposed use shall only be approved as part of a new or amended master plan of 50 dwelling units or more. B. General Standards The proposed use shall be complimentary to and integrated within the Planned Unit Development. To ensure this, as part of master plan approval or amendment the DRB may impose additional conditions on the use with respect to: 1. Traffic and vehicular access; 2. Maximum parking; 3. Enhanced pedestrian circulation and access; 4. Additional landscaping to serve the use beyond minimum requirements. C. Specific standards 1. Location a. The use shall be located so as to be easily accessible to the Planned Unit Development via sidewalks or multi-use paths. b. New buildings associated with the use shall be located such that traffic is not increased through the majority of the Planned Unit Development in which it is located. It should Commented [PC3]: Added “89 and Interstate 189 exit” per legal review Commented [PC4]: Removed word “those” between Except and Within from prior draft per legal review Commented [PC5]: Removed word “use” between Limited and And per legal review Commented [PC6]: Added word “Uses” per legal review Commented [PC7]: Modified from prior draft which read “intended to be easily walkable for the residential neighborhood” per legal review Commented [PC8]: Replaced “must” with “shall only” per legal review Commented [PC9]: Modified from prior draft which read: “As part of master plan approval or amendment, the application may not create an undue adverse effect upon the planned area which it is expected to serve. The DRB may limit, apply, or require:” per legal review Commented [PC10]: Modified from prior draft which read: “The use must be easily accessible to the neighborhood via sidewalks or multi-use paths.” Per legal review draft 7 not divide existing residential areas, unless the Board finds during initial master plan approval that a central location best serves the Planned Unit Development. c. Hours of use shall be limited to 6 am to 10 pm. 2. Size and Scale. The use is restricted: a. To one building, with a footprint no larger than 6,000 SF. b. To two stories or a total building height of 28 feet. c. To 5,000 SF GFA per use. d. Uses ancillary to the proposed use which are fully below grade will not count towards the maximum use size. Ancillary uses may include administrative office space, storage space and mechanical space, provided they serve the principal use. 3. Specific use of space. The following may be permitted as part of the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use: a. Restaurant b. Retail sale of groceries- predominantly food with some related household goods c. Personal instruction d. Child care e. Artist production studio 4. Drive throughs are expressly prohibited. 5. Items listed in Subsection (C) (3)( a)-(e) may not be permitted as part of the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uuse where such uses already exist within one-half mile of the proposed Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use. 6. Architectural standards. Buildings and accessory structures associated with the proposed use shall demonstrate architectural relevance, coordinating or complimenting the residential style of dwelling units in the area. Buildings shall follow the specific standards outlined in Section 9.10(D), (1)-(2). Commented [PC11]: Modified from prior draft which read: “ New buildings associated with the use shall be located such that traffic is not increased through the majority of the development. It should not divide the residential areas of an existing neighborhood, unless the Board finds during initial master plan approval that a central location best serves the Planned Unit Development.” Per legal review Commented [PC12]: Removed word “limited” from the start of subsections a, b, and c per legal review. Commented [PC13]: Modified prior draft which read “Items listed in C (3) a-e may not be permitted as part of the LNC use where they already exist within ½ walkable mile” per legal review. Commented [PC14]: Replaced word “homes” with “dwelling units” per legal review Commented [PC15]: Added word “section” per legal review. draft 8 E. BUILD-TO STANDARDS IN THE SEQ-VC DISTRICT 9.09 SEQ-VR Sub-District; Specific Standards … 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. F. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS 1. Section 8.11, City Center Form Based Code Nonconformities 2. Appendix C, Table of Uses Section 8.11 Nonconformities … C. Nonconforming Structures … (2) Repair and Alterations. Report and alterations may be performed on any nonconforming structure, provided they comply with the Code and the following: draft 9 (a) When the total area of alterations to the primary building façade, or to the building façade that is parallel to and oriented to the street, exceeds 35% of the total areas of such building façade, the alterations shall comply with the Building Standards described in the BES applicable to the Transect Zone (excluding build-to-zone and story requirements). For the purposes of this subsection, window and window casing replacement, painting, adding or removal of siding, and other similar changes shall not be considered in this total area of alterations calculation. For multi-tenant buildings, the standard shall apply separately for each tenant area where that tenant gross floor area exceeds 10,000 square feet. (b) Repair and replacement of non-conforming exterior finish materials. Normal repair of non- conforming exterior finish materials listed in Section 8.07 shall be permitted. In-kind replacement of vinyl exterior finish materials with new vinyl finish materials shall also be permitted. Replacement of any other type of exterior finish materials listed as prohibited in Section 8.07 shall not be permitted. (c) Structural alterations involving the replacement, relocation, removal, or other similar changes to more than 50% of all load bearing wall / pillar elements of a building shall require compliance with all standards within these Regulations. Appendix C: Table of Uses COMMENT: SEQ Neighborhood Residential North: Amendment adds SEQ-NRN to the Table of Uses. The amendment places the SEQ-NRN district alongside the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential; matching the allowable districts in allowable uses per in the intent of the district when established. See Amendment Letter D for the Table of Uses change. draft 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 Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday, June 12, 2018, 7:00 pm 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 will hold 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. Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments 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): 2 “…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 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. 3 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. 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.” 4 The proposed amendment would not impact any specific proposals for planned community facilities. C. Remove 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 (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. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. 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. 5 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. (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 6 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. South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 8-9-2011 Draft 6-8-18 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. The Chair and staff will perform an initial screening of the request and will develop a recommendation for the Planning Commission’s consideration. 4. The Planning Commission shall discuss the recommendation at a regularly scheduled public meeting and shall, in a timely fashion, consider the 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; 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. 5. In determining its course of action, the following will be used as guidelines: 1 24 VSA 4441 describes this process, and the exceptions thereto. South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 8-9-2011 Draft 6-8-18 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 the 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. 6. Upon determination of the Planning Commission that an item will be considered for 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. Transportation Board * 14 Baldwin Street * Montpelier, VT 05602 * Tel: (802) 828-2942 * Fax: (802) 828-2660 April 16, 2018 Re: Transportation Board Aviation Rules Dear Municipal, State, Planning, and Federal Officials and Members of the Aviation Community: The Vermont Transportation Board over the past few years has experienced a steady stream of permit applications pursuant to 5 V.S.A § 207 to site helicopter landing areas and other aviation facilities for private use. Some of these applications proposed to locate a helipad within a residential neighborhood or close to a village setting, while others proposed a facility in more private locations. In every case, the host municipality had no local regulations – zoning or otherwise – with which to review such an application, leaving only the Transportation Board with regulatory authority. Both statute and rules that govern the Board’s review of these facilities were written long ago and provide little guidance on how the Board is to consider such applications other than that an application be supported by “a showing that the proposed facility has received municipal approval” and the mandate that the Board “consider and determine whether in the public interest the application ought to be granted.” Neither statute nor the Board’s rules, however, define “municipal approval” or “public interest.” The Board also recognizes that many municipalities do not have a process for municipal approval of these facilities. We encourage all cities and towns to consider adopting such a process. As a result, the Board is considering revising its rules that pertain to aviation facilities, including those rules that govern private helipads, seaplane landing sites, and private airstrips. Given the increasing number of applicants wishing to site these facilities where neighboring property could be affected, the Board seeks input that will help guide its discussions and decision making prior to embarking on the formal rule-making process. A copy of the current statues and rules that govern applications for new aviation facilities is attached to this letter. Should you wish to provide input on how the Board’s rules could be revised, the Board requests that you provide such guidance, in writing, by July 1, 2018. Electronic proposals can be submitted to john.zicconi@vermont.gov, while snail mail proposals can be addressed to 14 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05602. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, John B. Zicconi Executive Secretary Vermont Transportation Board john.zicconi@vermont.gov Book Browse 5 V.S.A. § 207 (Copy w/ Cite) Pages: 3 5 V.S.A. § 207 Copyright 2012 by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT *** Statutes current through the 2011 session *** TITLE FIVE. AERONAUTICS AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION GENERALLY PART 2. AERONAUTICS CHAPTER 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5 V.S.A. § 207 (2012) § 207. Registration; licenses, certificate of approval (a) The board is authorized to approve airport and restricted landing area sites or other air navigation facilities in accordance with rules to be adopted by the board. Certificates of approval shall be granted for airports and restricted landing areas which were being operated on or before July 1, 1945. (b) [Redesignated.] (c) All proposed airports, restricted landing areas, and other air navigation facilities shall be first approved by the board before they are used or operated. A municipality or person proposing to establish an airport, restricted landing area, or a seaplane landing area shall make application to the board for a certificate of approval of the site selected and the general purpose or purposes for which the airport, restricted landing area, or seaplane landing area is to be established to insure that it shall conform to minimum standards of safety and shall serve public interest. A municipality or officer or employee or any person shall not operate an airport, restricted landing area, seaplane landing area, or other air navigation facility for which a certificate of approval has not been issued by the board. (d) The application for a certificate of approval of the site selected shall be in writing and substantially describe the property involved and the general purposes for which it is to be acquired and the manner in which the acquisition is asserted to serve the public interest. The application shall designate the names of all owners or persons known to be interested in lands adjoining the property and their residences, if known, and shall contain such further matter as the board by rule shall determine. The application shall be supported by documentation showing that the proposed facility has received municipal approval. After evaluating the application, the board shall issue its order giving notice of the time and place of hearing on the application. The applicant shall give notice of the proceedings to all persons owning or interested in adjoining lands by delivery of a true copy of the application and order for hearing by registered or certified mail to the last known address of each of the persons; the notice to be mailed at least 12 days prior to the date of the hearing. Notice of the hearing and a general statement of the purpose shall be published at least once in a newspaper of common circulation in the town where the property described in the application is situated at least two days before the date of the hearing, and a similar notice shall be posted in a public place at least twelve days before the hearing. Upon compliance by the applicant with the foregoing provisions for notice, the board shall hear the applicant and all parties interested on the question of approval of the site or sites and shall consider and determine whether in the public interest the application ought to be granted. Whenever the board makes an order granting or denying a certificate of approval of an airport, or a restricted landing area, approval to use or operate an airport or a restricted landing area or other air navigation facility, an aggrieved person may have the decision reviewed on the record by the superior court pursuant to Rule 74 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. (e) In determining whether it shall issue a certificate of approval for the location of any proposed airport or restricted landing area, the board shall take into consideration the agency's recommendations, the proposed facility's location, size, and layout, the relationship of the proposed airport or restricted landing area to a comprehensive plan for statewide and nationwide development, existence of suitable areas for expansion purposes, absence of hazardous obstructions in adjoining areas based on a proper glide ratio, the nature of the terrain comprising the airport location and adjoining areas, the nature of the uses to which the proposed airport or restricted landing area will be put and the possibilities for future development, and shall determine that the use will serve the public interest. (f) Prior to the beginning of aeronautics operations on the site approved, the owner of the site shall apply to the board for operational approval of the airport. In granting operational approval, the board shall take into consideration the agency's recommendations, the length, width, and smoothness of landing strips, longitudinal and transverse grade of the strips, freedom of the usable area from hazardous soil and surface conditions, absence of hazardous obstructions in approach zones, establishment of a suitable wind direction indicator, and other matters pertinent to the character of operations proposed to be undertaken at the subject airport, and shall determine that the proposed use of the site will serve the public interest. (g)Unless determined otherwise by the board, the hearing provisions of subsection (d) of this section shall not apply to helicopter landing areas, ultralight landing areas, and restricted landing areas designed for personal use. (h) In emergency circumstances, the agency may suspend temporarily, and in nonemergency circumstances, the board may revoke both temporarily and permanently, any certificate of approval when it shall determine that an airport, restricted landing area, or other air navigation facility is not being maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules promulgated. A person aggrieved by a temporary suspension issued by the agency may appeal to the board within 30 days of the agency's decision. Unless otherwise ordered by the board, the temporary suspension shall remain in effect pending final determination of the appeal. (i) The provisions of subsections (e) to (g) of this section, inclusive, shall not apply to any airport, restricted landing area, or other air navigation facility owned and operated by an agency of the federal government within this state. TRANSPORTATION BOARD RULES REGARDING AIRPORTS AND HELIPADS PART III AIRPORTS AND RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS 3.01 License. Every airport and restricted landing area, before operating as such, shall be approved and licensed by the Board. 3.02 Duration and renewal. The license issued under this section shall be effective until revoked. 3.03 Display. The license issued under this section shall be posted in a prominent place at the airport. 3.04 Letter of authority. Upon application from the owner of an airport or the operator of an airport affected by provisions of Part IV or Part V, a letter of authority granting temporary or restricted operation may be issued by the Agency pending full compliance with the provisions of these rules and regulations. 3.05 Inspection. The applicant for any license shall offer full cooperation in respect to any inspection and examination which may be made of the applicant upon proper demand at reasonable hours by any authorized representative of the [Board] Agency prior to or subsequent to the issuance of a license. 3.06 Separation. All airports and landing fields shall be so located and spaced one from the other that their flight pattern and approach areas will not in any way conflict or overlap. PART IV PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF AIRPORT 4.01 Application for approval of airport site. A municipality or person proposing to establish an airport, restricted landing area, or a sea plane landing area, shall make application to the [Board] Agency for a certificate of approval of the site selected and the general purpose of purposes for which the airport, restricted landing area, or seaplane landing area is to be established. The Agency shall inspect the site to insure that it [shall] will conform to minimum standards of safety and [shall] serve the public interest[.] , and recommend action by the Board. 4.02 Description of site. Such application for a certificate of approval of the site selected shall be in writing and substantially describe the property involved and the general purposes for which it is to be acquired and the manner in which such acquisition is asserted to serve the public interest. Such application shall designate the names of all owners or persons known to be interested in lands adjoining such property and their residences, if known, and shall contain such further matter as the [Board] Agency by rule or regulation from time to time shall determine. 4.03 Order for hearing. Upon filing of such application, and on request from Agency, the Board shall issue its order giving notice of the time and place of hearing on said application. 4.04 Notification by applicant. The applicant shall give notice of such proceedings to all persons owning or interested in adjoining lands by delivery of a true copy of such application and order for hearing by certified mail to the last known address of each of such persons, said notice to be mailed at least twelve days prior to date of hearing. 4.05 Publication of notice. Notice of such hearing and a general statement of the purpose thereof shall be published at least once in a newspaper of common circulation in the town where the property described in the application is situated at least two days before the date of such hearing, and a similar notice shall be posted in a public place at least twelve days before such hearing. 4.06 Hearing. Upon compliance by the applicant with the foregoing provisions for notice, the Board shall hear the applicant and all parties interested, including the Agency, on the question of approval of such site or sites and shall consider and determine whether in the public interest the application ought to be granted. 4.07 Appeal. Whenever the Board makes an order granting or denying a certificate of approval of an airport or a restricted landing area, approval to use or operate an airport, restricted landing area or other air navigation facility, a person aggrieved thereby may appeal therefrom as hereinafter provided. 4.08 Criteria for airport site. In determining whether it shall issue a certificate of approval for the location of any proposed airport or restricted landing area, the Board shall take into consideration its proposed location, size and layout, the relationship of the proposed airport or restricted landing area, to a comprehensive plan for statewide and nationwide development, existence of suitable areas for expansion purposes, absence of hazardous obstructions in adjoining areas based on a proper glide ratio, the nature of the terrain comprising the airport location and adjoining areas, the nature of the uses to which the proposed airport or restricted landing area will be put and the possibilities for future development, and shall determine that such use will serve the public interest. 4.09 Operational approval. Prior to the beginning of aeronautic operations on the site approved, the owner of such site shall apply to the [Board] Agency for operational approval of the airport. 4.10 Criteria for approval. In granting such operational approval the [Board] Agency shall take into consideration the length, width and smoothness of landing strips, longitudinal and transverse grade of such strips, freedom of the usable area from hazardous soil and surface conditions, absence of hazardous obstructions in approach zones, establishment of a suitable wind direction indicator, and other matters pertinent to the character of operations proposed to be undertaken at the subject airport, and shall determine that the proposed use of such site will serve the public interest. 4.11 Approach obstructions. The approach and turning zones within the airport traffic pattern shall be clear of hazards as defined by prevailing FAA standards for airports of a like size, type, and use, except that where hazards exist the Board may license the airport for restricted use under such terms and conditions as they deem advisable, consistent with safety and in the public interest. 4.12 Expiration of airport approval. If physical preparation of an approved airport or a seaplane landing area site has not begun within one year following issuance of approval by the Board of such site, the rights, privileges, and authority conveyed to the applicant therein shall be terminated, and any further request for use of such site shall be deemed by the Board as a new application; provided, that the Board shall notify the applicant 30 days prior to expiration of the approval. 4.13 Two year limit. At the end of two years after date of issuance of an airport or seaplane landing area site approved by the Board, such approval will be deemed as terminated if the airport or seaplane landing area has not complied with requirements for operations approval as set forth in Sections 4.09 and 4.10. 4.14 Helicopter landing areas and personal landing areas. The provisions of subdivision 4.03 - 4.08 shall not apply to helicopter landing areas or restricted landing areas designated for personal use[.] unless recommended otherwise by Agency. 4.15 Revocation of airport approval or license. The Board may revoke, temporarily or permanently, any certificate of approval issued by it when it shall determine that an airport, restricted landing area, or other air navigation facility is not being maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations lawfully promulgated pursuant thereto[.] or with the conditions stated in such certificate of approval. 4.16 Federal facilities exempt. The provisions of subdivisions 4.03 through 4.15 inclusive, shall not apply to any airport, restricted landing area or other air navigation facility owned or operated by an agency of the federal government within this state. 4.17 Abandonment of airport. When it is determined by the [Board] Agency that use and maintenance of an airport or personal landing area has been abandoned, and that such airport or personal landing area is no longer suitable for safe use, except in emergency, the [Board] Agency shall notify the owner or owners and if such condition is not corrected within 30 days it then shall revoke the license, approval, permit or letter of authority issued [by it] to such airport. 4.18 Closed field symbol. When such notice has been issued to an owner, he shall [permit the Board to] display a suitable "closed field" symbol [when] on the former airport area for the succeeding period of three months, provided that the use to which the airport area may be put by the owner does not make its abandonment evident to air traffic. 4.19 Notification. [to other airports.] When [such] action under paragraph 4.17 has been taken by the [Board, it shall notify all other airports of record in this state.] Agency involving a public use airport the FAA will be notified. 4.20 Reinstatement. An airport which pursuant to regulation 4.17 has been classified "abandoned" may at any time within two years of the date of such classification be reinstated as a licensed airport, provided application is made therefor and evidence is presented to the [Board] Agency satisfying it that such airport complies with the requisite standards for airports contained in [the] these regulations [of the Board] applicable to the type of operation at such airport under its original license. 4.21 Seaplane base site approval. A [license] certificate for the [operation] location of a seaplane base as a commercial airport on any body of water in this state will be granted when all the conditions required of an airport as stated in Part VII (except where changed or inconsistent with this section) have been complied with and in addition thereto it is shown that it has met the following requirement A. Operation. In case the body of water to be used for landing and take-off is under the jurisdiction of any federal, state, municipal port or other authority, the flight operations on such body of water shall be in conformity with the marine traffic rules and regulations of such authority. B. Size. The body of water shall have a landing area of sufficient length and width, and the approaches thereto shall be sufficiently clear of obstructions to safely accommodate the landing and take-off characteristics of the type of aircraft to be used thereon. The license issued under this section may be subject to such restrictions and limitations as the Board may determine to be required in the interest of safety and the public interest. C. Boundary markers. The outline of that part of the area available for landing and take-off and taxiing, when required in the interest of safety, shall be marked as prescribed by the [Board] Agency or as may be required by the marine traffic rules and regulations of the authority having justification. 4.22 Use. The use of such water by seaplanes shall in no way impair or deny the right of the public to the use of public waters. 4.23 Minimum seaplane base facilities. Every seaplane base shall have, in addition to the facilities required of a commercial airport as stated, where applicable, the following minimum service facilities. A. At least one life preserver of the ring or throwing type with sufficient line attached shall be kept available on the ramp or dock. B. A power propelled boat (may be an outboard motor) shall be immediately available at all times that flights are in progress. C. A dock or float, suitable for the type of seaplane using the base, shall be so located as to afford the maximum degree of safety in taxiing approach. D. Suitable beaching facilities for the type of aircraft using the base. Where an adequate ramp is maintained, the dock or float may be omitted. E. At least one mooring anchor and buoy, so located that it may be safely approached from any direction, and of sufficient weight and strength to hold any seaplane using the base in any anticipated wind condition. F. An adequate supply of lines for heaving, towing, securing, or rescuing operations shall be kept available. PART VI PERSONAL LANDING AREA 6.01 Personal landing area. A personal [or private] landing area may be approved by the Board when application has been made to-the [Board] Agency prior to any construction or operation and it is shown that compliance is made with the following requirements: A. Hazards. It can [safely] reasonably be used for the purpose intended and does not impose undue hazards upon adjoining property or its occupants, or endanger the users or use of existing surface communication. B. Operation. It does not interfere with the safe operation of any public airport or with the safety of any state or federal airway. C. Local Government Approval. The landing area is in conformance with the requirements of the local government in which situated with respect to land use [zoning] or has the approval of the local governing body. 6.02 Use. A personal landing area shall not be used by a person having less than 15 hours solo flight time. 6.03 Helicopter Landing Area. Approval of helicopter landing areas will be governed by 6.01 and 6.02 herein. 6.04 Ultra Light Aircraft Landing Areas. Approval of landing areas for use by an airman operating aircraft classified as Ultra lights by the FAA will be governed by 6.01 herein. PART VII MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION 7.01 Criteria for maintenance. After a license or approval for an airport or landing area is issued as herein provided, it shall be so operated and maintained at all times as to meet the requirements and regulations for the original issuance of the particular license, amendments thereto, and applicable rules and regulations issued by the Agency or Board. 7.02 Boundary markers. The outline of the exterior boundary of the entire area available and suitable for landing and take-off shall be marked as prescribed by the [Board] certificate, license or letter issued hereunder. 7.03 Marking of unsafe areas. Any parts of the landing area of a licensed airport temporarily unsafe for landing or which are not available for use, shall be clearly marked with yellow flags of sufficient size to draw attention readily and so placed as to show the boundary of the dangerous area; and in the case of fields licensed for night flying, the boundary of such dangerous area shall be clearly marked between sunset and sunrise with red lanterns. 7.04 Reporting of unsafe conditions. The owner of a licensed airport or landing area shall immediately report to the [Board] Agency any unsafe or hazardous conditions. 7.05 Hazards. All hazards in the approach zone or along the boundary of [an] a licensed airport shall be painted or marked as required by [the Board] or in accordance with such FAA standards as may be applicable. 7.06 Vehicular equipment. No vehicular equipment, such as trucks, mowing machines, graders, rollers, etc., shall be permitted on the landing area without permission of control tower or airport operator, and then shall be clearly marked in a prescribed manner to draw attention readily to the hazard. 7.07 Fencing. Such fencing or barriers shall be constructed as will prevent all persons not engaged in flight activities from having access to a position of danger with relation to aircraft on the field. 7.08 Fire and rescue equipment. Each commercial airport shall have such fire and rescue equipment as may be prescribed from time to time by the [Board] FAA. 7.09 Grass and vegetation. Grass and vegetation on the landing area within the boundary markers shall not be permitted to attain a height that will be an operating hazard. An average height of more than eight inches (8") will be considered hazardous. 7.10 Pasturing. Pasturing or grazing of livestock on licensed airports is prohibited. 7.11 Flight of model aircraft. No model aircraft shall be flown from, or over, any airport or landing area unless permission has been secured from the airport manager or his duly authorized representative. The airport manager shall designate the portion of the field to be used and shall take all necessary precautions to assure the safety of the public on the ground and of the aircraft in the air. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 MAY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 May 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Greco, D. Marosky, L. Block 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. Marosky expressed concern with a possible change in zoning for the property a 1225 Dorset St. Mr. Conner explained that the Commission will be discussing its work schedule, and that will be one of the items they will consider adding to their work plan. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner: Attended the annual CNU conference last week with other planners and developers. The main theme was urban development planning & design. Mr. Conner said he will share things from that event in the future. The City has officially started digitizing all files, etc. Mr. Riehle said he has been asked the status of the derelict building (formerly belonging to the late Paul Heald). Mr. Conner said the City Council has discussed this but taken no action as yet. 5. Planning Commission Work Plan FY2019 initial discussion: Mr. Conner reviewed basic parameters for discussion: making sure members are clear about what projects are, what to possibly add, and a review of staff recommendations. Then before the next meeting, members can rank the projects in order of priority preference. Mr. Conner added that staff recommended projects include those that are nearing completion. Ms. LaRose also noted that when the Commission has decided on a work plan, they can meet with other city committees and encourage them to have their plans coincide with some of the Commission’s plans. 2 Ms. Ostby favored all the projects related to affordable housing and suggested broadening the definition of “affordable housing.” Mr. Klugo asked who drives the affordable housing agenda. Mr. Conner said in the past the Commission has met with committees, and they have been open to addressing the Commission’s priorities. Mr. Riehle favored items #27, 29, 35, 36 and 48. He felt #35, 36 and 48 should be moved up in the rankings so the Commission can decide what it wants there before something gets built. He also noted that #12, 13 and 52 relate to bike/ped/transportation and should be moved forward before projects go into place. Ms. Louisos said that projects that are funded should be at the top. Mr. Macdonald suggested filtering out the ones that are definitely going to be done and then choosing from the rest. Mr. Klugo questioned how much time there will actually be for new work and the requests that come in. Mr. Conner said how the Commission takes on a project is important…for example, asking another committee to do some of the work. Mr. Klugo said the Commission still has to review what the other committees present. Ms. Ostby asked about #9 (review of UVM properties). Mr. Conner said it may be time to work with UVM regarding “right zoning” properties instead of having so much of UVM property zoned as “Institutional Agriculture.” Mr. Riehle suggested telling UVM what the city wants for various properties and seeing their response. Mr. Conner said staff meets formally with UVM twice a year, and staff has begun to pose that question to them. Ms. Ostby said if UVM isn’t willing to lose the flexibility, it wouldn’t be worth it. Mr. Klugo added there has to be a mutual benefit to warrant discussion. Ms. Louisos cited some “givens” such as meeting with the DRB, public hearings, providing input to the CIP, etc. She cited #2, 3, 4, 7,10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26, 28, 32 and 37 as “givens.” Mr. Conner said he will send out the Excel for members to use in choosing their priorities. He asked each member to rank 15 choices. Staff will also indicate its preferences. 6. Consider and possibly approve or support City Council Resolution formally requesting that the U.S. Air Force replace the F-35A with a safe and quiet aircraft: Ms. Louisos provided a brief review of the history. Mr. Klugo questioned whether this is the appropriate body to take this up. Mr. Riehle said he felt the impact to a neighborhood does have planning implications. Mr. Mittag said the impact on housing stock is of interest to him and the Commission. Ms. Ostby asked how the Commission can be proactive. Mr. Klugo said the Commission’s proactivity is in the Comprehensive Plan. At this point, there is nothing for the Commission to do. 3 Ms. Louisos said there are a lot of things related to housing and affordability in the Council Resolution, and those do make sense to the Commission. Other things in the Resolution do not. She also noted that in the past, the Commission did make a statement related to land use (letter of 2012). Ms. Greco cited new pieces of information that might affect a decision. The first is that the F-35 will carry nuclear weaponry by 2020 or sooner. It is doing well in testing. If this is the case, nuclear weapons would be stored in South Burlington. Ms. Greco added that the planes would be a target from an enemy’s perspective. She cited the difference between an Air Force Base, where there would be increased security, and a commercial airport. Ms. Block said the Commission’s work is about health and safety. She supported the Commission taking a stand to support the City Council. Mr. Conner said he would send members a copy of the 2012 Commission letter and the formal response to that letter. He suggested having this as a votable item on the work plan. Members decided to leave it to the Chair to determine whether, if additional relevant information becomes known, to place further discussion of this topic on the agenda. 7. Staff Update on Traffic Overlay District with Impact Fees: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He said staff is leaning toward looking at traffic more generally across the city, having thresholds for when a traffic study is needed. For all projects, there would be a requirement to show there is an effort to reduce single-occupancy vehicles. Staff has spent the most time of the City Center area, where the intent is to promote more modes of transportation. There is consideration as to how the CIP is put together with an emphasis on how to “move” people. Money can then be provided for identified projects. 8. (#6 on the agenda): Walkable Communities – Short Video and Discussion: Members agreed to postpone the video to a future meeting due to time consideration. 9. Meeting Minutes of 8 May 2018: Mr. Mittag noted that on p. 3, third paragraph from the bottom the line should read “due diligence training.” Mr. Klugo noted that on p. 4, third paragraph from the bottom, the sentence should read “no questions/issues with 8c or 8d.” Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the Minutes of 8 May 2018 as amended. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:31 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk Layne Darfler, Planning Technician TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski City Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: May 25, 2018 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance:  ZA-18-07 Conditional Use Exemptions  ZA-18-08 Form District 5 Boundaries The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:45 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the hearing to me by close of business on June 11, 2018. Thank you, Meagan CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney David White, AICP, Planning Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur Eamon Dunn, Youth Member PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-18-07 Conditional Use Exemptions ZA-18-08 Form District 5 Boundaries Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 beginning at 6:45pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows:  ZA-18-07: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to eliminate the Conditional Use exemption from Section 3.5.3 Exemptions, which was added to this section in 2015. This is to ensure that change of use and rehabilitation of structures involving conditional uses will still be subject to the closer review scrutiny per the conditional use standards of Section 3.5.6.  ZA-18-08: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to modify the boundaries of Form District 5 to include additional properties located along the boundary of the current district. Properties proposed for inclusion are currently zoned Residential High Density or Residential Medium Density, and have been evaluated for their current and future potential use and intensity. These have been recommended for inclusion in Form District 5 in order to encourage the appropriate type and intensity of future infill or redevelopment, and to enable greater flexibility for expansion or reuse of existing uses and structures by reducing non-conformities. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington:  ZA-18-07: The proposed amendment applies to all areas of the City.  ZA-18-08: This proposed amendment applies to 29 properties, currently zoned Residential High Density or Residential Medium Density along the border of the Form District 5 boundary along the perimeters of downtown. A map of specific properties recommended for rezoning is available at https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/PZ/CDO/Proposed-Amendments-Before-the-Planning- Commission List of section headings affected:  ZA-18-07: This amendment affects Sec 3.5.2 Exemptions. Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Warning p. 2 ZA-18-07 and ZA-18-08  ZA-18-08: This amendment affects Map 4.4.1-1 Downtown Mixed Use Districts; Map 4.4.5-1 Residential Zoning Districts; Map 8.1.3-1 Parking Districts; Article 14- Map 1 Regulating Plan, Map 2 Specific Height Areas, and Map 3 Shopfronts Required; and Section 14.2.6 Special Requirements. The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-18-XX Conditional Use Exemptions This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to eliminate the Conditional Use exemption from Section 3.5.3 Exemptions, which was added to this section in 2015. This is to ensure that change of use and rehabilitation of structures involving conditional uses will still be subject to the closer review scrutiny per the conditional use standards of Section 3.5.6. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment has no direct impact on the goals and policies contained in the Municipal Development Plan regarding safe and affordable housing. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment has no direct impact on the goals and policies contained in the Municipal Development Plan regarding land use and density. Rather, the amendment clarifies the intent of the 2015 amendments to Section 3.5.3, which was to exempt projects invoving substaintial building renovation from Major Impact review, so long as the floor area or structural capacity of the building did not expand. This amendment ensures that those uses which the community has identified as warranting additional consideration for neighborhood character, traffic generation, impact on city services and potential nuisances remains whether the use is proposed in an existing building or not. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission Ordinance Committee FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: February 1, 2018 RE: Sec. 5.3.5; Exemptions Zoning amendment ZA-15-02, Conditional Use, Inclusionary & Replacement House, and Planned Unit Development did much to clean up disparate conditional use triggers in the Comprehensive Development Ordinance. The amendment had the intended effect of limiting conditional use review largely to those uses noted as “conditional use” in Appendix A – Use Table. That amendment also added “conditional use” to the existing “major impact” exemptions of Sec. 5.3.5. Doing so has had the unintended effect of exempting many conditional use applications from conditional use review. Item (b) is particularly broad reaching. As presently worded, any conditional use – even one involving extensive building renovations – may replace another use and be exempt from conditional use review. This result is not the intent of this exemption. This exemption was originally intended to exempt a project involving substantial building renovation from “major impact” review so long as the floor area or structural capacity of the building did not expand. Its application to conditional uses as well has the effect of exempting many conditional uses going into existing buildings. Conditional uses are intentionally differentiated from permitted uses in the CDO. Uses noted as conditional are those that warrant closer scrutiny per the conditional use standards of 3.5.6. Consideration is given to character of the neighborhood, traffic generation, impacts on city services, and potential nuisance impacts. These considerations remain pertinent to the conditional use whether proposed in an existing building or not. Staff recommends eliminating “conditional use” from Sec. 3.5.3. Deleted language is crossed out, and new language is underlined in red. Sec. 3.5.3 Exemptions Neither Conditional Use nor Major Impact Review shall not be required for applications involving one or more of the following: (a) Temporary structures that do not otherwise involve a conditional use; (b) Substantial rRehabilitation that does not expand the floor area of an existing building or the structural capacity of existing development; (c) Projects that do not result in a change of use or increased parking demand; (d) Subsurface site improvements including but not limited to underground utility lines and subsurface drainage ways; and, (e) Projects where the scope and authority of municipal regulation is limited by statute pursuant to 24 VSA 4413. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-18-XX Conditional Use Exemptions This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to eliminate the Conditional Use exemption from Section 3.5.3 Exemptions, which was added to this section in 2015. This is to ensure that change of use and rehabilitation of structures involving conditional uses will still be subject to the closer review scrutiny per the conditional use standards of Section 3.5.6. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment has no direct impact on the goals and policies contained in the Municipal Development Plan regarding safe and affordable housing. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment has no direct impact on the goals and policies contained in the Municipal Development Plan regarding land use and density. Rather, the amendment clarifies the intent of the 2015 amendments to Section 3.5.3, which was to exempt projects invoving substaintial building renovation from Major Impact review, so long as the floor area or structural capacity of the building did not expand. This amendment ensures that those uses which the community has identified as warranting additional consideration for neighborhood character, traffic generation, impact on city services and potential nuisances remains whether the use is proposed in an existing building or not. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission Ordinance Committee FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: February 1, 2018 RE: Sec. 5.3.5; Exemptions Zoning amendment ZA-15-02, Conditional Use, Inclusionary & Replacement House, and Planned Unit Development did much to clean up disparate conditional use triggers in the Comprehensive Development Ordinance. The amendment had the intended effect of limiting conditional use review largely to those uses noted as “conditional use” in Appendix A – Use Table. That amendment also added “conditional use” to the existing “major impact” exemptions of Sec. 5.3.5. Doing so has had the unintended effect of exempting many conditional use applications from conditional use review. Item (b) is particularly broad reaching. As presently worded, any conditional use – even one involving extensive building renovations – may replace another use and be exempt from conditional use review. This result is not the intent of this exemption. This exemption was originally intended to exempt a project involving substantial building renovation from “major impact” review so long as the floor area or structural capacity of the building did not expand. Its application to conditional uses as well has the effect of exempting many conditional uses going into existing buildings. Conditional uses are intentionally differentiated from permitted uses in the CDO. Uses noted as conditional are those that warrant closer scrutiny per the conditional use standards of 3.5.6. Consideration is given to character of the neighborhood, traffic generation, impacts on city services, and potential nuisance impacts. These considerations remain pertinent to the conditional use whether proposed in an existing building or not. Staff recommends eliminating “conditional use” from Sec. 3.5.3. Deleted language is crossed out, and new language is underlined in red. Sec. 3.5.3 Exemptions Neither Conditional Use nor Major Impact Review shall not be required for applications involving one or more of the following: (a) Temporary structures that do not otherwise involve a conditional use; (b) Substantial rRehabilitation that does not expand the floor area of an existing building or the structural capacity of existing development; (c) Projects that do not result in a change of use or increased parking demand; (d) Subsurface site improvements including but not limited to underground utility lines and subsurface drainage ways; and, (e) Projects where the scope and authority of municipal regulation is limited by statute pursuant to 24 VSA 4413. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-18-07 Form District 5 Boundaries This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to modify the boundaries of Form District 5 to include additional properties located along the boundary of the current district. Properties proposed for inclusion are currently zoned Residential High Density or Residential Medium Density, and have been evaluated for their current and future potential use and intensity. These have been recommended for inclusion in Form District 5 in order to encourage the appropriate type and intensity of future infill or redevelopment, and to enable greater flexibility for expansion or reuse of existing uses and structures by reducing non-conformities. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment will provide greater flexibility on some properties for infill, and a more diverse range of building types for new development and redevelopment. This flexibility can promote housing development in mixed-use structures as well as small and large multi-family structures, providing greater opportunities for the creation new, or more, housing within the transitional areas around the downtown core. Specifically, this furthers the policies in the Municipal Development Plan to “encourage new land uses and housing designs that serve changing demographics and benefit from new technologies where appropriate” and to “support the development of additional housing opportunities within the city, with concentrations of higher-density housing within neighborhood activity centers, the downtown, and institutional core campuses.” Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment will provide greater flexibility on some properties for infill, and a more diverse range of building types for new development and redevelopment, including housing and mixed-use. This furthers the policies in the Municipal Development Plan related to land use and density, specifically to “encourage mixed-use development patterns, at a variety of urban densities, which limit the demand for parking and unnecessary automobile trips, and support public transportation” and to “retain its moderate scale and urban form in its most densely developed areas, while creating new opportunities for increased densities.” Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Existing FD5 Boundaries King StreetLake StreetSaint Paul StreetSherman Street Pearl Street Main StreetShermanStr e e t BrownsCourtMaple StreetBattery StreetLeahy Way Orchard TerraceHandyCourtWestonStreetColle g e Street Tower Terrace SummitRidgeGreen StreetAdsit Court Summer Street Juniper Terrace King Street Dock LafayettePlaceCenterStreetElm TerraceJohnsonStreetPineStreetSaintPaulStreetSherman Street Jackson CourtBoothStreetSchoolStreetConverseCourt Kingsland Terrace South Prospect StreetBuell Street Kilburn Street NorthWilliamsStreetAllen Street HarringtonTerraceIsham StreetMurray StreetClarke StreetElmwood AvenueHickok PlaceFront StreetGeorge StreetSouth Winooski AvenuePark StreetWaterfront Bike PathSouth Union StreetBradley StreetNorth Avenue Peru Street Monroe Street Pine StreetGrant Street Henry Street Hungerford TerraceDepot StreetBank Street Brookes Avenue Adams Street North Prospect StreetNorth Willard StreetNorth Union StreetNorth Winooski AvenueChurch StreetNorth Champlain StreetSouth Williams StreetSouth Willard StreetWaterfront Bike Path South Champlain StreetSummit StreetCherry Street College Street Loomis Street Zoning Districts ABBREV CIVIC Form District 5 Form District 6 Institutional Res- High Density Res- Low Density Res- Med Density <all other values> Proposed FD5 Boundaries King StreetLake StreetSaint Paul StreetSherman Street Pearl Street Main StreetShermanStr e e t BrownsCourtMaple StreetBattery StreetLeahy Way Orchard TerraceHandyCourtWestonStreetColle g e Street Tower Terrace SummitRidgeGreen StreetAdsit Court Summer Street Juniper Terrace King Street Dock LafayettePlaceCenterStreetElm TerraceJohnsonStreetPineStreetSaintPaulStreetSherman Street Jackson CourtBoothStreetSchoolStreetConverseCourt Kingsland Terrace South Prospect StreetBuell Street Kilburn Street NorthWilliamsStreetAllen Street HarringtonTerraceIsham StreetMurray StreetClarke StreetElmwood AvenueHickok PlaceFront StreetGeorge StreetSouth Winooski AvenuePark StreetWaterfront Bike PathSouth Union StreetBradley StreetNorth Avenue Peru Street Monroe Street Pine StreetGrant Street Henry Street Hungerford TerraceDepot StreetBank Street Brookes Avenue Adams Street North Prospect StreetNorth Willard StreetNorth Union StreetNorth Winooski AvenueChurch StreetNorth Champlain StreetSouth Williams StreetSouth Willard StreetWaterfront Bike Path South Champlain StreetSummit StreetCherry Street College Street Loomis Street Zoning Districts ABBREV CIVIC Form District 5 Form District 6 Institutional Res- High Density Res- Low Density Res- Med Density <all other values> 5 5 34 1 2 PineStreetSaintPaulStreetMurrayStreetCenterStreetBradley Street Sherman Street Buell Street Pearl StreetShe rm a nStr e e t Hickok Place Leahy WayElmwood AvenueOrchard TerraceLafayette PlaceJohnson StreetPine StreetSaint Paul StreetSherman Street Park StreetClarke StreetGeorge StreetNorth Union StreetBattery StreetNorth Winooski AvenueChurch StreetNorth Champlain StreetSouth Winooski AvenueSouth Union StreetPeru Street Monroe Street Grant Street Bank Street Cherry Street Proposed Changes to FD5 Boundaries CurrentZone,ToFD5 Zoned FD5, No Change Zoned RH, No Change Split Zoning, Change all to FD5 Zoned RH, No Change Zoned RH, Change to FD5 Zoned RM, Change to FD5 <all other values> Zoning Districts ABBREV CIVIC Form District 5 Form District 6 Institutional Res- High Density Res- Low Density Res- Med Density <all other values> Proposed Changes to FD5 Boundaries | Map 1- Properties 1-5 North of Pearl St Proposed Changes to FD5 Boundaries | Map 2- Properties 6-33 South of Main St 6 7 8 21 20 91914 121322 111023 15 1626 2524 27 28 29 31 30 33 32 18 17 King StreetKing Street Dock Maple StreetSaint Paul StreetBrowns CourtBattery StreetWaterfrontBike PathSouth Winooski AvenueChurch StreetMain Street Pine StreetSouth Union StreetWaterfront Bike PathAdams StreetSouth Champlain StreetProposed Changes to FD5 Boundaries CurrentZone,ToFD5 Zoned FD5, No Change Zoned RH, No Change Split Zoning, Change all to FD5 Zoned RH, No Change Zoned RH, Change to FD5 Zoned RM, Change to FD5 <all other values> Zoning Districts ABBREV CIVIC Form District 5 Form District 6 Institutional Res- High Density Res- Low Density Res- Med Density <all other values> King Street Main StreetLake StreetCollege Street Saint Paul StreetPearl Street IshamStreetGreenStreetBrownsCourtMaple StreetBattery StreetLeahy Way Orchard TerraceColle g e Street Tower TerraceDepotStreetKing Street Dock LafayettePlaceCenterStreetElm TerracePineStreetSaint PaulStreetNorthWillard StreetKingsland TerraceNorth UnionStreetBuell StreetNorthWinooskiAvenueClarke StreetElmwood AvenueGeorge StreetNorthChamplainStreetPark StreetHickok Place South Winooski AvenuePine StreetWaterfront Bike PathSouth Union StreetBradley Street Monroe Street College Street Hungerford TerraceBank Street Adams StreetChurch StreetWaterfront Bike PathSouth Willard StreetSouth Champlain StreetCherry Street shopfrontreq Article 14 Map: Specific Height Areas REFERENCE A: 6 stories, 14 stories, 160' B: 6 stories, except limit to 45' on Church St frontages C: 6 stories, up to 10 stories, 105' D: 4 stories, up to 8 stories, 85' E: 4 stories, up to 6 stories, 65' F: 3 stories, up to 5 stories, 55' G: Adt'l story to create Battery St. frontage Base: 3 stories min, 4 stories max <all other values> Article 14 Special Height Areas & Shopfront Requirements King Street Main StreetLake StreetCollege Street Saint Paul StreetPearl Street IshamStreetGreenStreetBrownsCourtMaple StreetBattery StreetLeahy Way Orchard TerraceColle g e Street Tower TerraceDepotStreetKing Street Dock LafayettePlaceCenterStreetElm TerracePineStreetSaint PaulStreetNorthWillard StreetKingsland TerraceNorth UnionStreetBuell StreetNorthWinooskiAvenueClarke StreetElmwood AvenueGeorge StreetNorthChamplainStreetPark StreetHickok Place South Winooski AvenuePine StreetWaterfront Bike PathSouth Union StreetBradley Street Monroe Street College Street Hungerford TerraceBank Street Adams StreetChurch StreetWaterfront Bike PathSouth Willard StreetSouth Champlain StreetCherry Street shopfrontreq Article 14 Map: Specific Height Areas REFERENCE A: 6 stories, 14 stories, 160' B: 6 stories, except limit to 45' on Church St frontages C: 6 stories, up to 10 stories, 105' D: 4 stories, up to 8 stories, 85' E: 4 stories, up to 6 stories, 65' F: 3 stories, up to 5 stories, 55' G: Adt'l story to create Battery St. frontage Base: 3 stories min, 4 stories max <all other values> Proposed Changes to: Article 14 Special Height Areas & Shopfront Requirements DerwayIslandSTARRFARMRDNORTHAppletree Bay Lake Champlain COLCHESTER IntervaleSTANIFORD RDAVETHAN ALLEN PWVT 1 2 7NO RTHAVAppletreePoint Lone Rock Point WINOOSKI SOUTH BURLINGTONBurlington Bay Gorge Island C O LC H E S T E R AVRIVERSIDE AV MAIN STEASTAVUVM MAIN STWinooski River SOPROSPECTSTSTP A UL ST FLYNN AV SHELBURNESTOakledge Park Red Rocks Park Juniper Island PINESTRH RM RL RL RL-W RL RL-W RLRLRM RMRM-W RL RLRLRMRLRLRL-WRL-WRL-W RM RM-W RM-W RH 4 Residential Districts:Residential - High Density (RH)Residential - Medium Density (RM)Waterfront Residential - Medium Density (RM-W)Residential - Low Density (RL)Waterfront Residential - Low Density (RL-W) With Amendments Effective January 3, 2018 (ZA-18-01) DerwayIsland STARR FARMRDN O RTH Appletree Bay Lake Champlain C O LC H ESTE R Intervale STANIFORD RD A VETHAN ALLEN PWV T 1 2 7NO RT HA V Appletree Point Lone RockPoint WINOOSKI SOUTH BURLINGTONBurlington Bay Gorge Island C O L C H E S T E R AVRIVERSIDE AV MAIN STEASTAVUVM MAIN STWin ooski R iver SOPROSPECTSTSTP A U L S T FLYNN AV SHELBURNESTOakledgePark Red Rocks Park Juniper Island PINESTRH RM RL RL RL-W RL RL-W RLRLRM RMRM-W RL RL RL RM RL RL RL-W RL-W RL-W RM RM-W RM-W RH 4 Residential Districts: Residential - High Density (RH) Residential - Medium Density (RM) Waterfront Residential - Medium Density (RM-W) Residential - Low Density (RL) Waterfront Residential - Low Density (RL-W) With Amendments EffectiveJanuary 3, 2018 (ZA-18-01) ZA-18-08: Proposed Changes to Map 4.4.5-1 Remove from Residential District DerwayIslandSTARRFARMRDNORTHAppletree Bay Lake Champlain COLCHESTER IntervaleSTANIFORD RDAVETHAN ALLEN PWVT 1 2 7NO RTHAVAppletreePoint Lone Rock Point WINOOSKI SOUTH BURLINGTONBurlington Bay Gorge Island C O L C H E S T E R AVRIVERSIDE AV MAIN STEASTAVUVM MAIN STWinooski River SOPROSPECTSTSTP A UL S T FLYNN AV SHELBURNESTOakledge Park Red Rocks Park Juniper Island PINESTNNNNSU SU SU SU D SU N N D SU SU N N N SU SU SU N N N N SU SU SU 4 Parking DistrictsDowntown (D)Shared Use (SH)Neighborhood (N) With Amendments Effective June 21, 2017 (ZA-16-12) DerwayIsland STARRFARM RDN O R TH Appletree Bay Lake Champlain C O LC H ESTE R Intervale STANIFORD RD A VETHAN ALLEN PWV T 1 2 7NO RT HA V AppletreePoint Lone RockPoint WINOOSKI SOUTH BURLINGTONBurlington Bay Gorge Island C O L C H E S T E R AVRIVERSIDE AV MAIN STEASTAVUVM MAIN STWin ooski R iv er SOPROSPECTSTSTP A U L S T FLYNNAV SHELBURNESTOakledgePark Red Rocks Park JuniperIslandPINESTN N N N SU SU SU SU D SU N N D SU SU N N N SU SU SU N N NN SU SU SU 4 Parking Districts Downtown (D) Shared Use (SH) Neighborhood (N) With Amendments Effective June 21, 2017 (ZA-16-12) ZA-18-08: Proposed Changes to Map.8.1.3-1 Change from (N) to (D)