Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 10/09/2018
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 OCTOBER 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 October 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair (arrived late); B. Gagnon (chaired opening hour of the meeting), A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Partillo, C. Miller, L. Murphy, F. Cresta, D. Burke, D. Heil, B. & C. Gardner, S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, H. Riehle, R. Greco, T. Prerafado, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon 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: Mr. Partillo said it is the belief of a group of citizens that residential housing costs more than it brings in while commercial/industrial costs less than it bring in. Residential housing creates a need for infrastructure which the additional taxes don’t cover. He noted that city taxes have increased three times the rate of inflation while school taxes have held the line at the rate of inflation. Ms. Miller said in 10 years, he city tax rate has gone up 40.4%. Mr. Riehle asked if the group had gleaned what caused the increase in taxes. Mr. Partillo said they didn’t. They just went with what department heads said. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby reported on the recent meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee. They will be submitting a modified draft for inclusionary zoning which excludes the Southeast Quadrant for now. Mr. Conner: Last Friday, the city and its partners closed on the acquisition of the Auclair property (375 acres were transferred). The City’s participation in the 117 acre parcel on the west side of Hinesburg Road includes an option to conserve 35% of that property. A Neighborhood Watch program has been launched in the Chamberlin Neighborhood at the request of residents. South Burlington participated in the Governor’s “Capital for a Day” program last week. State officials visited the city and viewed the City Center area dodging construction vehicles on Market Street. 5. Initial Consideration of Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Allow parking to the front of buildings under certain conditions related to visibility and preexisting development b. Remove applicability of the Hinesburg Road North Scenic View Protection Overlay District at 1398 Hinesburg Road Mr. Murphy said the property in question is behind the former Bouyea-Fassetts Bakery building which is not W. B. Mason. It is a large parcel zoned Commercial. The property is accessed off Nesti Drive. If development came off that road, there would be no issue; however, there is a proposal to have traffic come in and out at the traffic light at Route 7. The problem is that if the property is connected to Route 7, and if there is a second building on the property, the property on the sides can’t exceed half the width of the buildings. This limits parking which limits commercial use of the property. The purpose of the ordinance is to limit the visibility of parking from Route 7, but this property is 400 feet from Route 7 and is about 25 feet different in elevation. There is absolutely no possibility of viewing any parking on the property from Route 7. Mr. Murphy said he has drafted a very narrow proposal that would give the DRB flexibility to waive parking in front of a building if it is not visible from Route 7 because of distance and topography. It does not mandate this but gives the DRB flexibility to allow it. Mr. Klugo asked why parking in front matters. Mr. Murphy said because there is frontage on Route 7, parking is limited for any new development. He stressed that this is a very good place for commercial development. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the property can be developed without this change. He cited similar issues with the O’Brien property. Mr. Murphy said that was a residential development and easier to predict. Development on this property could be a car dealership, a hospital-associated business, etc. It is an unknown. Mr. Klugo felt that the parking could be seen from the top of the hill. Mr. Murphy said there are 20-30-foot trees in place, and almost nothing could be seen from that height. Mr. Klugo said he would want to see something on paper. Mr. Murphy said that is for the DRB. The Planning Commission sets policy. Ms. Ostby said she would like to understand why a building so far from Shelburne Rd. is considered to have Shelburne Rd. frontage. Mr. Conner explained that adding the narrow “finger” of land creates a frontage on Route 7. The regulation does not stipulate how much frontage triggers the parking requirement. Mr. Mittag said he would like to see an aerial view and an indication of what the applicant wants. Mr. Murphy said this is a policy decision. If the policy is to screen parking from the public road, there could be a choice if that parking isn’t visible from the public road. Mr. Riehle asked if there is anywhere else this situation could apply. Mr. Conner said it could apply near Lowe’s and the existing Hannaford. Ms. LaRose added they have not taken staff resources to look at this. It would take significant time if the Commission wanted to proceed with the request. Ms. Ostby felt the Commission would see this again because of all the property near Hannaford and possibly in other places. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the remaining parcels at Lowes/Hannaford would have to comply with parking regulations. Ms. LaRose said if Hannaford were to move and the old building were to be torn down and rebuilt, it would probably have to conform with the parking in the rear regulation. Ms. Ostby said her concern is whether this fits in the Commission’s work plan. Mr. Klugo said his question is whether standards for a public road should apply to a private road. Mr. Conner said staff will come back with some answers so the Commission can decide whether to take this up. This will be a few meetings out as staff is trying to move on the Commission’s top priorities. (Ms. Louisos arrived at this point in the meeting and assumed the Chair.) Mr. Burke then addressed the Scenic View Protection issue on Hinesburg Road. He noted there was an appendage of road that jutted out. In September 0f 2014, Tim McKenzie asked that Commission to rezone it from I-O to SEQ-NR, which the Commission did. The Gardners bought the property based on residential use. At that time, nobody noticed the view protection zone. Mr. Burke said their feeling is that it does not apply to this property. The property was specifically rezoned for residential use, and not to use it for that use doesn’t make sense. The first buildings in the area are at one level, and there is a major wood line that follows the “appendage.” Mr. Conner noted that the allowable height on this site would be much less than one story. Mr. Klugo asked if the existing house would remain. Mr. Burke said it would. It is a 2-story house, and most of any new development would be 2-story. He added that you have to go past this property to see Mt. Mansfield. Mr. Riehle said he parked near the property today and it didn’t seem to impinge on any view. Mr. Burke said they are asking staff to spend some time on this and get it into the Commission’s work plan. Ms. Louisos agreed that the scenic view issue was overlooked by everyone at the time. Mr. MacDonald asked if the property was originally part of the Mansfield Business Park. Mr. Burke said it was and also noted how the park was designed for excellent Mansfield views. Mr. Gagnon said one of the Commission’s priorities is to re‐look at view corridors. If it stays the same, he was OK; if it changes, he was also OK. Mr. Burke said if there was a great view, they wouldn’t be asking for a change. He noted that at the time, the Commission just followed the property line. Members agreed to contact the applicant when scenic view corridors are on the Commission agenda. 6. Planning Commission follow-up discussion of joint meeting with City Council concerning future growth and development in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): Ms. Louisos noted she had spoken briefly with the Council Chair who asked if the Commission would discuss this and get back to her. Ms. Louisos felt that what would be helpful would be to process what was heard and to try to come up with some feedback. She asked members to take 5 minutes each to present their thoughts. Mr. Riehle: Feels like he is “on a treadmill” with all the things that are presented to the Commission. He said he is concerned with the kind of development that is happening. He not a “no growth” person, but feels growth isn’t happening the right way. He wanted to try to make things more attractive and cited Burlington’s attractive parks and South Burlington’s “some space put away.” He was concerned that the new PUD standards are not yet in place. Mr. Klugo: The Commission did 5 years of great work on the Comprehensive Plan, but when the plan takes a “3‐dimensional life,” people say this isn’t what they envisioned. What is being developed is what was envisioned and planned to be developed. It was on all the maps. He felt that a map of parks is needs and also a street grid, so that people will understand. He said the city does not have a “regulated plan,” and it is left to developers to bring that to the city. He added that streets help define growth. He said the challenge is that the city had a 1% vacancy rate which is driving up the cost of housing. If that isn’t solved, the affordable housing issue won’t get solved. He also noted the need to look at the studies quoted by residents from both sides of the issue. He stressed that “we are not adversaries.” He also said new community members come for the same reason as earlier people and questioned whether to say new community members can’t come into the community. Mr. Gagnon: It will be hard to craft something that pleases everyone and noted the requests from owners/developers and those who oppose the requests. He felt it was good to have different perspectives on the Commission but noted that sometimes the best they can do is to get a majority consensus. He supports more density in already developed areas, but also recognizes that people’s land is an asset to them, and didn’t feel the benefit of that asset should be taken away. He noted Councilman Chittenden suggested looking at developable land and who owns it and then identifying what the city wants to conserve and how much money it will take in the Open Space Fund to do that. Mr. Mittag: Noted that open space has been the second most major concern of the public (after good schools). He felt development shouldn’t be incentivized in forests and on agricultural land. He also felt the Commission hasn’t looked at Act 171 which aims to prevent forest fragmentation. Mr. Macdonald: He is not a “no development person,” and does not favor Interim Zoning. He has lived in the city since 1976 and has seen “a ton” of changes. He felt the city should identify what it wants to preserve and that the ownership of those lands should be compensated for the land’s value. He wasn’t sure the city could get enough money in the Open Space Fund. He also said that there are always “competing interests” in everything the Commission sees. Ms. Ostby: Agreed with finding anything of absolute value and making it a priority to preserve that. She didn’t think the LDRs are out of whack with the Comprehensive Plan and said the city has done a good job of not have two houses per acre all over the place in the SEQ. She supports some Interim Zoning to update studies. Studies should include economic issues. She cited misunderstanding about the need for workforce housing and noted that teachers, nurses, and others are leaving the community because they can’t afford to live here. She also cited the need for east‐west connections and “nature connections.” She is concerned as to what will be revealed in December with the new Airport noise map. Ms. Louisos noted that the issues being discussed are not new. The felt there is significant alignment of the LDRs with the Comprehensive Plan and noted that not every goal applies everywhere in the city. There are always competing goods. She is proud of the water resource protection but noted that not all remaining land falls under that protection. She hears the need for a parks/open space master plan. She also sees the need to follow up on the economic issues, and this is not on the Commission work plan. Members then specifically addressed the interim zoning issue and made the following comments: Ms. Ostby: Limit it to undeveloped land, wherever that is. Include a TDR analysis and where they could be used outside the SEQ (e.g., C-2, Swift St., Allen Road). Mr. Macdonald: Does not favor interim zoning as the city hasn’t used the tools it has (e.g. TDRs). He could be convinced for IZ in the SEQ eventually. He does agree with the importance of trying to acquire open space. Mr. Mittag: Thinks IZ is a good idea but noted that recommendations from the IZ studies done the last time were not implemented. He did not feel IZ should be city-wide. Felt it makes no sense to have TDR receiving areas in the SEQ." Mr. Gagnon: Limit IZ to open areas to preserve. Would prefer a limit of 6 months. Did not want to encumber people’s resources. Wants to identify lands to conserve and finish the PUD work. Mr. Klugo: Doesn’t favor IZ but could support Mr. Gagnon’s 6 month option. Supports a TDR study. Cited the need to go back and define space that gets allocated for “open space.” Mr. Riehle: Agrees with a TDR study. Two years is too much to interim zoning. Would go for 6 months with “all hands on deck.” Felt the last IZ was divisive, and the city doesn’t need that. Supports finishing the PUD work. Ms. Ostby: Hopes the Commission with consider workforce housing with the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t support that as park of interim zoning and wants to keep the focus narrow. Other members agreed. Mr. Conner noted that with regard to TDRs, there has to be a demand for TDRs where they are not being used now. He also asked the Commission “what does success look like?” Is it a number of units per acre or compact development in fewer acres? Mr. Klugo said the Commission has to have that conversation and decide how to contribute success. Mr. Gagnon felt the PUD project will define what success should look like. Mr. Conner felt the PUD project can happen within 6 months. He also felt the City Council can prioritize open space in 6 months. Mr. Conner also noted that staff is looking to the people who did the “economic viability” video to get an idea of what “economic viability” looks like. Mr. Klugo cited the need to see what will get bumped from the Commission work plan if this is to be done. Ms. LaRose said they will also have to be more selective regarding new projects, and that might mean some things don’t get discussed. Public comment was then solicited as follows: Ms. Riehle: Questioned whether 6 months is adequate and realistic to get studies done and data back. Ms. Dopp: Things an open space inventory is a good idea but noted they were told in the past that couldn’t happen because it is people’s private business. She felt that all the significant rural land is in the SEQ. Mr. Chalnick: Showed blown up maps from the Comprehensive Plan and felt that there is development in areas which are designated as “primary conservation areas” and “secondary conservation areas.” He cited the O’Brien property, South Village, JAM Golf, Brand Farm. Unidentified: Charlotte has preserved land forever. Growth can be moderated. Ms. Prerafado: Dorset Meadows would be in the view of Camel’s Hump. Ms. Greco: Did not find any studies that showed residential development brought in tax money. Ms. LaRose noted that the large wetland shown on South Village was not built on, and the agricultural soils were not built on. Ms. Ostby asked who would do the needed studies…the Commission?...with what resources…Mr. Conner said “all of the above.” He added that some identified Commission projects will be challenging to put on a “side burner.” Mr. Riehle suggested the possibility of additional meetings. Members again discussed the possible length of IZ. Ms. LaRose stressed that some undeveloped lands are already out of the discussion because there are vested applications. Mr. Conner noted that other committees would have to drop what they are doing to participate in the IZ process. He then outlined what he has heard from the Commission as follows: a. Prioritize developable land for conservation (open space and forest tracks outside the traffic overlay district) with help from city committees b. Finish PUD work c. Prioritize remaining developable lands for conservation d. Analyze the TDR program/options e. Economic study (not part of Interim Zoning) Mr. Macdonald asked what tools are available to conserve land. Mr. Klugo said that is the Council’s responsibility. Mr. Gagnon said land to conserve can be put on the official city map, then if an owner wants to develop, the Council has to decide whether to buy the land or not. He said the Commission’s goal should be just to create the map of what to conserve. Ms. Greco said consultants can be hired to do that work. Mr. Gagnon then moved to support interim zoning for 6 months to prioritize developable land for conservation with help from city committees, finish PUD work, and analyze the TDR program and options. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Ostby moved to amend the motion to support interim zoning for a period not to exceed one year. Mr. Mittag seconded. The motion to amend failed 3-4 with Messrs. Klugo, Macdonald, Riehle and Gagnon opposing. The original motion then passed 6-1 with Mr. Macdonald opposing. Mr. Macdonald added that he would like to be on the record indicating that he supports each of the studies recommended in the motion. 7. Meeting Minutes: Members agreed to postpone consideration of minutes due to the late hour. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:30 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: LDR Amendment Request: Changes to requirements for location of parking DATE: October 9, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Request Included in your packet today is a request from Liam Murphy for an amendment to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The proposal is to amend the current requirement that parking for commercial buildings be to the rear of the building, permitting an additional exception beyond those already allowed where the following criteria are met (quoted below directly from L. Murphy memo of 9/5/18): (1) the site is already developed with an existing building; and (2) the site is already developed with parking between the building and the public road; and (3) a second building is proposed for the site (4) the additional parking to be created on the site is generally not visible from the public street as a result of topography and/or distance of the parking from the public street. Initial staff analysis The Land Development Regulations prohibit parking to the front of the building except in limited circumstances, as outlined in Article 14.06B (attached for reference). This policy, and these limited circumstances, were carefully deliberated by the City. The Commission has historically been amenable to considering exceptions where the locational standards were unable to be met given utility infrastructure, topography or safety concerns. It is not clear that any of these are part of the current request. Rather, the request appears to raise the question of whether parking to the front of a building remains undesirable if it is set back at some distance from the public roadway or is in some way obstructed from view. This is an initial consideration for review. Per the Commission’s adopted policy, the Commission should consider the intricacies and potential scope of issues in a requested amendment. With this request, should it move forward, this includes several aspects the Planning Commission should thoroughly consider and which may prove challenging: 1. Is this a work plan priority? Should the Commission and staff devote resources to this request ahead of other identified projects and tasks? 2 2. Are there safety concerns that the applicant is seeking to address? Are they remedied under the current regulations? 3. What of the broad approach of permitting parking to the front for properties at a certain distance? Is there a sufficient distance? What if the property is redeveloped and new roadways are added? 4. What impact would this have on other properties already developed or to be developed in the future? 5. What standards could assess what is screened from view (visible) and what is not? Should the Planning Commission decide that the request will be considered for a more thorough review, staff will prepare a brief report on the request for the amendment. The report will include a short analysis of the requested amendment’s consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, its relationship to the Commission’s work plan, various options and depths of solutions for consideration where applicable, and the anticipated Commission and staff time involved in undertaking any potential additional research on the topic. As always, we encourage the Commission to consider the impact of a request as it would apply to all subject properties, and not just as it may relate to one under ownership or consideration of development by the applicant making the request for amendment. Staff remains available to provide further data or research any direction the Commission wishes to pursue. South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 7-10-2018 At the public meeting, the Planning Commission shall consider each request and take one of the following actions: a.Review the proposed amendment for possible inclusion of it in the warning for the next public hearing on amendments to the LDRs; b.Table the request until: i.Related issues are undertaken assessed by the Commission via studies or other amendments; 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. c.Decide not to pursue the requested amendment. 2.In determining its course of action, the following will be used as guidelines: a.Requests substantively related to an active or planned review of the Land Development Regulations should generally be heard commensurate with that process; b.Requests unrelated to an ongoing LDR review or amendment should be considered for their timeliness and in relation to existing work plans of the Commission. c.Relationship to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Commission should consider the extent to which the request advances stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. To the greatest extent possible, staff and the Commission should identify the related goals. Staff should also identify for consideration any goals which would be obstructed or contradicted in the use of a proposed amendment. 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. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations (c) If variations from the approved final site plan exist, an amended site plan shall be filed with the Development Review Board for review in accordance with the same procedures required for initial applications. (3) The provisions of this Section 14.05(H) shall apply to all types of approvals granted by the DRB and/or Administrative Officer, including but not limited to subdivisions, PUDs, site plans, miscellaneous approvals, and conditional use permits. J. Technical or Consultant Review of Site Plans. See Section 17.08, Development Review Board. K. Bonding Requirements. The owner or developer shall provide a performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in accordance with Sections 15.15 and 15.16 of these Regulations. 14.06 General Review Standards Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, the following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); Page 254 ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: (I) The lot is located in an approved subdivision where the parking on each lot in the subdivision is proposed to be located between the building or buildings on each lot and the public street so that a significant greenspace surrounded by buildings may be incorporated similar to a college campus style “quad”, as detailed below. (II) The parking on any lots that include a part of the greenspace shall be aligned in a similar fashion so that the buildings are located between the greenspace and the parking and so that the parking is located between the buildings and the public street to maintain the integrity and continuity of the greenspace . Prior to gaining approval from the Development Review Board, the applicant for each lot is required to provide a written agreement, such as a shared parking, greenspace and use agreement, from each lot owner in the approved subdivision whose lot will include a portion of the greenspace that provides that each lot owner will comply with this general parking, building and greenspace alignment, layout and design in the future development of each of their lots. (III) The minimum required total area of the greenspace shall be 150,000 square feet. For purposes of this subsection 14.06(B) (2)(b)(vi), “greenspace” shall be defined as a consolidated and continuous landscaped area located across more than two lots in the approved subdivision, similar in nature to a common open space, largely surrounded by buildings, but shall not include building or impervious parking areas. The greenspace may extend between buildings, but shall not extend beyond the building line of the principal building on each lot that includes a portion of the greenspace. The greenspace shall consist of pervious surfaces such as lawns, trees, plantings, wetlands, and gardens, and may include impervious landscape features, such as path networks, sculptures, gazebos, water features, footbridges, sitting areas, stone walls, and other features and amenities that may be built within and throughout the greenspace in order to create a more attractive and enjoyable environment. The area of the greenspace shall be calculated by measuring and adding the portion of the total greenspace defined on the site plan for each lot in the approved subdivision that includes a portion of the greenspace. (IV) Any parking located between a proposed building and a public street shall include landscape screening at least three (3) feet in height above the grade of the adjacent public street, , except as necessary to maintain adequate sight distances. (vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open Space Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations of the use(s) on the lot; (I) In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the general requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to: 1. Distribution and related storage 2. Light manufacturing 3. Manufacturing 4. Processing and Storage 5. Warehousing and Distribution Page 255 ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations (II) The parking shall be limited as follows: 1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public street and the building(s); 2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more of the following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Appendix F, except for the location standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area; Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the street right-of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building. 3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review Board pursuant to Section 13.06 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000, and no less than 10% of the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard). 4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. 5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, Page 256 1 Paul Conner From:Liam Murphy <LMurphy@mskvt.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 10:04 AM To:Paul Conner; Marla Keene Cc:Fernando Cresta; Doug Nedde Subject:Proposed Zoning Amendment for consideration by the Planning Commission Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Paul and Marla, Since I have not heard back from you regarding my signage question, we would like to have the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for parking between a public street and a new building. I have drafted the proposed amendment to limit the scope to the limited cases which meets all of the following criteria (1) the site is already developed with an existing building; and (2) the site is already developed with parking between the building and the public road; and (3) a second building is proposed for the site (4) the additional parking to be created on the site is generally not visible from the public street as a result of topography and/or distance of the parking from the public street. We believe that would allow the reasonable development of the Nesti Drive property if it proceeded with the boundary line adjustment which would provide frontage on Shelburne Road. However the proposed amendment would likely apply to very few other properties. The proposed amendment is reasonable given that there would have to be a finding that because of topography or distance the additional parking would not be generally visible from a public road. The proposed language is below: 14.06 General Review Standards … B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site … (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve when the proposed meets the conditions below or shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. … (viii) When there is an existing building and existing parking between a public street and the existing building, the Board may approve additional parking between a public street and the existing and new buildings, if such additional parking is not generally visible from the public road as a result of topography and/or distance of the parking from the public street. 2 Could you please confirm that you have received this message and that it will be placed on the Planning Commission calendar when it is considering new amendments. Thank you. Please let me know if there any questions or comments Liam Liam L. Murphy, Esq. MSK Attorneys 275 College Street, P.O. Box 4485 Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: (802) 861-7000 | fax: (802) 861-7007 lmurphy@mskvt.com | www.mskvt.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies or records of the original message. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: LDR Amendment Request: Changes to View Protection Zone Boundary DATE: October 9, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Request Included in your packet today is a request from Daniel Heil on behalf of Brad Gardner for an amendment to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The proposal is to amend the current boundaries of the Hinesburg Road North View Protection Zone, effectively removing 1.29 acres from the governing standards within this overlay. The applicant has provided a cover letter and related exhibits for consideration. 2 Initial staff analysis The view protection overlays within the Land Development Regulations govern the maximum heights of buildings within each zone. The Hinesburg Road View Protection Overlay is applicable to the property in question (see GIS documentation in first image above). The applicant states in their letter of request that the boundary of this district previously followed the property line at its southern edge. Staff concurs that this was true, and notes that it also followed the southern edge of the zoning boundary. The applicant’s client purchased land- 1.29 acres- within the overlay and made a request to move the zoning boundary of the parcel such that the parcel would no longer be in the Industrial Open Space (IO) district, but rather the Southeast Quadrant- Neighborhood Residential (SEQ- NR). This request was approved and adopted. While we’ve not yet researched and documented all of the discussions and insight into why the boundary line of the view protection boundary was set where it is, as well as which views are identified for protection (Mount Mansfield only? The remainder of the range?) there are a few items which are clear: 1. This is a large view protection zone (see image 2 below). 2. Though the parcel is only 1.29 acres, the road frontage does afford a variety of views both northerly and southerly (see image 3 below, and also images provided from the applicant). Image 2 3 Image 3 This is an initial consideration for review. Per the Commission’s adopted policy, the Commission should consider the intricacies and potential scope of issues in a requested amendment. With this request, should it move forward, this includes several aspects the Planning Commission should thoroughly consider and which may prove challenging: 1. Is this a work plan priority? Should the Commission and staff devote resources to this ahead of other identified projects? 2. Which views are being protected in this area? Are those priority views? 3. Would important public scenic views be lost if the area (identified parcel) were to be built up without regards to the stated views? 4. How does this relate to the scenic views study that is nearing a formal start? 5. Should this view be looked at by itself or more comprehensively with other scenic views within or outside of the current view protection zone? Should the Planning Commission decide that the request will be considered for a more thorough review, staff will prepare a brief report on the request for the amendment. The report will include a short analysis of the requested amendment’s consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, its relationship to the Commission’s work plan, various options and depths of solutions for consideration where applicable, and the anticipated Commission and staff time involved in undertaking any potential additional research on the topic. 4 As always, we encourage the Commission to consider the impact of a request as it would apply to all subject properties, and not just as it may relate to one under ownership or consideration of development by the applicant making the request for amendment. Staff remains available to provide further data or research any direction the Commission wishes to pursue. South Burlington Planning Commission LDR Amendment Request Policy Adopted 7-10-2018 At the public meeting, the Planning Commission shall consider each request and take one of the following actions: a.Review the proposed amendment for possible inclusion of it in the warning for the next public hearing on amendments to the LDRs; b.Table the request until: i.Related issues are undertaken assessed by the Commission via studies or other amendments; 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. c.Decide not to pursue the requested amendment. 2.In determining its course of action, the following will be used as guidelines: a.Requests substantively related to an active or planned review of the Land Development Regulations should generally be heard commensurate with that process; b.Requests unrelated to an ongoing LDR review or amendment should be considered for their timeliness and in relation to existing work plans of the Commission. c.Relationship to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Commission should consider the extent to which the request advances stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. To the greatest extent possible, staff and the Commission should identify the related goals. Staff should also identify for consideration any goals which would be obstructed or contradicted in the use of a proposed amendment. 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. £¤2 £¤7 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 §¨¦89 ¬«116 ¬«116 Burlington International Airport HINESBURGRD. -NORTH DORSETPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK DORSETPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK DORSETPARKNOT A VPZ SPEAR ST.- RIDGE DORSETPARKDORSETPARK HINESBURGRD. -SOUTH Overlay Districts ¹ Disclaimer: The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. The City of South Burlington is not responsible for these. Questions of on-the-ground location can beresolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyors. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on the gound. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but it is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. Map updated by M. Brumberg using ArcGIS 10.3. All data is in State Plane Coordinate System, NAD 1983. 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Effective April 11, 2016 P:\Planning&Zoning\Planning\OverlayMap\2016\OverlayDistricts_11x17_2016.mxd South Burlington, Vermont Legend Traffic Major Intersections - Zone 1 High Volume Roadway Segments - Zones 2A, 2B, 2C Balance of Restricted Roads - Zone 3 Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A - 100-year Flood Plain View Protection Zones Dorset Park Hinesburg Road - North Hinesburg Road - South Spear Street - Overlook Park Spear Street - Ridge Other Overlay Districts & Features Transit Route Transit Overlay District Airport Approach Corridors Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Waterbody Tax Parcel Boundaries Roads SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 SEPTEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 September 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; T. Perrin 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. Louisos: The City Council is hosting a discussion with community members regarding development and land use related issues on 1 October, 6:30 p.m. It is important for Commission members to be there to hear what the public is say and how the Council responds. Mr. Mittag said it would be helpful to tell the public what the Commission can and cannot do. Mr. MacDonald suggested providing some information on the UD project. Mr. Gagnon added that there should also be information on affordable housing work. Ms. Louisos said she would speak with the Council Chair as to what the Council might want from the Commission. Ms. Ostby: At the Affordable Housing Committee meeting this morning, the Committee said it will come back to the Commission with ideas and will revisit inclusionary zoning I all areas except the Southeast Quadrant. She added it would be helpful if the Commission can get a more specific update regarding the target for construction by 2025. This would help clarify the affordable housing need. Ms. Ostby: Is now in the Vermont Naturalist Program and will participate in a community project after a training period. She will then serve in an advisory capacity. 2 Mr. Conner: Staff is thrilled that Delila Hall, the new zoning officer, began work last week. She comes to South Burlington via New York City. He added that it was good for staff to experience the volume of work Ray Belair handled on an hourly basis. A new City Hall feature is the plus-in hybrid Honda Clarity to be used as the City Hall vehicle. This is the first step toward looking at the fleet in general. The City is also working with the Energy Committee regarding funding to get electric charging into public areas, private establishments, etc. Site plan approval occurred yesterday for 4 new buildings on Market Street next to the town homes at the eastern end of the street. Two of the total of 12 units will be affordable. Construction has begun next to Sears Auto for the building that will house the Dermatology offices on the first floor and 6 residential units on the second. A zoning permit has been issued for the new Cathedral Square 60-unit building at Market and Garden Streets. Units will be both market rate and affordable with up to 4 bedrooms. This will begin the construction on Garden Street. The City Council has directed the City Manager to execute an option agreement regarding the Auclair property. Closing will be on 5 October. The 3 lots comprise 375 acres (Mr. Conner showed these on a map). The lot the city is involved with has the most development potential. Mr. Conner has joined Vince Bolduc’s Sociology class and will participate in an Election Day survey. This is the only time to get a real cross-section of the community. A meeting was held 2 weeks ago regarding a streetscape project on the south side of Williston Road. The road will not be touched; all work will be from the curb inward and will increase the area for landscaping and snow storage as well as providing bicycle facilities. The City will have to acquire some land where the space from the curb is not wide enough. Early voting has started for the November election. In a week or 2, Mr. Conner will join a Police officer and Health Officer Regarding a potential Neighborhood Watch program in the Chamberlain neighborhood. 5. Planned Unit Development/Master Plan Project: a. Presentation & Discussion of Open Space Component b. Overall Project Status Update 3 Mr. Conner noted that Ms. LaRose has met with committees, and there are working groups now putting together the “universe” of open space types. This includes where open space is appropriate, how much open space in various types of development, etc. Mr. Conner stressed that “open space” doesn’t just mean grass. He also noted the potential for a “payment in lieu” to be used to enhance a park. Mr. Mittag spoke to the need to join open spaces so there aren’t just little pieces here and there. Mr. Conner said this is easy to conceptualize with a larger development but not so easy when there are only a few units. Mr. Riehle asked about a formula for the “in lieu of.” Mr. Conner said in City Center, for properties less than 2 acres, the amount is dependent on the size of the building based on the land values of all properties less than 2 acres. A 100,000 sq. ft. building would be required to have 6000 sq. ft. of open space which would translate to what that 6000 sq. ft. would cost as an “in lieu of.” A developer could build a large park, and future developers could “buy into” that as their open space. Ms. Louisos asked if those parks would/could be turned over to the city. Mr. Conner said that hasn’t yet come into the discussion. He felt the Parks/Rec Committee could weigh in on this. Ms. Louisos suggested a “park need analysis” as part of the open space plan. Ms. Ostby said it is amazing to see how Szymanski Park in Laurel Hill neighborhood has become like the hub of the neighborhood. Mr. Conner noted Ms. LaRose’s concern that there are no open space standards in the LDRs. He asked whether members would like to finish this up and get it into the LDRs and then come back and deal with the “unusual circumstances.” Members said they would. Ms. Ostby asked that with landscaping a priority be given to pollinators and fruit trees. Members felt this should be in the general landscaping requirements. Mr. Conner noted that at this time, landscaping plans have to be cleared through the City Arborist to be sure there is a balance. He showed a picture of the “Plant Live Grow” publication of the Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Project. Ms. Louisos noted that currently some pollinators wouldn’t count toward the landscaping requirement. Mr. Conner felt that is a good discussion to have. One of Ms. LaRose’s questions is whether there are any types of open space that are missing within the City that should be there. Mr. MacDonald asked where the Underwood property falls in this. Ms. Louisos said it would be a “nature park.” Mr. Mittag said that Underwood’s uses are much broader. 4 Ms. Ostby cited the need for signage where the Laurel Hill “cut through” joins the road. Mr. Conner cited the need to be mindful when something is already a requirement and when it is an addition that would not normally be built. He cautioned against giving credit for a “requirement.” Mr. Conner said the next step will be to put in some visuals. Regarding the overall project status, Mr. Conner showed a chart of where the project stands. The next thing that will be coming to the Commission are the “must do” and “what you can do for extra credit” considerations. After that, staff will be testing the proposed rules against existing developments. The last part will be to put it into a usable form. The hope is to wrap it up this winter. Mr. Riehle encouraged members to read the Shelburne PUD section. 6. Update on Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Plan: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He noted new noise maps are anticipated in early December. They will include both the F-16s and F-35’s. There will be a pubic comment period. Following that, the noise compatibility plan, which had been suspended pending the new noise maps, will be picked up again. Mr. Gagnon asked if the committee has given thought as to what to do with a wider impact area. Mr. Conner said it has, and it has been vocalizing this to the Airport. The city is also formulating a position on this. He stressed that the city has been trying to preserve the neighborhood. There are different “non buyout” programs available. Mr. Conner noted that the Airport is also updating its Master Plan, everything from terminals, to runways, to transportation outside the Airport, etc. This Plan sets the parameters under which everything else is discussed. There will be a public meeting on this plan within the next 3 months. Mr. Mittag asked if there has been any more discussion about regionalizing the Airport. Mr. Conner said it is being discussed in the committees. Mr. Perrin of the Energy Committee noted that sound attenuation is a top concern of the Energy Committee. They are sensing some “bureaucracy” in this with discussion dealing only with the part of the house where there is an issue. The Committee is hoping to do as much as possible for people involved. 5 Mr. Conner noted that FAA rules are interesting. They can deal only with noise abatement, some of which can have other consequences. 7. Introduction to Amendments to the City Sign Ordinance in City Center and Beyond: Mr. Conner noted that because this is an Ordinance, signs are the province of the City Council. He asked members to what extent they want to see drafts of proposed amendments. Mr. Conner then showed a bullet list of what staff is working on with a goal to streamline the process but keep the quality. Some things under consideration include: a. In the middle of City Center, be sure there is signage that matches the building (e.g., pedestrian oriented, perpendicular signage) b. Clarify that inflatable signs are prohibited c. Clarify the meaning of “opaque signs” d. Clarify when signage inside a building is functioning as a wall sign e. Update when non-complying signs in City Center need to meet current standards f. Tidy up language in general g. Allow a single “open” flag of a specific size per business as an exemption h. Allow some temporary signs for all businesses with simplified or no permit requirement i. Allow up to 3 wall signs instead of existing cap of 2, but with no more total area j. Prohibit free-standing signs in City Center district except along Williston Rd., Dorset St., and Hinesburg Rd. Ms. Ostby noted that in Waterbury the aim is to discourage “visual competition.” 8. Meeting Minutes of 11 September 2018: Members agreed to postpone action on the Minutes of 11 September to allow Mr. Klugo to provide comments. 9. Other Business: a. Joint Meeting with City Council, 1 October – reminder b. Town of Shelburne Zoning Amendments, Public Hearing 25 October No discussion was held on items of other business. 6 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk