Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/25/2018 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 saying 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 PUD 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 in 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. 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 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. 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. 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. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: September 25, 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. Planned Unit Development / Master Plan Project: (7:20 pm) [Work Plan #9] a. Presentation & Discussion of Open Space Component See attached memo & chart. These are the same as from last meeting. b. Overall Project Status Update Staff will provide a status update. See also the enclosed diagram showing the various parts and pieces of the overall project. 6. Update on Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Plan (8:00 pm) [Work Plan #18, Airport Noise Compatibility Plan] Staff will provide an update on the Airport NCP and related projects & plans 7. Introduction to amendments to City Sign Ordinance in City Center & Beyond (8:20 pm) [Work Plan #3] See attached memo. 8. Meeting minutes (8:40 pm) 9. Other business (8:45 pm) a. Joint Meeting with City Council October 1 b. Town of Shelburne Zoning Amendments, Public Hearing October 25th 10. Adjourn (8:50 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Open Space Options DATE: September 11, 2018 Committee meeting At the Planning Commission’s request, Planning Staff has been working to investigate options for clarifying and enhancing open space requirements within PUDs. Staff has also investigated whether and how a defined set of open space typologies can be used beyond PUDs. Chapter 8 and Appendix F of the Land Development Regulations started to transform the way the City viewed and implemented open space goals as standards were enacted for open spaces in the City Center Form Based Codes area. No longer were the standards bound to the simplicity of pervious vs impervious coverages of land. Now, the City began to address quality of open spaces and assigning the appropriate types of open spaces to various types of land development. Assigning these same distinctions beyond the City Center Form Based Codes area is something the Planning Commission has identified as a priority (work plan #9). Through the PUD Phase II project process, we’ll be incorporating a variety of typologies into the PUD typologies. This includes open space typologies. In running a first draft of this, Staff previously identified several additional opportunities for the Planning Commission to consider. These include: • Changes to existing developed properties. This would fall in line with recent amendments to the Shelburne Road corridor. • Clarifications to the existing SEQ park requirements. Current regulations only state that there be a minimum of 7.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 populations. No further guidance or standards are given. • Payment in lieu of all or some on-site open space provision, the idea being that smaller parcels could instead contribute to a fund to create bigger spaces The Planning Commission directed us to work with advisory committees to dig deeper into the language and goals. All of this work would also inform the work of the PUD Phase II project. Staff met with the Natural Resources and Parks and Recreation Committees during their full meetings, and had several subsequent meetings with a small working group. The Committees both expressed support for the general goal, as well as the bulleted items above. In coordination with the working group (special thanks to Mike Simoneau, Glen Sproul, and Betty Milizia), we took a deep dive into the specific details of the Open Space Matrix, should it be applied City-Wide. Attached you will find a compilation of collective updates to Appendix F of the Land Development Regulations. This is a draft that I would consider to be 75% complete. Future work to be done would focus on relating the typologies to the PUD types as they are more fully developed and determining minimums associated with use types, when deployed city-wide. Those numbers currently exist for City Center and are included in the text of the LDR’s, but not in this spreadsheet. When these are done, we expect to ‘polish” it all up and transform it from a matrix to an illustrated guidebook, easy for reviewers and applicants to follow. This can be quite a bit to consume in one meeting. My intent is to provide you with thorough background information should you desire it, but we can focus our thoughts. I’d like the Committee to consider the following questions and recommendations: 1. Staff recommends that the bulleted items above be collectively considered for a future work plan item. While we find them worthwhile and believe they will have a positive impact on the City, we feel that prioritizing the other open space work and getting something in place City-wide is most critical. Do you concur and support this timeline? 2. Do you feel that this represents the types of open spaces that you believe advance the City’s character and stated goals? Are there types of open spaces that are missing within the City or that you’d like to see more of? 3. Any other thoughts you had, broad or specific. APPENDIX F Open Space Requirements F-1 Plaza/Square Green Pocket/Mini Park Neighborhood Park Playground Outdoor Café/ Restaurant Seating Sun Terrace Indoor Park/Atrium Courtyard Wooded Area Community Shared Garden Space Applicability as Qualifying Open Space (PUD Types or Zones) All FBC Districts; UDO district All districts except FBC T5 All districts All districts except FBC T5 All districts All districts which permit restaurant (or similar dining) use All buildings having 3 or greater stories; residential buildings must have a minimum of 12 units. FBC T4 and FBC T5; Any non- residential or mixed use building in UDO. All districts All FBC District; PUD (type TBD)All districts. Description & Service Intent Primarily hard-surface space. Intended to serve public, allowing people to congregate, sit, walk, or access adjacent businesses. Should be context-sensitive. Informal and centralized public, civic space or common/shared private space for residential use or campus-style development. Small open area. May be tucked adjacent to or between buidlings, or adjacent to roadway. on a separate lot or portion of a lot.. Intended to primarily serve public or residents within 1/4 mile radius. Park intended to serve immediate neighborhood and those within 1/4- 1/2 mile radius. Shall have several different elements of play and leisure, which may include athletic fields or courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, pump tracks, skating facilities, and similar. Programmed space and/or structure that serves the active recreational needs of children in the immediate vicinity. An open-air seating area provided by a restaurant located on the subject or adjoining property, where restaurant patrons can eat or drink Accessible and open area on upper story with seating and gathering amenities. Interior open space where at least one wall facing the street consists entirely of glass. Common Open Space area on a portion of a lot. Naturally occuring area with predominance of canopy trees with enhancement and public access. Land set aside and maintained for production of food to be used primarily for participating gardeners. Size Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. Residential: 0.25-2 acres; Campus- style Development: 0.5-3 acres. 2,000-10,25,000 sq. ft.Minimum 0.5 acres Total play area shall be a minimum of 2400 square feet. Play space should include a buffer area around any play structures. Minimum 100 sq. ft.500-3,000 sq.ft; total area shall not count as more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft. Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to be counted as qualifying open space shall not exceed twice the area of the glass wall projected onto the floor plane. 5,000-20,000 sq. ft.2,500 sq. ft. minimum; Shall include the land of the improvement (such as enhanced path, viewing platform, etc) and no more than 50 feet to either side; total area shall not count as more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. Minimum 400 square feet. Encouraged to serve at least 20% of units in multifamily developments. Location & Access Outdoors and within Public Realm. High Visibility from public rights of way. Accessible from a public street at grade or 3' above or below street level connected to street with wide, shallow stairs. May include space for a farmer's market For residential: Centralized; Accessible to all tenants/residents via pedestrian walkway or direct frontage (cottage court development). For campus-style development: Centralized; Accessible from a public right-of- way via direct walkway; Access from several locations encouraged. Fronts on and is accessed from a street right-of-way. Pedestrian accessible. Must be open to the public. Must be pedestrian accessible (sidewalks or paths). Some provision for public vehicle parking. Should be located such that it is accessible to a majority of users. Accessible from Public Right-of- Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. Should be centrally located and visually accessible to the greatest extent practicable. Highly visible, directly adjacent to public right of way. See additional public realm standards below. Second floor or above. Encourage location in places which have spectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors. For T5 Non-Residential, must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways and elevators. Building interior adjacent to sidewalk or public open space. Direct access from street level. Provide several entrances to make the space availble and inviting to the general public. Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three sides (outer) or four sides (inner) Must be accessible, at minimum, by residents, tenants, or customers of site. Must be onsite. Offsite wooded areas shall not be considered qualifying open space even where the LDR permit open space to be located off-site. May not be located in any class wetland or wetland buffer. Shall have proper drainage. Seating*, Tables, Etc. Minimum one seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of plaza area. Minimum 10 seats. Seating is encouraged to be of a variety of types, high quality, and socially oriented. Provide formal and informally arranged seating, on sculptured lawn. Moveable chairs desirable. Three seats per quarter acre, rounded up. One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. Shall have signage in accordance with City sign deisgn guidelines. Must provide benches or formal seating areas at one space for each 500 square feet, rounding up, as well as at least 200 square feet of level, grassed, informal seating. Seating material shall be of moderate to high quality in order for café space to be considered qualifying open space. One seating space for every 50 sq.ft. of terrace area. Provide one seat for every 100 sq.ft. of floor area, one table for every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At least one half of seating to consist of movable chairs. One seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a minimum of 10 3. Light enhancement expected. Must include improvements, including cleared paths and benches. None required. Landscaping, Design- Landscape is secondary to architectural elements. Use trees to strengthen spatial definition. Shall include attractive paving material or pattern to create unique space. Encouraged use of lush, dense plant material. Shall incorporate art, sculpture and/or water feature. Provide lush landscape setting with predominantly lawn surfaces and planting such as: trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers. Canopy trees should provide substantial shade. Turf and landscape plantings. to Should promote shade over at least 25% a portion of the area. Shall offer areas of open grassed field as well as some shaded seating areas. Integration with natural environment encouraged. Features for wildlife encouraged, including pollinators, bird feeders, and bat houses. Appropriate ground material- rubber or woodchips. Plantings for articulation of space to compliment active play ingredients encouraged. Flat paved or concrete area for wheeled toys encouraged. Paved areas including space for basketball or other sport courts are encouraged and may be counted towards minimum required area of qualifying open space. Shade shall be provided in consultation with the Recreation Director. For optional separated seating areas, use planting boxes of interesting patterns of plants, open fences of less than 3 feet in height, or decorative and moveable bollards with decorative chain connectors. Terrace may take one of the following forms: complex architectural setting which may include art works; flower garden; space with trees and other planting. Planted roofs are permitted provided area is also a functional seating space. Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material. Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. If paved, area shall be amended throughout with substantial planted areas or large planters of trees and lush greenery. If grassed, area should be articulated at perimeter with lush greenery. Majority of area must be covered with canopy trees. Light enhancement expected. Must include cleared paths, benches, and/or other amenities. Must have adequate planting soils, tested for pH balance, drainage, nutrients, etc. (proof provided prior to Certificate of Occupancy). Where they are inadequate, soils shall be amended for more suitable farming. Shall have water service directly to gardens. Raised planters or other semi-permanent infrastructure encouraged. Commerical Services, Food 20% of space may be used for restaurant/cafe seating, taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. Not permitted Permitted but not counted towards open space requirement. Permitted but not counted towards open space requirement. May serve as seating area for adjacent restaurant/food service, or be space provided for those bringing their own meals. Dependent on Transect, may possibly be used up to 100% for commercial food services. See Table 8-1. 30% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted Not permitted.Not permitted. Sunlight and Wind Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Shelter from wind. No requirements No requirements Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Mix of sun and shade. Sunlight encouraged to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. No requirements No requirements except as noted for street façade to be wall of glass. Encouraged to be south-facing. Sunlight to sitting areas for most of day. No requirements Full sunlight. Other Shall include minimum components:3 low child-sized swings; 1 toddler sized swing; 2 slides; one or more play houses. Plan shall be established and submitted to ensure continual use and maintenance of the gardens, whether by residents, association, property owner or property manager. Shall include added ammenities attractive for play by toddlers and young children. Creativity in design strongly encouraged. STAFF NOTE_ still in progress Notes: Seating dimensions: *Required dimensions for one seating space or one seat are as follows: Height: 12" to 36"; ideally 17"; must allow user to bend knees and have feet below knees Depth: 14" one-sided; 30-36" double-sided Width: 30" of linear seating are counted as one seat Materials All products installed in qualifying open spaces shall be of high quality materials intended to be used for commercial application. South Burlington Land Development Regulations APPENDIX F Open Space Requirements F-2 Applicability as Qualifying Open Space (PUD Types or Zones) Description & Service Intent Size Location & Access Seating*, Tables, Etc. Landscaping, Design- Commerical Services, Food Sunlight and Wind Other Notes: Seating dimensions: Materials Rain Garden Snippet/ Parklet Pedestrian Pass Streetfront Open Space Enhanced or Recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment Area Private Yard Space Dog Walk and Play Area Community Center Pool Facility/ Locker Room Swimming Pool, Athletic Courts & Fields Municipal Building FBC T4 and FBC T5 FBC T4 and FBC T5 All districts FBC T-3 and T3+ as noted in Table 8- 1 All residential districts. PUDs- partial credit PUDs- partial credit PUDs- partial credit PUDs- partial credit A shallow depression planted with native plants that captures rainwater runoff from impervious urban areas. Small sitting area intended to provide respite between or adjacent to buildings. May serve general public, employees, residents, or customers. Narrow pedestrian right of ways that cut through blocks in residential and/or commercial areas. Liner open space area to secondary streets, as permitted per the Regulations. An existing wetland buffer or new stormwater treatment area which offers public amenities that exceed those minimimally necessary for water resource management. Private yard space associated with residential units fenced dog play areas in private and public spaces; separate spaces for sm and lg dog Indoor gathering space for residents/employees.U sed for recreational, socal, educational, health, cultural or similar activities. Structure associated with pools, tennis courts, or other recreational areas. Swimming pool, tennis, basketball, or similar athletic courts. Could include library or municipal meeting space Maximum size of 3,500 sf; shall not count as more than 50% of minimum required qualifying open space. 500-3,000 sq. ft 8' minimum width; 24' maximum width. 50' minimum depth from closest public street line; or if private, 50' minimum depth from edge of pavement or sidewalk as applicable. Shall include the land of the improvement (such as enhanced path, viewing platform, etc) and 50 feet to either side; total area shall not count as more than 50% of minimum required qualifying open space. As directed by minimum requirements. 1/4 acre minimum size. The garden should be positioned near a runoff source like a downspout, driveway or sump pump to capture rainwater runoff and stop the water from reaching the sewer system. Must be directly adjacent to public right of way and sidewalk or building entry. Designers are encouraged to consider safety in design. No vehicular traffic. Must connect two public streets. Storefronts and restaurants are highly encouraged to access the pedestrian pass. If in FBC districts, must be immediately adjacent to qualifying secondary street. See Chapter 8 for additional regulations. Must be on each side of roadway, unless a complying building is located on the opposite side. Must be visible to public or tenants and users of building. Direct pedestrian access from adjacent public street type. Directly adjacent to and accessible to at least one entry of dwelling unit it is associated with. Accessible to residents. Encouraged to be separated from ground floor residential units. The space must serve as a visual amenity which can be enjoyed through paths or seating. Adjacent seating, proportionate with the size of the garden and number of users, intended to enhance the garden is are required and can be counted as part of the required open space. Seating shall be the main focus of the space; it shall be present year-round and of medium to high quality materials. Fixed seating is encouraged. One seating space for each 150 sq.ft. Seating is encouraged, but there shall be no minimum requirement. If functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, benches,and/or stairs. No requirements. Benches required. Minimum seating for 6. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Indoor centers should provide lounge or table seating. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Athletic facilities are encouraged to provide benches and related picnic facilities. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Athletic facilities are encouraged to provide benches and related picnic facilities. Deep rooted native plants and grasses. Landscaping shall also be a primary component of the space. Because the space is inherently small, it shall be landscaped in a higher proportion than larger spaces. Landscaping should not interfere with seating, but should instead complement it.Spaces should appear warm and inviting. If paved, area shall provide trees or large potted plants at no more than 530 foot intervals. If grassed, area shall be accented with intermittent trees or public art. Slight, gentle, and undulating berms from 1-3 feet in height are encouraged to block views of parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is required. Include canopy trees whose branches are above the average visual line of sight, located throughout the space, with no more than 40 feet between any two such trees or between a tree and the street or parking area. Landscaping should aim to distract from parking beyond, but should not create dense walls of shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly encouraged. LID techniques; no fencing permitted. No requirements.Land scaping, lawns or planned seating/dining areas (patios and decks) are encouraged. Fenced. Sloped; larger areas for longer runs; effective drainage; Natural agility & play structures encouraged. Not permitted.40% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted.Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Sunlight to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. Shelter from wind. No requirements. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Exterior to building. Some natural or built shelter from sun or inclement weather Access to sunshine encouraged. See LID language for additional standards. Separate travelled way from parking areas; shall create pedestrian environment. Must be located on applicant- owned property. No requirements.Landscaping, lawns or planned seating/dining areas (patios and decks) are encouraged. Civic Use Types with Corresponding Spaces (Meets Civic Use Requirment in certain PUD types) Minimum and maximum total footage requirements based on PUD type. May consist of mix of civic types. Shall be open to use by residents or employees. May be restricted to residents/employees or open to the public. Should be located within the PUD so as to be generally equally accessible to all users. South Burlington Land Development Regulations Testing Underlying Zoning Division of Approval Types • Master Plan vs Subdivision vs Site Plan Master Plan Provisions Guidebook LDR Cleanup Must Do’s vs Performance Zoning (points) Open Space Typologies Housing Typologies Street Typologies PUD Types and Land Use Allo- cation Chart September 2018 Staff Consulting Team Project Team Standards: Form, Building, Block PUD and Maser Plan Development Status Update: September 2018 Timeline of final project dependent on funding Application Process and requirements Lead on Task: 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: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Introduction to Sign Ordinance Updates DATE: September 25 Planning Commission Meeting It has been several years since the City has updated its Sign Ordinance. Over the past few years, staff has collected a series of proposed amendments, and at one point had a working group assess a series of recommendations in the City Center area. With Market Street now under construction, the timing is right to assure that the City’s standards for Signs are both forward-looking and streamlined. Features of these proposed amendments include: - Eliminating City Center master signage requirement & streamlining design standards - Allowing for small temporary signs for all businesses with simplified or no permit requirement - Allowing for a single “open” flag of a specific size per business as an exemption - Allowing up to 3 wall signs instead of the current cap of 2, BUT, with no more wall area allowed - Allow for greater use of pedestrian-oriented “perpendicular signs” - Prohibiting free standing sings in City Center district, except along Williston Road, Dorset Street, Hinesburg Road - Clarifying that inflatable signs are prohibited - Clarifying meaning of opaque signs - Clarifying when signage inside a building is functioning as a wall sign - Update when non-complying signs in City Center need to meet current standards - Tidy up of language in general to be consistent with other ordinances - Clarifications to ensure text is consistent with charts and images - Review for consistency with recent court decisions regarding signage At this meeting will we go over these in concept form with the Commission and discuss next steps. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 SEPTEMBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 September 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley, Affordable Housing Committee 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: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Klugo: Suggested there be flagmen when there are construction vehicles and public vehicles interacting near the new senior housing building on Market St. Mr. Conner: The new Zoning Administrator starts next week. She comes to the city via Wells, VT, New York City, and the Department of Transportation The City Council has voted to put the proposed City Hall/Library/Senior Center on the November ballot. The project involves an agreement with the School District. The City Center Parking/moving plan was initiated yesterday. It involves strategies about parking and the impact of City Center on streets at the edges of City Center. The groundbreaking for the new Champlain Housing Trust building on Market Street will be occurring soon. Ms. LaRose: There will be a staffing change to the Bike/Ped Committee. To get things moving for construction, Ashley Parker will be doing that and will also be working with the Natural Resource Committee for their open space project. The fall Planning & Zoning forum will take place at Lake Morey on 17 October. Members can attend at city expense. 2 5. Planning Commission Discussion/next steps on Affordable Housing meeting/Inclusionary Zoning: Ms. Ostby suggested the Commission focus on the big picture instead of the small details. She noted that one of the big questions is whether there should be an “out” for developers (e.g, payment) if there is inclusionary zoning city-wide. Mr. Mittag felt there could be some additional density in T-4. He also felt the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) and Educational/Agriculture zones but should only apply in the denser areas. Ms. Ostby said the question is what kind of city South Burlington should be. The SEQ has the highest income levels. She asked whether the Commission is comfortable with a new neighborhood being created there without affordable housing. Mr. Klugo said he is comfortable with that. He didn’t think the city has to be “all things to all people.” He also felt that $383,000. is not an “affordable” house. He noted that he has done a lot of reading on the “affordability” issue and outlined a few of his “take-aways.” Inclusionary zoning is actually subsidizing employers who don’t want to pay a livable wage. Also, Burlington recognizes that as land becomes scarce, it goes up in value. Affordable housing then occurs in adjacent communities where land is less expensive. South Burlington and Milton become those communities because Burlington can’t build the affordable housing it wants. He felt communities need to stop separating themselves. Mr. Gagnon asked whether Regional Planning has looked at this issue. Mr. Conner said they have begun discussion. Mr. Simson said another such meeting is coming up. Ms. Ostby said the problem is that people in the mid-income range can’t afford to buy a house in S. Burlington. Mr. Gagnon added that $383,000.00 is an expensive house which requires an income of $120,000.00. Mr. Macdonald asked if the problem is the lack of available housing in S. Burlington. Ms. Ostby said if a house goes on the market, it is gone in minutes. Mr. Klugo said according to Zilla there are 19 homes on the market now under $300,000. Mr. Riehle said perhaps thinking should be in terms of smaller homes. Mr. Gagnon asked if they would be everywhere or only in certain areas. He felt it makes sense to have them in areas near schools, transportation, etc., not at the end of nowhere. Mr. Klugo noted that new homes of 1800 sq. ft. cost over $400,000.00. That’s about 260/sq. ft. Ms. Ostby acknowledged that wages are an issue but didn’t feel the Commission could do anything about that. 3 Mr. Klugo said that is not necessarily true. In Philadelphia a tax was put on all construction, not only residential. This allowed the city to build affordable housing. Mr. Klugo questioned what the goal is. He stressed that a “utopia” can’t be created here. Mr. Conner noted that if there is an exemption from Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) in the SEQ, it may create more of an incentive to build in the SEQ. Mr. Klugo quoted from a Burlington report, noting that Burlington didn’t get the 2500 units it wanted because developers went someplace else. Mr. Conner noted that voluntary affordable units have only been built in S. Burlington three times despite density bonuses. He added there is a lot of pressure from the public on developers not to use that bonus. Ms. LaRose cited the density issues being raised at the DRB whenever a development is planned. Ms. Ostby asked whether every developer should pay an affordable housing fee. This could allow the city to build up a fund to build affordable housing. The discussion was temporarily suspended to allow it to continue past its allotted time after consideration of a time-sensitive agenda item. 6. (previously agenda item #7): Discuss and determine possible 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant Application Recommendation: Mr. Conner said staff is recommending finishing the guidebook because it is 70% complete. There has also been a change in how the grant is done with a match at a higher level. Other options wouldn’t allow doing the work at as high a scale as the Commission wants. After a brief discussion, Mr. Klugo moved to recommend to the City Council applying for a 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant to finish the guidebook. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Members then returned to the Affordable Housing discussion. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly just discussing an overall fee. Mr. Klugo noted that if there is a fee, and it isn’t high enough, developers will just take that option. He noted that in some cities, there are different numbers for different parts of the city or building fewer units. He noted that in Portland, fees range from $19.00 to $27.00 a square foot for the total square footage of the whole development, depending on its location in the city. Seattle has a housing levy, like bond, on the taxpayers, which amounts to about $122/year for 7 years. They then co-develop affordable housing utilizing those who know how to build it. He added that these programs are being used effectively. Mr. Simson said the Affordable Housing Committee is not aiming IZ at a market that will go out an get a tax credit. They are looking to try to bend the market so the middle group, people who work in the city, can get housing in the city not have to commute. He stressed this is not subsidized housing. Mr. Klugo 4 said he didn’t support “bending the market” for people who can afford a $200,000.00 town house but don’t want to live there. Ms. Dooley noted that the Governor’s plan for affordable housing targets people at 100% of median income. This is the missing link that can’t afford to buy housing. Mr. Klugo felt that if the demand is there, there shouldn’t be 19 units available at $250,000. Mr. Conner noted that what staff is finding is that in the realm of new housing, there are one and 2 bedroom units and single family housing above $400,000. Ms. LaRose asked whether in a community of 6000 residential units, 17 available units is enough. She noted the Commission has never addressed the vacancy rate. She added that 17 units that last an average of 3 days on the market is not adequate. South Burlington’s vacancy rate is among the lowest in the country. Mr. Riehle asked if there is a merit to increasing the permit fees to put more money into the kitty and having the city buy land to build housing. Mr. Simson explained what increases would have to go to the Legislature. A building permit increase would not. Mr. Riehle said it bugs him to see house after house going up and not getting any money into the affordable housing fund. Mr. Macdonald said the reason there is no building in the $300,000-$350,000 range is the cost of land. Mr. Klugo said he felt that if a developer built some 1400 sq. ft. houses they would fly off the shelf, and it wouldn’t feel like a “low-end” neighborhood. He added that wages are not going up as fast as property values. Mr. Conner suggested a possible incentive to build smaller might be to allow a smaller unit to count as half the density. Ms. Dooley noted that hundreds of cities are using IZ and other mechanisms to get affordable housing. She agreed that a 1400 sq. ft. house would fly off the market. Mr. Conner noted that the cost of building a 1400 sq. ft. house is not much less than building a larger house. And it is higher than what the market is willing to pay. Mr. Klugo said what is driving that cost is requiring a basement. Slab on grade will significantly reduce the cost of a house. Mr. Conner noted not many people are doing that, so there must be an impediment to it. Mr. Klugo said that when a developer comes in with a denser development, they get hammered at the DRB. He added that when you take units off the table, it is counterproductive to a whole lot of things the city wants to see. He then asked whether the discussion can include town homes are just single- family homes. Mr. Simson said the Committee’s proposal deals with all kinds of housing, including rentals. 5 Ms. Ostby said a lot of people start out in South Burlington but then move out of the city for a “permanent” home. Mr. Conner acknowledged that is true but said he didn’t know whether than was because of wanting a single-family home or a large enough unit to meet a family’s needs. He added that more children are born in South Burlington but move out of the city before starting school. Mr. Klugo added that people are staying in their homes longer and cited the Orchards as an example. Ms. Ostby said it is more expensive to downsize. Ms. Ostby asked how you replicate a highly desired neighborhood at a cost people can afford and whether there is something that can be done quickly to support that cause (e.g., buy land). Mr. Simson said the Committee would like a bottom line from the Commission as to whether they should take IZ off the table and craft something else. Mr. Conner spoke in support of creating more housing in the 80-100% of median income. Mr. Gagnon agreed to incentivizing housing in that range in certain parts of the city. Mr. Mittag felt that should include IZ. Mr. Simson spoke to the challenge of incentivizing developers enough to provide for that level of the community. Mr. Klugo said if the answer is smaller single-family homes, there have to be smaller lots. Ms. Dooley noted Burlington has had IZ for almost 30 years. Hinesburg has it in their village center. She also noted that Frank von Turkevich couldn’t name a single incentive that would make it happen. Ms. Ostby asked if they can make affordable housing a requirement knowing developers will probably pay the fee and make it restrictive so it isn’t equal across the city. Mr. Conner asked if the Committee has discussed whether there is a preference/goal to have an income restriction up front but no further restriction. Ms. Dooley said the Committee embraces perpetual affordability. She noted that people in higher income brackets also look for less expensive housing and try to get there first. Mr. Klugo suggested having an entire development of smaller units that fit in the target range for affordability, then taking 10% of those units for the “affordable people.” Mr. Riehle suggested increasing the building permit fee for houses above the $350,000 level, and you would get a lot of money very fast to buy land for affordable homes. Then the developer would have no land costs. Mr. Klugo spoke to having this appear to be “less of a social issue” so people can get excited about it. He spoke to a number of incentives including: fee waivers, tax deferrals, reduced parking requirements, height and density bonuses, a “fee in lieu,” designated units off-site as inclusionary, etc. He asked about “numbers” of affordable units. Mr. Simson noted there are goal number in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Klugo said he would limit IZ to City Center. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t favor IZ city-wide. Mr. MacDonald said he would support the best method to get the housing the city wants. 6 Ms. Dooley suggested a sub-group of the Commission to come up with conditions for IZ. Mr. Conner encouraged members to thing on a city-wide basis rather than to discourage it where most of the housing in the city is being built. Mr. Simson said he would love to see a fund that the city could do things with, but getting there will take years, and the Committee hasn’t found anything other than IZ that is effective. He stressed they are trying to build into the regulations a price point where a developer can still make a buck. Long term, he would like to have a look at permit fees, etc., to provide a reliable, sustainable source of money. Mr. Klugo said he would like to test the concept of the density bonus. Ms. Dooley said the public doesn’t want that. Mr. Klugo said they have to be convinced it’s a good thing. A majority of members favored, with reservations, having the Committee continue to propose IZ. Mr. Klugo said he would support a regulatory piece for a period of time until the market piece is worked out. He did not want to end up like Burlington where IZ hasn’t worked. Ms. LaRose noted the Burlington range is for 65-75% of median income, which is like apples and oranges to what S. Burlington is looking at. Ms. Dooley added that Burlington’s representative to the Committee says the IZ goal is not have a large supply; it is to have an inclusionary community. Mr. Klugo quoted from the Burlington report that the “community must pay for what it values.” Members agreed to postpone the remainder of the Agenda due to the late hour. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk Town of Shelburne, Vermont CHARTERED 1763 P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482 Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number (802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550 INVITATION TO COMMENT ON ZONING AMENDMENTS TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING RE: ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT DA: SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 On Thursday, October 25, 2018, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment of Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw. The extent of the proposed changes is detailed in the attached memorandum. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter, and take place in the Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room 1. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. It is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments should be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. MEMORANDUM TO: RECIPIENTS FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING BYLAWS DA: SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 At its September 13 meeting, and at meetings prior, the Shelburne Planning Commission discussed a possible amendment to the Town’s zoning bylaws. At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning Commission voted to warn a Public Hearing on the proposed changes and to conduct that hearing on Thursday, October 25, 2018. In addition, Staff was directed to distribute the proposed amendment and a “zoning change report” as required by statute. This memo and other materials were prepared in response to that directive. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The material warned for public hearing may be summarized as modifying density requirements for certain subdivisions in the Rural District and, in addition, modifying PUD requirements. More specifically, it consists of the following: • Updating Table 2; • Revising language in the dimensional standards section of the Rural District to indicate that lot sizes for residential uses are set per the PUD process; • Modifying development potential for existing properties less than 15 acres in size, where subdivision potential would be based on gross area rather than on developable land area; • Revising Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions to subject all residential subdivisions in the Rural District to review as PUDs; • Standardizing open space requirements in Residential PUDs at 60 percent; and • Decreasing the periphery buffer requirement applied to Residential PUDs in the rural District (from 75’ to 50’). A list of the sections modified by the proposal is presented below. Article Section II Table 2 III 330.1, 330.2, 340 XIX 1930.3.A.3, 1930.3.C The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is presented in the documents attached. Language to be added to the bylaw is shown in color with underscore. Language to be deleted is shown in color with strikethrough (strikethrough). Highlights are an artifact and are not part of any proposal to change the bylaw. ZONING CHANGE REPORT A report prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) is also attached. This report describes how the proposal “Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan…” and “Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.” Proposed Zoning Changes Page 1 September 17, 2018 TABLE 2. TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS RUR RES V-RES MUS V-CENT SF-MIX MIX COMM COMM-S CONS LOT SIZE Lot Area Minimum Single-Family Dwelling 5 acres. See Note (8) 20,000 sf 12,500 sf 15,000 sf 10,000 sf (2) or by formula. See Note (11). 12,500 sf 15,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 10acres Two-Family Dwelling 10 acres See Note (8) 30,000 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 15,000 sf (2) or by formula. See Note (11). 20,000 sf 20,000 sf Multi-Family Dwelling 15,000 sf/unit 7,500 sf/unit (2) or by formula. See Note (11). 10,000 sf/unit 10,000 sf/unit Elder Housing 7,500 sf/unit 3,500 sf/unit (2) 4,375 sf /unit 3,500-7,500 sf Elder care facility 4,000 sf/ bed 2,000 sf/bed (2) 2,500 sf/bed 2,000 sf/bedrm Elderly Supportive Service Housing (ESSH) 2,500 sf/unit (2) Day Care Homes 5 acres See Note (8) 20,000 sf 12,500 sf 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 12,500 sf 20,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 10 acres 7) Day Care Centers 5 Acres (7) 40,000 sf 15,000 sf 30,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 2 Acres (6) Mobile home parks 10acres(10) 10 acres(10) 8000sf /unit(12) 10 acres (10) All other permitted uses 5 Acres (7) 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 15,000 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 2 Acres (6) Lot Frontage Minimum Single-Family Dwellings 200 ft 100 ft 75 ft 100 ft 60 ft 75 ft 100 ft 150 ft 400 ft Two-Family Dwellings 200 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 75 ft 100 ft 150 ft All other permitted uses 200 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 100 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 400 ft Lot Width Minimum 400 ft (1) None None None None None None None 150 ft None See footnotes at end of table Page II - 1 Proposed Zoning Changes Page 2 September 17, 2018 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (cont’d) RUR RES V-RES MUS V-CENT SF-MIX MIX COMM COMM-S CONS YARD REQUIREMENTS Front Yard Minimum 75 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft (3) 30 ft >=30 ft (3) 60 ft 60 ft (5) 75 ft Side and Rear Yard Minimum Single-Family Dwellings See Note (8) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft >=15 ft(3) 50 ft (4) 50 ft Two-Family Dwellings See Note (8) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft >=15 ft(3) 50 ft Day Care Homes See Note (8) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft >=15 f(3)t 50 ft (4) 50 ft All other permitted uses 50 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft >=20 ft (3,4) 50 ft (4) 50 ft (4) 50 ft Building Coverage Maximum All Uses 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 25% 25% None Lot Coverage Maximum 50% 50% 50% None HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Farm Structures None Religious Structures None 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft None 35 ft All Other structures 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft (9) 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft (1) Average Lot width as specified in District Regulations (Article III). (2) Net density in standard subdivisions; gross density in PUDs. (3) Varies depending on size, whether lot fronts on Shelburne Road, type of adjoining use (Article X). (4) When lot does not front on Shelburne Road and backs up to residential uses, rear yard setback shall be 100 ft. (5) From Route 7, 100 ft. (6) 2 acres = 87,120 sf (7) 5 acres = 217,800 sf (8) Lot size, density,s and dimensional requirements for residential uses and day care homes are specified in Article III. (9) Except as modified by 830.4, which could result in height of up to 45 ft (10) Modified parks have alternative area requirements (11) Lot sizes and dimensional requirements specified in Article VIII. (12) Per sections 1925.3 and 1926.4. Page II - 2 Proposed Zoning Changes Page 3 September 17, 2018 330.1 Maximum Density: A. Single-family dwelling on One Single-family residential parcel of 14.9 acres or less dwelling per 5.0 acres of land. existing as of [effective date], or new parcel divided from such 14.9 acre or less parcel, so long as such 14.9 acre parcel was developed with a single-family dwelling as of [effective date]. B. Other Ssingle-family dwelling One Single-family residential dwelling per 5.0 acres of developable land. CB. Two-family dwelling One Two-family residential structure per 10.0 acres of developable land. DC. Other allowed uses One use per 5.0 acres of developable land. 330.2 Minimum Lot Size: A. Single-family dwelling 5.0 acres As required by review under Section 1930.3. B. Two-family dwelling 10.0 acres As required by review under Section 1930.3. C. Other allowed Uses Minimum of 5.0 acres. D. On lots existing on March 17, 2009, that contain less than 5.0 acres of land, the minimum lot size shall be the size of the existing lot. E. Minimum lot sizes for non-residential uses may be modified per the provisions of Section 1930.36 and 1930.611 of these regulations. 340 Planned Unit Development-Residential. A Planned Unit Development- Residential may be permitted in the Rural District in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 1930.3 of these regulations. Any residential subdivision proposing that will to create one or more than five lots (including the existing lot)for residential or related development purposes, including reserving for future development, must be reviewed treated as a Planned Unit Development-Residential in accordance with the provisions of Section 1930.3 of these regulations. Proposed Zoning Changes Page 4 September 17, 2018 1930.3 Planned Unit Development-Residential. Planned Unit Developments-Residential (PUD-R) shall contain only residential uses as allowed in the individual districts, and shall be allowed in the Rural District, the Residential District, the Village Center District, the Village Residential District, the Shelburne Falls Mixed Use District, and the Mixed Use District, as specified in Articles III through XVIII. A. Specific standards for all PUD-Rs, 1. Maximum building height – 35 feet. 2. Minimum front yard setbacks along the periphery of the PUD – as specified for the district in which the PUD-R is located. 3. Minimum side and rear yard setbacks pertaining to the periphery of the PUD-R -: a. Standards: 75 feet in Rural District, 30' in the Village Center District:, 30’ and 50 feet in all other Districts wherein PUD-Rs are permitted. In the Mixed Use District:, this setback Distance equal to may be reduced per the applicable setback requirements ofor the district. All other Districts wherein PUD-Rs are permitted: 50’ b. Features and Exceptions: With the exception of structures existing on March 17, 2009, this perimeter buffer zone must be kept free of buildings, structures, parking areas and roadways, except as needed for access to the parcel, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on surrounding areas are minimized. 4. Yard requirements for lots within the PUD-R in areas not encompassed by the periphery buffer. a. Front yard minimum - 30' b. Side and rear yard minimum - 15' c. Coverage limits – As established in the zoning district in which the PUD- R is located. However, the Development Review Board may establish alternative setback standards, such as zero lot lines, as part of the PUD-R/Subdivision approval, if justified by the overall design of the development and if consistent with development objectives set forth in the Town Plan. 5. Except for PUD-Rs in the Rural District, all PUD-Rs shall be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer and the municipal water supply systems. 6. All PUD-Rs in the Rural District shall comply with the following Open Space requirement: Designated open space within the PUD shall occupy at least 60 percent of the total area of the PUD. Proposed Zoning Changes Page 5 September 17, 2018 Also in 1930.3 C. Design Standards for PUD-Rs, including those in the Rural District. 1. Lot layouts should provide sufficient space for residential uses, particularly in areas with on- site water and sewage disposal. Where residential lots will abut agricultural lands or lands used for agricultural purposes within the preceding ten years, lot layouts should shall be designed to minimize potential conflicts with agricultural operations. Whenever possible, property lines should follow existing manmade or natural features. 2. Building envelopes and no-cut zones may shall be required by the Development Review Board to ensure the preservation of site features. Building envelopes should avoid open fields and core forests, should be located in wooded areas or on field edges and should not include sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains or steep slopes. 3. Roadways shall be designed to minimize site disturbance by following existing contours and site features. 4. Open space within PUD-Rs should preserve agricultural, recreational or natural resources, or serve as buffers to adjoining areas. Land set aside as open space should be of a size, type and location to meet its intended use. a. Open space should be set aside as common land or as separate undevelopable lots. The size and ownership of the open space should be consistent with the best means of maintaining the resources on the site. b. Open space should be contiguous to other existing or potential open space areas. c. The following guideline standards shall be used in determining the appropriate percentage of open space land within PRUD's: Rural District: 60% of total acreage Other Districts: 33% of total acreage c.d. Open space land should be protected through appropriate legal mechanisms such as dedication to the Town, dedication of development rights, conservation easements or similar mechanisms reviewed by the Town Attorney and approved by the Development Review Board. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments Approved For Distribution by Planning Commission September 13, 2018 This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide (:) (A) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under §4444 of this title, (A)nd 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.” Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment. The Planning Commission proposal would be implemented by modification of three sections of the bylaw. The changes would include: • modifying development potential for existing properties less than 15 acres in size, where subdivision potential would be based on gross area rather than on developable land area; • revising Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions to subject all residential subdivisions in the Rural District to review as PUDs; • revising language in the dimensional standards section of the Rural District zoning to indicate that lot sizes for residential uses are set per the PUD process; • standardizing open space requirements in Residential PUDs at 60 percent; and • decreasing the periphery buffer requirement applied to Residential PUDs in the rural District (from 75’ to 50’). The changes also would include: updating of Table 2 in the bylaw. Purpose The Planning Commission has developed the changes in response to a request made by Shelburne property owners and per the recommendation of Commission members and the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee (NRCC). The Planning Commission believes the proposed changes address the issues expressed by the property owners and NRCC while also reflecting the policy input and prerogatives of the Commission. Findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. To be “in conformance with” the Plan, the bylaw must: make progress toward attaining, or at least not interfere with, the goals and policies contained in the Plan; provide for proposed future land uses, densities, and intensities of development contained in the Plan; and carry out any specific proposals for community facilities, or other proposed actions contained in the Plan. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 2 Zoning Amendment Proposal, September, 2018 the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: GOAL: TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE AGRICULTURAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, RECREATIONAL, AND AESTHETIC BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SHELBURNE’S RURAL LANDS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BALANCING THE TOWN’S NEED FOR GROWTH AND SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION OF THE TOWN INTO THE LARGER REGIONAL COMMUNITY. OBJECTIVES: 1. To identify and establish mechanisms to prevent undue adverse impacts on important scenic and natural resources and features in the Rural Area, including but not limited to productive agricultural and forestry soils, significant natural areas, critical wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, important views, ridgelines, and shorelines. 2. Identify and exclude from development locations that present significant constraints or hazards to sound development, including wet or unstable soils, flood hazard areas, and steep slopes. Undevelopable land area, such as wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains shall not be counted in determining density. 4. Where development does occur in the Rural Area, encourage a clustered pattern that preserves the rural character, conserves open land for uses such as agriculture and passive recreation, and is sensitive to the land form and other natural features. 6. Ensure that future residential development in the Rural Area is low density and designed to preserve and protect the scenic and natural resources and features of the area. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Revise the Zoning Regulations to implement the above goal and objectives. GOAL: TO IDENTIFY, MANAGE, AND CONSERVE SHELBURNE’S NATURAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES SO THAT THEY MAY BE APPROPRIATELY USED AND ENJOYED NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. OBJECTIVES: 3. Ensure that new development is designed to minimize conversion of productive agricultural lands. 5. Ensure that critical wildlife habitat (particularly contiguous segments) and connecting corridors are protected and able to continue to support a healthy and diverse population of native land and water based plants and animals. 6. Ensure that the alteration or disturbance of significant natural areas and areas particularly at risk of degradation is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 7. Ensure that future development does not jeopardize surface and ground water quality or degrade drinking water supplies. 9. Direct development in a manner to minimize undue adverse impacts on the Town’s scenic beauty, open lands, shorelines, and ridgelines with particular attention paid to roadside views or views from Lake Champlain. Identification of such resources can be aided by the maps listed in Objective 1 above. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 7. Amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to more effectively achieve the Goal and Objectives of this section. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 3 Zoning Amendment Proposal, September, 2018 GOAL: TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING TO ACCOMMODATE A DIVERSE ARRAY OF RESIDENTS, BUT WHICH DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT ON THE TOWN’S SCENIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES OR THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. OBJECTIVES: 2. The construction of housing and associated infrastructure (roads, utility corridors, out buildings, etc.) shall not have undue adverse impacts on the Town’s scenic and natural features and resources (refer to the Land Use and Open Space Sections of this Plan). Planning Commissioners find that the proposal would positively address and advance the foregoing language as well as related language in the draft Comprehensive Plan. They believe that: • By requiring all residential subdivisions in the Rural District to be reviewed as Planned Unit Developments and standardizing open space requirements at 60 percent while at the same time reducing periphery buffer requirements, the proposal would help the Town better protect the natural and aesthetic resources found in the Rural District, while at the same time providing property owners with reasonable development opportunities in accord with resource-protection principles; and • By requiring all residential subdivisions in the Rural District to be reviewed as Planned Unit Developments, the proposal would also advance the Town’s policies regarding protection of the area’s rural character; and • By modifying development potential in the Rural District in a very narrow manner and in connection with the actions described above, the Commission will marginally increase potential housing supply while also protecting the Town’s valued natural and scenic resources. Commissioners also recognize the potential for the proposal to promote other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives as well as proposed goals objectives. Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan The overall development densities authorized by the zoning bylaws would be altered only slightly by the proposal. And, while the proposal would slightly decrease land area requirements in the Rural District and in PUDs (thus marginally increasing development potential on lands with steep slopes), all subdividers in the Rural District would be have their projects reviewed as PUDs. The PUD review process is generally regarded as providing the Town with increased opportunities to pursue natural resource protection and other Town Plan objectives. Thus, in conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that the zoning amendment proposal that is the subject of this report would be entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings regarding how the proposal carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment does not directly carry out specific proposals for any planned community facilities. In addition, the proposed amendment does not conflict with any specific proposals for planned community facilities.