Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/06/2016 CITY COUNCIL 6 JUNE 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 6 June 2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Barlow, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Louisos, D. MacDonald, Planning Commission; J. Dinklage, J. Simson, B. Nowak, B. Servis, M. Maxsym, B. Torpe, B. & T. Lozen, B. & J. Mitchell, Mr. & Mrs. Gleason, L. Godin, B. Paquette, C. Shaw, T. Barnes, P. Engels, J. Zeitz, S. Merrick, S. Loyer, M. Simoneau, C. Sargent, S. Koslowski, M. Abrams, L. Leavens, H. Reilly, R. Gonda, M. Mittag, R. Hubbard, T. Marikova, A. Crosset, E. Garnes, K.Boyd, C. Dunwitty, M. Ostby, J. Mount, M. Provender, R. O’Neill Cleary, N. Candell, J. Lees, M. Conner, R. Greco, M. Mahoney 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Chittenden moved to remove the words “and possible adoption” from item #11 as there has not been enough time to consider this. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Mr. Dorn: Jennifer Garrison of the Department of Public Works has won the 2016 Laboratory Reward. She is a 4-year employee. The Public Safety Antenna project is ongoing. Staff will be coming to the Council for a bond to support the radio technology capability of the tower. This will be on the August ballot. Staff reviews are being held. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursement b. Approve Minutes for 2016 Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Recognition of Friends of Beacon Apartments, an Orchard School neighborhood support network for residents at the Beacon Apartments: Ms. Torpey thanked the city for the opportunity to recognize the wonderful people of this neighborhood. She noted that Beacon Apartments is a facility with on-site services for people who have been chronically ill and/or homeless. The facility was welcomed by the city, and neighbors came forward without being asked to help. Ms. Maxsym added that this project was recognized at the United Way annual celebration. She noted the issues are very complex and take a whole community effort to address. Mr. Godin, speaking for the Orchard neighborhood, said their effort originally started as a food drive, and when they heard about Beacon Apartments, they said, “Let’s do it!”. Mr. & Mrs. Lozen and Mr. & Mrs. Mitchell said they wanted to welcome everyone to the community, and this is a “win‐win” effort. Mr. Barritt said he was on the DRB when this project was proposed as a rehab of a prior motel. Council members were unanimous in their praise of the project and the community effort. 6. Review and possibly approve text for proposed property tax bill insert: Mr. Chittenden explained that there will be 4 blocks of information on the insert: the Mozart Festival, how to enroll in “auto‐pay,” C Click Fix (regarding incidents around town), and the Energy Prize (and how residents can reduce energy bills). It will cost about $895, much less than a newspaper ad. A member of the audience asked if there is a fee for auto-pay. Mr. Chittenden said there is not. Ms. Emery moved to approve the text for the proposed property tax bill insert as presented. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Public Hearing and Presentation from Planning Commission on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a) revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial/industrial districts; b) merger of similar use categories (e.g., retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store) consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; c) allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District; d) updated definitions and technical corrections throughout: Mr. Conner outlined the Council’s options as follows: a. close the public hearing b. adopt the amendments c. set a work session Mr. Conner noted that if the Council makes any changes, a second public hearing would be warned. Mr. Chittenden then moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos said this is a small group of amendments with a lot of small technical fixes and changes to go along with the Comprehensive Plan. There is also a report indicating how the changes relate to the Comprehensive Plan. There was a legal review of these changes. With regard to revised parking standards, Ms. Louisos noted that in most areas of the city, the goal is to have parking on the side and in the rear of buildings. There are, however, some areas, specifically for industrial and manufacturing uses, where there is a lot of truck traffic which can result in conflicts between customer vehicles coming to the site and heavy truck traffic. From a safety point of view, the amendment would allow some parking in the front of buildings in these areas. There are requirements for increased landscaping and a safe passage from the road into the building. Ms. Louisos then addressed the merger of similar use categories. She noted that a lot of uses have become less distinct than they were historically, and it was often hard to determine in which category a use would fit. The amendment makes this more predictable for staff and for the applicants. Under the amendment, uses would be defined by size (square footage). Ms. Louisos directed attention to a map which indicated where various size limitations would apply. She said that sizes have been matched to sizes of existing buildings. The highest square footage would be allowed in City Center and the Shelburne Rd. corridor; the lowest in two small areas in the Southeast Quadrant/Village Commercial zones. Mr. Conner noted some small areas for neighborhood use. Another of these is under discussion for South Village. Ms. Louisos said this amendment also clarifies the terms “wholesale establishment” and “wholesale club.” These uses are mutually exclusive. The small scale personal instruction amendment was the result of two requests to the Commission. The Commission felt this was in line with other allowable uses in that district. The final amendments update definitions and make technical corrections throughout. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission is now actively working on PUD standards and scenic views. They have also met with various city committees to see if they can all work together. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Barnes said he was the one requesting the change in the SEQ/VC for personal instruction. Research was done and the neighborhoods were canvassed. One was very receptive, one less so. Mr. Conner noted that staff received only one comment from a person who wanted to be sure this was at a “neighborhood scale.” He said there is a maximum of 3000 sq. ft. for this use. As there was no further public comment, Ms. Emery moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Council discussion and possible adoption of amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: No issues were raised by the Council. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations as presented. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Presentation from PACT: Ms. Merrick noted they have just completed their 8th year. Their mission is to listen to the voices of children and teens. Their annual events include monthly dinners and visits to Allenwood. New events this year included mural painting and a service component on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Day and filming done by high school students. Mr. Loyer said they “did more with less” this year. He reviewed the financial report and noted they did get some new funding. Ms. Nowak said she has been to a number of PACT meetings, and the dinners are awesome and “makes us even more proud of what we have in our community.” Ms. Riehle expressed concern that half of PACT’s financing has to go for insurance. Mr. Loyer said they shop for this annually (this is Professional Liability coverage). Ms. Nowak noted that PACT gave the Council a certificate in thanks for continued support. 10. Interview Applicants for Seats on South Burlington Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces: The Council interviewed the following candidates: a. Paul Engels for appointment to either the Planning Commission or Natural Resources Committee b. Paul Steinman for appointment to the Parks & Recreation Committee c. Chris Shaw for appointment to either the Planning Commission or Development Review Board d. David Crawford for appointment to the Natural Resources Committee (3-year term) Mr. Dorn noted there will be 31 interviews at next Monday’s special meeting and 13 on 20 June. 11. Consideration of a resolution to intervene as a plaintiff in the federal F-35 NEPA litigation, Zbitnoff et al vs. Deborah Lee James, 5:14-cv132. Possible executive session to consider pending civil litigation to which the City may be a party: Ms. Riehle reminded members and the public that there would not be a vote on the resolution at this meeting. Ms. Riehle then provided background information on the litigation. She noted that there are 2 goals: a. Safety, once the F-35s arrive b. Noise mitigation She stressed that it is imperative that the community receive accurate information on protecting the public and emergency first responders in the event of a plane crash. It is also imperative, Ms. Riehle said, that the community receive accurate information regarding the noise of military flights, the implementation of noise mitigation, the cost of noise mitigation, and such issues as who would pay for the possible closing of Chamberlin School because of noise. The city has requested information on these concerns, but to date has not received this information. Ms. Riehle continued by noting that in the past 3 months, new information has come to light which may make it possible to get information. First, it appears that the F-35s are coming a year earlier than originally stated. Secondly, a citizen group and the City of Winooski have filed suit to get information from the Air Force. On 7 March 2016, the Secretary of the Air Force responded on the record that any statement that implied that the Air Guard would lose its mission if the F‐35s don’t come to South Burlington is “unfounded” and “heresay.” The Secretary said that the current mission would continue even if the F-35s are not bedded in Burlington. Options would be: a. Keeping the F‐16s until they “age out” b. Retrofitting the F-16s c. Replacing the F-16s with new F-16s d. Providing newer aircraft Ms. Riehle said there is no indication that without the F-35s, the VTANG would lose its mission. There is thus no risk to the Air Guard for requesting information on safety and noise. Ms. Riehle said she feels it is important for the city to consider entering the lawsuit as it may be the best chance to get the information it needs. She felt it is sad that it takes a lawsuit to be sure the community will be safe and children can continue to go to their school. City Attorney Barlow then explained that what has been proposed through the resolution that the Council is considering is intervention as a plaintiff in ongoing legislation. He noted that the City of Winooski has joined in that litigation, and GBIC is on record as an amicas. The plaintiffs allege that the Air Force has failed to comply with providing information relevant to the environmental act. The lawsuit is being argued by briefings to the Court. A hearing on those briefings will take place of 5 July 2016. Attorney Barlow said there are questions of the timeliness of the city’s possible intervention and the public’s right to participate. The City of South Burlington could be a party to the litigation. The Judge would have to be convinced that the city’s participation is appropriate. At this late hour, Attorney Barlow said, that may be difficult. Attorney Barlow suggested the Council meet in executive session regarding possible strategies, the range of intervention, strategies which the city may not want to publicly disclose. There can then be an open discussion and public input. Ms. Emery then moved to find that premature general public knowledge of the City’s potential legal positions and litigation strategy in the matter of Zbitnoff v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14-cv132 would clearly place the City of South Burlington at substantial disadvantage in that litigation. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to enter executive session under 1 V.S.A. 313(a)(1)(A) to consider pending civil litigation to which the City may be a party. She further moved that Attorney Jim Barlow, the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager be included in the executive session. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council then entered executive session at approximately 8:05 p.m. The Council returned from executive session at 8:55 p.m. and resumed its open session. Mr. Chittenden asked Attorney Barlow to describe any options that do not involve litigation. Attorney Barlow outlined the following non-litigation options: a. Direct contact with the Air Force, asking for a dialogue b. A public statement of support of parties in the litigation c. Entering as an amicas (friend of the Court) which would allow the city to present its argument Ms. Emery asked the advantage of joining the lawsuit as a party. Attorney Barlow said it is given more weight by the Court, and the City could participate in an appeal, if that were to happen. Mr. Chittenden asked if the School district could become a party to the lawsuit. Attorney Barlow said they could as they are a separate entity. Ms. Riehle asked if the School District’s participation be limited to school closure issues. Attorney Barlow said possibly. Ms. Emery said the F-35 is considered the highest risk of any military aircraft because of composite material used in its composition. Were a crash to occur, particles would be in the air as long as 48 hours. Ms. Riehle noted that that information was not in the EIS Report, even though it was available before the EIS Report. She felt it was more difficult to make a decision based on safety without that information, and the information only came to light today. Ms. Riehle added it appears to her that the Air Force has not been forthcoming in terms of safety, and the City needs to do everything it can regarding safety. Mr. Chittenden said he was concerned that the Air Force would no longer engage with the City regarding safety and noise if the City becomes a party to the lawsuit. Ms. Nowak asked if it is true that the Judge cannot require the Air Force to answer the City’s questions. Attorney Barlow said the Judge can require a revised EIS, specifically with regard to noise and safety. Mr. Barritt asked if the short amount of time the City has had to consider this would prove problematic to its participation in the lawsuit and to be effectively represented. Attorney Barlow said others have had far more time. He noted there are 8,000 pages that have already been filed. He felt the difficulty of entering at this late date was “significant but not insurmountable.” Ms. Nowak said one person who spoke to her did not want to be associated with a lawsuit they didn’t agree with. She was also concerned with taking taxpayer money to get into something at the eleventh hour and suggested trying non-litigation methods. Ms. Emery said the City has already tried that. She said she personally can’t sit by when there is a very minimal expense to join the lawsuit. Mr. Chittenden felt there should be public feedback. He noted that Winooski had 18 months to decide and had a ballot item on the issue. Ms. Nowak said she lives in the new noise rea and loves her neighborhood and doesn’t want to move. She noted that the School Superintendent David Young and Airport Manager Gene Richards have communicated several times. This is the highest priority for the FAA. When grant money comes through, every home within the 65 dbl range will be considered to see if work can be done. This could happen as early as this summer/early fall and could involve new windows, doors, etc. The Air Force is getting a $500,000 grant to begin this process, and there isn’t anyone who can’t benefit from having work done. Ms. Nowak said she asked the Airport to apply to the FAA to have these funds apply to Chamberlin School as well as the 700 private properties that are eligible. Ms. Nowak also read from e-mails between Mr. Young and Mr. Richards regarding Chamberlin School. Mr. Richards said he would work with the School district as early as next week on any ideas or programs. He asked for consensus from the School Board, City Council and neighborhood. The public was then invited to provide comment and responded as follows: Mr. Koslowski: Has no concerns with the F-35s. Is troubled that this issue was not discussed in the recent election. Has 2 children in Chamberlin and is concerned with the neighborhood. Mr. Abrams: Lives in the ‘landing cone.’ He is pro-military and pro balance of life. He felt this highly toxic airplane represents an unprecedented risk and is usually put in isolated areas, not in one of the most livable places. He felt the Council should consider joining the suit. Mr. Simoneau: Felt the introduction of this at a late hour is not consistent with “transparency.” He didn’t feel the city should join the lawsuit to get answers. Mr. Leavens: Very concerned with closing Chamberlin School and with low frequency noise and loss of property values. Felt the buck has to stop here, and the city should join the lawsuit. Ms. Reilly: Supports the basing of the F-35s. Didn’t feel people present represent all the people in the community as there are no young families. Felt this should have been a ballot item in March. Opposed to joining the lawsuit. Mr. Gonda: Lives in the 65 dbl area and supports joining the lawsuit. Feels this area is in no way near ready to deal with the results of an F-35 crash and burn. Mr. Mittag: Supports joining the litigation and commended the Council for raising this safety issue. Mr. Hubbard: Said he provided information to Council members a year ago including the “Guam Document” relating to how long a fire should burn. He noted the protective gear needed to fight such a fire and the training and said that people without full protection have died. He said it is up to the City Council to be sure police and fire personnel are fully prepared and there is an evacuation plan in the event of a crash. Ms. Crossett: Did not feel this is the city’s only option. Added that the sound of F16s during 9/11 gave her pride when she lived in New York. Ms. Malikova: Has never seen a military base in a town with children and near a school. In every other country such bases are at least 2 hours from where people live. Felt that if there is enough money to build the planes and provide new windows and doors, there is money to build an airport far from town where people will not be threatened. Ms. Barnes: Is a lawyer and thinks joining the lawsuit is “upside down.” Once you’re in, you can’t get out and you’re “signing a blank check.” Felt it was too late to file pleadings as there will be a decision in a month. The money could be better used to get the equipment and training needed. Mr. Dinklage: Asked if the City really knows what is in the lawsuit. He was told there was something that would prevent the basing of the F-35s. Mr. Boyd: There should be a task force that involves the City Council, first responders, City Manager, etc., which should go as often as necessary to the parties involved to get answers. Should not enter the lawsuit because it is too late and won’t accomplish anything and would be throwing money away. Mr. Dunworthy: It’s crazy to have this aircraft in a residential area. Supports the lawsuit. Elated that if the F‐35’s don’t come there will still be a mission. Ms. Ostby: Asked for an explanation of the amicas status and whether the Judge would be required to listen. Attorney Barlow said the city can file a brief which would not be given the same weight but would be considered. They cannot request that the Court do something and can’t appeal the Judge’s decision. He added that the amicus is asking the Court to compel the Air Force to provide a revised EIS or to update information in the previous EIS. Ms. Ostby said her greatest concern is the safety of First Responders and the school. She was startled to hear the City doesn’t have the equipment or training for this. She also didn’t want to pay more in taxes. Mr. Barnes: Owns property in the area of the runway. The City shouldn’t rush to a decision when confronted with a difficult problem. Felt the City should try to engage the Air Force in a dialogue. Cited the need to be objective and impartial. Mr. Mount: Concerned with process considering Winooski went through the process a year ago. Didn’t like last minute legal maneuvering and didn’t want to pay more taxes. Didn’t feel the lawsuit was a good way to spend taxpayers’ money. Ms. Provender: Owns much property in South Burlington, Winooski and Burlington. Would go along with the lawsuit no matter what it costs. Is tired of “having the military on top of a community.” Concerned with the toxicity if planes crash. The City should join Winooski no matter what it costs. Ms. Sargent: Is a member of CNAPC which has been exploring things to sustain the neighborhood. Feels the money should be spent to join the lawsuit. Ms. O’Neill‐Cleary: Thanked the City Council for the time and research and was grateful for what Winooski has done. Noted there are often small communities where “there is an issue and no plan.” Asked if the City has heard from the Air Force regarding a plan. Mr. Dorn replied that the City trains weekly with the National Guard, but he couldn’t say anything more specific about that training. Mr. Candell: A Williston resident where, he said, noise is also a concern. Noted there have been 2 recent F-35 crashes, one in which the pilot was killed. Noted there are thousands of people in harm’s way here. Could not imagine how people could get away in the event of an accident with an F-35. Praised the Council for discussing this and noted there is no discussion in Williston. Joel (no last name given): Was a litigation professional. Questioned whether, if there was a plane crash, the city could say it did all it could do. Mr. Lees: The EIS said the F-35 crash rate would be about the same as the F-22, which is more than the F-16 which is about5 one every three years. They did not, however, provide the consequences of an F-35 crash. The EIS plays a role in where planes are based. There were 2 other possible sites for the F-35, where the consequences of a crash would be far less because they are open areas. Felt the city should join the lawsuit. Ms. Conner: There would have to be an evacuation after a crash because the air is so toxic. Protective equipment would not be available to citizens. Outdoor life in Vermont is not just going from car to house. It’s sports, gardening, hiking, backyards, etc. Ms. Greco: Supports joining the lawsuit. The questions raised by Winooski and South Burlington have never been answered by the Air Force. Mr. Mahoney: Winooski resident who supports the lawsuit. The City of Winooski allocated $12,000 for the lawsuit, all of which has not been spent. Feels the F-35s have not proven themselves and is concerned with health and well-being of people in the area. Mr. Paquette: Will support what the City Council decides but didn’t see the need to rush. Find the best process. Ms. Servis: Agreed with Mr. Paquette. Ms. Riehle said it is incumbent on the City Council to think about the next steps and potentially have something to work with next week. Asked members to send thoughts to the City Manager. That information will be aggregated and there will hopefully be proposals to share with the public by next Monday’s meeting. Members agreed to postpone the discussion of the Performing Arts Center to a future meeting in view of the late hour. 12. Other Business: A. Items Held from Consent Agenda No items were held, but it was noted that in the Minutes previously considered, Ms. Ostey is not a business owner but was indicating a friend who is B. Other Items: Mr. Chittenden asked about the possible live streaming of City Council meetings. Ms. Riehle said that the City of Burlington has “first dibs” on that, and there would have to be more funding. Ms. Emery noted she has been in touch with the Business Association regarding a potential Teen Center at UMall. Her son is on the board for this, and they missed the deadline for a funding request. Asked if there is any funding available. Mr. Hubbard said they will be going out this fall for requests for funding. Ms. Riehle said they could also discuss any unexpended funds at the end of the fiscal year. More information should be provided if such funding is to be considered. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 06/07/16 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 6/7/2016 2994 South Burlington Ace 6.46 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/18/2016 VI-13986 791139/3 1.00 1.00 5/11/2016 VI-13987 790970/3 5.46 5.46 6/7/2016 2995 Aldrich & Elliott, PC 1,330.25 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/12/2016 VI-13982 76269 1,330.25 1,330.25 6/7/2016 2996 Champlain Water District 104,131.79 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/31/2016 VI-13990 SBWD-307 62.63 62.63 5/31/2016 VI-13991 MAY CONSUMPTION 104,069.16 104,069.16 6/7/2016 2997 E.J. Prescott, Inc. 871.08 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/13/2016 VI-13978 5081339 42.39 42.39 5/6/2016 VI-13980 5079345 521.41 521.41 5/5/2016 VI-13983 5078536 131.67 131.67 5/18/2016 VI-13988 5084506 117.50 117.50 5/25/2016 VI-13992 5087968 58.11 58.11 6/7/2016 2998 Ferguson Waterworks #590 79.67 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/18/2016 VI-13979 0403199 28.24 28.24 5/6/2016 VI-13984 0401119 51.43 51.43 6/7/2016 2999 Office Essentials 88.54 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/16/2016 VI-13981 32718 88.54 88.54 6/7/2016 3000 City Of South Burlington 244,293.49 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/2/2016 VI-13995 MAY SEWER CHARGES 244,293.49 244,293.49 6/7/2016 3001 City Of South Burlington 124,718.63 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/2/2016 VI-13994 MAY STORMWATER FEES 124,718.63 124,718.63 6/7/2016 3002 So. Burlington Public Works 2,465.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/27/2016 VI-13989 ROW PERMITS 2,465.00 2,465.00 6/7/2016 3003 SoVerNet, Inc. 45.80 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/15/2016 VI-13977 3635697 45.80 45.80 Printed: June 02, 2016 Page 1 of 2 South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 06/07/16 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 6/7/2016 3004 Stiles Company Inc. 676.10 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/26/2016 VI-13993 223911 676.10 676.10 6/7/2016 3005 Ti-Sales Inc. 730.80 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/13/2016 VI-13985 INV0064338 730.80 730.80 6/7/2016 3006 Trafalgar Investments 327.76 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/1/2016 VI-13996 REFUND 327.76 327.76 Total Amount Paid: 479,765.37 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: June 02, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Save a Stamp with Auto Pay Enrollment Save yourselves the hassle of remembering deadlines and of writing a check. Join hundreds of your neighbors in making automatic payments. Questions? Martha@sburl.com May 2, 2016 Janice Ladd City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Janice: Attached please find copies of the Chittenden Solid Waste District Proposed FY 2017 Budget. CSWD is scheduled to meet with the City of South Burlington on Monday, May 16, 2015 at 6:55 p.m. Please forward the attached copies to your City Council for their review. Also, please note that the front cover of our FY 17 Budget refers to a website www.cswd.net , where a complete detailed copy of our budget is available for review. The Board of Commissioners approved sending the Proposed FY 2017 Budget to Member towns for their approval on Wednesday, April 27, 2016. Below is Section 4. (b) of the Chittenden Solid Waste District Charter. Within 45 days of the approval of the budget by the Board of Commissioners, the legislative body of each member municipality shall act to approve or disapprove the budget. The budget shall be approved if approved by the legislative bodies of a majority of the member municipalities. (For such purposes, each member municipality shall be entitled to one vote.) A legislative body that disapproves the budget must file with the Board of Commissioners a written statement of objections to the budget identifying those specific items to be changed, and failure to file such statement of objections within the forty-five (45) day period shall constitute approval by such municipality. A legislative body that fails to act to approve or disapprove the budget within the forty-five (45) day period shall likewise be deemed to have approved the budget. As stated above, each member municipality may choose to approve or disapprove the budget prior to June 10, 2016. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Jewell Administrative Manager Cc: Paul Stabler, Rep. Mark Boucher, Alt. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Public Hearing on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations DATE: June 6, 2016 City Council meeting As you know, the City Council last month held a first reading and warned a public hearing on a series of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations. This follows the review, public hearing, and approval by the Planning Commission earlier this spring. The Commission and staff are happy to provide a full summary and presentation of the proposed amendments at that time, and answer any questions that Councilors or the public may have. In brief, the amendments include the following: 1. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; Brief summary: These amendments would allow, under certain circumstances, a greater separation between heavy truck traffic and pedestrians / passenger cars, and would accommodate the somewhat unique needs of such uses in terms of building, parking, and circulation design; and to mitigate the effects of parking to the front of the building through landscaping and pedestrian access requirements. Applicability: Mixed Industrial-Commercial District and Industrial-Open Space District, for certain light industrial and warehouse/distribution land uses. 2. Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability Brief summary: These amendments include a couple of related components: - First, they consolidate several separate use categories presently located within the Land Development Regulations (as noted above) into a single term, retail sales. At present, various combinations of the above-listed use categories are allowed, or prohibited, in different zoning districts. For example, a convenience store may be prohibited in a district while a retail food establishment is permitted. The proposed amendments would simplify the regulations by having a single term for these uses. - Second, the term “retail sales” is proposed to be categorized by size of tenant in various different zoning districts. Lower intensity zoning districts, such as the Southeast Quadrant Page 1 of 39 2 Village Commercial District, and zoning districts whose principal purpose is to promote other types of non-residential development, such as the industrial districts, have maximum size of tenant space in the draft regulations for retail sales. Other districts apply size maximums to be consistent with the scale of development in the area. And certain districts have no cap on the size of a retailer; other standards in the Land Development Regulations establish the form and scale of a building in those cases. Enclosed with this memo (following the amendments) is a map of the City’s zoning districts showing the proposed maximums by zoning district. Zoning districts that in the past have no allowed retail sales at all continue to prohibit them; those are shown in white on the map. - Third, the proposed amendments clarify the terms “retail sales”, “wholesale establishment” and “wholesale club.” Applicability: All zoning districts that allow a form of retail sales. 3. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District Brief summary: The Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial district allows for a number of small-scale, neighborhood-focused uses. This amendment would add indoor recreation and personal instruction studio to that list. Tenants under this category would be capped at 3,000 s.f. Applicability: Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District (found in two places – along Dorset Street near the Mill Market & Deli, and along Hinesburg Road just north of Oak Creek Village). 4. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Brief summary: minor typographical, map, and definition changes. The amendments were reviewed by the City’s legal counsel prior to the Commission’s public hearing. Included with the amendments is a report prepared by the Planning Commission. The Report includes a brief summary of each of the proposed amendments as well as an assessment of the relationship of the amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan pursuant to state law. A copy of the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations can be found online at www.sburl.com/planning. Public Hearing: 1. The City Council in invited to open the public hearing as announced. The Planning Commission and staff are prepared to provide an overview of the amendments, their content, and their intent. Councilors are welcome to pose questions at this time. 2. The Council is recommended to then invite the public to comment. Staff has received NO comments to date following the Commission’s action to submit the amendments to the City Council. The Commission had received one comment, from Mr. Chris Shaw, and considered it during their public hearing. Page 2 of 39 3 Next steps: The Council can choose to either close or continue the public hearing. If the public hearing is closed, the Council can then discuss the proposed amendments. The Council can then choose to: 1. Vote to adopt the amendments, 2. Make specific changes to the amendments. If the Council makes any changes to the amendments, it must warn a new public hearing and invite the Planning Commission to update its required report on the amendments, or 3. Schedule a work session for a future meeting. Enclosures: Enclosed with this memo are the following documents: 1. Public notice for the proposed amendments 2. Proposed amendments approved by the Planning Commission, indexed 3. Planning Commission report on proposed amendments 4. Map of “retail sales” applicability by zoning district. NOT part of the proposed amendments, but instead an illustrative guide for clarity. Page 3 of 39 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Public Hearing June 6, 2016 at 7:00 pm PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the South Burlington City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 6th at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont to consider amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The amendments potentially affect all areas of the City. Sections included in the amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Section 2.02: Definitions Section 3.07: Height of Structures Section 7.01: Institutional and Agricultural District Section 8.06: Special Standards Section 8.13: T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards Section 8.14: T-5 Building Envelope Standards Table 13-2: Parking Requirements, Commercial Uses Section 14.06: General Review Standards Appendix C – Uses and Dimensional Standards Overlay Districts Map The purpose of the hearing is to consider, among other items: (A) revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; (B) merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; (C) allowance of small- scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District; (D) updated definitions and technical corrections throughout. Copies of the proposed amendment are available for inspection at the Department of Planning & Zoning, City Hall, 2nd Floor, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM Monday through Friday except holidays, and on the city website at www.sburl.com/planning. Helen Riehle, Chair Approved on May 2, 2016 Page 4 of 39 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016 City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016, 7:00 pm, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Legend Proposed amendments, shown on the following pages, are marked as follows: Additions are shown in red and underlined Deletions are down in red strikethrough Map changes are noted in text boxes Index to Amendments Amendments are proposed to the sections below. Under each section, one or more descriptions of purpose as described in the public hearing notice are listed. Section 2.02: Definitions Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 3.07: Height of Structures Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 7.01: Institutional and Agricultural District 1-A Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; Section 8.06: Special Standards Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 8.13: T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Section 8.14: T-5 Building Envelope Standards Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Page 5 of 39 Table 13-2: Parking Requirements, Commercial Uses Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; Section 14.06: General Review Standards Purposes: Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts Appendix C – Uses and Dimensional Standards Purposes: Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability; allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District; (D) Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Overlay Districts Map Purposes: Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Page 6 of 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Approved by Planning Commission April 26, 2016 2.01 Rules of Construction, Intent and Usage A. In the construction of these regulations, the following provisions and rules shall be applied, except when the context clearly requires otherwise: … (17) Abbreviations. “SF” shall mean “square feet”, “GFA” shall mean “gross floor area”, “GLA” shall mean “gross leasable area”, “DU” shall mean dwelling unit, and “ROW” shall mean “right-of-way” 2.02 Specific Definitions … Building line. Front. The line, parallel to the street line, that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the front lot line. A lot with two or more front lot lines shall have a front building line for each front lot line. Rear. The line, parallel to the rear lot line, that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the rear lot line. In the event that a property has two or more front lot lines and no rear lot lines, the rear building line shall be the line that is both (a) parallel to the side lot line that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the side lot line and (b) parallel to the Primary Building Façade. … Convenience store. A retail establishment, typically less than 3,000 square feet in area, offering for sale prepackaged or prepared food products, household items, newspapers and magazines, and may include sandwiches and other freshly prepared foods for off-site consumption. … Lot line, front. The lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way. Refer to Figure 2-1 for for examples of lot lines for non-standard lots. In the case of a through lot, the lot shall be deemed to have two front yards which shall each meet the required front setback and all other requirements of this ordinance to front yards, and shall be deemed to have two side yards and no rear yard. A corner lot shall be deemed to have two front yards and two side yards and no rear yard. City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 7 of 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Approved by Planning Commission April 26, 2016 Figure 2-1, Lots, and Yards, and Lot Lines Retail food establishment. An establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready- to-eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises, and where the consumption of food on site is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats. Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with a retail food establishment. FRONT City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 8 of 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Approved by Planning Commission April 26, 2016 Retail sales. An establishment engaged in selling goods, groceries, or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Typically such an establishment (A) is a place of business and is engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy, (B) buys and receives as well as sells merchandise, (C) may process or manufacture some of the products for sale, such as a jeweler or baker, but such production or manufacture is incidental and subordinate to the selling activities, and (D) sells to customers for their own personal, household, or business use. Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment short order restaurant as an accessory use with the following limitations on the short order restaurant: 1) it must be located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own; 2) it is limited to 3,000 square feet 3) it is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats; 4) Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with this accessory short order restaurant. A Wholesale Club is considered to be Retail Sales in these Regulations. … Wholesale Club. An establishment, also known as a “warehouse club”, primarily engaged in the bulk retail sale of a general line of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, groceries and appliances, for personal or household consumption or for business use. The patronage of a wholesale club is typically restricted by a membership requirement. … Wholesale establishment. An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in selling goods, products, material, and merchandise stored on the premises to retailers or persons who are the intermediaries between the producer and the consumer; to industrial, commercial, institutional or professional business users; to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies. Under these Regulations, this definition of Wholesale establishment specifically excludes the Wholesale Club use. A Wholesale Club shall not be considered to be a Wholesale establishment. 3.07 Height of Structures … B. Stories. The requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. (1) Where a roofline story is placed on a building that contains or is planned to contain the maximum permitted number of stories below the roofline, the following conditions shall apply: (a) dormers on such story shall not exceed the height of the roof peak, and (b) the total width of the dormers on any single side does not exceed fifty thirty-three percent (33%) of the horizontal distance of the roof line along that side. Vertical extensions that exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the horizontal width (i.e., step dormers) are permitted, but City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 9 of 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Approved by Planning Commission April 26, 2016 are limited to a maximum height of five (5) feet above the average height of the principal roof structure and shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the horizontal width of any side. 7.01 Institutional and Agricultural District I-A … C. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Institutional-Agricultural District. … (i) Convenience store up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (j i) Photocopy and printing shop with accessory retail sales use, up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (k j) Personal service. Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum of 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entrances from one another and no direct passageways from one to another. up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (l k) Short-order restaurant, within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (m l) Retail sales. Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum of 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entrances from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.business up to 3,000 SF in size within a principal permitted structure (NORTH ONLY) (n m) Social services (NORTH ONLY) (o n) Accessory uses to the uses listed above in the applicable district (i.e. North only or all) 8.06 Special Standards … C. Drive Throughs. Drive-through service windows are permitted in the back of the building, in mid-block and alley-accessed locations provided they comply with all of the following standards: … (4) Drive-throughs shall conform to all applicable BES and shall not be exempt from any standard in these regulations that requires a minimum of two (2) stories minimum two (2) story requirement standard; and, City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 10 of 39 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4‐1 8.13 T‐4 Urban Multi‐Use Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade  Requirements Supplemental (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a) Lot size (b) Lot Width (2)Lot Occupation (a) Percentage of Lot Coverage (b) Units per acre (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a) All Types (2)Building Stories (a) Principal (b) Accessory (3)Floor‐to‐Floor Height (a) First story (b) Upper Stories (4)Build‐to‐Zone See T4 Figures (a) Primary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 12' Max.0' Min., 18' Max. (b) Secondary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 24' Max. 0'. Min., 36' Max. (5)Frontage See T4 Figures (a) Frontage Buildout , Primary Streets 70% Min.70% Min. (Note 1) (b) Frontage Buildout , Secondary Streets 70% Min. within 80' of  Primary Street, 50%  Min. elsewhere 70% Min. within 80'  of Primary Street,  50% Min. elsewhere  (Note 1) (b)Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build‐ to‐Zone 75% Min.100% Max. (c ) Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary  Build‐to‐Zone 0% Min., 25% Max. 100% Max. (6)Entrances See Entrances Figure (a) Average frequency of Public Entrances, non‐residential first  story use 36' Max.54' Max. (b) Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non‐ residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max. (c ) Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first  story use 36' Max.54' Max. (d) Maximum distance between Operable Entrances,  residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max. (7)Glazing See Glazing Figure (a) First Story Min. 40% of the  Width of the Building,  and Min. 7.5' in  Height Min. 20% of the  Width of the  Building, and Min 7.5'  in Height (b)First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min. (c ) Upper Stories None None None Permitted 2 Min., 4 Max. 1 Max. T4 BES Standard Generally a multi‐use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s).  Housing, retail, and other commercial uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of  freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T‐4 is multimodal oriented with an emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism.  Parking (not including on‐street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street.  None 24' Max. 14' Max See Note 2 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016  DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 11 of 39 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4‐2 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade  Requirements SupplementalT4 BES Standard (d) Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be  transparent (8) Building Breaks See Bldg Breaks Figure (a) Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80' Min. 3 every 80' (b) Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break 48' Max.48' Max. (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a) Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks See Section 8.04 (a) Perimeter (b) Length (2)Street & Connection Types See Article 11 (a)Neighborhood Street Narrow (b )Neighborhood Street (c)Private commercial way (d)Support Street (e)Commercial Street (f)Avenue (g)Commercial Boulevard (h)Destination Street (i)Market Street and Garden Street (j)Path (k)Pesdetrian Pedestrian Pass (l)Alley (m) All other street types (4)Curb Cuts (not including street intersections) (a)On Market Street (b) On Garden Street (b)All other streets (E ) Parking Standards (1)Parking Amount Requirements (a)Per Residential Unit (b)Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non‐Residential (2) Location & Screening (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e ) (f) (g) (3) Off‐Site Parking (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Where a T‐4 Lot abuts the R4 or R7 Zoning District, the following standards shall apply: (a) A buffer strip shall be required See Section 8.06(E)  18.02(B) (b) Off‐site parking within 1200’ may be used to meet parking requirements for non‐Residential uses.  (c) Shared parking may be used to meet parking requirements (See Article 13).  Parking shall only be permitted in compliance with applicable BES standards for building frontage Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street (a) Off‐site parking within 600’ may be used to meet parking requirements for Residential uses.  Prohibited No parking spaces required for ground floor tenants/ uses less than 5,000 sq. ft.  New construction resulting in additional non‐residential gross floor area or residential units shall meet T‐ 4 Parking Standards New surface parking shall be set back from the primary street a minimum of 25' Parking spaces may be leased from the city or a private landowner New parking spaces shall be screened from all streets and the public realm, a minimum of four (4) feet in  height Parking under structures is encouraged 2 spaces Min. 300' Min., 700' Max. Encouraged 2 spaces Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 400' Min. distance between curb cuts 400' Min. distance between curb cuts Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 2,800' Max. 100' Min. distance between curb cuts See Note 2 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016  DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 12 of 39 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4‐3 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade  Requirements SupplementalT4 BES Standard (b) (c ) (d) (e ) (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. (3) (a) (b) (G) Streetscape Standards (1)General Standards (a)All streetscape features must be consistent within a project.  (b) (c ) (d)Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 (2)Streetscape requirements (a)Benches (b)Bicycle Racks for at least 5 bikes (c )Street Tree Spacing, on center Notes (1) (2)Upper Story Glazing Shall comply with the following standards: (d) Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum  of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts.  (e) Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding  bay windows and storefronts).  (b)  80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide  (c) The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. Windows may be ganged horizontally if  each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least  7 inches wide.  Along Secondary Streets, parking structures within the build‐to‐zone that do not meet entrance and/or  glazing standards are permitted and shall count towards Frontage Building Buildout requirements,  provided that a minimum of 0.5% of the construction cost is used for original artwork installed on or in  front of the building façade facing said street. Along Secondary Streets, a Streetfront Open Space, as defined within these Regulations, shall count  towards Frontage Buildout requirements. 2 Min. per 100' frontage 1 Min. per 100' frontage 50' Max. average (a) Upper story glazing shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the façade on the primary building facade and  20% on secondary building facades. If a corner lot is 100’ or less in width along the street containing the primary building facade and  greater than two (2) times that width in depth, the required frontage buildout on the BES shall be  reduced by 50% on the street containing the secondary building facade. Such building shall building shall have a frontage greater than 100' and a footprint greater than 10,000  square feet; Such building shall have a maximum footprint of 3,500 square feet; and, Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. No new single‐story sotry building shall be permitted within one thousand (1,000) linear feet in any  direction from any existing single‐story  building approved under this subsection; Large Single Story Principal Buildings. New large single‐story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to  the following requirements: Such building shall be a minimum of 24' in height and shall have the appearance of two or more stories; Such building shall have entries at a frequency of every 50' or less and shall have a maximum distance  between entries of 60'; and, Non‐hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or  flowering vegetation.  All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with  requirements of the Department of Public Works. The third story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the rear building  line; and, The fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twenty‐four feet (24’) from the rear  building line.  Small Single Story Principal Buildings. New small single‐story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to  the following requirements: South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016  DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 13 of 39 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T5‐1 8.14 T‐5  Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade Requirements Supplemental (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a) Lot size (b) Lot Width (2)Lot Occupation (a) Percentage of Lot Coverage (b) Units per acre (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a) All Types (2)Building Stories (a) Principal (b) Accessory (3)Floor‐to‐Floor Height (a) First story (b) Upper Stories (4)Build‐to‐Zone See T5 Figures (a) Primary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 6' Max.0' Min., 9' Max. (b) Secondary Build‐to‐Zone 0' Min., 24' Max. 0'. Min., 36' Max. (5)Frontage See T5 Figures (a) Frontage Buildout 85% Min.85% Min. (Note 1) (b) Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build‐ to‐Zone 75% Min.50% Min. (c ) Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary  Build‐to‐Zone 0% Min., 25% Max. 50% Max. (6)Entrances See Entrances Figure (a)Average frequency of Public Entrances, non‐residential first  story use 30' Max.45' Max. (b) Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non‐ residential first story use 40' Max.60' Max. (c ) Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first  story use (d) Maximum distance between Operable Entrances,  residential first story use (7)Glazing See Glazing Figure (a) First Story Min. 80% of the  Width of the Building,  and Min. 7.5' in  Height Min. 40% of the Width  of the Building, and  Min 7.5' in Height (b) First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min. (c ) Upper Stories (d) Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be  transparent (8) Building Breaks See Note 3 & Bldg  Breaks Figure (a)Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80' Min. 3 every 80' 1 Max. T5 BES Standard Permitted 2 Min., 6 Max. 14' Min., 20' Max. 10' Min., 14' Max. not applicable not applicable See Note 2 See Note 2 Emphasis is on Market Street with high volume foot traffic. Create a street‐oriented public realm that encourages a dense downtown,  multi‐use/multi‐purpose built environment. Retail and other commercial uses must be on the ground floor, with and mixed uses  permitted above. Parking (not including on‐street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. None None None None South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 14 of 39 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T5‐2 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade Requirements SupplementalT5 BES Standard (b) Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break Recommend every 24‐ 48 feet; 60' Max. Recommend every 24‐ 48 feet; 60' Max. (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a) Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks See Section 8.04 (a) Perimeter (b) Length (2)Street and Connection types See Article 11 (a)Destination Street (b)Support Street (c )Neighborhood Street Narrow (d)Market Street & Garden Street (e)Path (f)Alley (b)Pedestrian Pass (h)All other street types (3)Curb Cuts (a)On Market Street (b) On Garden Street (c)All other streets (E ) Parking Standards (1)Parking Amount Requirements (a)Per Residential Unit (b)Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non‐Residential (2) Location & Screening (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e) (f) (g) (3) Off‐Site Parking (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Upper Story setbacks (a)  (b)  (G) Streetscape Standards (1)General Standards Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 1,600' Max. 400' Max. No parking spaces required for ground floor tenants/ uses less than 5,000 sq. ft.  (a) Off‐site parking within 600’ may be used to meet parking requirements for Residential uses.  (b) Off‐site parking within 1200’ may be used to meet parking requirements for non‐Residential uses.  (c) Shared parking may be used to meet parking requirements (See Article 13).  All stories above the fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the  primary principal and secondary secondard building facades.  All stories above the fifth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from all  Alleys.  Parking under structures is encouraged Parking shall only be permitted in compliance with applicable BES standards for Frontage Buildout building  frontage New parking spaces shall be screened from all streets and the public realm, a minimum of four (4) feet in  height New construction resulting in additional non‐residential gross floor area or residential units shall meet T‐5  Parking Standards New surface parking shall be set back from the primary street a minimum of 25' Parking spaces may be leased from the city or a private landowner 2 spaces Max. 2 spaces Min. Encouraged Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited  100' Min. distance between curb cuts South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 15 of 39 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T5‐3 Primary Building  Façade Requirements Secondary Building  Façade Requirements SupplementalT5 BES Standard (a)All streetscape features must be consistent within a project.  (b) (c ) (d)Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 (2)Streetscape requirements (a)Benches (b)Bicycle Parking or Rack Spaces (c )Street Tree Spacing, on center Notes (1) (2) Upper Story Glazing Shall comply with the following standards: (3) Building Break Standards also apply to any façade facing a Qualifying Open Space If a corner lot is 100’ or less in width along the street containing the primary building facade and  greater than two (2) times that width in depth, the required frontage buildout in on the BES shall be  reduced by 50% on the street containing the secondary building facade. (a) Upper story glazing shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the façade on the primary building facade and 20%  on secondary building facades. (b)  80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide  (c) The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. Windows may be ganged horizontally if  each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least  7 inches wide.  (d) Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum  of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts.  (e) Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding  bay windows and storefronts).  All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with requirements  of the Department of Public Works. 1 Min. per 50' frontage 20 Min. per 100' frontage 30' Max. average Non‐hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or  flowering vegetation.  South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 16 of 39 ARTICLE 13 South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016 TABLE 13-2: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, COMMERCIAL USES Use Parking Space Requirement Notes Agriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rental 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Recreation facility, indoor 0.33 per person in maximum occupancy permitted Recreation facility, outdoor 0.33 per seat or per person in maximum occupancy Auto and motorcycle sales, service and repair 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Artist production studio 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Auto rental, with private accessory car wash and fueling 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Drive-through bank 5.8 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Bed & breakfast, minimum 1 acre lot 2 plus 1.5 per guest bedroom Car wash 2 per 1,000 SF GFA, minimum of 2 2 Commercial greenhouse 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Convenience store, principal use 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Convenience store <3,000 SF within principal structure 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Day care facility 1 per employee plus 0.1 per licensed enrollment capacity General merchandise store 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Equipment service, repair & rental 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Financial institution 3.6 per 1,000 SF GFA Flight instruction 1 per employee (faculty and staff) plus 0.5 per student enrollment capacity Hotels 1 per room, plus 0.33 per maximum occupancy in meeting and banquet rooms Use (continued) Parking Space Requirement Notes Hotels, extended stay 1 per room plus 1 per employee Indoor theater 0.33 per seat Commercial kennel, animal shelter, veterinary hospital or pet day care 1 per employee plus 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Lumber and contractor’s yard 1 per employee plus 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Mobile home, RV, and boat sales, repair & service 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Office, general 3.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Office, medical 5 per 1,000 SF Personal or business service, principal use 2 per treatment station, but not less than 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Personal or business service, up to 3,000 SF GFA per any one principal structure 2 per treatment station (personal service) or 4 per 1,000 SF GFA, whichever greater Pet grooming 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Printing & binding production facilities 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Photocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail 2 per 1,000 SF GFA, plus 5 per 1,000 SF GFA of retail area Radio & television studio 2 per employee City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 17 of 39 ARTICLE 13 South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016 Research facility or laboratory 3 per 1,000 SF GFA Restaurant, standard 18 per 1,000 SF GLA Restaurant, short order 12 per 1,000 SF GLA Retail food establishment <5,000 SF GFA 6.7 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA, and supermarkets 6 per 1,000 SF GLA Retail sales business, excluding general merchandise stores 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail sales business up to 3,000 SF GFA within any one principal structure 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail warehouse outlet 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Sale, rental & repair of aircraft & related parts 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Seasonal mobile food unit 8 per employee Service station with convenience store 10 per 1,000 SF GLA 2 Shopping center 5 per 1,000 SF GLA if GLA is 400,000 SF or less 5.5 per 1,000 SF GLA if more than 400,000 SF Taverns, night clubs & private clubs 0.5 per maximum authorized occupancy Motor freight terminal 1 per employee 2 Commercial or public parking facility 1 per employee 2 Warehousing, processing, storage & distribution 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Distribution and related storage, as a minority of floor area accessory to another principal permitted or conditional use 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA for the distribution and storage portion of GFA Wholesale establishments 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA plus any requirements for office or sales area City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 18 of 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016 14.06 General Review Standards B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. … (2) Parking: … (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. … (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 (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 City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 19 of 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016 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. City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 20 of 39 APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C  South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016  DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016  C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS    The tables on the following pages describe the allowable uses in each zoning district in the City, and the  specific dimensional standards applicable to each. The tables are C‐1, Table of Uses and C‐2, Table of  Dimensional Standards.  City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 21 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Residential/Institutional 1RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTSIA(1) PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7‐NC(2)R12 LN QCP SEQ‐NRPSEQ‐NRTSEQ‐NR SEQ‐VR SEQ‐VC(2)Residential UsesSingle‐family dwellingP P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P PTwo‐family dwellingPUD P P P PUD PUD P PP P P PMulti‐family dwellingPUD PUD P PUD PUD PUDCPUD P PAccessory residential unitsGroup home or Residential Care HomeP P P P PUD PUD P P P P P P PAgricultural UsesHorticulture & forestry with on‐premise salesHorticulture & forestry, no on‐premise salesKeeping of livestock on 10 acres or more P P P P PP P P PSingle‐family dwelling related to agriculture P P P P P P PPP P P P PAdditional dwellings for farm employees P P P P P P PPP P P P PPublic & Quasi‐Public UsesCemeteriesCommunity centerPUD P PPCP P PCongregate care, assisted living, or continuum of care facilityC‐TO C C CCultural facilityPUDEducational facilityPUDPCC CEducational support facilitiesPUDFuneral homes, mortuaries, and crematoriumsC CGroup quartersPUDHospicePPMunicipal facilityC PParksPersonal instruction facilityPP (6)Place of worshipPUDP P P P P PPP P PRecreation pathsSocial servicesC‐TO CInstitutionalResidentialSoutheast QuadrantPlease See Section 3.10 for RegulationsConditional in all districtsPermitted in all districtsPermitted in all districtsPermitted in all districts; 3 acre minimum lot size in all districts.Permitted in all districtsSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 22 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Residential/Institutional 2RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTSIA(1) PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7‐NC(2)R12 LN QCP SEQ‐NRPSEQ‐NRTSEQ‐NR SEQ‐VR SEQ‐VC(2)InstitutionalResidentialSoutheast QuadrantCommercial UsesAdult use Auto & motorcycle service and repair, accessory use, no fueling pumpsCBed and breakfast, min.  1 acre lotC C C CC C CC(3)Family child care home, registered or licensedP P P P P P P P P P P P PChild care facility, licensed non‐residentialPP (6)(4)PCommercial greenhouseC‐ACCCommercial or public parking facility CCConvenience store <3,000 SF within principal structureN‐PUDPFinancial institutionPGolf courseCCCOffice, generalPUD CPUD‐TO P PUD‐TOCOffice, medicalPUD‐TO P PUD‐TOCPersonal or business service, principal useN‐PUD (7)PP (6)Personal or business service, up to 3,000 SF GFA per any one principal structureN‐PUDPCPet GroomingPPhotocopy & printing shops with accessory retailN‐PUDPrivate providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenanceRecreation facility, indoorN‐PUD C CC C CP (6)Recreation facility, outdoorN‐PUD C CCCResearch facility or laboratoryPUDRestaurant, short orderN‐PUDCRestaurant, standardN‐PUDCCRetail sales up to 3,000 SF GFA within any one principal structureN‐PUD (7)P (7)C (6)Retail food estab. <5,000 SF GFAN‐PUDPCSeasonal Mobile Food UnitPService station w/convenience storeCSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 23 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Residential/Institutional 3RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTSIA(1) PR MU R1 R2 R4 R7 R7‐NC(2)R12 LN QCP SEQ‐NRPSEQ‐NRTSEQ‐NR SEQ‐VR SEQ‐VC(2)InstitutionalResidentialSoutheast QuadrantWaste transfer stationsCSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 24 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 1City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDResidential UsesSingle‐family dwellingPUD P P PTwo‐family dwellingPUD P PMulti‐family dwellingPUD PUD PUDPUD PUD PUDPUDAccessory residential unitsGroup home or Residential Care HomePUD P P PAgricultural UsesHorticulture & forestry with on‐premise salesHorticulture & forestry, no on‐premise salesKeeping of livestock on 10 acres or moreSingle‐family dwelling related to agriculturePPAdditional dwellings for farm employeesPPPublic & Quasi‐Public UsesCemeteriesPersonal instruction facilityP PP P P P P P P P PPlace of worshipP P P P P P PPP‐ACCRecreation pathsSkilled nursing facilityC C CCC CSocial servicesC CC C C CCCommercial & Industrial UsesAdult useAgriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rentalPPAirport UsesPPAnimal shelterC CPArtist production studioP PP PPAuto & motorcycle salesPP PAuto & motorcycle service & repairPP PPlease see Section 3.10 for regulationsPermitted in all districtsConditional in all districtsPermitted in all districts; 3 acre minimum lot size in all districts.Permitted in all districtsAirportCommercial 1Other CommercialHeavy Commercial‐IndustrialSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 25 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 2City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialAuto rental, with private accessory car wash & fuelingPPPPPBed & breakfastCCCannabis dispensary (dispensing only)P P P PPP P‐TOCannabis dispensary (cultivation only)PPCar washPChild care facility, licensed non‐residential P P P P P P P P P PCommercial greenhousePUD P PCommercial kennel, veterinary hospital and pet day careCC PPPPCommercial or public parking facilityC C C C CC C C CContractor or building trade facilityPPP PConvenience store <3,000 SF within principal structurePPPPPPPPUDPPPPConvenience store, principal usePPDistribution and related storage, with >15% of GFA in office or other principal permitted use by same tenantCPPPDrive‐through bankPUD PUD PUD PUDPUDEquipment service, repair & rentalPPFamily child care home, registered or licensedP P P PFinancial institutionP P P P PACC P PFlight instructionPP PGeneral merchandise storePUDPUDHotelPUD PUD PUD C CCCHotel, extended stayPUD PUDC CCCIndoor theaterP PIndoor vehicle storage, maximum 10,000 square feetP‐ACCJunk yardLight manufacturingPUDPUD P P P PSee Article 8South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 26 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 3City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialLumber and contractor’s yardPP PManufacturing & assembly from previously prepared materials & componentsPPPPPPUDPP PPMobile home, RV and boat sales, repair & serviceP PMotor freight terminalCPOffice, generalP P P P P P P PUD P PPOffice, medicalP P P P P P P PUD‐TO P P‐TOPersonal or business service, principal usePPPPP(6)(7)PPP (7)PPPersonal or business service, up to 3,000 SF GFA per any one principal structurePPPPPPPP‐ACCPPPet groomingP P P P P P PP PPhotocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail P P P P P P P P‐ACC P PPrinting & binding production facilitiesCP P PPPrivate providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenancePP P PProcessing and storagePP P P P PRadio & television studioP P PC PP PRecreation facility, indoorP P P P P P P P‐ACC P PRecreation facility, outdoorC C C C C C CC CResearch facility or laboratoryP P P P P P P P P PPRestaurant, short orderP P P P P P‐ACC P‐ACC P‐ACC P P‐ACC P‐ACCRestaurant, standardP P P P P P PPP‐ACCRetail sales up to 3,000 SF GFA within any one principal structurePPPPPPPP‐ACCPP‐ACCPPRetail salesP (8)P PP(8)P (6)(7)P (6)(7)P (6)(7)P (7) P (9)P(8)P‐ACCRetail food establishment <5,000 SF GFAPPPPPPPPPP‐ACCSouth Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 27 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 4City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐IndustrialRetail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarketsPPPRetail warehouse outletPPSale, rental & repair of aircraft & related partsPPSeasonal Mobile Food UnitP P P P P P PP PSelf‐storageP ACC, P‐Non‐TOService station with convenience storeCCShopping centerC CTaverns, night clubs & private clubsP P P P PPP PTransportation servicesPPWarehousing & distributionCCPPWholesale establishmentsC CP PPKey and Notes to the Table above:(1) For all IA District Uses please refer to Section 7.01, Institutional and Agricultural District. "N" refers to the Institutional‐Agricultural North sub‐district.(2) R7 and SEQ‐VC as classified as non‐residential zoning districts, but are included in this table for purposes of efficiency(3) No minimum lot size for bed & breakfast in the SEQ‐VC district(4) Includes C1‐R12 and C1‐R15(5) Educational support facilities in C1 are subject to the dimensional standards of the IA‐North District.  See Article 7.(6) Principal permitted retail uses are limited to 5,000 SF GFANon‐TO = Allowable only outside of the Transit Overlay DistrictP = PermittedC = Conditional UsePUD = Allowable within a Planned Unit DevelopmentACC = Allowable as an accessory use TO = Allowable only in the Transit Overlay District(6) Use is limited to 3,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 9,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.(7)(4) Permitted within a structure existing and approved for use as an 'educational facility' as of July 1, 2013. The structure existings as of July 1, 2013, may be expanded, South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 28 of 39 APPENDIX CUSES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDSC‐Non‐Residential 5City Center FBC DistrictNON‐RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSC1 R12 C1 R15 C1‐AUTOC1‐AIR C1‐LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR‐INDAirportCommercial 1Other Commercial Heavy Commercial‐Industrial(7) Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.(8) Use is limited to 15,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 25,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.(9) Use is limited to 30,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 30,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another.South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT Approved by the Planning Commission April 26, 2016City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016Page 29 of 39 £¤2 £¤7 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 §¨¦89 ¬«116 ¬«11 6 Burlington International Airport HINESBURGRD. -NORTH DORSETPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK DORSETPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK SPEAR ST.- OVERLOOKPARK DORSETPARK NOT 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 Correct legend from previous version Remove mapshowingStormwater overlay district as thisdistrict wasremoved from the text in the version adopted 3/21/2016and replaced with city-wide stormwaterstandards DRAFT for Planning Commission Public Hearing April 26, 2016 City Council Public Hearing June 6, 2016 Page 30 of 39 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Approved April 26, 2016 In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; B. Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability C. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District D. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the submittal of the amendments and this report to the City Council. Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: Page 31 of 39 2 (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” A. Revised standards for parking in front of buildings related to light industrial-type uses in heavy commercial / industrial districts; Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed amendment would allow for a minor proportion of a parking area to be located to the front of a light-industrial, warehouse & distribution or similar building in the Mixed Industrial- Commercial and Industrial-Open Space Districts. To mitigate the effects of having parking in front of the building, certain additional site design standards would be required, including screening of parking, direct pedestrian access, and enhanced quality of “open space” in the vicinity to provide for useable areas for pedestrians. (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. The proposed amendments are located within the “Northeast Quadrant” Planning Area and the “Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non-Residential” Future Land Use District. Future Land Use for the Northwest Quadrant is described in part, as follows: “Future Land Use. The pattern of land use and development in the Northeast Quadrant has focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers and ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City…” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-22 The Future Land Use District, further, is described as follows: “Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non-Residential. Intended to foster high quality jobs, these lands provide for medium to large scale industrial, educational, mechanical and office park environments, among other related uses. Their aesthetics should reflect quality design and promote South Burlington as a welcoming place to work and do business. Residential uses are largely discouraged. Land coverage provides for sufficient green infrastructure, and respect primary natural resources, with slightly relaxed controls for wider roadways, increased parking, and lot coverages. Multimodal transport services these areas. Development here should be respectful of lower intensity uses where they abut.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-6. Page 32 of 39 3 The proposed change is consistent with the above descriptions. The proposed amendments will not affect the provision of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment would not have a direct impact on any planned community facilities. The City does plan to have additional roadways & bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the area. Safe access from properties by pedestrian to these planned facilities is maintained through requirements for direct, separated pedestrian links from buildings to the street. B. Merger of similar use categories (eg, retail sales, retail food establishment, and convenience store), consolidating definitions, and arranging by scale and applicability Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw These amendments would include two parts: (1) a merger of similar land use categories, and (2) establishing a coordinated set of standards for the size and scale of retail sales uses across all zoning districts that allow them. Specifically, the proposed amendments would consolidate “retail sales”, “convenience store”, “retail food establishment”, and “general merchandise store” into “retail sales”, with an updated definition. In addition, the amendments would further clarify the distinction between “retail sales” and “wholesale establishment” by including a new term, “wholesale club” and stating that it is considered “retail sales” and not “wholesale establishment.” The draft amendments then establish a maximum size (gross floor area) to “retail sales” in some zoning districts that allows for the use, consistent with the purpose of that district and the Comprehensive Plan. The amended Regulations would create five size categories – two small, one medium, one medium-large, and one large. (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. The Comprehensive Plan contains a clear Vision & Goals Statement. It includes four principal goals. The fourth goal is excerpted below. “Here and Into the Future, South Burlington is … Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and statewide community. • Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity areas identified within this Plan; Page 33 of 39 4 • Support a diverse and vibrant economy built on quality jobs, employment centers and a supportive educational and research system; support markets for local agricultural and food products.” P. 1-1. The Comprehensive Plan divides the City into five (5) Planning Areas and five Future Land Use Categories. They are: Planning Areas: • Central District, including City Center and surrounding areas; • Northwest Quadrant, including areas west of the Airport and north of I-89, exclusive of the Central District; • Northeast Quadrant, including the Burlington International Airport and areas north of I- 89; • Southwest Quadrant, including the Shelburne Road corridor; • Southeast Quadrant, including areas south of 1-89 and east of Spear Street. Future Land Use Categories: • Very low intensity, principally open space. • Lower intensity, principally residential. • Medium intensity, residential to mixed use. • Medium to higher intensity, principally non-residential. • Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These Areas and Categories work together to define the future development intent of the different locations within the City. The Future Land Use Categories provide the description of the mix of uses and relative overall intensity anticipated while the Planning Areas provide the context of the surroundings, geographies, resources, and infrastructure. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and with the purposes of the specific zoning districts in which they are located. Smaller size retail are continued in areas intended for smaller-scale development, or where the focus is on industrial or institutional uses. These limits are in place in most cases already and are made more consistent. They are typically found where Planning Areas such as the Southeast and Northwest Quadrants contain Medium and Medium-to-Higher Intensity Future Land Use Categories. They also includes the Industrial-Open Space zoning district, which has long limited retail uses. Zoning districts in this category include the SEQ-VC, R7-NC, C1-LR, Allen Road, Swift Street, IA-North, and I/O. Medium-scale retail is permitted in areas where the Plan’s focus is on employment centers, with some allowance for retail. These are largely areas in the Northeast Quadrant that are also designated for medium to higher intensity principally non-residential or mixed use. Zoning districts in this category include the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District, the C1-Air District, and the C1-R12 District. Page 34 of 39 5 Future Land Use for the Northwest Quadrant is described as follows: “Future Land Use. The pattern of land use and development in the Northeast Quadrant has focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers and ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City. In addition, future redevelopment should make use of improved transit services. Future development, especially in the Tilley Drive/Kimball Ave/Williston Road/Community Drive area should maximize efficiency of land use and support multi- modal transportation. This area should have clear, efficient access to City Center as part of an integrated, urbanized high activity, pedestrian and transit friendly east-west corridor. In 2014, the University of Vermont Medical Center began exploration of installing a consolidated outpatient facility in this area.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-22 The majority of the area is contained within the Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non- Residential Future Land Use Category. It is described as follows: “Intended to foster high quality jobs, these lands provide for medium to large scale industrial, educational, mechanical and office park environments, among other related uses. Their aesthetics should reflect quality design and promote South Burlington as a welcoming place to work and do business. Residential uses are largely discouraged. Land coverage provides for sufficient green infrastructure, and respect primary natural resources, with slightly relaxed controls for wider roadways, increased parking, and lot coverages. Multimodal transport services these areas. Development here should be respectful of lower intensity uses where they abut.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-6. This area also contains two residential zoning districts within the larger Mixed Industrial- Commercial district. The Comprehensive addresses these areas as follows: “Adjacent Residential Areas. The Northeast Quadrant comes into contact with residential neighborhoods in a handful of key places, notably to the west and northeast of the Burlington International Airport, and with the handful of residential pockets within the Quadrant itself. Sufficient transition tools – in the form of lower intensity uses, buffering, or screening – should be provided to foster the continued compatibility of these areas. The same holds for undeveloped areas to the east of Old Farm Road.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-24 Medium-large retail is proposed to be allowed in the Commercial-2 District. This area is located within the Southwest Quadrant Planning Area and the Medium to Higher Intensity-Mixed Use Future Land Use Category. It is distinct from the more northern portion of these same districts along Shelburne Road in part because it is located further from the Interstate and population centers in South Burlington and Burlington. Page 35 of 39 6 The Medium to Higher Intensity, Mixed Use Future Land Use Category is described as follows: “Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These lands are intended to be the most compact and most intensely developed in the City and support employment. Residential densities are higher than other designations, as a matter of allowance and as a goal. Housing options are varied, but focus primarily on multi-family dwellings. Uses should be mixed within the block, and mixed within buildings whenever possible. Infrastructure is efficient, and transportation is emphasized towards pedestrians and cyclists and provision of large scale non-shared parking should be discouraged. Open spaces are part of the public realm. Building heights, lot coverages, and other building dimensions are higher than other future land use areas.: Comprehensive Plan 3-7. Future Land Use for the Southwest Quadrant includes the following statement: “South of IDX Drive, the Shelburne Road corridor becomes predominately commercial on both sides, with collector streets leading to residential neighborhoods. These areas should be encouraged for infill development and redevelopment, with a continued focus on business opportunities.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-27 Larger retail, with no explicit limitation on size, remain permitted in several districts. Those include the Commercial 1-Residential 15, Commercial 1-Residential 12 and each of the Form Based Codes districts. The Airport & Institutional- North Districts also permit retail in the context of their overall intent. The FBC Districts and Commercial 1 Districts are located in the following Future Land Use Category: “Medium to higher intensity, mixed use. These lands are intended to be the most compact and most intensely developed in the City and support employment. Residential densities are higher than other designations, as a matter of allowance and as a goal. Housing options are varied, but focus primarily on multi-family dwellings. Uses should be mixed within the block, and mixed within buildings whenever possible. Infrastructure is efficient, and transportation is emphasized towards pedestrians and cyclists and provision of large scale non-shared parking should be discouraged. Open spaces are part of the public realm. Building heights, lot coverages, and other building dimensions are higher than other future land use areas.” Comprehensive Plan 3-7. The City Center Form Based Codes Zoning District is largely contained with the Central District as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. In this area, size of uses are not limited; instead, development is managed by the form of the buildings. The Future Land Use Plan for this area includes the following Statement: “The intent for this entire area – developed and undeveloped – is to create an environment that has all of the elements, functions, programing and features to become South Burlington’s principal downtown area.” Comprehensive Plan P. 3-10. Page 36 of 39 7 The C1-R15 District is located in the Southwest Future Land Use Planning Areas along key sections of major corridors that contain good access to transportation. “The north end of the corridor in South Burlington has seen the most significant redevelopment to date and now includes several newer multi-family buildings amongst commercial areas. Future redevelopment in this area should be consistent with the pattern established by this development and by the single and two-family home neighborhood behind parts of it. South of I-189, the east side of the road includes the well established Orchards neighborhood as well as a series of relatively small commercial lots fronting on Shelburne Road. Continued reuse and redevelopment of these commercial areas should enhance pedestrian connectivity to residential areas while at the same time protecting them from encroachment. The west side of the road includes significantly larger lots and some existing multi-family housing. Mixed use development and redevelopment is encouraged in this area.” Comprehensive Plan pp. 3-26 to 3-27 Where lots are described as being smaller in the above sections, the depth of the zoning district itself will place limitations on the size of certain uses. Based on the analysis above, the proposed amendments are consistent with the above descriptions. The proposed amendments will not have effect on the provision of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. The proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on planned community facilities. The application of scale of uses in these areas is consistent with existing and planned transportation infrastructure in the areas, with more intense users generally permitted in areas with greater transportation access. C. Allowance of small-scale personal instruction studio and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw This amendment would permit small-scale personal instruction studios and indoor recreation in the SEQ-VC District. This district is located in two places: along a portion of Dorset Street towards the south end of the City and along a small section of Hinesburg Road south of I-89. (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. See discussion above. This zoning district is located within the Southeast Quadrant Planning Area and the Medium-to-Higher Intensity – Mixed Use Future Land Use Category. Page 37 of 39 8 The purpose of this district is to promote village-scale mixed use development, including retail, housing, office space, and ancillary services. The allowance of these two use categories is consistent with this intent, allowing for neighborhood-scale services such as gyms, dance studios, etc. in these areas. The proposed amendment will have no effect on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. D. Updated definitions and technical corrections throughout Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw These amendments include a number of minor corrections to the current Land Development Regulations, including establishing a definition for the term “rear building line”, several typos, and a map correction to remove an overlay district that had previously been eliminated in the text and correct the legend. (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. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect future land uses or densities, and have no effect on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect planned community facilities. Page 38 of 39 §¨¦89 §¨¦189 §¨¦89 R1-PRDR1-PRD R1-L R1 -L V South Burlington, Vermont ¹ 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Data Disclaimer: Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions Note: Parcel line data is provided for informational purposes only. The City reserves the right to update the Official Zoning Map with new parcel data as it becomes available. Transect Zone 1 Disclaimer: The T1 Transect Zone depicts stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer areas on the Official Zoning Map. Stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer areas are shown for illustrative purposes only. Depicted stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer boundaries are approximate. The diagram should not be construed as showing all stream buffers, wetland, and wetland buffer areas, nor the precise locations of such stream buffers, wetland, or wetland buffer areas. Stream buffer, wetland, and wetland buffer delineation for permitting purposes must be determined in accordance with Article 10 and 12 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, as applicable. Zoning Map - Size Zones \\pwserver\GISdata\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\ZoningMap\2016\ZoningMap_PotentialSizeLimitVersion.mxd Size Limitation 3K Limit 5K Limit 15K Limit 30K Limit No Limit April 26, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 39 of 39   RESOLUTION    A RESOLUTION TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF IN THE F‐35 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY  ACT  LITIGATION, Zbinoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14‐cv‐132    WHEREAS, the United States Air Force has selected Burlington International Airport in South Burlington   for the basing and operation of the F‐35 aircraft; and  WHEREAS, on September 13, 2013 Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, issued a Final  Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and   WHEREAS, the FEIS indicates that as a result of operation of the F‐35 at Burlington International  Airport  some 2,963 households, many of which are located within South Burlington, will be subject to noise  levels that the Air Force acknowledges are incompatible with residential use of homes; and  WHEREAS, while the FEIS evaluated the likelihood that an F‐35 would crash upon takeoff or landing, the  FEIS did not disclose or analyze the severity of the risks to the public, including the risks to South  Burlington residents and emergency response personnel,  that would arise in the event of a crash.    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:   1. That the City of South Burlington continues to support operation of the F‐35 at  Burlington International Airport; and    2. The City of South Burlington and its residents have important interests and concerns  arising from the noise impacts and public safety risks presented by operation of the F‐35 at Burlington  International Airport; and     3. The aforementioned interests and concerns have not been adequately addressed and  considered by the Secretary of the Air Force through the FEIS as required under NEPA; and    4. The City of South Burlington should take necessary steps to intervene and be joined as a  plaintiff in the matter of Zbinoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14‐cv‐132, so that the interests and  concerns of the City of South Burlington and its residents will be heard and considered; and    5. The City of South Burlington shall request that the court issue a declaratory judgment  declaring that the Secretary of the Air Force violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose and evaluate  noise mitigation measures in the FEIS; and    6. The City of South Burlington shall request that the court issue a declaratory judgment  further declaring that the Secretary violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose and evaluate the  public safety risks that may arise from a crash of the F‐35.     Approved this 6th day of June 2016.     SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL    _____________________________    _____________________________  Helen Riehle, Chair      Tim Barritt, Clerk      _____________________________    _____________________________  Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair     Pat Nowak      _____________________________  Thomas Chittenden