Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/12/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 August 2014, at 7:00 P.M., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, B. Benton, G. Calcagni, T. Harrington, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; J. Simson, J. Kochman, R. Greco, M. Emery 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: Item “c,” a brief discussion regarding Form Based Codes, was added to Other Business. 2. Comments & Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission announcements and Staff report: Mr. Conner: Updated members on the wastewater project by responding to 5 questions raised by the Commission: a. What value could be gained from an infiltration study? Mr. Conner said a consultant is looking into this. b. What would be the full build-out demand for Chamberlin, TIF, and Form Based Codes districts. Mr. Conner said they have a first draft of this information from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. c. How much growth can be expected from Colchester? Mr. Conner said a meeting has been set to discuss this. d. What would be the number if a flat growth percentage were used? Mr. Conner said they are trying to “tease out” trends. He will come back with some trend lines. e. Can we get more permitted capacity without a major upgrade? Mr. Conner said this question has been given to the consultant. Announced the Dumont project kickoff with Landworks. The Commission will get a briefing on this at the first September meeting. The Garden St. project has also had its kickoff with Stantec. There will be a public workshop on the evening of Wednesday, September 10th. For both of these projects, the Planning Commission will receive an initial briefing and later be asked to review and consider for approval the Purpose and Need statement following the public workshop. Alternatives will then be developed for the public to weigh in on, and later the City Council will be asked for sign off on a preferred alternative. City Hall improvements are beginning and will include stormwater, a new entry-way, signage and painting. There will soon be an ad in the Other Paper for a group to work on the Underwood property. An RFP is also being issued. As a follow‐up to last year’s project looking at ways to improvement stormwater management and promote low impact development in the city’s Land Development Regulations, staff have been examining options for new cul‐de‐sac standards. Three options have been identified: a cul de sac with an island, a cul de sac without an island, or no cul de sac. Last week these were tested with a field test using Public Work and Fire vehicles. Recommended new standards will be forthcoming to the Commission in the not too distant future. 4. Annual Reorganization Meeting: a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk Mr. Conner presided over the election of a Commission Chair. He opened the floor for nominations. Ms. Quest moved to re-elect the entire slate as it has been. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos presided over the meeting from this point. b. Establishment of regular meeting dates and times: Members agreed to continue the same meeting schedule. Ms. Harrington moved to meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7 p.m. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Review Draft Land Development Regulations Amendments, including City Center, Form Based Code, Low Impact Development Stormwater Standards, and others: a. Review public/committee/staff comments received during comment period Ms. LaRose said there has been a lot of feedback, and some people still want to comment. Some large property owners want to clarify some of their questions with the Commission before commenting. Some comments are very detailed; in order to deal with this, comments will be put on a spreadsheet. Ms. Quest said she has heard that a lot of people just don’t understand it. She suggested giving people a shorter version or pictures or something to make it clearer. Ms. LaRose noted the problem with trying to abridge the document; if you leave out something, people think you’re trying to hide things. Mr. Conner noted they have identified some funds to do a 3-D model to show what things could look like. They hope to have this by early October. Ms. Louisos expressed concern that people could see it and think that is what is going to happen. Ms. Calcagni said people are confused between City Center and Form Based Codes. Ms. Greco asked about the information gathered at the visioning sessions. She said it seems that Form Based Code is a code but the question is what it’s designing for. Mr. Riehle said it evolved into something different from what those meetings revolved about. He added that property owners said some things were not do-able. Ms. Calcagni said Form Based Code dictates what buildings look like. The code doesn’t decide what goes into the buildings. Mr. Simson noted that a number of mid-size cities have Form Based Code. She suggested sampling these to see who they explain it to people. Ms. Kochman said part of the Open Space Committee report included what they liked about how things would be laid out. As far as she knew, that report hasn’t been reconciled with the Form Based Code. Mr. Conner said that for City Center, it has. Ms. Calcagni suggested a “frequently asked questions” sheet rather than summarizing the whole document. Ms. Louisos suggested adding an introduction as to what Form Based Code does and does not do. Ms. LaRose identified some “themes” from the comments, including: sustainability (energy, etc.), transportation, open space, recreation opportunities, tree removal. There is also a question of how PUDs will be treated. The question is how to have more than one building on a lot without a PUD. One person commented that it would be hard if you had to subdivide for every building. Ms. Harrington said it is hard to visualize what a percentage means. She thought pictures could help. Mr. Conner said it is hard to imagine a permutation of what every option could look like. Ms. LaRose noted the concerns of the School District. They hope to be exempt from Form Based Code. Mr. Conner said they are “sort of exempt.” There are some standards that may need to be addressed. Mr. Conner encouraged members to look at buildings built in the recent past (e.g., Trader Joe’s, NEFCU, buildings on Tilley Drive, Eye Laser), anything with more than 20 parking spaces. The problem is the more you require in a parking lot (e.g., islands), the bigger the lot gets. Ms. LaRose said another issue raised concerns non-conformities. At least 99% of already developed properties will be non-conforming, including U-Mall. That raised the question of what “non‐conformity” is and what degree of conformity would be expected. Mr. Connor noted that historically, there are 3 types of non-conformity: use, structure, and lot size. Form Based Code gives some room for existing buildings. The question now is with non-building nonconformities: parking, open space, stormwater ponds, etc. He suggested the possibility of a short-term task force to wrestle with issues such as these. Ms. LaRose identified “blocks” as another issue being raised. How do you apply the block standard to already developed sections of the city? Standards require 700-foot long blocks. Who is required to create the block? Discussion on these and other issues will continue at subsequent meetings. 6. Initial discussion of upcoming projects, discuss strategy for prioritization: Mr. Conner distributed a draft of project/time-lines/committee(s) involved, etc. He identified those items assigned to the Commission and those that are top priorities. He also noted that members of the Form Based Code Committee would like to participate in the prioritization of these items. Ms. Quest felt that wastewater is a #1 priority. Ms. Greco suggested using people from the Interim Zoning Committees. Mr. Conner said this could be combined with others to get a broader view. Ms. Quest noted that Paul Dreher has said that the Comprehensive Plan must precede Form Based Code. Mr. Conner asked members to review the list and make their priorities. 7. Other Business: a. Williston Draft Amendments to Unified Development Bylaw: Mr. Conner noted receipt of the amendments and said staff hasn’t identified anything of concern to South Burlington. Mr. Riehle asked about impact fees. Mr. Conner noted that they have been charged with reviewing impact fees to line up with the CIP. There is also thought of a new “public facilities” impact fee. Mr. Conner noted that state law says you have to create exemptions for certain purposes (e.g., affordable housing, economic development). b. Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner said the hope is to have wastewater information back for the next meeting. He also wants to get the prioritization of projects started. There may also be a review of next year’s CIP. c. Form Based Code Committee: Mr. Riehle raised the question of the “dynamics” of the Form Based Code Committee and the question of what to do with the rest of the city. He suggested the committee might be more of an advisory board to the Commission. He noted the Committee is having trouble getting quorums. Mr. Conner suggested making their mission more specific. Ms. LaRose noted they are a City Council committee and the Council will have to be in the discussion. 8. Minutes of 22 July 2014: It was noted that on p. 1, in the information provided by Ms. Benton, there should be inclusion of “street construction with low curbs.” Ms. Question moved to approve the Minutes of 22 July 2014 as amended. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:48 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM-BASED CODES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES – NO QUORUM 3 JULY 2014 1 Members of the South Burlington Form-Based Code Committee gathered on Thursday, 3 July 2014, at 12:00 p.m. at the South Burlington Municipal offices, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Paul Engels, Michael Mittag, Mike Simoneau, Tim McKenzie, Martin Lalonde, Will Raap Also Participating: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, Heather Tremblay 1. Agenda: additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items Mr. Simoneau noted that there was not a quorum present (7 required). Therefore this is not a formal meeting. Those members present decided to proceed with an informal discussion. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda No comments. 3. Review and provide comment on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations under review by the Planning Commission Mr. Conner stated that the Planning Commission had completed a draft of the City Center FBC and other amendments to the Land Development Regulations and were inviting public comment through August 5th. Mr. McKenzie asked whether the Planning Commission would extend the comment deadline if necessary. Mr. Conner replied that the Commission was seeking to balance timeliness of the review process with giving enough time for review. The Commission had received a similar request during the winter comment period and had accepted feedback later. Mr. McKenzie then asked what was the status of the DRB authority in the regulations. Mr. Conner said that as drafted, the DRB has a role in three categories of topics: subdivisions, new streets, and applications involving natural resource impacts such as wetlands. Mr. Mittag said that he had read about the DRB having authority in municipal / school buildings as well. Mr. Conner said that this was correct, and that Board review of such buildings had been recommended by the FBCC in the November draft. It was unclear in that draft whether this was intended to be the Development Review Board or Design Review Committee, as it was listed as Design Review Board. The Planning Commission had crafted the current language. Mr. Conner added that there were a few other similar examples of DRB authority. Members discussed whether an applicant would have the ability to seek a waiver from the regulations through the DRB. Mr. Conner stated that the draft regulations had certain specific authorities, such as the wetlands example above, but not a blanket authority. Members reviewed the changes between the November 7 draft and the current one. Members discussed whether the DRB should have a wiaver authority or whether it would be appropriate to have the Planning Commission or its designee review LDR amendment requests in a timely manner. Mr. Rapp said two recommendations should be made to the Planning Commission for inclusion in the draft Form Based Code: (1) a statement of intent that the Form based Code is to be a living document and SOUTH BURLINGTON FORM-BASED CODES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES – NO QUORUM 3 JULY 2014 2 regularly reviewed, and (2) a more clear statement of the intent of the role of the DRB in applications, for clarity and to ensure there is no “creep” in review. Mr. Engels asked Mr. Conner for an overview of the changes made to the Street Types and the BES. Mr. Conner said that the Street Types had been refined as the FBC Committee had only seen a very initial draft, but that the basic types were as initially discussed, and then went through the changes to the T3, T4, and T5. Mr. Simoneau reviewed the use restrictions for existing non-conforming buildings in Article 8 and recommended that the restrictions be lifted from “light manufacturing”, “arcades”, and “veterinary hospital.” Mr. McKenzie recommended that the open space percentage requirement for residential uses in T4 and T5 be combined with the non-residential – to have a single % for an entire building. He said this would be simpler for all involved. Mr. Mittag said that he had done some quick calculations and the figures appear to be within 100 square feet either way and supported Mr. McKenzie’s recommendation. Mr. Mittag asked about the term “unit” and said it appeared to have two different meanings – one as a “housing unit” and one as a 1500 square feet. He recommended that be clarified. Ms. Tremblay asked about the status of non-conformities and street types for properties such as the UMall and whether the code would be treating the UMall differently from other, malls in the city. Mr. Conner said that he, City Planner Cathyann LaRose, Ms. Tremblay, and their engineer had met and identified some problematic items with the street type and non-conformities that would need to be addressed. For example, it appears that if one tenant exceeds the threshold requiring a façade improvement, it may require an entire building – including other tenants – to do so. In another case, a single new building such as the Vitamin Shop may require the entire sidewalk & related elements to be upgraded. He questioned whether this would pass a legal nexus test and said he and Ms. LaRose would be looking at solutions. Mr. Conner added that the present draft for elsewhere in the city would have other malls be treated the same as the UMall. 4. Upcoming Meetings Members discussed the possibility of a meeting Thursday, July 17th, to continue review the City Center FBC draft. Mr. Simoneau said that an email would be circulated to consider dates and times. 5. Adjourn As there had been no quorum, there was no formal adjournment. From:Paul Conner on behalf of planning To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: 6/27/14 LDR comments Date:Thursday, August 07, 2014 1:23:34 PM Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Keith Epstein [mailto:keithepstein@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:42 PM To: planning Subject: 6/27/14 LDR comments Here are my comments on the 6/27/14 draft LDRs. Thanks for all the time you've put into this document. It represents an incredible amount of work. I think solar ready should be required. It does not add much cost to a building, and it serves the benefit of allowing a solar system to be installed at a reasonable cost at some point in the future. The cost to make a building solar ready is significantly less than the proposed requirements for landscaping budget. California requires solar ready on all new construction, and that requirement has not stopped development or significantly cut into developers profits. Of course the solar ready requirement could be waived where it does not make sense, such as if there is already a huge building to the South that shades the building. The 90 degree or 10' setback for garages is an aesthetic requirement that likely imposes more costs than solar ready, with many drawbacks including increasing the amount of pavement required (either longer to get to the 10' setback, or wider to allow turning room to get into a 90 degree angle garage). That space could be put to much better use as a flower/vegetable garden, lawn, patio, deck. I think the 90 degree requirement or 10' setback should be eliminated. I think too much control is given to the administrative officer. There are going to be cases that are not defined perfectly in the LDRs, and the DRB can resolve those cases much more fairly and openly than an administrative officer can. What does "encouraged" mean when an application is reviewed by an administrative officer? I interpret it to mean nothing, since there is no give and take like in a DRB review. This is an example of why it is important to have DRB review - so the word "encouraged" has meaning. With an administrative officer looking for compliance, the regulations have to be explicit. The State of VT is developing "stretch energy codes", which municipalities will be able to adopt. They will be stronger than the standard energy codes. I think our LDRs should say that all new buildings shall meet the stretch energy codes that are current at the time of application. We will never meet the State of VT's 90% renewable energy by 2050 if we keep building buildings the way we typically do - just barely meeting the standard energy code. There are several architecture and engineering firms in Vermont who build net zero energy homes and offices regularly. It will become the standard during the lifetime of the City Center buildings, so let's get out in front of the curve and build low energy buildings now. I didn't see any street typologies that require transit facilities. That seems strange, since we want to encourage public transit. There should be transit facilities required in the typologies that make sense, and minimum standards for the transit facilities, like keeping people dry, warm, informed with signage, and comfortable (benches). There should be language that says no stormwater grates in the bike lane/path. Stormwater grates in the bike lane are dangerous, and make the bike lane be functionally about 2 feet smaller because cyclists ride to the left of the grates. The town of Williston has some interesting ideas in their Unified Development Bylaws relating the car and bicycle parking that I think we should consider. See http://www.town.williston.vt.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={26EA4BDF-4482-4523- B051-394E7ACEDA5C}&DE={245182CC-BF06-4BCA-9866-B8AD59423475}chapter 14 for details. They discuss having "compact car only" parking spaces, which allows more cars to fit in a certain area, details on pedestrian access in and around parking lots, design standards for bicycle parking, requirements for long term bicycle parking (secure storage), and requirements for showers/changing areas (for sweaty bike commuters or mid-day excercisers). I especially like the requirements for long term bicycle parking and office showers, as they remove barriers for people to bike to work, thus leaving more car parking for customers. South Burlington bike/pedestrian committee is researching how South Burlington can become recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community by the Leage of American Bicyclists, and these types of regulations will help us achieve that excellent goal. Keith Epstein From:Chris Ford To:planning;Cathyann LaRose Cc:Chris Ford Subject:City Center FBC Input Date:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:56:51 PM Dear Planning Commission and Cathyann LaRose, Thanks for giving residents of South Burlington the opportunity to comment on the draft city center FBC. My thoughts and comments are below. I hope that you continue your work to help create a safe, environmentally-sound, and pedestrian- friendly city center for all residents of South Burlington now, and in the future. Thanks for listening and taking the time to work on these vital and important new regulations. Sincerely, Chris Ford 15 Iby Street Comments/Thoughts: Since I live on Iby Street, the proposed city center FBC is vital to protect the residents and their interests that surround city center. T-3 and T-3+ neighborhoods will have a direct impact on our homes, streets, storm water, traffic, etc. I am still concerned with storm water and would like these regulations to be focused and diligent in managing storm water and protecting our homes and properties from water damage and flooding as city center is developed over time (think storms such as Irene, etc). We (Iby Street residents) met with the S. Burlington Storm water department this past January to express our concerns and need your help enforcing these regulations throughout development of our city center. Given our location directly connected to a proposed T-3 neighborhood, I want to share that I fully support Section 8.07 City Center T-3 and T-3+ BES. Specifically the requirements written for lot coverage of a max of 75% (Section B.2), 1.5 min/ 2.5 max stories (Section B.4a and b), and "when a city center T-3 abuts an existing neighborhood a buffer strip shall be required (section I.4). As expected, I fully support section 8.02, section #13 as written for requiring a buffer strip as outline in the BES. In addition, to help with storm water, I also would like to make sure section 8.05 - open space regulations remain and are enforced. In fact, I would like to see more "green" space incorporated within the entire city center as I feel this helps with water and provides residents a pleasant "downtown" feel. My final thought is that I want to let you know that I am concerned about a proposed development - Blackbay Development on the corner of Market St. and Hinesburg Rd. It seems that they are attempting to get approval for a project that is in conflict with the proposed FBC which would be detrimental to the look and feel our our city center (as visioned by our residents). From what I learned in the proposal to the DRB, I am concerned that the development is not proposed with the FBC buffer zone and open space regulations. I hope that the city will do what's right and make sure this proposed development is in accordance with our soon-to-be new FBC for city center. From:Paul Conner on behalf of planning To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: comments on FBC for city center Date:Thursday, August 07, 2014 1:23:07 PM Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Rosanne05403 mailto:rosanne05403 aol.com Se t: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 12:32 PM To: planning Subject: comments on FBC for city center Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new FBC proposal for city center, I like the idea of FBCs, because it focuses on the way the buildings look, not on the specific use of the structure. However, the verbiage of FBC is very difficult to understand and envision. I can’t tell from the language of FBC what center will look like and whether it will conform to the vision that was clearly stated by the residents during the multiple visioning sessions the city hosted over the past 3-4 years. And since FBCs is all about what things look like, I think graphics are essential for the average resident to properly comment on it. So, I make these comments not really knowing whether the code accomplishes the vision. I attended almost every single visioning session over the past 4 years. I also attended the vast majority of the Planning Commission meetings during which FBC concepts were discussed and residents and business owners articulated their desires. Overwhelmingly, the residents wanted a VERMONT-type city center which included a town green (similar to town greens throughout Vermont)….not just another 'anywhere USA downtown.' Residents talked about a central area for picnicking, children’s play areas, farmer’s market, a small pond, gazebo, and places to sit, read, visit with other, chat or eat. Moreover, they specifically said they did NOT want to compete with Burlington’s Church Street, but rather wanted something unique to South Burlington….a unique SB identity… a sense of place. The consultant at the time offered a number of proposals, one of which was a tower from which one could see the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks. I can’t determine from the FBC language whether any of this is built into the code. It appears it is not. It appears that the resulting city center does not offer the uniqueness that the residents wanted. It also appears that their is no centrally located ’town green.’ The green was to have been the main focus of city center. One of the proposals that was shown by the past consultant, and which residents liked, had municipal buildings (city hall, library, post office, etc) surround the town green. The current FBCs seems to focus on large muti-story commercial buildings; whereas multiple use buildings (residential space above shops) in the downtown area was the vision. Eliminating the need for cars was also desired. The city center was to be a walkable place where people didn’t need cars; where they could live where they worked and shopped and a place where residents wanted to be……not just another shopping area. It was a place for the residents of SB to call their own…..not just another place where out-of-towners come to shop. SB and the area already have these types of places (U-Mall and Taft’s Corners, etc). City Center was not to be another shopping area, but a place for the residents to live, work, shop, and conduct business, recreate, enjoy music and the arts, and meet other South Burlingtonians. Having a “party street” was also one of the visions. I can’t find any language in the FBCs that addresses these desires. So, I would request that graphics or photos of other places which embody the current SB FBC language be included and sent out for citizen comment. (The street typology is helpful, but not sufficient.) It is not realistic to expect the average person to read hundreds of pages of technical language and be able to understand and envision what that will look like on the ground. Two other key inclusions that I would like to see become essentials for any development in city center (and the rest of the city) are clear mandates that going forward we want only sustainable designed projects, and a requirement that new structures would use only renewable energy sources and that all new structures would meet or exceed the highest energy efficiencies. As we face serious climate change issues, we must be responsible to future generations by planning appropriately now. I appreciate and thank all of the FBC committee members and the city staff and the consultants for all of their hard work on this project. They have been immersed in FBC for years, and may not realize that there still needs to be some translation done for the lay-person, who has not been schooled in Form- based code language. Please allow more time for this most important issue. It is not something to be rushed, as this will determine South Burlington’s identity for the foreseeable future. Rosanne Greco South Burlington resident From:Anita & Chris To:planning;Cathyann LaRose Subject:FBC City Center Support Date:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:44:15 PM Hello Planning Commission and Cathyann LaRose, I am writing in support of the 20 ft. Buffer Strip as outlined in the new draft regulations article 8-8. I believe that having this buffer in place to protect existing T-3, abutting neighborhoods will go a long way towards citizens supporting the growth of a denser city center. It provides an essential transition. Presently there is a project being proposed by Black Bay on the corner of Hinesburg and Market St., on the land contiguous to the Iby Street neighbors. This is an area where City Center abuts and existing neighborhood. Water is a huge issue in City Center and has become an issue for Iby Street since development began. Tom DiPietro is aware of all of the issues, as we met in January 2014. So getting back to the Black Bay project. The plan is eliminating mature trees (60-90 ft trees), which would naturally serve as a buffer, and adding pavement to the lot line. This first project will set the tone for that entire eastern end of this project, so I think getting it right from a design, transition and stormwater point of view is critical. Thank you for listening and volunteering your time on these new regulations. Sincerely, Anita Germain 15 Iby Street Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee Comments on Proposed Developments For FBC/Planning Commission June 16, 2014 The Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee has addressed the issues of adequate, consolidated green space in development many times in our meetings over the last few years. We understand that achieving green space and recreation space in new development will only come from tight, enforceable regulation. The Report of the Open Space Committee does address the goals of creating Neighborhood Parks and Special Use Parks. The goals and definitions are clearly articulated in both the main body of the report and the Guidelines. However, we understand that creation of PUD regulations concerning recreation areas in Neighborhood and Special Use Parks was not part of the charge of the Open Space Committee. The By-laws attached to the report do address Application Submittal Requirements for conservation and natural areas, but omit similar language regarding Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We would like to see similar language detailing requirements for active and passive recreation space: Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We would like to see language regarding Application Submittals that would require a developer to adhere to this: 1. From the OSC Draft Report: Page 61: 2. Require the set aside of common, usable open space within new development (10-15% of project area or x SF/Unit) for the use of residents or occupants, to include passive and/or active recreational uses or facilities as allowed amenities that are determined and maintained by a condo or homeowners association. We would like the Form Based Code Committee and the Planning Commission to consider the following. These statements point to a strong commitment to the concepts and goals of creating adequate recreation and green space in development: A. In December 2012 the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee adopted the following Resolution: PROVIDING OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE The Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee of the City of South Burlington believes the city should require all new housing developments to provide outdoor recreation space suitable to the expected occupants of the development. The larger the number of housing units, the larger the recreation space should be. If in the opinion of the Recreation and Parks Department the space to be provided is too small to develop appropriately for recreation use, the parcel should be combined with adjacent development to provide a larger space that is suitable for recreation. The recreation space should be fully accessible to all occupants of the development, should provide amenities consistent with a neighborhood park and should serve the needs of the residents of the area. Approved unanimously by members present on December 11, 2012 Glenn Sproul, Chairman Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee B. From the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 2012 to 2016: Strategy 159. Work with private developers to integrate additional public parks into the recreation system. Strategy 160. Strive to make recreation areas accessible to all residents regardless of physical ability consistent with the proposed use of a recreation parcel and activity. Strategy 162. Strive to provide access to a park or open space area within a one-mile safe walk from each neighborhood in the city, and provide each neighborhood with a small park, mini-park, neighborhood park, community green or meeting area. Strategy 166. Explore the possibility of having the Recreation -Leisure Arts Committee serve as an advisory board to the Development Review Board on potential credits of the recreational impact fees and/or dedication of public parks to the city as a part of development review. C. From the OSC Report: 2. From the Open Space Draft Report Page 57: 3. Amend the city’s land development regulations to require, in association with new subdivisions and development, the set aside of common “usable” or “functional” open space for the use of residents or building occupants (e.g., % total land or lot area, X square feet/unit). This is especially important in association with higher density multi-family and mixed use residential development and for development in urban and other more densely settled areas that lack private or individual yard space. This is also critical to support active outdoor recreation in areas currently underserved by city parks and recreation facilities, as highlighted in the gap analysis. Private or common open space areas that are not intended for public access should be programmed, managed and maintained by an owners or tenants association to reflect changing user needs. 3. From the OSC Draft Report: Page 61: 4. Require the set aside of common, usable open space within new development (10-15% of project area or x SF/Unit) for the use of residents or occupants, to include passive and/or active recreational uses or facilities as allowed amenities that are determined and maintained by a condo or homeowners association. 5. From Attachment A. Open Space Guidelines for Neighborhood Park: Basic unit of park system Intended primarily to serve recreational and social needs of a residential neighborhood or development Public/nonprofit or private/shared ownership Transect Zones: T3,,T4 Varies by population served 2 to 10 Acres Neighborhood Pedestrian Shed: ¼ to ½ mile Designed to support a balance of unstructured passive, active recreational use, as determined with resident input Neighborhood gatherings, events Passive, active recreation Leisure activities Walkways, paths Benches, furniture Lawn areas Play areas, facilities Ball fields Picnic areas, facilities Community gardens 6. From OSC Attachment D. By-Law Amendments: Application Submittals. For land subdivision or development projects that include one or more resources identified under Section 12.04(D), the applicant shall prepare and submit the following information in addition to that required for site plan or subdivision review. An application shall not be considered complete until this information is received. (The OSC By-law Amendments then include a detailed list of requirements regarding natural and conservation issues.) We, the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee, strongly support of language in the OSC By-laws regarding natural and conservation areas. Again, we would like to see similar language detailing requirements for active and passive recreation space: Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We look forward to seeing enforceable regulations incorporated into the Form Based Code and Comprehensive Plan. Jennifer Kochman, R&LA Liaison to OSC Committee Unanimously approved by Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee June 16, 2014 JKK Additions 07/22/2014: I have reviewed the Red Line City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations of June 27, 2014. In reference to the above, two sections interest me: Article 9.06 SEQ, Pages 9-4 to 9-5 speak to requirements for natural areas and recreation space. Page 9-7 to 9-8 Section D. speaks to “Park Design and Development” with great specificity and detail. Therefore, the concept of Neighborhood and Special Use Parks in a neighborhood has been realized in regulation for this subdivision. However, in looking through Article 15, Subdivision and PUD Review, I find no language speaking to requirements for “Neighborhood and Special Use Parks,” although other areas are treated with great specificity. The closest item to parks is the mention of “Paths” in several places. I am suggesting that this should be remedied. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Jessica Louisos, Chair South Burlington Planning Commission Dear Jessica, I am writing on behalf of the Energy Committee to thank the Planning Commission for including language in the LDRs that states that “all buildings are encouraged to be solar ready Roof,” that defines what constitutes a solar ready roof, and that requires project applicants to prepare a ”solar ready roof analysis report” for all new buildings. We endorse these provisions in the draft regulations and recommend that they be adopted. However, we recommend an additional provision designed to ensure that the solar ready roof analysis report is available for consideration during any deliberations of the Development Review Board leading to the authorization permitting building construction. We suggest that it is necessary either to establish clearly defined criteria that would signal when the City expects buildings to be made solar ready or to ensure that the solar ready feasibility analysis is considered when any design options may be negotiated between the builder and the DRB. We recommend the Planning Commission adopt one of two changes in the LDR to accomplish this: That the LDR offer prescriptive criteria (e.g., cost and available solar exposure) that would determine whether each building should be constructed to enable roof mounted solar energy generation, ensuring that the permits have addressed the results of the solar ready feasibility analysis. or That all buildings be subject to review, before they are built, where there can be an opportunity for a city body/administrator to review the feasibility analysis and have a conversation with the developer or builder to actually “encourage” them to make the roof solar ready. We are concerned this might not happen if a developer is subject only to an administrative process that checks just to see if the study was done and submitted. We recommend for this approach that the solar ready feasibility analysis be completed and available to the DRB and the builder for consideration before the DRB provides the authorization necessary to proceed with construction. Recognizing that the proposals we offer may require additional work to be implemented effectively, we offer the Planning Commission our committee’s assistance. Thank you, Don Cummings Chair, South Burlington Energy Committee Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee Comments on Proposed Developments For FBC/Planning Commission June 16, 2014 The Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee has addressed the issues of adequate, consolidated green space in development many times in our meetings over the last few years. We understand that achieving green space and recreation space in new development will only come from tight, enforceable regulation. The Report of the Open Space Committee does address the goals of creating Neighborhood Parks and Special Use Parks. The goals and definitions are clearly articulated in both the main body of the report and the Guidelines. However, we understand that creation of PUD regulations concerning recreation areas in Neighborhood and Special Use Parks was not part of the charge of the Open Space Committee. The By-laws attached to the report do address Application Submittal Requirements for conservation and natural areas, but omit similar language regarding Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We would like to see similar language detailing requirements for active and passive recreation space: Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We would like to see language regarding Application Submittals that would require a developer to adhere to this: 1. From the OSC Draft Report: Page 61: 2. Require the set aside of common, usable open space within new development (10-15% of project area or x SF/Unit) for the use of residents or occupants, to include passive and/or active recreational uses or facilities as allowed amenities that are determined and maintained by a condo or homeowners association. We would like the Form Based Code Committee and the Planning Commission to consider the following. These statements point to a strong commitment to the concepts and goals of creating adequate recreation and green space in development: A. In December 2012 the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee adopted the following Resolution: PROVIDING OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE The Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee of the City of South Burlington believes the city should require all new housing developments to provide outdoor recreation space suitable to the expected occupants of the development. The larger the number of housing units, the larger the recreation space should be. If in the opinion of the Recreation and Parks Department the space to be provided is too small to develop appropriately for recreation use, the parcel should be combined with adjacent development to provide a larger space that is suitable for recreation. The recreation space should be fully accessible to all occupants of the development, should provide amenities consistent with a neighborhood park and should serve the needs of the residents of the area. Approved unanimously by members present on December 11, 2012 Glenn Sproul, Chairman Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee B. From the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 2012 to 2016: Strategy 159. Work with private developers to integrate additional public parks into the recreation system. Strategy 160. Strive to make recreation areas accessible to all residents regardless of physical ability consistent with the proposed use of a recreation parcel and activity. Strategy 162. Strive to provide access to a park or open space area within a one-mile safe walk from each neighborhood in the city, and provide each neighborhood with a small park, mini-park, neighborhood park, community green or meeting area. Strategy 166. Explore the possibility of having the Recreation -Leisure Arts Committee serve as an advisory board to the Development Review Board on potential credits of the recreational impact fees and/or dedication of public parks to the city as a part of development review. C. From the OSC Report: 2. From the Open Space Draft Report Page 57: 3. Amend the city’s land development regulations to require, in association with new subdivisions and development, the set aside of common “usable” or “functional” open space for the use of residents or building occupants (e.g., % total land or lot area, X square feet/unit). This is especially important in association with higher density multi-family and mixed use residential development and for development in urban and other more densely settled areas that lack private or individual yard space. This is also critical to support active outdoor recreation in areas currently underserved by city parks and recreation facilities, as highlighted in the gap analysis. Private or common open space areas that are not intended for public access should be programmed, managed and maintained by an owners or tenants association to reflect changing user needs. 3. From the OSC Draft Report: Page 61: 4. Require the set aside of common, usable open space within new development (10-15% of project area or x SF/Unit) for the use of residents or occupants, to include passive and/or active recreational uses or facilities as allowed amenities that are determined and maintained by a condo or homeowners association. 5. From Attachment A. Open Space Guidelines for Neighborhood Park: Basic unit of park system Intended primarily to serve recreational and social needs of a residential neighborhood or development Public/nonprofit or private/shared ownership Transect Zones: T3,,T4 Varies by population served 2 to 10 Acres Neighborhood Pedestrian Shed: ¼ to ½ mile Designed to support a balance of unstructured passive, active recreational use, as determined with resident input Neighborhood gatherings, events Passive, active recreation Leisure activities Walkways, paths Benches, furniture Lawn areas Play areas, facilities Ball fields Picnic areas, facilities Community gardens 6. From OSC Attachment D. By-Law Amendments: Application Submittals. For land subdivision or development projects that include one or more resources identified under Section 12.04(D), the applicant shall prepare and submit the following information in addition to that required for site plan or subdivision review. An application shall not be considered complete until this information is received. (The OSC By-law Amendments then include a detailed list of requirements regarding natural and conservation issues.) We, the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee, strongly support of language in the OSC By-laws regarding natural and conservation areas. Again, we would like to see similar language detailing requirements for active and passive recreation space: Neighborhood and Special Use Parks. We look forward to seeing enforceable regulations incorporated into the Form Based Code and Comprehensive Plan. Jennifer Kochman, R&LA Liaison to OSC Committee Unanimously approved by Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee June 16, 2014 JKK Additions 07/22/2014: I have reviewed the Red Line City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations of June 27, 2014. In reference to the above, two sections interest me: Article 9.06 SEQ, Pages 9-4 to 9-5 speak to requirements for natural areas and recreation space. Page 9-7 to 9-8 Section D. speaks to “Park Design and Development” with great specificity and detail. Therefore, the concept of Neighborhood and Special Use Parks in a neighborhood has been realized in regulation for this subdivision. However, in looking through Article 15, Subdivision and PUD Review, I find no language speaking to requirements for “Neighborhood and Special Use Parks,” although other areas are treated with great specificity. The closest item to parks is the mention of “Paths” in several places. I am suggesting that this should be remedied. From:Bernard Paquette To:Paul Conner;Cathyann LaRose Subject:comments on SB land development regulations 6/27/2014 draft Date:Tuesday, July 2 , 2014 5:17:42 PM I am looking over parts of the SB land regulation draft changes. Below are some of my comments regarding the document. Page 158. The section pertaining to glazing- is there a requirement that the glazing allow view into the building? Or does glazing include glass that does not allow viewing through it from the outside? Page 139 and 264 (13.06). The landscaping regulations regarding minimum tree and other plantings looks minimal to me. I had hoped for some changes reflecting the following recommendations, Zoning change requiring parking lots w> 28 spaces to have a min. of 15% of the interior be landscaped islands VS what I believe is currently, a 10% requirement. 1b. Require landscaped Islands meet the size the Arborist determines is necessary to reasonably expect the tree(s) planted in it to survive a duration equal to its normal life expectancy. 2. Require a larger % of canopy trees. Trees that can grow to provide large shade providing canopy's. (Filtered shade trees and full shade trees).13.06b states (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. This seems vague (a major tree?) 3. Add or update performance standards for tree maintenance (including addressing severe lower branch pruning for other than the health of the tree) of trees on commercial property. More specific requirements regarding tree maintenance and pruning (preventing aggressive pruning which defeats landscaping objectives).WHAT PREVENTS business from cutting branches off healthy trees such as Anchorage did, thus defeating the part of the purpose of planting trees that would normally grow to be large canopy trees? 4. Add or update tree ordinance goals to measure /evaluate it effectiveness and guiding tree planting and maintenance. Page 296 (14.07).All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).Does this regulate screening on all four sides (two sides,front and back)? And does it regulate that the disposal unit be covered? Pg 296, 381. I see only two mentions of small trash receptacles as public amenities. Neither requires such amenities. Nor do I see any mention of ash receptacles nor recycling or composting receptacle requirements for business and or public park like spaces.Where will the public place trash when they (the public) are outside visiting stores, businesses, parks, parking lots? What requirements do businesses have to maintain a litter free store front year round? Will there be enforcement? Bernie Paquette From:Les and Annie To:planning Subject:Reference to Market Street City Centre Date:Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:34:25 PM Hello, We are residents of # 4 Iby Street and would like to make the following comments on recent developments :- 1. We are disturbed by the current plans to have a parking lot installed right up to our back fence, part of the proposal currently under review, from Blackbay of Shelburne. Not only does this encroach on our privacy, a paltry planned 6' fence will not cut it for us, the plan includes removing our existing vinyl fence and replacing it will footings/retaining wall, which we find unacceptable. I state here for the record that our vinyl fence will stay exactly as it is. 2. With the felling of established 60-80' trees in this area, another of our concerns is where will the water go? Our back yard and basement is under constant threat from flooding, as is our adjacent neighbours properties. We are not convinced that the current plan by Blackbay takes into account any of the surface run-off or subterranean water seepage from their project will be diverted from our property. 3. We are somewhat distressed that this whole project is "sneaking under the wire" of the Form Based Codes, currently under review by the City Council. 4. Some time ago, we presented the City Council with a signed petition, asking for this particular area to be considered for "Green Space", to date we have had no response to this, is there any way to follow this up? There were 120+ signatures on the petition. 5. We look forward to having some input into Dumont Park and its proposed development, though how a contract can be given without knowing what is envolved is a tad mystical to us. If you could explain what the planned outcome is for ingress and flow through the park at the least, this would be beneficial. Many thanks for taking the time to read through our comments. Regards, Les and Annie Parker The Parkers' Les and Annie From:Paul Conner on behalf of planning To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: LDR document Date:Thursday, August 0 , 2014 1:24:06 PM Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Gerry Silverstein mailto:gsilverst gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 1:0 PM To: planning Subject: LDR document eedback has been requested from the Planning ommission on ity enter e oning and the une 2014 version of the SB D . I downloaded the document with the intent of getting an idea of where things stood with ity enter. My feedback the document is quite large, and I found it a challenge to read. As I was specifically interested in where thing stood with ity enter, I was disappointed that some type of synopsis was not presented. I suspect most people who choose to look at the document will be a good bit intimidated at its comple ity and length. My perspective citizens would have been better served with an abridged version of the document (with link to the full document when needed), and an informative summary of where things stood with zoning and the new proposed ity enter erry Silverstein Dubois Drive From:Paul Conner on behalf of planning To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: Comments regarding city center Date:Thursday, August 0 , 2014 1:23:2 PM Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Amy Simone mailto:amyfsimone yahoo.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:28 PM To: planning Subject: Comments regarding city center Dear Planning Commissioners, I appreciate all of your, and your predecessors' work on the city center over the years. It is an amazing opportunity for our city to thoughtfully create a unique city center. Until recently, it seemed that my vision for our city center was aligned with the committee's plan for it. A quaint downtown space with local shops, cafes, the community library, the elementary school, affordable housing, a town green, town offices, etc. The recent proposal to buy Rick Marcotte Central School so that the developer could complete Phase I in which to place "nationally-recognized retailers" was incredibly disappointing. If I wanted to patronize nationally-recognized retailers, I could simply go across the street to the University Mall, or downtown Burlington, or to Williston. Why would I want the same in this beautiful space that is meant to have the feel of a special hometown? In this proposal, Phase II was suggested as a "could be...in the future" when in reality, Phase II is the only part that I want to see there. It would not be very responsible of us to sell the school for less than we would need to build a new one or improve the infrastructure at the other two elementary schools to accommodate the additional students. In my opinion, we need to do our due diligence to ensure that this land is developed properly the first time. Even it that means waiting until we can pay for the development ourselves, rather than being beholden to a developer who probably does not really care if we ever get to Phase II anyhow. The Form Base Codes, while initially a bit confusing, are starting to make sense the more I look at them. I would expect that the zones were created with the best interest of the space and uses in mind. As such, the zones appear to be in the right spots. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and opinions. Best regards, Amy Simone From:Paul Conner on behalf of planning To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: Comments on the City Center Proposal Date:Thursday, August 0 , 2014 1:22:38 PM Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Barbara P. Sirvis mailto:barb.sirvis gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 3:03 PM To: planning Subject: Comments on the City Center Proposal To the Planning Commission: Thank you for providing a period for comment before public hearings. Unfortunately, a family health crisis required me to be out of state for most of the comment period. Not wanting to print a ream of paper, I found it difficult to move between the sections of the document and could not get to the Library to review the document. An Executive Summary of the changes and more descriptors on the maps would have been helpful for those of us who did not have access to the larger diagrams and text. One comment: I’m not yet convinced that Form-Based Codes is a good idea, but that seems to be a decision already made. I have confidence in the current Planning Commission, but as members change, I wonder if there will be adequate flexibility to allow for reasonable development. Will there be an option for appeal, or are the codes only applied within the restricted area? I am hopeful there will be information sessions before the formal hearings and that South Burlington personnel will facilitate those sessions. In the preliminary sessions, I found the South Burlington personnel most approachable and helpful, but the consultants were off-putting and condescending at best and often displayed a total lack of understanding of Vermont culture. (The lead consultant was quite convinced he knew Vermont because his child attended UVM. That, in and of itself, was enough to make clear that he thought he had the answers and was simply going through the paces of the hearings.) All that said, I write with three concerns. The first concern is the size of “T-4” areas. Some adjacent residential areas have the potential to be devalued if the “T-4” area abuts too close. It is difficult at best to discern on the map, but I would ask the Planning Commission to consider some sort of buffer between the larger structures of “T-4” and the adjacent residential areas. The area impacted by the proposal is also the area of the majority of affordable housing in South Burlington. The City Council’s decision to support the F-35 has already affected many homes in this section of our town. I hope this plan will not further affect the adjacent residential areas and some consideration will be given to making sure property values are not negatively affected by this development. A second concern is for the size of the City Center. While the drawings presented at the visioning meetings showed an area that would be “walkable” and create a sense of a friendly community space, recent news reports now give the impression of yet another area with larger “anchor stores.” We have University Mall and downtown Burlington malls, both of which are under-utilized but more than adequate for the population of the Greater Burlington area. My question: is that really the vision for South Burlington? Yes, we want business opportunities, but are we going to remove any sense of residential and community in the entire northern section of South Burlington? The Trader Joe’s development area was nicely done and enhanced an area already focused on business properties. Is there really enough consumer support and need for more large stores? With the change to Williston Road as a “complete street,” the traffic will become even worse than it has already become as a result of that decision. (Note: There is virtually no bicycle traffic in those lanes. Is there any chance we could return to four lanes?) My third concern revolves around the recent proposal that would demolish Rick Marcotte School. Clearly, the School Board and the City Council were blind-sided by this proposal. I, too, was stunned to learn after the fact that demolition of Rick Marcotte School was part of some discussion. It feels like the initial process did not move in good faith. There is no way the consultants could not have known at some relatively-early point this was a potential outcome. They should been honest and included this possibility in the early discussions. For me, it is the biggest roadblock and feels like the public—and maybe the Town personnel—were duped. While only a proposal, the possible $7 million payment for the school will not pay for replacement costs. The taxpayers are generally supportive of the development of the City Center, but adding the cost for a new school was not in the deal. Some will say that Chamberlin School can absorb many of the students, but the City Council nullified that potential with its decision to support the F-35. Chamberlin will be within the boundaries of an area identified as not suitable for residential use. When the City Council reversed a previous decision to oppose the F-35, they put Chamberlin School in jeopardy. There is already an increase in the transfers to Rick Marcotte, and the planes have not yet arrived. Does the potential exist for the northern portion of South Burlington to lose both its elementary schools? I suggest the Planning Commission hold several public information sessions with adequate detail but not reading the “red-line” and thereby engage the South Burlington community to continue in the positive vein of the visioning process. I look forward to the eventual adoption of a true vision for all of South Burlington. Barbara P. Sirvis 24 Arbor Road South Burlington From:cindi stanley To:Cathyann LaRose;planning Subject:City Center and FBC feedback Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:04:15 PM Good morning Planning Commission and Cathyann LaRose, I would like to give you my input regarding City Center and FBC. I have been a resident of Iby Street for the past six years. In that time I have grown to love the uniqueness and beauty of my neighborhood. To be able to live in an area that still has many of the original residents is indeed rare these days. Currently, there is a project being proposed by Black Bay on the corner of Hinesburg and Market St., on the land that adjoins my Iby Street neighbors. This is an area where City Center abuts an existing neighborhood. I am writing in support of the buffer zone as stated in the new draft regulations:(4) WH CIT C T R T-3 AB TS A ISTI G FBC IGHB RH D A B FF R STRIP SHALL B R IR D (S S CTI 18.02(B) (13) Buffer Strip. Where a Building nvelope Standard re uires a Buffer Strip, it shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: (a) A planted buffer not less than twenty (20) feet wide landscaped with dense evergreens and with options for other planting and fencing) Having this buffer zone in place to protect existing T-3 areas that are contiguous to City Center will be very important for citizen support of the project. Also, water is a big issue in our neighborhood. I am one of the lucky few that doesn t have water in their basement. This natural 20 buffer zone will go a long way in preventing this from happening or getting more severe in homes that already have to deal with it on a regular basis.(Tom DiPietro is aware of all of the issues, as we met in January 2014.) The BlackBay project eliminates mature trees, which acts as a natural buffer and would replace these areas with pavement.. a move that will certainly will not help the issue. The first project that is approved will set the stage for development in the entire eastern end of this project. I think getting it right from a design, transition and storm water point of view is critical. Thank you very much for listening to my comments. Sincerely, Cynthia Stanley 22 Iby Street From:ate Stearns To:Cathyann LaRose;planning c:Joe Pierik (jpierik carpionatogroup.com);Dan Hershenson Subject:Comment on draft land use development regulation amendments Date:Tuesday, August 05, 2014 5:41:30 PM Dear Ms. Larose and Members of the Planning Commission: Pursuant to the request for comments on the City’s website, we respectfully submit the following comments on the draft land use development regulation amendments. We note that the proposed amendment to Section 15.02A would not permit the use of Planned Unit Developments in any Transect Zones. It appears, however, that the Transect Zones are in the area of the City where dense, urban development is being encouraged. The inability to use PUDs in these zones would potentially require a developer of a multi-structure project to engage in a substantial subdivision of its property in order to undertake development of any significant scope. This will discourage such projects and make the city core more costly and cumbersome to develop— especially projects on larger lots. The requirement to subdivide for multi-structure projects will also potentially make it more difficult for owners to finance and insure these projects. For example, the due diligence for a lender to lend on one PUD project is substantially less than the due diligence if the same property is divided in multiple legal lots with their own legal descriptions, survey boundaries, party wall agreements, etc. Given the apparent goals of draft amendments to encourage redevelopment of the city core, we suggest a reconsideration of the elimination of PUDs for multi-structure projects in the Transect Zones. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Nathan H. Stearns Hershenson, Carter, Scott and McGee, P.C. P.O. Box 909 Norwich, VT 05055-0909 Phone: (802) 295-2800 Fax: (802) 295-3344 nate@hcsmlaw.com * * * C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y NOTICE * * * IMPORTANT: THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT 802-295-2800. Williston Unified Development Bylaw Amendments 1 | Page Chapters 11, 24, 25, 29, and 31 August 4, 2014 Memorandum TO: Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission City of South Burlington Planning Commission Town of Essex Planning Commission Town of Hinesburg Planning Commission Town of Jericho Planning Commission Town of Richmond Planning Commission Town of Shelburne Planning Commission Town of St. George Planning Commission Village of Essex Junction Planning Commission FROM: Ken Belliveau, AICP, Planning Director DATE: August 4, 2014 SUBJECT: Town of Williston Unified Development Bylaw – to amend the following chapters: Chapter 11 Growth Management, Chapter 24 Outdoor Lighting, Chapter 25 Signs, Chapter 29 Watershed Health, Chapter 31 Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District The Town of Williston is considering making revisions to the portions of its development regulations governing impact fees. The proposed amendments to the Williston Unified Development Bylaw (WDB) will place all of the town’s regulations and requirements for impact fees within the WDB and will replace existing provisions in the town’s Impact Fee Ordinance. The Williston Planning Commission is announcing that it will hold a public hearing to consider the Williston Unified Development Bylaw on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM. The hearing will take place in the Town Planning and Zoning Conference Room on the first floor of the Williston Town Hall located at 7900 Williston Road, Williston, Vermont. Public comment at this hearing is welcomed and encouraged. Attached to this memo is a copy of Planning Commission Report on the Proposed Municipal Bylaw Amendments, as well as a copy of the proposed changes to Chapter 11 Growth Management, Chapter 24 Outdoor Lighting, Chapter 25 Signs, Chapter 29 Watershed Health, and Chapter 31 Agricultural Rural Residential of the town’s Unified Development Bylaw. Additional information can be obtained by contacting Ken Belliveau, Director of Planning at the Williston Planning Office by calling (802) 878-6704, or by email to kbelliveau@willistontown.com . Attachments: Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments WDB Chapters 11, 24, 25, 29 and 31 Williston Unified Development Bylaw Amendments 2 | Page Chapters 11, 24, 25, 29, and 31 August 4, 2014 Town of Williston, Vermont 7900 Williston Road Williston, VT 05495 Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments The Town of Williston, Vermont is proposing changes to the town’s development regulations contained in the Williston Unified Development Bylaw. The proposed revisions to the town’s development regulations include: amending Chapter 36 Industrial Zoning District West to add standards for medical marijuana dispensaries, add a new Chapter 43 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees, add a new Chapter 44 School Impact Fees, and revise Chapter 45 Transportation Impact Fees to the Williston Unified Development Bylaw. This report summarizes the proposed changes to these chapters of the Unified Development Bylaw being considered. This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441 (c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide (:) a) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section §4444 of this title, The proposed bylaw amendments fall into two general categories and propose to amend five chapters of the town’s development regulations. The proposed amendments can be summarized as follows: 1. Chapter 11 Residential Growth Management. The town has had a residential growth management system in use dating back to 1990. Residential growth management is an important component of the town’s efforts to manage the pace of new development to ensure that necessary public infrastructure can keep pace with the needs of new development. The current version was designed for implementation from FY 2006 through FY 2015. The proposed revision would create a mechanism for implementing the town’s residential growth management system from FY 2016 through FY 2025. In addition, some of the proposed changes have been designed to help the town implement the recommendation of the Williston Affordable Housing Task Force. 2. Chapter 24 Outdoor Lighting. The proposed changes further define the limits of the outdoor lighting of building exteriors. The proposed changes are intended to help minimize the unwanted effects of light trespass and reduce levels of unwanted glare. 3. Chapter 25 Signs. The proposed changes clarify which types of temporary signage is allowed. Williston Unified Development Bylaw Amendments 3 | Page Chapters 11, 24, 25, 29, and 31 August 4, 2014 4. Chapter 29 and Chapter 31. The proposed changes to these two bylaw chapters are for the creation of a Lake Iroquois Lakeshore Protection Area which would govern land use development within 250 feet of Lake Iroquois. The proposed changes are intended to bring the town’s development regulations on land adjoining the lake into conformity with the newly adopted Vermont Lake Protection regulations. b) and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: 1. Growth Management. Residential growth management lies at the heart of the town’s overall land use policy for managing the pace of new growth, and directing in which parts of town higher intensity development will occur. Objective 5.2 in the 2011-2016 Comprehensive Plan calls for the continued use of growth management and for the development of growth management system for the years proposed, FY 2016 through FY 2025. The proposed bylaw amendments are also designed to augment the town’s current efforts to encourage the development of additional affordable housing. 2. Outdoor Signs and Lighting. Objective 4.6 2011-2016 Comprehensive Plan calls for careful regulation of outdoor lighting and signage minimize light trespass and protect the night sky. Goal 4.6.1 calls for the town to further clarify the town’s sign regulations. 3. Objective 3.7 Calls for the town to consider the creation of a special overlay district to govern land development on lands in Williston adjacent to Lake Iroquois. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: All of the proposed bylaw amendments are consistent with adopted town policies governing land development in terms of density, form and character. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed changes to the town’s residential growth management systems will aid the town in its efforts to management the pace of new growth in Williston and ensure that the pace of growth does not exceed the town’s ability to provide essential services. The proposed bylaw amendments otherwise are not likely to have any effect on proposals for planned community facilities. Williston Unified Development Bylaw Amendments 4 | Page Chapters 11, 24, 25, 29, and 31 August 4, 2014 Certification of Service Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs National Life Building, 6th Floor Montpelier, VT 05620-0501 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 30 Kimball Avenue, Suite 206 South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Town of Essex Planning Commission 81 Main Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Town of Hinesburg Planning Commission P O Box 133 Hinesburg VT 05461 Town of Jericho Planning Commission P O Box 67 Jericho, VT 05465 Town of Richmond Planning Commission P O Box 285 Richmond, VT 05477 Town of Shelburne Planning Commission P O Box 88 5420 Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Town of St. George Planning Commission 1 Barber Road, St. George, VT 05495 Village of Essex Junction Planning Commission 2 Lincoln St. Essex Junction, VT 05452 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 JULY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Benton, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; L. Michaels, B. Milizia, J. Kochman, P. Clemins, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: Mr. Riehle: Gave members a copy of an article from the Wall Street Journal about people returning from the city to the suburbs. Ms. Benton: Will send member pictures of amenities (e.g., benches surrounded by flowers) that she saw in Niagara Falls, Canada. Ms. Louisos: Was reappointed to the Commission by the City Council last night. Received a lot of good feedback from Council members about the work the Commission is doing. The Council also had a brief discussion about the Saxon Partners proposal. She suggested it might be good to have Gene Beaudoin speak to the Commission. Members agreed. 4. Presentation of Final Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Report: Ms. LaRose said the Committee worked very hard and did a lot of outreach. She felt this would not be a plan that “sits on the shelf.” Mr. Clemins then presented the report. He outlined their challenges as: 1. Creating a balance between development and maintaining open spaces/resources 2. Updating codes/planning in general 3. City Center, reflecting a vision of growth, sustainability, and as a place for all to enjoy open space. 2 Mr. Clemins said the committee was asked to create a “vision” with regard to open space and came up with the vision to “preserve, create and restore open space.” They also cited the importance of both public and private open space and noted that open space can involve both developed and undeveloped land. Goals related to open space include: recreation, agriculture, and stewardship of resources. The committee felt that instead of thinking of open space as simply being undeveloped land, they tried to think of it as functional with different types of open spaces defined by their functions. Types of open space can include: 1. Resource/conservation areas – including water, wetlands, biodiversity, potential scenic views of mountains, Lake Champlain, etc. 2. Urban farms and forest lands – this involves 24% of the city, most of it in the Southeast Quadrant. There are 8 forested areas, ranging in size from 8 to 100 acres 3. Recreation/parks – The committee classified all parks based on their size and description. They looked at future needs based on population. 4. Urban open space – mainly City Center. The committee looked at different types of city greens, and what would be appropriate in T-4 and T-5 zones. They felt that key elements to include in the City Center are recreation paths/pedestrian connections, connected green strips, the Dumont Park wooded area, and tree canopies for walkers. The Committee considered what types of open space were more appropriate in each of the T zones. They also added guidelines for each classification, including amenities one would expect to find. On a broader scale, the Committee created objectives/goals/strategies for inclusion in the city’s Comprehensive Plan and also considered potential by-law amendments. Ms. Kochman said the committee felt that when a development is presented, there should automatically be some land set aside for recreation. She added that the report has no specific recommendations for community/neighborhood parks, and she would like to see that added. Ms. Dopp noted that some developers are thinking about these things before they begin their process of development. Ms. Milizia cited one view area and asked what can be done so that when development occurs, it does not destroy the views. 3 Ms. LaRose noted that the scenic view portion of the report was meant to be incomplete for whatever committee takes it on next. Mr. Riehle cited some approved projects in the city and noted that land is being divided very quickly. The city is also working with developers to say: “we would like some creativity in a project.” 5. Discussion of Potential Future Uses of Land for Old Farm Road with Property owner Larry Michaels of O’Brien Brothers Agency: Mr. Michaels noted they will be submitting plans for Phase I very soon. They will then have a master plan for the rest of the land. Mr. Michaels referred to the recently announced agreement with Fletcher-Allen. There should be information to the state regarding the Certificate of Need in 90 days. That project ties into the O’Brien Brothers project in many ways. Mr. Michaels said it is the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Michaels then showed a map of the area and identified roads, existing developments, and the potential site of 2 buildings being built. They will continue Eldridge to join Kennedy Drive. Old Farm Road would dead end and they would bring in another road down to Kimball Ave. This will avoid a stacking problem on Old Farm Road. If and when Tilley Drive goes through, that will relieve a lot of pressure on the roads. Mr. Michaels showed the area where single family homes would be built and the area for townhouses and apartment buildings. There would also be an area for a park. The wetland area is smaller than first thought, and most of it will be left green. There will be an area for some commercial uses. One area is being considered for small retail uses, like “mom and pop” stores. The plan is to have a lot of underground parking, possibly some deck parking or a parking structure. They still have to deal with stormwater, etc, so there will probably be a lot of changes to what has been shown. The hope is that the existing barn could have some sort of community use. There is also an area for possible gardens. Mr. Michaels indicated a potential area for solar for the houses or the ability for solar. Ms. Milizia said it would be good to set aside an area where people can barbeque since they can’t do this right next to townhouses, etc. 4 Ms. LaRose asked what the developer would like the city to pay special attention to regarding zoning, open space, density, form based codes, etc. Mr. Michaels said they are thinking of a mixture of T-3 and T-4 on the hill and T-4 elsewhere. He suggested using some areas as “pilots” if the city is to go to form based codes city-wide. Mr. Conner added that with a property of this size, it is good to think of what a future PUD or master plan might be. Other specifics could be left till later. Mr. Michaels stressed that form based codes is not the answer to everything. If you want buildings built up to the roads, then you have to take down some great trees. So a regulation may want to be flexible if keep a tree corridor is a goal, for example. 6. Consider Providing Feedback to the Vermont Public Service Board on Definitions for “good cause” and “substantial deference” Pertaining to Telecommunications Facilities: Mr. Conner said this request related to the discussion on siting of telecommunications facilities. State law says the approval process can go through either the local boards or the Public Service Board. Most developers choose the PSB. The law, however, does not define “good cause” and “substantial deference.” Mr. Gagnon said in his opinion, if you have a municipal plan that says a piece of land is to be conserved, the PSB should give weight to that plan. Mr. Conner said the issue is “how much weight.” Mr. Riehle asked if the city can say a plan won’t conflict with the city’s plan. Mr. Conner said they are looking for a definition of “substantial deference.” Mr. Gagnon said it should be whatever is written in the city’s municipal plan. Ms. Benton said she feels they will do whatever they want, and that is why the language is so vague. Ms. LaRose said the recurring theme that comes up is “a burden of proof.” The applicant should make a case to go against a town’s plan. Mr. Gagnon added that “greater good” is in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Conner suggested relating “deference” to the amount of specificity in the town’s plan (e.g., citing “this location” as opposed to a general statement of wanting to maintain rural areas). He also suggested having “good cause” tie into the adopted state-wide priorities. Ms. Louisos moved to authorize staff to respond to the Public Service board before 1 August 2014 relating “substantial deference” to the amount of specificity in the city’s plan and having “good cause” tie into the adopted state-wide priorities. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5 Mr. Conner agreed to run the last draft of the response by Ms. Louisos. 7. Other business: Ms. Louisos noted that she and Mr. Conner appeared on CCTV regarding work on form based codes. They received no “call ins.” 8. Minutes of 8 July 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 8 July 2014 with a corrected name spelling. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk