Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/10/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 JUNE 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 June 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Benton, S. Quest, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; G. Benoit, M. Simoneau, R. Greco, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the Public for Items Not Related to the Agenda: Ms. Greco updated the Commission on Colchester’s use of South Burlington’s Waste Water Treatment Plant. Colchester uses 350,000 gpd via an agreement that runs another 17 years. They are looking toward an agreement to extend that for an unspecified amount of time as they have no other options. Mr. Conner added that there are several entities in Colchester that have their own allocations as well. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: The Open Space Committee voted to approve the Open Space Report. It will come to the Planning Commission at a meeting to be determined. 4. Review Findings from Solar Read Roofs Task Force: Mr. Conner noted that the Task Force had been put together at Planning Commission request. He also noted that the group came to a conclusion very quickly: specifically, that “one size fits all” is a very difficult determination to make. A structural engineer noted that roof trusses come in sizes; when a building is designed, they use the one that meets the needs of the building. To be solar ready might require the next larger size and more cost, or may be at very little cost if there is capacity within a given size needed for a building. One idea that emerged is to have a requirement for applicants to perform an analysis or possibly have a 3rd party analysis. If the analysis says it makes sense, there could be incentives for solar installation. The Task Force was not in favor of a requirement for all buildings to be solar ready and preferred an “incentive.” Mr. Benoit questioned what the incentives might be. Mr. Conner said the group wanted to meet again to discuss that. Mr. Conner noted that part of the discussion was that the science of this is changing so quickly that to require something today might result in something that is outdated very quickly. To require an “analysis” is always in order. One recommendation is to encourage the third party review at different points in the building design process. Ms. Benton said that could begin with street design. Mr. Conner added that it doesn’t make sense to give incentives for something developers will do anyway, and so developing incentives would need to be carefully approached. Members concurred with the Task Force continuing to meet on this issue. 5. Review Revised “red line” draft of Draft Land Development Regulations including: a. Review City Center and City-wide Street Types First Draft: [Click here for Thoroughfare Standards] Mr. Conner noted that Paul Dreher took all Commission comments and those of other committees and individuals plus comments from Public Works, Fire Department, etc. This draft largely incorporates those comments. It adds some street types that are not part of City Center. Ms. Louisos asked about pictures of what streets would look like. Mr. Conner responded that pictures proved more problematic than problem solving. He suggested the possibility of a resource guide in the office. Mr. Conner said a question is how to decide when an existing street needs to be upgraded. Under the draft, such things as sidewalks and/or rec paths, trees, lights, benches and green belt would all have to be done if a site is redeveloped. Things like road widening would have to be decided upon depending on the scale of a particular project. Mr. Riehle reviewed his concerns with certain road types especially rural roads with safety concerns for cyclists and walkers. He suggested a marked lane for those uses. Ms. Calcagni said her question is whether to require crosswalks. Mr. Conner noted that transect zones have a block length maximum. Market Street is proposed to have mid-block crossings. Those were not tackled in these regulations as there needs to be an analysis on a case-by-case basis. Ms. LaRose cited the cost ($26,000) of the signalized intersection for Trader Joe’s. Ms. Benton noted one problem is that you can’t see the lights when you push the traffic crossing buttons. Mr. Riehle asked who will address City Center crosswalks. Mr. Conner said any signalized intersections should have crosswalks. Ms. Benton asked what a “ribbon sidewalk” is. Ms. LaRose said staff is trying to find out the answer to that and will report back. Ms. Louisos suggested there be an indication as to whether trees are required in a center median. Ms. LaRose said that will require the median to be a certain width. She said she will check to see how the trees in the Dorset St. median are doing and look into a standard for this. Ms. Quest asked why Mary Street is shown as a support street that will have commercial traffic. Mr. Conner said it probably won’t change until one owner owns it all. Under the current regulations, single family homes are not allowed; under Form Based codes they will be. Ms. LaRose stressed that what you put into a code is what CAN be there. It says that if there is redevelopment, this or that COULD happen. Mr. Riehle said Mary St. is a logical street to connect to the major City Center streets. Mr. Conner noted that Market Street is its own “street type.” It is not included in the current draft but could be. Ms. Greco asked if there is a “pedestrian only” street in City Center. Ms. LaRose said there is nothing that requires that. Mr. Conner added nothing precludes a street from being closed off during an event. There is also a grid requirement that will create a block pattern which would make it possible in the future to have a pedestrian only street. Members asked whether a wide “mew” could be a pedestrian street. Ms. LaRose said she would contact Mr. Dreher regarding that question. b. Review Revised Open Space “Qualifying Space” Standards: Ms. LaRose noted they are still talking with architects, etc., and haven’t gotten the Commission’s full guidance on some of this. Mr. Conner noted receipt of a new report on “urban tree canopy” which might be a tool to help assess open space credit. Members then had a brief discussion, with slide illustrations, of “parklets” such as Montpelier is doing. Ms. LaRose felt there is some potential for this on oversized streets such as San Remo Drive. Ms. Louisos suggested that 50% of wooded area or enhanced/recreation wetlands/stormwater treatment areas (but not both) could count for open space. Members agreed Mr. Conner noted that he, Mr. Belair and Ms. LaRose took this through a battery of projects and found some issues. They have done some modifications. c. Discuss technical corrections to the Traffic Overlay District: Mr. Conner noted that in the confusion over the Methadone Clinic, uncertainty was created with the map and language. The draft regulations now point to the map. Members were ok with this change. d. Review Proposed Standards for Group Homes and Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing: Mr. Conner said staff worked with the City Attorney on this to make sure all legal requirements are met. A new standard was created: reasonable accommodation to allow people with special needs access to housing. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner said they want to be clear that DRB permits expire at a certain time. They now extend time to start work for 6 months to a year and then use Supreme Court language to determine when a project is considered “started.” Members were OK with this. 6. Other Business: a. Essex Junction Draft Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Conner said that the Village has a draft plan. South Burlington is an abutting municipality, but only via the Winooski River. He had no comments to recommend. b. Shelburne Draft Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Conner the town is warning a public hearing for an amendment that would address telecommunications facilities. c. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner said he is hoping for a formal “thumbs up” on the red line City Center draft for Form Based Codes at the 24 June meeting. That meeting might also include wastewater, if staff is able to prepare the items. 7. Minutes of 20 May 2014: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 20 May 2014 as written. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SOUTH BURLINGTON SOLAR READY ROOFS TASK FORCE TASK FORCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 30 MAY 2014 1 The South Burlington Solar Ready Roofs Task Force held a meeting on Friday, 30 May 2014, at 8:00 a.m., in the Medium Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: S. Swanton (Energy Committee); S. Roy (Wiemann Lamphere Architects); B. Bouchard (Pizzagalli Properties); J. Larkin (Larkin Realty); T. Hardy (Hardy Structural Engineering); J. Askew (LN Consulting); Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Beaudoin; K. Myrick (Peck Electric); P. Foy (Encore Redevelopment) 1. Introductions Mr. Conner welcomed everyone and invited all present to introduce themselves. 2. Review Charge of the Task Force as requested by the Planning Commission: Mr. Conner provided an overview of the charge of the Task Force and a brief summary of the draft Form Based Codes under development for the City Center area. He noted that the Planning Commission is seeking a definition for solar ready roofs, an analysis of potential costs and benefits, options for encouraging, incentivizing, or requiring solar ready roofs, and what types of regulations would be most appropriate for these standards. Mr. Swanson gave a summary of what led the Energy Committee to this point and the recommendation to pursue this topic. 3. Develop a definition for “Solar Ready” Mr. Conner presented two definitions of solar ready; one from the “Solar Ready Building Design Guidelines for the Twin Cities” which discussed three components of solar ready roofs; another broad definition supplied by Solar Simplified. Members found that the Twin Cities definition captured the elements. Mr. Roy asked how “a place on the roof of a building” would be defined; it left a lot of room for interpretation. 4. Discuss and develop estimated costs associated with solar ready roof for new buildings in South Burlington Mr. Roy shared a drawing of a typical roof laid out in three configurations, and the percentages of each that could be used for solar as a result. He said that from his perspective, solar ready and solar should be an incentive. Mr. Bouchard said that the potential for solar will depend on the type of building – wood construction vs. steel, pitched roof vs. flat. With their building on Shelburne Road, they had decided to put solar on the roof in order to meet the LEED standard. 2 Mr. Askew said that loading requirement seems to be getting higher. Mr. Roy said he has worked with 4- 6 pounds per square foot. Mr. Conner said that structural engineer Tim Hardy would be joining the group shortly and suggested the question be posed to him. Mr. Larkin said that he had looked into solar in a number of ways; as people know, they have installed several ground facilities. He said that often the biggest obstacle is that it’s simply not worth going into, citing code issues, planning for wind load, difficulties in getting to scale that makes sense. He said he he’d like to suggest an idea: if someone could do a quick study of a building’s potential during the design process, that would be very helpful. He wasn’t sure of who would pay, but perhaps the city could have a pre-assigned 3rd party reviewer so that the applicant did not have to seek on out. Mr. Beaudoin said that having an independent 3rd party reviewer would be helpful; sometimes, he said, clients have their own building designs. With a third party reviewer, they would be given the opportunity to see and be convinced of improvements that could be made. Mr. Bouchard said that if something could add value to the project, or if incentives could be included, it would be more attractive. Members then discussed the various components of a solar ready roof, including the building’s roof membrane, internal chase, and space for the electrical inverters. Mr. Roy and Mr. Askew said that the biggest challenge, other that the roof loading, would be grouping of rooftop equipment. Mr. Myrick said that the chase and the space for the electrical equipment, while important design considerations, were not major cost drivers. Mr. Hardy joined the meeting and discussed roof loading. He said that for pitched roof, solar typically adds 2-4 pounds per square foot, and that for flat roofs, it adds 5-8 pounds per square foot. What that does is highly dependent on the individual building. Assuming a building has been modelled, it is very easy to make the assessment of the effect. Sometimes this weight adds cost, and sometimes there is no added cost. Roof structures tend to come in sizes, and so depending on how close a building is to its maximum load, solar may or may not be accommodated without adding additional load capacity. Mr. Conner asked what percentage of buildings are modelled. Mr. Bouchard said they model all their building early on. Mr. Hardy said a high percentage do. Mr. Myrick said that one challenge would be in finding off-takers for the electricity produced. 5. Develop options for buildings to be encouraged, incentivized, and/or required to be solar ready and the effects of each 6. Consider in what types of regulations could such standards be included Members discussed what types of encouragements, incentives, or requirements could be included. Mr. Roy said that municipalities can choose to tax or not tax solar installations. Mr. Larkin said that there could perhaps be a reduction in impact fees. Mr. Bouchard said that there could be a density or height bonus. Mr. Conner said that permit fees could also be considered. 3 Members discussed the possibility of a checklist of some kind that an applicant, or a reviewer, could use to assess the potential for a building. If the building has little or no potential, then the box is checked and no further action takes place. If there is potential, then the applicant may pursue further and incentives could be applied. Mr. Swanson said that he liked the idea of a study. He said that assessing a building’s potential was an important priority. He said that the group seemed to be discussing a requirement for a study to be done, to look at solar potential and identify ways in which a design could be improved to allow for greater potential; and then to have incentives to actually install solar. He said he liked that approach and that this could be a recommendation of the Task Force. Other members agreed. A checklist / study could include an analysis of the various components of the definition – the structural loading of the building, roof membrane, where power would be going, the chase and the electrical. Members discussed when in the review process this checklist / review should take place. Mr. Foy suggested perhaps a two-step, or iterative review. Step 1 would be a basic look at the design. If that showed potential, then a more detailed analysis could take place. Members agreed this made sense. Mr. Conner said that what he was hearing was that there was no simply metric of determining, up front, what the cost of solar ready roofs would be. He asked if that was an accurate statement. Members agreed. Mr. Conner then asked whether the concept presented by Mr. Swanson this was the consensus of the group. Members agreed unanimously. Mr. Foy offered to work with Mr. Conner to develop the checklist; his office has used similar tools. 7. Next meeting Mr. Conner asked what the group would like to do next. Mr. Larkin said he would like to meet again to discuss incentives in more detail. Members agreed. In the meantime, Mr. Conner will report out to the Planning Commission. Members asked to have a draft of the concepts for the checklist circulated. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 am. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Memo on draft Street Types, Open Space Qualifying Space, Traffic Overlay technical amendments DATE: June 10th 2014 Planning Commission meeting Below is a memo outline a handful of amendments to the full Red-Line draft of the LDRs, including the City Center Form Based Code. 1. City Center (and City Wide) draft of Street Types Enclosed is a draft of the City Center (and City Wide) Street Types prepared by Paul Dreher’s team. This draft includes a first set of revisions based on initial staff feedback for the City Center street types, and a first look at additional types (at the end) for city- wide types. The document is still a bit of a work in progress, but it’s getting close. Also attached is a mark-up of a City Center map indicating streets which may be assigned types. Staff is working to determine what the place venue would be for these labels – the Zoning Map, and accompanying map, the Official Map. Stay Tuned! Finally, below you’ll see a proposed standard for “modifications” to the street type standards, understanding that the attached dimensions won’t apply in every single case. The “modifications” below are based on a similar tool used by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. At the meeting, we’ll review all of this information and gather feedback for the COMPLETE City Center revisions (hopefully to be presented at the next meeting). 11.05 Modifications A. General. The Development Review Board may specifically authorize modification of the City’s Roadway standards in the Transect Zone Street Typologies. Any such authorization shall be based upon a review of a specific request from the applicant or City which shall consist, at a minimum, of the following information: 2 (1) A statement as to the specific design standard or feature for which a modification is being requested and a discussion of each proposed feature of the project which does not comply with the standards; (2) The significant reason(s) why the cited standard cannot be achieved; (3) Estimated costs to construct to the standard and to the proposed design (if available); (4) The project traffic volumes, including trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and other relevant information; (5) A statement of compatibility with the present and anticipated improvements to adjacent sections; (6) A review of accident data for the site to determine if the types of accidents occurring are or may be related to the proposed feature; (7) A discussion of practical countermeasures that will be employed to reduce the frequency and severity of future accidents; and, (8) A statement of recommended action, including other mitigating features as appropriate. B. Determination. In makings its determination, the DRB shall consider the purpose of the district in which the project is located, the intent of the applicable street typology, and the minimum street standards needed to accommodate the stated design vehicle, and the shall consider recommendations from the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, and Planning & Zoning Department as appropriate. Any modification shall represent the minimum deviation possible from the purpose, intent and minimal design vehicle standards. . 2. Open Space Qualifying standards Enclosed please find a revised chart showing the standards for each proposed “open space” type. Recall that this would work in conjunction with the tables in the Land Development Regulations which state (a) how much total open space is required, (b) whether it can be public / public realm or private, (c) which of these categories are allowed in each T-zone. 3. Technical corrections and Administrative Authority within Traffic Overlay District Last year, it was brought to the city’s attention that the Traffic Overlay District Map, and the related text in the document don’t fully line up. The Traffic Overlay District, as you know, sets caps on the amount of traffic that may be generated by each parcel. For Traffic Overlay Zone 1 & 2, the text of the LDRs points to the Overlay Map to determine which areas apply. For Overlay Zone 3, though, the current text states specific streets which do not match up with the map entirely. In researching the issue, staff is confident that the map was the intended guidance in this case; it is consistent with the policies and practices throughout the City. Staff therefore recommends the following amendment. 3 10.02 Traffic Overlay District … (E)(3) Traffic Overlay Zone 3. Zone 3 shall consist of all lots with access to the balance of Shelburne Road, Williston Road, Dorset Street (north of I-189), Hinesburg Road (between White Street and I-89), Kennedy Drive, and White Street (between Williston Road and Patchen Road) road segments as identified on the Overlay District Map. Zone 3 regulations only apply to parcels with private driveways or culs-de-sac. In addition, staff is recommending an amendment that would give the Zoning Administrator the authority to review and approve traffic calculations city wide, and to review and credits, as appropriate, in the FBC District. Currently these rest with the DRB. This is recommended for two reasons: • First, the requirement for this to go to the DRB has been problematic in several cases because projects that would otherwise be administrative (a change of use, for example), have in some cases had to go before the DRB simply to determine traffic, which is a mathematical calculation. • Second, the City Council recently adopted an amendment to the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance providing the same authority to the Zoning Administrator (for the same type of calculation). This would ensure consistency. Note that staff, at this time, recommends that the potential traffic “credits” for making improvements such as closing burb cuts, etc., be made administrative ONLY within the City Center district; elsewhere, such projects are going to the DRB anyways. CITY O F S O U T H B U R L I N G T O N CITY O F B U R L I N G T O NDRDORSETST SHERR Y R D GARDEN STHINESB U R G R D COTTAGEGROVEAVEWHITE STPATCH E N R D WILLISTONRDPROUTY PKWYPINE STPINETREETERRDEANESTHOPKIN S S T HELEN AV SIMPSON CTSHEPARDLNLILACLNHEATHSTMIDAS DR SUNSET AVWOODLANDPLEXECUTIVEMARY STMARKET STGILBERT STMYERS CT CHARL E S S T IBYSTSPEAR S T ELSOM PKWY BARRETT STHAYDEN PKWY INTERSTATE 89 OBRIEN D R S L O C U M ST SAN RE M O D R EAST TE R R LegendForm Based Code Area (346 acres)Existing Road ParcelsProposed City Center ZoningTransect ZonesT-1 (28 acres)T-3 (8.4 acres)T-3+ (14 acres)T-4 (292 acres)T-5 (16 acres)Park/Civic (15 acres)EP:\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\FormBasedCode\FormBasedCode_Working.mxd exported by:smanley On 4/16/2014City of South BurlingtonPlanning & Zoning - Proposed City Center Zoning0 0.1 0.2 0.30.05MilesApril 16, 2014DDDrDraftDraftfrrrforforccccDisDDiscussiocussssssissisisissssssssssississssssssssssssususussusssssuuuusuususususususussssscunnnsionsionApriStream buffer and wetland areas, listed as T-1, are shown for illustrative purposes only. Depicted stream buffer and wetland boundaries are approximate. The diagram should not be construed as showing all stream buffers and wetland areas, nor the precise locations of such stream buffers and wetland areas. Wetland and stream buffer delineation for permitting purposes must be determined in accordance with Articles 10 and 12 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, as applicable. CommercialBoulevardSupport StreetNeighborhoodStreetSupport StreetSupport StreetCommercialBoulevardSupport StreetSupport StreetNeighborhoodStreet BikeBoulevardNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetNeighborhoodStreetMarket Street Thoroughfare Standards Applicability [Insert section name] provides standards which shall be followed for the construction of new streets and reconstruction of existing streets and is intended to provide a catalog of pre-approved street types. All streets must be constructed with sidewalks, greenbelts, bike facilities, medians, travel lanes, and on-street parking as specified for each street type, unless an alternative is approved by the [insert approving body], as applicable. Thoroughfare Types The cross section is a graphic illustration of a typical street design for the thoroughfare type and is not a specific requirement. The community role and traffic tolerance is the intent and purpose of the type in South Burlington and should be consider throughout the design process. Intended uses and activities are the most likely uses of the street as envisioned by the community. The arrangement from left to right shall be the order in which decisions are weighed between competing uses and activities as they apply to design considerations. The standards table specifies the street design standards that shall be followed in designing or redesigning a thoroughfare. New Streets Where a proposed street needs to be constructed, the street must be constructed in conformance with the applicable thoroughfare standards unless an alternative is approved by [insert approving body]. Existing Streets An existing street cannot be extended or substantially rebuilt, as determined [insert approving body] as applicable, except in conformance with [insert section name]. If an existing street does not need to be substantially rebuilt and the sidewalk and greenbelt shall be updated to meet minimum standards. Street repairs undertaken as part of an annual operating budget are not subject to meeting the street type standards. Design Controls The specified design speed and design vehicle shall be applied as design controls, unless an alternative is approved by the [insert approving body] based on site specific considerations. Target speed shall not be used as a design control per se, but should guide decisions within the given range of potential values based on the selected design speed. Thoroughfare Standards Bikeways Where another plan or ordinance specifies a higher class of bikeway, said document shall supersede the typology. Curb Radii The physical curb radius may be greater than the specified range, if and only if the effective radius remains within the range. For instance, where a bump-out or neck-down extends the curb. Bus Routes When the specified design vehicle is smaller than the transit vehicle on street segments occupied by either operating or planned fixed route transit service, the design vehicle shall be adjusted to match the transit vehicle. However, the design of curb radii should only be altered at corners affected by routine turning movements by the transit vehicle. Wetlands and Conservation Areas Where any street type crosses a wetland or traverses conservation area on both sides of the ROW, the minimum pavement width of that section of the street may be reduced to 18’. Cross Section Graphics The cross sections depicted for each street type do not specify the required cross section for that street type. The cross section graphics depict a typical envisioned street design based on the dimensional standards and other public input. Symbology & Notes Intended Uses & Activities Pedestrians Bicycling Play Personal Vehicle Traffic Truck & Freight Traffic Free or Metered Parking School Bus Traffic Transit Traffic, Boarding, & Alighting Deliveries Outdoor Dining & Cafés Shopping Postal Service Utilities Rubbish & Recycling Notes Relevant to Standards * Standard is not required ** Standard is not required and standard is only permitted on one side of the street † Standard applies only to parallel parking. Dimensional standards contained in Table 13-8 of the LDR shall apply to the design of angled parking. Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Neighborhood Street A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min B (Greenbelt Width) 6’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) see pavement width D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 10’ Max E (Pavement Width) 24’ Min, 30’ Max ‡ F (ROW Width) Target Speed 20 to 25 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle DL-23 (Delivery Vehicle) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb ‡ Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Permitted only as Traffic Control Device or Gateway Min Bicycle Facility Not Required On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel ** Role in Community Neighborhood Streets are the default street type for residential areas and form the basic structure of the local street network. Congestion Tolerance Maintain very low traffic volumes. F C & D E A ABB ‡ Removal of the curb requirement may be administratively granted. If no curb is required then minimum pavement width shall increase by 2’ Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Neighborhood Street - Narrow A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min B (Greenbelt Width) 6’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 10’ Max E (Pavement Width) 20’ Min, 22’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 15 to 20 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Permitted only as Traffic Control Device or Gateway Min Bicycle Facility Not Required On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community Narrow Streets are a special residential street type within the local street network that provides for greater intimacy and ambiance as well as traffic calming because of it’s limited width. It’s application should be targeted to areas where through trips are undesirable or unlikely and where parallel alternative routes are accessible. Congestion Tolerance Prevent motor vehicle traffic besides neighborhood residents. F C & D E A ABB Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Neighborhood Street - Bike Boulevard A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min B (Greenbelt Width) 6’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) 8’ ** D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 10’ Max E (Pavement Width) 28’ Min, 36’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 20 to 25 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Permitted only as Traffic Control Device or Gateway Min Bicycle Facility Bike Lanes, 5’ Min On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Not Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel** Role in Community Bike Boulevards are a special residential street type which is meant to prioritize and to facilitate the movement of bicyclists from neighborhood to neighborhood and from neighborhood to destination. Congestion Tolerance Prevent motor vehicle traffic besides neighborhood residents. F C & D E A ABB Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Lane A (Sidewalk Width) see pavement width B (Greenbelt Width) 8’ Max C (Parking Ln Width) see pavement width D (Travel Ln Width) see pavement width E (Pavement Width) 20’ F (ROW Width) Target Speed 15 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car) # Travel Lanes 1 Lane Sidewalk Type Shared with Pavement Curbing Vertical Faced Curb or Shared Space Curb Radius 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Not Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Not Required On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Not Permitted On-Street Parking Not Specified Role in Community A lane is an extremely narrow residential street, lasting at most a few blocks, sometimes containing a bend. It purpose is to create an intimate residential environment; often where through traffic would be illogical. Congestion Tolerance Prevent motor vehicle traffic besides neighborhood residents. F C & D E B B Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Destination Street A (Sidewalk Width) 12’ Min B (Greenbelt Width) 4’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) 8’ Max † D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 11’ Max E (Pavement Width) 22’ Min, 66’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 15 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle DL-23 (Delivery Vehicle) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Full Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb or Shared Space Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Not permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Permitted only as Traffic Control Device or Gateway Min Bicycle Facility Shared Lane On-St Bike Parking Frequent, Regularly Spaced Racks and Clusters at Intersections Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel or Angled † Role in Community A Destination Street is meant to serve as the front door of a multi-use destination of greater than normal significance to the community. A Destination Street should serve as an intuitive and special place for social gathering, shopping, dining, entertainment, and events that may or may not require the street to be closed temporarily to motor vehicle traffic. Traffic should naturally move slowly due to a high density of pedestrians and activities. Congestion Tolerance Gridlock is acceptable at peak periods. F C E A ABB CDD Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Support Street A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min, 16’ Max B (Greenbelt Width) 4’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) 8’ Max † D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 36’ Min, 66’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 15 to 20 mph Design Speed 30 mph Design Vehicle SU-30 (Single Unit Truck) # Travel Lanes 1 or 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Full Sidewalk or Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted Median Permitted only as Refuge Island Min Bicycle Facility Shared Lane On-St Bike Parking Frequent, Regularly Spaced Racks Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel or Angled † Role in Community Support Streets are side streets parallel or perpendicular from primary thoroughfares with higher levels of activity (Destination Streets, Commercial Streets, Avenues, or Commercial Boulevards). Support Streets allow for a harmonious transition from high activity along the primary thoroughfare into the surrounding land use context. Support Streets provide space for deliveries and additional on- street parking, especially where those uses may be constrained on the primary thoroughfare. Congestion Tolerance Significant delay is acceptable at peak periods. F C E A ABB CDD Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Mew A (Sidewalk Width) N/A B (Greenbelt Width) N/A C (Parking Ln Width) N/A D (Travel Ln Width) N/A E (Pavement Width) 8’ Min, 24’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed N/A Design Speed N/A Design Vehicle Pedestrian # Travel Lanes N/A Sidewalk Type N/A Curbing No Curb Curb Radius N/A One-Way Traffic N/A Center/LeftTurn Ln N/A Median N/A Min Bicycle Facility Location and Directional Markings* On-St Bike Parking Regularly Spaced Racks Transit Facilities N/A On-Street Parking N/A Role in Community Mews are narrow pedestrian right of ways that cut through blocks in residential and/or commercial areas. Mews allow for pedestrian shortcuts, add additional network permeability, provide access to businesses and dwellings, and/or provide secondary or rear entrances. Mews may include landscaping, seating, and other amenities, as such, a mews may feel more like a public square or park. Congestion Tolerance Prohibit motor vehicles. F E Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Path A (Sidewalk Width) N/A B (Greenbelt Width) N/A C (Parking Ln Width) N/A D (Travel Ln Width) N/A E (Pavement Width) 10’ Min, 14’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed N/A Design Speed N/A Design Vehicle Bicycle # Travel Lanes N/A Sidewalk Type N/A Curbing No Curb Curb Radius N/A One-Way Traffic N/A Center/LeftTurn Ln N/A Median N/A Min Bicycle Facility Location and Directional Markings* On-St Bike Parking N/A Transit Facilities N/A On-Street Parking N/A Role in Community Paths are right of ways reserved exclusively for non motorized users (pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, runners, etc). Paths serve primarily as recreational corridors, but can serve as transportation corridors when designed to connect conveniently to residential, civic, commercial, and/or industrial land uses. Congestion Tolerance Prohibit motor vehicles. F E Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Alley A (Sidewalk Width) N/A B (Greenbelt Width) N/A C (Parking Ln Width) N/A D (Travel Ln Width) N/A E (Pavement Width) 16’ F (ROW Width) Target Speed 10 mph Design Speed N/A Design Vehicle DL-23 (Delivery Vehicle) # Travel Lanes 1 Lane Sidewalk Type N/A Curbing No Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median N/A Min Bicycle Facility Not Required On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Not Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community Alleys provide rear access to residential and commercial properties and a space for parking, utilities, sanitation, and other uses that might otherwise degrade the public realm if located before the frontage. Congestion Tolerance Prevent motor vehicle traffic besides for rear access. F E Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Commercial Street A (Sidewalk Width) 10’ Min, 16’ Max B (Greenbelt Width) 4’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) 8’ Max † D (Travel Ln Width) 10’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 33’ Min, 80’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 20 to 30 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle SU-30 (Single Unit Truck) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Full Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted Median Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Shared Lane or Bike Lane On-St Bike Parking Frequent, Regularly Spaced Racks Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel or Angled † Role in Community Commercial Streets are thoroughfares of moderate vehicular capacity at low speed. Located outside of the core of City Center, Commercial Streets provide neighborhood commercial services and are lined with businesses such as restaurants, retail, services, and some offices. This thoroughfare type is sometimes equipped with a landscaped median and should be is designed to balance the needs of vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. Congestion Tolerance Significant delay is acceptable at peak periods. F C E A ABB CDD Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Avenue A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min, 10’ Max B (Greenbelt Width) 6’ Min, 12’ Max C (Parking Ln Width) 8’ Max* D (Travel Ln Width) 10’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 36’ Min, 80’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 25 to 30 mph Design Speed 30 mph Design Vehicle SU-30 (Single Unit Truck) # Travel Lanes 2 to 4 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 10’ Min, 20’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted Median Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Bike Lane or Cycletrack On-St Bike Parking Intermittent Racks Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel* Role in Community Avenues are major thoroughfares meant to provide expedient connections between neighborhoods, commercial areas, and regional destinations. This thoroughfare should be designed to safely and conveniently facilitate medium and longer distance trips for drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, while also serving as aesthetically pleasing gateways for the community. It is recommended that one of the sidewalks be a 10’ mixed use path. Congestion Tolerance Minor to moderate delay is acceptable at peak periods. F E A ABB D D Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Commercial Boulevard A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min, 20’ Max B (Greenbelt Width) 8’ Min, 16’ Max C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) 11’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 36’ Min, 80’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 30 mph Design Speed 35 mph Design Vehicle WB-50 (Semi-trailer) # Travel Lanes 2 to 6 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 15’ Min, 25’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted only within medians Median Required Min Bicycle Facility Buffered Bike Lane or Cycletrack On-St Bike Parking Intermittent Racks Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community A commercial boulevard is a major thoroughfare meant to provide access to principal commercial concentrations and other predominantly automobile orientated land uses. While Commercial Boulevards serve as conduits for through traffic and as the origin and destination of many motor vehicle trips, they also provide safe and enjoyable accommodations for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips. Congestion Tolerance Moderate delay is acceptable at peak periods, considerable ingress and egress is expected from adjacent land uses F E A ABB DDDD Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Rural Highway A B F D E A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min* B (Greenbelt Width) 5’ Min* C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) 11’ Min, 13’ Max E (Pavement Width) 22’ Min F (ROW Width) Target Speed 30 to 40 mph Design Speed 30 to 45 mph Design Vehicle WB-50 (Semi-trailer) # Travel Lanes 2 to 4 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk* Curbing Not Specified Curb Radius 15’ Min, 30’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted Median Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Marked Shoulders or Sharrows On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community A Rural Highway is a major thoroughfare providing regional mobility at the edges of developed areas. As infill comes to the abutting parcels, the highway should transition into an appropriate urban street type. Congestion Tolerance Minor delay is acceptable at peak periods. D Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Rural Connector A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min* B (Greenbelt Width) 5’ Min* C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) 11’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 22’ Min F (ROW Width) Target Speed 30 to 40 mph Design Speed 30 to 45 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk* Curbing Not Specified Curb Radius 15’ Min, 30’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Marked Shoulders or Sharrows On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community A Rural Connector is a street providing additional connectivity and access to the swaths of land between the few major thoroughfares crossing rural areas. Congestion Tolerance Moderate delay is acceptable at peak periods. A B F D E D Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Rural Drive A (Sidewalk Width) N/A B (Greenbelt Width) N/A C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) N/A E (Pavement Width) 16’ Min, 22’ Max F (ROW Width) Target Speed 20 to 30 mph Design Speed 20 to 30 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car) # Travel Lanes 1 or 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk* Curbing No Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Not Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Not Required On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Not Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community A Rural Drive is a bucolic residential road providing local access or routes for scenic recreational cycling. Rural Drives can be either paved or unpaved as appropriate. Congestion Tolerance Prevent motor vehicle traffic besides neighborhood residents or recreational cyclists. F D E D Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration Industrial Access Road A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min B (Greenbelt Width) 5’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) 11’ Min, 13’ Max E (Pavement Width) 22’ Min F (ROW Width) Target Speed 20 to 25 mph Design Speed 25 to 30 mph Design Vehicle WB-50 (Semi-trailer) # Travel Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Ribbon Sidewalk Curbing Not Specified Curb Radius 15’ Min, 30’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted Median Permitted Min Bicycle Facility Marked Shoulders or Sharrows On-St Bike Parking Not Required Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Role in Community An Industrial Access Road is a road providing access to industrial sites which facilitates the movement of goods, but also provides a safe and comfortable route for employees and customers regardless of travel mode. Congestion Tolerance Minor to moderate delay is acceptable at peak periods, considerable ingress and egress and truck traffic is expected. A B F D E D AB Plaza/Square Green Pocket/Mini Park Playground Outdoor Café/ Restaurant SeatingSun Terrace Snippet Indoor Park/Atrium Courtyard Wooded Area Rain Garden Mew Enhanced or Recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment AreaDescription Primarily hard-surface space. Informal public, civic space or common/shared private space for residential use or campus-style development.Small open area tucked between buidlings on a separate lot or portion of a lot.Programmed space and/or structure that serves the recreational needs of children in the immediate vicinity.An open-air seating area provided by a restaurant located on the subject or adjoining property, where restaurant patrons can eat or drinkAccessible and open area on upper story with seating and gathering amenities. Small, intimate sunny sitting space attractive and welcoming to those in immediate vicinity or passing by. Interior open space where at least one wall facing the street consists entirely of glass. Common Open Space area on a portion of a lot. Naturally occuring area with predominance of canopy trees.Typically a planted depression or a hole that allows rainwater runoff from impervious urban areas,Narrow pedestrian right of ways that cut through blocks in residential and/or commercial areas. An existing wetland or new stormwater treatment area which offers public amenities that exceed those minimimally necessary for water resource management. Size Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. 0.5-2 acres 2,000-20,000 sq. ft. Minimum 1,000 sq.ft. Minimum 100 sq. ft. 500-3,000 sq.ft; shall not count towards meeting more than 50% of open space requirement.Maximum of 2,000 sq. ft.Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft. Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to be counted against open space requirement cannot exceed twice the area of the glass wall projected onto the floor plane. 5,000-20,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. minimum; No maximum size but shall not count towards meeting more than 50% of open space requirements.No minimum or maximum. 8' minimum width; 24' maximum width.No minimum or maximum size but shall not count towards meeting more than 50% of open space requirements.Location & Access Outdoors and within Public Realm. High Visibility from public rights of way. Accessible from a public street at grade or 3' above or below street level connected to street with wide, shallow stairs.For residential: Is accessible to all tenants via pedestrian walkway. For campus installation: Is accessible from a public right-of-way via direct walkway; Access from several locations encouraged.Fronts on and is accessed from a public right-of-way. Pedestrian accessible. Accessible from Public Right-of-Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. Highly visible, directly adjacent to public right of way. See additional public realm standards below.Second floor or above. Encourage location in places which have spectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors. For T5 Non-Residential, must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways and elevators. Accessible from public streets.Building interior adjacent to sidewalk or public open space. Direct access from street level. Provide several entrances to make the space availble and inviting to the general public. Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three sides (outer) or four sides (inner)Must be accessible, at minimum, by residents, tenants, or customers of site. Must be onsite. Offsite areas may not count towards open space requirement for areas allowing off-site transfers of required open space.The garden should be positioned near a runoff source like a downspout, driveway or sump pump to capture rainwater runoff and stop the water from reaching the sewer system.No vehicular traffic. Must connect two public streets. Storefronts and restaurants are highly encouraged to access the mew. Must be visible to public or teants and users of building. Direct pedestrian access from adjacent public street type. Seating*, Tables, Etc. One seating space for each 150 sq.ft. of plaza area.Provide formal and informal seating, on sculptured lawn. Moveable chairs desirable. Four seating spaces per quarter acre, rounding up. One seating space for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. Provide formal and informal seating. Seating material shall be of moderate to high quality in order to count café space towards meeting open space requirements. Resin seating shall be specifically excluded from counting towards open space allocation.One seating space for every 25 sq.ft. of terrace area. Functional for sitting and viewing; seating can be ledges, stairs, benches, chairs. Provide one seating space for every 100 sq.ft. of floor area, one table for every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At least one half of seating to consist of movable chairs. One seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a minimum of 3Light enhancement expected. Must include some improvements from a palette including cleared paths or benches.Adjacent benches can be counted as part of the required open space. One seating space for each 150 sq.ft.If functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, benches,and/or stairs.Landscaping, Design-Landscape is secondary to architectural elements. Use trees to strengthen spatial definition. Shall include attractive paving material or pattern to create unique space. Encouraged use of lush, dense plant material. Shall incorporate art, sculpture and/or water feature. Provide lush landscape setting with predominantly lawn surfaces and planting such as: trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers. Turf and landscape plantings to promote shade over at least 25% of area; Appropriate ground material- rubber or woodchips. Plantings for atriculation of space encouraged. Adjacent grassed and fenced area for tot lot may count towards meeting open space requirement. For optional separated seating areas, use planting boxes, open fences of less than 3 feet in height, or decorative and moveable bollards with decorative chain connectors. Terrace may take one of the following forms: complex architectural setting which may include art works; flower garden; space with trees and other planting. Planted roofs are permitted provided area is also a functional seating space.Surface will predominantly be hard pavement. Add planting where appropriate. Shade trees to be kept minimal as primary purpose is to serve as bright and sunny.Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material. Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. If paved, area shall be ammended throughout with substantial planted areas or large planters of trees and lush greenery. If grassed, area should be articulated at permiter with lush greenery.Majority of area must be covered with canopy trees. Light enhancement expected. May include cleared paths, benches, or other amenities. Deep rooted native plants and grasses.If paved, area shall provide trees at no more than 30 foot intervals. If grassed, area should be accented with intermittent trees or public art. LID techniques; no fencing permitted.Commerical Services, Food 20% of space may be used for restaurant/cafe seating, taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. Not permitted Not permitted May serve as seating area for adjacent restaurant/food service, or be space provided for those bringing their own meals.Dependent on Transect, may possibly be used up to 100% for commercial food services. See Table 8-1.Not permitted 30% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted Not permitted. Not permitted. 40% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted. Sunlight and Wind Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Shelter from wind. No requirements Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Sunlight encouraged to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. No requirements Sunlight to sitting areas for most of day.No requirements except as noted for street façade to be wall of glass. Encouraged to be south-facing.Sunlight to sitting areas for most of day.No standards. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Sunlight to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. Shelter from wind. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Other Shall include a play structure of at least XXXXXXXSee LID language for additional standards. *Seating dimensions are as follows:Height: 12" to 36"; ideally 17" Depth:" 14" one-sided; 30-36" double-sided Width: " 30" of linear seating are counted as one seatAppendix F - GUIDELINES FOR OPEN SPACE in CITY CENTER00 sq. ft.500-3,000 sq.ft; shall not counttowards meeting more than 50%of open space requirement.Maximum of 2,ft.le, directly adjacent ght of way. See public realm below.Second floor or above. Encourage location in placeswhich have spectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors. For T5 Non-Residential, must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways and elevators.Accessible fromstreets.aterial shall be of o high quality inunt café space eeting open space nts. Resin seatingecifically excluded ng towards opencation.One seating space for every 25 sq.ft. of terrace area. Functional for sand viewing; secan be ledges,benches, chairal separated seating planting boxes, s of less than 3 feetr decorative and bollards with chain connectors. Terrace may take one of the following forms: complex architectural setting which may include art works; flower garden;space with trees and other planting. Planted roofs arepermitted provided area is also a functional seating space.Surface willpredominantly pavement. Addplanting where appropriate. Shtrees to be kepminimal as primpurpose is to sbright and sunnas seating area for staurant/food be space providedringing their ownDependent on Transect, may possibly be used up to 100% for commercial food services. See Table 8-1.Not permitted30% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up nomore than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permittedNot permitted.Not permittecouraged to most of ed area at lunchtime. No requirementsSunlight to sitting areas for most of day.No requirements except as noted for street façade to be wall of glass. Encouraged to be south-facing.Sunlight to sitting areas for most of day.No standards. Appropriateplant specieselection. See LID lanadditional sturban areas,m or should near ace like a drivewamp to nwater stop thereachingystem.enches cas part d open d nativegrassesd000 sq. Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft.Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to be counted against open space requirement cannot exceed twice the area of theglass wall projected onto thefloor plane.5,000-20,000 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft. minimum; No maximum size but shall not count towards meetingmore than 50% of openspace requirements.No minimummaximum. m publicBuilding interior adjacent to sidewalk or public open space. Direct access from street level. Provide several entrances to make the space availble and inviting to the general public. Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three sides (outer)or four sides (inner)Must be accessible, at minimum, by residents,tenants, or customers of site. Must be onsite. Offsiteareas may not count towards open space requirement for areasallowing off-site transfers of required open space.The gardenpositioned nrunoff sourcdownspout,or sump pucapture rainrunoff and swater from rthe sewer ssitting eating stairs,rs. Provide one seating space for every 100 sq.ft. of floor area, one table for every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At least one half of seating to consist of movable chairs. One seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a minimum of 3Light enhancementexpected. Must includesome improvements froma palette including cleared paths or benches.Adjacent bebe counted the requiredspace. be harddhadept maryerve as ny.Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material.Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. If paved, area shall be ammended throughout with substantial planted areas or large planters of trees and lush greenery. If grassed, area should be articulated at permiter with lush greenery.Majority of area must be covered with canopy trees. Light enhancementexpected. May include cleared paths, benches, or other amenities.Deep rootedplants and g30% f b d fNt ittdNt ittdNt itt 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Group Homes, Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing, and clarifications to permit approval expiry following “Red-Line” draft DATE: May 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting This memo addresses a handful of amendments to the “red-line” draft of the Draft Land Development Regulations presented to the Planning Commission on April 22nd related to Group Homes, Reasonable Access to Housing, and permit approval expiry. A. Group Homes & Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing The “red-line” draft of the LDRs included some potential clarifications to group home standards in the city. At the meeting, staff requested that we take a second look at the draft in order to more comprehensively address the issue and ensure compliance with both State and Federal law governing such uses and other, related issues. Commissioners agreed. Briefly, the amendment accomplishes two objectives:  It would match the City’s Land Development Regulations with the Statutory enabling laws in 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 in terms of residential care and group homes being considered single family homes under certain circumstances. The current LDRs largely meet this, but this amendment would match the wording exactly.  It would replace a number of unclear categories of housing within the current regulations – such as group homes that are not covered under 24 VSA Chapter 117, community residences and shelters, and others – with a new standard for “reasonable accommodation to ensure reasonable access to housing.” This new standard would highlight and provide a process for the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board (as applicable) to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to housing in accordance with Federal and State Fair Housing laws. B. Approvals and Permit Expiry It was recently brought to staff’s attention that the current Land Development Regulations include standards regarding the expiry of approvals for zoning permits, site plans, conditional uses, variances, etc. in two separate places within the Regulations. These standards are in part redundant and in part conflicting. 2 The issues are:  when DRB / Zoning Administrator (ZA) approvals for items such as site plans, variances, conditional uses, miscellaneous applications, and design review applications expire; and,  when zoning permit approvals expire. The current regulations generally state that the first list (approvals) expire six months after the DRB or ZA has issued the approval unless (a) a zoning permit has been applied for and issued for construction, (b) a one-time extension has been sought and approved by the DRB or (c) the DRB approved a longer time frame to obtain the zoning permit for a multi-phase project. Similarly, zoning permits for any project, expire after six months unless the applicant can provide objective evidence of the intent to pursue the project. The existence of standards in two places, however, muddy this and include some unclear provisions for how many extensions can be granted, and whether an applicant can provide evidence of an intent to pursue a project as a way to extend the DRB approval of a project. Staff has reviewed this and proposes a consolidated standard that would state the following: 1. DRB / ZA approvals expire six months after the DRB or ZA has issued the approval unless a. a zoning permit has been applied for and issued for construction; b. a one-time extension has been sought and approved by the DRB / ZA; or, c. the DRB / ZA approved a longer time frame to obtain the zoning permit for a multi-phase project. 2. Zoning Permits expire after one (1) year unless, viewed as a whole, the work, time, and expenditures invested in the project demonstrate a continued good-faith intent to presently commence the permitted project. How does this differ from the current standard? The first part is essentially the same as the current practice, but adds an authority for the Zoning Administrator to grant the extensions, and clarifying that there is no ability to show an “intent to pursue” at this stage. The approval will expire if none of the three options above is met. As noted, this has largely been the practice and the lack of clarity poses legal muddy waters for the city today. The second part is also largely the same, but adds six months to get the project started – up to a year now - (this can often be a challenge when permits are issued in the fall) and also replaces the current standard for “objective evidence” with the wording above that has been established by the Vermont Supreme Court as the test. C. The Draft Language for the amendments above The amendments are embedded within the full draft of the Land Development Regulations. Staff proposes to provide the full text with the complete next “red-line” draft to save on the complexity of seeing amendments in pieces but can also share it at the Commission meeting from the working document if Commissioners wish. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 20 MAY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 20 May 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Benton, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, R. Greco, T. McKenzie 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos: noted receipt of a letter from Tim McKenzie regarding items on the Agenda. Ms. Quest: attended the Energy Fair. South Burlington won the most points in Vermont. Ms. LaRose: The Open Space Committee voted to approve the first draft of their report which will be available in a few days and will come to the Planning Commission soon after some edits are made. 4. Discussion and consideration of providing feedback on concepts for City Committee structure under consideration by City Council: Mr. Riehle said efficiency in government makes sense and it is important to consider staff time, but he was concerned the three “mega-committees” won’t have as much input. He would ask that the Council structure committee so as to get as much diversity as possible. Mr. Gagnon understood where staff is headed. He felt the ability for the system to work depends on who is involved in the committees. He also liked the idea of more citizen-related committees that aren’t “officially recognized.” Ms. Louisos noted the current system has worked well for the Planning Commission which can give a project to a committee and have it worked on. Mr. Gagnon said that can still happen. Ms. LaRose explained that it took 2-1/2 years to do a Tree Ordinance3 and years to do other projects. The Market Street “shopping around” took 5 months. If committees had gotten together in the first place, it could have been a better process. She felt it is important to start 2 prioritizing. People with different interests need to be brought together at the beginning of a discussion. Mr. Riehle suggested the following possible language for a response to the City Council: As we have found the work of the various 12 citizens’ committees an important resource to our work, and we understand the need for efficiency and staff time, we encourage the City Council to find a happy balance between efficiency and the need for diverse citizen input which we think is critical. Ms. Quest moved that Mr. Riehle’s language be sent to the City Council as an expression of the opinion of the Planning Commission. Ms. Calcagni seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continue Review of “Redline” Draft Land Development Regulations, including: a. Discuss potential addition: self-storage units in the Commercial-Industrial District outside of the Transit Overlay District b. Draft Open Space standards for City Center FBC c. Modifications to the “red-line” draft provided to the Commission in April related to permit and DRB approval expirations, group homes and reasonable access to housing d. Other elements of the “red-line” draft provided to the Commission in April, including the City Center Form Based Code, Stormwater Low Impact Development Techniques, City Center Inclusionary Zoning standards, and others e. Determine public outreach schedule for draft amendments Self-storage potential addition: Ms. Louisos said Paul Dreher didn’t see this as a problem. She also noted that Mr. McKenzie suggested adding some land near the Airport for self-storage. Mr. Gagnon noted the caution with that because of transit corridor issues. Mr. Riehle moved to accept staff’s proposal for self-storage units in the Commercial-Industrial District outside of the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Open Space Standards: Mr. Conner outlined three things to focus on: a. Language regarding how a small property or T-5 property, who could not meet the open space requirement, could buy into a system 3 b. Detailed list: specifies what it means to be a “plaza,” “community garden,” etc. c. Question of how that space should be used (what is public? Private? Is “common” the same as “public”?) Ms. LaRose noted that the Open Space Committee recognized multiple kinds of open space, not necessarily all “green” space. The question is when a space meets the standard and how to code that. The Committee looked at spaces; all members were not agreement as to what was “open space.” Is Trader Joe’s plaza open space? Is the green roof on the Airport open space? What about Healthy Living’s eating area which is enclosed in the summer? What about balconies that contribute to open space by having people sitting on them. Ms. LaRose then reviewed some of the thoughts of the Open Space report: “Public Realm” – can be publicly or privately owned; must be be publicly accessible and/ or visually accessible “Private Realm” – for occupants only (e.g., the dog park at the Farrell development) “Publicly Accessible” – Trader Joe’s Plaza, which is privately owned but with public access. Mr. Gagnon raised the question of “native land” which is undevelopable. If you have a property with a large wetland, if you leave that alone, that’s open space. Mr. Conner read from the regulations which indicate that you don’t count a wetland unless it is upgraded as a public amenity or a wildlife amenity. Ms. Louisos noted the list of what is open space. She felt if it isn’t on the list, it isn’t open space. Mr. Riehle said he didn’t see Healthy Living as open space. Mr. Conner said that is private. If the wall were 3 feet instead of as high as it is, it would visually add to the street. Mr. McKenzie said he didn’t see why you’d exclude a wetland or the wetland buffer. He asked about private lawn space that is open to residents of a building. Mr. Gagnon felt there should be credit for a natural area. Mr. McKenzie said there should also be full credit for a setback from that area. Ms. LaRose said there is also a difference between small and large properties. Mr. Conner noted that wetlands and buffers are appropriate in some way, if they are “managed.” He asked if developable woodlands would be appropriate. Mr. Gagnon felt they 4 would. Mr. Conner then asked if this would apply to woods of any size. He said staff recommends 5000 sq. ft. minimum (which is like the size of most backyards). Ms. LaRose said it would have to be an “intentional space,” not just a strip of land behind the building. Ms. Quest suggested a 50% credit if it is improved in some way. For fully developable land, the credit should be 100% if it is improved in some way. Ms. Calcagni felt that if woods are enhanced with a trail, they should count. Members agreed that 50% of the open space requirement can be woods that are otherwise developable and that 50% of the wetland buffer can also count as open space. Members than considered public realm (which could be open to the public) and privately owned (one for those tenants) open space. Mr. Gagnon felt the T-5 residential open space should be mostly for people who live there. T-5 non-residential should have some public access to open space. Members agreed that both T-4 and T-5 residential open space can be all private with no minimum. T-5 non-residential should have some visible open space that is not necessarily accessible, but 75% of open space should be accessible. In T-43, 25% can be private, 75% public. In T-3, 100% can be private. Mr. Conner then introduced the concept of “buying” open space. One mechanism for this would be to take the average value of all City Center properties up to 2 acres and figure out the average value when they apply. Then take 5% of the value per acre (if that is the percentage agreed on). Members were OK with that concept. As the hour was late, members agreed to continue the agenda at the next meeting. By common consent the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ___________________________, Clerk