Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 03/11/2014
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 MARCH 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 March 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Barritt, P. Nowak, R. Maynes, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, P. Engels, A. Cosak, P. Nowak 1. Agenda: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the Public for Items Not Related to the Agenda: Mr. Barritt spoke to the need of a process at the DRB for what energy standard a building should have to meet or exceed. The goal would be to improve energy efficiency in the city. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Calcagni: There is renewed interest on the Affordable Housing Committee to hammer out details. They have been hampered by vacations, etc., but are looking to the Commission for a hard and fast deadline. Members agreed to look at this under Other Business. Ms. Quest: Attended the Efficiency Vermont meeting last night. There is a push to invest in renewables. Mr. Conner: The next Commission meeting will feature a panel to address the economics of development, including mixed use, market economics, etc. The panel will include a local developer, commercial real estate person, and a mixed use developer in Winooski. Questions from the Commission for the panel to respond to will be solicited to in advance of the meeting. Ms. Louisos suggested asking Ilona Blanchard to attend as well to respond to TIF questions. 4. Land Development Regulations Amendment Request – Self storage in Mixed Commercial Industrial District: Members agreed to postpone this item as the applicants were not notified that the item would be discussed tonight. 5. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: a. Discuss review City Center Form Based Code map area b. Review draft Private Open Space concepts for City Center Form Based Code c. Status update on amendments requested of Paul Dreher d. Review of above may also include other elements of City Center form Based Code Mr. Conner indicated three single family homes on Village Green. He noted the parcel behind Price Chopper is designated T3, and everything else around it is T-3+. He said staff’s recommendation is that this parcel be T3+ as well. Members agreed it should be consistent with the designation to the south. Mr. Conner also indicated an area near Staples where staff recommends the boundary follow the property line. Members agreed. Mr. Conner then showed the T1 area of 15 acres to be green, wetland or wetland buffer. He showed a piece of land not included in the 15 acres that is also largely wet. Staff suggests removing the T1 designation and showing it as T4. The wetland standards will continue to be in effect, but because this is not an exact drawing, it can create confusion. Mr. Conner recommended this be consistent throughout the city. Mr. Gagnon was concerned that giving it a designation might send the message that something will be built on it. Mr. Simoneau said he supported staff’s desire to be uniform throughout the city since there are already tools in place to address concerns that may arise. Mr. Conner suggested there could be both designations with a note that where there is a conflict, the regulations will apply. He would have to run this idea by the City Attorney. Mr. McKenzie noted that the federal money to build Market St. is tied to having the 15 areas of open space. Mr. Riehle said he supports staff’s recommendation. Mr. Gagnon asked if it can be shown as T1 with an indication that boundaries are approximate. Mr. Conner replied that if the boundaries are not right, what should they be. He didn’t want that to be a staff decision. It was suggested that the designation could be T4 with “crosshatching” to indicate that it is wetland. Mr. Conner noted that there are other wetlands in City Center which have not been delineated. Members agreed to have staff run various ideas by the City Attorney. Mr. Conner then indicated a small green area on the map. He said Paul Dreher suggests it could be a “green connection.” Mr. Conner said staff feels you shouldn’t represent something as a park on land that isn’t owned by the city. Members agreed to remove the “green” and make it “orange.” Mr. Conner showed two parcels owned by the Sheraton. He suggested these be added as T4. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner then indicated 100 acres that goes back to Patchen Road. There is a portion of this that is zoned Commercial-1, R-12, the same as Williston Road. Mr. Conner pointed to a tiny triangle which is part of the Quarry Ridge housing development but is zoned C-1. The recommendation is to rezone it R-4, the same as the housing development. Mr. Conner indicated another parcel which would still be under the old zoning and said this could be awkward. The recommendation is that it be in the T4 district. Mr. Gagnon asked why it couldn’t be T3. Mr. Conner said it has been zoned as Commercial at least since the mid‐1970’s and it would be a significant downzoning to go to a T3. Members were OK with making it T4. Mr. Conner then noted three parcels which are zoned C-1, R-12 (the Rotisserie, The Other Paper, and Holiday Video). They are not proposed to be in the code. Staff recommends they be T4. The type of issue exists near Staples next to where Quarry Hill went in. Staff also recommends this be T4. Members were OK with both of these. For an area near Green Mountain Suites and the electric substation, staff recommends following parcel lines and making it T4. He showed where the line goes through The Pines. The recommendation is to move the line and have it all be T4. Members were OK with this. On the U-Mall property behind Hannaford, Mr. Conner showed an area zoned R-4. Staff has no problem with it becoming T4. It is mostly ravine and wetland. Members were OK with leaving it as T4 and crosshatching it leaving open the option for Mr. Conner to come back with any issues raised by the City Attorney. Mr. Conner noted that staff has spoken with the Superintendent of School’s office. Under Form Based Codes, Central School becomes a “school only” designation. Staff is waiting for input as to what designation the School Board wants. Mr. Conner showed an area where it is unclear if the existing boundary is inside the T5 line. Staff feels the boundary should be a straight line across. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner noted that staff has received information from the Open Space consultant regarding specifics of open space areas. About 20% of Market Street area is designated as open space. Mr. Conner distributed a map of a City Center “pedestrian shed.” There is a question as to how best to address privately owned open space. There is also a question as to whether open space should occur on a small property or whether the owner should provide it elsewhere. Mr. Conner noted there is also a question as to what is reasonable to provide the space the public has been talking about and still not precluding what is envisioned by the landowner. With regard to residential area open space, Mr. Conner noted that this may not be open to the public (as with the Farrell property). There is a question as to whether balconies would count for some of the residential open space. Mr. Riehle said he would have to be convinced about that. Members considered whether commercial open space (e.g., places for employees to eat lunch) should be both visually and physically available to the public. Members felt that 75% should contribute to the public realm. On the residential property, 50% should be “common space.” Mr. Conner said staff will test these out to see how they match with existing space. In T3, the recommendation is that 25% must be unpaved. Staff recommends adding a stipulation for common open space of 100 sq. ft. per unit. There could be a lesser percentage with a larger building. With respect to qualifying open space, members considered what a “plaza” might be. Mr. Conner said minimum size is typically half an acre, rectangular, with 20% unpaved. T3 could allow everything that T5 allows but the recommendation is for a more limited pallet. Ms. Louisos said she felt T3 should include a “park.” She didn’t want every alley being considered as open space. Mr. Conner noted there was talk about off-site open space, possibly making a wetland area more accessible (e.g., with a boardwalk). He suggested this could be a contribution to open space calculations, making it an “enhancement.” Mr. Maynes asked if it would make sense to take down a forest area to create open space. Ms. Dopp said the forest could be valuable as a natural resource. With regard to the amendments requested of Paul Dreher, Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Dreher recommends the following: a. 75% of glazing be “seethrough” and 25% not have to be b. With regard to garage doors in T3, Mr. Dreher drafted something for a single garage with a note that it may not be what a T3 should be. Mr. Simoneau said that not to allow garage doors to be oriented to the street would be onerous. It would also require more pavement to have them in the rear. He felt they should continue to be allowed as they normally are and not preclude them being oriented to the street. Ms. Louisos noted garages can also face an alley. Members liked the language as currently written. c. Civic buildings would be exempt from standards such as glazing and could be built further back as is common with public buildings. d. With regard to what happens in T3 if someone decides on a bakery on the first floor and 2 units above it, Mr. Draher suggested that 1500 sq. ft. be considered “a unit.” This would not discourage a mixed use building. 6. Minutes of 28 January and 11 February 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 28 January with a spelling correction. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to table the minutes of 11 February. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted there will be a panel presentation on 25 March focusing on economic issues related to development. The meeting of 8 April will include discussion of the Official City Map, city-wide standards, style of writing, and remaining Form Based Codes issues. Other conversations that need to happen include: street type issues, affordable housing and a full red-line version of the code. With regard to inclusionary zoning, Mr. Conner noted that before there is a requirement in the regulations for inclusionary zoning, there must be a statement to that purpose in the Comprehensive Plan, which there currently is not. He felt inclusionary zoning could be added later, if desired. Members discussed the possibility of a special meeting, possibly on the 5th Tuesday in April. Mr. Conner said this could work out well. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: LDR Amendment request initial review – Allow mini (self) storage in the Belter Industrial Park (presently Mixed Commercial-Industrial District) DATE: March 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting The city recently received a request from Jeff Meyers to allow self storage in the Belter Industrial Park (Ethan Allen Road & Commerce Ave behind the Airport). The area is presently zoned Mixed Commercial-Industrial. The request follows a similar request in November 2013 fron Mr. Jasdeep Pannu for the same use in the same area. Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s Policy on Public Requests for Amendments, staff performed an initial examination of the request. Brief analysis and recommendation: The land Development Regulations do not presently permit self storage as a stand alone use in this district. The proposed location is within the Belter / Ethan Allen business park, but the present zoning district also includes significant portions of Williston Road east of Kennedy Drive and the majority of Kimball Ave. Staff recommends that this request be considered alongside other changes to the Land Development Regulations being considered city wide under the Form Based Codes project. That project is actively underway. The Planning Commission may also provide general guidance to Mr. Dreher as he develops draft regulations for these parts of the city. 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 NDRDORSETSTWHITE STPATCHE 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 LO C U M ST SAN RE M O D R EAST T E R RAIRPORTINSTITUTIONAL &AGRICULTURAL-NORTHRESIDENTIAL 4RESIDENTIAL 4RESIDENTIAL 4PARK &RECREATIONINSTITUTIONAL &AGRICULTURAL-NORTHCOMMERCIAL 1 -RESIDENTIAL 12COMMERCIAL 1 -RESIDENTIAL 12COMMERCIAL 1 -RESIDENTIAL 12INTERSTATEHIGHWAYOVERLAYCOMMERCIAL 1 -RESIDENTIAL 12CENTRALDISTRICT 2MUNICIPALPARK &RECREATIONPARK &RECREATIONCENTRALDISTRICT 2CENTRALDISTRICT 2CENTRALDISTRICT 1CENTRALDISTRICT 3INSTITUTIONAL &AGRICULTURAL-SOUTHCENTRALDISTRICT 3PARK &RECREATIONRESIDENTIAL 4CENTRALDISTRICT 4PARK &RECREATIONRESIDENTIAL 7RESIDENTIAL 12PARK &RECREATIONCOMMERCIAL 1 -RESIDENTIAL 12RESIDENTIAL 12MUNICIPALRESIDENTIAL7 - NEIGHBORHOODCOMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL 7RESIDENTIAL 7RESIDENTIAL7RESIDENTIAL 4RESIDENTIAL 4LegendExisting Zoning District BoundaryExisting Road Impervious (2010)Form Based Code AreaProposed Market Street ZoningTZoneT-1T-3T-3+T-4T-5Park/CivicSpec. DistROADEP:\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\FormBasedCode\FormBasedCode_Working.mxd exported by:smanley On 3/7/2014City of South BurlingtonPlanning & Zoning - Proposed FBC DistrictAFTFTAFTF23145678910111213 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner DATE: For consideration at March 11, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting SUBJECT: City Center Open Space Planning Tools At its November meeting, the Planning Commission asked Staff to explore all potential tools available for identifying and creating opportunities for the acquisition of public civic and/or green spaces in the City Center area. Staff provided a memo at the December 10, 2013 meeting which addressed the differences in private and public open spaces, and the appropriate acquisition tools for each. One of those tools identified for private open spaces was to utilize the Land Development Regulations, including the form based code proposed for the City Center area. This memo is intended to bring that direction closer to regulatory text. As an important reminder, for the purposes of this memo, and in alignment with the Open Space Committee’s working definition, public and private civic and green spaces will collectively be referred to as Open Space. 1. Overall need and goals for Open Spaces in City Center The consultant hired to develop an Open Space report, Sharon Murray, has prepared a City Center pedestrian shed, with a ¼ mile walking distance radius of open spaces. This is a draft and was based on the TIF Planned Open Space, but does provide insight into the likely percentage of large open space areas to be available in the pedestrian shed. The total estimated percentage exceeds what is generally identified as the standard for urban areas. With this in mind, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether the percentage of open space in the City Center area meets the goals for South Burlington. Furthermore, the Planning Commission may wish to affirm previously identified goals for open spaces in City Center. The types and requirements for open spaces should be programmed to meet those goals. Previous discussions with the Planning Commission have identified visual breaks, stormwater management, landscaping and civic spaces as being important goals. 2. Defining Open Spaces in City Center The Open Space Committee has identified Open Space as bearing four functional categories: working lands, conserved lands, park and recreation areas, and civic spaces. The Planning Commission has previously affirmed this approach. Urban Open 2 Transect Conservation Area Working Land Parks and Recreation Civic Space T1 Natural Frontage: N/A Primary, Secondary, Greenway Woodland Regional Park, Rec Path Pedestrian Trail N/A T2 Rural Frontage: N/A Primary, Secondary, Greenway Woodland, Woodlots, Farmland, Market Farm Regional Park, Rec Path, Pedestrian Trail N/A T3 Suburban Frontage: Yard Areas Primary, Secondary, Greenway Woodlots, Urban Forest, Market Farm, Kitchen Garden Neighborhood/ School Park, Mini-Park, Playground Rec Path, Pedestrian Trail/ Walkway Green, Streetscape T4 General Urban Frontage: Shallow setbacks, yards Primary, Greenway Urban Forest, Kitchen Garden, Community Garden City Park, Community Park, Neighborhood/ School Park Mini-Park, Playground Rec Path, Pedestrian Walkway Green, Square, Streetscape T5 Urban Center Frontage: Shallow to none, no yard areas Primary, Greenway Tree Stand, Community Garden Container/Balcony/ Roof Garden Mini-Park, Playground Pedestrian Walkway Central Square, Plaza, Courtyard, Streetscape 3 3. SOpen Space Standards by Transect Zone The memo referenced above from the Open Space Committee includes a recommendation that open space types or forms be established by transect zones. Staff has subsequently met with Paul Dreher and Sharon Murray, and all are in agreement with this recommendation, recognizing that the appropriate private open space requirements may be different for different Transect Zone. Consideration: Different standards for T-zones. T5- allow for consideration of paved streetscape in open space calculation, recognizing the street as an open space; additional standards for corner lots? T4- consider some allocation of streetscape. The Planning Commission discussed this on 2/25/14 and generally supported this approach. 4. Open Space Standards by Parcel/Project Size The draft BES as submitted by the Form Based Codes Committee, for T5, contemplates a 5% open space requirement for projects with 50,000 square feet of building. The Planning Commission may consider different open space standards by parcel and project size, as illustrated below. Consider also: buy out option, as discussed below. 5. Draft City Center Open Space Requirements for Consideration Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s request, Staff, Sharon Murray and Paul Dreher have met and propose the following for the Planning Commission’s consideration: Transit Zone Residential/Non- Residential Parcel Size Open Space Required Additional Restrictions or Requirements T5 Non-Residential All 5% of building square footage for all non- residential parcels May locate qualifying open space off-site or buy credits Residential, Less than 10 Units All 100 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit May be permitted entirely as green roofscape if access is given to residents Residential, 10- 19 Units All 85 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit May be permitted entirely as green roofscape if access is given to residents; may be permitted up to 50% in balconies of 40 sf and larger. Residential, More than 20 All 60 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit May be permitted entirely as green roofscape if access 4 Units is given to residents; may be permitted up to 50% in balconies of 40 sf and larger. T4 Non-Residential <20,000 SF 6% of total building square footage May locate qualifying open space off-site or buy credits; 75% shall be a part of or contribute to the public realm Non-Residential >20,000 SF 6% of total building square footage Qualifying open Space must be included on site; 75% shall be a part of or contribute to the public realm Residential, Less than 10 Units All 100 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit Qualifying open Space must be included on site; 50% or more must be common. Residential, 10- 19 Units All 85 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit Qualifying open Space must be included on site; 50% or more must be common. Residential, More than 20 Units All 60 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit Qualifying open Space must be included on site; 50% or more must be common. T3 Residential, Less than 10 Units Current BES includes minimum of 25% of lot to be unpaved. Consider additional stipulation for common space requirement of 100 Square Feet Qualifying Open Space Per Unit Qualifying open Space must be included on site. Residential, 10- 19 Units Current BES includes minimum of 25% of lot to be unpaved. Consider additional stipulation for common space requirement Qualifying open Space must be included on site; 25% or more must be common. Residential, More than 20 Units Current BES includes minimum of 25% of lot to be unpaved. Consider additional stipulation for common space requirement Qualifying open Space must be included on site; 40% or more must be common. 5 Qualifying Open Space Qualifying Open Space is defined per the palate of options included. This is currently being amended by Sharon Murray, consultant for the Open Space team; a quick first pass is included below and ready for suggested edits. T-5 Open Space Palette includes: Pocket Parks Plazas Fountains Green/common Connectors-street to inner block (this will need refinement to differentiate from alley) Additional sidewalk to the required sidewalk. Outdoor café/restaurant seating Courtyard accessible to the street or Public Realm Rain Gardens Publicly accessible green roof. Bike Parking which exceeds standard requirements T-4 Open Space Palette includes: All of the above Play grounds Exercise plazas Open air farmers market Recreation path (square footage eligible not to exceed 30% of required open space) Community gardens T-3 Open Space Palette includes: Green/common Private yard space Play grounds Exercise plazas Open air farmers market Recreation path (square footage eligible not to exceed 30% of required open space) Community gardens General Open Space notes: In all districts landscaped parking lot dividers and median strips shall not be considered Open Space. In all districts non-habitable landscaping immediately adjacent to building shall not be considered Open Space. Open Space shall serve multiple functions 6 Open space that is deemed to be contributing to the Public Realm shall be part of the Public Realm (as defined), directly contiguous with elements of the Public Realm or directly accessible from the Public Realm. Public Realm: The Public Realm includes all exterior places, linkages and built form elements that are physically and/or visually accessible to all members of the general public, during all business hours, or the majority of the day for residential buildings, regardless of ownership. These elements can include, but are not limited to pedestrian ways, bikeways, plazas, nodes, squares, transportation hubs, playgrounds, parks, landmarks and are typically adjacent to the street or public place. Additionally the Public Realm shall be a physical place. 6. Locating Open Space Off-Site Consider the option for locating open space off site in areas designated in the chart above. Designated off-site open space must meet the goals, definitions, and palate included above. Designated off-site open space must be located within City Center and must be useable open space. Staff is still examining possibilities for giving some credit to wetland or other unbuilt areas. Please consider this a place-holder for now. 7. Open Space Credits Staff is examining the potential for a buyout of open space requirements in the T5 zone and for certain T4 parcels. Staff is actively working on a metric for assessment of this. At this time, our intention is to recommend that any credits be used for a fund designated for larger-scale, publically owned open space within the City Center Boundary. 8. Landscaping requirements The current LDRs require that new developments provide a minimum landscaping budget equal to 3% of the first $250,000 of construction costs, 2% of the next $250,000, and 1% of remaining construction costs. Current regulations require these to be in trees and shrubs, and on-site. Consideration: allow for a portion of the landscaping budget to be used for art, civic hardscapes, or other publically welcoming amenities. Consideration: allow for budget to be used in part for public realm, even in public right of way (ie, art, artistic benches, planters, etc). Suite 300, 42 Central Street 802.355.7451 Newport, VT 05855 email:dreherdesign@gmail.com ...................................................................................................................................................................... dreherdesign M e m o To: Paul Conner/Planning Commission Date: 3.6.14 Subject: Line item tasks Item 1. Liner Building: A building specifically designed to mask and enliven the edge of a parking lot, parking garage, public assembly or large retail facility (big box) along a public frontage. A liner building shall meet all applicable BES and shall have a minimum depth of 16 feet. Item 12. Variation in building edge in T-3. Added additional language that made blank walls disallowed See T-3 Item 22. Percentage of Glazing to be transparent. See BES. Reccomendation: maximum allowable not transparent glazing at principal fronts/primary streets is 25%, of total required % or 75% shall be transparent on ground floor. The required tranparent glazing shall not be made opaque by window treatments (excepting operable sunscreen devices within the conditioned space). All glazing on upper story shall be transparent. I Did research and very few codes are forgiving on this one, even excluding materials like glass block, etc. Item 23. Store/shopfront windows Will add general language that requires all windows to be taller than wide (see below) with exception of storefronts in T-5, T-4 and T-3. Item 41. Story and ½ story definition. The Code should use IBC definition of story. ½ story is the is the habitable floor area within the roof of a sloped roof structure or the attic made habitable with dormers. (Note that the suburban sprawl model is the split level ranch, with ½ the first story below ground.) Item 43 & 44. Garage Doors in T-3 Proposed revised language in red: (See my notes) GARAGE DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED AT (MINIMALLY) A 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE PRIMARY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR SHALL BE SET BACK MINIMALLY 10’ FROM REAR OF PRIMARY STRUCTURE. A SINGLE CAR GARAGES MAY BE PERMITTED SET BACK MINIMALLY 10’ FROM FRONT FACE OF PRIMARY STRUCTURE. Notes: The resulting built form from allowing a single car garage to face the primary frontage within the same general plane of the primary building (10’ behind bldg. front) will to larger degree be (and feel) automobile oriented. Minimally, per building 14’ of the overall building frontage will be dedicated to the automobile, not for pedestrians. The cumulative impact along a new street or redeveloped street may be not in keeping with general desired outcomes expressed in multiple visioning session. Item 45. Garage doors facing alley are allowed, highly encouraged. Revised/added T-3 language: GARAGE DOORS FACING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ALLEY IS PERMITTED AND HIGHLY ENCOURAGED Item 47. Upper Story Windows Proposed language: • In T-5 and T-4 upper story glazing shall be minimally 30 percent of the façade on the primary frontage and 20% on secondary frontages. • 80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide • The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. • Windows may be ganged horizontally if each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least 7 inches wide. • Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts • Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding bay windows and storefronts). Additionally in Building Breaks section of T-4 and T-5, I will add language (and definition) requiring horizontal breaks. Item 26. Civic Buildings, • Civic buildings shall not be exempt from all applicable parking location requirements/standards, streetscape standards, height requirements, ground story height, building breaks, block perimeter and minimum open space standards. • Civic buildings may be exempt from build-to-line, glazing standards, frequency of entrances and percentage of building frontage Item 27. Secondary Frontages, see revised BES---allowed greater variation/range on BES. No perceived cons. Item 42. Unit shall be defined as 1500 sq. ft. (regardless of the number of bedrooms or use). All new dwelling units less 1500 sq.ft. shall equal the proposed new unit sq. footage divided by 1500, for example: 750 sq. ft. shall be considered 1/2 units. A new structure or proposed square footage of 1501 sq. ft. or larger shall be considered (proportionately) more than one unit, example: 3000 sq.ft. of new or proposed construction shall be considered 2 units. Units per acre allowances shall use this standard. In T-5 and T-4 Micro-Units (for affordability purposes-200 sq. ft. to 500 sq.ft.) shall be allowed and encouraged. In T-3 Cottage Housing/starter houses (houses under 1200 sq.ft. or less than 1 unit) is encouraged. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 JANUARY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 January 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Loisos, Chair; T. Riehle, G. Calcagni, T. Harrington, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, B. Benton Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Ravin, Dean T. Vogelmann, J. Davis, UVM; S. Dopp, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, R. Maynes 1. Agenda Review: 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 Commission Announcements & Staff Report: Mr. Riehle: Was part of a sub‐committee for the Open Space Committee which toured the community trying to identify visual corridors. There will be a report by Larry Michaels soon. Was concerned that his comments regarding transportation/buses may have been misinterpreted. He was trying to get more people to ride the buses. Ms. Quest: Will provide a report on last night Sustainable Agriculture Committee meeting. Ms. Harrington: The TDR committee is reviewing pinpointed topics and will come back with something soon. 4. Update on University of Vermont Miller Farm Draft Master Plan: Mr. Conner reminded members that 3 years ago UVM was invited in to talk to the Commission about their agriculture plans. Staff continues to meet with UVM people and had a presentation on the future of the Miller Farm and part of the Hort Farm. Staff felt this was a good time for that presentation to be made to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ravin said UVM wants to strengthen the agricultural and educational uses of the two farms in South Burlington. The Miller Farm is predominantly for horses, cows and other animals, and there has been an update on the Master Plan for that farm. Dean Vogelmannn of the College of Agriculture, said there have been many changes since the last time they were at the Planning Commission. They have created new models on how a land grant operates. He noted that very few colleges have a farm so close to the campus, and this presents a wonderful opportunity for education. 2 The College has been doing a lot of visioning. The “bad news” is that if they want to change everything, they are looking at a $30,000,000 price ticket. The “good news” is they don’t have to do it all at once. Dean Vogelmann then showed a concept of what the Farm might look like 30 years down the road. In the short term, they want to do some renovations which will entail deconstructing some of the barns. The aim is to create a better education program for students working with large animals in a pre‐vet program. They also envision a research barn. Dean Vogelmann showed a picture of the solar panels on the horse barn. The panels can power several homes, and the goal is to make the entire site energy neutral. There was also a picture of the goats that now “mow down” the invasive species. Mr. Gagnon asked if there is any thought to including research on anaerobic digesters. Dean Vogelmann said they have a person on staff who is a specialist in that area. The goal is to make smaller digesters to use at this facility. Mr. Gagnon asked about stormwater and agricultural runoff. Dean Vogelmann said the have a collaboration with the Rubenstein regarding runoff. They would like to have certain plants that will “mine things out of the soil” (e.g., phosphorus). He felt there is a lot of opportunity for creative things to be done. Mr. Riehle asked if there are any plans for development of the land north and south of the farms or whether they will stay in agriculture. Dean Vogelmann replied that right now they are being told they can use the lands for agriculture. He did not know about 20 years down the road. Mr. Riehle then asked whether any thought has been given to opportunities to students as rebuilding occurs (e.g., electrical work). Dean Vogelmann said they have hired engineering students to work on “energy neutrality.” They will also need to interface with social scientists regarding what the public is thinking. 5. Review Planning Commission Proposed Projects for 2014: Mr. Conner reviewed current and planned projects that involve Planning Commission input and action as follows: a. Complete review of draft City Center/Form Based Codes b. Complete stormwater/low impact development regulations update c. Complete Comprehensive Plan update d. Provide direction to the city‐wide regulation updates, including: 1. Affordable housing 2. TDRs 3. Future land use 4. Style of writing report e. Revise draft city‐wide regulations f. Initiate Chamberlin/Airport neighborhood plan 3 g. Initiate Traffic Overlay District overhaul Mr. Conner then reviewed a list of additional projects underway that may include Planning Commission involvement in 2014, including: a. Complete Official City Map b. Review Williston Road Transportation‐land use analysis c. Review Impact fee Ordinance update d. Review Wastewater‐Stormwater Ordinance update e. Review Dumont Park project Purpose and Need Statement f. Review Garden Street project Purpose and Need Statement Members asked for clarification on the Official Map and what the “may” meant. Mr. Conner confirmed that the Official Map is the responsibility of the Planning Commission; the may was looking at overall timing. 5. Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes: Mr. Conner briefly reviewed and confirmed the decisions made by the Commission at Saturday’s meeting and those of the previous work sessions, including single/two story buildings, glazing, window height/width, civic buildings, frontage requirements, electric changing stations, solar readiness, the review process, garages, basic heights, etc. Mr. Simoneau noted that San Remo Drive has its own “DNA.” He asked whether it has a separate designation, whether it will be customized, or whether it will be given a separate consideration. He also wanted to know if the committee is safe with the language that deals with non‐conformities so what is being considered is not an encumbrance to the area. Mr. Conner directed attention to comments from University Mall. They have very long‐term leases with some tenants that guarantee nothing more than a one‐story structure can be in front of them. Mr. Conner noted that there still has to be discussion on open space and the T3 area, where no decisions have been made. He also noted that Paul Dreher has been asked to prepare standards for upper stories of buildings. Ms. Quest reminded staff of the Commission’s desire for input on economics, including the TIF and how it works. Mr. Conner then reviewed his research on “shoulds” vs. “shalls.” He noted that “should” shows up in a lot of purpose statements, which are not regulatory, and he recommended leaving them there. Access between parking lots across property lines is “encouraged.” He suggested the Commission may want to look at that and make it more of a requirement. Mr. Simoneau felt there are times when it doesn’t make sense. 4 Under accessory structures, Mr. Conner noted that “may” just gives options. They could say “shall not disrupt parking for neighboring residents.” They could also add “shall” regarding home occupations. Mr. Conner suggested dealing with language regarding non‐conformities at a later date. Language regarding Marcotte School says, “…should be consisting with South Burlington School District policy.” Mr. Gagnon noted that if it was decided to move the school, the standards would not be applicable and there would have to be new standards. Mr. Conner noted that since this is a commercial district, schools are allowed. The thought is, however, to make it a municipal district as the other school districts are. There has been no input from the School Board on this as yet. Under the definition of a “unit,” language reads that micro‐units are allowed and encouraged. The suggestion of staff is the strike that for now. Regarding LEED certification, LEED silver is encouraged for new construction. To the extent possible, all structures are encouraged to be solar ready. Mr. Conner noted that there are new state requirements. Ms. Quest suggested hearing what the new requirements are. Mr. Conner said the city can’t issue a c/o until the applicant proves they have handed in documents to the state. Mr. Gagnon added that there are also Act 250 requirements regarding energy efficiency. He also felt it would be better to say “LEED standard equivalent” instead of certified because of the expense of becoming certified. Mr. Riehle added that it should say “buildings” instead of “structures” because fences are considered a structure. Mr. Gagnon said they should also use “encouraged” because of the possible economics involved. Following the discussion, members felt they need another “extra” meeting, possibly on a weekday evening. Members will indicate when they are available. 6. Other Business: Ms. Quest noted the Sustainable Agriculture subcommittee would like to reconstitute its committee. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. ______________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 February 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, S. Quest, B. Benton, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, S. Dopp, M. Emery 1. Agenda: A request from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee was added prior to #4 on the Agenda. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements & Staff Report: Ms. Quest: Met with members of the Energy Committee. They have suggested changes to the Comprehensive Plan which have been given to Ilona Blanchard. Mr. Conner said he had received them as well and will share them with the Commission when it is back on the agenda. Ms. Harrington: There is a TDR sub-committee meeting next week. Mr. Conner: There is now a signed, amended contract with Paul Dreher to finish City Center and the rest of the city. The Supreme Court review of the School District/Howard Center issue is ongoing. Legal briefs have been submitted. An application at Sketch Plan level has been received for a housing proposal at the end of Market Street on the south side. It is for town homes. It was submitted under the current regulations. There are groupings of 4 housing units of three buildings each. If they submit a preliminary plat, it would fall under the regulations in force at that time. The City Council decided not to warn a hearing on the continuation of Interim Zoning. It will expire at the end of the day on 21 February 2014. 4. Request from Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2014 2 Ms. Quest read the request to alter the membership of the subcommittee. The subcommittee wants to be able to make decision without a quorum present, since some members are away for winter and farmers are busy in the summer. The alternative would be to have a “group membership” (e.g., Land Trust, Common Roots, etc.) with a different member of the group being able to represent the group at a given meeting. Mr. Gagnon had no problem as long as dissenting opinions are presented to the Commission. Ms. Louisos had no issue if everyone who attends a meeting can be part of a decision. Mr. Conner cited the state’s Open Meeting Law which requires a decision to be made by a majority of the “appointed members.” A meeting at which half of the members are not presented didn’t take place, according to law. Ms. Benton said she favored the second option. Ms. Harrington moved to change the membership of the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee to one representative each from Common Roots, Community Gardens, UVM, South Village Farm, and South Burlington Land Trust, with the understanding that any large land owners and concerned citizens be invited to provide input. Mr. Gagnon seconded the motion with the addition of three named members: Heidi Auclair, Betty Goldberg, and Roseann Greco with Sophie Quest as Planning Commission representative. After a brief discussion, Ms. Harrington moved to table the motion until the next meeting. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes: a. Public Comment: There was no public comment. b. Work Session: Regarding the strip of land near Iby Street, Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure the Commission should pursue this since they are moving ahead under the current regulations. Mr. Gagnon felt they will have to come to some conclusion as it’s in T-3 and is a “loose end.” He felt the line could be moved to remove the piece from City Center. Mr. Conner updated the Commission that he is working on finding someone to speak to the economics of the city center area. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2014 3 The Commission then began discussion of “special exceptions.” Mr. Conner noted the current draft includes special exceptions and an appeals section. It gives guidance as to how these would take place and gives the DRB the authority to modify things within the code. Mr. Conner noted that Paul Dreher has said it is not the intention to give the DRB “full rein” regarding exceptions. Mr. Dreher is prepared to refine the circumstances under which the DRB would have the authority to modify the standards. Mr. Gagnon asked why deviations would be allowed. Mr. Calcagni said it is impossible to predict every deviation. She felt a bit of flexibility is a good thing. Mr. Gagnon noted the DRB would be limited to discussing only the deviation. He felt this would have to be very well defined. Mr. Conner noted there could be a natural resources restraint or unique site conditions or handicapped parking issues. Mr. Simoneau suggested the Commission might identify some things the committee hadn’t thought of. He stressed they didn’t want to see a carte blanche to go to the DRB at any time. Ms. Benton wanted to go only with the code. Ms. Calcagni would allow exceptions for a good reason. Mr. Gagnon didn’t want to see the building envelope standard modified. Mr. Conner noted there could be a request for a modification for a central public plaza. Mr. Conner then updated members on Open Space Standards. He noted there had been a meeting earlier today with consultants to work through ideas/solutions on how to meet the intent of the code as well as refine some open space standards as to when they do/do not apply. There are also opportunities to think creatively (e.g., landscaping, art, rooftop garden, unique street pattern). The hope is to have a concept in the next few weeks. Regarding TDR’s, Ms. Louisos noted the Commission will wait for the report from the TDR subcommittee. Ms. Harrington noted that previous members wanted to expand the receiving areas to other places in the city. There are still questions to be answered. Ms. Louisos said there is a similar situation with affordable housing. Ms. Calcagni said the subcommittee is working on a Trust Fund. They are also discussing inclusionary zoning. There SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2014 4 seems to be hesitation about rushing into something. Mr. Gagnon said there is no affordable housing language in form based codes. Mr. Conner noted the Commission wanted to adjust language as to what constitutes “affordable housing.” Mr. Gagnon asked if they can finish the code without those standards. Mr. Conner said they can decide whether to have a requirement of an incentive for affordable housing. He stressed that any discussion of this should be as open as possible. Mr. Conner then reviewed the chart of street types, including standards (lane widths, etc.), turning lanes, target speeds, on-street parking, tree spacing, stormwater management, etc. Mr. Gagnon asked about emergency access as well as public works access. Mr. Conner said there have been initial discussions with the Fire Department and Public Works. There are issues of space for fire vehicles on narrow streets. The Fire Dept. is pleased with the connectivity of streets. Mr. Conner noted the more complex a street is, the more the cost to maintain it goes up. He also noted the Fire Department would look at tree spacing for room to swing a ladder around. There are very specific standards for this. Members then considered paving vs. non-paving of paths. Mr. Gagnon suggested the possibility of permeable road surfaces. Mr. Conner stressed that they don’t want to discourage creativity. He also noted that the city won’t take over a road until it is determined that it is maintainable. Ms. Harrington suggested that for flexibility, the wording should read “surface width” instead of “pavement width.” Ms. Benton said they should specify that all lights be downcasting. Mr. Conner said there is a drawing which shows what is allowable . Signs can be illuminated from the ground up. Ms. Louisos raised the question of uniformity of light poles/fixtures. It was suggested that there could be a design review element if a fixture type is no longer available. Mr. Gagnon asked about benches, planters, bike racks, etc. in the right-of-way. Mr. Conner will check with Public Work for their recommendations. Mr. Conner raised the question of where bike lanes would be required. He suggested the arborist look at this, specifically with regard to tree types. There might be some kind of bike parking facility as in Williston. Mr. Simoneau noted that Williston provides a menu of choices to select from. Ms. Louisos then enumerated the things to be worked on including: street types, economics, approval process (DRB or not), the T-4 area on San Remo Drive, non-conformities. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2014 5 Members then considered whether to have a special meeting to continue the work. They agreed that the next meeting will be the regularly scheduled meeting on 25 February. 6. Meeting Minutes: Mr. Conner said staff had not had time to review minutes. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the City of Winooski has sent an update of their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner also noted the City Council had a brief discussion of lighting policies. The suggestion is for the Planning Commission to look at a city-wide lighting policy when there is time. Ms. Louisos noted the Energy Committee is having an “energy party” next Tuesday. This does conflict with the City Council meeting, but there will be another similar event on Saturday, 15 February. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk