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 - 09/13/2016
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 SEPTEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 September 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; S. Dopp, J. Dempsey, T. McKenzie, L. Ravin, C. Snyder, R. Neuer, L. Bresee, D. Leban 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: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington: Noted that the city will be holding meetings on the upcoming TIF vote. Informational meetings will be held at the Community Library on 26 September and 26 October, and there will be informational items on upcoming City Council agendas. Mr. Conner: Staff is working on the scenic views project. Attended a forum on the new solar siting criteria. Communities must meet certain standards in order to have a voice in the siting process. The Public Service Board will have a hand in establishing those standards. Mr. Conner added that he was told the letter sent by the Planning Commission, Energy Committee, and City Council was a key piece in getting this going. There was a meeting last week with small groups of property owners on Williston Road regarding the future of the road and a possible parallel road to the north. They also discussed what could facilitate good development blocks in conjunction with Form Based Code. Mr. Riehle: Asked about the pink stakes on a part of Williston Road. Mr. Rabidoux said the state will be repaving that stretch of road. There will be bike lanes as part of that restriping. Ms. Dopp asked if CCRPC will be coming to the city regarding solar siting. Mr. Conner said this will be on the next Planning Commission agenda (September 27th). Other city committees have been invited to attend that meeting. 4. Reorganization: a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair, Clerk b. Set regular meeting dates and time Mr. Conner presided over the election of officers. He opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Riehle nominated a slate of: Ms. Louisos as Chair, Ms. Harrington as Vice Chair, and Mr. Gagnon as Clerk. There were no further nominations, and the proposed slate of officers was elected 4-0 with Ms. Louisos and Ms. Harrington abstaining. Ms. Louisos presided over the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Harrington moved to set Planning Commission meetings for the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. at South Burlington City Hall. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Presentation of preferred alternatives of scoping of four bike/ped projects; Dorset Street, Allen Road, Airport Parkway, Spear Street/jughandle: Mr. Dempsey reviewed the history, noting that the purpose is to identify all biking alternatives and to identify a preferred alternative for each project based on maximum safety for all users and support of future walking and bike connections in the city. The project also provided an opinion of probably construction costs to serve as a basis for grant applications. Mr. Rabidoux said the city will be applying for one project at a time. He then reviewed the options and preferred alternatives for each project as follows: a. Allen Road: Of the 2 alternatives shown, the preferred alternative is #1, which is outside of the existing right-of-way. There is an estimated cost of $10,000 per parcel for acquisition of land. There is a 35 mph speed limit on the road. b. Dorset Street: The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Only one alternative was considered viable to fill in the missing gap within the right-of-way. A short section will require a retaining wall. On a photo of the area, Mr. Rabidoux indicated some access management issues with driveways and showed the location of a striped crosswalk and the retaining wall. c. Airport Parkway: The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The road is wide enough for striped bike lanes. There would be a different treatment at intersection with Ethan Allen Road and Shamrock Road. Option 1 would be a modified roundabout. Option 2 would be a T-intersection approach with stop control devices. Alternative #1 is preferred. It would include a sidewalk on the Airport side, striped bike lanes all the way, and connection of some existing pieces of sidewalk. d. Spear Street: The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Three alternatives were considered. #1 included a 6-foot sidewalk on the east side and a shared use path from U.S. Route 2 to the UVM campus. Option #2 would have a 6-foot sidewalk with a 7-foot buffer, and a 10-foot shared use path to UVM. Option #3 would have an 8-11-foot shared use path on the west side on U.S. Route 2 to the South Burlington rec path. A wall would be needed in one area. Ms. Quest noted neighbors don’t like options #1 and #2. Mr. Dempsey showed a photo of Option #2, which would be a short-term alternative, and indicated the connection to the existing path. This is the preferred option from a safety point of view. Ms. Quest asked about the time-line. Mr. Rabidoux said if Spear Street were to be the first project, an application would be submitted within 6 months. It would then take several years before the project would be on the ground. However, if the city did its own project, it could be faster. Ms. Quest asked if UVM would chip on for the cost. Ms. Ravin of UVM said they don’t have the funding for this. Mr. Rabidoux then outlined the estimated costs for each of the projects as follows: Allen Road - $310,000 Dorset Street - $610,000 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road - $2,600,000 Spear Street - $490,000 Mr. Bresee asked about wetland issues. Mr. Rabidoux said they have identified all the “red flags.” Mr. Bresee asked if Allen Road will meet grade requirements, noting that they can’t get funding if the standards aren’t met. Mr. Klugo asked what the cost difference would be if the city did the work. Mr. Rabidoux said probably less than half. Mr. Klugo said that would get projects done faster and reduce the risk to pedestrians. Ms. Harrington asked about the possibility of a “speed bump” on Hinesburg Road at Hayes Ave. She noted that people don’t stop for pedestrians, even with the flashing yellow lights. Mr. Rabidoux said the city keeps asking the state for a crosswalk at Hayes Avenue, and they are continually turned down as the warrants aren’t met. Mr. Klugo asked if the flashing light could be red instead of yellow. Mr. Rabidoux said it can’t because it is a federal thing. Mr. Conner noted that residents near Dorset Street came into the office regarding safety concerns. He will forward these to Mr. Rabidoux. Mr. Conner also noted that as a result of recommendations from the Chamberlin-Airport Committee, there are new bike lands and pedestrian crosswalks. Mr. Rabidoux asked the Commission for support of the preferred alternatives in order to demonstrate community support in the grant process. Mr. Klugo moved to accept the preferred alternative for each of the four projects as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Riehle felt the Spear Street proposal costs should be shared with UVM as this project concerns the safety of UVM students. 6. Commission items: Discuss elements of City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Klugo said this discussion arose from prompting by people at South Burlington Realty regarding implementation of Form Based Code (FBC) in City Center. Discussions have focused on frontage and adequate parking concerns. Mr. Klugo then showed a sketch done by Tim McKenzie of one way to build out City Center. He noted that with FBC there is not as much parking provided as with other standards. Mr. Klugo said what he began to understand is that this is a question of transition from a “suburban” to an “urban” environment and that developers are being asked to build 85% of a block at one time. He showed a concept of a 160,000 sq. ft. building which would not leave room for enough parking, and there would not yet be a parking garage because there wasn’t the development to support it…kind of a “chicken and the egg” situation. He said if you build to the required 85%, there is no room for parking, stormwater, and open space. Mr. Klugo summed up the challenge as how to get high-quality development with adequate parking, marketing capability, and management of the TIF clock. Mr. McKenzie said the secondary street frontage forces them to use land less efficiently as they are “going out, not up.” Mr. Klugo then showed a concept that could meet both the city’s and the developer’s needs. It included a 5-story building with the lot next door as a walled parking lot, usable until such time as there is a parking garage. At that time, the “parking lot” could be built on. Mr. Riehle felt that makes a lot of sense. Mr. McKenzie stressed that they are as incentivized as the city is to maximize development. Mr. Snyder said he felt the intent of the FBC can be accomplished; however, in the current format it is not financeable because of inadequate parking. Mr. Klugo stressed that City Center is a public/private partnership, and the city may have to accommodate something in the short term to get what it wants in the long term. He felt there is an opportunity to be broader in thinking and come up with something that will work for everyone. Ms. Harrington said it would help to have diagrams with figures to get beyond the “conceptual.” Mr. McKenzie said he will provide them. Mr. Snyder said he has a building read to go, but there is a problem with the secondary street code (located on Market Street where Mary Street comes in). He cited the irony that the best and worst for FBC is that it allows no modifications. Mr. Klugo said the city wants more than just an “efficient” building. Ms. Leban said she likes the parking phasing idea with buildout over time. She also noted that green rooftops can be used to address stormwater concerns. Mr. Klugo noted that the City of Burlington is now requiring new roofs to hold a 24-hour storm event. Ms. Louisos said the Commission really wants City Center to work. This is more of a phasing issue than a conceptual issue. 7. Discuss Capital Improvement Plan additions/deletions for 2018-2027: Mr. Conner explained the nature of the Capital Improvement Plan and how it is updated. The Commission will see a draft for the coming year in November. He noted that additions to the Plan include replacement of the O’Brien Building at JC Park and a pedestrian crossing of Williston Road between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. He also noted that the Planning Commission can recommend additional projects. 8. Initial Discussion of Potential Shelburne Road Zoning Amendments – setbacks, heights, glazing: Mr. Conner noted that current zoning requires a minimum 50-foot setback from the right-of-way. Because parking in front of buildings is being discouraged or not allowed, applicants are requesting setback waivers. Mr. Conner showed a picture of the new Credit Union building on Shelburne Rd. It has a 35-foot setback with an entry door on Shelburne Road and a sidewalk leading to that door. He also showed a photo of the old building which did not include the street entrance. Mr. Conner said the DRB struggles with the waiver requests and has asked for a city policy on this. He then showed pictures of newer buildings on Shelburne Road with no parking in front. They are closer to the street with street-facing doors. These took a lot of waivers from the DRB to achieve. He then showed a picture of a building that got “half way there” (the Goodwill Building). It is closer to the street, but the entrance is on the side, not facing Shelburne Rd. Mr. Klugo cited the need for better landscaping on Shelburne Road. He cited the good job done at the gas station across from the Goodwill building, and the less than adequate landscaping at Goodwill. Mr. Conner said staff is going to suggest some reduction in setbacks with a door and windows facing the street, and something “more significant” on corners. Details will be brought to the Commission at a future meeting. 9. Review draft language on amendments discussed at prior meetings: a. Front porches in R-4, front-yard fence height in residential districts: Mr. Conner noted that now with a 50-foot setback, there is no room for porches. The city has been reluctant to reduce the setback because porches have a tendency to become enclosed “rooms.” Because of the Chamberlin Neighborhood Committee’s desire to have more of a sense of “neighborhood,” they want opportunities for people to be in front of their houses. Porches could be open, with screening allowed, but without storm windows. Mr. Klugo felt this could become an enforcement issue. A second recommendation is to limit the height of fences in front of houses to a maximum of 4 feet. CNAPC felt this made it more inviting to know your neighbors. Mr. Klugo said he felt 8 feet is too high in the back as well. A 7’11” inch fence could block someone’s views. b. Affordable housing density bonus in the SEQ-NRN: Mr. Conner noted this applies to the exchanged piece of land in the JM Golf settlement. The bonus is allowed in every other district (except conservation areas) except this one. A resident asked if there could be affordable housing there. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see why there shouldn’t be. Ms. Dopp expressed concern that this could mean more than the 32 units agreed upon. Mr. Klugo said that brings up the landscaping issue again. He felt there should be other considerations when there is a bonus given. Mr. Conner noted that the intent of the bonus is to defray some of the cost; if you require more landscaping, that cost goes up again. Mr. Klugo said he was OK with the bonus with some standards. 10. Other Business: a. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments, Public Hearing 13 September 2016: b. Colchester Town Plan Amendments, Public Hearing 4 October 2016 c. De minimum application to Public Service Board for wireless telecommunication facility, Spear Street and Hinesburg Road No issues were raised on any of the three items. 11. Minutes of 9 August 2016 and 23 August 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 9 August and 23 August 2016 as written. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. 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, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: September 13th Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 4. Re-organizational meeting: (7:15 pm) a. Election of chair, vice-chair, and clerk b. Set regular meeting dates and times As is the case each year, staff will start this item. We will solicit nominations for chair. No second is needed for a nomination. Once all nominations are complete, I’ll ask for a vote. The vote is typically done by voice but can be paper. The chair will then lead through the remaining items above in the same manner. Last year, a full slate of chair, vice-chair, and clerk was nominated. That’s fine too so long as others agree. Possible Action: election of officers, set regular meeting dates & times. 5. Presentation of preferred alternatives of scoping of four bike/ped projects: Dorset Street, Allen Road, Airport Parkway, Spear Street/jug handle; consideration of approval: Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director and John Dempsey, Toole Design Group (7:20 pm) Please see the attached memo and documents. Possible action: The Planning Commission is asked, at this meeting or a subsequent one, to consider approval of the preferred alternatives. This action by the Commission would allow the City to apply for grants (with Council approval) to move towards construction as a viable project. 2 6. Commission items: discuss elements of City Center Form Based Code, Commissioner Art Klugo (7:45 pm) Commissioner Klugo will host a discussion amongst Commissioners on the following subjects: > Debrief on discussion with South Burlington Reality > Discuss options for how to move development forward within the FBC in City Center 7. Discuss Capital Improvement Plan additions / deletions for 2018-2027 (note, the Commission will get another look at the draft 18-27 CIP prior to its presentation to Council later this fall) (8:00 pm) Each year, the City performs a two-stage review of the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan. Stage 1 is to have committees and staff look over the list and add (or remove) any candidate projects from the prior year’s list. These are then vetted by department heads and consolidated into a master list. Stage 2 is to have the new list sent to the Planning Commission (for comment) and the City Council (for action). The 2017-2026 CIP, adopted last winter, is on the City’s website. If the Commission has any projects to add / remove from this list, this meeting will be the time to do this. The city’s various committees – bike/ped, recreation & parks, library, etc. have been reviewing the lists in detail, as has staff. Staff, for example, went through the Chamberlin Neighborhood Report, to identify potential candidate projects. The list should track fairly closely to the city’s new Comprehensive Plan. The Commission will get a second bite at the apple later this fall when the new 2018-2027 list is prepared in draft form. 8. Initial discussion of potential Shelburne Road zoning amendments – setbacks, heights, glazing (8:15 pm) Earlier this summer, Commissioners and staff discussed the possibility of pursuing some shorter-term adjustments to the City’s Land Development Regulations along Shelburne Road. These would be items that come up repeatedly before the DRB as we see development, and importantly, re-development along that corridor. For the purposes of this “shorter-term” set of fixes, staff has focused on a handful of key site design features that have an impact on walkability without dramatically changing overall policy. These include: setbacks, building heights, windows, and the presence of a doorway along the street. Enclosed with your packet are two documents: a rough inventory of current conditions along Shelburne Road, and a summary of potential items for consideration. 3 Staff encourages Commissioners to take a walk, a drive, or a virtual (google streetview!) tour of Shelburne Road prior to the meeting. 9. Review draft language on amendments discussed at prior meetings: (8:45 pm) a. Front porches in R4, Front-yard fence height in residential districts b. Affordable Housing density bonus allowance in the SEQ-NRN 10. Other Business (9:00 pm) a. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments, Public Hearing September 13, 2016 b. Colchester Town Plan amendments, Public Hearing October 4, 2016 c. De minimus application to Public Service Board for wireless telecommunication facilities, Spear Street & Hinesburg Road. Notices and information on the above projects / activities are included in your packet. No action is required of the Commission unless you choose to do so. 11. Minutes (9:05 pm) Possible Action: consider approval of the August 9th and August 23rd Commission minutes. 12. Adjourn (9:10 pm) Preferred Alternatives Meeting Memorandum Toole Design Group (TDG) was retained by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to study pedestrian and bicycle improvements in South Burlington, VT at the four (4) study locations identified below; 1. Allen Road from Spear Street to the existing shared use path terminus east of Baycrest Drive; 2. Dorset Street shared use path from Old Cross Road to the existing shared use path north of Autumn Hill Road; 3. Airport Parkway from Kirby Road to Lime Kiln Bridge; and 4. Spear Street Jug Handle from US Route 2 to the existing South Burlington shared use path south of Davis Road. A presentation of the conceptual alternatives to the Planning Commission was held May 10, 2016 and are summarized below. Input and feedback received from the conceptual alternatives meeting was incorporated, as well as input from the Project Steering Committee. The purpose of the preferred alternatives meeting is to seek approval from the Planning Commission of the preferred alternative identified. As part of the scoping study process, a preferred alternative would need to be selected in order to seek funding for implementation from the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) bicycle/pedestrian or Transportation Alternatives programs. Allen Road: Alternative 1: Fill in the missing gap; a shared use path outside the right‐of‐way; includes traffic signal improvements. Alternative 2: Fill in the missing gap; a shared use path inside the right‐of‐way; includes traffic signal improvements and high‐visibility pavement markings. Dorset Street: Alternative 1: Fill in the missing gap within the right‐of‐way; 8’ to 10’ path with 3‐5’ buffer from the roadway; each roadway intersection will have high‐visibility pavement markings; a constrained section where a retaining wall may be needed. Airport Parkway: Alternative 1: 5’‐6’ striped bike lanes and a 6’ sidewalk on the airport side; roadway widening and modern roundabout at the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road intersection. Alternative 2: 5’‐6’ striped bike lanes and a 6’ sidewalk on the airport side, roadway widening and T‐intersection at the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road with stop control. Spear Street: Alternative 1: 6’ sidewalk on east side adjacent to the road with 6” curb and 10’ shared use path from US Route 2 to PFG Road (UVM Campus). Alternative 2: 6’ sidewalk on east side with 7’ buffer and 10’ shared use path from US Route 2 to PFG Road (UVM Campus). Alternative 3: 8’‐11’ shared use path on the west side from US Route 2 to S Burlington Recreation Path. Project: South Burlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study Date: September 13, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Agenda & Overview Preferred Alternatives and Estimated Costs Next Steps Question & Answer South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Study Areas | South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Purpose: •Evaluate and identify the walking and bicycling alternatives for developing a safe route for the four study areas: •Allen Road (from Spear Street to the existing path east of Baycrest Drive) •Dorset Street (from existing Recreation Path from Old Cross Road to the existing path north of Autumn Hill Road) •Airport Parkway (from Kirby Road to Lime Kiln Bridge) •Spear Street (from US Route 2 to the existing South Burlington Recreation Path) Purpose & Need | South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Need: •Create a preferred alternative for walking and bicycling for the four study areas. •Maximize safety for users walking and bicycling in this corridor. •Support future walking and bicycling connections in the City of South Burlington. •To provide a preferred alternative with opinion of probable construction costs to serve as a basis for the City to apply for grant applications. Purpose & Need | South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Allen Road Functional classification Urban Collector Jurisdiction City Right-of-way width (feet)*65.5’ Roadway width (feet)24’ (12’ travel lanes) 2012 AADT** 4,100 Posted speed limit 35 mph *Approximate based on City of South Burlington GIS data **AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic Allen Road | Roadway Characteristics South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Allen Road | Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 •Fill in the missing gap; a 10’ shared use path outside the right‐of‐way; includes traffic signal improvements. Alternative 2 •Fill in the missing gap; a shared use path outside the right‐of‐way; includes traffic signal improvements. South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Allen Road | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Allen Road | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Dorset Street Functional classification Urban Collector Jurisdiction City Right-of-way width (feet)*67.5’ Roadway width (feet)28’ (12’ travel lanes, 2’ shoulders) 2012 AADT** 5,000 Posted speed limit 40 mph *Approximate based on City of South Burlington GIS data **AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic Dorset Street | Roadway Characteristics South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Dorset Street | Conceptual Alternative Alternative 1 •Fill in the missing gap within the right-of-way; 8’ to 10’ path with 3‐5’ buffer from the roadway; each roadway intersection will have high‐visibility pavement markings; a constrained section where a retaining wall may be needed. South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Dorset Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Dorset Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Dorset Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Dorset Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway Functional classification Urban Minor Arterial Jurisdiction City Right-of-way width (feet)*Varies 64-67.5’ Roadway width (feet)31-33’ (15.5-16.5’ travel lanes) 22’ constrained (11’ travel lanes) 2012 AADT** 6,300 Posted speed limit 25 mph *Approximate based on City of South Burlington GIS data **AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic Airport Parkway | Roadway Characteristics South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 •5’-6’ striped bike lanes and a 6’ sidewalk on the airport side; roadway widening and modern roundabout at the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road intersection. Alternative 2 •Alternative 2: 5’-6’ striped bike lanes and a 6’ sidewalk on the airport side, roadway widening and T‐intersection at the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road with stop control. South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Conceptual Alternative 1 South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Conceptual Alternative 2 South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Airport Parkway | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Spear Street Functional classification Urban Minor Arterial Jurisdiction City Right-of-way width (feet)*69’ Roadway width (feet)28’ (12’ travel lanes, 2’ shoulders) 2012 AADT** 5,100 Posted speed limit 25 mph *Approximate based on City of South Burlington GIS data **AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic Spear Street | Roadway Characteristics South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Spear Street | Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 •6’ sidewalk on east side adjacent to the road with 6” curb and 10’ shared use path from US Route 2 to PFG Road (UVM Campus). Alternative 2 •6’ sidewalk on east side with 7’ buffer and 10’ shared use path from US Route 2 to PFG Road (UVM Campus). Alternative 3 •Alternative 3: 8’-11’ shared use path on the west side from US Route 2 to S Burlington Recreation Path. South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Spear Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Spear Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Spear Street | Preferred Alternative South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Allen Road | Preferred Alternative Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Allen Road Preferred Alternative (Outside of Right-of-Way)*Estimated Project Total *Note:Assume $10,000 per parcel. $310,000 Dorset Street Preferred Alternative Estimated Project Total $610,000 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road Preferred Alternative Estimated Project Total *Note:Assume $10,000 per parcel. $2,600,000 Spear Street Preferred Alternative Estimated Project Total $490,000 South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study Next Steps •Kick-off Meeting/Existing Conditions •Develop Conceptual Alternatives •Concept Alternatives Presentation •Prepare Draft Final Report •Preferred Alternatives Presentation •Prepare Final Report South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study John Dempsey, PLA Toole Design Group jdempsey@tooledesign.com Follow us on Twitter! @tooledesign Summary Findings, Shelburne Road Properties Number of Built Parcels 58 East Side 34 West Side Setbacks from Shelburne Road (in feet) 78 East Side Average 33 East Side average of new buildings 68 East side average I89 to IDX 68 West side average 72 West side average of new buildings Height (in stories) 1.4 east mean height 1 east min 5 east max 71%east % 1 story 1.1 west mean height 1 west min 2 west max 88%west % 1 story Buildings with a door facing the street 59%east side 50%west side South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion September 13, 2016 Concept for Shelburne Road Basic Site / Bldg design features Entries: ‐ All new buildings or substantial rehabs must have at least one door facing Shelburne Road for all properties with frontage on Shelburne Road ‐ Such door must be operable during all business hours or open to residents ‐ Such door shall serve, architecturally, as a principal entry (does not preclude additional principal entries) ‐ Such door shall have a direct, separated walkaway to Shelburne Road (direct may meander for design purposes but shall be intended to serve as pedestrian‐oriented access) Glazing ‐ 40% minimum first story glazing, minimum of 7.5’ vertical for nonresidential, ***’ vertical for residential, hotel, congregate care ‐ Operable doors count as glazing ‐ Garage doors count only if they are transparent per above standards Setbacks ‐ At corners: Minimum 10’; maximum 40’ ‐ Other: Minimum *****; no maximum Min Height ‐ At corners: Minimum 2 stories ‐ Elsewhere: Minimum 1 story Max Height: ‐ At corners: 4 stories ‐ In designated node areas: 5 stories ‐ Elsewhere: 3 stories ‐ Not more than 3 (2?) stories taller than adjacent building on same side of street within 100’ ‐ Not more than 1 story taller than shortest R4 building on adjacent property. Increases by 1 story for each 75’ of separation, up to allowable maximum ‐ Subject to views in all cases WARNING!!! DON'T NEED TO READ UNLESS YOU WANT SUPER-DETAILED INFORMATION ON SHELBURNE ROAD PROPERTIES! Address Side of Street Setback from Shelburn e Rd Height of building (stories) At least one door facing the Street? (1= Yes) Is there a Drive or Parking in front of the building? Is there a Grass front buffer (20' min)Use Other notes Building built Since 2000? 370 E 107 1 1 Y N Mall No 388 E 6 3 1 N N Res first floor raised NEW 408 E 59 1 1 Y N Restaurant outdoor terrace at 37'reno (created front terrace) 408 E 37 2 0 SIDE Y Office Building faces to north N 428 E 6 1 0 N Y res converted motel N 428 E 34 3 1 N Y res historic house reno (removed drive aisle) 430 E 9 2 1 Y N office Res above N 462 E 0 Y Y parking Parking with wall Y 462 E 0 3 1 N N office New Pizzigali building Y 490 E 8 2 1 N N retail / other Y 510 E 43 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 520 E 190 2 1 Y N retail shell replaced 570 E 380 1 1 Y N retail incl 3 drive aisles N 570 E 180 1 1 Y N retail incl 2 drive aisles N 730 E 40 1 0 SIDE Y restaurant side pakring 1 row N 760 E 60 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 764 E 62 1 0 Y N vacant N 792 E 60 1 0 SIDE Y restaurant N 794 E 35 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 916 E 90 3 1 Y Y art studio lots of grass also Reno 930 E 23 1 0 N Y retail N 938 E -3 1 0 N N ?N 938 E 45 1 1 Y N ?N 960 E 74 1 1 Y N Bank drive-through faces street N 974 E 90 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 992 E 57 1 1 Y N Restaurant N 1000 E 40 2 1 N Y bank New construction 1016 E 40 2 0 Y N hotel N 1030 E 40 1 0 Y N dealership parking both sides N 1030 E 240 1 0 Y N delaership N 1080 E 50 1 0 N Y retail parking to side New construction 1110 E 100 1 1 Y Y gas heavy landscaping, pumps & ca N 1116 E 46 1 1 Y N car rental all pavement N 1120 E 83 1 1 Y Y bank grass then parking (no access)New construction 1184 E 75 1 0 Y Y Restaurant parking to side out front; terrac reno (terrace added) 1200 E 35 1 0 N N housing N 1210 E 35 1 0 N N ?N 1230 E 120 1 1 Y Y retail grass then parking (no access)N 1242 E 165 1 1 Y Y retail grass then parking (no access)N 1250 E 80 1 0 N N retail N 1270 E 35 1 0 N N retail N 1130 E 50 1 0 N N Restaurant N E 110 1 0 Y N mall L-shaped mall with parkiung in fN E 400 3 1 Y Y GE large parking; large fountain N 1580 E 140 1 1 Y N dealership N 1600 E 110 1 1 Y N dealership N 1620 E 100 1 1 Y N dealership N 1650 E 70 1 0 N Y dealership N 1690 E -10 5 1 Y Y New Pizzigali building New construction 1700 E 48 3 0 Y N hotel parking is to side but also in front 1720 E 90 2 1 Y N Restaurant historic house 1720 E 130 2 1 Y N hotel 1800 E 70 1 0 N N retail E 80 1 0 Y Y car wash drive aisle only in front 1820 E 70 1 0 N Y daycare play area out front (hidden) 1830 E 40 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 1834 E 45 2 1 Y N restaurant 1860 E 110 1 1 Y Y hotel grass then parking 793 W 70 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 907 W 8 1 1 N N motel N 919 W 70 1 0 N Y tire store N 935 W 72 1 0 N Y bank no driveway; has walkway; turn new construction 977 W 160 1 1 Y N has some grass out front; big canop? 981 W 40 0 N Y burger king large parking to side reno 1001 W 70 1 0 N Y bank no driveway; has walkway; turn around in front 1025 W 43 1 0 N Y restaurant N 1041 W 80 1 1 Y N gas pumps & canopy out front N 1075 W CEMETERY 1085 W 290 1 1 Y Y dealership N 1095 W 80 1 0 N Y dealership drive aisle in front N 1117 W 90 1 1 N N bank N 1125 W 50 1 1 N Y restaurant reno 1185 W 65 2 0 N Y housing N 1195 W VACANT 1233 W 50 1 0 N Y office 1233 W 160 1 1 Y Y office 1301 W 8 1 0 N N retail large side parking N 1325 W 20 1 1 N Y dealership large side parking but building i Addition to street 1333 W 12 1 0 N N office N WARNING!!! DON'T NEED TO READ UNLESS YOU WANT SUPER-DETAILED INFORMATION ON SHELBURNE ROAD PROPERTIES! Address Side of Street Setback from Shelburn e Rd Height of building (stories) At least one door facing the Street? (1= Yes) Is there a Drive or Parking in front of the building? Is there a Grass front buffer (20' min)Use Other notes Building built Since 2000? 1335 W 65 1 0 Y N Restaurant partial front grass N 1341 W 67 1 0 Y Y car wash N 1459 W 9 1 1 N N manufacturing large parking to side N 1475 W 15 0 N N parking to side N 1485 W 65 2 0 Y Y dealership large parking and displayu to sidN 1515 W 55 1 1 Y N retail N 1519 W 55 1 1 Y N retail some grass at front N 1525 W 16 1 1 Y N retail/ repair N 1675 W 85 1 1 Y N dealership N 1691 W 95 1 1 Y Y repair N 1693 W 131 1 0 Y Y office 1775 W VACANT 1785 W PARKING 1795 W 40 1 0 Y N 1801 W 80 1 1 Y N car wash 1835 W 20 1 0 Y N dealership 1855 W 90 1 1 Y N gas station canopy out front N South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion September 13, 2016 Front porches in R4 Districts Section 2.02 ‐ Definitions Porch: a covered but unenclosed projection from the main wall of a building. Porch, open: A porch, open on three sides except for wire, netting, or similar screening. Railings or walls on the sides shall not exceed 40 inches in height from the porch floor. A porch shall not be considered open if enclosed by glass or other materials intended to substantially limit airflow. Standard (in R4 Districts): An open porch, not exceeding the width of the building face to which the porch is attached, may project up to 16’ into the minimum building setback. Access steps not greater than 5’ in with may project an additional 5’ into the setback. In no case shall a porch or access stairs be less than 5’ from the front lot line. Fence heights in Residential Districts 13.17 Fences A. General Requirements. In this section, fence and wall shall be interchangeable terms. B. Specific Requirements. All fences are subject to the following provisions: (1) A fence shall be erected within the boundaries of the applicant’s property and shall be placed wholly within but not on the property boundaries. (2) A fence shall be erected so that its smooth or finished side faces an abutting property or roadway. All fence posts shall be placed on the inside of the fence, except for a fence to contain livestock. (3) No part of any fence shall be placed in such manner as to visually obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic. If determined necessary by the Administrative Officer, the placement of fences near the corner of a property at the intersection of two roads shall provide for a clear vision area defined as a triangular area formed by the street right‐of‐way lines at points which are thirty (30) feet distant from the intersection of the street right‐of‐way lines and measured along such lines. (4) Heights: (a) In all residential districts, the Southeast Quadrant, and City Center Form Based Code District, no fence shall exceed four (4) feet in height along or parallel to the front lot line. On a corner lot, no fence shall exceed four (4) feet in height along or parallel to any portion of the front lot line in front of the building line. South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion September 13, 2016 (a) A fence over four (4) feet in height shall require a zoning permit from the Administrative Officer. (b) (5) A fence over eight (8) feet in height shall require approval by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. (c)(6) A fence over eight (8) feet in height shall be considered a structure subject to normal setback requirements for the zoning district, unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. (d) (7) In the Queen City Park, R1‐Lakeview, and Lakeshore Neighborhood Districts, a fence over four (4) feet in height shall require a zoning permit from the Administrative Officer and shall be subject to the following supplemental requirements: (ai) No such fence shall exceed six (6) feet in height; and, (iib) The fence shall have a maximum opacity of 50% on all sides. (58) No fence shall be erected in such a manner as to inhibit or divert the natural drainage flow or cause the blockage or damming of surface water. (6 9) No fence shall be erected that may create a fire hazard or other dangerous condition or that may result in obstruction to fire fighting. (710) Fences shall be maintained in a safe and substantial condition. (8 11) No fence shall be located or constructed on a terrace or wall that will have an overall height of more than that permitted, unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. (9 12) Notwithstanding any other provisions within these Regulations, applications under this Section 13.17 assigned to the Development Review Board shall be reviewed by the Board in all Zoning Districts and the City Center FBC District. Affordable housing density bonuses SEQ‐NRN 9.05 Residential Density C. Affordable Housing Density Increase. Affordable housing bonuses pursuant to Section 13.14 18.02 are allowed in the SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐NRN, SEQ‐ NRT, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC sub‐districts. If affordable housing, as defined in Article 2 and regulated in Article 13 18 of these Regulations, is proposed as part of a development application, the Development Review Board may grant a density increase in any of the eligible SEQ sub‐districts according to the requirements of Section 13.14 18.02. South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion September 13, 2016 Calculation of the allowed density increase (i.e. 25% or 50% per Section 13.14 18.02) shall be based on the maximum allowable overall density of the project as a whole, including non‐contiguous sending parcels where applicable. If a development plan is approved by the Development Review Board meeting, the applicable average density may be increased on the development parcel sufficient to accommodate the affordable housing units. In addition, the Development Review Board may allow a residential structure in SEQ‐VR and SEQ‐VC to have two additional dwelling units per structure, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per structure, if one or more of the units in the structure is an affordable unit. This provision shall not be interpreted to allow an increase in the total allowable number of units for the project as a whole. The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Elsie Tillotson, Department Secretary Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski City Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: August 26, 2016 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments ZA-16-11, ZA-16-12, ZA-17-01, ZA-17-02, ZA-17-03, ZA-17-04 Enclosed, please find the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance: ZA-16-11 Enforcement Period of Limitations ZA-16-12 Rezone Fletcher Place to Residential Medium ZA-17-01 Off-Site Parking ZA-17-02 Family Daycare Exceptions & Preschools ZA-17-03 Withhold Permit ZA-17-04 Neighborhood Activity Center- Cambrian Rise The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on ZA-17-04 Neighborhood Activity Center- Cambrian Rise on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:00 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on ZA-16-11, ZA-16-12, ZA-17-01, ZA-17-02, and ZA-17-03 on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:45 pm in Contois Auditorium, City Hall, 149 Church Street. Please ensure these amendments are forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at these hearings to me by close of business on September 12 for the hearing on September 13, and by close of business on September 26 for the hearing on September 27. Thank you, Meagan Tuttle CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Kimberly Sturtevant, Assitant City Attorney Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur vacant, Youth Member PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-17-04 Neighborhood Activity Center- Cambrian Rise Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 beginning at 7:00pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows: ZA-17-04: This amendment is to facilitate the redevelopment of the former St. Josephs Orphanage/Burlington College property in a manner that is consistent with the results of a community planning process for the site that will advance many of the central goals and objectives found in the Burlington Municipal Development Plan regarding providing a greater diversity of housing choices, open space protection, and shoreland protection. This amendment creates a new neighborhood mixed-use district on North Avenue that will allow for a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes with associated neighborhood oriented small-scale retail and service uses. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington: ZA-17-04: This amendment creates a new Neighborhood Activity Center-Cambrian Rise (NAC-CR), which applies to a portion of the former St. Joseph’s Orphanage/Burlington College property fronting on North Avenue. List of section headings affected: ZA-17-04: This amendment modifies “Section 4.3.1. Base Districts Established,” “Section 4.4.2 Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts,” “Table 4.4.2-1 Dimensional Standards and Density,” “Section 4.4.2 (d) 1. Ground Floor Residential Uses Restricted,” and “Table 9.1.9-1 Inclusionary Zoning Percentages;” adds the NAC-CR to Maps 4.3.1-1, 4.4.2-1, and 8.1.3.-1; removes the area of the NAC-CR from Maps 4.4.5-1 and 4.4.5-2; and adds the district to “Appendix A- Use Table.” The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ David E. White, AICP, Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Project Planner/GIS Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Anita Wade, Planning & Zoning Clerk Elsie Tillotson, Department Secretary Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-04 Neighborhood Activity Center- Cambrian Rise This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: This amendment is to facilitate the redevelopment of the former St. Joseph’s Orphanage/Burlington College property in a manner that is consistent with the results of a community planning process for the site. This amendment will advance many of the central goals and objectives found in the Burlington Municipal Development Plan regarding providing a greater diversity of housing choices, open space protection, and shoreland protection. This amendment creates a new neighborhood mixed-use district on North Avenue that will allow for a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes, with associated neighborhood-oriented, small-scale retail and service uses. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The amendment is in conformance with, and furthers many of the Municipal Development Plan’s policies regarding housing, including: Encourage a healthier regional balance of affordable housing in each community, proximate to jobs and affording mobility and choice to low income residents. Support the development of additional housing opportunities within the city, with concentrations of higher-density housing within neighborhood activity centers, the downtown and institutional core campuses. Encourage a wide range of housing options to meet different and changing needs of households with children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and moderate- and low-income households. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The amendment is in conformance with, and furthers many of the Municipal Development Plan’s polices regarding land use and density, including: Encourage mixed-use development patterns, at a variety of urban densities, which limit the demand for parking and unnecessary automobile trips, and support public transportation. Target new and higher density development in the Downtown, Downtown Waterfront, Enterprise District, Institutional Core and the Neighborhood Activity Centers. Encourage development of an active, urban waterfront that offers a mix of uses, is open to the public, and linked to adjacent neighborhoods. Burlington Planning Commission Report re: Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-04 p. 2 8/24/2016 Maintain or increase the ratio of publicly owned or permanently protected natural areas to developed land. Furthermore, this area is identified as a potential neighborhood activity center on the Future Land Use Map: Centers for Growth and Development included in the land use section of the municipal development plan. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: As a result of a community planning process for the former St. Joseph’s Orphanage/Burlington College property, this amendment furthers plans for a dense concentration of new, mixed-income housing, neighborhood-oriented commercial uses, and development that is clustered toward North Avenue, rather than the lakeshore. Per the plans, this amendment also expands publicly-owned and accessible land, by supporting the purchase and preservation of 12 acres of open space along the shoreline of Lake Champlain for public use through the Conservation Fund. TO: Chair of Planning Commission Milton Burlington Essex Town Essex Junction Winooski Westford South Hero South Burlington Charles Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC Department of Housing and Community Affairs FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: August 24, 2016 RE: Draft Colchester 2014 Town Plan Amendment Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7 P.M. at the Outer Bay Conference Room at the Colchester Town Offices at 781 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering amendments to the Colchester 2014 Town Plan The current Colchester Town Plan was adopted in 2014 and describes the vision for and future goals of the community. Prior to the plan expiration in 2019, the Planning Commission proposes narrow amendments to the Plan to clarify the Town’s vision for the East and West Lakeshore Drive areas and address other development concerns with respect to existing water quality concerns and traffic constraints. Over the last decade, the Planning Commission has conducted a significant amount of public outreach, which consistently showed that the community is concerned about retaining the existing character of the Malletts Bay area and the impact of any new or redevelopment on water quality in Colchester. In response to these concerns, the Commission spent 2014-16 designing new zoning districts for the Malletts Bay area that pay careful attention to the types of development permitted, address new and redevelopment design standards, and require the use of green infrastructure techniques to manage stormwater runoff from increases in impervious surfaces. 2 2 2 These new zoning regulations were recently adopted by the Colchester Select Board and the Planning Commission would like the current Town Plan to reflect these accomplishments. The proposed changes include the following: Chapter 2: Land Use Updates to the West Lakeshore Drive, East Lakeshore Drive, Town Services Center, and Prim Road / Warner’s Corners / Heineberg Drive neighborhood sections to reflect the new zoning in these areas, and the balancing of limited additional traffic, stormwater, and wastewater capacities as these areas grow and redevelop. Language has also been proposed that acknowledge water quality issues in these areas and the work the Town has done to plan how to balance growth pressures with strong environmental protections. Chapter 11: Utilities Amendments to the Utilities and Facilities Chapter outline the need for centralized wastewater systems and describe planned infrastructure improvements over the remainder of the Plan terms. Maps Map 8: Sewer Service Areas, is proposed to be revised to include the Malletts Bay area as a possible future location for a centralized wastewater system. Attached are excerpt of the Plan that are proposed to be amended. Complete copies of the existing 2014 Town Plan are available from the Planning and Zoning Office at 781 Blakely Road as well as on-line at www.colchestervt.gov. Please contact Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning, at 264-5602 with any questions. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 9 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner; E. Langfeldt & Andrew Gill, O’Brien Brothers Agency; Monica Ostby, Resident 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: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Klugo: Met with Tim McKenzie regarding problems with Form Based Code. A tentative date has been set for the Commission to discuss the issues (first meeting in September). Ms. Quest: Attended the second meeting regarding spending the Open Space money. The committee is coming up with accurate figures. The third meeting is tomorrow. Ms. Louisos: Spoke with the City Council Chair regarding the question of solar ready roofs. The Council is completely fine with what the Commission recommended. Ms. LaRose: Advised that Mr. Conner is on vacation. City Fest was held this past weekend and was a great success, generating a lot of community pride. 4. Discuss potential amendments to the Land Development Regulations a. Request from O’Brien Brothers – Parking in front of triplex / row homes on steep slopes (7:20 pm) Ms. LaRose reviewed staff’s approach to the issue as follows: a) Physical restrictions on a site and whether those should be considered for relief of parking requirements b) O’Briens’ suggested relief for all town homes c) Whether there should be design restrictions if parking were to be allowed in front of certain structures 2 Ms. LaRose noted that staff provided information regarding good design and what would make parking unattractive. She said there are some good examples of parking in front and still maintaining a good pedestrian environment. She also suggested considering the question of garages separately. Ms. Quest noted that the landscaping on Songbird makes it lovely to drive through. She felt it would be hard to write that up. Ms. LaRose said garage design is still a concern, even if they’re set back 8 feet. Mr. Langfeldt said that context is important. They have a unique site, especially the slopes. There is a good road, and it will be a neighborhood road, so a curb cut back to a garage isn’t bad (it would be on a street like Market Street because that is a through road). He didn’t feel that a uniform city-wide regulation works in this case. He suggested the Commission focus on areas with 10% slopes. Ms. LaRose noted that the original request didn’t mention slopes at all, just housing types. The applicant said they are fine focusing on just the slope issue. Mr. Klugo said the Commission has to be sure to meet the city’s needs on the larger scale. Ms. Louisos said there seems to be a more significant cut with an upslope. She felt there was more flexibility of design with a downslope. The applicant said parking in the rear with an upslope is totally impractical, but it is also not a good practice to have roads on both sides of a house. This also increases the impervious surface. Mr. Langfeldt said it is not good for people living in a house and wanting to have children able to play in the backyards with cars going by. He said that Market St. is a completely different context with people able to walk to City Center. With parking in the rear, you are selling a completely different product. He also cited the cost of building a retaining wall and adding more pavement. This makes a home more expensive for the buyer. Mr. Klugo said that with a downslope, you can put parking under buildings and not have to build a road. He cited homes built on Shelburne Road where cars enter on one side and go through to the other side. The applicant said there would then be no basements. Ms. Louisos said there could be half basement/half parking. The applicant felt that with appropriate landscaping there was no downside to parking in the rear. He felt that this should be conditions, with the DRB having the option to allow parking in the read. He said this would apply only in a very small percentage of the city and added that having one condition for the whole city didn’t make sense. If you offer it as a relief, with requirements, he said, you would get something the DRB thinks is positive. 3 Ms. Louisos said the Commission could write out the requirements so there is no waiver required. Then the developer would know the rules in advance. The applicant also noted issues of garage flooding with a sloped driveway as well as issues of ice in the winter, having to lug trash around to the front for pickup, and the added cost of plowing a rear driveway. Mr. Klugo said the applicant does have the option of building only on the easier sites. The applicant said they have the option of all duplexes, but they are trying to increase the density to meet the R-12 zoning. Mr. Langfeldt said he didn’t see an issue with street-loaded garages on a neighborhood street with appropriate landscaping. Mr. Klugo said he would like to see pictures/elevations of what “uphill” and “downhill” design would look like, a typical section through a street and how the grades would be managed. Mr. Riehle said that would be helpful for him as well. Ms. Quest asked whether they are still considering form based code city-wide. Ms. LaRose said there will be a presentation on that at the next Commission meeting. There will be elements of form based code that would be put into a PUD standard, but the feeling is there won’t be a strict form based code anywhere else in the city. Mr. Langfeldt noted they are in the process of doing a Master Plan presentation to the DRB. The have an amended sketch plan hearing on 23 August. Mr. Gagnon noted that any LDR changes would have to be publicly warned and then approved by the City Council. He questioned whether the timing of that would mesh with the O’Brien’s time frame. Ms. LaRose said they are looking at January for possible adoption of an amendment. Mr. Klugo cited the “bad design” on Dorset St. with a 50-foot wide drive in front of a building. He said it may be “marketable,” but it is not a pleasant experience. He noted there is only a 1% housing vacancy rate on homes for sale in the city. The applicant said that front-loaded garages are the preferred design of home buyers. Ms. Louisos said that is for single family homes, which the Commission cannot control (by statute). The issue here is multi-family units. Ms. LaRose stressed that the Commission had discussed this issue very thoroughly and was unanimous in the decision to not allow parking in the rear. She said that if that issue is to be re-opened, it should be at the same level of discussion. Ms. Louisos said she felt row homes have a very different presence than single family homes. 4 The applicant cited the Village at Dorset Park which has front garages that look very nice. Mr. Klugo said those are one-car garages, not garages that go across the whole front of a unit. Mr. Gagnon said he is willing to talk about the 10% slope issue, with some criteria as to what it should look like to be aesthetically pleasing. He felt it shouldn’t be automatic, and the DRB could approve or not approve it. He also felt it should be similar on both sides of a street. There was no voiced opposition to considering the 10% slope issue. Ms. LaRose reminded members this would be a city-wide consideration. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t necessarily support both sides of a street and had no issue with variety. Members then considered possible requirements to accompany the “10% waiver.” The applicant again mentioned issues with a sloping drive and expressed concern with a term such as “architectural elements.” He felt some of these could be ugly. Mr. Gagnon said he wanted to eliminate the “flat garage” look. Things such as windows and panels were suggested. Mr. Klugo read some language from regulations in Pennsylvania. Ms. Louisos felt there should be some architectural feature/detail near the garages, possibly a small setback and detail on the garage doors. There was general agreement on the following: a. Some setback b. Single wide doors c. Possibly percentage of elevation d. Detail on garage door e. Architectural treatment on the house near the garage Members agreed to a work session to flesh this out further. The applicant felt it would be OK to say this applies only in R-12 districts. b. Agricultural definitions and consideration of new use category: Regarding a definition of agriculture, Ms. LaRose noted that if you have a chicken in your backyard, you are considered “a farm” by state definition. She added that this is being reviewed at the State level as there have been concerns raised. Ms. LaRose noted that staff had shortened the definition of “food hub” to indicate a place where local farmers could come, have storage, have food separated, packaged, etc. This would not be allowed in every district (eliminate R-1- R-2, and R-4). It is already allowed in C-1. The size would also be limited in other residential districts. 5 Mr. Klugo asked if there is a way to allow it to happen with adequate green space. Ms. LaRose cited the issue of truck traffic in residential areas. Mr. Gagnon asked if the intent is to support local farmers or could food come from anywhere. He said he had thought it was local support or for food grown “on-site.” He felt the language should encourage that, but he noted the issue of defining “local.” Ms. Louisos liked the idea of saying “source identified.” Ms. LaRose said staff could come up with a definition of “local.” Ms. Harrington stressed that the food has to be local, not only the farmer. She noted that at some farm stands, farmers are selling “imported” produce. Mr. Klugo stressed the need to address vehicle traffic to avoid unintended consequences. Regarding “edible landscaping,” members considered allowing edible landscaping at a food hub to be counted as a landscaping credit at 150%. Mr. Klugo was concerned this would result in only 2 trees instead of 3. He suggested a different bonus (e.g., square footage) to incentivize. Ms. Louisos suggested 25% as a start. Ms. LaRose said she would speak with the City Arborist and possibly create a little handbook. c. Clarification of allowed uses in Industrial-Agricultural District; Parks & Recreation: Ms. LaRose noted that staff had discovered that the allowed uses don’t match up from the body of the LDRs to the table. Since the table is the most recent document, the other language will be deleted. 5. Discuss concepts for Agricultural Enterprise zoning Ms. LaRose stressed that the regulations would not be intended for just the one business that the Commission has heard from. That business has been sent a copy of the proposed concepts but has not responded as yet. Ms. LaRose said the regulations could apply to a local brewery or winery, etc. It would limit anything related to animals (e.g., a McKenzie factory would not apply). Ms. LaRose cited the need for a lot of specificity. She questioned whether there should be a regulation that addresses the relationship of this use to an adjacent residential component. Mr. Gagnon felt there should just be a stated separation. Mr. Klugo felt there should be a relationship between square footage and acreage, allowing only so much on a piece of land. Mr. Gagnon said there should be an allowance for expansion of a business that is successful. 6 Ms. Quest felt applicants should have to replace NRP land that they develop. Ms. LaRose noted that, as an example in a property they’ve heard from, only 10 acres of the proposed use is NRP. Options for “replacement” could include a rec path, public park, conservation of other land, etc. Ms. LaRose said the 24 allowable TDRs would have to be considered as this would no longer be a “sending area.” Members voiced no issue with “conserving” the 24 TDRs. Mr. Klugo said he didn’t want to create hurdles for a developer-- regulations yes, hurdles no. He felt that anything that is required should aid in bringing people onto the site (e.g., sidewalk, rec path). Ms. Quest didn’t feel a rec path mitigated the loss of NRP land. Ms. LaRose admitted that staff struggled with a recommendation on this component and urged the Committee to continue to think on it. Ms. Louisos said they also have to consider areas for parking and other disturbed land, not only the building. Mr. Riehle added there would be a lot of paved areas to accommodate more than 100 employees, truck traffic, etc. Ms. LaRose stated she’d work on language to incorporate this. Mr. Riehle asked about hours of operation. He noted when they had weddings at their home, people complained about the noise. He felt a 10 p.m. end time might not please some people. Ms. LaRose said she would check with legal people to see if this can be more restrictive. She noted that the applicant would have to have an event permit, and this would define what is allowable. Members briefly considered whether this use would be allowed outside the SEQ. Mr. Gagnon felt it could be applicable to other identified areas. Ms. LaRose noted that some UVM land and some O’Brien- owned land on Old Farm Road might qualify. She also explained the State’s agricultural exemption and what would and would not qualify. She said UVM could sell anything grown/produced on site under an agricultural exemption. 6. Other Business: None was shared 7. Minutes of 16 June 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 12 July 2016 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 AUGUST 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 August 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Harrington, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Murray, M. Kane, C. Shaw, J. Kochman 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: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Quest – Noted the interesting garage design on the new buildings on Colchester Avenue. Mr. Conner: City Council has put the question the first TIF bond on the November ballot. It covers the fully construction of Market Street (including sidewalks, street trees, utilities, stormwater, etc.) from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road, and enhancements to Dumont Park. Both projects are fully designed. 4. Update on Work of Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission: Mr. Shaw, the city’s representative to the CCRPC, distributed an index to the CCRPC’s Comprehensive Plan (ECOS Plan) and background information. He noted that this is the 50th anniversary of the CCRPC. The ECOS Plan goes for 5 years and includes the “Building Homes Together” initiative to provide affordable homes and also the potential for a joint dispatching option for the County. The plan cites the problem of homelessness, especially of children. 2 Mr. Shaw noted that he has served on several sub-committees including the Long Range Planning Committee which is tasked to update the Metropolitan Planning Plan (a 20-year plan which has to be updated by next spring). He was also involved with the Bike/Ped Committee and the Hazard Mitigation Plan (which will go to the City Council within the month). The plan determines whether a community is eligible for federal mitigation funds. The primary driver in South Burlington would be for flooding. Mr. Riehle commented that he’s had the feeling that South Burlington was sort of a “doormat,” receiving traffic from other communities. He wasn’t sure how interested other communities are in addressing this and whether South Burlington is getting equal time. Mr. Shaw said that he has observed that RPC staff is made up of a lot of South Burlington residents, so the city is never “under-represented.” He felt coordination between the city’s representative and the City Council and Planning Commission could be better, and was pleased with having this meeting. Mr. Shaw cited the work of the Unified Work Planning Program where the city gets direct input. The city is getting help with a plan for the Hinesburg Road/Tilley Drive area. Ms. Harrington stressed that Mr. Shaw is welcome at the Planning Commission any time to get Commission input. 5. Receipt, Review and Discussion of Phase I Report of Planned Unit Development- Master Plan Project, plus next steps: Ms. Murray said this is the culmination of a planning grant. The report was submitted by the grant deadline. Much of what was in the report was presented to the Planning Commission at various meetings. Ms. Murray said they are now looking for feedback as to how the Commission would like to go forward. The report/project basically had 4 elements: findings; the use of PUDs as a development tool; PUD typology (which was the meat of the report); and initial recommendations. Mr. Kane then directed attention to the table that outlines the findings. He said these findings indicate why what the city has in place isn’t working to achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Murray said basically what the city now has identifies options for flexibility and has resulted in PUDs being used as a “waiver tool” instead of a “design tool.” The aim of the report is to focus on PUDs as a “design tool.” 3 Ms. Murray said they looked at how PUDs are used across the country and came up with 9 different forms of PUDs. They are typically defined as a “floating tool” which can be triggered by things such as lot size. Ms. Murray noted the Planning Commission was especially interested in the Traditional Neighborhood Development form of PUD, and more work was done on that. She suggested the Commission may want to look more closely at the other forms as well. She also noted there are graphics in the report which show all 9 types of PUDs. Ms. Murray and Mr. Kane then reviewed the 9 types of PUDs: 1. Conservation PUD: which features clustered development. The access road is typically to the side to allow more agricultural use. A possible requirement is to have parking within a specific area of the property. 2. The second type of PUD would allow for an intensive use facility such as a winery (or cider making). This could include community events and allowance for overflow parking. It would still reserve agricultural land but would allow the development of the facility within an envelope. 3. A form typical in a suburban country-type setting could include community gardens and a solar array (there could be incentives for providing either of these options). Mr. Kane stressed that the public benefits should not get lost in the PUD process. 4. Office park/industrial park/tech park: It was noted that the city now recognizes the possibility of modifying parking standards in this type of PUD. Mr. Kane said smaller buildings are more typical now, and there can be parking that allows for shared use. Stormwater infrastructure can serve a regional interest, and this can be part of the negotiation. Typically, there is more formal landscaping, and buffering nearby residential uses is important. There should be provisions for support of transit. 5. Higher density residential uses: This can include some commercial and/or municipal uses. There can be a mix of residential housing types. Community gardens would be built in. There would be a bus stop because density is high enough to support public transit. This is beginning to be similar to form based code in housing types and street typology. 6. This would focus on high density residential and neighborhood commercial. This form of PUD is usually located at a critical intersection. It might also include a hotel. It also begins to introduce the idea of structured parking. 4 7. A more dense development centered around a transit station. This would work with “inner city loops.” UMall functions in this way now. Walkability is still good. Housing is mostly multi-family. It can also include “cycle tracks.” Mr. Conner noted that the design for Garden Street includes one block on the south side of Williston Road with a “cycle track.” The intent is to attract more cyclists than bike lanes as they are safer. The option for this could be in the initial PUD approval. Ms. Murray said this type of PUD also has open space, but it is more “functional” open space. 8. Infill PUD: for land that is already developed. Open space and trail connectivity can still be considered. 9. Adaptive Redevelopment (retrofitting): This could apply to UMall and/or the Kmart properties. It has more dense, urban development with more variety. This could include a strategic transportation connectivity point in the community and could incorporate a parking structure of structures. Ms. Murray noted that a “discretionary review” process would allow for the ability to provide relief/flexibility, but would focus on the reason for the relief. She said this has not always been the case to date. Mr. Conner added that it also allows for good planning which some regulations do not now encourage (which is why people go to PUDs). He said that staff will be coming to the Commission with “reasonable” fixes to avoid the need for PUDs. Ms. Murray stressed that minimum standards have to be more clearly defined in order to promote the desired development. She also noted that waiver standards are scattered in the regulations and should be consolidated. Some of the items that could become part of a Phase II project include: Master Planning provisions, development agreements, associations, buffering, connectivity, etc. Mr. Kane stressed the importance of thinking about the triggers that let developers know what is expected, what the process is, etc., so there will be “negotiation” not “debate.” It establishes the expectations up front and can eliminate the need for waivers. Ms. Murray said there needs to be a “level of comfort” for both the city and the developer. Mr. Conner noted there are currently 2 projects at the DRB where the applicant is seeking either a “master plan” or a “concept” for a development scheme. The DRB is saying: look at the form based code standards and propose to us something similar and we may be able to 5 consider something like a 5-story building in your development. Mr. Kane said that could be codified in the master plan. Mr. Conner said there is always a concern that the city will change regulations. He cited the need for a “path” that will allow for “predictability.” The city’s concern is that some elements that the city favors (e.g., connectivity, open space) would be eliminated by the developer. Mr. Riehle noted a concern with “competing amenities” such as open space and solar arrays. He cited a particular area which was ‘open’ and is now the site of a solar array. Mr. Kane noted that the tendency is always to put open space in the least desirable space for development. There could be a requirement to connect open space to a trail system or other open space or a sotrmwater feature, etc. Ms. Murray said the regulations could require “open space to have a function.” Mr. Riehle asked whether this would give the DRB more power. Ms. Murray said it gives them more discretion but with clear standards and guidelines. Mr. Kane added he felt the outcomes would be more predictable. Ms. Murray suggested a separate section in the city regulations for both the PUD process and design forms. Mr. Conner noted that the same elements are in all of the PUD types but with different emphasis and different standards (e.g., more or less open space). Ms. Kochman said the Open Space Committee wrote a recommendation that there be open space in all projects, where it could be located and how it could be used. She asked how you create the specifications to allow that to happen. She felt the more specific the regulations are, the better. Mr. Kane said they don’t want a developer to add up every sliver of open space so that it has no function; but you also don’t want it so onerous that you don’t get the outcome you want. Ms. Murray said the next steps in Phase II and beyond would include: a. Updating the waiver provisions b. New PUD standards c. Updating Master Planning requirements d. Looking at form based code. She asked if the Commission wants to continue on this path. If so, there would have to be an outline of the scope of work, and by-law amendments to include the types of PUDs. There would also be community outreach and a final hearing. 6 Mr. Gagnon said he would like the opportunity to flesh out the types of PUDs the Commission thinks will be applicable in the near term. Mr. Kane suggested one each of “urban,” “rural” and “suburban.” Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t spend a lot of time of form based code until the city has a chance to see how it is working. Mr. Conner noted that a City Center property owner has hired a consultant to look at what they might do with their property. Staff has told them not to be afraid to be creative to achieve what the city wants. Ms. Murray said she will sit down with staff and come up with a proposal and outline. 6. Overview and Recommendations from Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee Final Report: front porches, fence height limits in front yards, future of home insulation/buyouts: Ms. Harrington said the committee’s final report has gone to the City Council. She noted recommendations that would allow for front porches and reduced fence heights in front yards to create more of a neighborhood feel. Mr. Conner suggested that lower front yard fences could be considered city-wide. Ms. Harrington also noted the Noise Sub-committee recommended providing more education on soundproofing and details of the buyout program. Mr. Conner noted that the new noise contour line added more houses to the 65db area. The Airport has said it would prefer to lean toward insulation rather than purchasing more homes. 7. Candidate Scenic View digital map for public input, outreach plan: Mr. Conner presented the first map that allows people in the city to react interactively. People can click to add their favorite views and comment on them. The public can also add a “my favorite view” which hasn’t been identified. He demonstrated how to do this. 8. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk