Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/22/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 AUGUST 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 August 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Bouchard, T. Harrington, J. Weith 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Conner: An appeal has been filed of the administrative approval for the first new building in the Form Based Code area of City Center. The hearing is set for Thursday evening if a settlement can’t be reached before then. Construction has begun for a window in the upstairs conference room. 5. Review of Draft Urban Design Overlay Standards: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted that the Commission had wanted to see taller buildings at appropriate intersections which would have prominence over the in-between buildings. He showed a map with those intersections indicated. There would be three designations of “nodes” as follows: a. Primary Node: minimum of 2, maximum of 5 stories with a 10-foot setback b. Secondary Node: minimum of at least the appearance of 2 stories, maximum of 4 with a 10-foot setback c. All others: maximum of 3 stories with a 20-foot setback. Mr. Conner then identified the intersections on Shelburne Road where these standards would apply, as follows: a. Proctor Avenue – secondary b. Farrell Street – primary c. Hannaford Drive/Laurel Hill – primary d. Fayette Road – primary (likely to be signalized in the future) e. Holmes Road/IDX Drive– primary f. Other end of IDX Drive/Harbor Bay Road – secondary g. Allen Road – secondary On Williston Road: a. Airport Road – secondary b. Kennedy Drive/Airport Parkway – primary Members felt this was a good starting point and addressed the Commission’s conversation. Mr. Conner said the next step will be to plug in the “particulars” such as doors, windows, heights, parking, etc. 6. Initial discussion of possible amendments to parking standards: Mr. Conner showed a short video related to parking issues, particularly how much usable space is dedicated to parking. He also noted that in South Burlington more space is dedicated to parking than to a building. There is, however, a provision in the LDRs which allows the DRB to waive up to 25% of required parking. Mr. Gagnon said he would favor incentives for less parking (e.g., more bike racks would allow for fewer car spaces). Mr. Klugo said that would incentivize the developer but not the public. He felt the Commission is requiring things that they are not sure will happen (e.g., showers) without empirical data. He cited incongruities in the city of Burlington. He felt the responsibility should be on the person building the building who won’t build more or less than they need. Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of having no minimums for parking. The question then raised was: what if a building has no parking and the public uses the neighboring building’s parking? Mr. Conner noted that some retailers want more parking than they need so there is always the appearance of available parking. Mr. Klugo noted that CVS has a store in Harvard Square with no parking. Mr. Macdonald asked if there has been any feedback from the development community regarding less required parking. Mr. Conner said they have been “cautiously supportive.” There is some concern with overflow to adjacent properties and a concern that minimums become maximums. Mr. Klugo asked about the desired goal and noted there has to be a tie-in to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner said there are relevant sections in the Comprehensive Plan, one which promotes economic development in certain areas and one which encourages a shift away from single person occupied cars. Members favored looking into the possibility of no parking minimums with a possible maximum and asked staff to explore these with the development and business community. 7. Introduction to concept to realign/consolidate zoning districts: Mr. Conner said this concept related to the PUD study being done. He noted that the most logical way to connect PUDs is through the zoning. Questions have been raised as to whether there would always be the appropriate zoning. Another issue is that South Burlington has the most overlay zoning districts in the state, with some being virtually parallel. Staff is suggesting a few possible zoning changes as follows: a. Mixed IC District where there are 2 land use patterns happening in the same district: small businesses (Earl’s, Pete’s RV, and those on Gregory Drive) and the large businesses on Kimball Avenue/Technology Park and those in Meadowland. The suggestion is to join the Kimball Ave/Tech Park/Meadowland into one zoning district. Members liked this idea. b. Belter Farm, which the zoning does not represent what is actually happening since much of the area is flood plain. Mr. Conner suggested “flood plain” could be an overlay, in case it ever changes. Members felt this was a “no brainer.” c. Several areas with very small zoning districts: Shelburne Road near Kmart/Farrell Street area (zoned R-15), areas near UMall and Kinney’s on Williston Road (zoned R-12). Mr. Conner said it would make sense to have these areas all zoned the same. Members agreed. d. C-1 Air District, which does not allow housing and is targeted to aviation uses. The vision had been that it would attract Airport-related businesses, but this has not happened. The feeling is it would make sense to combine this with the regular C-1 District. Mr. Gagnon stressed the need to grandfather current uses. Mr. Conner explained how grandfathering works. e. Swift Street (from behind Denney’s) to Klinger’s and Allen Road from Shelburne Road to just before the 2 Larkin buildings where more residential density is allowed even though there is no housing there. Both were intended as transitional districts and could be called Transitional. Members were OK with this. f. Kimball Ave/Kennedy Dr/Old Farm Rd: currently zoned Light Commercial/Residential; and Kennedy Drive/Route 116: currently zoned residential and small scale commercial. Both are intended to serve a local area and could be combined into one area. g. Commercial-2 at the end of Shelburne Road and the commercial building next to City Hall, which could be combined into the municipal district (both are very tiny districts) h. Districts along the Lake: Lakeshore Neighborhood and the R-1 Lakeview Zone behind it with only 4 properties. These could be combined into Lakeshore. Members felt all the proposals make sense. 8. Staff Update on Housing Replacement Standards Amendments: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. A question had been raised regarding certification of affordability. The suggestion was to add language such as: “Chittenden Housing Trust or Cathedral Square Housing or an entity approved by the city.” Staff recommends: “…a bona fide qualified non‐profit organization specializing in affordable housing selected and approved by the City of South Burlington.” Members indicated that they preferred a qualifications-based standard to the naming of specific organizations. The question of how to deal with congregate housing was also raised. Mr. Conner explained that under the regulations, housing that has some level of care is not considered housing. The Affordable Housing Committee felt that for an assisted living use, the replacement standards should not apply, but they should apply to a use with just a “few services.” Regarding homes near the Airport whose owners choose not to sell would not be included in the replacement requirements. 9. Review Time-Line for Upcoming Rounds of Amendments to the LDRs: Mr. Conner said the next amendments to be considered relate to housing, those related to Shelburne Road would be heard in September. Minor Form Based Code amendments will be on the next agenda. The re-arrangement of zoning districts would be considered in October or November. Mr. Conner suggested that the radio/TV stations amendments and housing amendments could be warned together. Members were OK with this. Mr. Weith noted the timing challenge for the radio/TV station client and said that anything beyond a 12 September warning would be difficult. 10. Possible Warning of Public hearing and Approval of Draft Report on Amendment to Allow Radio/TV Studio in the I-Open Space District: Mr. Weith asked that if the housing amendments aren’t ready for 12 September that the Radio/TV studio amendment be warned for that night. 11. Commission Feedback on FY2019-28 City Capital Improvement Plan: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted that all departments and committees are proposing feedback this month. 12. Other Business: a. Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, Individual Wetland Permit: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. There will likely be one modification (Mr. Conner showed this on the map) to eliminate a road in favor of a pedestrian connection. b. Mr. Bouchard referred to a letter written by Pizzagalli regarding possibly allowing medical use in the I-O district outside of the transit district. He said they understand the Commission’s position of trying to keep medical offices out of areas where there is no public transit. He asked the Commission just to consider it. Mr. Conner showed the Transit Overlay District on the map and noted it was in response to what happened on Tilley Drive. It was noted that people are having a difficult time getting transportation to medical offices where public transit is not available. People on very limited incomes often have to take cabs to and from medical appointments. 13. Minutes of 8 August 2017 Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 8 August 2017 as written. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:55 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission 9-12-2017 Monica Ostby 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Meeting Packet for August 22, 2017 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Review of draft Urban Design Overlay District Standards - Shelburne Road, Williston Road (7:15 pm) Enclosed is an update on the Shelburne Road / Williston Road Urban Design Overlay – specifically, the language contained herein looks at heights of buildings, per the Commission’s discussion back in July. The update includes a map showing potential primary & secondary “nodes” or “key intersections” as discussed by the Commission. 6. Initial discussion of possible amendments to parking standards (7:45 pm) Connected, in part, to the Shelburne Road basic form standards, but possibly applicable city- wide, is the topic of parking standards. The City has what are, in many ways, outdated parking standards that require more off-street parking than needed in many cases and which require applicants to seek waivers to get reduction from. At this meeting, staff would like to introduce this topic for possible future action. Enclosed is a brief bullet-point memo on these topics. 7. Introduction to concepts to re-align / consolidate zoning districts (8:10 pm) This item is being presented for a couple of different purposes this week. First and most importantly, it relates to the big Planned Unit Development projects that you are working on with consultants Sharon Murray and Mark Kane. As they continue with their work, they are looking closely at how the PUDs will function as “overlays” to the zoning districts throughout the City. There are a few places where the zoning districts in place today don’t necessarily line up with the City’s vision, as enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan. And so now, while Sharon & Mark are doing their work on PUDs, is a good time for the Commission to initiate its discussion of appropriate underlying zoning. In addition, as part of the general tidy-up of the LDRs, staff believes there may be some opportunities to consolidate very similar zoning districts. At this meeting, staff will give a very preliminary introduction to these concepts for the Commission to begin to mull over. No action needed at this meeting. 8. Staff update on housing replacement standards amendments (8:30 pm) 2 Staff will provide a brief update on the status of the housing replacement standards. The Affordable Housing Committee has looked over the questions that Commissioners had at your last review and has made some recommendations; staff is in the process of completing a detailed review and submitting the language to the City’s legal counsel. 9. Review timeline for upcoming rounds of amendments to Land Development Regulations (8:40 pm) At the Commission’s last meeting, staff was asked to provide an assessment of the status and potential schedule of upcoming amendments to the Land Development Regulations. Principal Projects nearing hearing stage are: • Radio / TV Studio in the I/O District (ready to warn for public hearing) • Housing Replacement Standards (likely ready to warn public hearing 9/12, for a hearing on 10/10) • Shelburne Road Basic Form Standards (likely ready to warn for public hearing September / October) • FBC Minor amendments / FBC Phasing (likely ready to warn for public hearing September / October) • Underlying amendments to the LDRs related to the PUD project (first set likely ready to warn for public hearing October / November) 10. Possible warning of public hearing and approval of draft report on amendment to allow Radio / TV Studio in the Industrial-Open Space District (8:47 pm) Enclosed is the draft amendment and report for the above-listed item. Staff will likely recommend that the Planning Commission connect the public hearing for THIS item with the public hearing for the Housing Replacement Standards. Staff included these documents in this meeting, however, to give the Commission the option to proceed in the shorter term if it so chooses. 11. Commission feedback on FY 2019-28 City Capital Improvement Program (8:50 pm) See the attached memo from Martha Machar, Deputy Finance Officer. Commissioners are welcome and encouraged to provide feedback on the CIP, potential new projects, or project priorities. The City’s other committees, which specialize in certain topic areas, are taking a detailed look at their portions of the current 2018-2027 CIP and providing recommendations as well. 12. Meeting Minutes (9:05 pm) 13. Other Business (8:57 pm) a. Snyder Braverman Development Company, LLC, Individual Wetland Permit 14. Adjourn (9:01 pm) Urban Design Overlay District Planning Commission working draft July 21, 2017 Urban Design Overlay – Building Heights Staff note: Below are proposed height standards associated with the proposed Urban Design Overlay District. See the attached map for potential locations of primary and secondary nodes. These are anticipated, in most cases, to be corner lots. Building Heights Location Height Setback Designated Primary Node Minimum 2 stories; Maximum 5 stories. Minimum 10 feet Designated Secondary Node Appearance of two stories at minimum. Buildings less than 6k sf gfa may be one story. Maximum 4 stories Minimum 10 feet All other properties Maximum 3 stories Minimum 20 feet For all properties, Floor-to-Floor Height First story 20' Max.; upper Stories 14' Max (a) No building shall be more than 2 stories taller than an adjacent building on the same side of the street within 100 feet. (b) No building shall be 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. (c) Stories of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District are defined as per Section 8.06(F) of these Regulations. (d) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District. £¤7 PinnacleDrLAURELHILLDR EXTDisclaimer:The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. 0 900 1,800 2,700450Feet Legend Ü Map Prepared July 21, 2017FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Primary Node Secondary Node Urban Design Overlay District £¤2 Disclaimer:The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. 0 360 720 1,080180Feet Legend Ü Map Prepared July 21, 2017FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Primary Node Secondary Node Urban Design Overlay DistrictWilliston Road Parking Standards Outline of Concepts South Burlington Planning Commission July 21, 2017 Parking Standards in South Burlington – Outline of Problem & Concepts Options for changes to parking requirements include: • Choice of geography. Could be city-wide, or connected to Urban Design Overlay District. • Eliminate all minimums. • Reduce by a percentage. Half appears more in line with what we are hearing; 25% would be in line with allowance currently permitted as a waiver by the Development Review Board. • Reduce to a standard fixed amount. In the City Center FBC area, non-residential uses all have a minimum of 2 space per 1,000 s.f. In the SEQ Village Commercial District, all non-residential uses have a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Current Conditions / Outline of the problem Adverse issues created by parking minimums: • Current requirements in South Burlington are not ‘right-sized’. • Often too high or too tenant-specific. ITE guidebooks are based on decades-old developments. This creates a great deal of unused impervious surfaces. • Seeking permission to change tenants may require an expensive and time-consuming study, as well as a time-consuming development review process. • They appear to make a statement that cars are valued more than the business, the place, or the open spaces. Vehicle trips are encouraged or made easier. • Reduced density (and affordability?)- Property owners may feel or actually be limited in density, especially in urban areas, by parking requirements where increased density is actually sought. • Creates problems for infill development or redevelopment. Adverse issues with expansive and unused parking lots: • Stormwater runoff becomes a greater concern. • Creates gaps between buildings, or gaps between a street and a building. • Costly to both a community and a developer: parking takes valuable land away from taxable and income-producing properties. • Often creates impediments to other modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and use of public transportation. Fast Facts: • Each parking space requires almost 300 square feet, to accommodate the space itself and the associated drive aisle. • Where minimum parking standards exceed ~ 3½ spaces per 1,000 s.f. of building, it is requiring more space to be allocated to parking than to taxable, building area. • Current regulations authorize the DRB to allow a parking waiver of up to 25%. These are often sought in some form and are almost always granted. Parking Standards Outline of Concepts South Burlington Planning Commission August 22, 2017 Parking Standards in South Burlington – Outline of Problem & Concepts Current Conditions / Outline of the problem Adverse issues created by parking minimums: • Current requirements in South Burlington are not ‘right-sized’. • Often too high or too tenant-specific. ITE guidebooks are based on decades-old developments. This creates a great deal of unused impervious surfaces. • Seeking City permission to change tenants may require an expensive and time-consuming study, as well as a time-consuming development review process. • They appear to make a statement that cars are valued more than the business, the place, or the open spaces. Vehicle trips are encouraged or made easier. • Reduced density (and affordability?)- Property owners may feel or actually be limited in density, especially in urban areas, by parking requirements where increased density is actually sought. • Creates problems for infill development or redevelopment. Adverse issues with expansive and unused parking lots: • Stormwater runoff becomes a greater concern. • Creates gaps between buildings, or gaps between a street and a building. • Costly to both a community and a developer: parking takes valuable land away from taxable and income-producing properties. • Often creates impediments to other modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and use of public transportation. Options for changes to parking requirements include: • Choice of geography. Could be city-wide, or connected to Urban Design Overlay District. • Eliminate all minimums. • Reduce by a percentage. Half appears more in line with what we are hearing; 25% would be in line with allowance currently permitted as a waiver by the Development Review Board. • Reduce to a standard fixed amount. In the City Center FBC area, non-residential uses all have a minimum of 2 space per 1,000 s.f. In the SEQ Village Commercial District, all non-residential uses have a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Fast Facts: • Each parking space requires almost 300 square feet, to accommodate the space itself and the associated drive aisle. • Where minimum parking standards exceed ~ 3½ spaces per 1,000 s.f. of building, it is requiring more space to be allocated to parking than to taxable, building area. • Current regulations authorize the DRB to allow a parking waiver of up to 25%. These are often sought in some form and are almost always granted. Underlying Zoning / District Consolidation  Planning Commission initial discussion  August 22, 2017    1    Considerations for Fixes to Underlying Zoning:    Mixed Industrial Commercial   Adjust boundaries such that there is a separation between the properties south of Kimball  Avenue and the properties north.    Consider whether the southern portion mentioned above belongs with the Meadowlands in  similar zoning.    Consider Belter Farm as R1 to differentiate from Industrial zoning and the Ethan Allen Industrial  Park  Industrial Open Space:   Can this be consolidated into other districts and be removed?   Consider changes to Hill Farm to align with 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.   Commercial 1‐Residential 12 and Commercial 1‐Residential 15:   Consolidate and keep 15 units/acre as density; delete C1‐R12 (only exists behind Sheraton and  on Williston Road near Kennedy Drive intersection)  Commercial 1 Airport   Only exists on Williston Road near Kennedy Drive intersection; Combine with C1‐R15 around it  or consider something similar to the combined Swift and Allen Road zoning districts (see below).  R1‐LV, R1‐L, Lakeshore, and possibly QCP   Consider combining  C1‐Auto   Consider converting to C1‐R15  Swift Street and Allen Road Zoning districts   Consider combining   See purpose statements for both‐ they are nearly identical. Need to consider differences in  residential density (7 and 12 respectively). Would need to assess and discuss.  Commercial 2   Consider converting northern section on Patchen Road near Landfill Road to Residential 7‐ Neighborhood Commercial   Consider converting southern section along Shelburne Road to Commercial 1‐R15   Consider converting small parcel near city hall to newly combined C1‐LR/NC district.  Commercial 1‐Limited Retail and Res 7‐Neighborhood Commercial    2     Consider combining; see purpose statements for both‐ they are nearly identical. Signage  restrictions would need to be considered as one is currently a residential district; also need to  consider differences in residential density. Would need to assess and discuss. Perhaps borrow  from SEQ VC standards.   Residential 7 at Kennedy Drive/Dorset Street Intersection   Consider converting to   No changes at this time to SEQ or Institutional Agriculture.      APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 1 South Burlington Land Development Regulations City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND Residential Uses Single-family dwelling PUD P P P Two-family dwelling PUD P P Multi-family dwelling PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD Accessory residential units Group home or Residential Care Home PUD P P P Agricultural Uses Public & Quasi-Public Uses Cemeteries Community center P P PUD P Congregate care, assisted living, or continuum of care facility C C C C C Cultural facility Educational facility PUD PUD C C C Educational support facilities PUD(5)PUD(5) Food Hub P(7)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(6)P(7)P(7)P(7) Funeral homes, mortuaries, and crematoriums C C C C C C C C C C Hospice P P P P P P Municipal facility P P P C C Parks Personal instruction facility P P P P P P P P P P P Place of worship P P P P P P P P P-ACC Recreation paths Skilled nursing facility C C C C C C Social services C C C C C C C Commercial & Industrial Uses Adult use AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Exempt from local regulation in all districts Permitted in all districts Please see Section 3.10 for regulations Permitted in all districts Conditional in all districts APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 2 South Burlington Land Development Regulations City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Agriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rental P P Airport Uses P P Animal shelter C C P Artist production studio P P P P P Auto & motorcycle sales P P P Auto & motorcycle service & repair P P P Auto rental, with private accessory car wash & fueling P P P P P Bed & breakfast C C Cannabis dispensary (dispensing only)P P P P P P P-TO Cannabis dispensary (cultivation only)P P Car wash P Child care facility, licensed non-residential P P P P P P P P P P Commercial greenhouse PUD P P Commercial kennel, veterinary hospital and pet day care C C P P P P Commercial or public parking facility C C C C C C C C C Contractor or building trade facility P P P P Distribution and related storage, with >15% of GFA in office or other principal permitted use by same tenant C P P P Drive-through bank PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD Equipment service, repair & rental P P Family child care home, registered or licensed P P P P Financial institution P P P P P ACC P P Flight instruction P P P Hotel PUD PUD PUD C C C C Hotel, extended stay PUD PUD C C C C Indoor theater P P See Article 8 APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 3 South Burlington Land Development Regulations City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Indoor vehicle storage, maximum 10,000 square feet P-ACC Junk yard Light manufacturing PUD PUD P P P P Lumber and contractor’s yard P P P Manufacturing & assembly from previously prepared materials & components P P P P P PUD P P P P Mobile home, RV and boat sales, repair & service P P Motor freight terminal C P Office, general P P P P P P P PUD P P P Office, medical P P P P P P P PUD-TO P P-TO Personal or business service P P P P P(7)P P P (7)P P Pet grooming P P P P P P P P P Photocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail P P P P P P P P-ACC P P Printing & binding production facilities C P P P P Private providers of public services, including vehicle storage and maintenance P P P P Processing and storage P P P P P P Radio & television studio P P P C P P P P Recreation facility, indoor P P P P P P P P-ACC P P Recreation facility, outdoor C C C C C C C C C Research facility or laboratory P P P P P P P P P P P Restaurant, short order P P P P P P-ACC P-ACC P-ACC P P-ACC P-ACC Restaurant, standard P P P P P P P P P-ACC Retail sales P (8)P P P(8)P (7)P (7)P (7)P (7) P (9)P (8)P-ACC Retail warehouse outlet P P Sale, rental & repair of aircraft & related parts P P Seasonal Mobile Food Unit P P P P P P P P P APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS C-Non-Residential 4 South Burlington Land Development Regulations City Center FBC District NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R12 C1 R15 C1- AUTO C1-AIR C1-LR AR SW IO C2 IC AIR AIR-IND AirportCommercial 1 Other Commercial Heavy Commercial- Industrial Self-storage P ACC, P- Non-TO Service station C C Shopping center C C Taverns, night clubs & private clubs P P P P P P P P Transportation services P P Warehousing & distribution C C P P Wholesale establishments C C P P P Key and Notes to the Table above: P = Permitted C = Conditional Use Non-TO = Allowable only outside of the Transit Overlay District (1) "N" refers to the Institutional-Agricultural North sub-district. (2) R7 and SEQ-VC as classified as non-residential zoning districts, but are included in this table for purposes of efficiency (3) No minimum lot size for bed & breakfast in the SEQ-VC district (5) Educational support facilities in C1 are subject to the dimensional standards of the IA-North District. See Article 7. (12) Allowable only as a municipally-operated facility. (11) Use is allowed only as an Educational Support Facility. See Section 7.01(E) (7) Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 15,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another. (8) Use is limited to 15,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 25,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another. (9) Use is limited to 30,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 30,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another. (6) Use is limited to 3,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 9,000 SF GFA total footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another and no direct passageways from one to another. (10) Use is restricted to not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is the provision of educational or research services related to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, natural resource preservation, arts or recreation (4) Permitted within a structure existing and approved for use as an 'educational facility' as of July 1, 2013. The structure existings as of July 1, 2013, may be expanded, PUD = Allowable within a Planned Unit Development ACC = Allowable as an accessory use TO = Allowable only in the Transit Overlay District 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing ___________, 2017 In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, _____________, 2017, at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. Add Radio and Television Studio as a Permitted Use in the Industrial & Open Space District Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” A. Add Radio and Television Studio as a Permitted Use in the Industrial & Open Space District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw 2 The proposed amendment would allow for radio and television studios to be located in the Industrial & Open Space District. Currently the use is allowed In the C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-Auto, Allen Road, Swift Street, Commercial 2, and Mixed Commercial-Industrial Districts. (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments are located within the “Northeast Quadrant” and “Southeast Quadrant” Planning Areas and the “Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non-Residential” Future Land Use District. Future Land Use for the Northeast Quadrant is described in part, as follows: “Future Land Use. The pattern of land use and development in the Northeast Quadrant has focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers and ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City…” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-22 Future Land Use for the Southeast Quadrant is described in part, as follows: “Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ. While predominantly residential, the SEQ district also includes many non-residential land uses. These are found chiefly in the Industrial- Open Space (IO) Zoning District at the northeastern edge of the SEQ, but are also found at the Chittenden Cider Mill on Dorset Street, but throughout the district is a scattering of churches, schools, recreation areas, and home-based businesses. “Industrial-Open Space District. The Industrial-Open Space zoning district was intended originally to provide land for high-quality, large-lot industries and offices whose buildings and operations are consistent with a location in an environmentally healthy and visually sensitive area adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Recently, there have been significant concerns about the suitability of this district for uses such as warehousing that generate significant truck traffic.” Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-33. The Future Land Use District, further, is described as follows: “Medium to Higher Intensity, Principally Non-Residential. Intended to foster high quality jobs, these lands provide for medium to large scale industrial, educational, mechanical and office park environments, among other related uses. Their aesthetics should reflect quality design and promote South Burlington as a welcoming place to work and do business. Residential uses are largely discouraged. Land coverage provides for sufficient green infrastructure, and respect primary natural resources, with slightly relaxed controls for wider roadways, increased parking, and lot coverages. Multimodal transport services these areas. Development here should be respectful of lower intensity uses where they abut.” Comprehensive Plan p. 3-6. 3 The proposed change is consistent with the above descriptions. The proposed amendments will not affect the provision of safe and affordable housing. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment would not have a direct impact on any planned community facilities. The City does plan to have additional roadways & bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the area. Safe access from properties by pedestrian to these planned facilities is maintained through requirements for direct, separated pedestrian links from buildings to the street. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com July 26, 2017 Dear City of South Burlington Commission, Board or Committee Chair, This Winter the City Council will be undertaking the annual amendment of the Capital Improvement Program and Budget (CIP). The CIP policy document, among other uses, is developed to coordinate and plan for the orderly development of capital (brick and mortar) improvements and reduce large fluctuations in the tax rate from year to year. The City is requesting your commission or committee’s input prior to preparing the FY2019 – FY2028 (July 2018-June 2028) Capital Improvement Program. If your committee has comments, please provide them to your committee’s City staff person by September 8, 2017. If a new project is proposed, information regarding new projects will need to include a project name, description, and estimated cost. Such projects should be prioritized by your committee’s estimation of their importance to the City in relation to other projects within the department/service area. For your reference, The CIP reflects the following anticipated capital expenditures: 1) Forecasted costs related to maintaining South Burlington’s current level of service through re rebuilding and replacing existing capital equipment and infrastructure including costs such as paving roadways, replacing vehicles, upgrades to existing sewer treatment plants and costly non-brick and mortar items such as cars, emergency apparatus, and IT equipment. 2) Estimated spending related to building public infrastructure that will result in a new downtown - City Center – including only projects eligible for TIF District financing such as new roadways, streetscapes and bridges, structured parking, parks, municipal facilities, wetland mitigation and stormwater management systems. 3) Projects (generally related to transportation and parks) that are included in impact fee ordinances, requested by committees or the community, or shown in long range plans or studies that improve the level of service such as reconstructing Spear Street, adding sidewalks to Hinesburg Road and expanding recreation fields. A CIP is a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future needs and costs consistent with current City priorities and fiscal outlook. Page 2, FY2019-FY2028 Capital Improvement Program Comments 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com The CIP incorporates Council priorities; committee recommendations which are solicited annually; adopted plans and ongoing projects; and equipment and facility maintenance, replacement and upgrade needs. As a financial planning tool, the CIP responds to the estimated fiscal capacity for each year going forward. It is not a static document and changes from year to year. The current adopted Capital Improvement Program may be viewed online. Please let me know if you would like any additional information. Ilona Blanchard and I are available to meet with your commission, board or committee if that would be helpful. Yours sincerely, Martha Machar Deputy Finance Officer cc: Ilona Blanchard Project Director SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 AUGUST 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 August 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. Forde, CCRPC; J. Weith, E. J. Nekrasen, D. Saladino, L. Brown Mr. Conner presided over the meeting until the election of officers. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: Mr. Conner provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: Mr. Nekrason asked about the new analysis of east-west roads that is in the plans. He felt this is very important piece of work because you can’t base new roads on studies that are 16 years old. Mr. Conner said this has not yet risen to the level of a formal project. He noted to Commissioners that their next opportunity to identify priority projects will be this fall’s round of project requests to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Ms. Forde noted the 2001 study is available on the CCRPC website. She will send a link to Mr. Conner to distribute to Commission members. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Ostby: Attended the Affordable Housing Committee meeting. They continue to discuss extension of inclusionary zoning city-wide. Mr. Riehle: Noted the well-attended Bikes and Bites event at Veterans Park. Mr. Conner said there were over 200 bicycles counted. There will be 2 more events (every other Thursday). Mr. Macdonald: Was amazed to see bike lanes in Chicago, even with the chaotic traffic. They are very well used. Ms. Louisos noted that she and Mr. Conner attended a meeting at which “river corridors” were discussed. These differ slightly from a flood plain. The Rivers Management Program and others are 2 looking at areas that should/shouldn’t be considered candidates for modified “river corridors” because of existing buildout. She suggested there could be language in the LDRs about this. Mr. Conner: noted an event this night at Underwood property. He reminded members of the visioning plan adopted by the City Council a few years ago. The Project Team is developing a Master Plan based on the Vision Framework that had been developed by a task force a couple of years ago.. City Fest will take place on 12 August at Veterans Park, 5-9 p.m. followed by fireworks. Attended a conference regarding geographic mapping. There are many things the city could be doing in this regard. Construction is ongoing on both Hinesburg Road and Market Street. There is a pedestrian lane open on Hinesburg Road so people can see the hugeness of the project. The Market St. project will result in improved water quality. 5. Planning Commission Reorganizational Meeting: a. Elect Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk b. Set Regular Meeting Dates and Times Mr. Conner noted that the City Council did not get any applicants for the vacant seat on the Commission. The position will be re-advertised. Mr. Conner then opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Riehle nominated a slate as follows: Ms. Louisos as Chair; Mr. Gagnon as Vice Chair; Ms. Ostby as Clerk. Mr. Macdonald seconded the nominations. There were no further nominations. In the vote that followed, Ms. Louisos, Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Ostby were elected unanimously. Mr. Riehle then moved to continue to meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7 p.m. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos presided over the remainder of the meeting. 6. Initial Review of Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Allow Radio/TV Studio in the I-O district b. Modify City Center Form Based Code T3 Door Standards Ms. Louisos explained the process followed for LDR amendments. 3 a. Mr. Weith of White and Burke said they represent a client who is interested in constructing and occupying a new studio in Meadowlands Park in the I-O District. There would be a clear unobstructed site line to the transmitter in Mt. Mansfield, which makes this area appealing. Mr. Weith said he can’t think of a reason why this use should not be allowed in that district. It is similar to other uses that are allowed as it is primarily an office use and it complies with the purpose statement of the I-O district. Mr. Conner was asked why this area would not have previously permitted such a use. Mr. Conner said that he suspected that at the time the TV studio on Joy Drive was made permissible in that district, the City had simply not done a city-wide analysis. He said the proposed request appears to staff to be consistent with what is allowed in the I-O District. He noted there is a scenic overlay district that covers part of that district. An accessory structure would be behind the building. Mr. Weith said the applicant knows the regulations and would comply with them. Mr. Conner showed a map of the area and where the height limits apply. Commission members did not see a problem. Mr. Conner said the amendment could be part of the next round of amendments. Mr. Weith noted the applicant’s time crunch and said they would appreciate any expediting that can be done. Mr. Conner said he would provide the Commission with schedule options at its next meeting. b. Mr. Brown described a piece of property he has on Hinesburg Road which he is trying to develop. It is long and narrow (it was shown on a map). When considering what will work, they have run into issues with the Form Based Code. They are looking at a residential duplex, something that goes along with what is already on Hinesburg Road. A previous plan was approved by the DRB, and the applicant would like to “cut that in half.” He showed the concept and noted that one door would face Hinesburg Road and the other would face a 20-foot right- of-way. Mr. Conner noted that in the T3 district, one way the regulations keep the neighborhood scale is that each unit must have a door facing the street. Mr. Macdonald noted that this property does not lend itself it doors facing the street. Mr. Conner added that there are about 10 properties of a similar nature. He asked where members stand on this issue. Members agreed to consider it. Mr. Gagnon was concerned with “unintended consequences.” 7. Williston Road Network Study, Phase II presentation, discussion and possible action: Ms. Forde noted that South Burlington requested 2 studies which are represented in this item and the following item. This study is a long-term vision for Williston Road. 4 Mr. Saladino then showed the project area and noted that the goals for the area include: a. Providing opportunities to make Williston Rd. complementary to the new downtown b. Striking a balance between “to” and “through” trips c. Integrating design elements to facilitate all modes of traffic He then showed slides of the existing conditions. He noted that the road now handles 28,000 vehicles per day. There is heavy use for “through trips.” There is also a lack of turn lanes and limited transit accommodations. Slides of a possible “Williston Road Tomorrow” showed a strong building edge up to the curb, fewer curb cuts, trees, parking behind buildings, etc. Mr. Saladino then outlined potential short term recommendations, including: a. Updating official map to define a grid street network b. An estimated 100-foot right-of-way (currently 66-90 feet) c. Traffic signal crossing and coordination (advanced traffic management system) d. South side improvements including a cycle track and sidewalk e. Dorset Street Intersection improvements Four types of streets have been identified: primary, secondary, tertiary, and intended cross-lot connections. Meetings have been held with property owners who were shown where these types of streets are located and where there can be “cross-lot” connections. Blocks have been tested to be sure they are economically viable. The city could acquire property over time to achieve the wider right-of- way. Mr. Conner noted that the 100-foot right-of-way along Williston Road has just been adopted into the city’s regulations. As a property comes in, it will have to conform to that. Mr. Saladino then showed pictures of what exists on the south side today. A cycle track would be added, and the sidewalk would be moved back and replaced by a landscaped area. A grant has been filed to undertake these improvements. At Dorset Street/Williston Road, the road could be restriped to indicate only one turn lane from Williston Road to Dorset Street. There would be 3 other traffic lanes. This would result in the level of service going from “D” to “C.” Long term improvements include north side opportunities, including bringing buildings to the edge of the right-of-way. The study identifies 4 options: Option 1: adding 12 feet of width with a center 2-way turn lane 5 Option 2: a 12-foot landscaped median with turn lanes where needed Option 3: one lane in each direction with angled parking on each side of the road (comparable to Main Street in Burlington) Option 4: One lane in each direction with light rail. These were all shown as possibilities for how the 100-foot right of way could be used in the future to meet the city’s needs. There would also be northbound ramp improvement which would add a second lane to the I-89 northbound on-ramp. Mr. Gagnon asked about utilities and noted the number of power poles. He asked about underground utilities. Mr. Saladino said that is an expensive option. He noted that the curb line would stay the same, so most of the poles could stay where they are. Mr. Macdonald asked if there is right-of-way for the south side bike lane. Mr. Conner said there is “intermittent right-of-way.” It would be a property-by-property discussion to get that done. Mr. Riehle suggested signage above in addition to arrows on the road which are hard to see in winter. Ms. Ostby asked about reducing curb cuts so there aren’t so many accesses to a property. Mr. Conner said there may be a way to do that, working with property owners and establishing incentives. Mr. Gagnon said if you reduce curb cuts you may increase queueing lines. Mr. Conner suggested the possibility of controlled turn-ins to a number of properties. 8. Tilley Drive/Kimball Ave Network Analysis Phase I presentation and discussion: Ms. Forde said the purpose of the study is to develop a comprehensive land use and transportation plan. Mr. Saladino showed a map of the project area and reviewed what has been done to date, including a public meeting. He showed photos of the history of the area and the buildings that now exist. He described the area as a “gateway from the south.” There is a mix of zoning in the area including: I-Open Space, Mixed I & C, Commercial 1 (limited retail), Residential 1, and Residential 12. There are both traffic and transit overlay districts (transit being very limited at present). Mr. Saladino showed a map of the existing sidewalk, paths and bike lanes and indicated where there are gaps. He also showed a map of where there have been crashes in recent years and described the area as “high-crash.” 6 There are about 40,000 cars per day on I-89 in the area, about 12,000 on Kennedy Drive and about 10,000 on Kimball Ave. Mr. Saladino indicated an “enterprise area” for future employment (taken from the Regional Plan). The goals of the project include: a. Developing a safe transportation plan b. A focus on employment from land use c. Mixes uses as supported in the Comprehensive Plan d. A potential Exit 12B Mr. Saladino noted the lack of east-west roadways and the potential extension of Swift Street on the city’s Official Map. Part of the study looked at recent applications and concepts from developers (none of which are final). It was noted that what developers are looking for would generate twice as much traffic as now exists on the Interstate (2750 peak hour trips approximately). Initial traffic modeling indicated what would happen at intersections if all that development occurs, with only the known planned street improvements taking place. Mr. Conner noted that this assumes no other improvements happen, and that is not realistic, but was done to get a baseline. The Project Team conducted a public survey which yielded 325 respondents. Parks/open space ranked as the top favored land use to encourage in the area. Single family homes, offices, medical offices, multi-family units, and retail followed in that order; with hotels, services, and light industrial being ranked nearer the bottom. Respondents were given options for individual transportation improvements to pursue, and then given a series of four “packages” of improvements to pursue, each with an associated cost. When people were asked what they felt would best address future growth, 26% supported a multi- modal approach (this was ranked #1 amongst SB residents living outside the study area), 34% said interchange access (ranked #1 amongst non-residents), 25% said connected streets and paths (ranked #1 among those living in the study area), and 15% said modest improvements. The Project Team used this information to develop two distinct alternatives, one focused on a multi- modal network and one with an Interchange and connections. Both were designed to accommodate the same number of total trips, but in different ways. The cost for the first alternative (paths, transit service, new bike/ped bridge) would be about $14,500,000 (with $600,000 operating costs). Alternative #2, including the new interchange would cost $42,000,000. 7 Mr. Riehle felt bikes should be accommodated first on Hinesburg Road before an interchange is considered. It should also be determined where people are coming from and going to. Mr. Saladino said traffic on Hinesburg Rd. would increase with the interchange, but Williston Rd. traffic would significantly decrease. Ms. Ostby noted there is a lot of controversy about the Swift St. extension. Ms. Louisos said it is on the Official Map. Ms. Ostby asked if other cities have looked at capturing created solar energy and using that capital to budget multi-modal. Mr. Conner explained how revenue from the new solar installation in the city will be used for energy efficiency. Mr. Saladino suggested a third alternative could bring traffic off the interchange into a parking lot with transit service from that lot. Mr. Riehle asked the timeline for an interchange. Estimated varied from 10 to 30 years if funding were identified. Mr. Conner noted how long it took to get Market St. done due to all of the moving parts and permits associated with such a project. Ms. Ostby asked about a north-bound entrance to I-89 from Kennedy Drive. Ms. Forde said you cannot build just the northbound access. The feds will not allow it. Mr. Saladino said he didn’t think that would help Tilley Drive much. Mr. Saladino asked if anyone is opposed to Alternative 2. Ms. Louisos said it would be very long-term. #1 has more short-term tasks. She wasn’t prepared to say yes or no now. Mr. Conner stressed that there is no easy answer to this. The question is where a community wants to spend its energy. Right now it’s on City Center. He suggested the Commission prioritize where it wants to put its energy. Ms. Ostby said it would be good to state the economic drivers for an Interchange and whether there is enough to make it a priority. Mr. Riehle asked about building the bike/ped “bridge” before the interchange. Mr. Saladino said that would be great if there were still “earmark” dollars from Congress. Mr. Saladino said they will continue to work with staff to pull together the package, with the Interchange as a possibility but focusing on multi-modal. 9. Street Names: 8 Mr. Conner said this is a preview to consider a street to connect to Garden Street near the previous “Venue” building. Names suggested include Morris, Wentworth, Peace Lane, 71st Street. It was suggested that somewhere in the Market St. area there be something names for Senator Jeffords whose last act as a Senator was to secure the funding for Market Street. Commissioners agreed that Senator Jeffords should be recognized in the area for his efforts. 10. Minutes of 11 July 2017: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 11 July as written. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. ______________________________Clerk