Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/28/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 FEBRUARY 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 February 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; S. Murray, M. Kane, J. Leas, K. Epstein 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: Mr. Leas introduced himself as a candidate for the City Council. He said he was happy to know there is a Plan and Planning Commission and urged the Commission to put people first and keep the heavy economic interests “in their place.” 3… Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington reminded people to vote next Tuesday. Mr. Riehle attended a meeting related to Tilley Drive traffic and other issues. There will be more future meetings. Ms. Harrington, who also attended, said there was a lot of interest in a “park and ride.” Mr. Riehle also noted that Exit 13 was brought up again, and he had explained the concern with a cloverleaf with no place for bikers and pedestrians. He said he would like to see something in writing that if the interchange is built there would be priority given to bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Conner: noted he had attended the meeting with the FAA. Written questions were accepted. He didn’t feel too much new was relayed. If a hos community wants to apply for funds for programs, there is a May 1st deadline each year. The FAA Administrator said he would be happy to attend a future meeting, and he is being invited to a City Council meeting. The large conference is being remodeled to include windows. The Affordable Housing Committee is working through the housing replacement amendment. The Commission should see it in 4-6 weeks. Ms. Louisos noted she had suggested that the Committee have some public vetting before they come to the Commission. 4. Initial Discussion of possible street name changes: Williston Road, Shelburne Road, Hinesburg Road: Mr. Dorn stressed that this is just a discussion item. He noted that last summer, the City worked with a consultant regarding “branding.” The consultants conducted a survey of the public (over 500 respondents). 55% felt South Burlington doesn’t have an “identity,” and 65% felt that was important. Following this, talk began to center on “complete communities” and to identify city shortcomings. South Burlington has a great school system, but it has no “downtown.” There is also no fully developed schedule of community events and less than great signage. Mr. Dorn noted that City Center is now moving forward. One thing that occurred to staff is that the city’s 4 most significant roads are named for other communities (Shelburne, Hinesburg, Williston and Dorset). This made sense a century ago when the roads were directing people to those communities and South Burlington was a “pass through” community. However, South Burlington is now its own community, not just a place to go through to get somewhere else. Mr. Dorn proposed that the Planning Commission begin a dialog regarding those 4 street names. He drew attention to a handout and noted that one suggestion is to name the roads for the 4 quadrants of the city (Gateway, Center, Ridgeline, Lakeshore). This could also help to build local identity. Mr. Gagnon noted the number of people who would have to change addresses on accounts, stationery, etc. Mr. Dorn suggested the name changes could be set out 3 or 4 years to give people time to address that concern and to plan ahead. Mr. Conner noted that name changes are not unprecedented and cited the change of the Town of Sherburne to Killington in the 1990s. Mr. Dorn noted the city is doing more signage and is planning more events this summer to bring people together. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly linking a name change to something major going on the particular road. Mr. Gagnon noted the Williston Road studies begin done to enhance/change that road. Mr. Conner said there will be a presentation to the Commission on that study in late March. Mr. Dorn concluded his presentation by noting that 30% of those polled said they would change the name of South Burlington as part of the identity issue. Agenda items were re-arranged until both consultants had arrived. 5. (formerly #8) Other Business: a. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, Williston Road and Ethan Allen Drive. b. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, 333 Shelburne Road. No issues were raised on these items. c. Meeting Schedule: Members agreed not to make up the earlier February meeting at this time. The next meeting of the Commission will be on 14 March. Ms. Louisos noted she will not be able to attend that meeting. 6. (formerly #7) Minutes of 24 January 2017: Ms. Ostby asked to add to the discussion of replacement housing her concern that a single family home is replaced with a single family home rather than a unit in a multi-family project. Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 24 January 2017 with the above addition. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Klugo abstaining. 7. (formerly #6) Review possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations: End of Trip Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Updates: Ms. LaRose introduced language provided by the Bike/Ped Committee. She noted they had spent considerable time on this. The language provides definitions for short and long-term bicycle parking and defines what it is and where it can be. Ms. LaRose noted the current language merely requires a bike rack but doesn’t say what size or how many, which means you can get the same amount of bike storage at a small CPA office as you do at UMall. The proposed regulations would address that and would also include standards for residential and non-residential buildings. Ms. LaRose stressed that no solution is perfect. The Bike/Ped Committee considered 3 options for determining criteria for bike/bed facilities: Option A: tied into to vehicle parking Option B: based on square footage (a problem being a large warehouse that may have only a few employees) Option C: tied in to use The Committee preferred Option C and suggested a “curve” for large buildings. Mr. Gagnon suggested using trip generation rates or building population. Ms. LaRose said the problem is that an office building today could be a day care tomorrow. She thought the Committee might consider using trip generation rates. Ms. Louisos suggested looking at the list of traffic generators and seeing if anything “pops out.” Ms. LaRose noted there are regulations in Burlington and Williston, and the Committee used those as a starting point. Williston’s regulations are based on parking. Mr. Klugo suggested looking at communities South Burlington aspires to be like. Ms. Harrington asked about a building with multi-uses. Mr. Conner said they would add up the usage of each use category. They wouldn’t go by individual tenants. Ms. LaRose said they are trying to reduce the stress on someone moving into a new space, having to wait months to get the DRB’s approval for a small change in a bike rack. Mr. Klugo suggested that upper levels of parking garages could be re-used for bike storage when cars are not used as much. Ms. Ostby noted that in Los Angeles you can swap out parking spaces for bike parking spaces. Mr. Conner said that would be possible. Ms. LaRose noted that in office buildings, some outdoor parking spaces could be moved indoors for bicycles. Ms. LaRose noted these regulations would not apply to City Center at this stage. That will require more study. Mr. Epstein later suggested contacting the League of American Bicyclists for ideas. 8. (formerly #5) Planned Unit Development and Master Plan Project, Phase II: Ms. Murray briefly reviewed Phase I of the Project and advised that the report is on-line. She noted that the recommendations of Phase I focused on PUDs as both a form of development and a process. The existing regulations don’t focus as much on the form. The report also identifies 9 types of PUDs and focuses on the Traditional Neighborhood form. In Phase II, they will develop more of these PUD types based on Commission interest. Members were shown graphics for each of the PUD types. Mr. Kane explained the elements of each drawing. Ms. LaRose suggested viewing everything as a “recipe card” where each type has the same ingredients but is defined by how much of each ingredient it has. Mr. Klugo noted that the drawings reveal that the major roads in the city are east-west which the houses are north-south facing, which is why the city struggles so much with solar. Ms. Murray then briefly reviewed the recommendations from Phase I including discretionary DRB review (use of waivers, focus on PUD as a design, clarify discretionary authority), considered Regulatory Relief (waiver provisions needing more standards, use of PUD provisions to waive or modify LDR requirements), redefining PUD as design (vs. use as a waiver tool) to allow desired forms of development (vs. regulatory relief), clarification of the purpose, use and standards for Master Plans. Ms. Murray said the focus in phase II will be on PUDs: a. Redefining PUDs as a design tool b. Defining types of PUDs c. Developing standards d. Establishing mandates, incentives e. Establishing process, standards for negotiated review The question of “vesting rights” will also be addressed (where/when in an application the applicant is guaranteed that the rules in effect at the time are the rules that will hold throughout). It was noted that there are potential tie‐ins to new state legislation regarding “transportation districts.” Under this legislation, a developer who triggers something will have to build it,, but that developer can be reimbursed from funds collected from previous developers. Ms. Murray said they will also be looking at the City Center Form Based Code and a possible master plan concept. They will consider allowing modifications/adjustments, requiring master plans or regulatory plans for major development, and PUD‐related “community types. Ms. Murray proposed monthly work sessions with the Commission as well as community forums throughout the year. In March, they are proposing reviewing LDRs and identifying with the DRB any “housekeeping” amendments. They would also develop a working outline of proposed by-law amendments. From April to September, they will prepare draft by-law amendments and graphics. The final draft would be completed by December. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission April 24, 2018 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: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: February 28, 2017 Planning Commission 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 (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:07 pm) 4. Initial discussion of possible street name changes: Williston Road, Shelburne Road, Hinesburg Road, Kevin Dorn, City Manager (7:15 pm) In recent years, the City has been exploring its identity and actively rebranding itself, with a focus on self-identity and standing apart from surrounding communities. Kevin seeks to discuss how the major roads in the City- which are prominently named after other communities- affect this goal. 5. Planned Unit Development & Master Plan Project, Phase II: Consultants Sharon Murray & Mark Kane will present (7:45 pm) The project was intended to kick off at the January 17th meeting, but was postponed due to bad weather. Attached is the January memo from Sharon Murray of Front Porch Planning & Design. Phase 1 of the PUD Report can be found at www.sburl.com/planning. Sharon and Mark will be presenting Tuesday evening. 6. Review possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations: End of trip Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Updates (8:45 pm) See attached staff memo. 7. Meeting Minutes (9:00 pm) See attached for January 24, 2017. 8. Other Business (9:05 pm) a. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, Williston Road and Ethan Allen Drive. 2 b. De Minimus Certificate of Public Good application pursuant to 30 V.S.A. 248a for Verizon Wireless: co-location of wireless telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, 333 Shelburne Road. Staff has no concerns about these de minimus applications. They utilize existing poles and will have no adverse or undue impacts. Full copies of the reports are available, with summaries attached herein. 9. Adjourn (9:10 pm) PLANNING COMMISSION 24 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 January 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Louisos advised that item #5 on the agenda is being postponed as the weather has prevented the consultants from attending the meeting. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos advised that she and Ms. Harrington have attended 2 City Council meetings. A discussion of this will be included under item #6. 4. Preview Work on Housing Replacement Regulations: Mr. Simson noted he had attended the 17 January City Council meeting with a proposal to amend the LDRs to include a “housing replacement provision.” The Council was very interested in the idea and the Affordable Housing Committee was asked to “fast-track” this. The Committee met with City Attorney Bolduc who already had a draft for them. The will meet again on 8 February to finalize a proposal. They are being careful so there are no unintended consequences. The amendment would be placed in Article 18 and would be related to housing preservation. It is similar to what exists in the City of Burlington. In Burlington, the amendment applies to all housing, not only “affordable” housing. The Committee discussed this and felt that if it applied only to affordable housing, there would have to be standards which would add complexity for staff to administer. The Committee feels that a large, expensive house is not likely to be torn down. In South Burlington, a house that might be torn down would fall in the moderate to affordable range, so the Committee is leaning toward following the Burlington model and making the replacement requirement apply to all housing. It would require a developer asking to demolish or change the use of a house from a residential to commercial to either construct a new housing unit on the site or elsewhere in the city, to convert a non-housing unit to a housing unit, to move the existing house to another location, or to contribute $60,000 per unit to a housing fund. Some exemptions would apply: a. If the housing is restored within a year b. If the house being demolished is sub-standard/uninhabitable c. If the house is in a zoning district where residential use is no longer permitted d. If there is a conversion of a duplex into a single family homes e. If the owner demolishes the house and then rebuilds it for his own use. Mr. Riehle asked what would happen if an owner upgraded a house so the rent went way up. Mr. Simson said that is OK as long as the use remains residential. He noted that the LDRs speak to housing for all people at all economic levels. The focus is on housing preservation. Mr. Riehle asked about a timeframe for the amendment. Mr. Simson said they can have the language in the Commission’s hands by 9 February, prior to the Planning Commission meeting of 14 February. Ms. Louisos noted the City Council has asked the Commission to prioritize this. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission can have a meeting to review the language and then warn a public hearing. The Council would then have to hold its own public hearing. He felt it would be a March time- frame for adoption. Ms. Louisos noted that she had heard that the more housing there is available, the less pressure there is on the market, and the more chance there is of lower costs. She felt it is right to have the amendment apply to all housing, not only affordable housing. Ms. Harrington asked if moving the house would require securing land on which to put the house. Mr. Simson said it would. Mr. McDonald asked about tearing down an 1800 sq. ft. house and building a 600 sq. ft. house. Mr. Simson said that’s OK as you still have the housing unit. Mr. Riehle asked if the Commission should be more careful about changing an area from residential to commercial. He cited the area on Hinesburg Road where this is happening. Mr. Simson said under the amendment, the houses taken down would have to be replaced somewhere in the city. Ms. LaRose expressed concern that with so much housing being built in the city, a developer could call another developer and say he is taking down a house and ask the other developer to claim that one of his units is the replacement unit. Mr. Simson said they had discussed that and felt that if the original plan was for 200 units, and they took down 5 units to build it, they would have to provide 205 units. He acknowledged there will have to be a way to prevent a developer from “selling” his obligation to another developer. Ms. Harrington asked about replacing a single family home with a similar home instead of a multi-family unit. Mr. Simson said that could depend on the location. He cited Mary Street where it might be beneficial to replace several of those single family homes with a multi-family structure as it is so close to City Center. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t feel this would encourage people to tear down houses. Ms. Harrington suggested possible incentives if a house is moved instead of demolished. Mr. Simson felt the Airport situation is a great lost opportunity. Members agreed to consider the proposed amendment as soon as it is received from the Affordable Housing Committee. 5. Kick-off of Planned Unit Development Project, Phase II: This item was postponed due to weather conditions. 6. Review and Possible Feedback on Burlington International Airport Draft 2016 Re- Use Plan: Mr. Gagnon noted his company does work for the Airport on the housing demolition, but since this is just the re-use plan, he felt he had no conflict of interest. Members agreed. Ms. Louisos reviewed the City Council meetings on this issue. She noted that the Planning Commission comments were discussed, and the Council unanimously endorsed the comments and said the Commission could add a sentence indicating its endorsement. Ms. Harrington said that the CNAPC members were very pleased with the draft. Ms. Louisos felt it might make sense to add Greg Severence’s comments. Other members agreed. Ms. LaRose will edit the letter to add those comments. Ms. Harrington then moved to endorse the letter and to authorize the Commission Chair to sign off on a final version per tonight’s feedback. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Gagnon abstaining. 7. Brief Update on Planned Zoning Amendments: Ms. LaRose said this is the first comprehensive list staff has put together to figure out how many amendments the Commission wants to move forward on. Some have considerable work needed (e.g., agricultural enterprise); some have been withdrawn (the O’Brien garage issues). Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see them all worked through. Ms. Louisos agreed. She particularly liked the garage door standards. Ms. LaRose noted that the Bike/Ped Committee may have something for the Commission to consider regarding “end of trip” facilities. Mr. Riehle asked about scenic views. Ms. LaRose said there has been a lot of discussion but no agreement on how broad, etc. Mr. Riehle asked specifically about views lost by heights of trees. Ms. LaRose said that could be part of the more involved project. Ms. LaRose said they could consider “foreground” when discussion scenic views. Ms. LaRose noted the Natural Resources Committee is putting together its work plan. They could be asked if they would like to work on the scenic views issues. Ms. Harrington did not want to lose the opportunity to address replacing single family homes with multi-family buildings, especially in older neighborhoods. She felt this changes the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see the language the Affordable Housing Committee comes up with and then have the discussion as to how the Commission might want to tweak it. Ms. Louisos noted that some of the zoning regulations prohibit that; she felt that Mary St. was an unusual situation because of its proximity to City Center. Mr. Gagnon said they had to decide whether they want to preserve the number of housing units or the character of a neighborhood. Ms. LaRose also noted there are some issues between the DRB and staff over the interpretation of regulations; some of these issues may come to the Commission for clarification or further guidance. Mr. Riehle suggested looking at the K-mart property to see what could be built there. Ms. LaRose said that ties in with the Shelburne Rd. discussion. She felt it would be short-sighted to discuss just the one property. Ms. LaRose noted that the PUD discussion will be taking up a lot of the Commission time and staff time. She also noted a list of other potential projects which could be discussed. Ms. Ostby asked if there will be a city vote on a bike/ped project on Williston Road. Ms. LaRose said she had heard that could be another vote. She suggested calling Ilona Blanchard for information. 8. Consider Timeline for Planning Commission Projects Commissioners looked through the draft outline of upcoming projects. Members discussed moving the Scenic Views discussion up. Ms. LaRose suggested discussing first what the scope would be, and deciding how much of the scope and outline would or could be tasked to another committee. Members agreed to discuss this soon, and to ask the Natural Resources Committee to be the ones to begin the project. 9. Shelburne Zoning Amendments: Ms. LaRose said staff had no issues with the proposed amendments. The Commission concurred. 10. Minutes of 10 January 2017 : Ms. Ostby moved to approve the minutes of 10 January 2017 as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: February 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting The Planning Commission received and reviewed a memo in late September 2016 from Keith Epstein, a member of the South Burlington Energy Committee, with regards to a proposal for bicycle parking and end of (bicycle) trip facilities. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voiced support for the idea and directed Staff to review the language with the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (SBBPC). The SBBPC and staff worked together through several meetings to discuss ideas, priorities, and implementation. We had several robust conversations about the appropriate requirements for number, structure, and size of bike facilities, as well as thresholds for requirements. The attached draft represents the ideas and language that are endorsed by the SBBPC. I have also attached a draft of the worksheet used to assist in comparing several possible methodologies, and to assess whether the resulting requirements would be appropriate. For the next meeting, we intend to include a draft of an appendix which would highlight appropriate bicycle racks. We will continue to work towards a stylized version appropriate for inclusion in the Land Development Regulations. The SBBPC is eager to assist and will likely attend a future meeting to answer questions. We would also like to thank Bryan Davis from the Regional Planning Commission, and Nic Anderson, South Burlington resident, for their insight and assistance. Agenda 6b Draft End of Trip Language 2-8-17.docx Proposed South Burlington Land Development “End-of-Trip” Bike Parking Facilities February 2017 Draft [Staff note] To be included in Chapter 3 of the LDRs, Definitions  Short Term Bicycle Parking (also called “bicycle parking”). Bicycle parking spaces to accommodate customers, patients, employees, clients, and those biking to these locations to do business.  Long Term Bicycle Storage (also called “protected bicycle storage”). Bicycle parking spaces intended for employees, tenants, and their visitors and intended to provide a high degree of security and protection from the weather when a bicycle is unattended for a period of time in excess of 4 hours. ********************************************************************************* [Staff note] To be included in Chapter 13.01G of the LDRs, Supplemental Regulations Short Term Bicycle Parking: A. Purpose. These standards for short and long term storage of bicycles are intended to recognize and promote cycling as a viable means of transportation and recreation for residents, consumers, visitors, and employees. B. Applicability: These standards would apply to any application which meets the threshold for site plan review under Section 14.03 of the LDRs, and also within the City Center Form Based Codes District. C. Standards for bicycle parking space (bps): a. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be dependent on Table XX. b. Bicycle parking shall utilize the ‘Inverted U’ style or as shown in Appendix G. c. If an applicant wishes to install something different, it shall meet the following specifications: i. Allow secure locking of the frame and wheel; ii. Support a bicycle frame at two points of contact; iii. Meet the intent of the examples provided in Appendix G. d. Location & Serviceability. Each bps shall be: i. Securely anchored to the ground and on a paved surface of at least 2x6 feet; ii. Spaced to allow easy access to each bicycle and spaced at least 24 inches from obstructions, including bike racks, walls, doors, posts, columns or landscaping; iii. Easily accessible from the street or multi-use path and protected from motor vehicles; iv. Visible to passers-by and well-lit to promote usage and enhance security; v. Located at principle entrances where practicable. e. Bicycle parking serving buildings with multiple entrances shall be dispersed so that all principal public entrances are served. Long Term Bicycle Parking: A. Purpose. These standards for short and long term storage of bicycles are intended to recognize and promote cycling as a viable means of transportation and recreation for residents, consumers, visitors, and employees. B. Applicability. These standards would apply to: Agenda 6b Draft End of Trip Language 2-8-17.docx a. New construction of mixed use or commercial buildings and residential buildings exceeding 3 units per building; b. Structural alterations involving the replacement, relocation, removal, or other similar changes to more than 50% of all load bearing walls shall require compliance with all standards for long term bicycle storage. c. Additions to buildings of more than 5,000 square feet shall require compliance proportional with the building addition. C. Standards for Long Term Bicycle Storage d. For Residential Buildings: i. Secure storage in bicycle locker, bicycle storage room or private enclosure outside of the private residence that protects entire bicycle, including components and accessories against theft and weather. ii. Garages which are private to each unit may count towards parking requirements. e. For Non-Residential Buildings i. Secure storage in bicycle locker, bicycle storage room or enclosure that protects entire bicycle, including components and accessories against theft and weather; ii. Includes lockable clothes locker, minimum 12” wide, 18” deep, 36” high. Lockers do not need to be in same place as bicycle storage; iii. Private offices with adequate dedicated space may account for up to 50% of the required indoor parking areas and lockers; iv. Shower and changing facilities dependent on the number of bicycles required to be stored and as shown in Table XX. Table XX. Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Activity Short Term Bike Parking Long Term Bike Storage Residential buildings with more than 3 units 1 for every 10 units; minimum 41 1 for every unit Warehousing, contractor, and light industry 1 per 20k SF; minimum 2 2 per tenant Retail, restaurant, office, and all other 1 per 5k SF; minimum 4 50% of required short term bike parking spaces. Educational 1 space for each 20 students of planned capacity. For new construction, one space for each 20 employees. 1 May request waiver from minimum per building for buildings with less than 6 units if Development Review Board finds the need is adequately met for visitors. Table XY. Long Term parking – shower and changing room facility requirements Number of protected long term bicycle parking spaces Changing facility Unisex Showers Clothes Lockers 1-3 none none 1 4 - 9 12 12 3 For every 10 12 12 40% of LTB parking 2 if unisex units available to any gender; otherwise provide one per gender Example Use 1k Sq. Ft Parking Multiplier Required Auto Option A Option B Option C Option A Option B Option C Lockers Showers Green Mountain Coffee Office 55 3.5 193 10 20 11 10 10 6 3 1 Healthy Living Retail 33 5 165 8 9 7 8 5 3 1 0 XFinity/Bed Store Retail 6 5 30 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 IDX/GE Offices Office 233 3.5 816 41 35 47 41 18 23 9 3 Earl's/Pet Food Retail 21 5 105 5 6 4 5 3 2 1 0 Ace Hardware Retail 20 5 100 5 6 4 5 3 2 1 0 Blue Mall Retail 56 5 280 14 10 11 14 5 6 3 1 Hannaford and Party City Retail 73 5 365 18 14 15 18 7 7 3 1 McDonalds Williston Road SO Rest 3.5 12 42 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 The Guild Restaurant SD Rest 6 18 108 5 4 4 5 2 2 1 0 University Mall Retail 600 5 3000 150 90 120 150 45 60 24 6 Units Residential 6 Units Resid 6 2.25 14 4 4 4 6 Residential 25 Units Resid 25 2.25 56 4 4 4 25 Residential 60 Units Resid 60 2.25 135 7 6 6 60 Option A Based On Vehicle Parking <<-- <<-- <<-- Option B Based on square footage Under 10k SF 10K-50k SF 50K+ SF 100k+ Residential Min. 4 Option C Generalized Use Categories Residential Min. 4 Warehousing, contractor, and light industry Min. 2 Retail, restaurant, office and all other Min. 4 Long Term Bike Parking Options Long Term Bike Parking Options Required Showers & Changing Facilities 50 % of STBP spaces minimum 2 1 for every unit 1 for every unit 2 per tenant Based on STB 50 % of STBP spaces minimum 2 1 per 5k SF Rounded Up Minimum 4 Short Term Bicycle Parking Options 1 for every 10 units Short Term Bike Parking Options 5% of required vehicle parking 1.5 per 10k SF 1 for every 10 units 1 per 20k SF 4 3 per 10k SF 2 per 10k SF Meeting Memo To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Sharon Murray, AICP Front Porch Community Planning & Design Date: January 18, 2017 Re: PUD Project, Phase II—Kickoff Meeting __________________________________________________________ Mark Kane from the SE Group and I are looking forward to meeting with all of you again on Tuesday, January 24th, to kick off Phase II of our PUD Project. We’ll be working with you over the coming year, on a monthly basis, to develop proposed bylaw amendments that allow new forms of “planned development” in the city, as highlighted in the Phase I report. In this meeting we hope to cover the following:  A quick review of Phase I report recommendations (attached). The full report will be available for review on the city’s website.  An updated scope of work and schedule for Phase II (attached).  An initial discussion regarding Task 1—identifying associated “housekeeping” amendments under the current LDRs to better support planned development (starting from the ground up). As noted in report findings and recommendations, planned unit development (PUD) and master plan provisions under the city’s current regulations have been used largely as a “waiver” tool, to accommodate development that doesn’t meet the strict requirements of underlying zoning (with regard to setbacks, height limits, etc.). This use predates more recent changes in state statutes (Title 24, Chapter 117) for dimensional waivers, subdivision regulations and planning unit development – including options that offer more limited flexibility under zoning, and much greater flexibility for planned development – as specifically established and defined under local regulations. Our first task then, scheduled through March, is to work with staff and the DRB to review the current LDRs in the following areas, for consistency with state statutes and to better support new forms of planned development:  Existing waiver provisions (throughout the regulations) for potential consolidation (related statutes: 24 VSA § 4414 (8) Waivers, § 4418 Subdivision Bylaws).  Master plan provisions (under Article 15), including associated purpose statements and standards of review – as the framework (“bones”) for all larger, phased development projects, including planned development (related statutes: § 4417 Planned Unit Development, § 4418 Subdivision Bylaws).  Subdivision regulations (under Article 15), including purpose statements, associated DRB review processes and technical and design standards, which may also apply to planned development (related statutes: 24 VSA § 4418 Subdivision Bylaws, §4463 Subdivision Review).  Planned Unit Development provisions (under Article 15) – including related purpose statements and standards of review (related statute: § 4417 Planned Unit Development).  Associated technical and design standards (throughout the regulations) – including form- based code and SEQ PUD standards that could be consolidated (e.g., street design standards), as more generally applied to subdivisions and planned development.  Associated development incentives (under Article 15) – especially those intended to support public/private partnerships in relation to defined public benefits–e.g., public access, open space, workforce housing, additional density, other public amenities (related statute: 24 VSA § 4414(14) Green Development Incentives, § 4417 Planned Unit Development).  Associated legal considerations (under Article 15) – for example, to include the city’s official map, capital budget and impact fee ordinance; associated bonding requirements; development agreements, including vested rights and the scheduling of required infrastructure improvements; and management associations and agreements (related statutes: 24 V.S.A. § 4421 Official Map, § 4422 Phasing, § 4463 Subdivision Review, § 4464 Decisions and Conditions). This list and the statutory references noted above are mostly for our benefit – and for those of you who may take a special interest in this stuff. There’s no expectation that you’ll review these before our meeting on Tuesday (but if you’d like, they’re available online: http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/24/117. Only be aware that, in addition to recommendations included in the Phase I report – and in the City’s Comprehensive Plan – there are also governing statutes (and related case law) that provide the foundation and legal framework for our work ahead. The next phase of the project – developing design criteria for new forms of planned development – should prove to be more engaging… Looking forward to our discussion Tuesday! Best, Sharon