Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/14/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 AUGUST 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 August 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; R. Greco, D. Olsky, SBPD Sgt. D. Dubie, Holly Rees, Director of Recreation & Parks; P. Steinman 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Olsky inquired about development in South Burlington and asked about the status of removing wetlands from density calculations. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report Commissioners and staff provided a brief update on work. 5. Presentation on suspicious behavior training and a refresher on safety procedures during a meeting Sgt. Dubie provided an overview to Commissioners and responded to questions from Commissioners and the public regarding suspicious behavior and meeting safety. 6. Presentation of possible municipal recreation facility in City Center; discuss relationship to City Center Form Based Code Ms. Rees provided an overview of a concept to install a “dome” facility along Dorset Street in City Center that had been presented to the City Council the week before. The facility would likely require amendments to the Land Development Regulations to proceed. Ms. Rees and Commissioners discussed the location, intended functions, and timing. 7. Consider input to the 2020-2029 Capital Improvement Plan Mr. Conner introduced the annual update cycle to the CIP. He indicated that staff had been working on a deeper list that could be used for future transportation improvement identifications in concert with development. Commissioners asked to have this shared at the next meeting. 8. Update on current South Burlington population & demographics Mr. Conner presented a staff memo on recent trends in population and housing growth. Commissioners held a discussion of this information. 9. Meeting minutes – July 24, 2018 Mr. Riehle moved the minutes of July 24th be approved. Mr. Mittag seconded. Minutes approved on a voice vote. 10. Other business a. Draft amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance; public hearing August 28, 2018 Commissioners had no comment. b. Determine date of special meeting with Affordable Housing Committee Commissioners elected to start the next meeting early, at 6 pm on August 28th, to have a joint meeting with the Affordable Housing Committee. Ms. Louisos will reach out to the Chair to set an agenda. c. Overview of upcoming meetings Covered under (b) above. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission February 19, 2019 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 Staff Memo DATE: August 14, 2018 Planning Commission meeting 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. Presentation on suspicious behavior training and a refresher on safety procedures during a meeting, Sgt Dubie, South Burlington Police Department (7:15 pm) Doug Dubie from SBPD is meeting with each of the City’s committee to discuss safety and suspicious behavior. He will give a short presentation, followed by answering any questions you may have. 6. Presentation of possible municipal recreation facility in City Center; discuss relationship to City Center Form Based Code (7:25 pm) [Work Plan Project #3] Holly Rees, Recreation & Parks Director, and Jennifer Kochman, chair of the Recreation & Parks Committee, will give an overview of a potential recreation facility in City Center. Staff notes that as conceived, such a facility would likely need amendments to the Land Development Regulations to proceed. Following this introduction, at this or a future meeting, the Commission can discuss this element of the potential facility. 7. Consider input to the 2020-2029 Capital Improvement Plan (8:10 pm) [Work Plan Project #7] See attached letter from Ilona Blanchard. We have schedule this discussion for this evening’s meeting so that if the Commission has feedback or follow-up questions, it still has time on the City schedule to provide input at its 8/28 meeting. At this meeting, staff would recommend that if Commissioners have questions they’d like to pose of staff, to go ahead and we’ll get you answers for the following meeting. 8. Update on current South Burlington population & demographics (8:40 pm) See the attached staff memo. 9. Meeting minutes – July 24, 2018 (8:55 pm) 10. Other business (9:00 pm) a. Draft amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance; public hearing August 28, 2018 b. Determine date of special meeting with Affordable Housing Committee c. Overview of upcoming meetings 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com July 23, 2018 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 FY2020 – FY2029 (July 2019-June 2029) Capital Improvement Program. If your committee has comments, please provide them to your committee’s City staff person by September 3, 2018. 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 (existing or proposed) CIP 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 (greater than $10,000 in value) 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 adding bicycle facilities to Spear Street and expanding recreation fields. Page 2, FY2020-FY2029 Capital Improvement Program Comments 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 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. 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 Capital Improvement Program for General Fund, and Stormwater and Sewer Enterprise Funds Department Head Adoption Schedule FY20 - 29 Week of July 23 Recommendations for FY 2020- 2029 CIP solicited from Committees August 2018 City Staff work with committees to review current plan and obtain any recommendations August 10, 2018 Forms provided to Department Heads September 3, 2018 Committee final CIP recommendations due to staff liaison September 7, 2018 Department heads submit draft FY 20-29 CIP incorporating committee recommendations September 24, 2017 (9/24-9/28) Department heads meet with Martha, Ilona, Sue, Tom & Kevin to discuss Department’s CIP (including committee recommendations) October 8, 2018 Department Heads submit FY 20-29 projects in completed CIP forms- incorporating Kevin & Tom recommendations October 17, 2018 Draft FY 2020 – 2029 Presented at Dept Head Meeting (Martha, Ilona, Dept Heads) November 5, 2018 Draft CIP FY 2020 – 2029 Presented to Council for questions & discussion (Council, Martha, Ilona, Dept Heads) December 17, 2018 Public Hearing & Potential Council Amendment of CIP (Council) Updated 7/23/2018 FY20 BUDGET SCHEDULE *Denotes regular City Council meeting dates July 18 Department Managers Mtg. - overview of CIP Process for 2020-2029 July-August-Sept Staff liaison works with committees to review current CIP and obtain recommendations for FY20-2029 CIP September 3 Committee final CIP recommendations due to staff liaison September 7 Department Managers submit draft of 2020-29 CIP for the Department to City Management October 1* Council Approval of FY20 General Fund Budget Schedule September 24-28 Dept. Manager meetings w/ City Management for CIP Review October 10 HRIP recommendations from Dept. Managers due for FY20 October 11-12 HRIP review by Dept. Managers to City Management October 15* Council guidance for FY20 General Fund Budget Preparation October 17 Memo to Department Managers to begin formulating FY20 GF Budgets October 17-Nov. 5 Staff liaison discusses FY20 General Fund Budget with committees and solicits input & recommendations for funding October 17 CIP & HRIP presented at Dept. Manager’s meeting October 25-26 Final consideration of CIP & HRIP by City Management November 2 Proposed CIP sent to Council & Dept. Managers November 5* CIP Draft presented to Council- overview for questions, input & discussion November 16 First Draft of FY20 Budget due from Dept. Heads to Finance November 26-30 Management review of Draft Budget with Dept. Heads December 10-12 Management final review of FY20 budget with Dept. Heads December 14 Council receives Draft FY20 GF Budget December 17* Public Hearing & Potential Council Amendment of CIP (Council) Presentation of FY18 Audit FY20 Budget Overview presented to City Council January 7* Council Mtg. on FY20 Budget Dept. Manager Budget discussion, public input & possible City Council approval January 17 Final date for City Council budget approval (if needed) January 18 Council approved budget sent to Steering Committee (min. 45 days before Annual Mtg. vote) January 21* Regular Council Meeting January 23 Steering Committee Meeting (Tentative) January 24-25 Budget book preparation January 28 Budget book finalized and printed Budget books available Council approved budget available to voters (min. 20 days before Town Mtg.) February 1 Post Warnings and Public Hearing Notices (min. 30 days) for March 4 Pre- Town Mtg. & Public Hearing and March 5 Town Meeting Vote March 4 Pre-Town Meeting & Public Hearing on City & School District Budgets March 5 Annual Meeting-Vote on budgets and any other warned articles 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Current estimated South Burlington Population & Housing trends DATE: August 14, 2018 Planning Commission meeting There has been some discussion recently about population and housing trends in the community. Some of this has been shared with the Planning Commission. Staff thought it would be helpful to provide the Commission with an analysis of where we are in terms of housing and population using the best information available. Below is a table indicating estimated growth in population and housing over several recent time periods as well as noting the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan’s Objectives. Below the table is a more detailed discussion of the components of the table. Population Growth Population growth data was drawn from the US Census Bureau. The 2010 Census count listed the City’s population at 17,904. The Census does annual estimates in the intervening years. The most recent year for which data available is 2016. The Census’s population estimate for 2016 is 18,704. This represents a 0.75% annual average growth in the population since 2010, and 1.5% annual average growth from both 1990 to present and 2000 to present. Notes about this data: - Census population estimates are exactly that, estimates. The only population count takes place with the decennial Census. Especially in smaller communities, such as South Burlington (at least on a National Scale), there’s room for error in these estimates. 1990 to 2016 2000 to 2016 2010 to 2016 2016 Comprehensive Plan Objective: Anticipate and prepare for growth rate of Annual Average Population growth 1.5%1.5%0.75%1% to 1.5% Annual Average Dwelling Unit growth 1.75%1.9%1.50%1.5% to 2% Population and Housing Objectives and Trends, 1990 to 2016 - While some of the recent discussion in the community has focused on population trends since 2010, staff notes that six years is a very limited timeframe by which to consider a trend. Changes in population are subject to many of the same overall economic forces that affect housing, employment, etc. Therefore, staff has included some longer timeframes for the Commission’s review as well. Dwelling Units Growth: The City tracks changes in the number of dwelling units, or homes in the community. This is measured by issuance of zoning permits for new home construction, less dwelling unit demolition permits. According to our local data, as of 2010, the City had 8,379 dwelling units existing or under construction. As of 2016, the City had 9,058 dwelling units existing or under construction. This represents approximately 1.5% annual average growth rate in the number of dwelling units from 2010-2016. Going further back, annual growth since 1990 has been 1.75% and since 2000 has been 1.9%. Notes about this data: - Staff is confident about the data included, but notes that these are for permits only. The timeline for when units are occupied has a lag from the date they are permitted. - In addition, our data prior to 2000 may not count congregate care housing in the same manner Comprehensive Plan Analysis & Objectives The 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan included an analysis of population and housing trends and objectives related to each. In the analysis of Future Trends and Needs, the Plan reports: “With anticipated development of City Center, the City will plan to continue its historic housing growth rate of 1.5-2%, and a population growth rate of 1-1.5%. This long-term growth rate represents a conservative approach to planning for future needs.” (p. 2-8). The Plan then includes the following Population Objective: “Objective 1. Anticipate and prepare for an average annual population growth of approximately 1-1.5%, and a housing growth rate of 1.5-2%.” (p. 2-9) It should also be noted that the Comprehensive Plan does include the findings of a demographic forecast prepared for the School District in 2014. The demographer’s forecast was that the City’s population would increase from 17,904 in 2010 to 18,310 in 2025. The Planning Commission reviewed this information, as well as historic growth patterns, and determined that anticipating and planning for the growth rates described above was the appropriate course of action. Staff would be happy to elaborate on any of this at the meeting. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 JULY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 July 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; B. Milizia, R. Greco, R. Kay, S. Dopp, L. Ravin 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Conner asked to add an update on guidance to city committees under Other Business. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Greco noted that at a recent DRB meeting, the public was told they were at the wrong forum for the issues they were raising. She asked that people’s concerns be put on a future agenda. Mr. Gagnon asked if something is submitted under existing regulations, and the regulations then change, is the project grandfathered. Mr. Conner said if there is a Preliminary Plat submitted before the regulations are changed, it is reviewed under the Regulations at the time of submission. He stressed that a “project” is the province of the DRB while a “standard” is the province of the Planning Commission. He urged the Commission not to discuss a specific project. Ms. Greco stressed that the public wants to be heard. She feels the LDRs do not match the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gagnon noted there is a process to change the LDRs. Ms. Greco said they are losing the “rural character” because the LDRs allow it. Mr. Kay expressed concern that the integrity of private wells be respected when there is development in the area. He noted he and neighbors have been involved in successful litigation to that effect. Mr. Kay also felt the city should look beyond the 100-year storm even in considering potential flooding. He noted that he had to design a special system to handle area flooding that affected his home. He was concerned the city could become liable if it allows homes to be built on land that then floods. He also stressed that the developer should not put the burden of dealing with that potential on the homeowners. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: 2 Ms. Louisos advised that the City Council has passed the LDR changes sent to them by the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle reviewed figures from the Administrative Officer’s monthly report. There is a $14,000,000 increase in the taxable amount of permits over the same time last year. Mr. Conner noted this includes new development and improvements to existing development (e.g. Target) Ms. Ostby noted the Burlington City Council approved a letter regarding getting a conclusion to the nursing strike. She noted this does tie-in to affordable housing. Mr. Conner: All records a being digitized, a massive project, but a good one. Ray Belair will be retiring next week, and staff is in the process of interviewing to fill his position. Mr. Mittag cited how wonderful it was to work with Ray and how accessible he has been. Members will be doing their annual review of the city’s 10-year Capital Improvement Plan on an upcoming agenda. 5. Discuss concepts to re-align/consolidate similar zoning districts: Ms. LaRose reminded members that they had started this discussion a year ago. She noted that some districts are so close to each other it seems foolish. In addition, staff has to look at 30 different districts every time a zoning request comes in. She also commented that trying to tie zoning to geography/topography gets “messy.” As a first example, Ms. LaRose indicated the “Mixed IC” district on the map. It has various uses including the small lots in the Ethan Allen Industrial Park and the very large uses in Technology Park. The original intention was for this to be a “new industry,” “new economy” area, not a place for car repairs. Mr. Mittag indicated a piece at the top of that district which seems to be in the Mixed IC but is really a flood plain. Ms. LaRose said there is an overlay for that which does not show on the map. Mr. Mittag also questioned why the properties north and south of Kimball Ave. are in separate districts. Ms. LaRose said there is a question as to whether Kimball Ave. is the appropriate boundary line. In looking at the Mixed IC, Ms. LaRose said what she recommends at the least is that Ethan Allen Industrial Park and those uses north of the Airport not be in the same category/district as Technology Park. The question is what to do with the land in between. Should the type of heavy industry in Ethan Allen Park also be on Kimball Ave? Ms. LaRose noted that Ethan Allen Park is a great place for people to do what they want to do without annoying anyone. And that type of place is needed. The Meadowland area has less intense uses. Mr. Conner said it is more of a “modern campus” with less heavy truck use. Mr. Riehle cautioned not to create a zone with a negative impact on the residential uses there. He asked if there is anything pending that might be of concern. Ms. LaRose said there is not except for the 3 PUD project. She said that working on that project made them realize the difference in how various uses would function. Mr. Riehle expressed concern as to whether this should be higher on the Commission’s priority list when there are areas with a “race before the next development comes in.” Ms. LaRose felt this should be in place before the PUD project is complete. Mr. Conner said he knows the Hill Farm has interests as well as the O’Brien area. Ms. LaRose stressed that none of the changes staff is considering would increase the intensity of what exists today. Mr. Riehle also noted that they have to keep tax considerations in mind. Mr. Conner said that one thing that is not being done super well is more intense industrial and commercial. There may be a sufficient amount of land, but they may also want to allow/en-courage more compact use of industrial land. Ms. Greco asked about the taxes brought in from UVM buildings. Mr. Conner said if UVM rents a building, the building owner pays full taxes; if UVM owns a building, they pay a “payment in lieu of taxes.” Mr. Conner added that everything on Tilley Drive is leased by UVM. He suggested the Commission might want to have a presentation on this aspect of development by the City Assessor. Ms. Dopp suggested that buildings with a lot of open space could let employees have a community garden and make the open space usable. Ms. Ostby commented that in Edmonton they have a “heavy industrial” use that is so placed that it doesn’t interfere with the enjoyment of adjoining zones. Ms. LaRose questioned whether any of this land should be incorporated into the Airport Industrial Zone. That zone was created to provide a place to serve the Airport (e.g., FedX facility), but it hasn’t developed that way. She would propose to eliminate the redundancy and get rid of the “Airport Industrial Zone” name. Ms. Milizia was concerned that a lot of what is being talked about is “looking inward,” not at scenic views. The panoramic views are not discussed, and she is troubled by that. Those views will be gone if they are not considered. Ms. LaRose then addressed the C-1 Airport Zone (corner of Williston Road and Kennedy Drive). It was supposed to support the Airport but is largely car rental. It could be incorporated into an adjacent zone, probably the C-1-R-12. She felt it would be nice to exit the Airport to something other than car rentals/repairs, etc. The lakeshore area is encumbered by many grandfather clauses and many different districts. Queen City Park is different from R-1 Lakeshore and Bartlett Bay. The only ones that might be combined are R-1 Lakeshore and R-1 Lakeview. There are no recommended changes to Queen City Park. 4 Ms. Ostby noted that waterfront development is on the Commission’s work plan and could be moved to a higher priority. The C-1 Auto district was created to allow redevelopment and small scale growth of existing auto sales. Ms. LaRose felt that what happens there could still happen with a C-1 zoning designation and grandfathering of existing uses. Mr. Mittag noted that by clustering the auto uses there means they don’t go anywhere else. A member of the audience noted that this is not an attractive place to live and there are now several residential uses happening there. A change in zoning wouldn’t mean the auto uses would have to go, but they could not expand or have any new auto uses. Mr. Conner felt some little expansion would have to be allowed. He also stressed that this will be one of the more active areas of the city in coming years and it is a good area for and “urban PUD form.” Ms. Louisos suggested increasing the landscaping for those areas. Ms. Ostby also noted the tax revenue impact of that part of the city and said that people come from out of the city to make significant purchases there. Ms. Dopp asked if there is enough room for a new car dealership there. Mr. Conner said probably not. He added that in the future, they would be more likely to see used cars located there. He noted that the Mixed IC and the C-2 also allow auto sales. Ms. Ostby said she would like to see the tax revenue from that district compared to residential use. Ms. LaRose then addressed the C-1 Limited Retail district which was established to serve nearby residential areas. Ms. Conner said a similar use is the NRC-7 district. Mr. Mittag asked if the commercial uses serve the neighborhoods. Mr. Conner said the gas station does and it is the only place to get milk (the convenience store). The rest of the uses don’t. Mr. Conner questioned whether there are other areas where a similar retail use could be created for neighborhood use. Mr. Mittag suggested Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dirve and Williston Road/Kennedy Drive. Ms. Ostby said she left the last meeting with the feeling that the Commission should discuss the whole UVM zoning. She said she wouldn’t support any changes unless the whole issue is considered. 6. Update on multi-site Bicycle-Pedestrian Scoping Study: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of a similar project and noted that tomorrow night will be the first meeting for the next such projects. The specific projects being considered include: Allen Road from the big buildings down to Shelburne Road with an alternate of Harbor View Road; Spear Street from the US Forest Service Building to the Shelburne line; Hinesburg Road between Williston Rd. and Kennedy Drive; and Fayette Road from Queen City Park Road to just above the movie theatre. Ms. LaRose noted these projects don’t represent the only needed areas. The list is never static, and it will be looked at again. Mr. Conner then reviewed the process that will follow tomorrow’s meeting. In mid-fall, the Commission will get a presentation on the chosen recommendations. 5 7. Commissioner review and discussion of last week’s showing of presentation on land value: Mr. Mittag said it was an “anti-sprawl lesson” that showed how disbursed residential and commercial uses don’t contribute. Ms. Ostby asked if the C-1 Auto zone and other similar zones could be used for TDRs. Mr. Conner said they could, but the question is how to incentivize the market to do that. He questioned whether they would want to down-zone the area to incentivize the use of TDRs there. A developer can build 5 stories there now. The question is would anyone want to build 8 stories. Ms. Ostby questioned whether anyone would want to live in an 8-story building between car dealerships. Mr. Conner noted that for a TDR to work, there has to be something a developer want to do that can’t be done any other way. Mr. Mittag raised the issue of the O’Briens not caring to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner noted the Comp Plan is a “road map,” not a set of regulations. Mr. Mittag felt that if the O’Briens had been approached, they may have been receptive to the issue of complying. Mr. Conner noted that the O’Brien project does not use the maximum density allowed. Ms. Greco noted that a number of places in the Comp Plan say things will be “monitored.” She asked who does this. 8. Meeting Minutes of 2 June 2018 and 10 July 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 2 June and 10 July 2018 as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: Mr. Conner distributed a draft of a letter to go to city committees. One part of the letter asks committees to give some time to talking with Mr. Von Turkovich and provided feedback to the Commission on those discussions. Mr. Mittag raised the possibility of a 100-foot strip of land between UVM I-AG lands and adjacent properties. Mr. Conner noted the next Planning Commission meeting will be 3 weeks from tonight. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, FAICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Shaleigh Draper, Zoning Clerk Layne Darfler, Planning Technician TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: August 5, 2018 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance:  ZA-19-01: Grocery in E-LM  ZA-19-02: Additional Residential Unit in RL  ZA-19-03: Parking Amendments The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 6:45 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the hearing to me by close of business on August 27, 2018. Thank you. CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney David White, FAICP, Planning Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-19-01 Grocery in E-LM ZA-19-02 Additional Residential Unit in RL ZA-19-03 Parking Amendments Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 beginning at 6:45pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows:  ZA-19-01: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to expand the allowable size for grocery stores within the Enterprise-Light Manufacturing Zoning District to 35,000 square feet.  ZA-19-02: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to remove the provision for an additional unit to be added to an existing multi-family structure within the Residential-Low Density zone.  ZA-19-03: The purpose of this amendment is to add parking requirements for Art Gallery/Studio uses, align parking requirements for small daycares/preschools with those of large daycares/preschools, to allow tandem parking for all dwelling units and to clarify its arrangement when used for multi-family structures, and to allow parking within a front yard setback within a driveway when there is room for at least one parking space beyond the setback. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington:  ZA-19-01: The proposed amendment applies to the portion of the Enterprise Light Manufacturing zoning district between Home and Flynn Avenues.  ZA-19-02: The proposed amendment applies to all properties zoned Residential-Low Density.  ZA-19-03: The proposed amendment applies to all parts of the city. List of section headings affected:  ZA-19-01: The proposed amendment modifies Footnote 26 in Appendix A- Use Table.  ZA-19-02: The proposed amendment deletes Section 4.4.5 (d) 5. A.  ZA-19-03: The proposed amendment modifies Table 8.8.1-1, Sec 8.1.12 (c), andSec. 8.1.14 (b). The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-19-01 Grocery in E-LM This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to expand the allowable size for grocery stores within the Enterprise-Light Manufacturing Zoning District to 35,000 square feet. Grocery stores continue to be permitted only between Home and Flynn Avenues and are subject to Conditional Use review. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment has no impact on the goals and policies contained in the Municipal Development Plan regarding safe and affordable housing. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment allows for a slightly larger use than is already permitted within this zoning district. It is consistent with the future land uses and densities of the Municipal Development Plan by enabling a variety of non-residential uses within the Enterprise Light Manufacturing District that support nearby residential communities. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, FAICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Shaleigh Draper, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: July 10, 2018 RE: Grocery Stores in E-LM Zoning amendment ZA-16-03 was adopted in 2016 to allow grocery stores of up to 30,000 sf in size in a portion of the E-LM zone, subject to conditional use review and approval by the Development Review Board. The new City Market at 207 Flynn Avenue was enabled as a result of this amendment. As constructed, the grocery store component of this development is just under 30,000 sf. The total building area is larger and includes separate office, community, and café space. City Market is looking to expand into the separate office space; however, doing so would exceed the 30,000 sf size limitation and cannot be approved. As a result, the Onion River Co-Op has requested a zoning amendment to adjust the size limitation to 35,000 sf. Given the relatively small increase in total allowable area, staff supports the requested amendment. Proposed language is underlined in red. Appendix A-Use Table – All Zoning Districts Footnotes: 1-25 unchanged 26 Grocery Stores up to but not to exceed 30,000 35,000 square feet may be permitted subject to conditional use approval by the DRB in that portion of the Enterprise – Light Manufacturing District between Flynn and Home Avenue. Enterprise USES E-AE E-LM NON-RESIDENTIAL USES E-AE E-LM all other uses remain unchanged Grocery Store – Small ≤10,000sqft CU CU26 Grocery Store – Large >10,000sqft N CU26 Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-19-02 Additional Residential Unit in RL This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to remove Sec.4.4.5 (d) 5, A, Additional Unit to Multifamily. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment does not have an impact on the goals and policies related to the availability of safe and affordable housing. The vast majority of residential properties within the city will not be impacted by this change, and it will have little impact on residential growth in the city. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment does not have an impact on the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan. The elimination of this provision will not impact the ability for properties within RL zones to developed at the base density permitted within the Burlington CDO. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, FAICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Shaleigh Draper, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: July 24, 2018 RE: Residential Density: Additional Unit to Multifamily At their May 17, 2018 meeting, the Ordinance Committee considered a request to delete Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 5, A, Additional Unit to Multifamily, of the CDO. This section is a longstanding provision in the city’s zoning code dating back at least to the 1994 Zoning Ordinance. The provision enables the addition of 1 more dwelling unit to existing multi-family properties in the Residential – Low Density (RL) Zone. The provision has been used on occasion, but no tally of the total number of times it has been used is available. To obtain approval of an additional dwelling unit, all other zoning standards such as lot coverage, setbacks, and density must be met. According to an analysis of RL properties with duplexes, triplexes, and 4-plexes of compliant lot size:  Up to 29 duplexes could become triplexes  Up to 3 triplexes could become 4-plexes  Up to 2 4-plexes could become 5-plexes These numbers are based on density and lot size only. They do not account for things like parking feasibility, lot coverage, or setbacks. The attached maps depict properties in the RL zones with potential for 1 additional unit per Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 5. The properties are depicted on the basis of density and lot size only. The properties are not clustered in any particular area. They are fairly disperse though the RL zones. Given the limited potential for use of this provision, retention or deletion of Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 5 will have little effect on residential growth in the city. The Ordinance Committee voted to recommend deletion of the provision. Existing language is below. 5. Residential Density A. Additional Unit to Multi-Family. One additional unit may be added to structures located in the RL district which legally contained two or more units as of January 1, 2007, if approved in advance as a conditional use, by the DRB. Low Density Residential - Multifamily Potential . 0 1,250 2,500625 Meters Legend RL Multifamily Potential ParcelsLow Density Residential Zones DISTRICT Residential - Low Density Waterfront Residential - Low Density Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-19-03 Parking Amendments This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to update Table 8.1.8-1 to include “Art Gallery/Studio” consistent with Appendix A and Article 13 within the Burlington CDO; to update Table 8.1.8-1 to include parking requirements for small daycares and preschools that are consistent with the requirements for large daycares; to modify Sec. 8.1.14 to allow tandem parking for all dwelling units and to clarify its arrangement when used on multi-family sites; and to modify section 8.1.12 to allow parking within a front yard setback when the parking is within a driveway when there is room for at least one parking space beyond the setback. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: Accommodating required parking on is one of the most frequent limitations to providing housing at the allowable densities articulated in the Burlington CDO. The proposed changes to tandem and front yard parking provides greater opportunity for accommodating the required parking on site, enabling residential development to more closely align with the Municipal Development Plan’s housing action to “support the creation of new rental and owner-occupied housing units on every parcel of land zoned for residential development at the number of units allowed by zoning”. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment does not have an impact on the proposed future land uses of the Municipal Development Plan. The proposed changes to tandem and front yard parking provides greater opportunity for accommodating the required parking on site, enabling residential unit development that more closely relates to the residential densities permitted in the Burlington CDO. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, FAICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Shaleigh Draper Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: July 24, 2018 RE: Parking Amendments At their June 7, 2018 meeting, the Ordinance Committee considered the following three zoning amendments related to parking standards. The Committee recommended forwarding the amendments along to the full Planning Commission with recommendation for approval. 1. Table 8.1.8-1, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements: Table 8.1.8-1, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, specifies minimum parking standards for all uses included in Appendix A – Use Table – All Zoning Districts in the CDO. Appendix A identifies “Art Gallery/Studio” as a use as does Article 13: Definitions; however, Table 8.1.8-1 refers only to “Art Gallery.” The proposed amendment is very simple. It changes “Art Gallery” in Table 8.1.8-1 to “Art Gallery/Studio.” Table 8.1.8-1 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Neighborhood Districts Shared Use Districts Downtown Districts Art Gallery/Studio 3.3 2.5 1 During review of the zoning amendment establishing preschools as a separate use, the City Council Ordinance Committee noted the significant difference in parking requirements for small versus large daycares and preschools. The Committee specifically requested that the standards be reviewed and made consistent. The proposed amendment below applies the same parking standard to small and large daycares and preschools. As the number of employees and children increases, the parking requirement increases proportionately. The amendment goes a step further and specifies only drop-off spaces for the per-5 children requirement to reflect typical parking demands associated with daycare and preschool uses. Table 8.1.8-1 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Neighborhood Districts Shared Use Districts Downtown Districts Daycare – Large (Over 20 children) (per two (2) employees) 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 2 drop-off pg. 2 of 4 Daycare – Small (20 children or less) (per two (2) employees) 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 2 drop-off Preschool – Large (Over 20 children) (per two (2) employees) 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 plus 1 per 5 children 2 drop-off Preschool – Small (20 children or less) (per two (2) employees) 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 plus 1 drop-off per 5 children 1 2 drop-off 2. Sec. 8.1.14, Stacked and Tandem Parking Restrictions: Sec. 8.1.14 specifies allowances for stacked and tandem parking arrangements. Criterion (a) addresses stacked parking and criterion (b) addresses tandem parking. Tandem parking is paired spaces, one behind the other (i.e. two in a row). Presently, tandem parking is allowed only for single detached dwelling units, accessory apartments, duplexes, and employee-only parking. Total onsite tandem spaces are limited to 4 spaces. The proposed amendment would enable tandem parking per dwelling unit for all residential uses. The limit of 4 tandem spaces would also be eliminated. Sec. 8.1.14 Stacked and Tandem Parking Restrictions Except as otherwise provided below, all parking facilities shall be designed so that each motor vehicle may proceed to and from the parking space provided for it without the moving of any other motor vehicle. (a) Stacked or valet parking may be allowed if an attendant is present to move vehicles. If stacked parking is used for required parking spaces, a written guarantee must be filed with the City ensuring that an attendant will always be present when the lot is in operation. The requirements for minimum or maximum spaces continue to apply for stacked parking. (b) Tandem Parking may be allowed for single family detached dwelling units, accessory apartments, duplex dwelling units, all dwelling units (whether attached or detached). Each dwelling unit may have a pair of tandem parking spaces, but any pair of tandem parking spaces shall not serve more than one dwelling unit. and Tandem parking may also be allowed for dedicated employee-only parking signed as such. In no case shall more than 4 parking spaces (2 pairs) in total be provided in tandem on any one lot. pg. 3 of 4 3. Sec. 8.1.12 (c) Front Yard Parking Restricted: Sec. 8.1.12 (c) Front Yard Parking Restricted is intended to limit parking spaces within the front yard setback in all residential zones. The same language dates to the 1994 Zoning Ordinance. This provision has consistently been administered to prevent parking spaces within the front yard except for instances wherein the driveway or driveway and garage are long enough to contain at least one parking space outside of the front yard setback. In such instances, parking within the front yard setback is allowed because the driveway or driveway and garage are long enough to access at least one space outside of the front yard setback (i.e. “access drive”). More recently, the Development Review Board has ruled that all parking may be located within the front yard in residential zones so long as the driveway is 18’ wide or less. The DRB found that the administration of Sec. 8.1.12 (c) does not match how it is actually written. The Ordinance Committee considered two options: 1) Rewrite Sec. 8.1.12 (c) to more explicitly state its intention to prevent parking within the front yard in residential zones or 2) simply delete the provision. The Committee elected to revise the section to more clearly state its intended effect. Sec. 8.1.12 Limitations, Location, Use of Facilities (a) Off-Site parking facilities: As written. (b) Downtown Street Level Setback: As written. (c) Front Yard Parking Restricted: Required parking in all residential zoning districts shall not be located in a required front yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. This prohibition extends from the edge of the public right-of-way into the required front yard setback for the entire width of the property with the following exception: of Parking spaces may be located within the front Tandem Normal Stacked pg. 4 of 4 yard setback only within a single access driveway no more than eighteen feet (18’) or less in width that is of sufficient length to contain at least one compliant parking space beyond the front yard setback or that accesses a garage or carport located beyond the front yard setback. The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable during such times as when the winter parking ban pursuant to Section 20-56 of the Code of Ordinances is in effect. Where parking is provided outside the front yard setback, but either partially or entirely between the principle structure and the street, such parking shall be screened to the extent practicable from view from the public street. (d) Shared Parking in Neighborhood Parking Districts: As written. (e) Single Story Structures in Shared Use Districts: As written. (f) Joint Use of Facilities: As written. (g) Availability of Facilities: As written. (h) Compact Car Parking: As written.