Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/27/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 FEBRUARY 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 February 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; P. O’Brien, R. Jeffers, N. Andrews, C. Shaw, R. Butler, J. Swope, other community members. 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 were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. Shaw noted a discussion at the last City Council meeting regarding the Wheeler property and what can and can’t be done on lands reserved as agricultural mitigation. He cited the need for active recreation potential in the Southeast Quadrant and wondered how hard it would be to put an easement on that whole property. Mr. Shaw also questioned whether all real estate discussion should happen in executive session as he did not feel those discussions, if held in open session, would always be detrimental to the city’s interests. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: There were no announcements. Mr. Conner: Noted the appointment of attorney Brian Sullivan to the vacant seat of the Development Review Board. An application to the Downtown Review Board for expansion of City Center Neighborhood Development Designation got unanimous approval at a meeting Mr. Conner attended yesterday. Under that designation, developer’s water allowance fees are capped, and they do not have to go to Act 250. 20% of the housing must meet 80% of affordability. Mr. Conner said the developer is on board with this. 5. Discussion of Request to Allow Small Commercial Component to Certain Residential Areas: Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of the request. Ms. Jeffers noted that in 2015, they were looking at a small commercial development which the residents of South Village opposed. There was then a process with residents at which it was agreed that the best place for any commercial use was the corner of Allen Road and Spear Street. There is already a curb cut there, and it does not involve circulation through the residential areas. A plan was presented to residents who were excited about it. The proposal is for 9000 sq. ft. of mixed use including a café, market and meeting space. Following discussions with the head of the recreation department, the potential for rest rooms to serve the soccer field was also included (would add some square footage). Ms. Jeffers then showed the proposed plan and indicated the circulation pattern and parking area. There would be two 3,000 sq. ft. buildings build into the hill. There would be a deck and patio area and basement space for storage and mechanical. Mr. O’Brien noted that the plan does not require an association vote; however, the Planning Commission had wanted to see resident support. Mr. Conner noted that this use is currently not allowed in that district and will require a zoning change. The actual development plans would be a DRB discussion and decision. Mr. Conner also noted receipt of letters of support from two residents. Mr. Andrews said he served on the committee and supports this idea. He said there is a lot of community support as well. What they don’t want is to have a whole of their community zoned for commercial use; just this parcel is OK. He added that if the rest rooms are part of the project they should be the city’s responsibility to maintain. Mr. Conner said the soccer field was part of the original South Village plan and is close to becoming a reality. The rest rooms would be an amenity. Ms. Louisos read the other letter from a resident who is excited about the concept and also said it was well received by the community and will help bring their community closer together. Mr. Butler, Jr. Owns and Mr. Swope all spoke in support of the plan. Ms. Louisos said the Commission’s next step is to take suggestions and see how to put this into the zoning code. The Commission would also consider whether there are other areas of the city where such a use could be appropriate. Mr. Conner said the important test for “spot zoning” is whether the context of the decision has been properly looked at. It could be looked at geographically or not. He also noted that some of the PUD concepts would include the possibility of a small commercial area. The Commission could discuss certain locations, sizes, etc. Mr. Mittag said that where this use is proposed make it more viable. Ms. Louisos explained the Planning Commission process and noted that the process the developer went through with the residents makes the Commission’s job easier. Members favored moving the request forward and asked staff to come back with some approaches to do this. Mr. Gagnon said he would be interested to see how this could be incorporated into a PUD approach. 6. Update and Report on activities/work of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC): Mr. Shaw, the City’s representative to CCRPC, explained the process for the approval of the Regional Plan. He noted there was a first public hearing last week and will be second on 16 May. Adoption of the plan is set for the meeting of 20 June. Mr. Shaw noted that this year’s plan also includes the Community & Economic Development Plan, the Transportation Plan and the Energy Plan. The plan outlines the “top ten” actions for the coming 5 years, as follows: a. Support multi-modal development b. Invest in transportation systems c. Support housing development d. Assist municipalities with enhanced energy planning e. Implement the Lake Champlain TMDL program to help clean up the Lake f. Emergency management (regional dispatch) g. Support population health h. Monitor advancement of autonomous vehicles i. Coordinate with municipalities on ECOS Annual Report j. Support workforce development Other updates to the plan include forest integrity, a health intro to Strategy #5 (dealing mainly with the opioid issues), and reorganization of the plan. Mr. Shaw then showed graphics relating energy use, indicating that 2/3 of homes are in need of more energy efficiency. He noted that the state has mandated that by 2050, 90% of the state’s energy use must be from renewable sourced. Mr. Gagnon asked if there has been consideration of the need for more energy due to growth. Mr. Shaw said there really isn’t a lot of annual growth. He also noted their projections cover a 32-year period. Mr. Conner said meeting the target also involves reduction in energy use, so that there can be growth and still have reduced energy use. Mr. Shaw noted that currently there are 106,936 gas-powered cars in the county and only 601 which are purely electric. This has to change by 2050, which may be difficult due to the low cost of natural gas. Regarding economic development, the plan notes that people with a STEM-type degree earn an average of $72,000; those who do not have a STEM-type degree earn an average of $49,000 a year. There are also too many people living outside Chittenden County who commute to work in the County. This virtually doubles the County’s population every day. Families are leaving the County for housing, leaving those just out of college and seniors who are happy to live here. Some of the comments from the public hearing included: a. Smart growth as an economic strategy b. Freight rail c. Better broadband d. Making the permitting process less burdensome Mr. Shaw then summarized the Metropolitan Transit Plan (MTP) which includes a financial plan. He noted that 70% of funding preserves what exists now. He also noted future scoping studies to be done for a third lane before Exits 14 and 15 and interchange improvements (Exit 12B and Exit 14). Public comment on the MTP included: a. More transit, including commuter rail b. Consider autonomous vehicles c. Action goals should correspond with the Paris agreement d. No new roads (including reconsideration of the Champlain Parkway and Interstate expansion) e. More roundabouts and fewer signalized intersections f. More and better bike facilities g. Adopt Vision Zero Mr. Mittag noted that it is easier to make buses electronic because they make shorter trips. Mr. Shaw said the CCRPC would be interested in hearing what the Planning Commission is working on, specifically the Swift St. extension issue and the von Turkevich proposal. Mr. Conner noted there has been no submittal yet regarding the latter. Ms. Louisos cited the help the city receives from CCRPC on local projects. She noted the Commission is working on an overhaul of the PUD system with a unique approach. This would eliminate a lot of waivers which have been an issue. Mr. Shaw encouraged the Commission to come up with a new name for “city center,” something that incorporates the word “South.” 7. Continue discussion of Possibility Amendments to the City Center Form Based Code: a. Applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District: Mr. Conner showed an overhead of the dimensions of the district and indicated the property Mr. Larkin is proposing to develop. He said that if the Commission chooses to remove the Overlay limitation, they could do it across the whole district of just include the ramps. He added that he would lean toward the smaller possibility. Members agreed and asked staff to prepare language removing the overlay limitation, within the FBC district, for the Interstate ramps. b. Maximum Heights of Buildings in the T4 District: Mr. Conner presented several alternatives as follows: 1. 5 stories across the T4 2. 5 stories as long as there is separation from existing neighborhoods 3. 5 stories with a “step back” for upper stories (as in the T5) 4. With separation between taller buildings 5. A potential “trade” if…. There could also be a combination of these alternatives. Mr. Gagnon favored a combination of #2 and #3. Mr. Mittag felt taller buildings shouldn’t be contiguous, possibly a frontage limit and varied setbacks. Ms. Louisos liked all three suggestions and did not want to discourage 5 stories. Members asked staff to come back with specific language that incorporated alternatives 2 and 3. 8. Discuss Potential Street Types in zoning districts and for PUDs: Mr. Conner showed a chart of street types. He noted some of the designations are not clear, and there is a question as to whether there should be sidewalks on one or both sides of a street. Ms. Louisos asked if an “alley” could be publicly owned. Mr. Conner said there is no reason it can’t. 9. Debrief from Committee Leadership Meeting: Ms. Louisos reviewed the nature of the quarterly meetings. This meeting included an overview of the new city website. The Commission needs to review the Planning Commission page and come up with some “stories of success.” The City will be benchmarking regarding how things are being done to address the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The group also discussed preparing materials on “what it is like to be on a committee,” including orientation materials and the time spent in addition to meeting time. They also discussed sharing committee work plans to facilitate cooperation among committees. 10. Minutes of 13 February 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 February 2018 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: a. Shelburne Planning Commission public hearing on Zoning Bylaw Amendments, 8 March, 7 p.m: Mr. Conner said staff saw no issues. b. Upcoming Meetings; chairing March 11th meeting: It was noted that both the Chair and Vice Chair will not be able to attend the 11 March meeting. Members agreed to have the Commission Clerk chair that meeting. 12. Possible Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the negotiation or securing of real estate for purchase or lease by the City of South Burlington: Mr. Riehle moved and that Staff be invited to the session and no actions will be taken following the executive session. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Commission entered executive session at 9:25 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 27, 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: February 27, 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) a. Staff memo 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. Discussion of request to allow small commercial component to certain residential areas; Robin Jeffers, South Village Communities (7:15) See enclosed memo from Cathyann LaRose and request from South Village Communities. 6. Update and report on activities / work of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, Chris Shaw, South Burlington representative to the CCRPC (7:45 pm) Chris Shaw will be in attendance to provide an overview of the work of the CCRPC. 7. Continue discussion of possible amendments to the City Center Form Based Code (8:15 pm) a. Maximum heights of buildings in the T4 District b. Applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District See enclosed staff memo 8. Discuss potential Street Types in zoning district and for planned unit developments (8:30 pm) See enclosed first draft of street types. Also feel free to look at the February 13th packet for the design/ layout that would apply. 9. Debrief from committee leadership meeting (8:50 pm) Brief overview of last week’s committee leadership meeting. 10. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm) 11. Other business (9:00 pm) a. Shelburne Planning Commission public hearing on Zoning Bylaw Amendments, March 8, 7 pm See enclosed materials b. Upcoming meetings; chairing March 11th meeting 12. Possible executive session for the purpose of discussing the negotiation or securing of real estate for purchase or lease by the City of South Burlington (9:05 pm) The Commission is invited to enter executive session with staff to discuss the matters described above. 13. Adjourn 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: South Village Request DATE: February 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed with your packet is a request from Robin Jeffers of South Village Communities for the Commission to consider the allowance of a small commercial component in a designated area of the South Village property. Ms. Jeffers highlights in her letter: • Architecture that would be agricultural in inspiration and scale; • Limited commercial uses to include market, food hub, café, and gathering spaces. • Limited size- 9000 sf total with a 6000 sf footprint. This proposal follows a 2015 request with similar intentions but broader scope of allowed uses. The Commission did not advance that proposal at that time, recommending the applicant refine the scope and solicit support from residents of the South Village community. Staff understands that Ms. Jeffers and her team have been meeting continually with residents and that there is broad general support. We anticipate that residents will be in attendance on the 27th to share their thoughts and provide input. The request potentially meets several of the goals established in the 2016 Comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission held a robust conversation with respect to the intensity of land development and uses in the subject area during the adoption of that plan. Staff would summarize those conversations as revolving around quite a few contingencies and situational elements. Recognizing this, Staff encourages the Commission to discuss the proposal in the following framework: • Is the Commission generally comfortable with a commercial component in this residential area? Are there other areas where these new allowed uses would be applicable? • What are the boundaries of an acceptable non-residential component? For example, what are the appropriate limitations on size, location, and uses? To address this, the Commission may consider a subset of the existing Village Commercial uses or employing one of the various retail limitations which currently exist throughout the City (see Appendix C of the LDRs). • What role, if any, should architectural elements play in the allowance of non-residential uses in residential zones? The commission may wish to consider the ongoing work of building typologies in this discussion. Ms Jeffers has also provided a sample rendering of the ‘farm-inspired’ building that she has discussed with neighbors. See attached. Next Steps & Recommendation: Should the Commission elect to take this project up for further review, and can provide guidance under the framework above, including additional thoughts or constraints, staff can return to the Commission with a more limited palate of options and refined language. 1 Paul Conner From:Robin Jeffers <robin@SDIRELAND.COM> Sent:Wednesday, November 1, 2017 3:00 PM To:Paul Conner; Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: South Village Mixed Use & next steps Attachments:Farm Barn Inspired Retal Food.pdf; 2016-07-29 South Village Base -Lot 11AL-100.pdf Hi Paul & Cathyann,  Thanks for meeting with us a few weeks ago regarding Planning Commission process for establishing mixed use  at South Village. At that meeting you recommended we share with the Planning Commission where we are and to  describe the wish list for uses. So here we are….  We’ve spent quite a bit of time working with a volunteer committee of neighbors through a planning charrette  process and hosting meetings to learn from residents what they most desired for mixed uses at South Village.  The  outcome is that we have agreement from a majority of residents on a desired concept from a neighborhood wide  meeting we held sharing the committee’s results.    The agreed upon concept looks like conglomerate use, a farm barn inspired building, that would support mixed  uses of food hub, market &café/eatery in combination with some additional space that could possibly be used for a  kitchen for farmers to prepare food to sell as prepared food, that could also be a cooking instruction kitchen, space for  neighbors to gather for meeting, exercise, small events.  That is the wish list. A building architectural concept image is  attached.    We have a design and site plan concept for a 9000 square foot building with conditioned space of 6000sf above  grade and a patio, and 3000sf below grade with walkout egress, and accessible parking at both levels, situated on Lot  11A located at the corner of Spear Street and Allen Road East.  The site plan is attached.  The idea is the areas may be  used in combination for the above list of uses  We are very excited to move forward with this initiative and take next steps towards having zoning that will  allow us to bring this unique concept into being.  We look forward to hearing from you regarding next steps in the  process & having our request for any needed zone change presented to the Planning Comission. Thank you.  Respectfully,     Robin Jeffers  S D Ireland  PO Box 2286  S. Burlington, VT 05407  802‐863‐6222  Cell: 802‐316‐6004  robin@sdireland.com           Farm Barn Inspired Market / Eatery  Corner of Allen Road East & Spear Street  CreaƟve Credit & Images sourced by S. Roy  IntersecƟon of Allen Road East  &  Spear Street  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: Discussion of maximum buildings heights in T4 and applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District within the Form Based Codes area DATE: February 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Last month, the Planning Commission heard an initial request to consider two modifications to the Land Development Regulations related to the T4 Form Based Codes District: 1. Eliminate applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay (IHO) District from the Form Based Codes area; and, 2. Allow building of up to five (5) stories in the FBC T4 district The Commission had a preliminary discussion of the matter and asked staff to come back with some alternatives as to how these ideas could be implemented. Below are a pair of options for each of the potential amendments: Applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District The IHO functions as a no buildings / no parking zone adjacent to the Intertstate ROW. It applies to areas within 50’ of the ROW along ramps, and within 150’ of the ROW along the Interstate itself. At present, that area can be used for stormwater treatment, recreation paths, certain utility functions, and buffer areas. In several locations, pre-existing parking or buildings are located within the IHO. At last month’s meeting, Commissioners also discussed the variability of the actual Intertstate or its ramps from the edge of the ROW. In some cases, the roadway is very close to the edge of the ROW, in other cases, it’s significantly further. Of course, future changes in the Interstate could change that. Enclosed please find a pair of maps depicting the approximate current boundaries of the IHO. Option 1: Exempt areas in the FBC from the IHO overlay. There are several elements of the City’s LDR’s that are exempt within the Form Based Codes District. Elimination of the IHO’s applicability in this area would treat the Interstate ROW as any other property line. In this option, staff would recommend at least a screening of any parking areas from the Interstate ROW. Option 2: Remove the Interstate Ramps from the IHO District within the FBC District. Similar to option 1, this option would have a more limited scope and only eliminate the areas adjacent to the ramps. As with option 1, staff would recommend that any parking, at a minimum, be screened. Heights in the T4 District At present, the maximum height for buildings in the T4 District is four (4) stories. With the recent approvals along Shelburne Road for up to 5 stories, the question of whether to increase allowances in the T4 are ripe. There are multiple options as to how to go about doing this. These include, but are not limited to: Option 1: Allow up to 5 stories in all T4 areas Option 2: Allow up to 5 stories in all T4 areas so long as they are at least *** feet removed from a lower- intensity district (T3, or a non-FBC district). This could mirror the language for separation used in the Shelburne Road corridor. Option 3: either of the above, with a front face step-back requirement of 12’ for the 5th story (currently the requirement in the T5) Option 4: Allow a building of up to 5 stories (or more) so long as they are separated from another 5 story building by at least *** feet. Option 5: Allow a taller building with the condition that other amenities are provided (greater architectural standard, non-residential component, additional affordability if residential, TDRs, etc.) Staff recommends the Commission discuss these options. Staff recommends that Option 1 is likely not the best option, but otherwise recommends the Commission discuss the others. §¨¦89 · Interstate Highway Overlay Interstate HighwayOverlay District 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet §¨¦89 · Interstate Highway OverlayInterstate HighwayOverlay District0500 1,000250Feet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A B C D E F 11.07 Street typologies Street Type Lane Neighborhood St - Narrow Neighborhood Street Neighborhood St - Bike Boulevard Private Commercial Way Category Local Local Local Local Local A (Ped Facility Width)N/A 5’ Min 5’ Min 5’ Min 5’ Min A (Ped Facility Sides)N/A 1 Side Required 1 Req'd; 2 Req'd in CCFBC 1 Req'd; 2 Req'd in CCFBC 1 Req'd; 2 Req'd in CCFBC B (Greenbelt Width)8' Max 6’ Min 6’ Min 6’ Min 5’ Min C (Parking Ln Width)N/A N/A 8’N/A 8’ * D (Travel Ln Width)see pavement width 9’ Min, 10’ Max 9’ Min, 10’ Max 9’ Min, 10’ Max 9’ Min, 11’ Max E (PAVEMENT Width)10’ (assuming buildings have access from another street with 20’ pavement) 20’ Min, 22’ Max 20’ Min, 28’ 26' Max ‡28’ Min, 36’ Max 20’ Min F (ROW Width)33’ Min 40' Min 50’ Min 50’ Min 40’ Min Design Speed 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car)P (Passenger Car)DL-23 (Delivery Vehicle)P (Passenger Car)SU-30 (Single Unit Truck) # Through Lanes 1-2 Lane 2 Lanes 2 Lanes 2 Lanes 2 Lanes Ped Facility Type (except if different on Official Map) Shared with Pavement Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Min Bicycle Facility (except if different on Official Map) Shared with Pavement Practice of Share the Road Practice of Share the Road Bike Lanes, 5’ Min Shared Lane Curbing Vertical Faced Curb or Shared Space Vertical Faced Curb ‡Vertical Faced Curb ‡Vertical Faced Curb Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 15’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Permitted Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Center/Left Turn In Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Median Not Permitted Permitted only as Traffic Control Device or Gateway Permitted only as Traffic Control Permitted only as Traffic Control Permitted only as Gateway or Pedestrian Refuge Island Transit Facilities Discouraged Discouraged Encourared Encourared Encourared On-St Parking Not Permitted Not Permitted / Minimal Parallel **Not Permitted Parallel or Angled † On-Street parking sides N/A N/A One side maximum N/A One side minimum Ownership Public or Private Public or Private Public or Private Public or Private Privatedraft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A 11.07 Street typologies Street Type Category A (Ped Facility Width) A (Ped Facility Sides) B (Greenbelt Width) C (Parking Ln Width) D (Travel Ln Width) E (PAVEMENT Width) F (ROW Width) Design Speed Design Vehicle # Through Lanes Ped Facility Type (except if different on Official Map) Min Bicycle Facility (except if different on Official Map) Curbing Curb Radius One-Way Traffic Center/Left Turn In Median Transit Facilities On-St Parking On-Street parking sides Ownership G H I J K Support Street Avenue Destination Street Rural Drive Rural Connector Collector Collector Collector Collector Collector 6' Min-16' Max 6’ Min, 10’ Max 12’ Min N/A 10’ Min* 2 Sides Required 2 Sides Required 2 Sides Required N/A N/A 5’ Min 6’ Min, 12’ Max 5’ Min N/A 5’ Min* 8’ Max †8’ Max*8’ †Not Permitted Not Permitted 9’ Min, 12’ Max 10’ Min, 12’ Max 9’ Min, 11’ Max 9' Min, 10' Max 11’ Min, 12’ Max 36’ Min, 66’ Max 36’ Min, 80’ Max 22’ Min, 60' Max 20’ Min, 22’ Max 22’ Min 60’ Min 66’ Min 66’ Min 50’ Min 50’ Min 30 mph 30 mph 25 mph 25 to 30 mph 30 to 45 mph SU-30 (Single Unit Truck)SU-30 (Single Unit Truck)DL-23 (Delivery Vehicle)P (Passenger Car)P (Passenger Car) 1 or 2 Lanes 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes 1 or 2 Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Rec path on one side; sidewalk on other Sidewalk Sidewalk*Rec Path [or just on OM?) Shared Lane Bike Lane or Cycletrack Shared Lane Not Required 5’ Min Bike Lane Each Side, may be required to be wider on steep grades; may also be an off-street rec path within 100’ of street Vertical Faced Curb Vertical Faced Curb Vertical Faced Curb or Shared Space No Curb Not Specified 5’ Min, 15’ Max 10’ Min, 20’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max 5’ Min, 15’ Max Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Permitted Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Permitted for Left Turns Permitted only as Refuge Island Permitted Permitted only as Traffic Control Not Permitted Permitted Encourared Encourared Encourared Encourared Encourared Parallel or Angled †Parallel*Parallel or Angled †Not Permitted Not Permitted One side minimum Two sides required N/A N/A Public or Private Public Public or Private Public or Private Publicdraft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A 11.07 Street typologies Street Type Category A (Ped Facility Width) A (Ped Facility Sides) B (Greenbelt Width) C (Parking Ln Width) D (Travel Ln Width) E (PAVEMENT Width) F (ROW Width) Design Speed Design Vehicle # Through Lanes Ped Facility Type (except if different on Official Map) Min Bicycle Facility (except if different on Official Map) Curbing Curb Radius One-Way Traffic Center/Left Turn In Median Transit Facilities On-St Parking On-Street parking sides Ownership L M N O P Q Industrial Access Road Commecial Boulevard Rural Highway Pedestrian Pass Path Alley Collector Arterial Arterial 10’ Min 5’ Min, 20’ Max 10’ Min*N/A N/A N/A 1 Side Required 2 Sides Required N/A N/A N/A N/A 5’ Min 8’ Min, 16’ Max 10’ Min*N/A N/A N/A Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted N/A N/A N/A 11’ Min, 13’ Max 11’ Min, 12’ Max 11’ Min, 13’ Max N/A N/A N/A 22’ Min 36’ Min, 80’ Max 22’ Min 8’ Min, 24’ Max 10’ Min, 14’ Max 16’ Min., 20’ if for Fire Access 60’ Min 80’ Min 50’ Min N/A N/A N/A 25 to 30 mph 35 mph 30 to 45 mph N/A N/A N/A WB-50 (Semi-trailer)WB-50 (Semi-trailer)WB-50 (Semi-trailer)Pedestrian Bicycles DL-23 2 Lanes 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes N/A N/A 1 Lane Rec Path [or just on OM?) Sidewalk Rec Path [or just on OM?) N/A N/A N/A Street Rec Path Buffered Bike Lane or Cycletrack 5’ Min Each Side Location and Directional Markings* Location and Directional Markings* Not Required Not Specified Vertical Faced Curb Not Specified No Curb No Curb No Curb 15’ Min, 30’ Max 15’ Min, 25’ Max 15’ Min, 30’ Max N/A N/A 5’ Min, 15’ Max Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted N/A N/A Permitted Permitted Permitted only within medians Permitted for Left Turns N/A N/A Not Permitted Permitted Required Permitted N/A N/A N/A Encourared Encourared Encourared N/A N/A Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted N/A N/A Not Permitted N/A Two sides required N/A N/A N/A N/A Public or Private Public Public Private Public or Private Privatedraft SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 FEBRUARY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 February 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; D. Wheeler, Asst. Stormwater Superintendent; D. Shenk, S. Dopp, F. Kochman, M. Simoneau, T. Meyer, K. Williams 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 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 report: Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Klugo had advised that he had met with Frank von Turkovich (at Mr. von Turkovich’s request) regarding possible uses and possible rezoning of the property on Spear Street. Mr. von Turkovich said he hoped for rezoning by the end of the year. Mr. Conner: New staff has been hired to replace Darla Champine who has retired and a clerk in the City Clerk’s office. They will both serve in a “welcoming position” opposite the building entrance. Downstairs doors will be secured. Everything above that will now be open. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns will be holding its annual Local Government Day on Thursday. Mr. Conner will be a presenter on the city’s “climate coalition pledge.” The first City Center building is now going up. 5. Public Hearing on possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Establish housing preservation and replacement standards in certain zoning districts b. Modify the City Center Form Based Code, including building placement standards; buffer strip requirements; prohibited exterior materials and replacement of existing siding; open space and landscaping; accessory structures; and building envelope standards in the T3/T3+, T4 and T5 Districts 2 c. Modifications to height standards in the C1-R12, C1-R15, and C1-Auto Districts and removal of minor rooftop apparatus rom height requirements in all districts d. Establishment of an Urban Design Overlay District within portions of the C1-R12, C1- R15, and C1-Audo districts e. Modifications to Bicycle Parking standards f. Minor technical corrections Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Conner noted receipt of two letters, one from David Shenk and one from Meaghan Emery. Housing Replacement Standards: Mr. Conner explained that after legal review there were a few changes made to the wording. The amendment provides that if a home is taken down on a homeowner’s own land, they will have to rebuild a home within two years or pay into the housing trust fund. If they do not, it would be a zoning violation. Ms. Louisos noted that this amendment was proposed by the Affordable Housing Committee. Ms. Louisos also noted that in her letter Ms. Emery questioned whether 25% of the value of the home was enough to build a unit of the same value as the one taken down. Ms. Louisos said this figure was supported by the Downtown Housing Board. Mr. Simoneau said the figure is not meant to replace the entire value of the house but to do something at a market rate. He also noted that the City of Burlington has a similar rate, and they have not had one person write a check for a very long time. Mr. Simoneau went on to say that they have a lot of expertise on the Affordable Housing Committee. They felt going higher would be “onerous.” The figure is also supported by the Champlain Housing Trust and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board. Mr. Mittag questioned whether this process could dampen redevelopment in an area. Mr. Simoneau said that if the fee is too high, it could be a deterrent to redevelopment of an area where it is needed. Mr. Mittag posed the question of whether the regulations could be tiered, to have higher fees in areas where the City wishes to discourage replacement of homes and lesser elsewhere. Mr. Conner noted that both Lake Champlain Housing and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board provide assistance of about 25% of the value of the house. When the house is sold, any change in value of that 25% is shared by the assistance giver and the homeowner. This helps to keep up the value of the house. Form Based Code (FBC) Amendments: Mr. Conner noted some language changes made to make the amendments more “legally clear.” He also noted the letter received from David Shenk. 3 Mr. Shenk, developer of the Market St./Hinesburg Road homes, drew attention to a diagram he provided. The Market St. homes were built prior to FBC, but they tried to keep FBC in mind as it was being discussed at the time. The only thing that doesn’t work with the proposed second part of the project relates to the retaining wall at the rear of the project. Their buffer is 5-feet in depth and is well- planted according to the requirements. The proposed new requirement of 8 feet will necessitate a “jog” in the retaining wall in the parking lot. Mr. Shenk added that 8 feet doesn’t change what they can accomplish in 5 feet. In addition, the 8-foot regulation would reduce the size of the front porches, which were made larger at the request of the DRB. Mr. Shenk also noted that there was interaction with neighbors during the design phase. At the end of the project, the neighbors were invited to view the project, and the 2 most vocal neighbors liked what they saw. Mr. Riehle said the project is very attractive, but he was concerned with the 3 feet of snow in the yard now. Mr. Shenk said he does the plowing, and that snow is a result of snow from the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Riehle said the issue he has is that the regulations would apply to the whole FBC district, and 5 feet would not be sufficient for something like a berm. He wouldn’t want 5 feet in the whole area, and you can’t “spot zone.” Ms. Louisos said they might make a distinction between the T3 and T4 districts. Mr. Mittag said the people on Iby St. wanted 8 feet, and he felt it would be bad faith to change that now. Mr. Conner noted that the 8 feet would be a required buffer. A building would still have to be 20 feet back. Fencing would also have to be opaque to protect homeowners from headlights. Mr. Simoneau cited the challenge of addressing concerns. He did not know how to create flexibility. He urged the Commission “not to let 3 feet stand in the way of a good outcome.” He added that he wouldn’t want to take the porches off those houses. Mr. Conner noted that in this case, the review is administrative, so the “clarity” has to be to staff. He added that the intent of the T3 area was to try to be a transition so there isn’t a 3-story building next to a one-story building. Mr. Kochman questioned focusing so much on one lot and letting it govern the outcome for a whole zone. He was concerned with flexibility unless you have very clear standards. In answer to a question from Ms. Williams, Mr. Conner clarified the open space amendment. He said that a portion of the landscape budget can be used off site (within the FBC district), but then the total landscape budget has to go up 15%. He further explained that this was in response to situations where there is not enough space on a lot for the required landscaping. Ms. Ostby said she felt there will be more questions regarding buffers with carriage houses. Mr. Conner explained that the scale is still a single family scale. 4 Ms. Louisos then explained the options for placing more than one building on an odd-shaped lot. One of the buildings could be a carriage house, and there are requirements as to how it would look from the street. Mr. Conner added that it would still be an “accessory building,” but it would not have to be an “accessory dwelling unit.” Height Modifications: No issues were raised. Urban Design Overlay District: Mr. Conner noted that the standards do not change. They have just added illustrations to provide clarity. Minor Technical Corrections: Mr. Conner said these are mostly typo corrections. Mr. Riehle then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Consider possible modifications and approval of draft Land Development Regulations and accompanying Planning Commission report and submittal to City Council: Ms. Ostby said she liked the idea of preserving the value of a neighborhood if the city wants to. Mr. MacDonald cited the Chamberlin area, and Mr. Mittag added the area near Rice H.S. Mr. Mittag suggested approving what is presented and letting the City Council and Affordable Housing Committee ask for changes. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the amendments to the Land Development Regulations and accompanying report and to submit them to the City Council. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Ostby was concerned with the ability to have front porches in that Market St. area and noted that it is so “tight” there. She felt that 8 feet in the T3 area may be oppressive and suggested 5 feet in the T3. A “straw vote” of members resulted in a tie, and the amendment will remain as written. Ms. Louisos noted that it can always be reconsidered in the future. Ms. Ostby suggested modifying the language regarding corner buildings to: “Corner buildings shall have significant features at the corners.” Members agreed to that language. In the vote that followed, the motion was approved 6-0. 7. Presentation of Proposed Picard Circle Stormwater Improvement Project: 5 Mr. Rabidoux showed the plan and explained that they would be installing infiltration channels under the surface. Funding is from an 80% grant from the state. The city’s share is $290,000.00 which Mr. Rabidoux said is an “amazing price.” Mr. Rabidoux said the project will also include laying some pipe under Airport Parkway. The project is now in the design phase and will be put to bid next winder with building proposed for 2019. He stressed that the surface will still be usable for passive recreation. It will be grassed. Mr. Rabidoux also noted that there will be more of this type of project to comply with federal requirements. This project is required to get a 63% flow reduction into Centennial Brook. Ms. Ostby asked if there is any possibility of building a berm to provide a noise barrier. Mr. Rabidoux said that can be discussed. It would save having to cart stuff offsite. 8. Overview of upcoming vote on funding for proposed improvements to the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility System: Mr. Rabidoux showed the map of a neighborhood that has been sewered by the City of Burlington and treated by them. This was working well until a few years ago when Burlington increased their sewer rate. It now makes financial sense for South Burlington to take over that system. South Burlington would have been required to pay Burlington $240,000.00 this year. It would cost half of that for South Burlington to have the system. Mr. Rabidoux noted that the rate payers of South Burlington have been subsidizing this over the years. The project proposes to divert the flow to the Bartlett Bay Treatment Plant via a new pump station and new force main. Mr. Rabidoux noted that Chittenden Water District (CWD) is a partner in this project as they have 2 water mains in the area that they will be connecting. Of the $3,000,000.00 cost, CWD will pay $750,000. The State will be providing $150,000 plus an additional $500,000 to eliminate a Pine Street situation. This brings the South Burlington’s cost down to $1,600,000.00. Over 10 years, the repayment is still less than the $240,000.00 the city is now paying to the City of Burlington. After the 10- year repayment, it is hundreds of thousands of dollars saving to South Burlington. For the project to move forward, it would require a “yes” vote on Town Meeting Day. With that vote, the project could begin in April. It would be “cash positive” on day one. Mr. Rabidoux added that sewer rates will probably go down as a result of the project. 9. Planned Unit Developments: applicability and supporting standards: Mr. Conner said that staff has been working with Mark Kane to make things easier for people to use. He showed examples of what the regulations could look like with illustrations (e.g., building types). Ms. LaRose added that they will make a decision as to whether to save space to have regulations go city- wide. 6 10. Follow-up to Joint Meeting with the Development Review Board: Ms. Louisos noted the issue of tree replacement and required sizes (having to replace a 8+ caliper tree with 4 or more trees that might not fit on the property). Mr. Conner cautioned against making it too easy to cut down a large tree. Ms. Louisos also noted the issue of bike path standards. Mr. Conner noted that staff is working with the Bike Path Committee on a big mapping project. Mr. Mittag said it seemed the DRB was looking for both certainty and flexibility. He didn’t know how to satisfy that dichotomy as they seem mutually exclusive. Mr. Conner described this as “the eternal tension.” Mr. Kochman felt the problem can be solved by consistent standards for waivers written into the regulations. 11. Consider approval of street name: Reel Road: Mr. Conner showed the location (near the movie theater complex). Mr. Mittag moved to approve Reel Road. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-1, with Ms. Ostby voting against. 12. Meeting Minutes of 23 January 2018: Mr. Klugo provided amendments (via email to Ms. Louisos) as follows: p.3, paragraph 3: “…and that these neighborhoods should become connected to enhance east- west connectivity among other benefits.” p. 5, paragraph 2: add “…following the recommendation of the City Council. Ms. Ostby asked that her question regarding housing types be amended to read: “Why is it important to require all housing types to be required in the TND instead of requiring a percentage of affordability.” Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 23 January 2018 as amended. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 13. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:53 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk Town of Shelburne, Vermont CHARTERED 1763 P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482 Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number (802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550 INVITATION TO COMMENT ON ZONING AMENDMENTS TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING RE: ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT DA: FEBRUARY 9, 2018 On Thursday, March 8, 2018, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw. The proposed changes are detailed in the attached memorandum. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter, and take place in the Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. It is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments should be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. MEMORANDUM TO: RECIPENTS FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING BYLAWS DA: FEBRUARY 9, 2018 At its February 8 meeting, the Shelburne Planning Commission discussed a series of possible zoning bylaw amendments. At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning Commission voted to warn a Public Hearing on the proposed changes and to conduct that hearing on Thursday, March 8, 2018. In addition, Staff was directed to distribute the proposed amendment and a “zoning change report” as required by statute. This memo and other materials were prepared in response to that directive. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The material warned for public hearing may be summarized as follows: a) addition of language to allow, as nonconformities subject to conditional use review, limited expansion of structures encroaching on front yard setback in the Rural Zoning District; b) addition of language to allow, as a permitted use subject to all other applicable requirements of the Lakeshore Overlay District, installation of “lakeshore safety fence” structures within 100 foot setback from the 102 foot elevation Contour along Lake Champlain; c) addition of language cross referencing statutory authority relating to Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Review; and d) correction of typographical errors in Table 2.. A list of the sections modified by the proposal is presented below. Article Section Article II 221 Article XVII 1720.7 Article XIX 1900.17 Article XIX 1920.2.B. Article XXI 2110.81 new definition inserted and following definitions renumbered The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is presented in the documents attached. Language to be added to the bylaw is shown in color with underscore. Language to be deleted is shown in color with strikethrough (strikethrough). Highlights are an artifact and are not part of any proposal to change the bylaw. ZONING CHANGE REPORT A report prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) is also attached. This report describes how the proposal “Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan…” and “Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.” Language that would allow, as nonconformities subject to conditional use review, limited expansion of structures encroaching on front yard setback in the Rural Zoning District Proposed Amendment (underlined) to Article XIX §1920 - Nonconformities of the Town of Shelburne Zoning Bylaws. 1920 Nonconformities. 1920.2 Nonconforming Structures. A nonconforming structure may continue to be occupied, and may be modified, subject to the following: A. Nothing in these regulations shall be construed as permitting the use of a structure declared unsafe by an appropriate governmental authority nor the continuation of a condition declared to be a health hazard by an appropriate governmental authority. B. Except as noted below, a nonconforming structure may be extended or expanded provided that the entire expansion or extension meets all applicable setback requirements for the district in which it is located. 1. However, iIn the Mixed Use District, the Commerce and Industry District, and the Commerce and Industry South District, a structure that is nonconforming by virtue of extending into the required front setback from Shelburne road may be expanded or extended if such expansion or extension does not extend any closer to Shelburne road than the existing structure;. 2. In the Rural District, a structure that is nonconforming by virtue of the structure extending into the required front setback from a public highway, may be expanded or extended if such expansion or extension does not extend any closer to the public road than the existing structure, except that in no case shall the building footprint of the expansion exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the existing building footprint. Language that would allow, as a permitted use subject to all other applicable requirements of the Lakeshore Overlay District, installation of “lakeshore safety fence” structures within 100 foot setback from the 102 foot elevation contour along Lake Champlain Proposed Amendment (underlined) to enable Lakeshore safety fences in Lakeshore Overlay setback from Lake Champlain. 1720 Permitted Uses. 1720.1 Those uses which are permitted in the underlying zone. 1720.2 Recreation uses including but not limited to picnic grounds, swimming areas (beaches), parks, natural areas, hunting and fishing areas, hiking and non-motorized riding trails. 1720.3 Carry-in (seasonal) docks not attached to the shore by means of permanent structure or other fixed apparatus 1720.4 Carry-in (seasonal) docks attached to the shore by means of permanent structure or other fixed apparatus, when no other docks are present on the lot. 1720.5 Stairs (Outdoor stairs) 1720.6 Lakeshore decks 1720.7 Lakeshore safety fence located at least ten (10) feet landward from the top of bank. ARTICLE XXI: DEFINITIONS 2100 General. Definitions contained in the Vermont Planning and Development Act shall be applicable throughout these regulations unless otherwise specifically defined in this Section. 2110 Specific Definitions. 2110.NNN Lakeshore safety fence – An artificially constructed, open barrier not more than four (4) feet in height erected within the Lakeshore Overlay District to separate people and animals from significant topographic hazards such as steep embankments and rock faces. A fence shall be considered “open” if every segment of the fence (e.g., a section between posts) is composed of at least seventy-five percent (75%) open spaces and no more than twenty-five percent (25%) solid materials. The height of a fence shall be measured perpendicularly from finished grade at the base of the fence to the top of the highest horizontal or nearly horizontal element of the fence in each eight (8) foot section. Language that would cross reference statutory authority relating to Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Review SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW CHAPTER XIX (GENERAL REGULATIONS) August Month day2, 20178 Page XIX- 19 1900.16 Decisions. The Board may decide to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The Board shall render its decision within forty five days of the close of the public hearing, and failure to act within such time shall constitute approval. 1900.161900.17 Conditional Use Review as element of Site Plan Review. Land development subject to Sections 1900 and 1910 as of [effective date of amendment] shall be subject to the requirements of Section 1910 by virtue of the authority found in § 4414 (3) as well as by virtue of the authority § 4416 (a), and Conditional Use requirements shall apply unless specifically exempted by this bylaw. Correction of typographical errors in Table 2. SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE II August 2, 2017[Month date year] Page II - 7 TABLE 2. TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS RUR RES V-RES MUS V-CENT SF-MIX MIX COMM COMM-S CONS LOT SIZE Lot Area Minimum Single-Family Dwelling 5 acres. See Note (8) 20,000 sf 12,500 sf 15,000 sf 10,000 sf (2) or by formula. See Note (11). 12,500 sf 15,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 10acres Two-Family Dwelling 10 acres See Note (8) 30,000 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 15,000 sf (2) or by formula. See Note (11). 20,000 sf 20,000 sf Multi-Family Dwelling 15,000 sf/unit 7,500 sf/unit (2) or by formula. See Note (11). 10,000 sf/unit 150,000 sf/unit Elder Housing 7,500 sf/unit 3,500 sf/unit (2) 4,375 sf /unit 3,500-7,500 sf Elder care facility 4,000 sf/ bed 2,000 sf/bed (2) 2,500 sf/bed 2,000 sf/bedrm Elderly Supportive Service Housing (ESSH) 2,500 sf/unit (2) Day Care Homes 5 acres See Note (8) 20,000 sf 12,500 sf 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 12,500 sf 20,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 10 acres 7) Day Care Centers 5 Acres (7) 40,000 sf 15,000 sf 30,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 2 Acres (6) Mobile home parks 10acres(10) 10 acres(10) 8000sf /unit(12) 10 acres (10) All other permitted uses 5 Acres (7) 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 15,000 sf 20,000 sf 20,000 sf 2 Acres (6) 2 Acres (6) Lot Frontage Minimum Single-Family Dwellings 200 ft 100 ft 75 ft 100 ft 60 ft 75 ft 100 ft 150 ft 400 ft Two-Family Dwellings 200 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 75 ft 100 ft 150 ft All other permitted uses 200 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 100 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 400 ft Lot Width Minimum 400 ft (1) None None None None None None None 150 ft None See footnotes at end of table SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAW ARTICLE II August 2, 2017[Month date year] Page II - 8 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (cont’d) RUR RES V-RES MUS V-CENT SF-MIX MIX COMM COMM-S CONS YARD REQUIREMENTS Front Yard Minimum 75 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft (3) 30 ft >=30 ft (3) 60 ft 60 ft (5) 75 ft Side and Rear Yard Minimum Single-Family Dwellings See Note (8) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft >=15 ft(3) 50 ft (4) 50 ft Two-Family Dwellings See Note (8) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft >=15 ft(3) 50 ft Day Care Homes See Note (8) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft >=15 f(3)t 50 ft (4) 50 ft All other permitted uses 50 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft >=1520 ft (3,4) 50 ft (4) 50 ft (4) 50 ft Building Coverage Maximum All Uses 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 25% 25% None Lot Coverage Maximum 50% 50% 50% None HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Farm Structures None Religious Structures None 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft None 35 ft All Other structures 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft (9) 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft (1) Average Lot width as specified in District Regulations (Article III). (2) Net density in standard subdivisions; gross density in PUDs. (3) Varies depending on size, whether lot fronts on Shelburne Road, type of adjoining use (Article X). (4) When lot does not front on Shelburne Road and backs up to residential uses, rear yard setback shall be 100 ft. (5) From Route 7, 100 ft. (6) 2 acres = 87,120 sf (7) 5 acres = 217,800 sf (8) Lot sizes and dimensional requirements for residential uses and day care homes are specified in Article III. (9) Except as modified by 830.4, which could result in height of up to 45 ft (10) Modified parks have alternative area requirements (11) Lot sizes and dimensional requirements specified in Article VIII. (12) Per sections 1925.3 and 1926.4. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments Updated February 8, 2018 Approved For Distribution by Planning Commission February 8, 2018 This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide (:) (A) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under §4444 of this title, (A)nd 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.” Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment. The Planning Commission proposal would modify four sections of the bylaw. The changes may be summarized as follows: a) addition of language to allow, as nonconformities subject to conditional use review, limited expansion of structures encroaching on front yard setback in the Rural Zoning District; b) addition of language to allow, as a permitted use subject to all other applicable requirements of the Lakeshore Overlay District, installation of “lakeshore safety fence” structures within 100 foot setback from the 102 foot elevation Contour along Lake Champlain; c) addition of language cross referencing statutory authority relating to Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Review; and d) correction of typographical errors in Table 2. Purpose The Planning Commission has developed the changes in response to requests inquiries made by Shelburne property owners (“a” and “b”) and per the recommendation of staff (“c” and “d”). The Commission believes the proposed changes address the issues expressed by the property owners and staff while also reflecting the policy input and prerogatives of the Commission. Findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. To be “in conformance with” the Plan, the bylaw must: make progress toward attaining, or at least not interfere with, the goals and policies contained in the Plan; provide for proposed future land uses, densities, and intensities of development contained in the Plan; and carry out any specific proposals for community facilities, or other proposed actions contained in the Plan. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 2 Zoning Amendment Proposal, February 8, 2018 GOAL: TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE AGRICULTURAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, RECREATIONAL, AND AESTHETIC BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SHELBURNE’S RURAL LANDS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BALANCING THE TOWN’S NEED FOR GROWTH AND SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION OF THE TOWN INTO THE LARGER REGIONAL COMMUNITY. OBJECTIVES: 1. To identify and establish mechanisms to prevent undue adverse impacts on important scenic and natural resources and features in the Rural Area, including but not limited to productive agricultural and forestry soils, significant natural areas, critical wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, important views, ridgelines, and shorelines. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Revise the Zoning Regulations to implement the above goal and objectives. GOAL: TO IDENTIFY, MANAGE, AND CONSERVE SHELBURNE’S NATURAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES SO THAT THEY MAY BE APPROPRIATELY USED AND ENJOYED NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. OBJECTIVES: 8. Protect and improve the quality of Lake Champlain as a water resource, a natural area, and a scenic resource. ACTIONS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO VISUAL RESOURCES: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to strengthen the protection of significant views from public roadways, paths and trails, and waterways. GOAL: TO ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED GROWTH AND DIVERSIFICATION OF SHELBURNE’S ECONOMY IN A MANNER THAT ENHANCES THE GENERAL WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WHICH DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. OBJECTIVES: 1. Ensure that commercial and appropriate industrial development, and associated employment opportunities, take place in accordance with the Land Use section of this Plan. 4. Actively encourage forms of economic development that complement and are compatible with existing institutions and businesses. Planning Commissioners find that the proposal would positively address and advance the foregoing language as well as related Comprehensive Plan language. They believe that: Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 3 Zoning Amendment Proposal, February 8, 2018 • By allowing limited expansion of structures encroaching on front yard setback in the Rural Zoning District (as nonconformities subject to conditional use review), the proposal would support economic development that is in accordance with the Land Use section of this Plan; and • By authorizing as permitted uses only appropriately-scaled and carefully-sited fences within the 100 foot lakeshore setback encompassed in the Lakeshore Overlay zoning district, the proposal would help protect the Lake Champlain shoreline and improve the quality of Lake Champlain as a water resource, a natural area, and a scenic resource; and • By clarifying statutory authority and correcting typographical errors the proposal would improve the efficiency of development review process as well as support economic development that is in accordance with the Land Use section of this Plan and enhance the environment. Commissioners also recognize the potential for the proposal to promote other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan The default development densities authorized by the zoning bylaws are not affected by the proposal. Thus, in conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that the zoning amendment proposal that is the subject of this report would be entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings regarding how the proposal carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment does not directly carry out specific proposals for any planned community facilities. In addition, the proposed amendment does not conflict with any specific proposals for planned community facilities.