Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/23/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 JANUARY 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 January 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, M. Kane, F. Kochman, M. Hamlin, J. Larkin 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: Members added a request for naming of streets following Agenda item #8. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby reported on a meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee. She also noted that she had spent a day at Chamberlin School where only once did there have to be a pause because of airplane noise. Mr. Conner: Reminded members of the joint meeting with the DRB next Tuesday at 7 p.m. (dinner will be available at 6:30 p.m.) The City Council approved a budget to go to the voters on March 6. The Steering Committee will be meeting tomorrow night for the City and School Board to present their budgets to each other. 5. Planned Unit Developments: a. Review potential geographic applicability of primary PUD types across the City: Ms. Murray noted they have been meeting with staff on a monthly basis and are meeting with city committees. She then reviewed the 9 different types of PUDs and noted that not all would apply everywhere in the city. The question is where they should go. The first thing they considered was parcel size. Ms. Murray noted there are not many 30-acre parcels left in the city. They also looked at zoning districts and what kinds of densities make sense in each district. In the Affordable Housing Committee today, affordability was also raised as an issue. There was discussion of a “housing overlay district” in areas that would be appropriate for affordable housing (e.g., available public transportation). Mr. Kane said they are also studying the “campus form.” He showed a map of areas of planned development intensity. Areas of more intense development are shown along Shelburne and Williston Roads, and this makes sense. Mr. Kane also indicated areas that would function for Neighborhood Commercial Development. Many of the parcels in these areas are under 10 acres, and many are already developed. This suggests that infill will be part of the mix in these areas. The total acreage for these areas is about 800 acres. Mr. Kane then showed the Transit Overlay District Map. This covers a big swath of Kennedy Drive and the Shelburne Road Corridors, areas where there is public transit service. There is some overlapping with the Neighborhood Commercial District. These areas total 4200 acres. The Traditional Neighborhood Development areas include a lot of the neighborhood fabric of the city (R-4, R-8, R-12, etc.). The aim is connectivity of these neighborhoods. They total about 1700 acres, most of which is built out. The Campus Institutional District covers a lot of the northern tier of the city, including Kimball Avenue. It has a more commercial orientation and covers about 2600 acres. Mr. Conner noted this area does not include much UVM land as the aim is not to mix the campus and agricultural uses. Ms. LaRose added that UVM does not see the Hort Farm ever developing into a “campus.” Ms. Murray said they had met with UVM and reviewed this with them. Most of their planning falls within the Traditional Neighborhood Development areas. Mr. Kane added that UVM is trying to match their plans with the city plans. Mr. Riehle asked about addressing the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). He was concerned with parcels being developed “uncreatively.” Ms. Murray said there are already caps in the sub-districts of the SEQ, and there is a lot in the regulations that would have to be thrown out or worked around. Mr. Riehle said that what seems to be the density can actually be higher because of TDRs. Ms. LaRose noted that for the less urban types of PUDs the aim is not to increase density. Nothing they are doing would change the future land use map. The goal is to determine how the site is laid out, connectivity, etc. The SEQ is already “sort of designed” with standards that don’t exist elsewhere. They do not want to “mess up” something that was planned for over the years. Mr. Kane added that in the SEQ there is design guidance. TDRs just move the density around. Ms. Louisos asked if this project will deal with all 7 types of PUDs or just focus on the 4 being discussed. Ms. Murray said that is up to the Commission and staff. The focus is on the 4 first because of development interest. Ms. LaRose felt all of them can be covered. Mr. Conner added that the next one that would have a use beyond the fisrt four is the Planned Residential. The other 2 appear to have less pressure. Mr. Kane noted there is a possibility to “reallocate” a PUD down the line if it is found that one element is needed. Ms. Murray noted that developers want more flexibility. Ms. Ostby questioned why is it important to require all housing types to be required in the TND instead of requiring a percentage of affordability. Mr. Kane said otherwise you get homogeneity. Ms. Ostby asked why not just have single family homes with a different number of bedrooms. Mr. Kochman said the issue is economic diversity. A single-family home of a certain square footage costs more than a flat of the same square footage. You do not get "economic diversity" with all single family homes. Mr. Klugo added that the city has a lot of "de facto gated communities," with all single-family homes, one way in/one way out and that these neighborhoods should become connected to enhance east-west connectivity among other benefits. Mr. Kane said the community places a value on the type of diversity gained by a mix of housing types. The promotion of diversity promotes affordability, and the percentages instill the need for diversity. Ms. Murray noted there is also the issue of age. Some people may no longer want to stay in their single-family home but want to remain in the same neighborhood. 6. Consider request to modify Land Development Regulations: a. Remove applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District within the City Center Form Based Codes District b. Allow buildings of up to five stories in the T4 Transect Zone Mr. Larkin identified the site in question, the current Holiday Inn site which is located in the T4 Mixed Use Zone. He then showed the plan of what they are trying to achieve. They are considering a hotel at the entrance to the property. It would have underground parking. The dining wing of Holiday Inn would be torn off and a street would go through that area. They are requesting that the Form Based Code zoning take precedence over the Interstate Highway Overlay District. Mr. Larkin showed the current allowances and noted that the existing regulations preclude building to the Form Based Code regulations. Mr. Conner noted the regulations say that what is currently a parking area must remain a parking area. Mr. Klugo asked if Form Based Code can take precedence over the Highway Overlay. Mr. Conner said that is up to the Planning Commission. It is a city regulation, not a state regulation. Mr. Riehle asked if any other properties could be affected by such a change. Mr. Conner suggested the Sheraton, Windjammer, Staples Plaza, CVS building, UMall, and the area next to the Quarry Hill Road buildings could be affected. Mr. Klugo asked how long such a discussion would be. Mr. Conner felt the subject matter is consistent with the work plan and with the overall priorities of the Comprehensive Plan. There are 2 or 3 options as to how to consider it and all are pretty straight forward. He felt that on a scale of 1 to 10, this would be a 1 to 2. Members agreed to move forward. Mr. Hamlin said the second request is to allow the new hotel to be 5 stories instead of 4. Mr. Larkin said he could do 4, but the buildings he admires are taller than 4 stories. He showed a picture of the type of building he has in mind. Mr. Mittag cited the opportunity to shift the entrance to the property and avoid the current awkwardness. Mr. Klugo felt this would give an “entrance to South Burlington” feeling. Mr. Conner suggested having staff come back with some ideas as to what this could look like. Mr. Kochman said he would support the first request but would prefer the height issue to be on a case-by-case basis decided by the DRB. Members agree to have staff bring ideas for how this could be done. 7. Discuss possible amendment to the Land Development Regulations: definitions of “lot” and “footprint lot”: Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission had asked staff to come back with language regarding footprint lots (how they do and don’t exist) and how the DRB waives side setbacks to 5 feet or less. She stressed that these are 2 separate issues. The focus at this meeting is on the footprint lots. Mr. Mittag liked staff’s definition of footprint lots. Mr. Conner said a little “tweaking” may be done for clarity. This language would clean up where the DRB is having to require a notice that “these lots do not exist for planning purposes.” He added that staff had worked with the City Legal Counsel on this and also checked with other communities. Hinesburg and Colchester do what South Burlington does now, while Essex has something in place similar to the proposed language before the Commission. Mr. Conner also noted that this issue arises because mortgagers want to see a record of ownership. Ms. Louisos felt this is much clearer. Mr. Kochman did not feel this fixed the problem and that it remains “double‐talk.” You are still creating a piece of property with a boundary and not calling it a lot. The issue arises with PUDs. The DRB already has authority to abandon dimensional requirements of lots. The only exception is the setback which must be a minimum of 5 feet. Mr. Kochman said this issue is about the setback. A lot is a piece of land with a boundary. The regulations say you can’t erect a building within 5 feet of a boundary. The issue is whether you are going to have setback requirements or not. Mr. Kochman said he did support zero lot lines for row houses. Mr. Kochman said he wanted to discard the concept of “footprint” lots. The issue is that the DRB has been authorizing developers to ignore the 5-foot setback. Mr. Klugo said the City’s Counsel has a different perspective from Mr. Kochman, and the Commission should not be deliberating this without Counsel. He was OK with following the recommendation of the City's Counsel. Ms. Ostby asked if the footprint statement should say something abut a common wall. Mr. Conner said he would check on that. Mr. Conner said he thinks there is a fundamental disagreement as to whether a municipality can regulate anything to do with ownership arrangements and whether the footprint lots are a part of that. He added that a related subject, a way to clarify, is to talk about separation of buildings instead setbacks from lot lines. Ms. Louisos suggested talking with Ms. Murray about separation of buildings in PUDs. 8. Meeting Minutes of 9 January 2018: It was noted that on p. 2, paragraph 6, the date should read February 2004, not 2003. Mr. MacDonald moved to approve the Minutes of 9 January 2018 as amended. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Street Names: Ms. Louisos noted a request has been made for “Elm Street” and “Halcyon Lane.” Mr. Conner showed the location of these streets on the map. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve “Elm Street” and “Halcyon Lane” as shown on the map. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: No other issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission February 13, 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: January 23, 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. Planned Unit Developments – Sharon Murray and Mark Kane (7:15 pm) a. Review potential geographic applicability of primary PUD types across the City See the enclosed memo & materials from Cathyann Larose 6. Consider request to modify Land Development Regulations, Mark Hamlin & Joe Larkin (8:15 pm) a. Remove applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District within the City Center Form Based Codes District b. Allow buildings of up to five (5) stories in the T4 Transect Zone Please see the attached request and staff review memo. 7. Discuss possible amendment to the Land Development Regulations: definitions of “lot” and “footprint lot” (8:40 pm) Please see the attached staff update memo 8. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm) Minutes from the January 9th meeting are enclosed. 9. Other business (9:00 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:05 pm) 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: Update on Status of PUD Phase II project DATE: January 23, 2018 Commission meeting The PUD Phase II project is really developing! Staff and the consulting team have been busy meeting with City committees, working on adjustments to the underlying zoning and regulatory text, and continuing to develop text for Planning Commission review. One of the biggest projects we’ve been working on is creating maps to illustrate the intended connections between the PUD types as floating zones, and the underlying (tethered) zoning districts. Mark Kane and Sharon Murray will present these at the meeting. Preliminary maps for four types of PUDs are attached for discussion purposes. Please note that some zoning types and locations will appear in more than one type, and that some are not yet shown as their applicable types have not yet been mapped (these include ‘Conservation’, ‘Planned Agriculture’, and ‘Planned Residential’ types). We’ll have a series of questions and points of discussion for you based on these preliminary allocations. The consulting team will lead you through these and other questions at the meeting. A sampling of these may include: • Where properties and zoning districts reflect more than one potential PUD type, should one be prioritized? For example, should an industrial area be prioritized for campus style planning even if it falls within the transit overlay zone? • Should we add the FBC district into consideration for PUD types? • How are SEQ zoning districts best aligned? • How will infill parcels be treated? • Should university lands be examined individually for use and planned purpose? Consider whether the property adjacent to Patchen Road is the same as the Horticulture farm. Staff is also working closely with the consulting team to outline a path to adoption of the PUD regulations. I’ve included herein an update by subject area, as well as an abbreviated version of the work plan through May. Committee Meetings Staff and the consulting team met with the Natural Resources committee in early January. By Tuesday, meetings will have been complete with the Recreation and Parks and Affordable Housing Committees. We’ll also meet with the Bicycle and Pedestrian and Energy Committees in February. We’ll provide updates from these meetings after their completion. Housekeeping Amendments Staff continues to evaluate current LDR provisions, including existing exceptions, waivers and modifications, with regard to how these support, or may undermine, current zoning district requirements and new planned development provisions. We anticipate bringing these to the Commission at the second March meeting. Subdivision/Master Plan Review Initial drafts of these sections are in progress. We anticipate a first version of concepts to be brought to the Commission in early March. Zoning District Amendments and Consolidation Currently, PUDs are tied to underlying zoning districts. As recommended in the Phase I Report, planned unit development has been proposed as a “floating zone, fixed on the map only when an application for development, meeting the zone requirements, is approved. Under a floating zone, planned unit development would be “triggered” (allowed or mandated) as specified in the regulations. As we’ve been working to define PUD types in relation to underlying zoning district requirements, it becomes more important to ensure that the underlying zoning districts match the goals of the City as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff presented a basic first draft of this to the Planning Commission at its second August meeting. Work is ongoing, and we expect to have another draft for the Commission in the next few meetings. Project Meetings Staff continues to have regular and productive meetings with the consulting team. Open Space, Street and Building Typologies Staff has been working on consolidated typologies for open Space types, street types, and building types. We’ve also been working with the consulting team towards graphics which would make these consistent and readable. Early versions look great and we can’t wait to share them with you at the next meeting. Draft Abbreviated Schedule for Project Please note that most of these dates are for the Staff and Project Team and are included for context only. January Important Dates: ❖ January 22- Recreation and Parks Committee meeting ❖ January 23-Affordable Housing Committee meeting ❖ January 23- Planning Commission meeting ▪ Focus: PUD floating zone map/ PUD types by geography and size Goals and Tasks: ▪ Open Space Types- Staff continues work ▪ Underlying Zoning- Staff continue work ▪ Street Types- Staff continue work ▪ Housing Types- Staff continue work ▪ Master Plans- Sharon continues work ▪ PUD components and requirements- Sharon continues work; Mark working on scoring and rating system ▪ LDR housekeeping- Staff continues work February Important Dates: ❖ February 1- Project Meeting ❖ February 1- Energy Committee Meeting ❖ February 13- Planning Commission Meeting ▪ Focus: Return to underlying Zoning discussion ❖ February 14- Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Meeting ❖ February 27- Planning Commission meeting ▪ Focus: Brief update on committee meetings; Continued discussion of PUD floating zone map as necessary; Open Space Types, Street Types, Building Types; March Important Dates: ❖ March 1- Project Meeting ❖ March 13- Planning Commission Meeting ▪ Focus: Master Plan major components; Return to land allocation discussions; Consultant update on committee meetings; ❖ March 27- Planning Commission Meeting ▪ Focus: Continue discussions as needed; introduce LDR housekeeping items April Important Dates: ❖ April 5- Project meeting ❖ April 10- Planning Commission Meeting ▪ Focus: Continue previous discussions as needed; continue LDR housekeeping ❖ April 24- Planning Commission Meeting ▪ Focus: Continued discussion of Master Plan components; Infill Development concepts Goals and Tasks: ▪ Staff to review Master Plan language May Important Dates: ❖ May 8- Planning Commission Meeting ❖ May 22- Planning Commission Meeting Goals and Tasks: ▪ Draft PUD language early-mid May; to be updated. VCGIDORSET STSPEAR STINTERSTATE 89 HINESBURG RDSHELBURNE RDWILLIST O N R D KENNEDY DR WHITE ST INTERSTATE 189 E PATCHEN RDINTERSTATE 1 8 9 W K IM B A L L A V EAIRPORT PKWYAIRPORT DROLD FARM RDCHALOUX LNNCD - Neighborhood Commercial Center Typology The NCD - Neighborhood Commercial Center typology applies to zoning districts; AR, C1-LR, C1-R12, C1-R15, C2, R7-NC, SW 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles N Legend PUD District Map NCD - Neighborhood Commercial Center PUD District Parcel Boundary Roads City Boundary NCD - Neighborhood Commercial Center Concept Future Land Use Intensity (Comp Plan) Higher Intensity Medium Intensity Medium Intensity (Non Residen�al) Low Intensity Very Low Intensity VCGIDORSET STSPEAR STINTERSTATE 89 HINESBURG RDSHELBURNE RDWILLIST O N R D KENNEDY DR WHITE ST INTERSTATE 189 E PATCHEN RDINTERSTATE 1 8 9 W KIM B A L L A V EAIRPORT PKWYAIRPORT DROLD FARM RDCHALOUX LNTND - Neighborhood Center Typology The TND - Neighborhood Center typology applies to zoning districts; R1-PRD, R4, R7, R12 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles N Legend PUD District Map TND -Neighborhood Center PUD District Parcel Boundary Roads City Boundary TND - Neighborhood Center Concept Future Land Use Intensity (Comp Plan) Higher Intensity Medium Intensity Medium Intensity (Non Residen�al) Low Intensity Very Low Intensity VCGIDORSET STSPEAR STINTERSTATE 89 HINESBURG RDSHELBURNE RDWILLIST O N R D KENNEDY DR WHITE ST INTERSTATE 189 E PATCHEN RDINTERSTATE 1 8 9 W K IM B A L L A V EAIRPORT PKWYAIRPORT DROLD FARM RDCHALOUX LNTOD - Transit Overlay District Typology The TOD - Transit Overlay District typology applies to the Transit Center Overlay C1-R12, C1-R15, C2 zoning districts 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles N Legend PUD District Map TOD - Transit Focused PUD District Parcel Boundary Roads City Boundary TOD - Transit Overlay District Future Land Use Intensity (Comp Plan) Concept Higher Intensity Medium Intensity Medium Intensity (Non Residen�al) Low Intensity Very Low Intensity VCGIDORSET STSPEAR STINTERSTATE 89 HINESBURG RDSHELBURNE RDWILLIST O N R D KENNEDY DR WHITE ST INTERSTATE 189 E PATCHEN RDINTERSTATE 1 8 9 W KIM B A L L A V EAIRPORT PKWYAIRPORT DROLD FARM RDCHALOUX LNCAMPUS - Ins�tu�onal/Industrial Center Typology The Campus - Ins�tu�onal/Industrial Center typology applies to zoning districts; MU, I-A, I-O, I-C 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles N Legend PUD District Map CAMPUS - Ins�tu�onal/ Industrial Center PUD District Parcel Boundary Roads City Boundary CAMPUS - Ins�tu�onal/ Industrial Center Concept Future Land Use Intensity (Comp Plan) Higher Intensity Medium Intensity Medium Intensity (Non Residen�al) Low Intensity Very Low Intensity PUD Land Use Allocations by Type * Allowed, but not required; --- Prohibited Notes  Specific uses would include those allowed within the underlying zoning district, unless more explicitly defined by PUD type (an option).  Civic uses typically include public/ municipal buildings and “community centers”–currently defined under the LDRs to include a building or structure used for recreational, social, educational, health, cultural or other similar activities.  Civic spaces include developed open space (greens, plazas, pocket parks) – see open space typologies in LDRs, Open Space Study. Conservation Planned Agricultural Planned Residential Campus TND NCD TOD Context Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban PUD “Focus” Resource Protection Agricultural Enterprise Residential Institutional Center Park/ Community Center Commercial Center Transit Center PUD Context (“Shed”) Res: ¼ mile --- Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Res: ¼ mile Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Res: ¼ mile Ctr: ½ mile Land Use Allocations Residential Uses Min: 15% Min: 0% Min: 65% Min: 0% Min: 70% Min: 50% Min: 40% Single, Two Family Min: 10% --- Min: 50% --- Min: 40% Min: 20% * Attached (Row, Town) * --- * * Min: 10% Min: 10% Min: 10% Multifamily --- --- * * Min: 10% Min: 10% Min: 10% Nonresidential Uses Min: 5% Min: 20% Min: 5% Min: 40% Min: 10% Min: 30% Min: 40% Civic Uses Min: 2% --- Min: 5% Min: 40% Min: 5% Min: 5% Min: 5% Commercial Uses --- --- --- * * * Mixed Uses --- * --- * * Min: 20% Min: 30% Ag Enterprises * Min: 20% * * --- --- --- Open Space Min: 70% Min: 60% Min: 20% Min: 40% Min: 10% Min: 10% Min: 10% Park/Civic Space Min: 2% * Min: 5% Min: 20% Min: 5% Min: 5% Min: 5% Resource Land Min: 65% Min: 60% * * --- --- --- Unallocated 10% 20% 10% 80% 10% 10% 10% Conservation Residential Min: 15%15% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min:70%70% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Planned Agriculture Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 20%20% Open Space Min: 60%60% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 20% Open Space Min: 60% Unallocated: 20% Residential Min: 15% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min:70% Unallocated: 10% Conservation Residential Min: 15%15% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min:70%70% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Planned Agriculture Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 20%20% Open Space Min: 60%60% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 20% Open Space Min: 60% Unallocated: 20% Residential Min: 15% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min:70% Unallocated: 10% Planned Residential Residential Min: 65%65% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min: 20%20% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Campus Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 40%40% Open Space Min: 40%40% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 65% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min: 20% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 40% Open Space Min: 40% Unallocated: 20% Planned Residential Residential Min: 65%65% Non-Residential Min: 5%5% Open Space Min: 20%20% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Campus Residential Min: 0%0% Non-Residential Min: 40%40% Open Space Min: 40%40% Unallocated: 20%20% Total:100% Residential Min: 65% Non-Residential Min: 5% Open Space Min: 20% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 0% Non-Residential Min: 40% Open Space Min: 40% Unallocated: 20% Conservation Open 90 95 Baseline from Zoning 10 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 total 100 100 Planned Ag Baseline from Zoning 0 20 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 80 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning Conservation Open 90 95 Baseline from Zoning 10 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 total 100 100 Planned Ag Baseline from Zoning 0 20 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 80 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning Planned Res Baseline from Zoning 65 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 35 0 total 100 5 Campus Baseline from Zoning 0 40 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 60 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning Planned Res Baseline from Zoning 65 5 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 35 0 total 100 5 Campus Baseline from Zoning 0 40 With PUD 0 0 Bonuses 0 0 Open Space 0 60 total 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 1/4 MilePUD 1/4 MilePUD 1/2 Mile PUD PUD Typologies Land Allocation Residential Residential Residential Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Density Allocation PUD ShedConservation Planned Agriculture Planned Residential Campus TND Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 30 With PUD 20 5 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 40 NCD Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 70 With PUD 20 15 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning TND Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 30 With PUD 20 5 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 40 NCD Density residential non-residentail Baseline from Zoning 70 70 With PUD 20 15 Bonuses 10 5 total 100 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning TOD Density Baseline from Zoning 50 70 With PUD 10 20 Bonuses 5 10 total 65 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relative DensityBonuses With PUD Baseline from Zoning TND Residential Min: 70%70% Non-Residential Min: 10%10% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% NCD Residential Min: 50%50% Non-Residential Min: 30%30% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Residential Min: 70% Non-Residential Min: 10% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 50% Non-Residential Min: 30% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% TND Residential Min: 70%70% Non-Residential Min: 10%10% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% NCD Residential Min: 50%50% Non-Residential Min: 30%30% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Residential Min: 70% Non-Residential Min: 10% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% Residential Min: 50% Non-Residential Min: 30% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% TOD Residential Min: 40%40% Non-Residential Min: 40%40% Open Space Min: 10%10% Unallocated: 10%10% Total:100% Residential Min: 40% Non-Residential Min: 40% Open Space Min: 10% Unallocated: 10% 1/4 MilePUD 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile PUD 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile PUD TND NDC TOD PUD Typologies Land Allocation Residential Residential Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential PUD ShedDensity Allocation 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: Initial Zoning Amendment Request to: (1) eliminate applicability of the IHO District in the FBC area and (2) allow five story buildings in the T4 district DATE: January 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed with your packet is a request from Mark Hamlin and Joe Larkin for the Commission to consider two amendments to the LDRs: 1. Eliminate applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District from the Form Based Codes area; and, 2. Allow building of up to five (5) stories in the FBC T4 district Current Standards & Background The requests being made are both directly intended to support compact infill development in the City Center area. A brief background on the two topic areas: 1. Interstate Highway Overlay District: The IHO District applies throughout the I-89 and I-189 corridor. It functions essentially as a setback from the Interstate ROW – 50’ along the on and off- ramps, and 150’ from the Interstate itself. Allowed activities in the district include stormwater facilities, rec paths, and pre-existing buildings. In lower-density areas of the City, it has served as a visual “buffer” from the Interstate as well. 2. Building Heights in the T4 District: Buildings in the T4 district presently have a maximum height of four (4) stories. This is in contrast to the recently-warned for public hearing along Shelburne Road five story maximum. The height was selected initially to be in relation to the T5 District, which sets a requirement of non-residential uses on the first floor and a maximum height of six (6) stories. It’s worth noting that part of the intent of the FBC, and it’s numerical approach, is to allow for amendments in the future to be done without too much complexity. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Commission Work Plan As an initial concept, staff regards that the requests are generally consistent with the City’s overall intent for the City Center – to provide for a compact, urban, pedestrian-oriented environment. The Commission indicated, at the passage of the Form Based Code in 2016 and in subsequent work plans, that considerations for amendments in this area of the City, especially where they support enhanced design, should be a priority. Next Steps & Recommendation: Should the Commission elect to take this project up for further review, it appears to be consistent with the Commission’s current work plan priorities (City Center), Comprehensive Plan goals, and is fairly straightforward in scope. It’s staff assessment that should the Commission choose to proceed with amendments, they could be undertaken in short order. The subject matter is fairly contained and straightforward, with only a few key decision points for the Commission, and the actual language for amendments could be prepared without too much difficulty. December 12, 2017 Ref: 57913.01 Mr. Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Larkin Property – Holiday Inn Redevelopment Dear Paul, Concept Plan alternatives for the redevelopment of the existing Larkin/Holiday Inn property (Champlain School Apartments Partnership) on Williston Road were presented on December 6, 2017 to Paul Conner - Director of Planning & Zoning, and Marla Keene - Development Review Planner, for initial review and comments. The property is in the Form Based Code T-4 Transect Zone 4 Urban Multi-Use district. It is the intent of the redevelopment effort to utilize Form Based Code requirements to create…” a multi-use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s)…” that establishes a vibrant urban character for South Burlington. The “Destination Street” typology serves as the framework for the redevelopment plan with buildings located on the Build-To- Zone, an active pedestrian streetscape and a combination of structured and on-street parking. Interconnectivity of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, both within the development and between adjoining properties is of primary importance in the redevelopment proposal. After preliminary staff review, it has been brought to our attention that the certain amendments to zoning will be required to implement the Larkin proposal and achieve the urban multi-use vision as put forth in Form Based Code T-4 District. Larkin Realty is requesting an amendment to zoning for the following regulations: 1. 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District. – Request: • Larkin Realty is requesting a zoning change such that Form Based Code requirements take precedence over the Interstate Highway Overlay (IHO) District in the Form Based Code T-4 Transect Zone Urban Multi-Use District. • The IHO District includes all land within one hundred fifty (150) horizontal distance of Interstate 89 and within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of interstate ramps right of way as depicted in Figure 10-1. Mr. Paul Conner Ref: 57913.01 Page 2 of 3 December 8, 2017 • The issue is that Figure 10-1 (above) assumes the Interstate ramp right of way closely parallels the paved entrance ramp itself. Whereas, at the Larkin/Holiday Inn property, the joint Interstate right of way/Larkin Property line is located a horizontal distance of (155) feet east of the paved edge of the ramp. It closely parallels the existing parking lot at the Holiday Inn, not the entrance ramp. Thus an additional (50) foot setback from the joint right of way/Property line precludes redevelopment of the property in a manner that conforms to the goals of the Form Based Code Transect Zone T-4 Urban Multi-Use District. See attached sheet: Interstate Highway Overlay District Setback. Mr. Paul Conner Ref: 57913.01 Page 3 of 3 December 8, 2017 2. 8.3 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards - Request: • Larkin Realty requests an increase in the maximum building stories to (5). T-4 Building Envelope Standards call for (2) minimum and (4) maximum. The additional story that is requested will be set back from the principal building façade to accommodate suites and an outdoor terrace open space area. Sincerely, Mark Hamelin Director of Land Planning / Landscape Architecture cc: Joe Larkin – Larkin Realty 50' IHO SETBACK50' IHO SETBACK155'-0" INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONCITY OF BURLINGTONDR DORSETSTSHERRY RDG AR D E N S T HINESBURG RDCOTTAGEG R O V E A V ECommercial Boulevard Garden Street See 11.02(C)(1) Support Street Market Street See 11.02(C)(1) Neighborhood Street Narrow W H IT E S TPATCHEN RDWILLISTONRD P R O U T Y P K W Y PI N E S T PINET R E E T E R R DEANE S THOPKINS STHELEN AVSHEPARDL N L IL A C L N HEATHSTMIDAS DRS UN S E T A V W O O D L A N DPL EXECUTIVE MARY STMARKET ST GILBERT STMYERS CTCHARLES STIBY STSPEAR STELSOM PKWYB A R R E T T S T HAYDEN PKWYINTERSTATE89OBRIEN DRSLOCUMSTSAN REMO DREAST TERRNeighborhood Street Support Street Neighborhood/ Support Street Support Street Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Street/ Bike Boulevard Commercial Boulevard Legend Existing Road Parcels Planned Recreation Path Primary Existing Streets Primary Planned Streets Secondary Existing Streets Secondary Planned Streets Planned Street Right of Way Proposed City Center Zoning Transect Zones T-1 T-3 T-3+ T-4 T-5 Park/Civic E \\PWSERVER\GISdata\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\FBC\FBC_PRim_SecRoads_BlockStndrd.mxd exported by:mbrumberg On 6/26/2017 City Center Form Based Code - Primary & Secondary Streets & Block Standard Applicability Effective Date: July 10, 2017 *Approximate locations of proposed roads, to be used for planning purposes only. Please refer to original studies for exact road centerlines. 0 700 1,400350 Feet Street Designation Label 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: “Lots” and “Footprint lots” DATE: January 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Last fall, the Commission received a request and presentation from members of the DRB regarding the application of so-called “footprint lots” in the City. We’ve included all of the files, in order, of the PC’s review and discussion to date on the subject. In brief, however, there appeared to be two elements presented: 1. The DRB is often asked to approve “footprint lots” located largely beneath single family or multi-family dwelling units which may include additional land for yards, decks, patios, or porches that do not relate to the rest of the subdivision and have traditionally approved them for ownership purposes, with a requirement that the applicant record a notice of conditions indicating that these footprint lots do not exist for Planning & Zoning purposes. The question is whether it is legal to approve something which does not exist. 2. Related to #1 above, the DRB has often waived side-yard setbacks down to 5’ (the minimum allowed under PUD regulations) for single family homes or down to 0’ for party walls. The question is what the minimum setback the DRB should be allowed to approve should be. Following Commission’s review of this, staff met with the City’s legal counsel and reviewed all of the information. The City’s legal counsel has recommended a way to address the item #1 above, which is the legal, technical matter. The recommended approach would be to create a new definition for a “footprint lot” in our LDRs and to then to explicitly state that footprint lots are NOT lots, meaning they do exist, but are not subject to the dimensional requirements of lots. The definition of a footprint lot would be something along the lines of the following: Footprint lots: small parcels of land normally bounded by the intersection of a structure’s exterior walls with the ground but that may include additional land to accommodate yards, decks, patios or porches, that are created as part of a common interest community as defined by 27A V.S.A. § 1-103(7) and approved as part of a planned unit development. Staff received this language late this past week and so we’d like to have it be considered a “work in progress”. We think we can make it a little easier to read. This approach, we believe, cleans up the legal question. It does not, however, address the policy question. The Commission at its October meeting did not decide whether to take that part up (there was discussion about whether the policy question should be addressed through the PUD project rather than today). There was concurrence, however, to address this legal question. Lastly, staff did reach out to other communities in the area. We heard back from Hinesburg, Burlington, and Essex Town. Both Hinesburg and Burlington do essentially as we do currently. Essex Town adopted an amendment a little while back defining footprint lots separate from lots and a requirement that footprint lots need to be acknowledged in in the property deed giving the owner of this footprint lot their own separate tax/water/sewer bill – essentially the same intent as the proposed language above. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 JANUARY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 January 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Hamlin, S. Chance, S. Dooley, T. McKenzie, G. Beaudoin, K. Braverman 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: Ms. Louisos noted that Item #6b and Item #10 would not be heard at this meeting. 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 advised that she is working on the Commission’s Annual Report to the City Council. Mr. Conner: The City Council has approved the Commission’s recommendations on the CCRPC Unified Planning Work Plan. The Council is also in the midst of budget preparation. The Steering Committee will meet on 24 January at which time the City and School Boards will present their budgets to each other. Reminded members of the Joint meeting with the DRB on 30 January. 5. Continued Review and Possible Decision on Request for Boundary Line Determination – Isham Parcel, 1225 Dorset Street: Ms. Louisos stressed that this item does not request a change in the zoning. It is only to determine the existing designation and boundary line of the zoning. She then directed attention to the staff memo based on the discussion at the previous hearing of this request. Mr. Hamlin gave members a handout indicating the evolution of the zoning as 1225 Dorset Street. He noted that the golf course bisects the property; however, the city’s 2004 official map shows the whole parcel as belonging to the golf course. The applicant wants to remove the golf course use where it does not belong. 2 Mr. Hamlin then reviewed successive zoning maps from 1992 through 2016. He noted that in 1992 and 1996, the subject property was zoned as Residential-Open Space with a majority of the property being developable. The 1996 Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map still shows a development area with 2 small restricted areas. Mr. Hamlin pointed out that the 2004 official map is the first time the whole parcel was included in the golf course. He said this was an error. The 2016 zoning map is the first time the property is shown totally under Natural Resource Protection. [Ms. Louisos later corrected that the property was shown as under Natural Resources Protection beginning in the 2006 zoning map]. Ms. Louisos noted that the 2002 Open Space Strategy provided an early concept for the existing zoning. She also cited the depth of the process for rezoning the entire Southeast Quadrant in 2006. She said the Commission now has to determine the current boundary line and whether it follows the property line. Mr. Hamlin stated that they feel the rules to find out what zone the property is in direct people to a map that doesn’t exist (he cited the word “official” which does not appear on any map). Mr. Conner said the City Attorney has indicated that is a non-issue. Ms. Louisos asked if it is appropriate to look at the zoning map to determine the zoning of the parcel. Mr. Conner said there is a paragraph which states that the zoning map is part of the Official City Zoning Map. Mr. Klugo cited a map from 4/12/02 done by T. J. Boyle (open space strategy map) and then the map from February 2003 on which this property is shown as just a “blue square.” He asked how the city got from the 2002 map to the 2004 map and why the use changed. Ms. Louisos said that is not what the Commission is being asked to determine at this meeting. The only issue is the existing zoning. Mr. Klugo said there is no evidence that the 2004 map is not in error. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission is only to provide a definition for the applicant who can then take any action they choose. Mr. Conner said there are two tests that come into play: whether the boundaries follow the lot lines and what is the original intent of designating this subdivision. He said staff concluded that it is not clear there was an error. He also, separately, cautioned against changing the designation of a large piece of property without a full public process. Mr. Hamlin said the 1995 study showed how development would happen on this parcel as a link between the parcels to the north and south. Members then considered appropriate language for a motion after which Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission determines that the parcel at 1225 Dorset Street is entirely contained in the Southeast Quadrant NRP sub-district and that the map as indicated in the current regulations is the applicable map. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Consideration of initial request for amendment to the Land Development Regulations: 3 a. Request to separate “wholesale club” use from “retail” and to allow “wholesale club” use in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial district: Ms. Louisos noted the Commission’s policy is to hear a request and then determine if it is something it wants to add to its work plan. She also noted that the Commission dis look at this issue in 2016 and determined the different sizes of retail and where they were appropriate in the City. Mr. Beaudoin reviewed the history of the request, noting that after a DRB decision, they worked on a plan with the Airport, but that plan “fell apart.” He said the problem with Shelburne Road for a wholesale club is that the land is too expensive and there are no parcels large enough. He added that the Planning Commission can consider one thing the DRB cannot consider and that is economics. He said the Town of Colchester gets $1,000,000 a year from Costco. If the store Mr. Beaudoin is proposing is approved, he estimated the City of South Burlington could get at least half that amount plus the added jobs. Mr. Conner showed the area under consideration on the map. He also showed the map indicating the allowable sizes for retail uses in various areas. Mr. Riehle said he would not be comfortable with a “sub-zone.” Mr. Klugo said this would seem to be something like “spot zoning” as there is nothing of the proposed size in that area. Mr. Conner noted the Commission would have the burden of explaining what had changed since the Commission’s last review of retail uses in this area last year following adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Beaudoin said they are not a retail use. It is a membership only use. He asked when it would be appropriate to discuss this issue. He felt anything more than 6 months, and the client would move on to considering Williston or Essex. Mr. Gagnon felt the likelihood of the Commission getting to it before next year was remote. Mr. Beaudoin asked how much of what the Commission is looking at will bring in $500,000. Mr. Gagnon said there are Shelburne Road and other consideration that will have financial ramifications. Mr. Ostby then moved to defer the request until the Planning Commission reviews its 2018 Work Plan. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Review and Possible Warning of Public Hearing and Approval of Report for the following 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 c. Modifications to height standards in the C1-R12, C1-R15 and C1-Auto Districts and removal of minor rooftop apparatus from height requirements in all districts d. Establishment of an Urban Design Overlay District within portions of the C1-R12, C1-R15, and C1-Auto Districts 4 e. Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards f. Minor technical corrections Mr. Conner noted that with regard to housing replacement other than on the same property include replacing it on another property, building a group home, and contributing $60,000 to a fund. The Affordable Housing Committee recommends changing the last option to 25% of the value of the house and land being removed using the higher of the most recent assessed value or the most recent sales price for the premises. Mr. Conner also noted that the replacement requirement exempts the 39 homes in the current Airport buyout program or homes next to the Airport that have not taken advantage of the buyout program (Mr. Conner showed a list of these homes). Ms. Dooley questioned a semantic change regarding inclusionary zoning. Mr. Conner said it is the language recommended by legal counsel. Members were OK with the language as presented. Ms. Ostby asked if members would be OK with adding language to the “carriage house” wording to require some affordable housing. Mr. Klugo was reluctant to change language at this point. He suggested waiting to see what the public has to say, then discuss changes. Ms. Dooley said she would like the Affordable Housing Committee to have input in the public hearing process. With regard to heights, Mr. Conner noted that the current language gives the DRB the right to waive height limits, which include things like chimneys, elevator mechanical areas, etc. Staff felt just to exclude these items from being considered part of a building’s height would be would be better. Larger things still fall to the DRB. Ms. LaRose noted staff is still waiting for graphics which will be fitted in. She also noted changes in bicycle parking to address concerns raised. Language has made it clearer and easier for developers to install. There will be graphics for this as well. Mr. Gagnon moved to accept the Report as written and warn a public hearing on the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations as presented and modified this evening for 13 February 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Consent to Administrative Amendment to Act 250 Land Use Permit 4C0503 – City Center: Ms. Louisos noted this has been reviewed by staff, legal counsel and the City Council. It streamlines development in City Center. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Administrative Amendment to Act 250 Land Use Permit 4C0503 as presented. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5 9. Preparation for Joint Meeting with Development Review Board: Both Mr. Riehle and Mr. Gagnon said they would like to hear any issues that the DRB has with the Commission including any update on the footprint lot issues. Ms. Louisos recommended the Commission have an update on the footprint lots at their January 23rd meeting instead. Members agreed. Members also agreed to share the Commission’s work plan with the DRB and to give the DRB members an update on the Commission’s work as context for the DRB as they consider applications. Staff will reach out to the DRB to gather recommended items from DRB members. 10. Other Business Mr. Conner noted there will be a regular meeting on 23 January and then the joint meeting on 30 January. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk