Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 05/08/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS MINUTES 8 MAY 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 May 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Klugo, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Murray, consultant; R. Jeffers 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Conner 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: Mr. Mittag: Green Up Day was a resounding success with 391 volunteers. Public Works has been notified about ravines with appliances and oil tanks in them Mr. Riehle: Distributed the Administrative Officer’s Monthly Report for April Referred to a list compiled by David Kaufman’s class as to what they would like to see in City Center. Noted “serpentine” street types in Salt Lake City, which created a “walking experience.” Mr. Conner showed a photo of a similar street in the Green Mountain Coffee area. Mr. Klugo: Became more educated about biking during a recent trip to Europe. In rush hour, bikes outnumber cars 3-1 Mr. Gagnon: Hopes to be at the June meeting in person. Ms. LaRose: Noted that last night the City Council voted to add a “Penny for Parks” item to the August ballot to help implement rec path projects, especially closing gaps. Mr. Conner: Attended a regional housing workshop. Met with the consultant on the Traffic Overlay District. This will be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future. 5. Work Session on PUD/Master Plan: Ms. Murray said they have been meeting with other committees and have been refining the PUD policy including mixing the types. The are now getting into the outlining of the Master Plan section. Master Plans are not common in Vermont. Traditionally, they have applied to things developed over time (laying out when things should happen). The purpose of a Master Plan is to coordinate development over time. It also gives a developer vested rights which can be locked in for a specified period of time (10 years is often suggested). It can also look at development management through a Homeowners Association. Mr. Riehle asked whether the stipulations of a Master Plan carry over if a new owner takes over the property. Mr. Conner said they do, but that’s a different, very detailed master plan. Ms. Murray said the Master Plan goes with the land, but a new owner can request amendments. Ms. LaRose said amendments are anticipated in may projects because things change over time (a wetland can be re-defined, for example). Mr. Riehle noted the city can’t ask for amendments. Mr. Mittag noted that some residents left South Village because they were upset with changes that were made. Mr. Klugo said there is a process, and residents can attend meetings. Mr. MacDonald said markets change, and you can’t force a developer to build what isn’t marketable. Ms. Murray said one questions is how much detail to require in a Master Plan. She reviewed what is required under today’s regulations, particularly projects developed in phases. At present, Master Plans are applied to developments of 10 or more acres, but they could also be applied to a certain number of units or lots. Mr. Klugo asked how to deal with large parcels that are subdivided into parcels that are under 10 acres. Ms. Murray said some of that will be dealt with in the subdivision part of the regulations and would be based on zoning requirements. Mr. Klugo noted the Act 250 “loophole” which requires Act 250 review only if there are more than 9 units being built. Ms. Murray recommended strengthening the basic subdivision regulations to address that. Mr. Conner noted a development on Dorset St. where the DRB would have liked to know the future plans beyond the 9 units under review. Ms. LaRose cited the Tilley Drive area where a bunch of lots were created and the only things looked at were traffic and the number of units. There was no consideration of the relationship between buildings and roads, etc. The aim now is to be able to lay out resources, traffic management, etc. Mr. Riehle felt that larger developments are handled well in South Burlington, but the issue is the number of smaller developments. Mr. Conner showed an aerial view of a portion of the city and indicated issues because of piecemeal development that precluded other desirable things from happening. Ms. LaRose said any plan should have to indicate that the developer is not precluding future considerations. Ms. Murray then outlined the proposed “Plan Book.” It would consist of design guidelines to be attached to a Master Plan. The thinking is that this would apply only to PUDs. It could include such things as street cross-sections, building elevations, etc., and whether they are consistent with street types. Information in the Plan Book would include: a. Street types b. Block/lot layouts c. Lot configuration d. Housing types e. Building types f. Open/civic space types g. Bike/ped facilities h. Parking i. Signs, lighting, landscaping materials Mr. Klugo noted that in Europe, they make sure neighborhoods are connected. They also have dedicated bike lanes with traffic signals. Ms. Murray said they have met with the Bike/Ped Committee as to what they would like to see, and connectivity is important. Mr. Conner asked if landscaping would be considered at the Master Plan level. Ms. Murray said that’s more of a site plan consideration. Tree cover is more of an issue, especially in light of what has recently happened. A plant list could be good as well as preserving a certain amount of tree cover and major buffer zones. Ms. Murray then addressed management structure and stressed that it should be consistent with regulations and should include phasing schedule, management structure, transportation, stormwater, parking, affordable housing, public safety, protected resources, open space, common lands and facilities, and vested rights (as approved by the City Council and DRB). Ms. Murray said the next step is to translate these concepts into language and then outlining the PUD. Mr. Riehle noted the issue of a developer wanting to add to a plan, within what is allowable, and residents getting upset. Mr. Mittag said homebuyers need “due diligence training.” Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of master planning and a time limit for an approval. He also felt there should be a mechanism to change a master plan. Mr. Klugo cited the importance of having good counsel as they get into development agreements. Mr. Gagnon added that Pubic Works input is also important. Ms. Murray said they are talking about a “scoring system” for PUDs based on criteria being developed. A development would have to hit a minimum score in order to get approval. 6. Review Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations; Possible Warning of Public Hearing and approval of Planning Commission report on same: a. Establish new use category: “limited neighborhood commercial,” permissible in certain residential zoning districts b. Eliminate maximum setback requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District (SEQ-VCD) c. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District d. Permit buildings of up to five stories in the Form Based Code T4 District e. Establish an architectural gateway area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 District f. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts g. Minor technical corrections # a: Mr. Mittag questioned the language regarding increased traffic in the limited neighborhood commercial use category. Ms. LaRose suggested letting the legal people work out the language. Mr. Klugo felt that “commercial” seems to relate more to the front of a development and to be related to a collector road. Mr. MacDonald asked what “architecturally relevant” means. Ms. LaRose said it can tie into architectural standards. Mr. Klugo suggested talking to legal about striking “most of” in Section C‐1‐A. Ms. Jeffers asked to add the words “per tenant” to “of single use” which would allow for both a market and café. Members were OK with that but limiting a use to 5,000 sq. ft. # b: Mr. Conner noted that setbacks default to the overall standards in the district with a minimum of 20 feet in the SEQ-VCD. The DRB can reduce that. Mr. Klugo asked that fencing of trash facilities should be consistent with the architecture of the residence style of the homes in the area. Members had no questions/issue with #c or #d. #e: Mr. Conner explained why a 13‐foot setback doesn’t need to happen. The amendment will also allow for a “glassed corner” which now cannot happen. #f: Mr. Mittag suggested eliminating the word “reduced.” Members agreed. No issues were raised with #g. Mr. MacDonald moved to warn the amendments, as amended, for public hearing on 12 June, 7 p.m. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mittag moved to adopt the report with amendments made at this meeting. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Meeting Minutes of 24 April 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 24 April as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: a. 60-day advance notice for application to Public Utilities Commission for attachment to replacement Utility Pole by AT&T Mobility, Shelburne Road near Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Conner said the Commission will see this when there is an actual application. b. Meeting Schedule: The next meeting, 22 May, will include the first cut of a work plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:26 p.m. Minutes approved by the Commission May 22, 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: May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Work session on Planned Unit Development / Master Plans, Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design (7:15 pm) See the enclosed memo & documents! 6. Review Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations; Possible Warning of Public Hearing and approval of Planning Commission report on same (8:25 pm) a. Establish new use category: “limited neighborhood commercial”, permissible in certain residential zoning districts See the enclosed memo and proposed function and applicable districts for this use. b. Eliminate maximum setback requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District Per the Commission discussion, the maximum setback for commercial buildings in the SEQ-VC would be removed. c. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District Draft enclosed per the Commission’s guidance. d. Permit buildings of up to five (5) stories in the Form Based Code T4 District; Draft enclosed per the Commission’s guidance. e. Establish an architectural Gateway Area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 District Draft enclosed per the Commission’s guidance. This new “gateway” designation is intended to meet the Commission’s guidance to have architectural significance to corner buildings at this intersection. f. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts Per the Commission’s review at its last meeting. g. Minor technical corrections. Two technical corrections proposed. The Commission has reviewed a handful of amendments over the past few months – as discussed above. Staff has prepared the amendments and a draft Report in the event that the Commission is interested / ready to move to a public hearing. Should the Commission wish to warn a public hearing on these amendments, staff would recommend a hearing date of June 12. 7. Meeting minutes (8:45 pm) 8. Other business (8:58 pm) a. 60-day advance notice for application to Public Utilities Commission for attachment to replacement Utility Pole by AT&T Mobility, Shelburne Road near Bartlett Bay Rd See enclosed b. Upcoming meeting schedule 9. Adjourn (9:00 pm) PC Meeting Memo To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Sharon Murray, FAICP Front Porch Community Planning & Design Date: May 4, 2018 Re: PUD Project, Phase II—Master Plan Provisions: Draft Outline __________________________________________________________ Attached for your review is an outline of proposed “Master Plan” provisions for discussion at our meeting on Tuesday, May 8th. This was developed based on a review of current LDR master plan provisions, other municipal codes, SE Group recommendations from their master plan work, and ongoing discussions with staff. Our intent is to integrate new master plan provisions into the existing LDRs in support of, but not limited to planned unit development. Master plan provisions currently also apply to the subdivision and development of larger (10+ acre) parcels and, as presented, would apply to all forms of phased development. This outline is still a work in progress – we’re working through many of the details with staff, but would like your input on Tuesday, particularly on those areas highlighted in the attached, including: • Applicability – when should a master plan be required, or allowed? How long (how many years) should master plan provisions apply? This also extends to vested rights – a key benefit of master plan approval. As currently proposed (and per Act 250) a 10-year max is proposed, but for some very large projects that involve significant infrastructure investments and/or are intended to be built out incrementally, a longer period may be relevant. • Context – How should this be defined for integrating new development with the surrounding area? As proposed, this would include pedestrian and transit sheds, as well as neighboring properties and uses. • Plan Book – this is intended to ensure coordinated, integrated development over the life of the master plan –as is generally required for planned unit development, but which could also be required for other forms of phased development. What should this include? • Development Agreements – We’re still looking into the specifics of these, as allowed per statute, but given they are binding on both the city and the developer, they are generally subject to separate Council approval, following public hearing (as proposed). What should they cover? • Vested Rights – Master plan approval is also intended to provide long-term assurances to the developer – as needed for project financing, phasing, etc. – that a project can be developed as approved, even if the rules change during life of the master plan. These rights will need to be carefully defined – as specified in related development agreements and/or conditions of master plan approval. We’ve also received some pretty interesting suggestions for consideration from other city committees – for which your feedback is welcome. For example, these include: • Minimum tree cover requirements –requiring the identification and extent of existing tree cover to be removed, retained and/or replaced; and possibly establishing a minimum coverage (%) requirement (Natural Resources Committee). • Defining separate land allocation areas for ground-mounted solar installations where applicable – e.g., as proposed to support group-net metered subdivisions. These were included graphically in more rural and suburban PUD types (Energy Committee). • Defining housing types and areas appropriate for affordable housing – particularly if inclusionary zoning is applied citywide (Housing Committee). Lots to think about and discuss! Look forward to seeing you all on Tuesday – Master Plan Provisions: [Draft - 5/8/18] -1- 15.06 Master Plan Review (per draft article outline, presented 3/28/17) Master plan review is intended to ensure that the development of large parcels, or development that occurs in phases, happens in a coordinated, integrated manner, consistent with the plan, through buildout. It can also be used to offer assurances to the developer, neighbors, and the city that overall, development can and will occur as planned. Note: Master plan review requirements need to be considered in relation to related subdivision and site plan review requirements, as well as more detailed PUD types. In many cases master plan provisions may simply reference other relevant requirements under the regulations – e.g., per underlying zoning, or as otherwise applicable to subdivision and/or site plan review. Purpose  Establish comprehensive framework for the integrated and orderly development of larger parcels of land, and projects to be developed over an extended period of time, not to exceed [10, other?] years.  Provide long-term development plan for reference and use by the developer, property owners, city officials, and other interested parties in the review of subsequent development proposals for conformance with the master plan.  Provide the basis for phased development, specifying the timing and sequence of development in relation to existing and planned infrastructure capacity, required infrastructure and facility improvements, and the provision of civic open space and public amenities.  Identify the overall impacts of planned development anticipated at buildout, and related improvements and mitigation measures; establish associated development parameters (buildout budgets).  Define, clarify respective roles, responsibilities, management structures and interests associated with project development under the master plan, and for long-term management and maintenance.  Establish and enumerate vested rights that provide predictability for the City and the applicant in the face of regulatory changes that may occur during project construction and development under the master plan. Applicability Required for:  Subdivision, development phased over [3, other?] or more years  Planned unit development  Subdivision, development of parcels = [10, Other?] or more acres  All development = [x]+ dwelling units, [X]+ lots, or [X]+ GSF of nonresidential development  Subdivision resulting in the creation or extension of [X] or more public streets Exceptions:  PUD projects consisting of less than [X] acres, [X] units or [X] GSF  PUD projects to be completed, in their entirety, in less than [3, other?] years Optional/Elected Review? – e.g., for developers who want to establish vested rights? Master Plan Provisions: [Draft - 5/8/18] -2- Review Process Pre-Application Meetings (Conceptual Plan, Project Design)  Neighborhood Meeting(s) – optional, but recommended [require?] to ▪ present and receive feedback on conceptual plan(s), including proposed layout, land use allocations, densities of development, open/civic space, amenities; ▪ Identify neighborhood concerns to be addressed through project design, mitigation ▪ [Role of city – e.g., w/re to meeting location, notice?]  Staff Meeting(s) – informational meeting or conference with planning, public works, fire department staff, [others?] to identify applicable regulations, standards to be addressed through project design, proposed mitigation; Master Plan Review (DRB)  Sketch master plan review [optional?]– in lieu of standard sketch plan review (nonbinding, informational) ▪ General consistency with regulations, standards ▪ Initial project scoring [specific to PUDs?]  Final master plan review, hearing – may be combined with preliminary site plan, subdivision review (e.g., for initial phase of project)  Effect of Approval – ▪ Length (e.g., up to X years), phasing schedule, expiration ▪ Buildout/development parameters, budgets ▪ Subsequent development review – requirements, waivers, consistency with master plan  Amendments [to be revisited in relation to update of current requirements] ▪ Administrative, Minor, Major – as applicable Application Requirements Update Appendix E (Table) – also review in relation to more general, but related, subdivision, site plan application requirements/criteria  Form(s) supplied by the City; associated application fee  Application waivers (as allowed per standard dimensional waivers and/or PUDs)  Narrative– project description, including summary of pre-application meetings (identified issues, proposed design, mitigation measures to address)  Draft Master Plan – prepared by qualified engineer, architect, landscape architect, urban designer. Elements/components – limited to master plan scale, level of detail: ▪ Context/Location Map – Uses, facilities within vicinity [adjacent, ¼-mile pedestrian shed, also ½- mile transit shed where applicable] ▪ Base survey – to accompany title report, documenting surveyed boundaries, existing easements, encumbrances (Note: currently require surveyed boundaries, existing, proposed lots, streets, easements, etc.– noted concerns re expense, level of detail required) ▪ Existing Conditions Map – topography, drainage, development constraints (per LDRs, e.g., surface waters, wetlands, slopes X+%, habitat, etc.); tree cover/tree lines, structures, parking areas, streets, utilities (Note: as consistent w/general submission requirements); Master Plan Provisions: [Draft - 5/8/18] -3- ▪ Circulation Plan – major streets (grid, blocks); pedestrian, bicycle and transit network(s); connections to existing and adjoining streets, parcels, sidewalks, recreation paths, transit stops; common/shared parking areas; official map facilities/rights-of-way; ▪ Development Plan – showing proposed PUD types, land use allocation areas, and development phases as required and as shown on the official map; ▪ Open/Civic Space Plan – location of existing/planned public or commonly held open/civic spaces, facilities as required and as shown on the official map; and ▪ Facilities and Utilities Plan – location of existing and planned water, wastewater, stormwater, telecom, utilities, renewable energy facilities (e.g., ground mounted solar) areas for each phase of development, and a demonstrated ability to connect or construct proposed infrastructure, as required and as shown on the official map  Buildout Analysis – proposed build-out statistics/budgets (total, by phase) based on proposed land use allocations, types and densities of anticipated development, supporting documentation  Management Plan(s) –Description of overall project management, phasing schedule, supporting documentation (e.g., draft association, maintenance, development agreements)  Other information as required by the AO or DRB Master Plan Review Standards To be reviewed in relation to more specific site plan, subdivision, PUD standards to minimize redundancy; related master plan considerations/standards should reflect level of review.  General ▪ Conformance w/ comprehensive plan (specific policies, maps, supporting plans) – as “conformance with plan” is defined in 24 VSA Chapter 117? ▪ Consistency w/ LDRs, applicable ordinances, technical specifications (appendices) ▪ Conformance with adopted official map ▪ Conformance with adopted capital improvement program  Context (Location) – Address compatibility of planned development (complementary/ conforming, conflicting/nonconforming) with existing and planned uses, facilities, pattern and form of development; land use allocation mix/targets where applicable ▪ Adjacent/Bordering –minimize impacts, define transition and/or buffer zones, associated mitigation measures – ex: incorporation, averaging, landscaping, screening, etc.) ▪ Pedestrian Shed(s) – ¼ mile from entrance or boundary; provide for uses, development types consistent with allowed mix of uses as defined by zoning district(s), and/or by PUD type (allocation targets) ▪ Transit Shed – ½ mile from entrance or project boundary where relevant [e.g., if within ½ mile of an existing or planned transit stop/within Transit Overlay District]; provide for allowed mix of uses, minimum densities of development necessary to support transit (e.g., 8 units/acre, X GSF on nonresidential); [require/consider] incentives to accommodate existing/planned onsite public transit facility/stop  Existing Conditions – address existing site conditions (Note: Reference other relevant sections of the regs, including current/updated natural resource, floodplain, subdivision —e.g., under Articles 12, 16) Master Plan Provisions: [Draft - 5/8/18] -4- ▪ Development Constraints – Avoid, consistent w/other state, locally regulated resources; incorporate as amenities in overall layout, project design; exclude from calculations of buildable/developable area ▪ Structures, Utilities – Identify existing structures, uses, infrastructure, parking areas to be retained, removed; incorporate historically or architecturally significant structures in project design where economically and physically feasible; document where not  Connectivity (Parking, Circulation) – Reference relevant LDRs, parking standards, street types as applicable. ▪ Circulation – Establish overall framework for planned development, including access, connections to adjoining streets, parcels, paths, transit facilities; internal layout (major/principal street, path, transit networks) for incorporation under each phase of development; ▪ Designated Parking Areas – Reference LDR parking requirements; indicate types of parking to be incorporated in each phase of development (onsite, off-site, shared, structured). Identify proposed locations for shared or public parking facilities in relation to street network, land use allocation areas, existing/planned transit stops, for each phase of development.  Land Use Allocations – map, allocation table(s). Depict proposed land use allocation areas on master plan; provide summary statistics describing the type, extent and mix of uses for each area under each phase of development, based on underlying zoning or as superseded by PUD type. Include/map: ▪ Undevelopable Areas – Due to physical constraints, extent, acreage – to be excluded from land use allocation area calculations ▪ Residential Areas – acreage, housing types, mix (%); maximum number units; overall density (DU/A) ▪ Nonresidential Areas – acreage; use types (commercial, civic, etc.); overall density (GSF, FAR); vertical, horizontal mix ▪ Mixed Use Areas – Breakouts by residential, nonresidential; proposed mix [% or GSF/DU] ▪ Open Space Areas – Resource, civic (public, shared) – referencing open space types ▪ Designated Parking, Transit Areas – extent, acreage/GSF ▪ Transition Areas/Zones – designated to incorporate mitigation through complementary design, development, buffering, etc.  Infrastructure, Utilities – Reference relevant LDRs, standards as applicable to infrastructure, utilities at scale ▪ Existing infrastructure – system, reserve capacity information ▪ Projected maximum allocation required at build-out; allocations by phase ▪ Type, location of proposed infrastructure improvements; timing of installation in relation to each phase of development ▪ Existing, planned utility corridors, easements – siting considerations (areas to avoid, undergrounding, etc.) per LDRs, PW standards Master Plan Provisions: [Draft - 5/8/18] -5-  Open/Civic Space – Reference open space types, requirements as applicable or required under the LDRs (e.g., for subdivisions, PUDs). Require: ▪ Description of principal open space areas (type, function, allowed uses, management) ▪ Proposed public dedications (land, easements, facilities) – in conformance with official map, as an offered incentive, etc. ▪ Timing of open space areas/facilities/amenities, in relation to each phase of development  Buildout Budgets (Development Parameters) – Table(s) for project at buildout, and for each phase of development. Define upper, lower limits (Maximums, minimums) as applicable define lower, upper limits for entire project at buildout, and for consideration under each phase of development ▪ Net developable land area – total (acres, gross square footage) ▪ Residential – Max dwelling units; min % DUs by type; min/max density (DUs/acre); max bedrooms; average unit size by type ▪ Nonresidential – Maximum GFA [currently FAR]; min/max % by type ▪ Mixed Use – as specified for each component; min/max ratio of DU to GSF ▪ Open Space – min acreage, % total developable ▪ Parking – min/max number of spaces ▪ Building Height – Min/max building height(s) ▪ Building Coverage – Maximum (acres, square footage) ▪ Parking Coverage – Maximum (acres, square footage) ▪ Lot Coverage – Maximum (acreage, square footage) ▪ Traffic/Trip Generation – Max PM peak hour vehicle trip ends ▪ Wastewater Allocation – total, by allocation area ▪ Stormwater – pre-development, post-development; maximum lot coverage ▪ Affordable Housing – affordability determinations (% units), as applicable  Plan Book (Design Parameters) – [Apply only to PUDs?] Provide a compilation of specifications/ representative types for each of the following, prepared by a qualified engineer, architect, landscape architect, urban designer, consistent with LDR, PUD, PW standards, for use by project developers and affiliates, to ensure that each phase of development is coordinated and designed to fully integrate with previous and subsequent phases through project completion/buildout, consistent with the master plan, and occurs within defined project budgets (development parameters). ▪ Street Types (forms, cross-sections, intersection configurations) – per allowed types, specifications ▪ Block, Lot Layouts – per LDRs, PUD type ▪ Lot Configurations (min/max width, area, coverage, setbacks, etc.) – per zoning or PUD type ▪ Housing Types (mix, forms, elevations, affordability) – per zoning, PUD types ▪ Building Types (mix, forms, elevations) – per zoning, PUD types ▪ Open/Civic Space Types (forms, uses) –per LDRs, PUD types ▪ Bike/Ped Facilities (sidewalks, paths, street crossings) – per LDRs ▪ Parking (types, siting, configuration) – per LDR parking standards, specifications ▪ Signs, Lighting, Landscaping, Materials – per related standards Master Plan Provisions: [Draft - 5/8/18] -6- ▪ Public/Shared Amenities – per official, map, CIP, planned ▪ Associated development requirements, restrictions (protections, standards, etc.)  Management – Information, associated documentation for project management during development under the master plan, for any planned public dedications, and for long- term/ongoing management and maintenance of common lands, facilities, infrastructure, affordable housing. Include: ▪ Phasing Schedule ▪ Management Structure(s) – project development; management, homeowner, condominium association(s); maintenance agreements ▪ Management Plans – e.g., transportation/TDM, stormwater, parking, affordable housing, public safety, protected resources, open space, common lands and facilities ▪ Development Agreement, as approved by City Council, following public hearing: o [Recommended/required] for phased development, [other?] o Schedule/timing of required improvements/amenities in relation to each phase of development o Establish responsibilities for financing, construction, dedication, maintenance of required improvements (City and/or developer) o Sureties – performances bonds, etc. • Vested rights, as approved by City Council and/or DRB: o As addressed under development agreement and/or conditions of master plan approval o Pertaining to items covered under buildout budgets, related conditions of approval o Limited to period covered by master plan 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: Neighborhood Commercial Uses & Build-to requirements for commercial uses in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District DATE: May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Neighborhood Commercial Uses Over the course of several meetings, the Planning Commission has discussed the possibility of permitting a small commercial component in residential areas otherwise not zoned for such uses. Members overall discussed a desire to have small, context-sensitive, limited-use and architecturally relevant commercial uses in walking distance to some residential neighborhoods. There have been robust discussions and specific direction was given to Staff in order to draft regulatory language. New from the last draft is language which more narrowly defines the type of retail use which may be permitted as part of the limited commercial use. Staff has also incorporated an amendment to the architectural standards, which ties in so closely to the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial (SEQ- VC) architectural standard that a change is proposed in Chapter 9 as well. This proposal is attached herein. Attached is text which represents these directions, and which- at the Commission’s discretion- is sufficient to warn for a public hearing. Should the Commission wish to warn a public hearing, Staff has also included a draft report. Lastly, staff has included the existing signage limitations for commercial uses in a residential neighborhood. This would permit only one sign of 20 square feet or less. No changes are proposed to the sign ordinance. SECTION 13. Signs in Residential Areas (a) Non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. There shall be no signs in a residential district (as so classified under the South Burlington Land Development Regulations as presently in force or hereafter adopted and amended from time to time), except that one (1) sign may be erected and maintained for a lot on which a valid non-residential use exists under South Burlington Land Development Regulations, provided that the sign does not exceed twenty (20) square feet, or thirty (30) square feet when located on a lot having frontage on Airport Drive, or forty (40) square feet when located on a lot of at least two (2) acres having frontage on Dorset Street or Hinesburg Road within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. draftPage 1 Chapter 13 Supplemental Regulations ….. ….. 13.28 Limited Neighborhood Commercial The purpose of this use is to promote small, context-sensitive, limited-use and architecturally relevant commercial uses in walking distance to a residential neighborhood. While these may service a broader geography and limited pass-by traffic, these uses are intended to be easily walkable for the majority of the residential neighborhood. A. Applicability. 1. As permitted in Appendix C. 2. The proposed use must be approved as part of a new or amended master plan of 50 units or more. B. General Standards As part of master plan approval or amendment, the application may not create an undue adverse effect upon the planned area which it is expected to serve. The DRB may limit, apply, or require: 3. Traffic and vehicular access; 4. Maximum parking; 5. Enhanced pedestrian circulation and access; 6. Additional landscaping beyond minimum requirements. C. Specific standards 1. Location a. The use must be easily accessible to most of the neighborhood via sidewalks or multi- use paths. b. New buildings associated with the use shall be located such that traffic is not increased through the majority of the development. It should not divide the residential areas of an existing neighborhood, unless the Board finds during initial master plan approval that a central location best serves the Planned Unit Development. (optional for discussion and consideration: shall be located adjacent to the street with the highest daily traffic volumes) c. Hours of use shall be limited to 6 am to 10 pm. 2. Size and Scale. The use is restricted: a. Limited to one building, with a footprint no larger than 6,000 SF. b. Limited to two stories or a total building height of 28 feet. c. Limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant. d. Uses ancillary to the proposed use which are fully below grade will not count towards the maximum tenant size. Ancillary uses may include administrative office space, storage space and mechanical space, provided they serve the principal use. 3. Specific use of space. The following may be permitted as part of the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use: a. Restaurant b. Retail sale of groceries- predominantly food with some related household goods c. Personal instruction draftPage 2 d. Child care e. Artist production studio 4. Drive throughs are expressly prohibited. 5. Items listed in C (3) a-e may not be permitted as part of the LNC use where they already exist within ½ walkable mile. 6. Architectural standards. Buildings associated with the proposed use shall demonstrate architectural relevance, coordinating or complimenting the residential style of homes in the area. This shall follow the specific standards outlined in 9.10D, (1)-(2). Build-to Standards in the SEQ-VC District As noted in the preceding memo, Staff proposes an amendment to the architectural standards of SEQ-VC. D. Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District (1) Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. (2) Building Façades (a) Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. (b) Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. (c) Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. (d) All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. (e) Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. (f) Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. (3) Building Setbacks. New buildings with commercial uses must be built within a build-to-zone established no less than fifteen feet (15’) and no more than twenty feet (20’) from the edge of the curb. The area between the building and the curb shall provide for convenient pedestrian access via sidewalk or recreation path; see Section 9.10(C)(1) above. Parking is prohibited between the building and the sidewalk. draftPage 3 draftPage 4 FBC Interstate Highway Overlay District applicability For Planning Commission Review 5-8-2018 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District to provide for a safe and aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land uses within South Burlington. B. Boundaries of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The Interstate Highway Overlay District shall include the following areas, as depicted in Figure 10-1: (1) all land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights-of-way, and (2) all lands within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the interstate ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, as depicted in Figure 10-1except those within the City Center Form Based Code District. draftPage 5 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4-1 8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements Supplemental (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a)Lot size (b)Lot Width (2)Lot Occupation (a)Percentage of Lot Coverage (b)Units per acre (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a)All Types (2)Building Stories (a)Principal (b)Accessory (3)Floor-to-Floor Height (a)First story (b)Upper Stories (4)Build-to-Zone See T4 Figures (a)Primary Build-to-Zone 0' Min., 12' Max.0' Min., 18' Max.See note 3 (b)Secondary Build-to-Zone 0' Min., 24' Max.0'. Min., 36' Max.See note 3 (5)Frontage See T4 Figures (a)Frontage Buildout , Primary Streets 70% Min.70% Min. (Note 1)See note 3 (b)Frontage Buildout , Secondary Streets 70% Min. within 80' of Primary Street, 50% Min. elsewhere 70% Min. within 80' of Primary Street, 50% Min. elsewhere (Note 1) See note 3 (b)Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build- to-Zone 75% Min.100% Max.See note 3 (c )Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary Build-to-Zone 0% Min., 25% Max.100% Max.See note 3 (6)Entrances See Entrances Figure (a)Average frequency of Public Entrances, non-residential first story use 36' Max.54' Max.See note 3 (b)Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non- residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max.See note 3 (c )Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first story use 36' Max.54' Max.See note 3 (d)Maximum distance between Operable Entrances, residential first story use 46' Max.72' Max.See note 3 (7)Glazing See Glazing Figure (a)First Story Min. 40% of the Width of the Building, and Min. 7.5' in Height Min. 20% of the Width of the Building, and Min 7.5' in Height (b)First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min. (c )Upper Stories (d)Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be transparent (8)Building Breaks See Bldg Breaks Figure (a)Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80'Min. 3 every 80' (b)Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break 48' Max.48' Max. None None None Permitted 2 Min., 4 5 Max. 1 Max. T4 BES Standard Generally a multi-use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T-4 is multimodal oriented with an emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism. Parking (not including on-street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. None 24' Max. 14' Max See Note 2 See Note 2 South Burlington Land Development Regulationsdraft Page 6 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4-2 Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements SupplementalT4 BES Standard (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a)Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks See Section 8.04 (a)Perimeter See note 3 (b)Length See note 3 (2)Street & Connection Types See Article 11 (a)Neighborhood Street Narrow (b )Neighborhood Street (c)Private commercial way (d)Support Street (e)Commercial Street (f)Avenue (g)Commercial Boulevard (h)Destination Street (i)Market Street and Garden Street (j)Path (k)Pedestrian Pass (l)Alley (m) All other street types (4)Curb Cuts (not including street intersections) (a)On Market Street (b) On Garden Street (b)All other streets (E ) Parking Standards (1)Parking Amount Requirements (a)Per Residential Unit (b)Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non-Residential (2) Location & Screening (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e ) (f) (g) (3) Off-Site Parking (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Where a T-4 Lot abuts the R4 or R7 Zoning District, the following standards shall apply: (a) A buffer strip shall be required See Section 8.06(E) (b) (c ) (d) (d) No building located within one hundred and fifty feet (150') from the R4 or R7 District boundary shall exceed four (4) stories in height. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street (a) Off-site parking within 600’ may be used to meet parking requirements for Residential uses. 400' Min. distance between curb cuts 400' Min. distance between curb cuts Permitted, Qualifies as a Street 100' Min. distance between curb cuts Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Along Secondary Streets, parking structures within the build-to-zone that do not meet entrance and/or glazing standards are permitted and shall count towards Frontage Buildout requirements, provided that a minimum of 0.5% of the construction cost is used for original artwork installed on or in front of the building façade facing said street. 2 spaces Min. 300' Min., 700' Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Encouraged 2 spaces Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street The third story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the rear building line; and, The fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twenty-four feet (24’) from the rear building line. No parking spaces required for ground floor tenants/ uses less than 5,000 sq. ft. New construction resulting in additional non-residential gross floor area or residential units shall meet T- 4 Parking Standards New surface parking shall be set back from the primary street a minimum of 25' Parking spaces may be leased from the city or a private landowner New parking spaces shall be screened from all streets and the public realm, a minimum of four (4) feet in height Parking under structures is encouraged 2,800' Max. (b) Off-site parking within 1200’ may be used to meet parking requirements for non-Residential uses. (c) Shared parking may be used to meet parking requirements (See Article 13). Parking shall only be permitted in compliance with applicable BES standards for building frontage Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Prohibited South Burlington Land Development Regulationsdraft Page 7 ARTICLE 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT T4-3 Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements SupplementalT4 BES Standard (e ) (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. (3) (a) (b) (4) (5) (G) Streetscape Standards (1)General Standards (a) (b) (c ) (d)Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 (2)Streetscape requirements (a)Benches (b)Bicycle Parking (c )Street Tree Spacing, on center Notes (1) (2)Upper Story Glazing Shall comply with the following standards: (d) Glazing on upper stories shall not be flush with building surface material and shall be recessed a minimum of 3 inches, except for bay windows and storefronts. (e) Upper story windows/glazing (not doors) shall be no closer than 30 inches to building corners (excluding bay windows and storefronts). Large Single Story Principal Buildings. New large single-story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: Gateway Area. Within a Gateway Area, corners of buildings located at street intersections shall include one or more significant architctural features, such as but not limited to, vertical projections, changes in materials, top-story open spaces, and/or first-floor prominent features. (b) 80% of glazing on upper stories shall be taller than wide (c) The required percentage shall be achieved by multiple openings. Windows may be ganged horizontally if each grouping (maximum five per group) is separated by a mullion, column, pier or wall section that is at least 7 inches wide. Along Secondary Streets, a Streetfront Open Space, as defined within these Regulations, shall count towards Frontage Buildout requirements. Permitted May be used to meet short-term requirements of 13.14 50' Max. average (a) Upper story glazing shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the façade area below the roofline on the primary building facade and 20% on secondary building facades. If a corner lot is 100’ or less in width along the street containing the primary building facade and greater than two (2) times that width in depth, the required frontage buildout on the BES shall be reduced by 50% on the street containing the secondary building facade. Such building shall have a frontage greater than 100' and a footprint greater than 10,000 square feet; Such building shall have a maximum footprint of 3,500 square feet; and, Such building shall comply with all other provisions of these Regulations. No new single-story building shall be permitted within one thousand (1,000) linear feet in any direction from any existing single-story building approved under this subsection; Upper Story setbacks. Except where located within a Gateway Area, all stories above the fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the primary and secondary building facades. Non-hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or flowering vegetation. All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with requirements of the Department of Public Works. Small Single Story Principal Buildings. New small single-story principal buildings shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: All streetscape features must be consistent within a project and be compatible with adjacent features erected following adoption of this Code. Such building shall be a minimum of 24' in height and shall have the appearance of two or more stories; Such building shall have entries at a frequency of every 50' or less and shall have a maximum distance between entries of 60'; and, South Burlington Land Development Regulationsdraft Page 8 South Burlington LDRs Draft Amendment for PC review May 8, 2018 15.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts and Letters of Credit. B. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit required by these Regulations, including but not limited to Landscaping and Site Restorations or rehabilitation, Earth Products and required demolition and removal of buildings. (1) Before issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer shall furnish the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to guarantee all landscaping and plantings as required under Article 14, and any site restorations or rehabilitations as required under Article 3 or Article 13, for a period as described in this section. (a) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of $2,000 or less, no performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be required. (b) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of over $10,000, the required amount for performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be reduced to fifty percent (50%) of the landscaping budget amount over $10,000. Example: a development with a total required landscaping budget of $20,000 shall have a performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit of not less than $15,000. draftPage 9 Draft LDR Amendments – technical corrections South Burlington Planning Commission May 8, 2018 Section 8.11 Nonconformities … C. Nonconforming Structures … (2) Repair and Alterations. Report and alterations may be performed on any nonconforming structure, provided they comply with the Code and the following: (a) When the total area of alterations to the primary building façade, or to the building façade that is parallel to and oriented to the street, exceeds 35% of the total areas of such building façade, the alterations shall comply with the Building Standards described in the BES applicable to the Transect Zone (excluding build-to-zone and story requirements). For the purposes of this subsection, window and window casing replacement, painting, adding or removal of siding, and other similar changes shall not be considered in this total area of alterations calculation. For multi- tenant buildings, the standard shall apply separately for each tenant area where that tenant gross floor area exceeds 10,000 square feet. (b) Repair and replacement of non-conforming exterior finish materials. Normal repair of non-conforming exterior finish materials listed in Section 8.07 shall be permitted. In-kind replacement of vinyl exterior finish materials with new vinyl finish materials shall also be permitted. Replacement of any other type of exterior finish materials listed as prohibited in Section 8.07 shall not be permitted. (c) Structural alterations involving the replacement, relocation, removal, or other similar changes to more than 50% of all load bearing wall / pillar elements of a building shall require compliance with all standards within these Regulations. SEQ Neighborhood Residential North: See Table of Uses chart included in memo on limited commercial uses in residential areas. Amendment would add SEQ-NRN to the Table of Uses and have it match the SEQ-NR district per the intent and legal agreement. draftPage 10 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing _____________, 2018, 7:00 pm In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on _________________, 2018 at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. Permit buildings of up to five (5) stories in the Form Based Code T4 District; B. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District C. Establish an architectural Gateway Area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 District D. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts E. Eliminate build-to requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District F. Allow Small-scale commercial uses/structures in / adjacent to master-planned residential districts G. Minor technical corrections. Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 2, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: draftPage 11 2 (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” A. Permit buildings of up to five (5) stories in the Form Based Code T4 District and establish a Gateway at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road; Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed bylaw would increase the maximum height of buildings in the Form Based Codes T4 District from four (4) stories to five (5) stories. This additional floor would not be permitted within 150 linear feet of a building in an adjacent Residential 4 district. The amendment would also establish a Gateway feature, which would apply to properties at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road. Buildings within this gateway would be required to include one or more significant architectural features highlighting the corner. (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 The proposed amendments will support the continued development of a vibrant and pedestrian-oriented environment in the City Center area. “The vision for the Central District is to effectively blend existing neighborhoods, commercial areas, natural areas, underdeveloped properties, and undeveloped lands into the true downtown of South Burlington. This downtown will provide increased connectivity through new cross streets; support an integrated mix of housing, retail, and employment; and be a primary focus point for compact, walkable development within the City.” (P. 3-9) “Objective 40. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic, and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” “Strategy 102. Use design review and/or form-based coding to promote the development of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian-focused and highly functional environments.” “Strategy 4. Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovating approaches to preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing, including…. inclusionary zoning…” “Strategy 5. Increase the supply of safe and affordable housing by allowing higher-density, mixed use and mixed-income development with City Center and transit corridors, allowing multi-unit housing within transitional zones between residential neighborhoods and commercial / industrial uses.” draftPage 12 3 The proposed amendments advance the availability of safe and affordable housing by allowing for greater intensity of development in the T4 District. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as “medium to higher intensity, mixed use”. The increased height allowance is consistent with the Plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” The proposed amendment would not impact any specific proposals for planned community facilities. B. Remove applicability of the Interstate Highway Overlay District ramp setbacks from properties located in the Form Based Code T4 District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw Removes the building 50’ setback from the Interstate ramp Right-of-Way for properties in the FBC T4 District (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. The proposed amendments will support the continued development of a vibrant and pedestrian-oriented environment in the City Center area. “The vision for the Central District is to effectively blend existing neighborhoods, commercial areas, natural areas, underdeveloped properties, and undeveloped lands into the true downtown of South Burlington. This downtown will provide increased connectivity through new cross streets; support an integrated mix of housing, retail, and employment; and be a primary focus point for compact, walkable development within the City.” (P. 3-9) “Objective 40. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic, and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” “Strategy 102. Use design review and/or form-based coding to promote the development of aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian-focused and highly functional environments.” The amendment will have a minor positive impact on the provision of sage and affordable housing by allowing slightly greater site flexibility. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. draftPage 13 4 The amendment, as noted above, is consistent with future land uses and densities in the Plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment would have a minor positive impact on the provision of future planned community facilities by enabling planned roadways and development to be accommodated on the sites. C. Establish an architectural Gateway Area at intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road in the T4 District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw Establishes a Gateway extending 200’ from the center of the Intersection, within which building architecture must highlight the corner features of buildings. (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. The proposed amendments will support the continued development of a vibrant and pedestrian-oriented environment in the City Center area. “The vision for the Central District is to effectively blend existing neighborhoods, commercial areas, natural areas, underdeveloped properties, and undeveloped lands into the true downtown of South Burlington. This downtown will provide increased connectivity through new cross streets; support an integrated mix of housing, retail, and employment; and be a primary focus point for compact, walkable development within the City.” (P. 3-9) “Objective 40. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic, and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” The proposed amendment will have little to no impact on the provision of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendments would not have an effect on future land uses or densities in the Plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. draftPage 14 5 D. Modify landscaping bonding requirements in all districts Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The amendment would eliminate landscape bonding requirements for projects with less than $2,000 in landscaping and would reduce landscape bonding to 50% of the required value of landscaping above $10,000. (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. The City’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes and supports the existing of landscaping associated with development and also supports efforts to foster housing affordability and economic activity. The proposed amendment retains landscaping requirements while simplifying associated bonding requirements. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendments do not impact future land uses or densities as discussed in the municipal plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. E. Eliminate build-to requirements for non-residential buildings in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial District Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The amendment seeks to eliminate language which currently requires that new commercial buildings in the SEQ-VC district be built in a very narrow band of 15-20 feet from the edge of a curb. This has been challenging to implement for all parties. Other setback requirements exist which makes this line somewhat superfluous. (4) 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. The amendment/deletion is technical in nature and does not impact the municipal plan or the availability of safe and affordable housing. (5) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendment/deletion is technical in nature and does not impact future land uses or densities as discussed in the municipal plan. draftPage 15 6 (6) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendment/deletion is technical in nature and does not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. F. Allow Small-scale commercial uses/structures in / adjacent to master-planned residential districts Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw The proposed bylaw amendment would permit small, context-sensitive, limited-use commercial development in master-planned residential areas otherwise not zoned for such uses. Such a use would also require architectural relevance and would be required to be within walking distance of the residential area it would serve. (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. The amendment promotes all of the four major visions of the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the South Burlington to be “Affordable and Community Strong, Walkable, Green and Clean, and Opportunity Oriented.” Permitting the location of small restaurants and food markets to be close to or within master planned residential communities creates an opportunity for residents to walk for some of their basic needs. While this serves the whole spectrum of a population, it is especially beneficial to those with income or mobility restrictions. Residents who do not desire or have access to private transportation will have expanded opportunities. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. While the amendment is not targeted towards a specific quadrant of the City of zoning district, it meets overall goals for future land use. In 2016, the City enhanced the language relating to ‘Lower intensity, principally residential’ areas to include “commercial uses” which are “limited to those serving a small or local population.” (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. G. Minor technical corrections Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw Several minor typographic, numbering, and clarifying changes are proposed throughout the document. draftPage 16 7 (4) 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. The amendments are technical in nature and do not impact the municipal plan or the availability of safe and affordable housing. (5) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The amendments are technical in nature and do not impact future land uses or densities as discussed in the municipal plan. (6) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The amendments are technical in nature and do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities. draftPage 17 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 24 APRIL 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 24 April 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; R. Greco, R. Gonda, A. Olicky, S. Marriott 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Ostby 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: Ms. Greco: Attended an event last month regarding growth. She recommended the book “Better Not Bigger” to members as it is written with city planning in mind. Also was concerned with what is happening off Kennedy Drive and elsewhere in the city with the cutting down of trees resembling “a scorched earth environment.” People have expressed concerns to her about the loss of the natural environment. Ms. Ostby noted the Commission will be dealing with its work plan in late May. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Riehle: Distributed the Zoning Administrator’s monthly report which shows a significant increase in permits construction costs over the same month last year. Mr. Conner noted that a lot of the the non-residential renovations last month is attributable to the massive renovations at UMall. Ms. Ostby: She and Sandra Dooley are working on a cottage housing proposal and are on target for late spring. Mr. Conner: Staff has officially received the application for the second large building in City Center (Champlain Housing Trust) at the corner of Market and Garden Streets in the T-4 zone. It will be 4 stories, 60 units, with underground parking and a variety of unit sizes including a 4-bedroom option. Attended the launch of the bike-share program last week. There are 3 sites in South Burlington: Healthy Living, the Airport, and UMall, each with a designated bike rack. 25 of the available bikes with be electric-assist. 2 At last week’s City Council meeting, the Bike/Ped Committee made a proposal for a “penny for paths” tax similar to the Open Space Fund. Their focus is on dealing with the “missing links” in the City’s path system. Ms. Ostby asked for an update on the Williston Road bridge project. Ms. Blanchard said Phase I scoping was accepted by the City Council last week. The recommendation is for a bridge over the south side, crossing at the narrowest part of Williston Road. Mr. Conner showed an overhead photo indicating the project path. Ms. Blanchard said Phase 2 will have to be approved by CCRPC and will be voted on next month. Ms. Blanchard noted the project is eligible for TIF funding at 30%. In addition, a Federal program will be doing a round of funding this year, and this project is a good fit for that. 5. Continued review and possible approval of Library/City Hall/Community Center purpose & need: Mr. Conner noted they have updated the language to include more direct references to the Comprehensive Plan. He distributed written comments from Jennifer Kochman and noted some tweaks were made based on those comments. Mr. Riehle moved to include staff’s recommended changes that followed Ms. Kochman’s comments in the purpose & need statement. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the purpose & need statement including comments from Ms. Kochman. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Continued Discussion of small-scale commercial uses/structures in/adjacent to residential districts: Mr. Riehle asked how “architecturally relevant” would be defined. Mr. Conner said it would be complementary to the environment. Mr. Riehle asked how the DRB would handle a creative “funky” building. He cited the Pizzagalli building on Shelburne road and the Green Mountain Coffee Roasters building as commercial alternatives rather than a “build to” scenario. Mr. Macdonald asked about a master plan. Mr. Conner said the only entity that can turn a property into a master plan is a homeowner association. He added that in areas with no such association, staff didn’t want one owner to be able to decide to put in a store, so the regulations would require that a commercial use fits into its context, is well thought out, and is endorsed by the neighborhood. Mr. Conner noted that as they get further into the PUD study, one suggested option was a “campus style,” a well thought out plan. Members raised the issue of public use in addition to private (neighborhood) of a commercial venture. Mr. Conner said he would research this. 3 Regarding uses, Mr. Conner outlined the allowable commercial uses in a residential neighborhood as follows: a. Community center b. Restaurant c. Retail sales (category that includes groceries/market) d. Personal instruction e. Child care f. Artist production studio g. Food hub Mr. Conner also alerted members that by current definition, “retail sales” includes all retail uses, and members may want to re-open that discussion. Mr. Macdonald suggested narrowing the definition. Ms. Ostby asked to “start conservative.” Ms. Ostby asked about signage and cautioned against something like a neon sign. Mr. Conner said he believed allowable commercial signs in residential neighborhoods are very small and would verify this. 7. Overview of short-term housing rental regulation: Mr. Conner noted this is “new territory” and has started because of recent discussion in large tourist locations. The question is to what extent is housing that was intended to be “permanent” changing in character. Mr. Conner felt that South Burlington isn’t there yet. There are a few bed & breakfasts (b&b’s), but not many. However, South Burlington regulations predate “short term” rentals, and people have begun renting out a room in a house. The State defines “short term” as people staying less than 30 days in a row. Mr. Conner said one of the issues is the collecting of the rooms & meals tax. A bill currently in the Legislature would require homes with short term rentals to register. South Burlington does have definitions of B&B’s, hotels, and dwelling units. But these all pre-date the advent of the online booking systems Mr. Mittag noted the possibility of people buying buildings and turning them into B&B’s, resulting in a loss of housing. It was noted that if the owner of the property is required to live there, it still functions as “housing.” Mr. Macdonald suggested that regulations should cover issues such as safety, finances, and neighborhood concerns. Ms. Olicky noted that for the past few years they have been renting their basement which they turned into a legal accessory apartment. She noted that Mr. Belair told them the city doesn’t view long term 4 and short-term rentals differently. She felt this was a “zoning grey space.” She also noted that they use the space for family who come to visit. Ms. Olicky noted the B&B option offers a challenge as well as a benefit to the community. The home is worth more, so the city gets more in taxes. She encouraged the Commission to make regulations, noting that there may be more of these in the city than staff thinks (6 in her neighborhood alone). She agreed there should be minimum health and safety standards. Ms. Ostby cited the need for a body to oversee this. 8. Discuss possible modifications to bonding requirements for landscaping: Mr. Conner noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has asked developers what could be done to get more affordable housing in the city. One response dealt with the bonding for landscaping. Small bonds are now very hard to get, and if a developer has to bond for a large project, the odds are very small that $100,000 worth of landscaping will fail. One thought is to set a minimum ($10,000), and anything below that would not require bonding. At the upper end, a developer could bond for half of the landscaping amount. Members felt this was a reasonable approach. Mr. Conner said this can be part of the next round of amendments. 9. Brief status update on PUD/Master Plan Project: Mr. Conner said staff received a lot of material from the consultants in the past few weeks, much of it focusing on “how it looks now and what it could look like.” They also received a robust draft of a master plan document. Staff is reviewing this material and will meet with the consultants in the next few weeks and then bring recommendations to the Commission. 10. Consider and possibly approve or support City Council Resolution formally requesting that the U.S. Air Force4 replace the F35A with a safe and quiet aircraft: Mr. Conner noted the City Council action had a May 1 action date, so staff felt it should be on this agenda. Mr. Mittag distributed a proposed draft resolution. He felt it expressed the Commission’s solidarity with the other communities. Ms. Ostby noted that Mr. Gagnon said he would have to recuse himself from this discussion because his firm does work for the Airport. 5 A copy of a letter sent in 2012 to Nicholas Germanos regarding the F35A basing was distributed to members. Ms. Ostby noted that Ms. Louisos felt this letter already addressed the issue on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Gonda felt it was relevant for the Commission to take a stand as the issue involves affordable housing. He suggested the Commission just support the City Council’s action. Mr. Merriott, who lives in the affected neighborhood, also felt affordable housing is an issue for the Commission. He said that as a carpenter he is disappointed with what he has seen in the way of in the new housing going up in the community. He would not buy one of those units. He asked the Commission to support the City Council action and ask for a different mission for the Guard. Ms. Greco said that because the Commission took a stand in 2012 doesn’t mean they can’t take a stand now. She felt the more messages the Air Force gets, the better. She cited the destruction of a neighborhood because of the noise of military planes, and this will get worse with the F35s. Close to 3,000 homes will be affected. Ms. Greco noted that citizens in 6 other states have changed the plan or had the F35 taken from them. There are other aircraft that are quieter and safer being flown in other states. There is assurance that there will always have a mission here. Mr. Macdonald said he did not support the City Council’s action. Mr. Riehle said the affordable housing is such an emotional issue. He was comfortable the Guard will always be here, and he thus supports the resolution. Ms. Ostby had an issue with the Commission taking on a political issue. She felt it was the Council’s purview to address this, and they did. She would stand behind the 2012 letter but wasn’t comfortable with a new resolution. Mr. Mittag said the resolution supports the 2012 letter. He felt it is a Commission issue as the Commission will have to decide how to replace the lost affordable housing. Ms. Ostby said that if the F35 does arrive, a lot will be done to insulate homes. Ms. Greco said the Air Force has said the only mitigation is to take down the homes. Mr. Riehle suggested endorsing the 2012 letter. Ms. Greco suggested resending the 2012 letter and telling the Air Force the Commission is still concerned. Ms. Ostby wanted other Commission members to be able to weigh in on this issue and suggested waiting until there are more voices present. Members agreed to put it on the agenda for the second meeting in May (22nd). 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 24 APRIL 2018 PAGE 7 11. Meeting Minutes of 28 February 2017, 12 December 2017, 21 January 2018 and 10 April 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 28 February 2017, 12 December 2017, 21 January 2018 and 10 April 2018 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12. Other Business: The next Commission meeting will be on 8 May. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk