Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 02/19/2019South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Meeting Tuesday, February 19, 2019 7:00 pm South Burlington Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street AGENDA: 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Report from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Open Space IZ Committee, Bernie Gagnon (7:15 pm) b. Transfer of Development Rights IZ Committee, Monica Ostby (7:25 pm) 6. Status Report on Subdivision / Planned Unit Development / Master Plan project (7:40 pm) 7. Review draft elements of Subdivision / PUD / Master Plan project: a. Consideration of draft building types (7:50 pm) b. Citywide parking standards draft (8:20 pm) 8. Consider establishment of City Center Form Based Code subcommittee & possible appointments (8:40 pm) 9. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm) 10. Other business (8:59 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:00 pm) Respectfully submitted, Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines 1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to insure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. 2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. 3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission. 4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items. 5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully. 6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. 7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. 8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers address the Commission for a second time. 9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter. 10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. 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 Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: February 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting NOTE: THIS AGENDA AND CONTENTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS FOR THE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2019 WHICH WAS POSTPONED DUE TO POOR WEATHER. THE ONLY CHANGED AGENDA ITEMS & PACKET MATERIALS ARE: #7 – HOUSING AND BUILDING TYPES. THE STAFF MEMO AND ATTACHMENTS HAVE BEEN UPDATED FROM THOSE CONTAINED IN THE 2/12 MEETING PACKET #9 DRAFT MINUTES. DRAFT MINUTES FROM PRIOR MEETINGS ARE ENCLOSED. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Report from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Open Space IZ Committee, Bernie Gagnon (7:15 pm) b. Transfer of Development Rights IZ Committee, Monica Ostby (7:25 pm) As with previous meetings, this is an opportunity to share information, updates, and feedback from the two IZ Committees. 6. Status Report on Subdivision / Planned Unit Development / Master Plan project (7:40 pm) See attached memo and project information. Please keep in mind that all of this is a tentative schedule and subject to change. 7. Review draft elements of Subdivision / PUD / Master Plan project: a. Housing & Building types (7:50 pm) See attached memo b. Citywide parking standards draft (8:20 pm) See the enclosed memo & draft language 8. Consider establishment of City Center Form Based Code subcommittee & possible appointments (8:40 pm) See attached memo 9. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm) See enclosed draft minutes 10. Other business (8:59 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:00 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: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: PUD / Master Plan / Subdivision Project Status Report DATE: February 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting The PUD / Master Plan / Subdivision project has a number of moving parts! Enclosed with this memo are two documents for your use: • A draft project completion schedule, updated as of this week • A chart showing where each of the project elements fits together (provided to the Commission in December) A few notes on progress for specific elements of the project: Natural Resources Standards [part of subdivision]: • Consultant Sharon Murray is developing the subdivision standards and framework for how “primary” and “secondary” natural resources would be addressed in the Regulations • CCRPC Staff, on contract with the City, are preparing draft language for resource- specific standards • Both are coordinating with staff and each other, and updating mapping, to provide initial language for the Commission in March Subdivision Standards [subdivision]: • A draft of the subdivision process and administration were provided to staff earlier this month; staff is reviewing with the consultant Planned Unit Development Structure & Bonuses [PUDs] • Consultant team working on these; anticipated first draft to staff by 2/28 Street Types: [Subdivisions & PUDs] • The Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee is reviewing the draft street types; staff is meeting with them on 2/13 to go over their feedback Inclusionary Zoning: [Site Plan] • The Affordable Housing Committee is working with staff from the CCRPC on contract to further refine and prepare a draft inclusionary zoning standard. • Staff and the committee liaison between Affordable Housing and the TDR Committee are monitoring how each proposal may look at density bonuses Traffic Overlay / Traffic Standards [Subdivision] • Staff is working with consultant team; expected delivery for Planning Commission late spring 2019 PUD/Master Plan / Subdivision Project Planning Commission Schedule Working Document Working Project Schedule ‐ PUD/MP/Subdivision Project 1‐15 16‐31 1‐15 16‐28 1‐15 16‐31 1‐15 16‐30 1‐15 16‐31 1‐15 16‐30 Component Element Subdivision Process and Administration ● Lotting (size, layout, frontage)● Connections (blocks & perimeters)● Traffic Impact ● Natural Resources ○● Conformance with Plan Objectives ● Cross connections & transportation access ● Street types ● Planned Common Open Space ● Transferable Development Rights Master Plan Master Plan outline ● Process and Administration ● Project Phasing ● Land Use Allocations ● General layout requirements ● Build‐out budgets (lot coverage, traffic, parking)● Site Plan Process and Administration ● Site Access ● Building layout (placement, form)● Circulation ‐ vehicles, pedestrians, bikes ● Parking standards ● Site‐specific open space (amounts)○● Delineated natural resources ○● Other elements if not in subdivision or PUD Underlying Zoning Districts Purpose Statements ● Alignment / consolidation of zoning districts ● Inclusionary Zoning requirements ● Tidy‐up of LDRs ● Planned Unit Developments PUD outline ◊ Process  & Administration ◊● Land Use Allocations by PUD type ● Street Types ○ Building Types Open Space Types ● Flexibility from standards ◊● Performance Zoning & Bonus Criteria ◊● Infill PUDs ◊● Graphics, layouts, etc.◊● Testing of PUD Standards Public Outreach ❶❷ LEGEND ●Commission completion ○Commission provide to committee ◊Consultant Draft Delivered ❶Coordination meeting of Council, PC, and IZ Committees ❷Planning Commission Public Outreach on Full Draft Under Review by a Committee Staff / Consultant Work Planning Commission Previously  Complete February March April May JuneJanuary 2/8/2019 Type Subdivision Master Plan Site Plan Zoning Districts PUD Sub-type Major & Minor DRB & Administrative Full & Infill Purpose Establish the standards by which land is divided in consideration of its context Coordinate phased development; allocate major project elements Specific review standards for individual lots Establish standard rules for use, density, and scale of development Modify underlying subdivision and zoning standards by specified type; provide flexibility in exchange for more innovative and efficient design Elements Reviewed Not at site specific level At a broad level only Specific lot standards As specified Standards defined by PUD type Lotting Phasing Access Development Scale Land Use Allocations by type Size, layout and frontage Apply land use allocation Building layout Allowed Uses Residential Connections Residential Building placement Assigned Densities Non-residential Block and Perimeter Non-residential Building Form Inclusionary Requirements Civic Intersection Density Open Space Circulation Open space Context Civic/Other Pedestrian Access Allowable Typologies by type Traffic impact-nearby roads Establish general layout Emergency Vehicle Access Building typologies Natural Resources Principal Roads Vehicle circulation Street typologies Conform with Plan objectives Open Spaces Parking Open space typologies Development Suitability Build out budget Site-specific Open Space Allow flexibility from: Buildable area Building Delineated resources Subdivision standards Mapped natural resources Lot coverages Landscaping Site Plan standards Transportation Parking Site utilities Zoning district standards Cross connections and access Traffic Other elements if not addressed in subdivision Establish bonus criteria: Street standards Vesting of approvals Transferable Development Rights Bike and ped infrastructure Affordability Transportation overlays/TOD Energy Utility Infrastructure Other Common stormwater Water / wastewater Planned Common Open Space Transferable Development Rights Comparison of Review Elements Large Subdivision Small Subdivision Single lot ○ ●●● PUD PUD/Zoning Zoning Required across entire parcel May be for portions of parcel Stand-alone stage of review ○ Reduced process/criteria ● Administrative review where applicable Development Review Process Review may be combined Concept Review Master Plan Plat Review Site Design Development Form Draft December 11, 2018 South Burlington Planning Commission Planned Unit Development/ Subdivision Project 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Housing Typologies DATE: February 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting There are several core elements of South Burlington’s re-envisioned PUD standards that will help guide and drive the placemaking that the City envisions. These elements will serve as components that can be varied based on geography, PUD type, project size, or even changing community needs; they include Street Typologies, Open Space Typologies, and Housing Typologies. Each of these are meant to provide a palate of options for community adoption, and in some cases, developer choice. The Planning Commission, and subsequently the South Burlington Natural Resource Committee and a working group of stakeholders, reviewed Open Space typologies in the fall. Street standards are nearing completion and will be presented to the Planning Commission very soon. It is currently being reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. Housing typologies are not new to the City; several were presented as part of the City’s Affordable Housing Report of 2013. Why Housing Typologies? Having a range of allowable or expected housing typologies: • Offers additional paths to placemaking, neighborhood building and livability • Allows for a range of diversity in design • Compliments housing affordability goals • Assists in aligning density limits and goals with actual buildability • Interact with street standards and can promote walkability and the pedestrian experience • Capitalizes on existing infrastructure • Fosters other City goals including a reduction in energy consumption and infill development • Creates options and visual diversity • Can provide a common-sense middle ground that is neither too subjective or too objective • Enforces intended scale and massing without uses of floor area ratios • While not truly architecturally form based, enhances visual aesthetic • Focuses less on use, allowing structures to be flexible and timeless 2 The land use allocations have accounted for typologies since their inception. Shown in the PUD by Type table are placeholders which seek to establish a mix of housing types within each PUD. The Planning Commission has had a preliminary discussion of this housing diversity measure, and the time will be right to soon finalize this. How do we use the housing typologies? The 2013 Housing Affordability Report started to dive into potential housing typologies for the City (beginning on numbered page 77 of the document). Continuing to respect the reports already completed and received by the City, we’ll start here for Commissioner feedback. We’ll ask you to focus more on the general typologies, understanding that the more specific details, photos, and graphics are likely to be updated. There are fairly comprehensive for residential building types. Staff recommends that for simplicity’s sake, several of these be merged. Staff and the project consultant also recommend the inclusion of non-residential building typologies. From the 2013 South Burlington Affordable Housing Report: Most housing built recently in South Burlington is one of two types – large single- family homes or apartments/condos in multi- unit buildings. There is a range of other housing options that are not being built in South Burlington that could provide opportunities for more affordable or moderately- priced housing, and fit in within existing neighborhoods and areas planned for higher-density redevelopment. 3 Staff has attached a series of building typologies in order to start a more detailed conversation. Before reviewing each, please consider the questions and comments below for consideration. Questions for consideration: 1. What are the bands for which typologies are based? Helping to draw the categories of specificity will allow us to best provide you with more specific types. Once the Commission identifies the bands, staff is ready to bring specific recommendations of each detail for each building type. Potential identifiers include: a. Number of units per building b. Maximum building sizes, including number of stories, building height and footprint. c. Building specifications including number or locations of entrances, yard space, garages, etc. d. Specific architectural design standards- transparency, materials, roof treatments. Staff recommends inclusion of items a and b, broad standards associated with c, and very limited uses of elements in section d, for areas outside of the City Center Form Based Codes District unless where generalized to assert a broad vernacular. 2. Reaffirmation of the housing diversity measures in the PUD by type. We’ve received preliminary feedback from members of the Affordable Housing Committee of concerns related to requirements for single family units in certain PUDs. This will be a central point for discussion on the 12th and we are hoping to make a decision on this date. Staff supports the percentages included, with sub-sections included for the addition of non-residential building types. Staff also recommends continued discussion of the housing types with the Affordable Housing Committee, with respect to the mix of housing required. Thoughts for consideration: 1. The non-residential building types are born from a sampling of typologies used in other communities across the nation. Exploration of these has been enlightening: some communities base their building types on zoning district. There is not a majority of communities that appear to employ building typologies. 2. The housing types are from the 2013 affordable housing report. As with other typologies that have been considered as part of the zoning revisions, staff has copied these here without changes in order to start the conversation. Detached house types were not broken down by size. Live-work type buildings have been included in the non-residential building types. 3. All photos are illustrative only. More attention will be given to this once the typologies and parameters are chosen. 4. We also envision more detailed graphical (block) representations of the building types to provide illustration beyond sample photographs. 4 URBAN STOREFRONT Building Typologies Intended as commercial or mixed use for higher density non-transect areas with higher traffic volumes. Can include freestanding buildings or shared wall buildings. Buildings should have a recognizable base, middle and top and balance vertical and horizontal proportions. KEY ELEMENTS: • 2-5 stories. • Must provide for ground floor non-residential use. • Minimum glazing on first floor: 40% • Commercial doors on public street • Setback no more than 50 feet from road ROW • Building breaks: Min 1 every 80’ • Flat roof encouraged • Principal entrance at streetfront • Maximum building height determined by zoning district Building Typologies Intended to serve people and businesses at the neighborhood. scale Must have ground floor retail or restaurant use. While the upper stories are encouraged to provide for residential occupation, the first floor is clearly intended for non-residential use. NEIGHBORHOOD STOREFRONT KEY ELEMENTS: • Minimum glazing on first floor: 50% • Residential vernacular required; pitched roof encouraged • 2 stories • Less than 6,000 SF • Sloped roof encouraged • Maximum building width at street: 100 ft • Principal entrance at street front; recessed entry • Commercial entry door with first floor windows minimum 7.5’ in height • Typically detached and free-standing • STAFF NOTE: STAFF WILL SOON RETURN TO THIS FOR COMPAR-ISON WITH THE NEWLY ADOPTED “NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER-CIAL” BUILDING TYPE. THERE ARE SEVERAL SIMILARITIES AND OPPORTUNITY FOR MERGING. Commercial centers recognize some need and desire for appropriately placed and spaced larger scale retail uses. These building forms are intended to be infrequent and limited in number (INSERT ASSOCIATED TEXT HERE). Such buildings placed at (CERTAIN LEVELS OF) street front will have increased architectural requirements. COMMERCIAL CENTER KEY ELEMENTS: • 1-2 stories • Must have entry door on public street • Minimum glazing on first floor: 25% • Must have two full stories if multiple tenants are included • Permitted only in districts that allow retail sales of greater than 15,000 SF GFA (footnote 8 in Appendix C) • Building breaks IF AT (INSERT) STREET TYPE, AD-DITIONAL REGULA- TIONS: • Appearance of two full stories • Minimum trans-parent glazing on first floor: 50% • Commercial doors on public street • Building breaks COTTAGE COMMERCIAL Building Typologies Intended to provide for a wide mix of uses in a building with the physical characteristics of a small scale residential building. The building is versatile and could easily accom-modate either residential or non-residential uses., distinguishable only through signage. May also serve as a live-work space. Buildings are expected to reflect the character of the surrounding area. KEY ELEMENTS: • 1-2 stories • Residential doors and residential-ly scaled windows on public street • Setback no more than 100 feet from road ROW • Maximum building width at street: 75feet • Principal entrance at streetfront • Pitched roof required • Porches, stoops, covered entry-ways are strongly encouraged. SCALED SHOPPING CENTER Building Typologies Scaled shopping center is intended to allow for a mix of tenants in a shared wall building. This is distinctly different than a ‘strip mall’ in that entrances are to face the street and there is the appearance of multiple detached buildings blended together. KEY ELEMENTS: • Average minimum of 1.5 stories • Setback no more than 50 feet from road ROW • Public entrances at street front • Each tenant space shall have the ap-pearance of attached buildings; this can be accomplished with a change in material, color, roof treatments, or building height, • Minimum horizontal glazing: 7.5 feet high and 40% of tenant’s horizontal • Maximum 3,000 SF ground floor and 60 linear feet per tenant • Restaurant uses are encouraged to provide outdoor dining space • A walkway in front of the building, connecting the tenant spaces is re-quired. • Front yard landscaping is required. GENERAL BUILDING Less distinctive than other building types. Generally serves office or limited residential uses. Can be interchangeable between residential and commercial in appearance. KEY ELEMENTS: • 2-5 stories • If designed for residential use, limited to 12 units or more. • Minimum glazing on first floor: 40% • Required window treatments; balconies and stoops encouraged. • Limited geographies?– least inspirational build- ing, but may fill gap that other typologies leave? • Staff note: more details to follow. This typolo-gy is still under development and may result in 1-2 additional related typologies. ROW HOUSE/TOWNHOUSE A small- to medium-sized attached structure that is composed of 3 to 9 buildings placed side-by-side. Row houses or townhouses are typically located within medium-density neighborhoods or in a location that transitions from a primarily single-family neighborhood into a higher-density or mixed-use neighborhood. KEY ELEMENTS: • 2 stories • may contain one dwelling unit per floor. • Minimum glazing on first floor: 40% • Each building has an individual en-trance that faces the street and is accessed from a porch, stoop or pa- tio. • Garages are either behind the house or set back from the front façade. • Shall be between 20’-36’ in width and not exceed 48’ in depth. • Each building shall be located on its own lot and shall have a rear yard that it at least 100 sf in area per unit that is not less than 8’ in any dimen-sion DUPLEX A small- to medium-sized, detached structure that contains two dwelling units arranged side-by-side or stacked. A duplex has a single building massing and the appearance of a medium to large single-family home. A duplex is typically located within a primarily single-family residential neighborhood and is oriented to the street. KEY ELEMENTS: • 2 stories • Each dwelling unit has its own pri-mary entry that faces the street and is accessed from a porch, stoop or patio. • Garages are either behind the duplex or set back from the front facade. • The main body of the duplex should have a footprint of no more than 36’ x 48’. • Any secondary wings should have a footprint of no more than 24’ x 28’. • Each unit should have at least 200 sf of open space that is not less than 8’ in any dimension. MULTIPLEX, SMALL A medium- to large-sized, detached structure that contains 3 or 4 dwelling units. A small multiplex has a single building massing and the appearance of a medium to large single-family home. Small multiplexes can be located within primarily single-family residential neighborhoods or medium-density neighborhoods. KEY ELEMENTS: • Each unit has an individual entry and the structure has at least one primary entry that faces the street and that is accessed from a porch, stoop or patio. • Garages are either behind the multi-plex or set back from the front fa- cade. • The main body of the multiplex should have a footprint of no more than 40’ x 52’. • Any secondary wings should have a footprint of no more than 28’ x 32’. • Each unit should have at least 100 sf of open space that is not less than 8’ in any dimension. MULTIPLEX, MEDIUM A large, detached structure that contains 5 to 8 dwelling units. Has a single building massing and the appearance of a large single-family home. Medium multiplexes can be located within medium-density neighborhoods or in a location that tran-sitions from a primarily single-family neighborhood into a higher-density or mixed-use neighborhood. KEY ELEMENTS: • The structure has at least one prima-ry entry that faces the street and that is accessed from a porch, stoop or patio. • The main body of the multiplex should have a footprint of no more than 48’ x 60’. • Any secondary wings should have a footprint of no more than 32’ x 36’. • Open space requirement: MULTIPLEX, LARGE A large, detached structure that contains 9 to 12 dwelling units. Designed and massed to appear as one or more large sin- gle-family homes. Large multiplexes can be located in a location that transitions from a primarily single-family neighbor-hood into a higher-density or mixed-use neighborhood. KEY ELEMENTS: • The structure has at least one prima-ry entry that faces the street and that is accessed from a porch, stoop or patio. • The main body of the multiplex should have a footprint of no more than 60’ x 72’. • Any secondary wings should have a footprint of no more than 36’ x 40’. • Open space requirement: COTTAGE CLUSTER A series of small, detached, one-unit structures arranged to define a shared courtyard that is typically perpendicular to the street. A cottage cluster is scaled to fit within primarily single-family or medium-density neighborhoods, and includes 3 to 9 buildings. The shared courtyard takes the place of a private rear yard and serves as a community-enhancing element. KEY ELEMENTS: • Vehicular access is to the rear of the structures, or a common parking lot may be provided. There should be no vehicular access through the shared courtyard. • The main body of the individual cot-tages should have a footprint of no more than 24’ x 32’. • Any secondary wings should have a footprint of no more than 16’ x 20’. • Cottages should not be more than 1 ½ stories tall. • There should be at least 400 sf of common open space for each cottage and the open space shall not be less than 20’ in any dimension. CARRIAGE HOUSE ADU An accessory structure that may be located on the same lot as a detached house, duplex, small multiplex or row house. It typically provides either a small accessory dwelling unit or home office space above a garage or at ground level. KEY ELEMENTS: • It is typically located at the rear of a lot and must be set back from the main building’s facade. • A carriage house should not be taller or have a larger footprint than the main building. • May not have a footprint greater than 28’ x 36’. • It should be located at least 12’ away from the main building, but may be connected to the main building by uninhabitable space such as a breezeway. DETACHED, SINGLE FA MILY KEY ELEMENTS: • 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: Draft Parking Standards DATE: February 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed for your consideration is a complete draft of revised parking standards, citywide (both a “red-line” and a “clean” version). This draft is proposed to be a component of the updated subdivision / PUD / Master Plan standards as one of the key elements of site plans that drive land use in the community. This draft follows a discussion held by the Planning Commission in the fall of 2017 in which the Commission considered a range of possible approaches to parking (see enclosed outline of parking issues from 2017). The Commission at the time asked staff to further explore the three “middle” options – to reduce parking minimums, to eliminate parking minimums, or to establish a parking maximum with a DRB waiver option – and to prepare a draft for the Commission’s review. Since that time, staff has been researching the subject, communicating with property owners and developers, and considering the pros and cons of each option. Principal features of the draft: • Nearly all parking minimums are eliminated citywide - multi-family housing retains a minimum • Parking design and dimensions are retained, with allowances for minor variations • All landscaping standards are retained • New requirement for 3’ tall screening of parking that is located adjacent to a street • The use of off-site parking onto a separate parcel no longer requires City approval o Off-site commercial parking may not be placed in residential zoning districts • ADA guidance for the number, placement, and design of handicapped accessible parking is addressed by reference rather than by specific standards • Approval for parking reserved for future use (ie, approved but unbuilt) is simpler • Reserved parking spaces, presently address as a function of how “minimums” are set, are separately addressed. They are proposed to be discouraged but allowable under limited circumstances • Related regulatory clean-ups in other portions of the Regulations South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 1 Parking Standard Revisions – Draft for Planning Commission Review 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading A. Purpose. Parking areas and off-street loading, where provided, shall be designed in a manner that minimizes traffic congestion, air pollution, and the risk of motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents, as well as to promote other elements of sound community planning. B. Determination of Parking Spaces. (1) Minimum Parking Amounts. Except as specifically provided for in Table 13-1, there shall be no minimum number of parking spaces. See Article 8 (City Center Form Based Codes) for maximum allowable parking by Transect Zoning. TABLE 13-1: PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Parking Space Requirement Notes (1) Multi-Family Dwelling (studio or 1 bedroom units) 1 space per Dwelling Unit (DU) plus 1 space for every 4 units; Multi-Family Dwelling (2+ bedroom units) 2 spaces per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units for all other DUs 2 Table Notes: 1. When the required number of spaces is determined to result in a fraction, it shall be increased to the next highest whole number. 2. If no more than one (1) parking space is reserved per DU, the requirement decreases to 2 spaces per DU C. Location of Off Street Parking, Loading, and Vehicle Entrances. (1) Vehicle Entrance. No curb cuts or vehicle entrance from any public street shall be constructed or maintained except in conformance with all applicable standards of the City of South Burlington and Vermont Agency of Transportation. (2) The installation of acceleration and/or deceleration lanes on the adjacent public street may be required if deemed necessary by the Development Review Board. (3) Driveways shall be located more than two hundred (200) feet from signalized street intersections (measured between the near edges of the driveway and intersection), except upon recommendation by the Director of Public Works based on site-specific circumstances Greater distances are encouraged on streets with high traffic volumes. (4) Screening shall be provided where headlights from vehicles on site may be visible and project parallel to a public street. (5) All parking areas adjacent to a street shall be screened by fencing, walls, or vegetation measuring at least three (3) feet in height. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 2 D. Off-Site Parking. The use of any off-site, separately-owned parking by another person or business shall not require approval under these Regulations. In no event, however, shall off-site parking and loading space for any non-residential use be located in any R1, R2, R4, LN, QCP or SEQ district. E. Shared Parking on a Single Lot. As a matter of public policy, the City of South Burlington finds that the coordination of off-street parking between adjoining non-residential sites is desirable (1) to allow for traffic circulation between sites rather than having all traffic entering and exiting the existing road system to proceed from site to site, (2) to allow for improved pedestrian circulation, and (3) to reduce the overall amount of paved surface on a site. This coordination can take various forms, from a simple paved connection to a more elaborate plan to provide both a connection and shared parking arrangements. F. Access Management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such driveways off public roadways. All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible. G. Design Requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting, and Landscaping. (1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-2 and Figure 13- 1, Section 13.06, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited. (2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and exiting traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. (4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation, including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular traffic on sidewalks and recreation paths. (5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.14. (6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area. H. Handicapped –Accessible Parking Spaces. The size, number, type and location of parking spaces shall comply with the current ADA Accessibility Guidelines. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 3 I. Parking Reserved for Future Use. In order to minimize the construction of unnecessary parking, the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve a site plan with parking reserved for construction at a future date. In such granting such an approval, the Administrative Officer or DRB shall specific a timeframe during which said parking may be constructed without receipt of an additional site plan approval. In no case shall such time frame exceed ten (10) years. Removal of parking reserve areas shall require site plan amendment. J. Structured Parking. Structured parking is encouraged The parking structure may be stand-alone or may be part of or attached to another structure. Such structures typically comprise parking decks, garages, or roof-top parking areas. The Development Review Board may require design elements for parking structures that specifically address safety, security, lighting, landscaping, and visual aesthetics as conditions for approval. K. Reserved Parking Spaces. Reservation of non-residential parking spaces for single tenants or users is strongly discouraged. Reserved parking, and associated signage, shall be permitted only under the following circumstances: (1) To meet or exceed Federal ADA requirements (2) To provide a limited number of courtesy spaces for users (examples: 15-minute only, pick & drop off, seniors, expectant mothers) (3) To provide for electric vehicles, carpool spaces, car-share spaces, or other similar purposes (4) To provide a minimal number of spaces for a small commercial business where other residential or non-residential uses would otherwise dominate parking areas (5) Where the Development Review Board finds that other demonstrated unique circumstances exist that would require a limited number of reserved spaces. In such an instance, the Board shall permit only the minimum number necessary to address the unique circumstances. K. Modifications of Requirements. The Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve minor modifications to parking lot dimensions as specified in Table 13-8 where the applicant can demonstrate necessity of modifications and where safety of motor vehicle and pedestrian circulation are retained. Table 13-2 Parking Lot Dimensions A L D W Di Parking Angle (Degrees) Curb Length per Car (Feet) Depth of Stall (Feet) Width of Aisle (Feet) Depth of Stall (Feet) 0 22.0 8.0 12 8.0 20 24.9 14.2 12 10.1 25 20.1 15.4 12 11.4 30 17.0 16.4 12 12.7 35 14.8 17.3 12 13.7 40 13.2 18.1 12 14.8 45 12.0 18.7 13 15.8 50 11.1 19.2 13 16.6 55 10.4 19.6 14 17.2 60 9.8 19.8 15 17.8 65 9.4 19.9 17 18.2 70 9.0 19.8 20 18.4 75 9.0 19.6 23 18.6 80 9.0 19.2 24 18.4 85 9.0 18.7 24 18.3 DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 4 90 9.0 18.0 24* 18.0 The width of an aisle serving a single row of 90 degree parking spaces may be reduced to 22 feet. Figure 13-1 Parking Lot Layout 2.02 Definitions … Shopping center. A group of two (2) or more retail establishments or restaurants, including all associated outparcels (whether or not they have been subdivided from the original tract), having a unified design of buildings, coordinated parking and service areas, and development plan in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, and provision for goods delivery is separated from customer access. The shopping center shall be planned, constructed, and developed and/or managed as a unified entity. Non-retail uses, such as offices, theaters, hotels, and automotive repair facilities, may be included in the overall development plan provided such uses are approved by the DRB in conjunction with the overall shopping center. 3.09 Multiple Structures and Uses … (2) Umbrella Approval (a) The Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve two (2) or more separate uses in a single principal building or structure in conjunction with site plan, PUD or conditional use approval, provided all of the proposed uses are permitted or duly approved conditional uses in the underlying zoning district and all other applicable standards are met. Such standards may concern trip ends, parking spaces, gross floor area dedicated to uses where applicable, number of restaurant or retail food establishment seats, and other numerical standards related to the provisions of these regulations. This shall be known as an umbrella approval. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 5 (b) Where an applicant with umbrella approval proposes a minor change in use, the Administrative Officer may approve the change as an administrative action and grant a zoning permit. The criteria for determining if the change is minor shall include an assessment of projected p.m. peak hour trip ends, and other numerical criteria specified in the umbrella approval. If the applicable numerical criteria are the same or fewer than those specified in the umbrella approval, the change may be deemed minor. 4.06 RESIDENTIAL 7 WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - R7-NC … (3) Where existing residential dwellings are converted to nonresidential use, the residential appearance of the structure shall be retained. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts … 6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts … 8.12 City Center T3 and T3+ Neighborhood Building Envelope Standards … (E) Parking Standards (1) Parking Requirements (a) Per Residential Unit 3 Max. See Note 4 8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards … (E) Parking Standards (1) Parking Requirements (a) Per Residential Unit 2 spaces Max. 8.14 T-5 Building Envelope Standards … (E) Parking Standards (1) Parking Requirements (a) Per Residential Unit 2 spaces Max. 9.10 SEQ-VC Sub-District; Specific Regulations … C. Residential Design … DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 6 D. Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District … 14.11 Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards … C . Convenience Store in Conjunction with a Gasoline Filling Station/Service Station. … … (8) Parking. Where parking is located near a residential district boundary, the applicant shall provide landscaping, and/or fencing or screening in the mandatory setback. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 1 Parking Standard Revisions – Draft for Planning Commission Review 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading A. Purpose. Parking areas and off-street loading, where provided, shall be designed in a manner that In order to minimizes traffic congestion, air pollution, and the risk of motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents, as well as to promote other elements of sound community planning., off-street parking and loading spaces shall be required of all structures and land uses. Such spaces shall be provided and kept available as an accessory use to all permitted and conditional uses of structures, lots, and land in amounts not less than those specified in Tables 13-1 through 13-6, Schedule of Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements within non-transect zone districts, and neither less nor more than the standards set forth within the City Center FBC District (Article 8). Subject to the provisions of Section 13.01(N), Exemptions and Waivers, the requirements of this section shall apply under the following circumstances: All new structures erected for use on a property. Any structure which is hereafter altered or enlarged. All new uses of a property. Any use of a property which is hereafter altered or enlarged. B. Determination of Parking and Loading Spaces. (1) Minimum Parking Amounts. Except as specifically provided for in Table 13-1, there shall be no minimum number of parking spaces. See Article 8 (City Center Form Based Codes) for maximum allowable parking by Transect Zoning. All structures and land uses shall be provided with a sufficient amount of off-street parking to meet the needs of persons employed at or making use of such structures or land uses, and sufficient off- street loading facilities to meet the needs of such structures or land uses, but not less than the minimum standards of Tables 13-1 through 13-6, Schedule of Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements within non-transect zone districts, and neither less nor more than the standards set forth within the City Center FBC District (Article 8)s. No certificate of occupancy or certificate of compliance shall be issued for any structure or land use until the required off-street parking and/or loading spaces have been established. Required off-street parking and/or loading facilities shall be maintained as long as the use of structure exists which the facilities are designed to serve. The following methods shall be used to determine the number of required off-street parking and loading spaces: (a) The requirement for a single use shall be determined directly from the schedule of such requirements in Tables 13-1 through 13-6. Within the City Center FBC District, requirements shall be determined pursuant to applicable Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards. (b) The requirement for a combination use made up of several different component uses (e.g., a restaurant and bar; or a retail store combined with an office building or a storage area) shall be determined by undertaking a shared parking calculation as explained under Section 13.01(E). (c) When the required number of spaces is determined to result in a fraction, it shall be increased to the next highest whole number. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 2 (d) If the use is not specifically listed in the schedule of such requirements, the requirements shall be the same as for the most similar use listed, as determined by the Development Review Board. (e) When the schedule requires the number of spaces to be calculated per employee and employees are on the site in shifts, the number to be used is the number of employees present during the largest shift plus any provision for shift overlaps. In all other cases it shall mean the total number of employees on the site or who will use the site for parking at any one time. (f) A garage or a carport may be used to meet the requirements of this section. A driveway may only be used to meet the requirements of this section where it serves a one-family dwelling. A driveway can be considered to meet the parking requirement for a two-family dwelling if cars can enter or exit independently for each unit. (g) Uses which require approval pursuant to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review may be required to provide off-street parking spaces in excess of the requirements of this section and Tables 13-1 through 13-6. Notes applicable to Tables 13-1 through 13-6: 1. If all parking spaces are common, i.e. non-reserved, and if there are more than 10 DUs, the requirement decreases to 2 spaces per DU 2. Any spaces required as part of the operational function, such as display, storage or queuing spaces at the transfer station or service station, are in addition 3. Add 3 per 1,000 SF GFA for retail areas plus 3.5 per 1,000 SF GFA for office space 4. Parking need varies according to type of facility and will be determined during site plan approval 5. For the City Center FBC District (Article 8), these tables do not apply. See applicable Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards 6. Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25% of required parking. For every five required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long term bicycle parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision Definitions applicable to Tables 13-1 through 13-6: “Employee” means the number of employees working at the specific location on the main shift plus any overlap from prior or later shifts. TABLE 13-1: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, RESIDENTIAL USES Use Parking Space Requirement Notes (1) Multi-Family Dwelling (studio or 1 bedroom units) 1 space per Dwelling Unit (DU) plus 1 space for every 4 units; Multi-Family Dwelling (2+ bedroom units) 2 spaces per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units for all other DUs 2 Table Notes: 1. When the required number of spaces is determined to result in a fraction, it shall be increased to the next highest whole number. 2. If no more than one (1) parking space is reserved per DU, the requirement decreases to 2 spaces per DU Use Parking Space Requirement Notes Single-family dwelling 2 spaces per DU DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 3 Two-family dwelling 2 spaces per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units 1 Multi-family dwelling 1 space per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units for studio and 1-bedroom DUs; 2 spaces per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units for all other DUs 1 Assisted living 0.6 spaces per DU Congregate housing 1.2 spaces per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units Accessory residential unit 1 per DU Accessory residential unit w/o occupancy restriction on lots of ½ acre or more 2 per DU TABLE 13-2: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, COMMERCIAL USES Use Parking Space Requirement Notes Agriculture & construction equipment sales, service & rental 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Recreation facility, indoor 0.33 per person in maximum occupancy permitted Recreation facility, outdoor 0.33 per seat or per person in maximum occupancy Auto and motorcycle sales, service and repair 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Artist production studio 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Auto rental, with private accessory car wash and fueling 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Drive-through bank 5.8 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Bed & breakfast, minimum 1 acre lot 2 plus 1.5 per guest bedroom Car wash 2 per 1,000 SF GFA, minimum of 2 2 Commercial greenhouse 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Convenience store, principal use 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Day care facility 1 per employee plus 0.1 per licensed enrollment capacity Equipment service, repair & rental 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Financial institution 3.6 per 1,000 SF GFA Flight instruction 1 per employee (faculty and staff) plus 0.5 per student enrollment capacity Use (continued) Parking Space Requirement Notes Hotels 1 per room, plus 0.33 per maximum occupancy in meeting and banquet rooms Hotels, extended stay 1 per room plus 1 per employee Indoor theater 0.33 per seat Commercial kennel, animal shelter, veterinary hospital or pet day care 1 per employee plus 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Lumber and contractor’s yard 1 per employee plus 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Mobile home, RV, and boat sales, repair & service 2 per 1,000 SF GFA 2 Office, general 3.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Office, medical 5 per 1,000 SF DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 4 Personal or business service, principal use 2 per treatment station, but not less than 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Pet grooming 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Printing & binding production facilities 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Photocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail 2 per 1,000 SF GFA, plus 5 per 1,000 SF GFA of retail area Radio & television studio 2 per employee Research facility or laboratory 3 per 1,000 SF GFA Restaurant, standard 18 per 1,000 SF GLA Restaurant, short order 12 per 1,000 SF GLA Retail sales 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail sales up to 3,000 SF GFA 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Retail warehouse outlet 5 per 1,000 SF GFA Sale, rental & repair of aircraft & related parts 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Seasonal mobile food unit 8 per employee Service station with convenience store 10 per 1,000 SF GLA 2 Shopping center 5 per 1,000 SF GLA if GLA is 400,000 SF or less 5.5 per 1,000 SF GLA if more than 400,000 SF Taverns, night clubs & private clubs 0.5 per maximum authorized occupancy Motor freight terminal 1 per employee 2 Commercial or public parking facility 1 per employee 2 Warehousing, processing, storage & distribution 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA Distribution and related storage, as a minority of floor area accessory to another principal permitted or conditional use 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA for the distribution and storage portion of GFA Wholesale establishments 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA plus any requirements for office or sales area TABLE 13-4: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USES Use Spaces Required Notes Place of worship 0.5 per seat Community center 0.33 per maximum permitted occupancy Cultural facility 0.33 per maximum permitted occupancy Educational facility: elementary and secondary schools 1 per classroom and other rooms used by students, staff or faculty, plus 0.25 per student of driving age Educational facility: college, university, or professional school 1 per classroom and other rooms used by students, staff or faculty, plus 0.50 per student Food Hub 1 per employee plus two per 1,000 GFA Personal instruction facility 2 per employee Municipal facility 3 per 1,000 SF GFA Educational support facilities 2 per 1,000 SF GFA Group home 1 per sleeping room plus 2 spaces Group quarters 1 per sleeping room plus 2 spaces Hospice 0.3 per bed DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 5 Skilled nursing facility 0.3 per bed Social services 4 per 1,000 SF GFA Public utility substations 1 per employee, minimum of 2 spaces Cemeteries 1 per employee, minimum of 2 spaces 2 Parks n/a 4 Recreation paths n/a 4 TABLE 13-5: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, INDUSTRIAL USES Use Spaces Required Notes Light manufacturing 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA, plus 1 space per employee Manufacturing & assembly from previously prepared materials & components 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA plus 1 space per employee TABLE 13-6: PARKING REQUIREMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS USES Use Spaces Required Notes Private providers of public services, including vehicle storage & maintenance 0.5 per 1,000 SF GFA plus 1 space per employee 2 Waste transfer stations 1 space plus 1 per employee 2 C. Location of Off Street Parking, Loading, and Vehicle Entrances. (1) Except as provided in the City Center FBC District and in Sections 13.01(E) and (D), off street parking and loading that is required for a use or uses under this section shall be located entirely on the property on which the use or uses exist. The Development Review Board may approve required off street parking that is located off the property (“off-site parking”) on which a use or uses exist, according to Section 13.01(D). (12) Vehicle Entrance. No curb cuts or vehicle entrance from any public street shall be constructed or maintained except in conformance with all applicable standards of the City of South Burlington and Vermont Agency of Transportation. (32) The installation of acceleration and/or deceleration lanes on the adjacent public street may be required if deemed necessary by the Development Review Board. (43) Driveways shall be located more than two hundred (200) feet from signalized street intersections (measured between the near edges of the driveway and intersection), except upon recommendation by the Director of Public Works based on site-specific circumstances Greater distances are encouraged on streets with high traffic volumes. (54) Screening shall be provided where headlights from vehicles on site may be visible and project parallel to a public street. (5) Screening of aAll parking areas adjacent to a street shall be screened by fencing, walls, or vegetation measuring at least three (3) feet in height. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 6 D. Off-Site Parking. (1) The use of any off-site, separately-owned parking by another person or business shall not require approval under these Regulations. In no event, however, shall off-site parking and loading space for any non- residential use be located in any R1, R12, R4, LN, QCP or SEQ district. (1) Required parking and loading spaces shall normally be provided upon the same lot as the use or structure to which they are accessory. However, there may be occasions where off-site parking is beneficial, whether off-site parking is combined with parking requirements for other uses or parcels, or just for one particular use. Parking could be provided off-site in combination with parking for other uses that are the same (e.g. several retail establishments could combine parking) or that are different. If the uses are the same, the parking requirement shall be determined by adding the parking space needs as per Tables 13-1 through 13-6. If the uses are different, a shared parking calculation shall be undertaken as per Section 13.01(E). (2) Off-site parking may be provided for non-residential uses provided that the Development Review Board approves a plan for off-site parking meeting the following requirements: (a) The applicant(s) provides an acceptable overall design and an accurate site plan for all properties affected by the parking proposal in conjunction with site plan or PUD review. All owners of the property(ies) where the off-site parking will be provided shall sign the application. (b) The lots involved generally shall be adjacent. However, at its discretion, the DRB may approve a plan for off-site parking where the off-site parking is located within eight hundred (800) linear feet at its farthest point of the property on which the associated use or uses exist. This subsection does not apply to the City Center FBC District. See the applicable Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards for standards. (c) The applicant shall record appropriate legal documents to ensure that the off-site parking spaces shall be available for use by the user or users for which the off-site parking spaces are being sought. Such legal documents shall be acceptable to the City Attorney in form and content. Such legal documents shall ensure the continued existence of the parking lot or facility to serve said uses so long as they may exist. Such agreement shall guarantee also that upon termination of such joint use, each subsequent use of the premises will provide off-street parking for its own use in accordance with the requirements of this section and Tables 13-1 through 13-6. (d) The required parking spaces to be provided, their locations and striping shall be shown on the plan. (e) In no event shall off-site parking and loading space for any non-residential use be located in any R1, R1, R4, LN, QCP or SEQ district. E. Shared Parking on a Single Lot. As a matter of public policy, the City of South Burlington finds that the coordination of off-street parking between adjoining non-residential sites is desirable (1) to allow for traffic circulation between sites rather than having all traffic entering and exiting the existing road system to proceed from site to site, (2) to allow for improved pedestrian circulation, and (3) to reduce the overall amount of paved surface on a site. This coordination can take various forms, from a simple paved connection to a more elaborate plan to provide both a connection and shared parking arrangements. Such connection and shared parking are not to be considered a parking waiver, but an agreement between the landowners and the City of South Burlington to effect an overall circulation and parking plan. (2) Where the Development Review Board determines that a proposed development consisting of two (2) or more uses will generate different hourly, daily and/or seasonal parking demands due to the DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 7 varied hours of operation of each use and different peaking characteristics, the Development Review Board may approve a site plan or PUD utilizing shared parking on the site that is the subject of the application, or on another site (see Shared Parking, Section 13.01(E) above). The Development Review Board may, at its discretion, allow for a reduced number of shared parking spaces to be provided, on or off site, provided that: (a) The applicant shall provide the Development Review Board with a site plan and a complete and accurate description of the proposed uses and floor areas devoted to such uses. All uses participating in the shared parking plan must be located within a convenient walking distance to the shared parking facility, which generally shall be defined as one-quarter (1/4) mile. (b) A shared parking analysis shall be presented calculating the parking demand for each individual use by time period and, where applicable, by season, in the form of a matrix. The various time periods shall depend on the uses being analyzed. These periods typically include a weekday morning, weekday lunch time, weekday afternoon, weekday evening, Saturday midday and Saturday evening. If the uses experience significant seasonal variations the analysis should be done for the peak season and possibly for different seasons (summer, winter, special events, etc.) For each use, the matrix should indicate the individual peak demand corresponding to the parking requirement as indicated in Tables 13-1 through 13-6, then the expected demand for each time period being analyzed in terms of a percentage of the peak demand and the number of parking spaces required for that use at that particular time period. For instance, if there is a 50,000 SF office component in a mixed-use project, the peak demand for that component is 175 spaces (3.5 times 50), and during the weekday am period that component will have a presence of 100%, i.e. 175 spaces, during lunch time the presence would be 90%, i.e. 158 spaces, during the weekday afternoon the presence would be 97%, i.e. 170 spaces, and during the evening hours the presence would be 20%, i.e. 35 spaces. The same analysis needs to be done for the other uses that are part of the sharing arrangement. To calculate the total number of spaces required with the sharing arrangement the numbers of spaces required for each use need to be added for each time period, and the largest number determines the requirement. This analysis should be undertaken by a professional planner or engineer, and can be based on the “Shared Parking” publication by the Urban Land Institute or on “Shared Parking Planning Guidelines”, an informational report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In some cases the applicant may have to undertake specific surveys of individual uses to determine the percentage present at various time periods. If the parking demand of a new use is to be shared with an existing use the applicant should undertake an occupancy survey of the existing parking facility. (c) The parking spaces that are part of a shared parking plan cannot be reserved for individual users or destinations, unless those reserved spaces are excluded from the calculation. (d) The Development Review Board may order the property owner to construct the future parking spaces if, at the Administrative Officer’s recommendation, the DRB determines a need for additional spaces to be constructed. For example, a change in the use(s) or the ownership of the parcel may be enough to require the installation of the parking spaces. In the event that the owner fails to install the additional parking spaces within one hundred twenty (120) days of being so ordered the City Attorney shall take appropriate action in a court of competent jurisdiction to restrain the use of said premises. When this subsection is utilized, the site plan shall contain a statement, signed by the applicant in such a form as shall be approved by the City Attorney, consenting to the provisions contained herein. In addition, the property owner shall be required to submit a covenant, for filing in the City Clerk’s office, in such a form as shall be approved by the City Attorney, indicating consent to the provisions of this subsection. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 8 (e) The approval of such shared parking shall be automatically terminated upon the termination of the operation of any of the involved uses. EXAMPLE OF A SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS Weekday AM Weekday Lunch Weekday PM Weekday Eve. Saturday Size Peak Parking (10-11 AM) (12-2 PM) (3-4 PM) (7-8 PM) (12-2 PM) Building Use 1,000 SF or DU Ratio Spaces % Present Cars % Present Cars % Present Cars % Present Cars % Present Cars Retail 75.8 5 379 0.7 265 0.85 322 0.8 303 0.8 303 1 379 Bank 2 5 10 0.8 8 1 10 0.05 6 0.05 1 0.17 2 Restaurant 11.5 10 115 0.3 35 0.75 86 0.75 58 0.75 86 0.5 58 Office 157.6 3.5 552 1 551 0.97 535 0.05 513 0.05 28 0.17 94 Residential 155 2 310 0.5 155 0.5 155 0.95 155 0.95 295 0.71 220 Cinema seats 635 15.9 0.3 5 0 0 0 0 0.2 42 0.8 168 0.3 63 Total 1,370 1014 1108 1077 881 816 Notes: (1) The peak parking ratio typically corresponds to the zoning requirement and represents the amount of parking that would have to be supplied if each use was built independently on its own lot. (2) The percentages for the presence of each peak parking demand by time period are based on "Shared Parking" by the Urban Land Institute and on BFJ experience. (Table produced by BFJ, October 2002) F. Access Management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such driveways off public roadways. All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible. G. Design Requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting, and Landscaping. (1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-82 and Figure 13- 1 within Section 13.01, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 13.06, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited. (2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and exiting traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. (4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation, including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular traffic on sidewalks and recreation paths. (5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.14. At least one (1) bicycle parking or storage facility shall be provided for all uses subject to site plan or Planned Unit Development review to serve persons employed or residing on the premises as well as the visiting public. Additional such facilities may DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 9 be required as deemed necessary by the Development Review Board or as required within the City Center FBC District. (6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area. H. Number of Parking Spaces. The required number of spaces shall be as listed in Tables 13-1 through 13-6 above, except within the City Center FBC District, Transect Zones (See applicable Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards) and the SEQ-VC subdistrict (See Article 9). For any use not specifically listed in the schedule of such requirements, the requirements shall be the same as for the most similar use listed, as determined by the Administrative Officer. H. I. Handicapped –Accessible Parking Spaces. Parking spaces for handicapped persons shall be provided for all non-residential uses. The size, number, type and location of parking spaces shall comply with the current ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Handicap accessible spaces are required to be eight feet (8'0") wide, with an adjacent access aisle five feet (5'0") wide. One in every eight (8) accessible spaces must have an access aisle eight feet (8'0") wide and must be signed "van accessible". The number of accessible spaces required is shown in Table 13-7 below. Table 13-7 Minimum Number of Accessible Parking Spaces Required Total parking spaces in lot 1 - 25 26- 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101- 150 151- 200 201- 300 301- 400 401- 500 501- 1000 > 1,000 Number of accessible spaces in lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2% of total 20 + 1 per 100 over 1,000 J. Recreational Vehicles. Parking or storage facilities for recreational vehicles shall be provided in all multi-family residential developments of twenty-five (25) units or more, except within the City Center FBC District (where they shall be optional at the applicant’s discretion). Recreational vehicles shall not be stored on any common open lands other than those specifically approved for such purpose by the DRB through the review process. The Development Review Board may waive this provision only upon a showing by the applicant that the storage and parking of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited within all private and common areas of the development. K. Access Drives. Commercial or industrial access drives connecting parking areas to a public street or right-of-way shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width, or ten (10) feet if designated for one-way traffic. Residential access drives serving garages and parking lots shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width. Aisles and access drives shall be privately owned and maintained. I. L. Parking Reserved for Future UseReserved Parking. In order to minimize the construction of unnecessary parking, In the event that an applicant can demonstrate to the Development Review Board that its present parking needs do not necessitate the construction of the number of parking spaces required herein, the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve a site plan with reserved parking reserved for construction at a future date. In such granting such an approval, the Administrative Officer or DRB shall specific a timeframe during which said parking may be constructed without receipt of an additional site plan approval. In no case shall such time frame exceed ten (10) years. Removal of parking reserve areas shall require site plan amendment. requiring the present construction of a lesser number of spaces. In such an event, the site plan shall show sufficient spaces reserved for future parking requirements with the combined number of spaces being not less than that required by Table 13-1 through 13-6. In all cases, at least two-thirds (2/3s) of the number of required parking spaces shall be provided. The remaining reserved space shall remain unpaved or kept pervious until such time as it is needed, unless the reserved area is used for DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 10 internal circulation. The reserved area shall be shown on any site plan. The Development Review Board may order the property owner to install the future parking spaces if, at the Administrative Officer’s recommendation and the Development Review Board’s sole discretion, the need for additional spaces arises. For example, a change in the use(s) or the ownership of the parcel may be enough to require the installation of the parking spaces. In the event that the owner fails to install the additional parking spaces within one hundred twenty (120) days of being so ordered, the Administrative Officer shall revoke the certificate of occupancy for the premises, and the City Attorney may take appropriate action in a court of competent jurisdiction to restrain the use of said premises. When this subsection is utilized, the site plan shall contain a statement, signed by the applicant in such a form as shall be approved by the City Attorney, consenting to the provisions contained herein. In addition, the property owner shall be required to submit a covenant, for filing in the City Records office, in such a form as shall be approved by the City Attorney, indicating consent to the provisions of this subsection. J.M. Structured Parking. Structured parking is encouraged may be allowed by the Development Review Board in conjunction with approval of a site plan or PUD. Structured parking shall be defined as any structure consisting of more than one level and used to store motor vehicles. The parking structure may be stand-alone or may be part of or attached to another structure. Such structures typically comprise parking decks, garages, or roof-top parking areas. The Development Review Board may require design elements for parking structures that specifically address safety, security, lighting, landscaping, and visual aesthetics as conditions for approval. K. Reserved Parking Spaces. Reservation of non-residential parking spaces for single tenants or users is strongly discouraged. Reserved parking, and associated signage, shall be permitted only under the following circumstances: (1) To meet or exceed Federal ADA requirements (2) To provide a limited number of courtesy spaces for users (examples: 15-minute only, pick & drop off, seniors, expectant mothers) (3) To provide for electric vehicles, carpool spaces, car-share spaces, or other similar purposes (4) To provide a minimal number of spaces for a small commercial business where other residential or non-residential uses would otherwise dominate parking areas (5) Where the Development Review Board finds that other demonstrated unique circumstances exist that would require a limited number of reserved spaces. In such an instance, the Board shall permit only the minimum number necessary to address the unique circumstances. K. N. Exemptions, Waivers, Modifications of Requirements. Dimensions. (1) Exemptions. Existing buildings and uses are exempt as follows: (a) Structures and land uses lawfully in existence or in use or for which zoning permits have been approved by the effective date of these regulations shall not be subject to the parking or loading space requirements set forth in this section. However, any parking or loading facility now existing to serve such structures or uses shall not be reduced except where such facility exceeds such requirements, in which case such facility shall not be reduced below such requirements. (b) However, no structure or lot lawfully in use at the effective date of this chapter shall be enlarged unless the off-street parking and truck loading space requirements of this section are complied with to the same extent as would be required if the entire pre-existing structure or use and the proposed enlargement were being submitted as if they were a new application. The Development Review Board shall require additional off-street parking and truck loading spaces with respect to the DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 11 proposed enlargement, but at its discretion may not require additional spaces with respect to the preexisting part of the structure or use. (2) Waivers. Except within the City Center FBC District, where the Development Review Board determines that a proposed land use or structure is adequately served by existing or proposed parking facilities, the Development Review Board may waive the off-street parking space requirements stipulated in Tables 13-1 through 13-6, by no more than twenty-five percent (25%). (3) Modifications of Requirements. The Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve minor modifications to parking lot dimensions as specified in Table 13-8 where the applicant can demonstrate necessity of modifications and where safety of motor vehicle and pedestrian circulation are retained. Except within the City Center FBC District, where the Development Review Board determines that unique usage or special conditions exist, it may require off-street parking spaces and loading areas greater than the requirements of this section. The Development Review Board may reduce the requirements of Tables 13-1 through 13-6 for the number of off-street parking spaces and loading areas for non-residential uses and structures if it determines that overlapping use of parking spaces or other unique characteristic cause the requirement to be unnecessarily stringent. See sub-sections on Shared Parking. Table 13-82 Parking Lot Dimensions A L D W Di Parking Angle (Degrees) Curb Length per Car (Feet) Depth of Stall (Feet) Width of Aisle (Feet) Depth of Stall (Feet) 0 22.0 8.0 12 8.0 20 24.9 14.2 12 10.1 25 20.1 15.4 12 11.4 30 17.0 16.4 12 12.7 35 14.8 17.3 12 13.7 40 13.2 18.1 12 14.8 45 12.0 18.7 13 15.8 50 11.1 19.2 13 16.6 55 10.4 19.6 14 17.2 60 9.8 19.8 15 17.8 65 9.4 19.9 17 18.2 70 9.0 19.8 20 18.4 75 9.0 19.6 23 18.6 80 9.0 19.2 24 18.4 85 9.0 18.7 24 18.3 90 9.0 18.0 24* 18.0 The width of an aisle serving a single row of 90 degree parking spaces may be reduced to 22 feet. Figure 13-1 Parking Lot Layout DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 12 2.02 Definitions … Shared Parking Plan. An agreement for sharing of parking needs or requirements among two or more proximate land owners reflecting their complementary parking needs (e.g., different peak use houoccasional or sporadic use, etc.) as part of a development scheme to satisfy the general parking requirements and achieve greater efficiencies Shopping center. A group of two (2) or more retail establishments or restaurants, including all associated outparcels (whether or not they have been subdivided from the original tract), having a unified design of buildings, coordinated parking and service areas, and development plan in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, and where customer and employee parking are provided on-site, and provision for goods delivery is separated from customer access. The shopping center shall be planned, constructed, and developed and/or managed as a unified entity. Non-retail uses, such as offices, theaters, hotels, and automotive repair facilities, may be included in the overall development plan provided such uses are approved by the DRB in conjunction with the overall shopping center. 3.09 Multiple Structures and Uses … (2) Umbrella Approval (a) The Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve two (2) or more separate uses in a single principal building or structure in conjunction with site plan, PUD or conditional use approval, provided all of the proposed uses are permitted or duly approved conditional uses in the underlying zoning district and all other applicable standards are met. Such standards may concern trip ends, parking spaces, gross floor area dedicated to uses where applicable, number of restaurant or retail food establishment seats, and other numerical standards related to the provisions of these regulations. This shall be known as an umbrella approval. (b) Where an applicant with umbrella approval proposes a minor change in use, the Administrative Officer may approve the change as an administrative action and grant a zoning permit. DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 13 The criteria for determining if the change is minor shall include an assessment of projected p.m. peak hour trip ends, required parking spaces, and other numerical criteria specified in the umbrella approval. If the applicable numerical criteria are the same or fewer than those specified in the umbrella approval, the change may be deemed minor. 4.06 RESIDENTIAL 7 WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - R7-NC … (3) Access, parking, and internal circulation: (a) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one- fourth of mile for purposes of this zoning district). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (b) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (c) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. (3) (d) Where existing residential dwellings are converted to nonresidential use, the residential appearance of the structure shall be retained. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts … C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one- quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. 6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts … C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one- quarter (¼) mile for purposes of these districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible. (3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. 8.12 City Center T3 and T3+ Neighborhood Building Envelope Standards … (E) Parking Standards (1) Parking Amount Requirements (a) Per Residential Unit 1 Min, 3 Max. See Note 4 (b) Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non-Residential 2 spaces Min. See Note 4 DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Draft Parking Standard Revisions February 12, 2019 Planning Commission 14 8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards … (E) Parking Standards (1) Parking Amount Requirements (a) Per Residential Unit 2 spaces Max. (b) Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non-Residential 2 spaces Min. 8.14 T-5 Building Envelope Standards … (E) Parking Standards (1) Parking Amount Requirements (a) Per Residential Unit 2 spaces Max. (b) Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non-Residential 2 spaces Min. 9.10 SEQ-VC Sub-District; Specific Regulations … C. Residential Design … (5) Off-Site and Shared Parking. The distance limitations of Section 13.01(D) (2)(b) shall not apply in the VC sub-district; applicants may utilize off-site or on-site (as applicable) shared parking located anywhere within the VC district or within any area within 1,000 linear feet regardless of zoning subdistrict. D. Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District … (4) Parking (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of these Regulations, each non-residential use shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. The DRB may grant a parking waiver in conformance with Section 13.1(N)(3). The Development Review Board may allow onstreet parking within 500 linear feet of the nearest building line of the use to count towards the use’s parking requirements. (b) The provisions of Section 13.1 notwithstanding, the DRB may allow shared parking anywhere within the VC district, regardless of linear distance from the proposed use. 14.11 Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards … C . Convenience Store in Conjunction with a Gasoline Filling Station/Service Station. … (5) Maximum floor area. Such store shall have a gross floor area of no more than ten percent (10%) of the lot area. (6) Maximum height. Such store shall be no more than one (1) story high. … (8) Parking. Parking spaces shall be provided proximate to the store, at the rate of one (1) space per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of consumer convenience center floor area. Where parking is located near a residential district boundary, the applicant shall provide landscaping, and/or fencing or screening in the mandatory setback. DRAFT Parking Standards Outline of Concepts South Burlington Planning Commission August 22, 2017 Parking Standards in South Burlington – Outline of Problem & Concepts Current Conditions / Outline of the problem Adverse issues created by parking minimums: • Current requirements in South Burlington are not ‘right-sized’. • Often too high or too tenant-specific. ITE guidebooks are based on decades-old developments. This creates a great deal of unused impervious surfaces. • Seeking City permission to change tenants may require an expensive and time-consuming study, as well as a time-consuming development review process. • They appear to make a statement that cars are valued more than the business, the place, or the open spaces. Vehicle trips are encouraged or made easier. • Reduced density (and affordability?)- Property owners may feel or actually be limited in density, especially in urban areas, by parking requirements where increased density is actually sought. • Creates problems for infill development or redevelopment. Adverse issues with expansive and unused parking lots: • Stormwater runoff becomes a greater concern. • Creates gaps between buildings, or gaps between a street and a building. • Costly to both a community and a developer: parking takes valuable land away from taxable and income-producing properties. • Often creates impediments to other modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and use of public transportation. Options for changes to parking requirements include: • Choice of geography. Could be city-wide, or connected to Urban Design Overlay District. • Eliminate all minimums. • Reduce by a percentage. Half appears more in line with what we are hearing; 25% would be in line with allowance currently permitted as a waiver by the Development Review Board. • Reduce to a standard fixed amount. In the City Center FBC area, non-residential uses all have a minimum of 2 space per 1,000 s.f. In the SEQ Village Commercial District, all non-residential uses have a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Fast Facts: • Each parking space requires almost 300 square feet, to accommodate the space itself and the associated drive aisle. • Where minimum parking standards exceed ~ 3½ spaces per 1,000 s.f. of building, it is requiring more space to be allocated to parking than to taxable, building area. • Current regulations authorize the DRB to allow a parking waiver of up to 25%. These are often sought in some form and are almost always granted. 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 Jessica Louisos, Chair SUBJECT: Concept for Form Based Code area subcommittee DATE: February 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Earlier this winter the City Council adopted an Interim Zoning bylaw, and with it, established certain specific work priorities for various groups including the Planning Commission. A side- effect of this has been managing the parallel priority of development in City Center, especially during the narrow window of the Tax Increment Finance District’s debt eligibility and during a period of time when there is a significant level of development activity in this area. Over the past few months, staff has received or identified a handful of proposals for amendments to the City Center Form Based Code. At present, there is no venue for these concepts to be heard by a public body. This is proving to be a challenge. Staff and Jessica met to discuss options and together propose that the Planning Commission consider establishment of a subcommittee to review and vet proposals for amendments to regulations specific to the City Center FBC area. The outline below presents two options for a structure that would allow for a fast-tracked review of possible amendments while preserving the Commission’s overall work prioritization. Proposed Process: • Subcommittee meets as needed to consider proposals for amendments to regulations directly affecting City Center, notably the Form Based Code but potentially related regulations such as signs, etc. • All meetings of the subcommittee would be subject to the Open Meeting Law • Subcommittee would be responsible for principal vetting of the proposal, its potential benefits, drawbacks, impacts on the applicable areas of the Form Based Code District and the Community, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. • If the subcommittee votes to advance a proposal, it would be heard by the Planning Commission within a month of the subcommittee’s action, and the Commission would have the ability to vet and warn a public hearing on the amendments • The Commission may at any time elect not to pursue the amendment or to table further consideration of the amendment until the conclusion of Interim Zoning priority projects. Subcommittee structure concepts: Below are two possible options for a subcommittee structure. Staff recommends that the Commission consider a structure that would provide the full Commission with the greatest level of assurance that a proposal that is advanced by the subcommittee has been well considered and would result in limited Commission time during review. Committee Structure Option 1: • Three person subcommittee made up of Planning Commission members • Unanimous vote required for a proposal to be advanced to the Planning Commission for immediate review; otherwise, proposal may be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission following the completion of Interim Zoning projects Committee Structure Option 2: - Five person subcommittee made up of three PC members, one design professional with experience in the City Center Form Based Code, and one member of the Economic Development Committee. - Action by subcommittee requires at least 4 votes to be advanced to the Planning Commission for immediate review; otherwise, proposal may be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission following the completion of Interim Zoning projects SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 AUGUST 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 August 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; R. Greco, D. Olsky, SBPD Sgt. D. Dubie, Holly Rees, Director of Recreation & Parks; P. Steinman 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Olsky inquired about development in South Burlington and asked about the status of removing wetlands from density calculations. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report Commissioners and staff provided a brief update on work. 5. Presentation on suspicious behavior training and a refresher on safety procedures during a meeting Sgt. Dubie provided an overview to Commissioners and responded to questions from Commissioners and the public regarding suspicious behavior and meeting safety. 6. Presentation of possible municipal recreation facility in City Center; discuss relationship to City Center Form Based Code Ms. Rees provided an overview of a concept to install a “dome” facility along Dorset Street in City Center that had been presented to the City Council the week before. The facility would likely require amendments to the Land Development Regulations to proceed. Ms. Rees and Commissioners discussed the location, intended functions, and timing. 7. Consider input to the 2020-2029 Capital Improvement Plan 2 Mr. Conner introduced the annual update cycle to the CIP. He indicated that staff had been working on a deeper list that could be used for future transportation improvement identifications in concert with development. Commissioners asked to have this shared at the next meeting. 8. Update on current South Burlington population & demographics Mr. Conner presented a staff memo on recent trends in population and housing growth. Commissioners held a discussion of this information. 9. Meeting minutes – July 24, 2018 Mr. Riehle moved the minutes of July 24th be approved. Mr. Mittag seconded. Minutes approved on a voice vote. 10. Other business a. Draft amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance; public hearing August 28, 2018 Commissioners had no comment. b. Determine date of special meeting with Affordable Housing Committee Commissioners elected to start the next meeting early, at 6 pm on August 28th, to have a joint meeting with the Affordable Housing Committee. Ms. Louisos will reach out to the Chair to set an agenda. c. Overview of upcoming meetings Covered under (b) above. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 AUGUST 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 August 2018, at 6:20 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; Affordable Housing Committee members: J. Simson, S. Dooley, M. Simoneau, T. Rawlings, L. Black-Plumeau; H. Riehle, T. Barritt, S. Dopp, W. Daum 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Joint meeting with Affordable Housing Committee: a. Affordable Housing Committee Introduction – why inclusionary zoning. What is the objective? b. What, point by point, does the draft require? c. How does the Inclusionary Zoning draft change the current density bonus? d. Planned Unit Development ideas from the Committee e. A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) idea for consideration f. Discussion amongst Commissioners & Committee members g. Public Comment on joint meeting Following the introduction of Affordable Housing Committee members, Mr. Simson explained that there is a large group of people who are “housing disadvantaged.” Ms. Black-Plumeau noted that the Committee has targeted rental units to 80%-100% of median income (10% at 80% and 5% at 100%). 80% of median for a 2-person household for a one-bedroom rental would be $1395. Mr. Simson noted this is significant for developers who have indicated that they need an “offset.” He also noted that this would apply when 12 or more units are being built. Ms. Dooley advised that in Burlington, the threshold is 5 or more units. She also said the committee felt that 100-120% should apply to ownership city-wide, including City Center. In terms of design, units must be at least 70% of the size of other units and be of the same materials and architectural design and be equally energy efficient. The same requirements would apply to the sale of lots, and the city would have the option to buy the lots or transfer the option to another entity. Ms. Dooley noted that State law requires some offset. The Committee’s proposal is to award one additional market rate unit for each inclusionary unit. This would increase the density by 1/6. If a developer chooses to build fewer than 12 units but includes some inclusionary, they would get a 1-3 market rate unit bonus. It was noted that units would remain perpetually affordable through deed restrictions or covenants. Mr. Simson said that when there is a PUD, there should be consideration for more multi-family and multi-unit buildings, even in lower density areas. One possibility is within the Southeast Quadrant to have an option to buy 3 TDRs to offset an inclusionary unit. This would also enable people who own those development rights to sell them. Mr. Riehle asked about administering all of this. Mr. Simson said permitting would be the responsibility of the planning office and the DRB. Vetting tenants/buyers could be contracted out. Mr. Riehle asked about income verification. Ms. Black-Plumeau said that would apply only at the first move in. Ms. Dooley noted that when a unit is up for resale, the city could purchase it and then transfer it to Champlain Housing. Ms. Louisos asked if there could be studio units. Ms. Dooley said there could be, but because the units have to be 70% of the market value floor area, it’s hard to have that large an efficiency unit. Mr. Rawlings noted that some places in the country evict people who later achieve a higher income. The City of Burlington doesn’t do that. Ms. Dooley said these units often turn over when people’s incomes increase and they can afford a “less affordable” unit. Mr. Klugo asked how we got a point where $383,000 is considered “affordable.” He noted that a 2- bedroom home ranges from $425,000-$535,000, and a 3-bedroom home from $522,000-$664,000. He also noted that builders are building fewer than 10 units to avoid Act 250. This does not gibe with the 12-unit buildings that would require inclusionary unit(s). Mr. Simson said they are working with what it is possible for this community to do. He stressed that Vermont is not a home-rule state, and changes would have to go through the Legislature. Mr. Klugo said that if they are going to be bound by the kind of state Vermont is, they have to recognize that people who buy at full price are “subsidizing” affordable units. Mr. Klugo also expressed concern with the maintenance of properties. He cited market value homes in the city where people cannot afford the upkeep of their properties. Ms. Dooley noted that Champlain Housing has a special loan program for certain repairs (e.g, roofs). Mr. Rawlings said a lot of the development they will see will be condos, and most maintenance is taken care of. He added that one benefit of affordable housing is that you limit what people are paying which frees up money for maintenance. Ms. Dooley said that people who have maintenance issues are probably paying too much for housing. Ms. Ostby asked if there is anything in the LDRs that required people to maintain their properties. Mr. Simoneau said it is in the mortgage documents. Mr. MacDonald asked what percentage of affordable housing would by single family and what would be condos. Mr. Simson said you will see more condos. Mr. Rawlings said the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was passed in 1990 (Burlington) after the single-family housing boom. For the first ten years, it was all condos, then rentals. Now it is virtually all rentals. Ms. Ostby felt this kind of inclusionary will help those who just can’t afford a “non-affordable” house. She added that in certain parts of the city, it is really a work-force housing issue. Ms. Dooley said there is very little development of mid-range condos as opposed to 24 and 32 unit buildings. She felt that Habitat is really the only way to build single family affordable housing because of donated materials. Mr. Klugo said that Act 250 is messing with the ability to create affordable housing because of the price for “improved land.” Mr. Riehle felt there is “an attack” on the Southeast Quadrant. He could see 12 units in dense areas. He questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan would be changed to allow building up to Shelburne Bay. Mr. Simson said development is already happening in the SEQ, and a developer can pay his way out. Putting 8 or 10 affordable units together takes up less land than 8 or 10 single family houses. Mr. Simoneau asked whether it wouldn’t be good for Vermont if you could save 100-200 acres of undeveloped land and additional money from people who have to drive to where their jobs are. Ms. Ostby noted there is already a bonus for affordable housing because if you voluntarily add affordable housing in the SEQ, you get a 50% bonus. She felt that the problem is that affordable housing is falling into certain areas of the city and not others. Mr. Rawlings said the goal of inclusionary zoning is to create inclusive neighborhoods that are economically diverse. To do that, you need to make a certain number of units affordable, so there aren’t enclaves of high-income people with more access to services than low income people have. It was noted that the median income of people in the Southeast Quadrant is more than twice that of the rest of the community. Ms. Ostby said the question is whether that is OK or whether the city wants to do something about that. Ms. Ostby asked how the process works in Burlington. Mr. Rawlings said developers meet with him. He felt it makes sense for the DRB to do this in South Burlington. It could also be a staff person. Mr. Mittag questioned whether the $60,000 “buy out” figure is enough. Mr. Rawlings said the question is whether you want that option to be used or not. Mr. Daum asked what would stop him from buying an affordable unit, fixing it up and selling it for a large profit. Ms. Black-Plumeau explained that there is a perpetual affordability regulation, and there would be deed restrictions that would prohibit that kind of activity. Ms. Dooley added that when you go to sell an affordable unit, you get 25% of its appreciated value. Improvements get credits as well. Mr. Rawlings noted that a title search would uncover the “affordability clause.” Ms. Dooley noted that Champlain Housing Trust owns 600 homes. Mr. Simoneau added that 600 people have made the decision to buy under those conditions. You get to live in a housing unit that costs less than you can afford. Mr. Barritt felt that real “workforce housing” has to be extremely dense.. He also felt it makes more sense to charge developers. A member of the audience cited the importance of having a distribution of affordable housing within a development. He also felt it was important for city staff to be told where the affordable units will be at the beginning of the process. Ms. Dooley said that would be a requirement. Mr. Conner noted it is not a requirement today. Ms. Dooley added that a developer would not be able to see the last 10% of units until all the inclusionary units are built. Ms. Dopp said she favors affordability but has been told it isn’t possible in this community. She wished the focus could be on having Habitat build more homes here. She also would like to see another “Kirby Cottages development” but has also been told that’s not possible. Ms. Dopp said she has an issue with “sacrificing South Burlington to the rest of the county.” She felt development will just radiate out, and you won’t save anything buy doing that. She asked about the possibility of fixing up older homes and selling them as affordable. Committee members said that was a good idea, but once you fix up a house, it sells for more. Ms. Dooley said they reason the committee wants new housing to include affordability is sot he percentage of affordable housing doesn’t go down. She stressed that all the Kirby Cottages were not affordable, only the ones with covenants. Ms. Ostby asked about the next step. Mr. Simson asked the Commission’s time-line to take this up. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission has to figure out how to implement what the Committee has provided with input from the public. He felt the proposal was far enough along for a Commission discussion on implementing it. Mr. Simson said the Committee would be willing to consider any changes the Commission proposes. 5. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted that the City Council wants Commission input regarding the “domed facility” proposals. Ms. Louisos also noted there is discussion of televising more Commission meetings. This is a funding issue. The City Council will be holding a public hearing regarding open space, wetlands, development, etc., to hear from citizens. Ms. Louisos felt this would be a good opportunity for a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, possibly in early October. Members felt that was a good idea. Ms. Ostby noted an article in The Other Paper regarding the result of the noise study at Chamberlin School. The great news is that all that is needed is to replace some windows. Mr. Conner noted that Ray Belair has retired and there will be a new Planning Department employee, Delilah Hall who comes from New York City via Southern Vermont. Mr. Conner also thanked members for their patience as staff struggles to get along without Ray. 6. Further Comments from the Public: A member of the audience questioned the theory of putting houses so close to the road on Dorset St. She felt it was unattractive and would be an issue if it became necessary to widen the road and that it is “unattractive.” Mr. Klugo explained that having houses closer to the street slows down traffic. He said the real problem is the lack of east-west roads. He also stressed that “you can’t mandate good taste.” 7. Continued Review of Capital Improvement Plan: Interface to Transportation Regulations: Mr. Conner drew attention to last year’s CIP data. He said the Commission has till next Friday to request amendments. Mr. Conner raised the question of how to connect the CIP to how the does transportation impact fees to mitigate the impact of development. He noted that the transportation overlay sets a maximum of development. This keeps roads open but discourages development on major transportation/services routes. The idea is to take both areas and rather than limit development or have developers do their own study, to have the city create a list of projects which the city wants. This would allow the city to be more “nimble” as to how it addresses moving people. Mr. Conner directed attention to the list of projects in the existing CIP which are covered by impact fees, bike/ped priorities, etc. Mr. Riehle said one thing he didn’t see is the Hayes Avenue pedestrian traffic issue. Mr. Conner said there may be a permit condition associated with that. That is a corridor that hasn’t been studied. It would be a great one to add. Mr. Klugo cited the need to be sure the transportation system in place meets the need. He noted that the city of Dallas, Texas, has eliminated its public transportation system. Ms. Ostby said they should look at this when they review east-west connections. Mr. Klugo said he liked the idea of the city having more control. 8. Initial discussion of possible 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant: Mr. Conner reviewed the nature of the grants. He noted that there are 3 things staff has been talking about: a. Complete the guidebook that goes with the LDRs b. A sustainability program for the city c. Develop a city-wide plan for development of open space & parks Members discussed their preference. Mr. Klugo felt a regulating plan for Form Based Code is needed and a plan for how parks tie together. 9. Staff Update on Parking Standards: Mr. Conner said the problem is that the city is requiring more parking than either the city or the developer needs. He cited the example of Denny’s where they would need 3000 sq. ft. of parking for 1000 sq. ft. of building. He also noted that medical office people feel the standard is fine for them. Ideas include lowering minimum requirements (as in the Form Based Code) or to have no parking requirements and to rely on other controls (e.g., lot coverage, and requirements for how it looks). The downside for having no numbers is that it could require action to get more parking (for bikes, etc.), parking needs could change with tenants, and people may park on the street in residential neighborhoods. Staff is also considering an “upper end target number.” A developer would have the opportunity to buy more, if needed. Mr. Conner cited the case of the CVS building at the top of Dorset St. The tenant wanted more parking and the property owner wanted less. The building had to be made smaller to allow for reduced parking. Mr. Conner said it is almost impossible to calibrate parking correctly. He noted that Hannaford needed to request less parking for the redevelopment of the Kmart property. The DRB accomplished this be authorizing 40 park/ride spaces. Mr. Klugo liked the idea of no requirements. He felt you have to get away from “building for a church on Easter Sunday.” Ms. Ostby felt if you want additional parking, you need to provide an amenity. Mr. Conner noted that because so much parking is required, buildings are so far apart you can’t walk between them. 10. Meeting Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval. 11. Other Business a. Petition of Green Mountain Power for a Certificate of Public Good before the Public Utilities Commission for a new Airport Substation on Shamrock Road: Ms. Ostby noted someone has asked the state to eliminate local review. Mr. Conner said it is actually a request to eliminate a lot of paperwork. No issues were raised on the petition. Mr. Mittag questioned the LDR review in October and noted there may be a development coming in before then when time is of the essence. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 SEPTEMBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 September 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley, Affordable Housing Committee 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon 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. Klugo: Suggested there be flagmen when there are construction vehicles and public vehicles interacting near the new senior housing building on Market St. Mr. Conner: The new Zoning Administrator starts next week. She comes to the city via Wells, VT, New York City, and the Department of Transportation The City Council has voted to put the proposed City Hall/Library/Senior Center on the November ballot. The project involves an agreement with the School District. The City Center Parking/moving plan was initiated yesterday. It involves strategies about parking and the impact of City Center on streets at the edges of City Center. The groundbreaking for the new Champlain Housing Trust building on Market Street will be occurring soon. Ms. LaRose: There will be a staffing change to the Bike/Ped Committee. To get things moving for construction, Ashley Parker will be doing that and will also be working with the Natural Resource Committee for their open space project. The fall Planning & Zoning forum will take place at Lake Morey on 17 October. Members can attend at city expense. 2 5. Planning Commission Discussion/next steps on Affordable Housing meeting/Inclusionary Zoning: Ms. Ostby suggested the Commission focus on the big picture instead of the small details. She noted that one of the big questions is whether there should be an “out” for developers (e.g, payment) if there is inclusionary zoning city-wide. Mr. Mittag felt there could be some additional density in T-4. He also felt the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) and Educational/Agriculture zones but should only apply in the denser areas. Ms. Ostby said the question is what kind of city South Burlington should be. The SEQ has the highest income levels. She asked whether the Commission is comfortable with a new neighborhood being created there without affordable housing. Mr. Klugo said he is comfortable with that. He didn’t think the city has to be “all things to all people.” He also felt that $383,000. is not an “affordable” house. He noted that he has done a lot of reading on the “affordability” issue and outlined a few of his “take-aways.” Inclusionary zoning is actually subsidizing employers who don’t want to pay a livable wage. Also, Burlington recognizes that as land becomes scarce, it goes up in value. Affordable housing then occurs in adjacent communities where land is less expensive. South Burlington and Milton become those communities because Burlington can’t build the affordable housing it wants. He felt communities need to stop separating themselves. Mr. Gagnon asked whether Regional Planning has looked at this issue. Mr. Conner said they have begun discussion. Mr. Simson said another such meeting is coming up. Ms. Ostby said the problem is that people in the mid-income range can’t afford to buy a house in S. Burlington. Mr. Gagnon added that $383,000.00 is an expensive house which requires an income of $120,000.00. Mr. Macdonald asked if the problem is the lack of available housing in S. Burlington. Ms. Ostby said if a house goes on the market, it is gone in minutes. Mr. Klugo said according to Zilla there are 19 homes on the market now under $300,000. Mr. Riehle said perhaps thinking should be in terms of smaller homes. Mr. Gagnon asked if they would be everywhere or only in certain areas. He felt it makes sense to have them in areas near schools, transportation, etc., not at the end of nowhere. Mr. Klugo noted that new homes of 1800 sq. ft. cost over $400,000.00. That’s about 260/sq. ft. Ms. Ostby acknowledged that wages are an issue but didn’t feel the Commission could do anything about that. 3 Mr. Klugo said that is not necessarily true. In Philadelphia a tax was put on all construction, not only residential. This allowed the city to build affordable housing. Mr. Klugo questioned what the goal is. He stressed that a “utopia” can’t be created here. Mr. Conner noted that if there is an exemption from Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) in the SEQ, it may create more of an incentive to build in the SEQ. Mr. Klugo quoted from a Burlington report, noting that Burlington didn’t get the 2500 units it wanted because developers went someplace else. Mr. Conner noted that voluntary affordable units have only been built in S. Burlington three times despite density bonuses. He added there is a lot of pressure from the public on developers not to use that bonus. Ms. LaRose cited the density issues being raised at the DRB whenever a development is planned. Ms. Ostby asked whether every developer should pay an affordable housing fee. This could allow the city to build up a fund to build affordable housing. The discussion was temporarily suspended to allow it to continue past its allotted time after consideration of a time-sensitive agenda item. 6. (previously agenda item #7): Discuss and determine possible 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant Application Recommendation: Mr. Conner said staff is recommending finishing the guidebook because it is 70% complete. There has also been a change in how the grant is done with a match at a higher level. Other options wouldn’t allow doing the work at as high a scale as the Commission wants. After a brief discussion, Mr. Klugo moved to recommend to the City Council applying for a 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant to finish the guidebook. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Members then returned to the Affordable Housing discussion. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly just discussing an overall fee. Mr. Klugo noted that if there is a fee, and it isn’t high enough, developers will just take that option. He noted that in some cities, there are different numbers for different parts of the city or building fewer units. He noted that in Portland, fees range from $19.00 to $27.00 a square foot for the total square footage of the whole development, depending on its location in the city. Seattle has a housing levy, like bond, on the taxpayers, which amounts to about $122/year for 7 years. They then co-develop affordable housing utilizing those who know how to build it. He added that these programs are being used effectively. Mr. Simson said the Affordable Housing Committee is not aiming IZ at a market that will go out an get a tax credit. They are looking to try to bend the market so the middle group, people who work in the city, can get housing in the city not have to commute. He stressed this is not subsidized housing. Mr. Klugo 4 said he didn’t support “bending the market” for people who can afford a $200,000.00 town house but don’t want to live there. Ms. Dooley noted that the Governor’s plan for affordable housing targets people at 100% of median income. This is the missing link that can’t afford to buy housing. Mr. Klugo felt that if the demand is there, there shouldn’t be 19 units available at $250,000. Mr. Conner noted that what staff is finding is that in the realm of new housing, there are one and 2 bedroom units and single family housing above $400,000. Ms. LaRose asked whether in a community of 6,000 residential units, 17 available units is enough. She noted the Commission has never addressed the vacancy rate. She added that 17 units that last an average of 3 days on the market is not adequate. South Burlington’s vacancy rate is among the lowest in the country. Mr. Riehle asked if there is a merit to increasing the permit fees to put more money into the kitty and having the city buy land to build housing. Mr. Simson explained what increases would have to go to the Legislature. A building permit increase would not. Mr. Riehle said it bugs him to see house after house going up and not getting any money into the affordable housing fund. Mr. Macdonald said the reason there is no building in the $300,000-$350,000 range is the cost of land. Mr. Klugo said he felt that if a developer built some 1400 sq. ft. houses they would fly off the shelf, and it wouldn’t feel like a “low-end” neighborhood. He added that wages are not going up as fast as property values. Mr. Conner suggested a possible incentive to build smaller might be to allow a smaller unit to count as half the density. Ms. Dooley noted that hundreds of cities are using IZ and other mechanisms to get affordable housing. She agreed that a 1400 sq. ft. house would fly off the market. Mr. Conner noted that the cost of building a 1400 sq. ft. house is not much less than building a larger house. And it is higher than what the market is willing to pay. Mr. Klugo said what is driving that cost is requiring a basement. Slab on grade will significantly reduce the cost of a house. Mr. Conner noted not many people are doing that, so there must be an impediment to it. Mr. Klugo said that when a developer comes in with a denser development, they get hammered at the DRB. He added that when you take units off the table, it is counterproductive to a whole lot of things the city wants to see. He then asked whether the discussion can include town homes are just single- family homes. Mr. Simson said the Committee’s proposal deals with all kinds of housing, including rentals. 5 Ms. Ostby said a lot of people start out in South Burlington but then move out of the city for a “permanent” home. Mr. Conner acknowledged that is true but said he didn’t know whether than was because of wanting a single-family home or a large enough unit to meet a family’s needs. He added that more children are born in South Burlington but move out of the city before starting school. Mr. Klugo added that people are staying in their homes longer and cited the Orchards as an example. Ms. Ostby said it is more expensive to downsize. Ms. Ostby asked how you replicate a highly desired neighborhood at a cost people can afford and whether there is something that can be done quickly to support that cause (e.g., buy land). Mr. Simson said the Committee would like a bottom line from the Commission as to whether they should take IZ off the table and craft something else. Mr. Conner spoke in support of creating more housing in the 80-100% of median income. Mr. Gagnon agreed to incentivizing housing in that range in certain parts of the city. Mr. Mittag felt that should include IZ. Mr. Simson spoke to the challenge of incentivizing developers enough to provide for that level of the community. Mr. Klugo said if the answer is smaller single-family homes, there have to be smaller lots. Ms. Dooley noted Burlington has had IZ for almost 30 years. Hinesburg has it in their village center. She also noted that Frank von Turkovich couldn’t name a single incentive that would make it happen. Ms. Ostby asked if they can make affordable housing a requirement knowing developers will probably pay the fee and make it restrictive so it isn’t equal across the city. Mr. Conner asked if the Committee has discussed whether there is a preference/goal to have an income restriction up front but no further restriction. Ms. Dooley said the Committee embraces perpetual affordability. She noted that people in higher income brackets also look for less expensive housing and try to get there first. Mr. Klugo suggested having an entire development of smaller units that fit in the target range for affordability, then taking 10% of those units for the “affordable people.” Mr. Riehle suggested increasing the building permit fee for houses above the $350,000 level, and you would get a lot of money very fast to buy land for affordable homes. Then the developer would have no land costs. Mr. Klugo spoke to having this appear to be “less of a social issue” so people can get excited about it. He spoke to a number of incentives including: fee waivers, tax deferrals, reduced parking requirements, height and density bonuses, a “fee in lieu,” designated units off-site as inclusionary, etc. He asked about “numbers” of affordable units. Mr. Simson noted there are goal number in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Klugo said he would limit IZ to City Center. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t favor IZ city-wide. Mr. MacDonald said he would support the best method to get the housing the city wants. 6 Ms. Dooley suggested a sub-group of the Commission to come up with conditions for IZ. Mr. Conner encouraged members to thing on a city-wide basis rather than to discourage it where most of the housing in the city is being built. Mr. Simson said he would love to see a fund that the city could do things with, but getting there will take years, and the Committee hasn’t found anything other than IZ that is effective. He stressed they are trying to build into the regulations a price point where a developer can still make a buck. Long term, he would like to have a look at permit fees, etc., to provide a reliable, sustainable source of money. Mr. Klugo said he would like to test the concept of the density bonus. Ms. Dooley said the public doesn’t want that. Mr. Klugo said they have to be convinced it’s a good thing. A majority of members favored, with reservations, having the Committee continue to propose IZ. Mr. Klugo said he would support a regulatory piece for a period of time until the market piece is worked out. He did not want to end up like Burlington where IZ hasn’t worked. Ms. LaRose noted the Burlington range is for 65-75% of median income, which is like apples and oranges to what S. Burlington is looking at. Ms. Dooley added that Burlington’s representative to the Committee says the IZ goal is not have a large supply; it is to have an inclusionary community. Mr. Klugo quoted from the Burlington report that the “community must pay for what it values.” Members agreed to postpone the remainder of the Agenda due to the late hour. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 SEPTEMBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 September 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; T. Perrin 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos: The City Council is hosting a discussion with community members regarding development and land use related issues on 1 October, 6:30 p.m. It is important for Commission members to be there to hear what the public is say and how the Council responds. Mr. Mittag said it would be helpful to tell the public what the Commission can and cannot do. Mr. MacDonald suggested providing some information on the UD project. Mr. Gagnon added that there should also be information on affordable housing work. Ms. Louisos said she would speak with the Council Chair as to what the Council might want from the Commission. Ms. Ostby: At the Affordable Housing Committee meeting this morning, the Committee said it will come back to the Commission with ideas and will revisit inclusionary zoning in all areas except the Southeast Quadrant. She added it would be helpful if the Commission can get a more specific update regarding the target for construction by 2025. This would help clarify the affordable housing need. Ms. Ostby: Is now in the Vermont Naturalist Program and will participate in a community project after a training period. She will then serve in an advisory capacity. 2 Mr. Conner: Staff is thrilled that Delila Hall, the new zoning officer, began work last week. She comes to South Burlington via New York City. He added that it was good for staff to experience the volume of work Ray Belair handled on an hourly basis. A new City Hall feature is the plus-in hybrid Honda Clarity to be used as the City Hall vehicle. This is the first step toward looking at the fleet in general. The City is also working with the Energy Committee regarding funding to get electric charging into public areas, private establishments, etc. Site plan approval occurred yesterday for 4 new buildings on Market Street next to the town homes at the eastern end of the street. Two of the total of 12 units will be affordable. Construction has begun next to Sears Auto for the building that will house the Dermatology offices on the first floor and 6 residential units on the second. A zoning permit has been issued for the new Cathedral Square 60-unit building at Market and Garden Streets. Units will be both market rate and affordable with up to 4 bedrooms. This will begin the construction on Garden Street. The City Council has directed the City Manager to execute an option agreement regarding the Auclair property. Closing will be on 5 October. The 3 lots comprise 375 acres (Mr. Conner showed these on a map). The lot the city is involved with has the most development potential. Mr. Conner has joined Vince Bolduc’s Sociology class and will participate in an Election Day survey. This is the only time to get a real cross-section of the community. A meeting was held 2 weeks ago regarding a streetscape project on the south side of Williston Road. The road will not be touched; all work will be from the curb inward and will increase the area for landscaping and snow storage as well as providing bicycle facilities. The City will have to acquire some land where the space from the curb is not wide enough. Early voting has started for the November election. In a week or 2, Mr. Conner will join a Police officer and Health Officer Regarding a potential Neighborhood Watch program in the Chamberlain neighborhood. 5. Planned Unit Development/Master Plan Project: a. Presentation & Discussion of Open Space Component b. Overall Project Status Update 3 Mr. Conner noted that Ms. LaRose has met with committees, and there are working groups now putting together the “universe” of open space types. This includes where open space is appropriate, how much open space in various types of development, etc. Mr. Conner stressed that “open space” doesn’t just mean grass. He also noted the potential for a “payment in lieu” to be used to enhance a park. Mr. Mittag spoke to the need to join open spaces so there aren’t just little pieces here and there. Mr. Conner said this is easy to conceptualize with a larger development but not so easy when there are only a few units. Mr. Riehle asked about a formula for the “in lieu of.” Mr. Conner said in City Center, for properties less than 2 acres, the amount is dependent on the size of the building based on the land values of all properties less than 2 acres. A 100,000 sq. ft. building would be required to have 6000 sq. ft. of open space which would translate to what that 6000 sq. ft. would cost as an “in lieu of.” A developer could build a large park, and future developers could “buy into” that as their open space. Ms. Louisos asked if those parks would/could be turned over to the city. Mr. Conner said that hasn’t yet come into the discussion. He felt the Parks/Rec Committee could weigh in on this. Ms. Louisos suggested a “park need analysis” as part of the open space plan. Ms. Ostby said it is amazing to see how Szymanski Park in Laurel Hill neighborhood has become like the hub of the neighborhood. Mr. Conner noted Ms. LaRose’s concern that there are no open space standards in the LDRs. He asked whether members would like to finish this up and get it into the LDRs and then come back and deal with the “unusual circumstances.” Members said they would. Ms. Ostby asked that with landscaping a priority be given to pollinators and fruit trees. Members felt this should be in the general landscaping requirements. Mr. Conner noted that at this time, landscaping plans have to be cleared through the City Arborist to be sure there is a balance. He showed a picture of the “Plant Live Grow” publication of the Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Project. Ms. Louisos noted that currently some pollinators wouldn’t count toward the landscaping requirement. Mr. Conner felt that is a good discussion to have. One of Ms. LaRose’s questions is whether there are any types of open space that are missing within the City that should be there. Mr. MacDonald asked where the Underwood property falls in this. Ms. Louisos said it would be a “nature park.” Mr. Mittag said that Underwood’s uses are much broader. 4 Ms. Ostby cited the need for signage where the Laurel Hill “cut through” joins the road. Mr. Conner cited the need to be mindful when something is already a requirement and when it is an addition that would not normally be built. He cautioned against giving credit for a “requirement.” Mr. Conner said the next step will be to put in some visuals. Regarding the overall project status, Mr. Conner showed a chart of where the project stands. The next thing that will be coming to the Commission are the “must do” and “what you can do for extra credit” considerations. After that, staff will be testing the proposed rules against existing developments. The last part will be to put it into a usable form. The hope is to wrap it up this winter. Mr. Riehle encouraged members to read the Shelburne PUD section. 6. Update on Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Plan: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He noted new noise maps are anticipated in early December. They will include both the F-16s and F-35’s. There will be a pubic comment period. Following that, the noise compatibility plan, which had been suspended pending the new noise maps, will be picked up again. Mr. Gagnon asked if the committee has given thought as to what to do with a wider impact area. Mr. Conner said it has, and it has been vocalizing this to the Airport. The city is also formulating a position on this. He stressed that the city has been trying to preserve the neighborhood. There are different “non buyout” programs available. Mr. Conner noted that the Airport is also updating its Master Plan, everything from terminals, to runways, to transportation outside the Airport, etc. This Plan sets the parameters under which everything else is discussed. There will be a public meeting on this plan within the next 3 months. Mr. Mittag asked if there has been any more discussion about regionalizing the Airport. Mr. Conner said it is being discussed in the committees. Mr. Perrin of the Energy Committee noted that sound attenuation is a top concern of the Energy Committee. They are sensing some “bureaucracy” in this with discussion dealing only with the part of the house where there is an issue. The Committee is hoping to do as much as possible for people involved. 5 Mr. Conner noted that FAA rules are interesting. They can deal only with noise abatement, some of which can have other consequences. 7. Introduction to Amendments to the City Sign Ordinance in City Center and Beyond: Mr. Conner noted that because this is an Ordinance, signs are the province of the City Council. He asked members to what extent they want to see drafts of proposed amendments. Mr. Conner then showed a bullet list of what staff is working on with a goal to streamline the process but keep the quality. Some things under consideration include: a. In the middle of City Center, be sure there is signage that matches the building (e.g., pedestrian oriented, perpendicular signage) b. Clarify that inflatable signs are prohibited c. Clarify the meaning of “opaque signs” d. Clarify when signage inside a building is functioning as a wall sign e. Update when non-complying signs in City Center need to meet current standards f. Tidy up language in general g. Allow a single “open” flag of a specific size per business as an exemption h. Allow some temporary signs for all businesses with simplified or no permit requirement i. Allow up to 3 wall signs instead of existing cap of 2, but with no more total area j. Prohibit free-standing signs in City Center district except along Williston Rd., Dorset St., and Hinesburg Rd. Ms. Ostby noted that in Waterbury the aim is to discourage “visual competition.” 8. Meeting Minutes of 11 September 2018: Members agreed to postpone action on the Minutes of 11 September to allow Mr. Klugo to provide comments. 9. Other Business: a. Joint Meeting with City Council, 1 October – reminder b. Town of Shelburne Zoning Amendments, Public Hearing 25 October No discussion was held on items of other business. 6 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 OCTOBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 October 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair (arrived late); B. Gagnon (chaired opening hour of the meeting), A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Partillo, C. Miller, L. Murphy, F. Cresta, D. Burke, D. Heil, B. & C. Gardner, S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, H. Riehle, R. Greco, T. Prerafado, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. Partillo said it is the belief of a group of citizens that residential housing costs more than it brings in while commercial/industrial costs less than it bring in. Residential housing creates a need for infrastructure which the additional taxes don’t cover. He noted that city taxes have increased three times the rate of inflation while school taxes have held the line at the rate of inflation. Ms. Miller said in 10 years, he city tax rate has gone up 40.4%. Mr. Riehle asked if the group had gleaned what caused the increase in taxes. Mr. Partillo said they didn’t. They just went with what department heads said. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Ostby reported on the recent meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee. They will be submitting a modified draft for inclusionary zoning which excludes the Southeast Quadrant for now. Mr. Conner: Last Friday, the city and its partners closed on the acquisition of the Auclair property (375 acres were transferred). The City’s participation in the 117 acre parcel on the west side of Hinesburg Road includes an option to conserve 35% of that property. 2 A Neighborhood Watch program has been launched in the Chamberlin Neighborhood at the request of residents. South Burlington participated in the Governor’s “Capital for a Day” program last week. State officials visited the city and viewed the City Center area dodging construction vehicles on Market Street. 5. Initial Consideration of Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Allow parking to the front of buildings under certain conditions related to visibility and preexisting development b. Remove applicability of the Hinesburg Road North Scenic View Protection Overlay District at 1398 Hinesburg Road Mr. Murphy said the property in question is behind the former Bouyea-Fassetts Bakery building which is not W. B. Mason. It is a large parcel zoned Commercial. The property is accessed off Nesti Drive. If development came off that road, there would be no issue; however, there is a proposal to have traffic come in and out at the traffic light at Route 7. The problem is that if the property is connected to Route 7, and if there is a second building on the property, the property on the sides can’t exceed half the width of the buildings. This limits parking which limits commercial use of the property. The purpose of the ordinance is to limit the visibility of parking from Route 7, but this property is 400 feet from Route 7 and is about 25 feet different in elevation. There is absolutely no possibility of viewing any parking on the property from Route 7. Mr. Murphy said he has drafted a very narrow proposal that would give the DRB flexibility to waive parking in front of a building if it is not visible from Route 7 because of distance and topography. It does not mandate this but gives the DRB flexibility to allow it. Mr. Klugo asked why parking in front matters. Mr. Murphy said because there is frontage on Route 7, parking is limited for any new development. He stressed that this is a very good place for commercial development. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the property can be developed without this change. He cited similar issues with the O’Brien property. Mr. Murphy said that was a residential development and easier to predict. Development on this property could be a car dealership, a hospital- associated business, etc. It is an unknown. Mr. Klugo felt that the parking could be seen from the top of the hill. Mr. Murphy said there are 20-30-foot trees in place, and almost nothing could be seen from that height. Mr. Klugo said he would want to see something on paper. Mr. Murphy said that is for the DRB. The Planning Commission sets policy. 3 Ms. Ostby said she would like to understand why a building so far from Shelburne Rd. is considered to have Shelburne Rd. frontage. Mr. Conner explained that adding the narrow “finger” of land creates a frontage on Route 7. The regulation does not stipulate how much frontage triggers the parking requirement. Mr. Mittag said he would like to see an aerial view and an indication of what the applicant wants. Mr. Murphy said this is a policy decision. If the policy is to screen parking from the public road, there could be a choice if that parking isn’t visible from the public road. Mr. Riehle asked if there is anywhere else this situation could apply. Mr. Conner said it could apply near Lowe’s and the existing Hannaford. Ms. LaRose added they have not taken staff resources to look at this. It would take significant time if the Commission wanted to proceed with the request. Ms. Ostby felt the Commission would see this again because of all the property near Hannaford and possibly in other places. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the remaining parcels at Lowes/Hannaford would have to comply with parking regulations. Ms. LaRose said if Hannaford were to move and the old building were to be torn down and rebuilt, it would probably have to conform with the parking in the rear regulation. Ms. Ostby said her concern is whether this fits in the Commission’s work plan. Mr. Klugo said his question is whether standards for a public road should apply to a private road. Mr. Conner said staff will come back with some answers so the Commission can decide whether to take this up. This will be a few meetings out as staff is trying to move on the Commission’s top priorities. (Ms. Louisos arrived at this point in the meeting and assumed the Chair.) Mr. Burke then addressed the Scenic View Protection issue on Hinesburg Road. He noted there was an appendage of road that jutted out. In September 0f 2014, Tim McKenzie asked that Commission to rezone it from I-O to SEQ-NR, which the Commission did. The Gardners bought the property based on residential use. At that time, nobody noticed the view protection zone. Mr. Burke said their feeling is that it does not apply to this property. The property was specifically rezoned for residential use, and not to use it for that use doesn’t make sense. The first buildings in the area are at one level, and there is a major wood line that follows the “appendage.” Mr. Conner noted that the allowable height on this site would be much less than one story. Mr. Klugo asked if the existing house would remain. Mr. Burke said it would. It is a 2-story house, and most of any new development would be 2-story. He added that you have to go past this property to see Mt. Mansfield. Mr. Riehle said he parked near the property today and it didn’t seem to impinge on any view. 4 Mr. Burke said they are asking staff to spend some time on this and get it into the Commission’s work plan. Ms. Louisos agreed that the scenic view issue was overlooked by everyone at the time. Mr. MacDonald asked if the property was originally part of the Mansfield Business Park. Mr. Burke said it was and also noted how the park was designed for excellent Mansfield views. Mr. Gagnon said one of the Commission’s priorities is to re-look at view corridors. If it stays the same, he was OK; if it changes, he was also OK. Mr. Burke said if there was a great view, they wouldn’t be asking for a change. He noted that at the time, the Commission just followed the property line. Members agreed to contact the applicant when scenic view corridors are on the Commission agenda. 6. Planning Commission follow-up discussion of joint meeting with City Council concerning future growth and development in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): Ms. Louisos noted she had spoken briefly with the Council Chair who asked if the Commission would discuss this and get back to her. Ms. Louisos felt that what would be helpful would be to process what was heard and to try to come up with some feedback. She asked members to take 5 minutes each to present their thoughts. Mr. Riehle: Feels like he is “on a treadmill” with all the things that are presented to the Commission. He said he is concerned with the kind of development that is happening. He not a “no growth” person, but feels growth isn’t happening the right way. He wanted to try to make things more attractive and cited Burlington’s attractive parks and South Burlington’s “some space put away.” He was concerned that the new PUD standards are not yet in place. Mr. Klugo: The Commission did 5 years of great work on the Comprehensive Plan, but when the plan takes a “3-dimensional life,” people say this isn’t what they envisioned. What is being developed is what was envisioned and planned to be developed. It was on all the maps. He felt that a map of parks is needs and also a street grid, so that people will understand. He said the city does not have a “regulated plan,” and it is left to developers to bring that to the city. He added that streets help define growth. He said the challenge is that the city had a 1% vacancy rate which is driving up the cost of housing. If that isn’t solved, the affordable housing issue won’t get solved. He also noted the need to look at the studies quoted by residents from both sides of the issue. He stressed that “we are not adversaries.” He also said new community 5 members come for the same reason as earlier people and questioned whether to say new community members can’t come into the community. Mr. Gagnon: It will be hard to craft something that pleases everyone and noted the requests from owners/developers and those who oppose the requests. He felt it was good to have different perspectives on the Commission but noted that sometimes the best they can do is to get a majority consensus. He supports more density in already developed areas, but also recognizes that people’s land is an asset to them, and didn’t feel the benefit of that asset should be taken away. He noted Councilman Chittenden suggested looking at developable land and who owns it and then identifying what the city wants to conserve and how much money it will take in the Open Space Fund to do that. Mr. Mittag: Noted that open space has been the second most major concern of the public (after good schools). He felt development shouldn’t be incentivized in forests and on agricultural land. He also felt the Commission hasn’t looked at Act 171 which aims to prevent forest fragmentation. Mr. Macdonald: He is not a “no development person,” and does not favor Interim Zoning. He has lived in the city since 1976 and has seen “a ton” of changes. He felt the city should identify what it wants to preserve and that the ownership of those lands should be compensated for the land’s value. He wasn’t sure the city could get enough money in the Open Space Fund. He also said that there are always “competing interests” in everything the Commission sees. Ms. Ostby: Agreed with finding anything of absolute value and making it a priority to preserve that. She didn’t think the LDRs are out of whack with the Comprehensive Plan and said the city has done a good job of not have two houses per acre all over the place in the SEQ. She supports some Interim Zoning to update studies. Studies should include economic issues. She cited misunderstanding about the need for workforce housing and noted that teachers, nurses, and others are leaving the community because they can’t afford to live here. She also cited the need for east-west connections and “nature connections.” She is concerned as to what will be revealed in December with the new Airport noise map. Ms. Louisos noted that the issues being discussed are not new. The felt there is significant alignment of the LDRs with the Comprehensive Plan and noted that not every goal applies everywhere in the city. There are always competing goods. She is proud of the water resource protection but noted that not all remaining land falls under that protection. She hears the need for a parks/open space master plan. She also sees the need to follow up on the economic issues, and this is not on the Commission work plan. 6 Members then specifically addressed the interim zoning issue and made the following comments: Ms. Ostby: Limit it to undeveloped land, wherever that is. Include a TDR analysis and where they could be used outside the SEQ (e.g., C-2, Swift St., Allen Road). Mr. Macdonald: Does not favor interim zoning as the city hasn’t used the tools it has (e.g. TDRs). He could be convinced for IZ in the SEQ eventually. He does agree with the importance of trying to acquire open space. Mr. Mittag: Thinks IZ is a good idea but noted that recommendations from the IZ studies done the last time were not implemented. He did not feel IZ should be city-wide. Felt it makes no sense to have sending and receiving areas in the SEQ. Mr. Gagnon: Limit IZ to open areas to preserve. Would prefer a limit of 6 months. Did not want to encumber people’s resources. Wants to identify lands to conserve and finish the PUD work. Mr. Klugo: Doesn’t favor IZ but could support Mr. Gagnon’s 6 month option. Supports a TDR study. Cited the need to go back and define space that gets allocated for “open space.” Mr. Riehle: Agrees with a TDR study. Two years is too much to interim zoning. Would go for 6 months with “all hands on deck.” Felt the last IZ was divisive, and the city doesn’t need that. Supports finishing the PUD work. Ms. Ostby: Hopes the Commission with consider workforce housing with the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t support that as park of interim zoning and wants to keep the focus narrow. Other members agreed. Mr. Conner noted that with regard to TDRs, there has to be a demand for TDRs where they are not being used now. He also asked the Commission “what does success look like?” Is it a number of units per acre or compact development in fewer acres? Mr. Klugo said the Commission has to have that conversation and decide how to contribute success. Mr. Gagnon felt the PUD project will define what success should look like. Mr. Conner felt the PUD project can happen within 6 months. He also felt the City Council can prioritize open space in 6 months. Mr. Conner also noted that staff is looking to the people who did the “economic viability” video to get an idea of what “economic viability” looks like. Mr. Klugo cited the need to see what will get bumped from the Commission work plan if this is to be done. Ms. LaRose said they will also have to be more selective regarding new projects, and that might mean some things don’t get discussed. 7 Public comment was then solicited as follows: Ms. Rihele: Questioned whether 6 months is adequate and realistic to get studies done and data back. Ms. Dopp: Things an open space inventory is a good idea but noted they were told in the past that couldn’t happen because it is people’s private business. She felt that all the significant rural land is in the SEQ. Mr. Chalnick: Showed blown up maps from the Comprehensive Plan and felt that there is development in areas which are designated as “primary conservation areas” and “secondary conservation areas.” He cited the O’Brien property, South Village, JAM Golf, Brand Farm. Unidentified: Charlotte has preserved land forever. Growth can be moderated. Ms. Prerafado: Dorset Meadows would be in the view of Camel’s Hump. Ms. Greco: Did not find any studies that showed residential development brought in tax money. Ms. LaRose noted that the large wetland shown on South Village was not built on, and the agricultural soils were not built on. Ms. Ostby asked who would do the needed studies…the Commission?...with what resources…Mr. Conner said “all of the above.” He added that some identified Commission projects will be challenging to put on a “side burner.” Mr. Riehle suggested the possibility of additional meetings. Members again discussed the possible length of IZ. Ms. LaRose stressed that some undeveloped lands are already out of the discussion because there are vested applications. Mr. Conner noted that other committees would have to drop what they are doing to participate in the IZ process. He then outlined what he has heard from the Commission as follows: a. Prioritize developable land for conservation (open space and forest tracks outside the traffic overlay district) with help from city committees b. Finish PUD work c. Prioritize remaining developable lands for conservation d. Analyze the TDR program/options e. Economic study (not part of Interim Zoning) 8 Mr. Macdonald asked what tools are available to conserve land. Mr. Klugo said that is the Council’s responsibility. Mr. Gagnon said land to conserve can be put on the official city map, then if an owner wants to develop, the Council has to decide whether to buy the land or not. He said the Commission’s goal should be just to create the map of what to conserve. Ms. Greco said consultants can be hired to do that work. Mr. Gagnon then moved to support interim zoning for 6 months to prioritize developable land for conservation with help from city committees, finish PUD work, and analyze the TDR program and options. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Ostby moved to amend the motion to support interim zoning for a period not to exceed one year. Mr. Mittag seconded. The motion to amend failed 3-4 with Messrs. Klugo, Macdonald, Riehle and Gagnon opposing. The original motion then passed 6-1 with Mr. Macdonald opposing. Mr. Macdonald added that he would like to be on the record indicating that he supports each of the studies recommended in the motion. 7. Meeting Minutes: Members agreed to postpone consideration of minutes due to the late hour. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:30 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 23 OCTOBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 October 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; J. Louisos, Chair (via phone); A. Klugo, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, R. Greco, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Item #7 was deleted from the Agenda as staff had not had the chance to inform the applicants of this item. 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 noted she had toured the Winooski Valley Park District area off Van Sicklen Road that is a “created wetland” resulting from mitigation on the part of the Airport. Ms. Louisos noted that at the City Council meeting a member of the public misrepresented the Commission’s discussion on interim zoning the previous week. Ms. Louisos stressed that all Commissioner’s opinions are appreciated, and members do not question each other’s motives but believe everyone is free to say what they feel is best for the city. The Commission has a non-judgmental atmosphere. The speaker at the Council meeting accused a Commission member of “bullying.” Ms. Louisos said that didn’t happen, and she wanted to be sure that all members feel comfortable in speaking. Mr. Conner: On Election Day, Vince Bolduc, a St. Michael’s professor, will be having his class perform a survey of various topics. There are significant community items on the November ballot, and there are currently presentations about those items being held in the community. Tomorrow Mr. Conner with attend the South Burlington Land Trust’s monthly meeting. 2 5. Recap of City Council Discussion of growth and development in South Burlington and consideration of Interim Bylaws and related studies: Mr. Conner reviewed the City Council discussion. He noted that the Council then approved a resolution and directed the City Attorney to prepare a draft Interim Bylaw with a public hearing to be held on 13 November. The studies involved are largely those voted on by the Planning Commission at its last meeting plus the completion of the PUD study. Interim zoning would take effect when published in The Other Paper and would cover all construction of new dwellings outside of the Transit Overlay District plus Meadowlands and the Belter industrial parks and the Airport. The time-frame is different from what the Planning Commission proposed, 9 months instead of 6, with the ability to renew at 3-month intervals. Mr. Conner noted that these periods can be shortened by Council action. Ms. Ostby felt the Council should submit a map with all documents so people know what property is involved. She also hoped that in all communication it is made clear that this is not city-wide and is intended to be as brief as possible. Referring to comments made at the last City Council meeting, Mr. Klugo stated that his company is a commercial builder. He also noted that there the Commission is diverse and includes members with different perspectives who all come together for the public good. 6. Commission consideration of update to FY2019 Work Plan: Mr. Gagnon noted that some items that were of “lower priority” are now bubbling up higher, and some things will have to be bumped. Mr. Klugo questioned what other critical items the Commission should attempt to finish. Mr. Conner recommended Item #20 [projects that arise throughout the year]. He noted the Commission will have to complete with such things as street names, required public hearings, and other things for which they have a legal responsibility. Mr. Klugo asked about possible special meetings. Mr. Conner said they can try. Mr. Riehle said there should be flexibility if something very urgent occurs. Mr. Klugo suggested this is especially true of things where they might lose funding. Mr. Conner added things that are related to a contract. He inquired about the annual meeting with the DRB. Ms. LaRose suggested reviewing this around the New Year to see where things stand. The Commission will have to decide whether to ask people to come back in April or June with requests. Ms. Louisos supported dealing with #20 and with things related to grants and contracts. She hoped members would allow flexibility for her and for staff to make those decisions do the city doesn’t miss out on opportunities for studies and/or funding. 7. (formerly #8) Discuss recommendations to City Council regarding proposed Interim Bylaw studies to be undertaken: a. Completion of Planned Unit Development regulations b. Prioritization of open land 3 c. Analysis of transfer of development rights (TDR) program d. Economics/cost-benefit of land use assessment Regarding the PUD regulations, Mr. Conner said staff assumed the Commission would like to be the lead on that, and staff would prioritize this for the Commission’s work. It will be a significant item, and there won’t always be a recommendation. Ms. LaRose noted that to date the Commission has worked with committees on various points. She asked if the Commission anticipates one big meeting with everyone and then return to smaller working groups. Mr. Mittag felt there are several months work left on this and that the Commission should focus on open land, then TDRs which is what the public wants. Mr. Klugo said if the PUD studies aren’t done, properties that are to be developed will be developed without the new standards. Ms. Ostby agreed that PUDs should be pushed back. Mr. Klugo stressed the danger in “going through this linearly.” Mr. Gagnon agreed and noted that the PUD things aren’t just related to land that will be saved. There may be lands the city doesn’t want to purchase or land in the Transit Overlay District that isn’t covered by interim zoning. He felt the studies should run parallel. Ms. Louisos agreed and felt they are all #1 priorities but questioned how to do this. She felt the bulk of the PUD work should be done by the Commission. Ms. Ostby said much of the TDR issue is outside the Commission’s expertise legally and they will need help with what they can and can’t do. Mr. Mittag suggested having a lead Commission person for each of the items. Mr. Conner said the PUD study will be a featured Planning Commission agenda item through the coldest part of the winter. Mr. Klugo asked how many of the open items are in the consultant’s contract. Mr. Conner said the consultant is pretty far along but they will want guidance on some items. Mr. Klugo said for each item they will have to identify the goals to be accomplished. He suggested having flip charts and a process to work through this. Ms. Ostby suggested having 2 members focus on one project. With regard to open land, Mr. Conner suggested a process to take place with a new separate working group of people who have been through an interview with the Council (e.g., Natural Resources, Bike/Ped, Economic Development, Recreation/Parks Committees, etc.) plus one or 2 Commission members who could bring information back to the Commission. Mr. Conner suggested that TDRs require a 2-phase process: 1. Understanding what is possible 2. Deciding what action to take 4 The first part requires a small project team (Commission, Council, consultant, etc.). Questions to be considered are: 1. Is the objective to create a stronger demand for TDRs? 2. Is there to be a shift from the current receiving areas? 3. Does this work outside the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ)? Regarding the economics issue, Mr. Conner noted staff has initiated conversation with Regional Planning as to what could be the scope. Mr. Klugo felt this can’t be done in a narrow scope. Ms. LaRose agreed that just to look at tax dollars doesn’t work. Mr. Gagnon suggested that members think about this for a few weeks and come back to the next meeting with ideas. Ms. Ostby noted there are areas in the work plan that seem to fit into the interim zoning study areas, such as open land, scenic views, river corridor studies. Ms. Greco noted that the concern of the public is with open space and there are dozens of studies regarding the economic benefits of conserving open land. She cited a study done in September, 2018 in Vermont which showed a 9-1 return from conservation. Mr. Chalnick agreed, and said the goal is to preserve open space, and that is what the Council’s resolution is. Noah said the land should be conserved for future development. There doesn’t have to be a rush now. Another member of the public cited the need for space for recreational activities. Mr. Mittag said he would like to cull the PUD list so it is more focused. Mr. Gagnon said he generally agreed and suggested members come back with what they would like to cull. He also asked them to rank the all of typologies in order of priority. Mr. Conner noted the Council talked about the inefficiencies of some of the small developments which fall under the Act 250 threshold. He cautioned against dismissing some of the more compact types of development. Regarding open lands, members were OK with staff recommendations regarding working groups. Mr. Klugo said he would defer to working groups to make recommendations on the lands to be conserved. Ms. Dopp noted that the Natural Resources Committee did a checklist a few years ago. 5 Mr. Conner asked whether the Commission wanted to assess where there should be active recreation areas considered as the Council charge did not include this. Mr. Klugo said that committees should be asked for their top 3 needs/recommendations. Commissioners agreed that this should be examined. Mr. Conner noted that the purpose of interim zoning is to allow tools to come into place. Mr. Klugo said what is being said is that the existing tools aren’t working. Mr. LaRose said they may not be the right tools for conservation. Mr. Klugo cited the Open Space Fund. Ms. LaRose noted that interim zoning requires a “regulatory tool.” If you don’t have that, you haven’t met the goal. Mr. Klugo cited the need to understand the framework the Commission needs to operate under. He added that if the city and property owner can’t agree on the value of the land, what tool is there to prevent an owner from building on the land. Mr. Riehle felt that is a legal issue for the City Attorney. Mr. Conner said staff’s recommendation is that for this to be successful, in some manner there have to be tools that come out of it. He added that staff may have this information. Mr. Klugo said it would be fruitless for the Commission to discuss this without the knowledge that staff has. Regarding TDRs, Mr. Mittag felt the ordinance needs to be completely rewritten. He supported having a working group deal with policy on this. Mr. Klugo said he wants a sustainable TDR policy that works for South Burlington. Mr. Klugo then moved to have Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Louisos summarize the Commission’s recommendations and submit them to the City Council. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. It was agreed that members would see the recommendations before they are submitted to the Council for individual comments. 8. Status Report on PUD’s: Mr. Conner said the first things to be discussed are: 1. What is “in” and “out”? 2. How is density to be measured? Ms. LaRose said the next discussion will focus on what is critical. 9. Consideration of approval of street names in Cider Mill II: Mr. Mittag moved to accept staff’s recommendation with a spelling correction. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Riehle voting against. 10. Minutes of 9 October 2018: Members agreed to defer consideration of the minutes. 6 11. Other Business: Mr. Mittag asked if there is a way to get agendas before late on Friday? Mr. Conner said staff will discuss this. He noted the current system works well because the Planning Commission and DRB alternate. Ms. LaRose stressed that staff is always willing to meet individually with members. a. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed not to meet on 13 November so they can attend the City Council’s public hearing on Interim Zoning. The next Commission meeting will be on 27 November. b. 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan Update, public hearing on 15 November, 7 p.m. Mr. Conner said no action is needed on this item. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 NOVEMBER 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 November 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, B. Gagnon, A. Klugo, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; A. Chalnick, D. Leban, F. Cresto, L. Murphy, 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Item #7 was deleted from the Agenda as staff had not had the chance to inform the applicants of this item. 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 noted she had toured the Winooski Valley Park District area off Van Sicklen Road that is a “created wetland” resulting from mitigation on the part of the Airport. Ms. Louisos noted that at the City Council meeting a member of the public misrepresented the Commission’s discussion on interim zoning the previous week. Ms. Louisos stressed that all Commissioner’s opinions are appreciated, and members do not question each other’s motives but believe everyone is free to say what they feel is best for the city. The Commission has a non-judgmental atmosphere. The speaker at the Council meeting accused a Commission member of “bullying.” Ms. Louisos said that didn’t happen, and she wanted to be sure that all members feel comfortable in speaking. Mr. Conner: On Election Day, Vince Bolduc, a St. Michael’s professor, will be having his class perform a survey of various topics. There are significant community items on the November ballot, and there are currently presentations about those items being held in the community. Tomorrow Mr. Conner with attend the South Burlington Land Trust’s monthly meeting. 2 5. Recap of City Council Discussion of growth and development in South Burlington and consideration of Interim Bylaws and related studies: Mr. Conner reviewed the City Council discussion. He noted that the Council then approved a resolution and directed the City Attorney to prepare a draft Interim Bylaw with a public hearing to be held on 13 November. The studies involved are largely those voted on by the Planning Commission at its last meeting plus the completion of the PUD study. Interim zoning would take effect when published in The Other Paper and would cover all construction of new dwellings outside of the Transit Overlay District plus Meadowlands and the Belter industrial parks and the Airport. The time-frame is different from what the Planning Commission proposed, 9 months instead of 6, with the ability to renew at 3-month intervals. Mr. Conner noted that these periods can be shortened by Council action. Ms. Ostby felt the Council should submit a map with all documents so people know what property is involved. She also hoped that in all communication it is made clear that this is not city-wide and is intended to be as brief as possible. Referring to comments made at the last City Council meeting, Mr. Klugo stated that his company is a commercial builder. He also noted that there the Commission is diverse and includes members with different perspectives who all come together for the public good. 6. Commission consideration of update to FY2019 Work Plan: Mr. Gagnon noted that some items that were of “lower priority” are now bubbling up higher, and some things will have to be bumped. Mr. Klugo questioned what other critical items the Commission should attempt to finish. Mr. Conner recommended Item #20 [projects that arise throughout the year]. He noted the Commission will have to complete with such things as street names, required public hearings, and other things for which they have a legal responsibility. Mr. Klugo asked about possible special meetings. Mr. Conner said they can try. Mr. Riehle said there should be flexibility if something very urgent occurs. Mr. Klugo suggested this is especially true of things where they might lose funding. Mr. Conner added things that are related to a contract. He inquired about the annual meeting with the DRB. Ms. LaRose suggested reviewing this around the New Year to see where things stand. The Commission will have to decide whether to ask people to come back in April or June with requests. Ms. Louisos supported dealing with #20 and with things related to grants and contracts. She hoped members would allow flexibility for her and for staff to make those decisions do the city doesn’t miss out on opportunities for studies and/or funding. 7. (formerly #8) Discuss recommendations to City Council regarding proposed Interim Bylaw studies to be undertaken: a. Completion of Planned Unit Development regulations b. Prioritization of open land 3 c. Analysis of transfer of development rights (TDR) program d. Economics/cost-benefit of land use assessment Regarding the PUD regulations, Mr. Conner said staff assumed the Commission would like to be the lead on that, and staff would prioritize this for the Commission’s work. It will be a significant item, and there won’t always be a recommendation. Ms. LaRose noted that to date the Commission has worked with committees on various points. She asked if the Commission anticipates one big meeting with everyone and then return to smaller working groups. Mr. Mittag felt there are several months work left on this and that the Commission should focus on open land, then TDRs which is what the public wants. Mr. Klugo said if the PUD studies aren’t done, properties that are to be developed will be developed without the new standards. Ms. Ostby agreed that PUDs should be pushed back. Mr. Klugo stressed the danger in “going through this linearly.” Mr. Gagnon agreed and noted that the PUD things aren’t just related to land that will be saved. There may be lands the city doesn’t want to purchase or land in the Transit Overlay District that isn’t covered by interim zoning. He felt the studies should run parallel. Ms. Louisos agreed and felt they are all #1 priorities but questioned how to do this. She felt the bulk of the PUD work should be done by the Commission. Ms. Ostby said much of the TDR issue is outside the Commission’s expertise legally and they will need help with what they can and can’t do. Mr. Mittag suggested having a lead Commission person for each of the items. Mr. Conner said the PUD study will be a featured Planning Commission agenda item through the coldest part of the winter. Mr. Klugo asked how many of the open items are in the consultant’s contract. Mr. Conner said the consultant is pretty far along but they will want guidance on some items. Mr. Klugo said for each item they will have to identify the goals to be accomplished. He suggested having flip charts and a process to work through this. Ms. Ostby suggested having 2 members focus on one project. With regard to open land, Mr. Conner suggested a process to take place with a new separate working group of people who have been through an interview with the Council (e.g., Natural Resources, Bike/Ped, Economic Development, Recreation/Parks Committees, etc.) plus one or 2 Commission members who could bring information back to the Commission. Mr. Conner suggested that TDRs require a 2-phase process: 1. Understanding what is possible 2. Deciding what action to take 4 The first part requires a small project team (Commission, Council, consultant, etc.). Questions to be considered are: 1. Is the objective to create a stronger demand for TDRs? 2. Is there to be a shift from the current receiving areas? 3. Does this work outside the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ)? Regarding the economics issue, Mr. Conner noted staff has initiated conversation with Regional Planning as to what could be the scope. Mr. Klugo felt this can’t be done in a narrow scope. Ms. LaRose agreed that just to look at tax dollars doesn’t work. Mr. Gagnon suggested that members think about this for a few weeks and come back to the next meeting with ideas. Ms. Ostby noted there are areas in the work plan that seem to fit into the interim zoning study areas, such as open land, scenic views, river corridor studies. Ms. Greco noted that the concern of the public is with open space and there are dozens of studies regarding the economic benefits of conserving open land. She cited a study done in September, 2018 in Vermont which showed a 9-1 return from conservation. Mr. Chalnick agreed, and said the goal is to preserve open space, and that is what the Council’s resolution is. Noah said the land should be conserved for future development. There doesn’t have to be a rush now. Another member of the public cited the need for space for recreational activities. Mr. Mittag said he would like to cull the PUD list so it is more focused. Mr. Gagnon said he generally agreed and suggested members come back with what they would like to cull. He also asked them to rank the all of typologies in order of priority. Mr. Conner noted the Council talked about the inefficiencies of some of the small developments which fall under the Act 250 threshold. He cautioned against dismissing some of the more compact types of development. Regarding open lands, members were OK with staff recommendations regarding working groups. Mr. Klugo said he would defer to working groups to make recommendations on the lands to be conserved. Ms. Dopp noted that the Natural Resources Committee did a checklist a few years ago. 5 Mr. Conner asked whether the Commission wanted to assess where there should be active recreation areas considered as the Council charge did not include this. Mr. Klugo said that committees should be asked for their top 3 needs/recommendations. Commissioners agreed that this should be examined. Mr. Conner noted that the purpose of interim zoning is to allow tools to come into place. Mr. Klugo said what is being said is that the existing tools aren’t working. Mr. LaRose said they may not be the right tools for conservation. Mr. Klugo cited the Open Space Fund. Ms. LaRose noted that interim zoning requires a “regulatory tool.” If you don’t have that, you haven’t met the goal. Mr. Klugo cited the need to understand the framework the Commission needs to operate under. He added that if the city and property owner can’t agree on the value of the land, what tool is there to prevent an owner from building on the land. Mr. Riehle felt that is a legal issue for the City Attorney. Mr. Conner said staff’s recommendation is that for this to be successful, in some manner there have to be tools that come out of it. He added that staff may have this information. Mr. Klugo said it would be fruitless for the Commission to discuss this without the knowledge that staff has. Regarding TDRs, Mr. Mittag felt the ordinance needs to be completely rewritten. He supported having a working group deal with policy on this. Mr. Klugo said he wants a sustainable TDR policy that works for South Burlington. Mr. Klugo then moved to have Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Louisos summarize the Commission’s recommendations and submit them to the City Council. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. It was agreed that members would see the recommendations before they are submitted to the Council for individual comments. 8. Status Report on PUD’s: Mr. Conner said the first things to be discussed are: 1. What is “in” and “out”? 2. How is density to be measured? Ms. LaRose said the next discussion will focus on what is critical. 9. Consideration of approval of street names in Cider Mill II: Mr. Mittag moved to accept staff’s recommendation with a spelling correction. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Riehle voting against. 10. Minutes of 9 October 2018: Members agreed to defer consideration of the minutes. 6 11. Other Business: Mr. Mittag asked if there is a way to get agendas before late on Friday? Mr. Conner said staff will discuss this. He noted the current system works well because the Planning Commission and DRB alternate. Ms. LaRose stressed that staff is always willing to meet individually with members. a. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed not to meet on 13 November so they can attend the City Council’s public hearing on Interim Zoning. The next Commission meeting will be on 27 November. b. 2019 Shelburne Comprehensive Plan Update, public hearing on 15 November, 7 p.m. Mr. Conner said no action is needed on this item. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 JANUARY 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 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; S. Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design, R. Greco, S. Dopp, J. Morway, A. Chalnick, other members of the public 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No comments unrelated to the agenda 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner noted that work on long-range transportation planning for the Tilley Drive / Community Drive / Kimball Ave area was continuing and that staff was working with neighboring communities on an updated version of the bike share program for 2019. 5. Report from Interim Zoning Committee Liaisons: a. Open Space IZ Committee Mr. Gagnon reported that the committee had elected its leadership and set regular dates and times for meeting. The committee set several action items for upcoming meetings, including developing and reviewing a map of land set aside through conservation, TDRs, development reserved areas- those "off the table" for discussion, and therefore those “on the table” for discussion; had discussed the existence of other resources such as the Natural resource scorecard; and began discussion of criteria for evaluating priority land. Mr. Macdonald asked whether their scope was city-wide or just the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Gagnon replied that it was city-wide a. Transfer of Development Rights IZ Committee Ms. Ostby provided an overview of the first two meetings. The committee has selected a temporary chair, pending further discussion upon return of member Mr. Mittag. Ms. Ostby handed out a series of notes and question for follow up. They are looking at preparing a map 2 that would identify which plots have sent TDRs, which plots within NRP still hold TDRs and how many, and which plots are in developable areas and could receive TDRs. Ms. Ostby then asked what happens if the TDR committee proposes a different objective. Who determines this? Council? PC? TDR committee? Ms. Louisos said that this was a good question. Mr. Conner said it would potentially depend on the scope of the change, and that he would follow-up on this question. Mr. Chalnick said he was still not certain exactly what the TDRs protect as the NRP zoning district already doesn't allow significant development. Mr. Klugo said that when looking at success in a TDR program, the City will need to look at what the market is demanding. 6. Continued Review of Natural Resources Standards in Land Development Regulations: a. Commission debrief of presentation by Jens Hawkins-Hilke, area-wide resources Commissioners noted elements of the presentation that stood out to them. Ms. Louisos said that what jumps out at her was that Jens said up front that he was an expert in some areas, but not all areas. The Commission will want to make sure we want to look holistically. For example, steep slopes. Mr. Gagnon noted the concept of connectivity. That doesn't necessarily mean conserving an entire block, but making connections between. Mr. Riehle said he would like some more clarity on what kind of a swath is needed. Mr. Gagnon reported that it is difficult because it is species specific. Ms. Ostby discussed Act 171; looking at this as an amazing opportunity - though not required until the next comp plan update, would suggest that the open space committee check out the resources. She also said she liked his note about isolated islands being important for people even if they are "dogged," and the note about adaptation of species with climate change. Ms. Louisos noted "Significant natural communities" and other things that are not fully mapped such as rare and endangered species. What to do about those? Might need ground delineation. Mr. Klugo noted that this underscores the need for a regulating plan. As we look at natural resources, we need to look at where we want parks, where we need roads. At some point the city needs to build the roads, not just defer to the developer when there's a place where we want a road or not. He added that he supports biodiversity and also need to think about where we want to have homes. Regulating Plan goes right in between the Comp Plan and the Regulations. Ms. Louisos said she attended a transportation and wildlife seminar in the fall: there is a lot of research on water crossings in particular. Ex: shelf for wildlife in culverts to keep animals out of water. Ms. Dopp noted that the presentation also noted importance of trees. b. Follow-up from 12/11 review of natural resources; mapping; direction on next steps Ms. Louisos provided an overview of what the Commission had discussed at its December meeting and the specific request it had made to staff to prepare mapping showing the resources included as Primary and Secondary in the Attachment to the 2014 Open Space Report which served as the report recommendation. Commissioners followed with a 3 discussion of the relative roles of the Commission and the Open Space Committee, and of the resources available via mapping and reports. Mr. Riehle inquired as to why there appeared to be changes to the South Burlington Natural Resources online mapping tool that had been sent out and how these had come to be. Ms. LaRose noted that staff had asked the CCRPC to update the first draft which had shown data from various sources including the City’s Comprehensive Plan, to focus on the “raw data” of mapped areas per the Commission’s request and to show the most updated and accurate data available. Mr. Conner added that the CCRPC was working under contract to the City at the request of the City Council to extend our resources, and that changes were only being made at staff’s specific requests. Ms. Louisos reiterated that the mapping was prepared based on the Commission’s guidance, and also noted that the Commission has the full authority, from its starting point of the mapped resources, to consider all of the recommendations and analyses from the Open Space report and beyond. Mr. Klugo asked if the Commission can have a master schedule. Ms. Louisos said she would work with staff to develop one. Mr. Klugo also asked if the Commission options with Sharon Murray’s work – recommendations plus alternate options? Ms. Murray said, yes, keeping in mind that there are 4 pieces to the PUDs: Subdivision Regs, PUDs, Master Plans, and Housekeeping items. Ms. Peters said she hoped we don't lose the vision as we get into the weeds. Interim zoning was confined to a timeline that was pretty tight. Ms. Greco shared her concern of the source of what is contained in the Commission’s list of primary and secondary resource from the Open Space Report. Ms. Louisos replied that the Commission had decided to start with the Attachment D and can always adjust. Ms. Ostby said she continues to feel as though she doesn't have the expertise to weigh in, advocated for adoption of recommendations in Open Space report. Staff and Sharon Murray- report author- discussed why that would not be a good idea as available data and thoughts have progressed and recommendations within haven't yet been publicly discussed. Ms. Ostby expressed concern about making updates to the LDRs that didn't exactly match the Comp Plan map or language. Ms. Louisos expressed regret that the Commission in 2015/2016 didn't have a more thorough discussion of the maps or the recommendations before adoption and encouraged the Commission to do so now. She reminded the group that the Comp Plan is a guidance document and that other language in both the comp plan and the Open Space report indicate that the City should have a discussion on these items and take action, and that the City is having that discussion now. 7. Planned Unit Development project: presentation & discussion of outline for PUD standards, Sharon Murray, Front Porch Community Planning & Design Ms. Murray answered questions in previous agenda item and provided feedback on the mapping of various resources and the changes in data availability since the 2014 Open Space report. 8. Minutes of January 8, 2019 meeting Ms. Gagnon moved approval of the 1/8 meeting minutes. Mr. Riehle seconded. Approved. 9. Other business: 4 a. Town of Colchester Planning Commission public hearing on draft Town Plan, February 5, 2019, 7 pm No comments 10. Adjourn As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:41 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk