Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Center FBC Technical Items Working Group - 09/10/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER FBC TECHNICAL ITEMS WORKING GROUP Task Force of the Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES 10 SEPTEMBER 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 10 September 2014, at 10:30 P.M., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Riehle; T. McKenzie; D. Bell; M. Simoneau; M. Mittag MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Belair, Administrative Officer 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: No changes to the agenda were proposed. 2. Comments & Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items: No comments. 3. Review and discuss technical items related to the draft City Center Form Based Code Ms. LaRose began with an overview of the current status of the draft City Center Codes and items needing further review. She handed out a memo outlining these items. Mr. Conner summarized these items into three broad themes: a. Implementation of the blocks lengths and block perimeters approved by the Form Based Codes Committee and in the draft put forth by the Planning Commission b. Addressing phased development and clarification of “developable lots” c. Nonconforming “site features” Members then discussed each in turn. Regarding blocks lengths and perimeters, staff outlined two possible ways of approaching the issue. He noted that if the regulations were being applied to large vacant lots with no lot lines or streets, it would be relatively straightforward. Bu with pre-existing nature of streets, development, lot lines, etc. some clarification would be needed. Option 1, as outlined in the memo, would be to use the official map to spell out all major roads that the city would be interested in seeing built. This option provides clarity but may limit flexibility for the development community. Option 2, as outlined in the memo, would be to use the official map on smaller properties where there is no clear direction as to which would be responsible for a new road and where a proposed road or recreation path might cross multiple properties, and then to provide a standard for larger properties – 2 ones exceeding a certain size, or where the length or depth of the lot exceeds the maximum block length – to meet the standard. Members discussed the official map tool and the pros and cons of the two options. Mr. Mckenzie asked about the burden on property owners. Mr. Simoneau suggested that ROW could sometimes be shared by two properties. Ms. Bell noted that in her experience, she had come across an official map requirement that a roadway be built near to, but not specifically serving a proposed development. The application was not pursued. Mr. Conner recommended that the Official Map require only the dedication of the Right-of-Way, and not the road construction unless that road would actually serve buildings (as buildings are required to be adjacent to streets). Members agreed that this was a better approach. Mr. Simoneau said he felt that Option 2 was more in keeping with the approach put forward by the Form Based Codes Committee. Mr. McKenzie asked to review the potential streets on a map. Members then looked at various circumstances: • San Remo Drive – possible recreation path connection from Dorset to San Remo and San Remo to Dumont Park • North side of Williston Road – possible future east-west street from Patchen Road to the Holiday Inn, and possible north-south streets at the Holiday Inn, near the Starbucks, and possible recreation path connection from Jaycee Park to Williston Road • Garden Street from Healthy Living to Midas Drive • Mary Street to Market Street • Others Members then looked at larger properties that might have a standard that new streets be designated by the applicant through the properties at a time when a development or redevelopment is proposed. • Staples Plaza • Property along Garden & Market Streets if not already addressed with the official map • Marcotte Central School • University Mall Members asked staff to prepare a draft map and standard for consideration at the next meeting based on this discussion, including a proposed standard for an applicant to show a right-of-way on a larger property. Mr. McKenzie asked about Market Street. The individual blocks may be longer than the 400’ maximum in the draft FBC. Mr. Conner stated that often in a Form Based Code, especially under Option 1 above, the “initial” map adopted by the community is stated as being acceptable, regardless of whether each of the block lengths meet the standard. Future amendments to such a map, proposed by applicants, would 3 then need to comply fully. Ms. LaRose stated that this had come up a few times in the staff review of the Code. Mr. Conner said that if the city went with Option 2 – this “hybrid” approach – then perhaps something could be written in specifically for Market Street and similar circumstances such as San Remo Drive. Mr. McKenzie noted a similar issue with the wetland side of the Garden Street block. If no street is proposed to cross southwards, the max block length may be exceeded. Ms. LaRose said that staff had been looking at this in the definitions of a block. Regarding phasing and clarification of “developable lots”, Mr. Conner provided an overview of the present standards – that new lots be “developable” and that depending on the T-zone, a certain proportion of the lot frontage be built upon. Staff is recommending that there be some clarification. In a phased development, some lots may be created that do not initially have development upon them and therefore the lot frontage cannot be built. He suggested a standard that says that lots can exist without buildings if no other land development is placed there (eg, parking, stormwater, etc.) The second item was to clarify “developable lot”. He drew an example of a potential lot that could be designed to place substantial parking next to a building by creating a 10’ deep “strip” lot. Mebers discussed potential guidance for a “developable lot.” Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Simoneau agreed that a 70- 80 foot deep lot would provide sufficient space for a commercial building, with associated elements such as walkways, etc. That space would not include parking. Mr. Conner suggested two standards: a lot depth of 70’-80’ with no parking would be ok if there is an agreement that the lot, when developed, could share parking with another lot. A deeper lot could be also be approved on is own. Mr. Belair said that a double-row of parking would be 60’ deep. Members said this would be ok, and asked staff to look at this in relation to the minimum parking requirements. Members agreed to discuss “site features” at the next meeting, and agreed to hold the next meeting on Wednesday, September 17th at 10:30 am at City hall. ________________________________, Clerk