Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/27/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 MARCH 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 March 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Jeffers, S. Dopp, Mr. and Mrs. Valastro 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Conner provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Agenda item #5 will be postponed. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Valastro expressed concern about “air b&b’s.” She noted there is one next door, which is OK because the owner is living there. Now that owner is talking about buying the house next door to that, and the concern is it would be like a hotel because the owner would not be living in it. Her concern is with the loss of a “sense of community” and with potential safety issues. Mr. Mittag asked if there is a homeowners’ association. Mr. Valastro said there is not. Mr. Mittag said that is too bad, because an association could make rules as to the use of property. Mr. Valastro said that in some communities “air b&b’s” are not allowed in certain districts, and some have a length of stay restriction. Ms. Valastro noted further concern because the backyards are all connected, and there are woods behind the properties. Mr. Gagnon suggested this as a future discussion topic. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to provide a briefing on what neighboring communities are doing and how South Burlington could deal with it. Mr. Riehle felt this goes along with people renting homes to students and issues such as parking on lawns. Ms. Dopp noted that Mr. Conner had come to a South Burlington Land Trust meeting recently. She asked if there are any particular “sustainability” issues that he is working on. Mr. Conner said there is a lot going on with the city management ream, particularly how to review work in a quantifiable way (e.g., affordability, energy, etc.). They are also moving forward with projects. Recently, lights were swapped out at the Public Works garage using funds from the savings from the landfill solar project. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Mittag noted that the South Burlington Land Trust had its annual meeting on Saturday. Bill Keaton made a presentation on the importance of urban forests and woodlands in the area. He zeroed in on the Farrell Park area and its importance for wildlife and Potash Brook. He expressed a willingness to speak to the Commission. Ms. Ostby said she and Ms. Dooley are working on cottage housing and are on target for late spring. She also noted that the City Council continued the LDR amendments to 2 April, 8 p.m. Discussion focused on preservation of housing standards. The Council will be getting a legal opinion on some issues. There was also discussion during a presentation on the Noise Ordinance about dog barking from a business on Hinesburg Road, which is an approved use (dog care). Mr. Conner suggested it may be a good idea to look into where this use should be permitted. He acknowledged that this is a difficult circumstance. Mr. Conner: noted that the Council had no issues with the other LDR amendments. Met with the Affordable Housing Committee last week and provided them with a briefing on staff’s perspective. He, Mr. Dorn, Mr. Rabidoux, and the Fire Chief are looking at the city’s fee structure, some of which relates to affordability. The city is talking with firms around the country regarding digitizing all of its documents. A lot of time is being spent on open space standards as they relate to PUD standards. Reminded the Commission that they will be reviewing the work plan in May. 5. Initial review: requests to (1) change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset Street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential, (2) modify Official Map in indicate accurate location of golf course across a portion of the parcel: Members agreed to postpone this item until the next meeting as the applicant was unable to attend this meeting. 6. First discussion of concepts for city-wide open space standards: Ms. LaRose showed a slide of potential concepts to address. She noted that as staff was going through the regulations, the saw the need for a base set of standards which has not historically been done well. With those base standards, they could then mold the standards for different applications. Concepts and questions that are being considered include: a. Park Requirement in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): Issues include: i. A minimum number of acres to align with population numbers ii. The difference between a 10-acre and a 200-acre development iii. Is there a national standard and whether it applies equally to urban and rural development. Ms. LaRose noted that there have been some good outcomes in the past, but there is never certainty as to what is repeatable. b. PUD Types: Issues include: i. Different open space types could be tied to different PUD types (similar to what is done with T-zones) ii. Could there be a pallet of what is/what is not acceptable? c. Changes to Existing Built Areas: Issues include: i. How do people look at their spaces: In the past, the consideration was “pervious vs. non‐pervious.” ii. Is there an opportunity to convert some of the pervious surface to something more attractive/higher quality in exchange for some “carrots”? Ms. LaRose iii. cited the UMall property where it is hard to tell where the “open space” area is. How could that be converted to higher quality space? Mr. Riehle asked how you would deal with something like the K-Mart Plaza. Ms. LaRose said the first step would be to talk to landowners as what they are considering, then set an acceptable level of quality open space. Ms. LaRose added that “quality” may be different in different places. Ms. Ostby suggested starting with a city-wide view, specifically where the canopies are and where there are scenic views. Ms. LaRose said some of that was started in the Open Space Report. The Commission will have to decide what they want to have in place (i.e., what can be implemented) until they can get to the issue in the future. Mr. Mittag suggested that if a pervious area is used, another one would have to be provided nearby. Ms. Ostby suggested some sort of “acreage moratorium” where used acreage would have to be balanced out somewhere. Ms. LaRose stressed that some of these ideas are legally very challenging and can involve “down‐zoning.” She felt that requiring replacement of the tree canopy was possible. Mr. Conner explained how the State deals with stormwater facilities on a “watershed basis,” and suggested that the city might be able to do something like that. This could be difficult with a park, the question being how far from a development you want to locate a park. Mr. Riehle said he always feels it is a “race for time.” He asked what is needed to address the biggest need before the opportunity is gone. Mr. Conner said his response would be to set clear amounts of what is expected in different types of environments. Expectations should be clear and measurable. Ms. LaRose stressed that pervious vs. impervious is the worst measure of open space. Mr. Conner said that in talking about Traditional Neighborhood Development, percentages for open space should be “usable/buildable” land. Unbuildable land (e.g., wetlands) would not count as open space. Ms. LaRose noted that South Village has an area of dry, wooded land. The Commission could decide how much of that could count as open space because those woods could be cut down and the land could be built on. Mr. Conner added that South Village built out very compactly so there is a lot of open space. Ms. LaRose asked what members want to pursue in the short term. Mr. Riehle said the SEQ as you get the biggest “bank for the buck” with PUD types. Mr. Conner suggested building a “typology of open space types” to include the amount of open space in each PUD type. Ms. LaRose stressed that this is a work in progress and involves translating what was done in City Center to other areas of the city. She asked how member would like to incorporate committee work into this project. Members suggested the Natural Resource and Bike/Ped Committees. Staff summarized what they heard as takeaways: use buildable land for open space minimums; general approval of the typologies; seeking feedback from committees on the types and the work done in the open space report and pursuing SEQ park standards and qualifying open spaces in new developments. The Commission agreed. 7. Discuss small-scale commercial uses/structures adjacent to residential districts: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted the request for small commercial potential in South Village which the Commission was supportive of. He noted that staff feels some things should be codified: scale/size, uses, where such uses should be placed in a neighborhood (near an entrance to the neighborhood), and applicability to the city generally. Mr. Riehle suggested passing this for new development and then spending more time on older neighborhoods. Mr. Conner asked what makes the South Village request appealing to members. Mr. Mittag said neighborhood support and the location of the soccer field behind the suggested location. Ms. Ostby felt that every resident should be able to walk somewhere to get milk. She did add that the business has to have the potential to make money. Mr. Conner suggested allowing the use in a neighborhood with a master plan where the use could be tied to a minimum scale with certain characteristics. Mr. Gagnon suggested making it a PUD standard. Mr. Conner thought that was possible, but he would still want a size threshold. Ms. LaRose added that existing PUDs would be very different from new PUDs build under the new PUD standards. Mr. Conner noted that members seemed to favor allowing this in newer neighborhoods. Mr. Gagnon agreed. He also suggested the possibility of an amendment to an existing PUD standard and then working it into the new PUD standards. Ms. LaRose asked if members would be comfortable with the use in Dorset Farms and/or Butler Farms. Mr. Gagnon said he would as they’re fairly large. Mr. Conner noted that one of them has an organizational structure and the other does not. Members felt there would have to be a neighborhood association. Ms. Ostby felt that if the use were on a major road, there would have to be consideration for existing residences. Ms. Dopp said she couldn’t see 5 or 6 of these being successful. Mr. Gagnon said the intent is just to make it allowable. Ms. Jeffers suggested considering location on a collector street and a required density within a certain walkable radius. Members were OK with the size parameters set at the last meeting and with design standards to fit it in with the neighborhood character (including a limited number of stories). Ms. LaRose felt there should be no curb cut onto an arterial. Mr. Conner said that would have to be defined more clearly and noted that Dorset St. is not an arterial. As to uses, Ms. Ostby suggested child care, no b&b, no general office. Mr. Gagnon said he was OK with everything except general office. Members were OK with personal instruction as long as there was adequate space. Mr. Conner read written comments provided by Mr. Klugo. Ms. LaRose noted Mr. Klugo’s concern with serving alcohol. Mr. Conner said that could eliminate a café/restaurant use or require control of hours of operation. 8. Update on Airport Noise Compatibility Plan: Mr. Conner reported that the Airport has funding for the noise exposure maps to include the basing of F-35s. The noise compatibility plan currently being worked on will be suspended until there are new noise maps. However, if this is done the Airport could miss the 2019 funding time for mitigation. The first draft of the noise study is due in August with the final draft in October/November. 9. Meeting Minutes of 27 February 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 27 February 2018 as written. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Other Business a. Petition of Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. and Vermont Transco, LLC, requesting issuance of a certificate of public good from the VT Public Utilities Commission, 10 Central Avenue in South Burlington and 74 University Road in Burlington: Mr. Conner noted the Commission had already seen this request at an earlier stage. b. Public Hearing announcement for Draft amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance: Mr. Conner said staff has reviewed this and has no issues to report. c. Update on proposed telecommunications structure at 366 Dorset Street: Mr. Conner said Landworks will do a study of what could be improved there. They have submitted some ideas including landscaping (trees on the west side of Dorset St. or in the median - staff prefers the median). d. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Louisos, Mr. Mittag and Ms. Ostby cannot attend the 10 April meeting. He will wait for Mr. Klugo’s confirmation that he can attend before scheduling that meeting. Members had no problem meeting during school vacation week (24 April meeting). As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission April 10, 2018 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: March 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting NOTE: Please read below to see what’s changed from the 3/13/2017 meeting. If it’s not marked as changed below, it’s not changed! 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report 5. Initial review: requests to (1) change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential (2) modify Official Map to indicate accurate location of golf course across a portion of the parcel; Rick Hamlin Please see the enclosed staff memo and request. 6. First discussion of concepts for city-wide open space standards, Cathyann LaRose, City Planner Please see the enclosed staff memo and related materials 7. Discuss small-scale commercial uses/structures adjacent to residential districts [new item] Please see the enclosed staff memo 8. Update on Airport Noise Compatibility Plan, Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Staff will provide the Commission with a full update on this Airport plan, including information from the meeting staff will be attending at the Airport immediately before the PC meeting. 9. Meeting Minutes Minutes from your last meeting are ready for your consideration 10. Other business a. Petition of Vermont Electric Power Company Inc and Vermont Transco LLC requesting issuance of a certificate of public good from the VT Public Utilities Commission, 10 Central Ave in South Burlington and 74 University Road in Burlington The Commission saw these two proposals at the “pre-application” stage and had no comments at that time. If anyone has questions, let us know. b. Public Hearing notice for draft amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance [new item] See the enclosed materials from the City of Burlington c. Update on proposed telecommunications structure at 366 Dorset Street Staff will provide an update on where things stand with the tower replacement on Dorset Street that you saw a few months ago. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Initial consideration of zoning change request from SEQ-NRP to SEQ-NR, 1225 Dorset Street DATE: March 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed please find a request from Rick Hamlin on behalf of the property owners at 1225 Dorset Street to change the zoning from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential. As you may recall, the Commission considered a request to formally determine the boundaries of the current zoning on that parcel earlier this winter. The Commission’s conclusion was that the entire parcel is presently located within the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection district. The enclosed request also seeks an amendment to the Official Map to accurately note where the Golf Course is located across the property. Initial staff analysis Earlier this winter, during the boundary determination, the Commission reviewed the history of planning & designations upon the property. Several Southeast Quadrant land use studies have included the parcel in some manner and the zoning for the entire SEQ was revised in 1992 and in 2006. The current zoning on this property has been in place since that time as SEQ-NRP. The total parcel is approximately 45 acres in size, all of which is currently in the NRP district. A change to the for the full parcel would be a relatively significant policy action by the City and may involve a review of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in addition to the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommendation Staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determine, first, whether this is a request with merit for possible further consideration. If yes, then staff would recommend that the Commission put the consideration as a possible candidate project for next year’s work plan. The Commission will be developing its annual work plan later this spring, likely in May. Given that this would be a relatively large undertaking, staff would recommend that it be considered in the context of other work products. The Commission may also elect not to pursue the zoning change at this time, but would certainly recommend that the Official Map be corrected to reflect the actual Golf Course boundaries. DONALD L. HAMLIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Please reply to: ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS P.O. Box 9 136 Pearl Street Tel. (802) 878-3956 Essex Junction Essex Junction, Vermont Fax (802) 878-2679 Vermont 05453 E-mail: HamlinEngineers@dlhce.com WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SUBDIVISIONS LABORATORY ANALYSIS WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SKI LIFTS (WATER AND WASTE WATER) STREETS AND HIGHWAYS RECREATION AND INDUSTRIAL PLANNING LAND SURVEYING AIRPORTS SOIL BORINGS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Engineering – “The link between what we have and what we need” January 25, 2018 Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Ila M. Isham Estate, 1225 Dorset Street, Public Request for Amendment to the Land Development Regulations Dear Mr. Conner: I am writing in accordance with the South Burlington Planning Commission’s LDR Amendment Request Policy with two requests. Our first request relates to changing the current zoning for the parcel located at 1225 Dorset Street. As we discussed when we first met on this matter, the representatives of the Estate are requesting a change of the zoning of this parcel from its current Southeast Quadrant Subdistrict of Natural Resource Protection (SEQ-NRP SEQ), as recently confirmed by the Planning Commission in their January 9, 2018 decision, to the Southeast Quadrant Subdistrict Neighborhood Residential (SEQ-NR-SEQ). The goal of this request is to allow the zoning on this parcel to match the zoning district that completely surrounds both the east and west end of the parcel. See plan below: Page 2 DONALD L. HAMLIN Secondly, we also request that a change be made to the “City of South Burlington Official Map (Citywide) which identifies the use of the entire parcel as “Golf Course”, as this is incorrect. The Vermont National Country Club has an easement for golf course purposes on only a portion of the center of the property. We request that the map be changed to depict just the area being currently utilized as a golf course as “Golf Course”. Please let me know if you need any further information. We look forward to continuing our conversation with you and the Planning Commission. Respectfully, Richard F. Hamlin, P.E. Chief of Engineering c: Phil Shand Steve Shand Shawn Cheney 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Open Space Options DATE: March 13, 2018 Commission meeting At the Planning Commission’s request, Staff has begun to investigate options for clarifying and enhancing open space requirements within PUDs. Staff has also investigated whether and how a defined set of open space typologies can be used beyond PUDs. As you know, Chapter 8 and Appendix F of the Land Development Regulations started to transform the way the City viewed and implemented open space goals as standards were enacted for open spaces in the City Center Form Based Codes area. No longer were the standards bound to the simplicity of pervious vs impervious. Now, the City began to address quality of open spaces and assigning the appropriate types of open spaces to various types of land development. Assigning these same distinctions beyond the City Center Form Based Codes area is something the Planning Commission has identified as a priority. Through the PUD Phase II project process, we’ll be incorporating a variety of typologies into the PUD typologies. This includes open space typologies. In running a first draft of this, Staff has identified several additional opportunities for the Planning Commission to consider, which would be related and thus streamlined, creating only a minimal amount of additional staff or Commission work. These are highlighted on the attached page and include: • Changes to existing developed properties. This would fall in line with previously discussed amendments to the Shelburne Road/UDO corridor, and the January request by Bill Shearer. • Clarifications to the existing SEQ park requirements. Current regulations only state that there be a minimum of 7.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 populations. No further guidance or standards are given. • New Development. This could be city-wide or tied to specific zones or overlay districts, including the Urban Design Overlay district. All of these possibilities would require some additional thought by staff and the Commission. Staff would also work with advisory committees to dig deeper into the language, including Recreation and Parks, Natural Resources, and possibly the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. All of this work would also inform the work of the PUD Phase II project. Staff will discuss this at the meeting on the 13th and seeks feedback as to which avenues to proceed with. Attached you will also find the start of updates to Appendix F of the Land Development Regulations. This is a very initial draft of updates and there is more work to be done. Some fields are left blank as the PUD work develops, and there are possibly yet more open space types that could be identified. All of this would also be best done in consultation with advisory committees. Staff has also attached a review of the last set of PUD land use allocation standards, with an example to examine how open spaces would be incorporated. The existing Table 8-2 is included as Staff may likely advise consolidation of this information into the Appendix or Guidebook. An abbreviated draft version of the guidebook was shared at the February 13th Planning Commission meeting and illustrates how the Appendix could be incorporated to include illustrative examples and be easier to interpret by land owners and stakeholders. Open Space Guidebook FBC District PUD Types: • Based on developable area • Park and civic space and resource lands (see attached examples and spread- sheet) SEQ Park Requirement (currently 7.5 acres/1000 population) but without specific standards New Development City Wide Changes to existing Built areas • Per Shearer Auto Request • Could be modeled after City Center language for existing development Potential Uses of Open Space Appendix/Guidebook Example: 100 acre property 60% buildable (due to wetland or other constraints) = 60 acres buildable Open Space= 24 acres • Civic/Park Space (propose identifying these through Qualifying Open Space types, see attached): Minimum 12 acres if also planning re- source lands; max 24 acres Examples could include: Parks, Playgrounds, Greens, Gardens, and partial credit for Enhanced Wooded Areas and Enhanced Stormwater Treatment areas • Resource Lands: identified through Appendix F/Typology Guidebook and specific to each PUD type: No minimum. Examples include active agriculture and developable wooded areas. 20% Qualifying Example: 100 acre property 60% buildable (due to wetland or other constraints) = 60 acres buildable Open Space= 6 acres • Civic/Park Space (propose identifying these through Qualifying Open Space types, see attached): Minimum 3 acres if also planning re- source lands; max 6 acres Examples could include: Parks, Playgrounds, Greens, Gardens, and partial credit for Enhanced Wooded Areas and Enhanced Stormwater Treatment areas • Resource Lands: identified through Appendix F/Typology Guidebook and specific to each PUD type: No minimum. Examples include active agriculture and developable wooded areas. Qualifying Purpose: To create a fair and equitable transition from the prior requirements for a maximum lot coverage percentage to the new requirements for a minimum amount of Qualifying Open Space. Where any of the following apply, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval from the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer for the identification of approvable open space prior to any Land Development: (a) A proposed addition to a non-conforming building exceeds 5,000 square feet GFA; (b) Lot coverage is proposed to increase by at least 1,000 square feet or 1% of the lot area, whichever is greater; or (c) A portion of a lot developed with one or more building is proposed to be subdivided,. The identification shall be completed as follows: The applicant shall identify, on a plan, Qualifiable Open Space area(s) for the lot, or in the case of a subdivision, lots, totaling no less than the minimum required percentage of Qualifying open space listed in Table 8-1 (Open Space Requirements), based on the existing uses and buildings on the lot(s); At the time of identification and approval, the applicant shall not be required to enhance any Qualifiable open spaces to meet any of the additional requirements of Appendix F or to locate any such Qualifying open space on-site, except: Where more than 50% of the Qualifiable Open Space consists of impervious areas, the amount of such impervious open space that exceeds 50% shall be en- hanced to full compliance with Appendix F and such Qualifying Open Space shall be located on-site as depicted on the plan; Any new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall be required to comply with all Open Space Requirements of Section 8.08 (Open Space Requirements); and, An application to expand an existing building on a lot for which Qualifiable Open Space has been identified and approved may meet its minimum Qualifying open space requirements in Table 8-1 by enhancing the minimum required amount of the identified Qualifiable Open Space to full compliance with Appendix F and lo- cating that Qualifying Open Space on-site as depicted on the plan. The identification of approvable open space shall be a one-time requirement. No further such approval shall be required unless the applicant requests a modification of areas identified and approved as Qualifiable Open Space. Possibilities to incorporate open space requirements in existing built areas. Language below is existing City Center language which could be modified. Transect Zone Allowable Open Space (see Appendix F for standards) T5 Pocket/Mini Park Plaza/Square Outdoor café/restaurant seating (not within the public right-of-way) Sun Terrace (as restricted in Appendix F) Courtyard Pedestrian Pass Indoor Park / Atrium T4 All Open Space listed as allowable in T5 and; Playgrounds Green (residential and campus style development only) Community gardens Rain Gardens (as restricted in Appendix F) Wooded area (as restricted in Appendix F) Enhanced or recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment Area (as restricted in Appen- dix F) T3/T3+ Pocket/Mini Park Courtyard Green- residential with more than 7 units only Private yard space (respecting common space requirement indicated in Table 8-1) Playground Community gardens Wooded area (as restricted in Appendix F) Table 8-2. Qualifying Open Space Remove Table 8-2? Re- place information in Open Space Appendix/ Guidebook APPENDIX F Open Space Requirements F-1 Plaza/Square Green Pocket/Mini Park Neighborhood Park Playground Outdoor Café/ Restaurant Seating Sun Terrace Indoor Park/Atrium Courtyard Wooded Area Applicability as Qualifying Open Space (PUD Types or Zones) All FBC Districts; UDO district All districts except FBC T5 All districts All districts except FBC T5 All districts which permit restaurant (or similar dining) use All buildings having 3 or greater stories; residential buildings must have a minimum of 12 units. FBC T4 and FBC T5; Any non- residential or mixed use building in UDO. All FBC District; PUD (type TBD) Description & Service Intent Primarily hard-surface space. Primarily intended to serve public. Informal and centralized public, civic space or common/shared private space for residential use or campus-style development. Small open area. May be tucked adjacent to or between buidlings, or adjacent to roadway. on a separate lot or portion of a lot.. Intended to serve public or residents within 1/4 mile radius. Park intended to serve immediate neighborhood and those within 1/4- 1/2 mile radius. Shall have several different elements of play and leisure, which may include athletic fields or courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, pump tracks, skating facilities, and similar. Programmed space and/or structure that serves the recreational needs of children in the immediate vicinity. An open-air seating area provided by a restaurant located on the subject or adjoining property, where restaurant patrons can eat or drink Accessible and open area on upper story with seating and gathering amenities. Interior open space where at least one wall facing the street consists entirely of glass. Common Open Space area on a portion of a lot. Naturally occuring area with predominance of canopy trees with enhancement and public access. Size Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. Residential: 0.25-2 acres; Campus- style Development: 0.5-3 acres. 2,000-10,25,000 sq. ft.1-20 acres Play area shall be a minimum of 2400 square feet. Minimum 100 sq. ft.500-3,000 sq.ft; total area shall not count as more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft. Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to be counted as qualifying open space shall not exceed twice the area of the glass wall projected onto the floor plane. 5,000-20,000 sq. ft.2,500 sq. ft. minimum; Shall include the land of the improvement (such as enhanced path, viewing platform, etc) and no more than 50 feet to either side; total area shall not count as more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. Location & Access Outdoors and within Public Realm. High Visibility from public rights of way. Accessible from a public street at grade or 3' above or below street level connected to street with wide, shallow stairs. May include space for a farmer's market For residential: Centralized; Accessible to all tenants/residents via pedestrian walkway or direct frontage (cottage court development). For campus-style development: Centralized; Accessible from a public right-of- way via direct walkway; Access from several locations encouraged. Fronts on and is accessed from a street right-of-way. Pedestrian accessible. Must be open and accessible to the public. Accessible from Public Right-of- Way or adjacent to private sidewalk. Should be centrally located and visually accessible to the greatest extent practicable. Highly visible, directly adjacent to public right of way. See additional public realm standards below. Second floor or above. Encourage location in places which have spectacular views. Accessible directly from the sidewalk or public corridors. For T5 Non-Residential, must provide adequate signage about location and accessibility in hallways and elevators. Building interior adjacent to sidewalk or public open space. Direct access from street level. Provide several entrances to make the space availble and inviting to the general public. Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three sides (outer) or four sides (inner) Must be accessible, at minimum, by residents, tenants, or customers of site. Must be onsite. Offsite wooded areas shall not be considered qualifying open space even where the LDR permit open space to be located off-site. Seating*, Tables, Etc. Minimum one seating space for each 150 sq.ft. of plaza area. Minimum 3 seats. Provide formal and informally arranged seating, on sculptured lawn. Moveable chairs desirable. Three seats per quarter acre, rounded up. One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of park size. Must include amenities which differentiate the space from basic lawn area. Examples include benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds or public picnic tables. Shall have signage in accordance with City sign deisgn guidelines. Must provide benches or formal seating areas at one space for each 500 square feet, rounding up, as well as at least 200 square feet of level, grassed, informal seating. Seating material shall be of moderate to high quality in order for café space to be considered qualifying open space. One seating space for every 50 sq.ft. of terrace area. Provide one seat for every 100 sq.ft. of floor area, one table for every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At least one half of seating to consist of movable chairs. One seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a minimum of 3 Light enhancement expected. Must include improvements, including cleared paths and benches. Landscaping, Design- Landscape is secondary to architectural elements. Use trees to strengthen spatial definition. Shall include attractive paving material or pattern to create unique space. Encouraged use of lush, dense plant material. Shall incorporate art, sculpture and/or water feature. Provide lush landscape setting with predominantly lawn surfaces and planting such as: trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers. Canopy trees should provide substantial shade. Turf and landscape plantings. to Should promote shade over at least 25% over a portion of the area. Shall offer areas of open grassed field as well as some shaded seating areas. Appropriate ground material- rubber or woodchips. Plantings for articulation of space encouraged. Flat paved or concrete area for wheeled toys encouraged. Paved areas including space for basketball or other sport courts are encouraged and may be counted towards minimum required area of qualifying open space. Shade shall be provided in consultation with the Recreation Director. For optional separated seating areas, use planting boxes of interesting patterns of plants, open fences of less than 3 feet in height, or decorative and moveable bollards with decorative chain connectors. Terrace may take one of the following forms: complex architectural setting which may include art works; flower garden; space with trees and other planting. Planted roofs are permitted provided area is also a functional seating space. Provide attractive paving material to create interesting patterns. Use rich plant material. Incorporate sculpture and/or water feature. If paved, area shall be amended throughout with substantial planted areas or large planters of trees and lush greenery. If grassed, area should be articulated at perimeter with lush greenery. Majority of area must be covered with canopy trees. Light enhancement expected. Must include cleared paths, benches, and/or other amenities. Commerical Services, Food 20% of space may be used for restaurant/cafe seating, taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the sitting facilities provided. Not permitted Not counted towards open space requirement. May serve as seating area for adjacent restaurant/food service, or be space provided for those bringing their own meals. Dependent on Transect, may possibly be used up to 100% for commercial food services. See Table 8-1. 30% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted Not permitted. Sunlight and Wind Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Shelter from wind. No requirements Sunlight to most of the occupied area from mid-morning to mid- afternoon. Sunlight encouraged to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. No requirements No requirements except as noted for street façade to be wall of glass. Encouraged to be south- facing. Sunlight to sitting areas for most of day. No requirements Other Shall include minimum components:3 low child-sized swings; 1 toddler sized swing; 2 slides; one or more play houses. Notes: Seating dimensions: *Required dimensions for one seating space or one seat are as follows: Height: 12" to 36"; ideally 17"; must allow user to bend knees and have feet below knees Depth: 14" one-sided; 30-36" double-sided Width: 30" of linear seating are counted as one seat Materials All products installed in qualifying open spaces shall be of high quality materials intended to be used for commercial application. South Burlington Land Development Regulations APPENDIX F Open Space Requirements F-2 Applicability as Qualifying Open Space (PUD Types or Zones)Description & Service Intent Size Location & Access Seating*, Tables, Etc. Landscaping, Design- Commerical Services, Food Sunlight and Wind Other Notes: Seating dimensions: Materials Community Garden Rain Garden Snippet/ Parklet Pedestrian Pass Streetfront Open Space Enhanced or Recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment Area Private Yard Space Community Center Pool Facility/ Locker Room Swimming Pool, Athletic Courts & Fields Municipal Building FBC T4 and FBC T5 FBC T4 and FBC T5 FBC T-3 and T3+ as noted in Table 8- 1 PUDs PUDs PUDs PUDs Land set aside and maintained for production of food to be used primarily for participating gardeners. A shallow depression planted with native plants that captures rainwater runoff from impervious urban areas. Small sitting area intended to provide respite between or adjacent to buildings. Narrow pedestrian right of ways that cut through blocks in residential and/or commercial areas. Liner open space area to secondary streets, as permitted per the Regulations. An existing wetland buffer or new stormwater treatment area which offers public amenities that exceed those minimimally necessary for water resource management. Private yard space associated with residential units Indoor gathering space for residents/employees.U sed for recreational, socal, educational, health, cultural or similar activities. Structure associated with pools, tennis courts, or other recreational areas. Swimming pool, tennis, basketball, or similar athletic courts. Could include library or municipal meeting space Minimum 400 square feet. Encouraged to serve at least 20% of units in multifamily developments. Maximum size of 3,500 sf; shall not count as more than 50% of minimum required qualifying open space. 500-2,000 sq. ft 8' minimum width; 24' maximum width. 50' minimum depth from closest public street line; or if private, 50' minimum depth from edge of pavement or sidewalk as applicable. Shall include the land of the improvement (such as enhanced path, viewing platform, etc) and 50 feet to either side; total area shall not count as more than 50% of minimum required qualifying open space. May not be located in any class wetland or wetland buffer. Shall have proper drainage. The garden should be positioned near a runoff source like a downspout, driveway or sump pump to capture rainwater runoff and stop the water from reaching the sewer system. Must be directly adjacent to public right of way and sidewalk or building entry. Designers are encouraged to consider safety in design. No vehicular traffic. Must connect two public streets. Storefronts and restaurants are highly encouraged to access the pedestrian pass. Must be immediately adjacent to qualifying secondary street. See Chapter 8 for additional regulations. Must be on each side of roadway, unless a complying building is located on the opposite side. Must be visible to public or tenants and users of building. Direct pedestrian access from adjacent public street type. Directly adjacent to and accessible to at least one entry of dwelling unit it is associated with. None required. The space must serve as a visual amenity which can be enjoyed through paths or seating. Adjacent seating intended to enhance the garden is are required and can be counted as part of the required open space. Seating shall be the main focus of the space; it shall be present year-round and of medium to high quality materials. Fixed seating is encouraged. One seating space for each 150 sq.ft. Seating is encouraged, but there shall be no minimum requirement. If functional for sitting and viewing, seating can be ledges, benches,and/or stairs. No requirements. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Indoor centers should provide lounge or table seating. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Athletic facilities are encouraged to provide benches and related picnic facilities. Seating shall be provided consistent with use type. Athletic facilities are encouraged to provide benches and related picnic facilities. Must have adequate planting soils, tested for pH balance, drainage, nutrients, etc. Where they are inadequate, soils shall be amended for more suitable farming. Shall have water service directly to gardens. Deep rooted native plants and grasses. Landscaping shall also be a primary component of the space. Because the space is inherently small, it shall be landscaped in a higher proportion than larger spaces. Landscaping should not interfere with seating, but should instead compliment it.Spaces should appear warm and inviting. If paved, area shall provide trees at no more than 30 foot intervals. If grassed, area shall be accented with intermittent trees or public art. Slight, gentle, and undulating berms from 1-3 feet in height are encouraged to block views of parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is required. Include canopy trees whose branches are above the average visual line of sight, located throughout the space, with no more than 40 feet between any two such trees or between a tree and the street or parking area. Landscaping should aim to distract from parking beyond, but should not create dense walls of shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly encouraged. LID techniques; no fencing permitted. No requirements.Land scaping, lawns or planned seating/dining areas (patios and decks) are encouraged. Not permitted. Not permitted.40% of area may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 30% of the seating and tables provided. Not permitted.Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Full sunlight. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Sunlight to most of the occupied area at lunchtime. Shelter from wind. No requirements. Appropriate to the plant species selection. Exterior to building. Access to sunshine encouraged. See LID language for additional standards. Separate travelled way from parking areas; shall create pedestrian environment. Must be located on applicant- owned property. No requirements.Landscaping, lawns or planned seating/dining areas (patios and decks) are encouraged. Civic Use Types with Corresponding Spaces (Meets Civic Use Requirment in certain PUD types) Minimum and maximum total footage requirements based on PUD type. May consist of mix of civic types. Shall be open to use by residents or employees. May be restricted to residents/employees or open to the public. Should be located within the PUD so as to be generally equally accessible to all users. South Burlington Land Development Regulations 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Neighborhood Commercial Uses DATE: March 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting You’ve recently heard a request from Robin Jeffers of South Village Communities for the Commission to consider the allowance of a small commercial component in a designated area of the South Village property. Property owners in that residential development also spoke at the meeting to support the idea, with restrictions. Ms. Jeffers and the property owners highlighted a desire to have small, context- sensitive, limited-use and architecturally relevant commercial uses in walking distance to their neo- traditional residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission asked Staff to pursue this concept, such that there may be zoning created for neighborhood commercial uses in residential areas, where appropriate. The Planning Commission affirmed that such development shall: • Be of limited size and scale; • Be open to limited types of uses, primarily intended to serve the adjacent or surrounding neighborhood; • Be located in such a manner as to not disrupt or divide the residential areas of an existing neighborhood; • Demonstrate architectural relevance, coordinating or complimenting the residential style of homes in the area. As previously highlighted, this concept potentially meets several of the goals established in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission held a robust conversation with respect to the intensity of land development and uses in similar subject areas during the adoption of that plan. Staff would summarize those conversations as having noted a general desire, but with quite a few contingencies and situational elements. There are several paths to adoption of the elements included above. Because the favorability of such a use is so provisional, language will have to be meticulously crafted to reflect these provisions, while not permitting non-residential intrusions into inappropriate or unplanned areas and neighborhoods. Recognizing this, Staff encourages the Commission to discuss the proposal in the following framework: • Are there other residential areas where a small scale, limited commercial use would be appropriate? In support of the elements articulated above which would condition any new commercial uses, there are a few options that staff submits for Commission comment: Size boundaries on a neighborhood commercial use: • A footprint no larger than 6,000 SF. This would be proportionally less than the most restrictive commercial district (see footnote 6 for commercial uses) in Appendix C. • A combined use not to exceed 9,000 SF. The Commission may wish to also implement a size maximum per tenant, as is applicable in the most restrictive commercial zones, ranging from 3,000 SF-6,000 SF. Architectural standards: • Could use or adapt the standards from the SEQ-Village Commercial which state: Location The Planning Commission has expressed an interest in ensuring that the location of neighborhood-based retail would not disrupt the neighborhood’s character and flow, particularly with respect to traffic. Sample language could include: • Neighborhood-based retail shall be located adjacent to the street with the highest daily traffic volumes. It need not be central to the residential area, but rather should be located such that traffic is not increased through the majority of the development. Visitors and customers should not be required to pass through the development to access the commercial use. • Sidewalks or multi-use paths must be provided to connect the residences to the commercial use. • On-site vehicle parking shall be limited and shall not exceed the minimum for the use (staff note: we’ll refine this language and perhaps propose a specific maximum number here). • We seek guidance as to whether there are other factors or appropriate locations for this uses. This includes other residentially zoned locations in the City, perhaps with a threshold for those with a neo-traditional layout or higher density. For example, Planned Unit Developments with an effective density greater than 4du/acre or having more than 200 residential units, or adjacent to an Arterial roadway. Uses The indication thus far is that uses should be limited to civic spaces, small cafes, restaurants and markets. Staff asks the Planning Commission to confirm this, and indicate whether any additional uses are appropriate, including fitness, personal instruction, or recreation facility, general office, childcare or educational facility, art studio or bed and breakfast. Food hubs are already permitted in nearly every district. Next Steps Once the Commission has refined the last of the parameters, Staff will move towards drafting language for review and implementation. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 FEBRUARY 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 February 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; P. O’Brien, R. Jeffers, N. Andrews, C. Shaw, R. Butler, J. Swope, other community members. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. Shaw noted a discussion at the last City Council meeting regarding the Wheeler property and what can and can’t be done on lands reserved as agricultural mitigation. He cited the need for active recreation potential in the Southeast Quadrant and wondered how hard it would be to put an easement on that whole property. Mr. Shaw also questioned whether all real estate discussion should happen in executive session as he did not feel those discussions, if held in open session, would always be detrimental to the city’s interests. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: There were no announcements. Mr. Conner: Noted the appointment of attorney Brian Sullivan to the vacant seat of the Development Review Board. An application to the Downtown Review Board for expansion of City Center Neighborhood Development Designation got unanimous approval at a meeting Mr. Conner attended yesterday. Under that designation, developer’s water allowance fees are capped, and they do not have to go to Act 250. 20% of the housing must meet 80% of affordability. Mr. Conner said the developer is on board with this. 5. Discussion of Request to Allow Small Commercial Component to Certain Residential Areas: 2 Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of the request. Ms. Jeffers noted that in 2015, they were looking at a small commercial development which the residents of South Village opposed. There was then a process with residents at which it was agreed that the best place for any commercial use was the corner of Allen Road and Spear Street. There is already a curb cut there, and it does not involve circulation through the residential areas. A plan was presented to residents who were excited about it. The proposal is for 9000 sq. ft. of mixed use including a café, market and meeting space. Following discussions with the head of the recreation department, the potential for rest rooms to serve the soccer field was also included (would add some square footage). Ms. Jeffers then showed the proposed plan and indicated the circulation pattern and parking area. There would be two 3,000 sq. ft. buildings build into the hill. There would be a deck and patio area and basement space for storage and mechanical. Mr. O’Brien noted that the plan does not require an association vote; however, the Planning Commission had wanted to see resident support. Mr. Conner noted that this use is currently not allowed in that district and will require a zoning change. The actual development plans would be a DRB discussion and decision. Mr. Conner also noted receipt of letters of support from two residents. Mr. Andrews said he served on the committee and supports this idea. He said there is a lot of community support as well. What they don’t want is to have a whole of their community zoned for commercial use; just this parcel is OK. He added that if the rest rooms are part of the project they should be the city’s responsibility to maintain. Mr. Conner said the soccer field was part of the original South Village plan and is close to becoming a reality. The rest rooms would be an amenity. Ms. Louisos read the other letter from a resident who is excited about the concept and also said it was well received by the community and will help bring their community closer together. Mr. Butler, Jr. Owns and Mr. Swope all spoke in support of the plan. Ms. Louisos said the Commission’s next step is to take suggestions and see how to put this into the zoning code. The Commission would also consider whether there are other areas of the city where such a use could be appropriate. Mr. Conner said the important test for “spot zoning” is whether the context of the decision has been properly looked at. It could be looked at geographically or not. He also noted that some of the PUD concepts would include the possibility of a small commercial area. The Commission could discuss certain locations, sizes, etc. 3 Mr. Mittag said that where this use is proposed make it more viable. Ms. Louisos explained the Planning Commission process and noted that the process the developer went through with the residents makes the Commission’s job easier. Members favored moving the request forward and asked staff to come back with some approaches to do this. Mr. Gagnon said he would be interested to see how this could be incorporated into a PUD approach. 6. Update and Report on activities/work of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC): Mr. Shaw, the City’s representative to CCRPC, explained the process for the approval of the Regional Plan. He noted there was a first public hearing last week and will be second on 16 May. Adoption of the plan is set for the meeting of 20 June. Mr. Shaw noted that this year’s plan also includes the Community & Economic Development Plan, the Transportation Plan and the Energy Plan. The plan outlines the “top ten” actions for the coming 5 years, as follows: a. Support multi-modal development b. Invest in transportation systems c. Support housing development d. Assist municipalities with enhanced energy planning e. Implement the Lake Champlain TMDL program to help clean up the Lake f. Emergency management (regional dispatch) g. Support population health h. Monitor advancement of autonomous vehicles i. Coordinate with municipalities on ECOS Annual Report j. Support workforce development Other updates to the plan include forest integrity, a health intro to Strategy #5 (dealing mainly with the opioid issues), and reorganization of the plan. Mr. Shaw then showed graphics relating energy use, indicating that 2/3 of homes are in need of more energy efficiency. He noted that the state has mandated that by 2050, 90% of the state’s energy use must be from renewable sourced. Mr. Gagnon asked if there has been consideration of the need for more energy due to growth. Mr. Shaw said there really isn’t a lot of annual growth. He also noted their projections cover a 32-year period. Mr. Conner said meeting the target also involves reduction in energy use, so that there can be growth and still have reduced energy use. Mr. Shaw noted that currently there are 106,936 gas-powered cars in the county and only 601 which are purely electric. This has to change by 2050, which may be difficult due to the low cost of natural gas. 4 Regarding economic development, the plan notes that people with a STEM-type degree earn an average of $72,000; those who do not have a STEM-type degree earn an average of $49,000 a year. There are also too many people living outside Chittenden County who commute to work in the County. This virtually doubles the County’s population every day. Families are leaving the County for housing, leaving those just out of college and seniors who are happy to live here. Some of the comments from the public hearing included: a. Smart growth as an economic strategy b. Freight rail c. Better broadband d. Making the permitting process less burdensome Mr. Shaw then summarized the Metropolitan Transit Plan (MTP) which includes a financial plan. He noted that 70% of funding preserves what exists now. He also noted future scoping studies to be done for a third lane before Exits 14 and 15 and interchange improvements (Exit 12B and Exit 14). Public comment on the MTP included: a. More transit, including commuter rail b. Consider autonomous vehicles c. Action goals should correspond with the Paris agreement d. No new roads (including reconsideration of the Champlain Parkway and Interstate expansion) e. More roundabouts and fewer signalized intersections f. More and better bike facilities g. Adopt Vision Zero Mr. Mittag noted that it is easier to make buses electronic because they make shorter trips. Mr. Shaw said the CCRPC would be interested in hearing what the Planning Commission is working on, specifically the Swift St. extension issue and the von Turkevich proposal. Mr. Conner noted there has been no submittal yet regarding the latter. Ms. Louisos cited the help the city receives from CCRPC on local projects. She noted the Commission is working on an overhaul of the PUD system with a unique approach. This would eliminate a lot of waivers which have been an issue. Mr. Shaw encouraged the Commission to come up with a new name for “city center,” something that incorporates the word “South.” 7. Continue discussion of Possibility Amendments to the City Center Form Based Code: a. Applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District: 5 Mr. Conner showed an overhead of the dimensions of the district and indicated the property Mr. Larkin is proposing to develop. He said that if the Commission chooses to remove the Overlay limitation, they could do it across the whole district of just include the ramps. He added that he would lean toward the smaller possibility. Members agreed and asked staff to prepare language removing the overlay limitation, within the FBC district, for the Interstate ramps. b. Maximum Heights of Buildings in the T4 District: Mr. Conner presented several alternatives as follows: 1. 5 stories across the T4 2. 5 stories as long as there is separation from existing neighborhoods 3. 5 stories with a “step back” for upper stories (as in the T5) 4. With separation between taller buildings 5. A potential “trade” if…. There could also be a combination of these alternatives. Mr. Gagnon favored a combination of #2 and #3. Mr. Mittag felt taller buildings shouldn’t be contiguous, possibly a frontage limit and varied setbacks. Ms. Louisos liked all three suggestions and did not want to discourage 5 stories. Members asked staff to come back with specific language that incorporated alternatives 2 and 3. 8. Discuss Potential Street Types in zoning districts and for PUDs: Mr. Conner showed a chart of street types. He noted some of the designations are not clear, and there is a question as to whether there should be sidewalks on one or both sides of a street. Ms. Louisos asked if an “alley” could be publicly owned. Mr. Conner said there is no reason it can’t. 9. Debrief from Committee Leadership Meeting: Ms. Louisos reviewed the nature of the quarterly meetings. This meeting included an overview of the new city website. The Commission needs to review the Planning Commission page and come up with some “stories of success.” The City will be benchmarking regarding how things are being done to address the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 6 The group also discussed preparing materials on “what it is like to be on a committee,” including orientation materials and the time spent in addition to meeting time. They also discussed sharing committee work plans to facilitate cooperation among committees. 10. Minutes of 13 February 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 February 2018 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: a. Shelburne Planning Commission public hearing on Zoning Bylaw Amendments, 8 March, 7 p.m: Mr. Conner said staff saw no issues. b. Upcoming Meetings; chairing March 11th meeting: It was noted that both the Chair and Vice Chair will not be able to attend the 11 March meeting. Members agreed to have the Commission Clerk chair that meeting. 12. Possible Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the negotiation or securing of real estate for purchase or lease by the City of South Burlington: Mr. Riehle moved and that Staff be invited to the session and no actions will be taken following the executive session. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Commission entered executive session at 9:25 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk Layne Darfler, Planning Technician TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski City Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: March 19, 2018 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance:  ZA-18-05 Article 3 Amendments  ZA-18-06 Article 8 Bike Parking The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 6:45 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the hearing to me by close of business on April 9, 2018. CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney David White, AICP, Planning Director Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur Eamon Dunn, Youth Member PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-18-05 Article 3 Amendments ZA-18-06 Article 8 Bike Parking Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 beginning at 6:45pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows: ZA-18-05: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to update Article 3 of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO) relative to zoning permit release, timelines for pending permit applications, permit extensions, and permit duration. ZA-18-06: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to modify bike parking regulations in Article 8, and in Table 8.2.5-1. These changes increase the required ratios of bicycle parking for selected uses to more closely align with the APBP guidelines, and establish a payment in lieu option for required bike parking. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington: ZA-18-05: The proposed amendment applies to all areas of the City. ZA-18-06: This proposed amendment applies to all areas of the City. List of section headings affected: ZA-18-05: This amendment affects Sec 3.2.5, Sec 3.2.7 (c), Sec 3.2.9 (b), (d), and (e). ZA-18-03: This amendment affects Sec 8.2.1- 8.2.7, adds a new Sec 8.2.8, amends existing sections 8.2.8- 8.2.9, and modifies Table 8.2.5-1 Bicycle Parking Requirements. The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-18-05 Article 3 Amendments This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to update Article 3 of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO) relative to zoning permit release, timelines for pending permit applications, permit extensions, and permit duration. In particular, this amendment: adds a provision and timeframe for an applicant-initiated deferral of action on a complete permit application; clarifies the 30-day timeframe for release of a permit following an appeal period for permits granted by the Development Review Board; extends the timeframe for receipt of a Zoning Certificate of Occupancy after the issuance of a permit from two to three years; and provides up to three one-year extensions for approved zoning permits, and one one-year extension for permits to remediate zoning violations. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment has no impact the goals and policies contained within the Municipal Development plan as it relates to the availability of safe and affordable housing. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The proposed amendment has no impact on the proposed future land uses and densities contained within the Municipal Development Plan. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: January 23, 2018 RE: Article 3: Applications, Permits, and Project Reviews At their January 4, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission Ordinance Committee reviewed four proposed changes to Article 3 of the CDO. The changes pertained to zoning permit release, timelines for pending permit applications, permit extensions, and permit duration. The committee recommended approval of the amendments as noted below. Sec. 3.2.5, Completeness of Submission, Administrator’s Action affords a 30-day timeline for action on a complete zoning permit application. Action includes administrative approval or denial or referral to the Development Review Board. Separate sections refer to this 30-day timeframe for administrative action (Sec. 3.2.7 {c}) and other timelines for DRB decisions (45 days following close of proceedings per Sec. 3.2.8 {e}) and subdivision reviews (30 days per Sec. 10.1.9). What is missing is a time limit for deferred action on complete applications. Occasionally, applicants will request that action on complete application be deferred due to outside factors such as state permits and building codes. There is no express provision for allowing deferred action, nor is there any limit as to the amount of time that action on a complete application may be deferred. As a result, some applications remain pending for many months or even past a year. Staff recommends codifying provision to allow deferral of action at the request of the applicant and to establish a time limit for deferral. Proposed language is underlined in red. Sec. 3.2.5 Completeness of Submission, Administrator’s Action An application for a zoning permit shall not be complete until all submission requirements have been provided to the satisfaction of the administrative officer. The administrative officer shall take action with regard to a complete application within 30 days. Such action shall be to issue a decision on the application pursuant to the authority granted in Sec 3.2.7 of this Article, or by making a referral to the DRB. Should the administrative officer fail to take any such action, a permit shall be deemed issued on the 31st day pursuant to 24 VSA 4448(d). Modifications to a pending application by an applicant shall restart any applicable time limits, commencing upon the modification date. An applicant may request deferral of action on a complete zoning permit application. Deferral of action shall be limited to six (6) months. For zoning permit applications subject to DRB review, the six (6) month deferral may be extended up to two (2) times of three (3) months each. If an initial extension is granted by the DRB and the application lies dormant (no revised plans, pg. 2 of 4 information submitted) for the three (3) month duration of the extension, the DRB shall not grant another extension. Sec. 3.2.7 Administrative Review and Approval Pursuant to the provisions of 24 V.S.A. Section 4464(c), this section provides for the administrative review and approval of new development and amendments to previously approved development. (a) – (b) As written. (c) Administrative Decisions: The administrative officer shall act with regard to an application subject to administrative review pursuant to this section within 30 days of receiving a complete application unless deferral is requested by the applicant per Sec. 3.2.5. Decisions to deny the application shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant, and shall contain a statement of the period of time within which an appeal may be taken pursuant to the requirements of Article 12. A notice of a decision made in favor of the applicant shall be posted in a public place pursuant to Sec. 3.2.9(c). Should the administrative officer fail to take such action, a permit shall be deemed granted on the 31st day pursuant to 24 VSA 4448(d) or upon expiration of the deferral, if applicable. (d) As written. _________________________________________________________________________ Sec. 3.2.9, Zoning Permits (b) Appeal Period refers to a 15-day appeal period that must run before a zoning permit may be released to the applicant. This reference is only partially correct. All administrative zoning permits have a 15-day appeal period. All zoning permits issued per decision of the Development Review Board effectively have a 30-day appeal period (per Sec. 12.2.3). Staff recommends adding language to Sec. 3.2.9 (b) to incorporate the 30-day appeal period for zoning permits associated with Development Review Board decisions. Proposed language is underlined in red. Sec. 3.2.9 Zoning Permits (a) As written. (b) Permit Appeal Period: No zoning permit granted by action of the administrative officer under this ordinance shall be released until a fifteen (15) day appeal period has passed. No zoning permit granted in association with a decision of the Development Review Board shall be released until a thirty (30) day appeal period has passed. In the event pg. 3 of 4 that a notice of appeal pursuant to the requirements of Article 12 is properly filed, such permit shall not be released until the adjudication of said appeal has been finalized or the Superior Court Environmental Division rules on whether to issue a stay per V.S.A. 24 § 4449 (a) (3), whichever comes first. (c) – (f) As written. _________________________________________________________________________ Sec. 3.2.9, Zoning Permits (d) Time Limit on Zoning Permits establishes a 2-year timeframe for zoning permits – 1 year to start the project and a 2nd year to finish it. The 1994 Zoning Ordinance allowed for a 3-year timeframe for most zoning permits – 1 year to start and 2 years to finish. That timeline was deliberately shortened to 2 years with the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Development Ordinance. Committee discussion centered on the preparation time it takes to make a project “shovel ready” for projects of any significant size following approval of a zoning permit. A full year is not uncommon for the preparatory work. A 3rd year would allow two years for construction without need for an extension. Staff recommends modifying the Time Limits language to allow 3 years in most cases. Note that the 1-year limitation associated with work to cure zoning violations under Sec. 3.2.9 (e) remains unchanged. Proposed language is underlined in red and deleted language is crossed out. Sec. 3.2.9 Zoning Permits (a) – (c) As written. (d) Time Limit on Zoning Permits: Notwithstanding (e) and (f) below, a zoning permit shall become invalid unless the work or action authorized commences within one (1) year after the date of final decision. All work or action authorized there under shall be completed, and a Final Zoning Certificate of Occupancy received, within two (2) three (3) years of the date of decision unless a written extension of time not to exceed one (1) year is granted in advance by the administrative officer. Extensions of time for a zoning permit issued in connection with a conditional use or variance shall require approval by the DRB after a public hearing. (e) – (f) As written. _______________________________________________________________________________ Sec. 3.2.9, Zoning Permits (d) Time Limit on Zoning Permits and (e) Time Limit on Zoning Permits: Violations both establish timelines for zoning permits. Both also allow for yearlong time extensions. What is missing is any basis for granting or denying a time extension request and a limit of how many extensions may be granted. In practice, permit extensions have been granted when the present zoning standards continue to allow what was previously approved, and a de facto limit of 3 extensions has been established. Staff recommends codifying this practice with new language under Sec. 3.2.9 (d) and (e). pg. 4 of 4 Proposed language is underlined in red. Sec. 3.2.9 Zoning Permits (a) – (c) As written. (d) Time Limit on Zoning Permits: Notwithstanding (e) and (f) below, a zoning permit shall become invalid unless the work or action authorized commences within one (1) year after the date of final decision. All work or action authorized there under shall be completed, and a Final Zoning Certificate of Occupancy received, within two (2) years of the date of decision unless a written extension of time not to exceed one (1) year is granted in advance by the administrative officer. Extensions of time for a zoning permit issued in connection with a conditional use or variance shall require approval by the DRB after a public hearing. Extensions of time may be granted only when the work or action authorized under the zoning permit remains compliant with the current zoning regulations. Up to three (3) time extensions may be granted. (e) Time Limit on Zoning Permits: Violations: Notwithstanding (f) below, a zoning permit which is issued in connection with a violation of this ordinance shall become invalid unless the work or action authorized is completed, and a Final Zoning Certificate of Occupancy is received, within one (1) year of the date of decision unless an extension of time not to exceed one (1) year is approved in advance after public hearing by the DRB. Extension of time may be granted only when the work or action authorized under the zoning permit remains compliant with the current zoning regulations. Only one (1) time extension may be granted. (f) As written. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-18-06 Article 8 Bike Parking This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to modify bike parking regulations in Article 8, and in Table 8.2.5-1. These changes increase the required ratios of bicycle parking for selected uses to more closely align with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professional (APBP) guidelines, and establish a payment in lieu option for required bike parking. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: The proposed amendment has no direct impact on the goals and policies contained in the Municipal Development Plan regarding safe and affordable housing. However, the amendment expands the required bicycle parking facilities that must be available for residences, ensuring that the appropriate facilities are in place for residents to live in dense and mixed-use neighborhoods in close proximity to employment and commercial destinations, and which may not require or make available vehicle parking. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to ensure that developments provide bicycle access to employment, commercial destinations, and other transportation alternatives, and that the provision of bicycle facilities encourages the use of bicycles to aid the reduction of traffic congestion, influence a modal split, and increase the safety and welfare of residents and visitors. The Transportation Plan contained within the Municipal Development Plan supports biking as a practical alternative to cars for day-to-day transportation; bicycle parking facilities are an essential element to the feasibility of this mode of transportation. Together, these support the Municipal Development Plan’s land use policy to “encourage mixed use development patterns, at a variety of urban densities, which limit the demand for parking and unnecessary automobile trips, and support public transportation.” Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone:(802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, GIS Manager Scott Gustin, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Associate Planner Layne Darfler, Planning Technician Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Gustin DATE: February 13, 2018 RE: Article 8: Bicycle Parking Standards At their January 23, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a revamped bicycle parking amendment. That draft directly addressed recommendations from the PlanBTV: Walk Bike, including changes to specific bike parking standards for various uses in Table 8.2.5-1. Express provision was made for bike parking within the public right-of-way, and a payment in lieu option was included. Greater locational flexibility was provided as to short term parking as well. Following their review, the Planning Commission requested some additional changes including:  Revision of employee-based bike parking standards to a fixed number such as building square footage;  Reference to the appropriate version of the APBP bike parking standards (and provision of those standards for review); and,  Reference to residential uses in Sec. 8.2.9 (b) 4. The bike parking amendment has been revised to address all of the foregoing points, and a copy of the current APBP standards is included for review. In the attached amendment deleted language is crossed out, and proposed language is underlined red. 02.01.18 ARTICLE 8: PARKING PART 1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS As written. PART 2: BICYCLE PARKING Sec. 8.2.1 Intent It is the intent of this subpart to: (a) Ensure the provision of parking spaces that are designed for bicycles and to ensure that bicycle parking needs of new land uses and development are met, while ensuring bicycle parking spaces are designed and located in a consistent manner. Provide bicycle access to employment, commercial destinations, and other transportation alternatives; (b) Provide safe, convenient, and adequate bicycle parking facilities that: 1. Meet the demands of the use of the property; 2. Reduce hazards to pedestrians; 3. Enhance the visual quality of the city; 4. Reduce the adverse impacts associated with the bicycle parking, which includes bicycles parked on parking meters, signs, street trees, etc; and, 5. Encourage the use of bicycles which has the effect of as an alternative to motor vehicle transportation, thereby reducing traffic congestion, influencing modal split, and increasing the safety and welfare of residents and visitors to the city. Sec. 8.2.2 ProvisionsApplicability Bicycle parking requirements as set forth in this subpart shall apply to new development, changes in land use, and changes to a structure that cause an increase or decrease of 25% or greater in gross floor area, seating capacity, or number of dwelling unitsbuilding expansions, or occupancy changes requiring a zoning permit where automobile parking is required pursuant to Part 1 of this Article. Sec. 8.2.3 Existing Structures Any expansion or change of use proposed for an existing structure where four (4) bicycle spaces or less would be required shall be exempt from providing those spaces. Sec. 8.2.4 Joint Use of Bicycle Parking Facilities 02.01.18 Required bicycle parking spaces for two (2) or more adjacent uses or structures may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, provided that such right of joint use and maintenance is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, reciprocal easement, or similar written instrument establishing the joint use, and that the facilities are within 200 feet of the building or parcel housing the use. Sec. 8.2.5 Bicycle Parking Requirements Bicycle parking for all uses and structures in all Parking Districts shall be provided in accordance with Table 8.2.5-1. (a) Where no requirement is designated, and the use is not comparable to any of the listed uses, bicycle parking requirements shall be determined by the DRB upon recommendation of the city’s bicycle and pedestrian planner based upon the capacity of the facility and its associated uses. (b) When the calculation yields a fractional number of required spaces, the number of spaces shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. (c) Where bicycle parking is required, the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces provided at each site shall be two (2) and the maximum shall be fifty (50), not including long term parking. (c)(d) Bicycle parking that meets the requirements for both long term and short term bicycle parking may contribute to the minimum requirement of one type or the other but not both. Table 8.2.5-1 Bicycle Parking Requirements Specific Use Long Term Spaces Short Term Spaces Per Square Feet of Gross Building Area, except as noted otherwise RESIDENTIAL Household Living Multi unit 1 per 4 units2 bedrooms 1 per 10 units Group living Elderly housing 1 per 10 units 1 per 10 units Fraternity, sorority, & dormitory 1 per 4 3 residents 1 per 6 8 residents Temporary lodging Hotel, motel, bed & breakfast, boarding house, campground 1 per 20 rooms/sites 2 per 20 rooms/sites COMMERCIAL Office 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. Medical, dental 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 8,000 sq. ft. Retail sales and service 1 per 2012,000 sq. ft. 1 per 52,000 sq. ft. 02.01.18 Auto, boat, motorcycle related sales, service and retail 1 per 30,000 sq. ft. 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. Restaurants, bars, taverns 1 per 10 employees1,000 sf 6% of occupancy load1 per 500 sf seating space INDUSTRIAL Industrial, manufacturing, production, and warehousing 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5025,000 sq. ft. (at least 2 per public entrance) PERMITTED PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL USES Colleges or Universities Excluding dormitories 1 per 2015,000 sq. ft. 31 per 51,000 sq. ft. Daycare, except home 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. Schools Grades 2-5 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. plus 1 per 10 of student capacity 2 per classroom Grades 6-12 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. plus 1 per 10 of student capacity 4 per classroom Community Services Museums, aquariums, libraries, community centers, municipal buildings, post office 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. 3 1 per 5,0001,500 sq. ft. Medical Center Excluding medical or dental offices 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. Worship, places of 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. 1 per 40 20 seats Recreation, government owned Parks Per DRB review 1 per 10 daily users OTHER Terminal Taxi/Bus/Passenger/ Ferry As determined during Site Plan Review by DRB As determined during Site Plan Review by DRB Parking Pparking lot, garage; public or private 4, or 5% of1 per 20 automobile spaces, whichever is greater(minimum of 6) None1 per 10 automobile spaces (minimum of 6) – to be located within view of entrance Sec. 8.2.6 Limitations 02.01.18 (a) No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased to employees or residents residing at the location at which bicycle parking is required; however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business. (b) Short term bicycle parking may be provided within the public street right-of-way. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way must be approved Provision of bicycle parking within the public right-of-way requires an encumbrance permit issued at the discretion of the City Council with recommendation from by the Ddepartment of Ppublic Wworks. Sec. 8.2.7 Location & Design Standards (a) All bicycle parking facilities shall be installed in accordance with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’department of public works “Bicycle Parking Guidelines.” (Revision 1.0, September 2015). (b) Short term bBicycle parking or a sign leading thereto shall be visible from the main entrance of the structure or facility. (c) Short term bBicycle parking shall be visible, well lit, and as convenient to cyclists as auto parking. (d) Short term bicycle parking may be provided within the interior of a building. In such cases, the bicycle parking must be located such that it is immediately apparent and accessible to the public, such as within the front lobby. Outdoor directional signage shall indicate the availability of such parking indoors. (d)(e) Bicycle parking facilities such as bicycle racks and lockers shall provide sufficient security from theft and damage. They Bicycle racks shall be securely anchored to the ground, shall allow the bicycle wheel and frame to be locked to the facilityrack, and shall be in a location with sufficient lighting and visibility. (e)(f) Bicycle parking facilities shall be visually compatible and of a design standard consistent with their environment and the development standards of Art 6. (f)(g) Required bicycle parking spaces shall be of a sufficient dimension to accommodate a full-sized bicycle, including space for access and maneuvering. (g)(h) Bicycle parking facilities shall be sufficiently separated from motor vehicle parking areas to protect parked bicycles from damage by motor vehicles. (h)(i) The surfacing of bicycle parking facilities shall be designed and maintained to be clear of mud and snow. (j) Bicycle parking racks and lockers shall be anchored securely. Bicycle parking facilities shall be kept in place and maintained for year-round use. (i)(k) Covered bicycle parking facilities are encouraged whenever feasible. (j)(l) Existing bicycle parking may be used to satisfy the requirements of this section provided the rack design is consistent with the Association of Pedestrian 02.01.18 and Bicycle Professionals’ department of public works “Bicycle Parking Guidelines.” Sec. 8.2.8 Payment in Lieu In instances wherein the total requirement for short term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated onsite, the applicant may make a payment to the Department of Public Works to construct short term bicycle parking facilities in the public street right-of- way. The payment shall be sufficient to cover the cost of the bicycle parking equipment (i.e. such as racks), installation, and 5 year estimated maintenance costs. The short term bicycle parking installed in the public right-of-way shall be enough that the minimum requirement for short term bicycle parking is met or as much as may be reasonably accommodated in the public right-of-way as determined by the Department of Public Works, whichever is less. The option to provide an in lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Director of Public Works or their designee and will be based on evidence that short term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated onsite. Alternatively, the applicant may apply for an encumbrance permit to install and maintain the short term bicycle parking within the right-of-way per Sec. 8.2.6 (b). Sec. 8.2.98 Long Term Bicycle Parking (a) Long term bicycle parking shall: 1. Protect bicycles from the weather; 2. Provide secure storage that prevents theft of the bicycle and accessories; and, 3. Be located in a well lit area. (b) Long Term bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: 1. A bicycle storage room; 2. Bicycle lockers, pods, or lids; 3. Lockable bicycle enclosure; or 4. By certifying to the city’s bicycle and pedestrian planner that employees may store their bicycles within their workspace and that residents may store their bicycles within their dwelling unit. (c) When long term parking is required, showers and changing facilities for employees shall be required in accordance with Table 8.2.8-1, except for parking garages, parking lots, and residential units, which are exempt from the requirements of this section. Shower and changing facilities shall be provided onsite or through an agreement for offsite use. 02.01.18 Table 8.2.8-1 Shower and Changing Facilities Required Long Term Spaces Minimum Number of Required Shower and Changing Facilities 1-4 1 5-10 2 11-20 3 21+ 4 plus one for each additional 15 Long Term spaces or part thereof Sec. 8.2.109 Waivers from Bicycle Parking Requirements (a) Requests for reductions to bicycle parking requirements shall be made and documented separately from requests made for reductions in the automobile parking requirements. (b) The requirements of Sec. 8.2.5 may be reduced upon approval of the DRB based upon recommendation of the city’s bicycle and pedestrian planner to the extent that the applicant can demonstrate the regulation is unnecessarily stringent due to: 1. The characteristics of the use, structure, or facility makes the use of bicycles unlikely; 2. The characteristics of the site or area preclude the installation of bicycle parking; and/or, 3. Results from a documented survey of bicycle parking use in similar situations. (c) For reductions granted due to the characteristics of a site or area, applicants must mitigate the loss of bicycle parking through contribution into the capital fund. The amount shall be equal to the cost required for installation of required bicycle parking. PART 3: INSTITUTIONAL PARKING PLANS As written. ARTICLE 13: DEFINITIONS Bicycle Parking, Long Term: Facilities which protect the entire bicycle, its components, and accessories against theft inclement weather, including wind-driven rain. 02.01.18 Bicycle Parking, Short Term: Bicycle racks which permit the locking of the bicycle frame and one wheel to the rack and which support the bicycle in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame, or components