Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/27/2016
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 September 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, S. Quest, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Needle, CCRPC; L. McGinnis, S. Dopp, K. Epstein, C. Frank, 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: The City is holding a leadership workshop on Thursday for all committee chairs and vice chairs. She and Ms. Harrington will attend. Ms. Quest: Saw the new Bayberry Apartments. People are already living there. Ms. Louisos noted they have a nice street presence. There have also been a lot of improvements to Schmanska Park. Mr. Conner: The Airport hosted the first “sound committee” meeting. He attended along with the City Manager and George Maille and Carmine Sargent from CNAPC and 2 City Council members. Various people spoke on what contributes to noise, and a consultant spoke of changes to the noise compatibility plan and possible options for sound mitigation. In one new program, the Airport could work with a homeowner who is interested in staying or the Airport can buy the home and then resell it to a family that wants to move there. There was also information on the current buyout program. The Airport got a grant to make a final set of offers to anyone who wants to sell. This would encompass 39 homes. About 13 of these homes are on the north side of Kirby Road that were not in the previous program. That area is now in the 75db zone which the airport reports automatically puts them in the optional buyout program. This is new information for the city, and there will be a meeting with Airport staff on this next week. 4. Presentation and discussion of energy planning and measuring: a. Renewable energy planning, siting, and Act 174: Ms. Needle explained that CCRPC has a contract to write a regional energy plan to advance the State’s energy and climate goals while being consistent with local and regional needs and concerns. Act 174 became law in 2016. It requires the regional plan to gain a “determination of energy compliance” from the Commissioner of Public Service. CCRPC will be working toward getting a determination of “substantial deference.” A component of the Regional Energy Plan is to map areas that are appropriate for energy installations (this is in response to communities wanting more of a say in the siting of energy projects). Municipalities can develop their own plans, but they are not required to do so. The goals of Vermont’s 2016 Energy plan include: a. Weatherizing 80,000 Vermont homes by 2025 (60,000 by 2017) b. Getting 90% of Vermont’s energy from renewable sources by 2050 c. Reducing total Vermont energy consumption by more than ½ by 2050, 15% by 2025 Ms. Needle noted that the State currently gets 16% of its energy from renewable sources. Mr. Macdonald asked if hydro is included. Ms. Needle said it is part of the 2050 plan. Ms. Needle said the plan includes solar, wind, hydro, bio mass, bio fuels. At this time, however, it’s mostly solar and wind. Ms. Needle said CCRPC is now working with municipalities to find out their restraints. A first draft of Energy Resource Maps will be done in November 2016. A first draft of a Regional Energy Plan will be done in May of 2017 and will be adopted by February of 2018. Ms. Needle then outlined what the plan will discuss, including: a. Establishing quantitative targets for energy use tied to Vermont’s energy goals b. Establishing quantitative targets for energy generation tied to Vermont’s energy goals c. Outlining specific regional strategies for energy generation and conservation d. Future energy demand by energy source. Energy production mapping would include identification of possible solar and wind generation areas. It would also identify important features to protect and would compare the remaining available land suited for energy generation to the amount of renewable energy the district is obligated to produce. Ms. Needle then showed what energy mapping would look like. She noted that the maps don’t take into account all the local regulations. A list of energy production constraints includes such areas as FEMA floodways and other environmental constraints. Ms. Needle shows maps of level 1 and level 2 constraints. Ms. Quest asked about factoring in South Burlington people who are part of a solar array in the southern part of the state. Ms. Needle said they don’t have an answer to that now. A case would have to be made for that. Next steps include asking municipalities for proposed constraints (by November). A draft map must be sent to the Public Service Department by 1 December 2016. Mr. Riehle asked if “creative ideas” would be taken into account. Ms. Needle said that is one strategy to get to the goals (e.g, increasing bike/pedestrian infrastructure). It will be part of this plan. Mr. Conner said there is advocacy for giving consideration to certain actions towns are considering. He asked how they CCRPC will differentiate between level 1 and level 2 constraints. Ms. Needle said in level 1, sitings definitely can’t happen; in level 2, there can be some “scaled down” sitings. Mr. Conner asked if “scale” is taken into account. Ms. Needle said that may be too “fine grain.” Ms. Louisos suggested saying “only certain size” in a particular area. Ms. Dopp asked if conserved lands will be forced into something that wasn’t considered. Ms. Needle said they would fall under a level 2 constraint because there are different types of easements with different allowances. Easements would be respected. Ms. Dopp asked if there would be any financial incentives for businesses and landowners to put in installations. Ms. Needle said they are not getting into the financial aspect. But that is a good question. Mr. Conner noted that it is his understanding that the rate structure for purchase of power generated by renewable energy has or will have incentives for priority areas. Ms. Louisos informed the Commission that she and staff had communicated with the chairs of the energy and natural resources committees to put aside time on their October meetings to review these maps, and asked that they provide feedback to the Commission in mid-October so that the Commission can discuss this input at its second meeting in October. b. Newly released community energy dashboard: Ms. McGinnis explained that the “dashboard” is a tool to help communities make energy more accessible to all Vermonters. It stems from the belief that Vermont’s energy future depends on overall goals at the State level, regional energy plans, actions at the community level and actions of individuals within communities. The biggest priority is to use less energy and to make the remainder 90% renewable. Dashboard provide an online tool to set goals, track progress, map current and future actions, share stories, etc. It is comprised of 7 tools: timeline, statistics, actions, analysis, stories, mapping and resources. South Burlington would have access to all the data, if it wants it (data through 2014 is available now). Ms. McGinnis then explained how to access the data. She also noted that communities can upload their own local energy analyses and help other communities learn about best practices. Ms. McGinnis stressed that this is only a start and is not perfect. She also stressed that they are not trying to sell anything. It is also not a definitive indicator of potential renewable energy sites. Finally, Ms. McGinnis cited the need to determine what is feasible for rooftop solar. 5. Discussion of bicycle end of trip facilities for possible incorporation into the Land Development Regulations: Mr. Epstein of the Energy Committee, cited the “car problem” in the city. He also noted that the city is a leader in rec paths. What is needed is a “bike to work” initiative which would involve a safe place to store bikes, showers, etc. Mr. Epstein noted that Williston and Burlington are leading the way in these “end of trip” facilities. Mr. Conner noted that he spoke with Williston’s Planner who said that all medium size and up projects have to accommodate these types of facilities. He also noted that South Burlington does require a bike rack in all commercial facilities and all residences that are not single family or duplexes. Mr. Riehle asked how this would apply to a mall. Mr. Epstein said that is a good question. Mr. Conner said what is now required is a bike rack per “principal building.” Ms. Louisos felt such facilities should be lighted and should serve multiple entrances to a building. Staff was asked to share the draft with the Bike Ped Committee for their review and also with Local Motion. Mr. Conner said they could put language into the next round of amendments if the Commission wished. Commissioners supported this idea. 6. Consider Potential Scope of Work for Planned Unit Developments Phase II Project: Mr. Conner briefly reviewed the history and showed possibilities being recommended by the consultants. There is a recommendation to prepare a guidebook for developers and the public. Members were OK with what is being recommended. 7. Consider possible FY17 Municipal Planning Grant Application: Mr. Conner said Phase II of the PUD project would be one consideration as would the Scenic View Project. He noted that the city can apply for about $20,000 of the $40,000-$45,000 budget for these projects. Ms. Harrington moved to recommend to the City Council that the city apply for a Municipal Planning Grant for the Phase II PUD project and the Scenic View Project. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 13 September 2016: Mr. Klugo had commented in writing that there should be clarification to read a “one year, 24‐hour storm event.” He also noted that in his comments regarding marketing, the reference should be to “marketing needs.” It was also noted that on p. 4, paragraph 3, Ms. Harrington asked only about the crosswalk. Mr. Riehle asked about speed bumps. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 September 2016 with the above notations. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: There was no other business discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. 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 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: September 27th Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 4. Presentation and discussion of energy planning & measuring a. Renewable energy planning, siting, and Act 174, Melanie Needle, CCRPC (7:15 pm) Melanie Needle from the CCRPC will be attending to discuss regional planning efforts around renewable energy, and how this ties into the new Act 174 regarding local and regional input into Public Service Board reviews of proposals. There will be maps provided at the meeting to review regarding preferred and undesired siting locations. Staff, in coordination with Jessica Louisos, has invited the Energy and Natural Resources Committees to attend. Should the Commission wish to have these committees’ input into any mapping, we have requested that these committees reserve time on their October meeting agendas to provide the Commission with comments. b. Newly-released community energy dashboard, Linda McGinnis, energy committee (7:55 pm) Energy Committee members will be sharing the newly-released Community Energy Dashboard, available now statewide for towns and cities. South Burlington was selected as one of the initial pilot communities to receive assistance. 5. Discussion of bicycle end of trip facilities for possible incorporation into Land Development Regulations, Keith Epstein, Energy Committee (8:20 pm) 2 Keith Epstein, member of the energy committee, had provided a proposal for end-of trip bicycle / pedestrian facilities to be included in the City’s Land Development Regulations. Commissioners earlier this summer asked to have this be placed on an upcoming agenda for discussion. Enclosed is Keith’s recommendation as well as the current regulations in effect in Williston. 6. Consider potential Scope of Work for Planned Unit Development Phase II project (8:40 pm) Enclosed is a PRELIMINARY outline of the Scope of Work for Phase II of the PUD project with Sharon Murray and Mark Kane. Commissioners are invited to share feedback to staff. 7. Consider possible FY ’17 Municipal Planning Grant application (8:50 pm) The annual Municipal Planning Grant application cycle is upon us. Last year the City did not apply, in order to give ourselves a chance to round out current projects. Staff recommends that the city apply for the funds for the PUD project Phase II. The City can apply for up to $20,000, with a $6,000 local match. I successful, this would aid significantly with the funding for this project. 8. Meeting Minutes (8:59 pm) 9. Other Business (9:00 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:00 pm) MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission Members FROM: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission DATE: August 31, 2016 RE: Regional Energy Planning Project Overview This memo is intended to serve as an introduction for planning commissioners to the Regional Energy Plan project being undertaken by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC). CCRPC, as well as other regional planning commissions, are working with the Vermont Department of Public Service to develop Regional Energy Plans for their regions. These regional energy plans are intended to advance the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan’s goals while being consistent with local and regional needs and concerns. The goals of the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, are to: 1. Weatherize 80,000 Vermont homes by 2025 a. Intermediate goal of 60,000 homes by 2017 2. Get 90% of Vermont’s energy from renewable sources by 2050 a. Intermediate goal of 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025, including 10% of transportation energy b. Intermediate goal of 40% of energy from renewable sources by 2035 3. Reduce total Vermont energy consumption by more than 1/3 by 2050 a. Intermediate goal of 15% reduction by 2025 The Chittenden County Regional Energy Plan will be a roadmap for Chittenden County to meet those goals of energy consumption reduction, weatherization of homes and in-region renewable energy production. CCRPC is working with the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) as they develop estimates of how much energy will need to be produced in Chittenden County, predominantly from solar and wind. Act 174, Energy Standards and “Substantial Deference” The Regional Energy Plan must meet standards for energy planning that are currently being developed by the Department of Public Service. Act 174 (signed into law in 2016) states that if a regional or local plan is found to meet these standards, the plan is eligible for a “Determination of Energy Compliance.” If a plan has received a “Determination of Energy Compliance” the plan will be given substantial deference’ in the Public Service Board’s Section 248 process. The following definition of substantial deference has been established in Act 174 for this purpose: “The Board shall give substantial deference to the land conservation measures and specific policies contained in a duly adopted regional and municipal plan…[meaning] that a land conservation measure or specific policy shall be applied in accordance with its terms unless there is a clear and convincing demonstration that other factors affecting the general good of the State outweigh the application of the measure or policy.” Once CCRPC’s Regional Energy Plan has received a Determination of Energy Compliance (around June 2018), we can evaluate municipal plans for compliance with the energy standards and issue Determinations of Energy Compliance. Municipalities who wish to incorporate the energy standards into their plans and seek a Determination of Energy Compliance before the completion of the Regional Energy Plan can seek a Determination of Energy Compliance directly from the Department of Public Service until July 1, 2018. Energy Generation Mapping The Regional Energy Plan must plan for Chittenden County to produce a significant portion of the energy we use by 2050. To plan for this energy production, the Regional Energy Plan will contain maps of the areas within the county that may be appropriate for wind and solar generation. CCRPC staff will be visiting municipal planning commissions over the next month to discuss these maps and local and regional constraints on renewable energy development. If your municipality has an energy committee, please consider inviting them to the meeting. For more information, see the PowerPoint presentation we have tailored for your community. We will also be creating an online map viewer so that you can view the layers of your municipality’s map in detail. We are required to send draft maps to the Department of Public Service on December 1, 2016. After looking at the maps and reading about the mapping process in the PowerPoint above, please contact us if there are areas that you think should be indicated as local constraints to solar and wind generation. CCRPC staff are also available to answer questions or give presentations to planning commissions. Schedule September 2016: Outreach to Planning Commissions; CCRPC Energy Subcommittee first meeting October: Projections of future energy use and production goals completed; Feedback from municipalities on local constraints due November: Regional and Local Energy Standards released by Department of Public Service; first draft of energy production maps created. May 2017: First draft of Regional Energy Plan completed, draft distributed for feedback December: Local and State review of draft plan completed; revisions completed February 2018: Regional Energy Plan adopted by CCRPC June: 2018 Chittenden County ECOS Plan (included adopted Regional Energy Plan) adopted by CCRPC Questions or Feedback? Melanie Needle, Senior Planner mneedle@ccrpcvt.org (802) 846-4490 ext. *27 Emily Nosse-Leirer, Planner enosse-leirer@ccrpcvt.org (802) 84604490 ext. *15 THE COMMUNITY ENERGY DASHBOARD IS ABOUT SHAPING YOUR COMMUNITY'S ENERGY FUTURE...SUSTAINABLY. The State of Vermont has a bold goal: to meet 90% of its energy needs through increased efficiency and renewable sources by 2050. The Community Energy Dashboard helps your community shape its energy future at the local level with a powerful suite of interactive tools to set goals, track progress, map actions, share stories, and hear from trusted neighbors. The Dashboard helps translate Vermont's goal of 90% by 2050 into achievable local action across all energy sectors - efficiency, heat, electricity and transportation. WHY WAS THE DASHBOARD DEVELOPED? There is no greater challenge - or opportunity - for Vermont than to change the way we use and produce energy. By making smart energy investments, we can save money, build our energy independence, create jobs and reduce our carbon footprint to help preserve the beautiful landscape in which we live. Communities across Vermont are asking for concrete ways to make clean energy and efficiency choices at the local level and accelerate action by learning from each other. WHAT DOES THE DASHBOARD DO? SEVEN TOOLS: • Timeline: Track your community's progress towards meeting 90% of local energy needs through efficiency and renewables by 2050. • Actions: Add your individual, business, municipal, school and farm actions through fun tiles and watch collective impact build in your community. • Analysis: Keep track of and share your key local energy data and analyses. Reach a broader audience and help other towns avoid reinventing the wheel. • Stories: Learn from your neighbors and inspire others to action. • Energy Atlas: Map your town's existing renewable energy and efficiency sites, identify new potential sites based on environmental resources and constraints. • Statistics: Track local renewable energy sites and production data, see how you rank against other towns, crowdsource data on efficiency projects. • Resources: Links to important resources, energy information and partners to help towns accelerate their progress towards a sustainable energy future! HOW CAN YOU USE THE DASHBOARD? You can start immediately by exploring the site yourself. Or, if you prefer a step-by-step guide through each of the Dashboard tools, just click here to download: How to Use the Dashboard WHO DEVELOPED THE DASHBOARD? The Dashboard was created by the Energy Action Network (EAN) and the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund (VSJF) together with partners from the Vermont Efficiency Investment Corporation (VEIC), the Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network (VECAN - VNRC), the Department of Public Service (DPS), Green Mountain Power (GMP), and Efficiency Vermont. We would like to thank our generous funders: VLITE, the US Department of Energy, and the Vermont PSD. WHAT IS EAN? Energy Action Network (EAN) is a diverse group of businesses, nonprofits, public agencies, educators and other high-level stakeholders across Vermont seeking to advance the state's transition to a sustainable energy future through efficiency and renewables. Our mission is to end Vermont's reliance on fossil fuels and to create clean, affordable and secure electric, heating and transportations systems for the 21st century. Our goal is to help our state meet 90% of its energy needs through renewable energy and increased efficiency by 2050. This goal is consistent with the Vermont's 2016 Comprehensive Energy Plan How does this tool help your community? A key feature of the Dashboard is an interactive timeline that shows progress toward local energy and efficiency goals. Communities can utilize pre-loaded data or customize their Dashboard to track progress in helping Vermont reach its goal of 90% renewables by 2050. Communities can add stories, actions, and analyses to share successes and strategies with each other. What is the Community Energy Dashboard? A powerful website to help your community understand energy at the local level: where you are now, where you need to go, and how you can get there. The Dashboard provides interactive tools to inform, map, educate, and engage your community to help Vermont reach its energy goals across all energy sectors — efficiency, electric, heat, and transportation. * take action on behalf of your community - motivate, inspire! track and analyze progress over time - show impact! *The Dashboard was created by the Energy Action Network (EAN), Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, and Vermont Energy Investment Corporation with funding from VLITE, U.S. Department of Energy, and Vermont Public Service Department. take action! For more information, contact Energy Action Network at dashboard@eanvt.org. What is the Energy Atlas? The Energy Atlas is your tool to identify, analyze, map and visualize existing and promising locations for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Just select your community or area of interest and an energy option—solar, wind, hydro, heat pumps, biomass and efficiency—to generate your map. Where does the data come from? Atlas data comes from the Vermont Public Service Department, Vermont Center for Geographic Information, Agency of Natural Resources, Renewable Energy Vermont, and you! How does your community show progress? Action tiles are an easy and fun way for individuals, businesses, schools, town planners and others to track collective impact. Just check off your action or create your own, and watch the tiles stack up for your community. You can also access renewable energy installation statistics for your community and add community energy analyses. Inform: Collect data, analyses, and resources to prepare your Town Energy Plan. Map: Map existing and possible renewable energy sites and keep track of local projects. Educate: Learn more about renewable energy and efficiency actions for your community. Engage: Share your town’s energy stories and actions, and learn from other communities. take action! see your community’s collective actions! Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Amended: 8/18/2015 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 1 Chapter 14 Off-Street Parking and Loading This chapter sets standards for off-street parking and loading. Its intent, consistent with Policy 4.2.4 and other guidance from the Town Plan, is to minimize the area devoted to surface parking while still ensuring that there is a reasonable supply of parking, including spaces that can be safely used by those whose mobility or vision is impaired. Minimizing the area devoted to surface parking will: protect watershed health, which may be adversely impacted by accelerated runoff from new impervious surfaces; conserve energy and make outdoor spaces more useable by moderating microclimatic extremes on intensively developed sites; and make it more pleasant to walk or cycle in Williston by contributing to streetscapes that are both comfortable and lively. It is also specifically the intent of these standards to encourage shared parking arrangements, the use of parking structures, and the use of porous pavements. 14.1 Applicability 14.1.1 Do these standards apply to all development? Yes. The standards adopted in this chapter apply to all development for which a permit is required by this bylaw. Existing and proposed parking and loading areas must be clearly shown on the plans submitted with any application for a permit. 14.1.2 Do other requirements of this bylaw apply to off-street parking and loading areas? Yes. Off-street parking and loading areas must comply with all relevant standards of this bylaw. Some particularly relevant standards are cited below. 14.1.2.1 Drainage/Stormwater. Chapter 29 of this bylaw sets standards for stormwater management that apply to off-street parking and loading areas. 14.1.2.2 Landscaping. See Chapter 23 and specifically WDB 23.5 for the landscaping requirements that apply to off-street parking and loading areas. 14.1.2.3 Snow Removal/Storage. WDB 16.6 sets standards for snow removal and storage that apply to off-street parking and loading areas. 14.2 Off-Street Parking Requirements 14.2.1 How many off-street parking spaces are permitted for a given use? Table 14.A establishes the number of off-street vehicle (Column A) and bicycle (Columns B and C) parking spaces that are required for typical land uses. For uses that are not listed in the table, see WDB 14.2.3. The minimum number of accessible off-street vehicle parking spaces required is given by Table 14.B. It is important to understand that the numbers in Column A of Table 14.A are both minimums (you Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Amended: 8/18/2015 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 2 must provide at least this many vehicle parking spaces) and maximums (you may not provide more vehicle parking spaces). The required number of off-street parking spaces may be changed only on the basis of a shared parking analysis (see WDB 14.2.2) or as provided by WDB 14.2.4 or 14.2.5. 14.2.2 Can parking be shared by uses that have different peak hours of operation? Yes. In fact, this may be required. Retail, office, institutional and entertainment uses are expected to share off- street parking spaces wherever possible. 14.2.2.1 Calculations. The DRB may, when reviewing a pre-application, require that shared parking calculations be made for any development that includes uses with potentially different peak periods of parking demand. Shared parking analyses may also be voluntarily submitted by adjoining land owners. In either case, the analysis shall be conducted using the shared parking methodology published by the Urban Land Institute. 14.2.2.2 Distance To. Shared off-street parking spaces shall be no more than 600 feet from a main entrance for customer parking and no more than 1000 feet from an employee entrance for employee parking. 14.2.2.3 Easement. Shared parking arrangements run with the land and must be honored by successors in interest. Failure to do so will be a violation of this bylaw, subject to enforcement as provided by WDB 7.4-7.6. Where different owners are involved in a shared parking arrangement, a draft easement providing for shared parking, including the number and location of the proposed shared spaces, must be submitted for review with the application for a discretionary permit. The signed easement, which must also specifically indicate how the costs of maintenance of the shared parking spaces will be shared, must be submitted with the final plans and recorded before a certificate of compliance may be issued, as provided by WDB 7.3. 14.2.2.4 Accessible Spaces. Given the need for proximity to the use served, the accessible parking spaces required by Table 14.B may not be shared. 14.2.3 What if a use is not listed in Table 14.A? The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be determined by the Administrator based on the similarity of the proposed use to one or more uses listed in Table 14.A and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Parking Generation. The Administrator’s determination of how many spaces will be permitted is subject to appeal using the procedure for the appeal administrative permits provided by WDB 5.4 of this bylaw. Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Amended: 8/18/2015 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 3 DRAFT Table 14.A - Minimum/Maximum Off-Street Parking Permitted - Minimum Bicycle Parking Permitted Column A Column B Column C Off-Street Motor Total Bicycle Long Term Bicycle Vehicle Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Land Use per 1000 SF gross floor area, unless otherwise specified Industrial Uses 1.00 5% of vehicular 75% of required spaces Industrial uses are very diverse. Use 1.00 spaces per 1000 SF GFA as a starting point. The actual requirement will be set by the Administrator or DRB. Residential Uses One and Two Family Dwellings 2.00 per dwelling none none Accessory Dwellings Two reserved spaces: See WDB 17.1.23.1.3.5 Multiple-Family Dwellings 1.75 per unit 10% of vehicular 1 per 4 units Senior Housing (independent living) 1.00 per dwelling 5% of vehicular 1 per 8 units Senior Housing (assisted living) 0.35 per dwelling 5% of vehicular 75% of required spaces Lodging Uses 1.00 per room 7% of vehicular 50% of required spaces Conference space and restaurants should be accounted for separately. Recreational Uses Health Club 5.00 10% of vehicular 50% of required spaces Other Recreational Uses Too diverse to list. Will require individual analysis Theaters, Places of Assembly .25 per seat 7% of vehicular none Includes churches, live and movie theaters, and similar gathering places. Associated offices and other spaces should be accounted for separately. Church schools should be accounted for separately. NOTE: The DRB may permit an exception to the bicycle parking requirements as provided by WDB 14.8.5 Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Amended: 8/18/2015 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 4 Table 14.A, cont. Off-Street Motor Total Bicycle Long Term Bicycle Vehicle Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Land Use per 1000 SF gross floor area, unless otherwise specified Educational and Health Care Uses Child Care Centers, Pre-School .35 per student 10% of vehicular 75% of required spaces Schools, K-8 .35 per student 30% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Schools, 9-12 .35 per student 30% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Community Colleges .35 per student 30% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Libraries 4.25 30% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Hospitals, Clinics, Medical Offices 5.00 7% of vehicular 75% of required spaces Nursing Homes 1.50 5% of vehicular 75% of required spaces Veterinary Clinics 2.00 5% of vehicular 75% of required spaces Office Uses Office Building 3.50 7% of vehicular 50% of required spaces Offices w/ High Turnover 5.00 10% of vehicular 50% of required spaces Retail Uses Convenience Stores 4.00 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Supermarket/Groceries 5.00 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Drugs 2.50 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Bulky Retail (furniture, lawn and garden) 3.00 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces General Retail, Shopping Centers 4.00 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Services Banks 4.75 7% of vehicular 50% of required spaces Quality Restaurant 20.00 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Fast Food Restaurant (no drive-through) 15.00 7% of vehicular 20% of required spaces Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Effective: 6/22/2009 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 5 14.2.4 How could I increase the number of permitted off-street parking spaces? 14.2.4.1 Build a Parking Structure. Consistent with Policy 3.3.4 of the Town Plan (which says this bylaw should include an incentive for structured parking) developments may increase the number of permitted off-street parking spaces by 25% by providing a multilevel parking structure. This incentive is available only where at least 30% of the off-street parking spaces required by Table 14.A are in the structure/s. All of the additional parking spaces permitted must be in the structure/s. Note also that there is a building height incentive for the provision of structured parking in the MUCZD, MURZD and TCZD. 14.2.4.2 Use Porous Pavement. Developments may increase the number of permitted off- street parking spaces by 15% by using porous pavement for a majority of all vehicular parking spaces required by Column A of Table 14.A. Porous pavement specifications must be approved by the Administrator, with the advice of the DPW. 14.2.4.3 Provide Spaces for Alternate Fuel Vehicles and Carpools. Off-street parking spaces that are dedicated to vehicles that operate primarily on alternative fuels (electric, hydrogen, natural gas, biodiesel) or that are dedicated to vehicles participating in a carpooling program shall not be counted towards the total number of off-street parking spaces required by Table 14.A. These spaces – which must not make up more than five percent (5%) of the total number of off-street parking spaces required - must be clearly identified with a placard reserving their use for vehicles that operate primarily on alternative fuels or that are participating in a carpooling program. 14.2.5 How could I decrease the number of off-street parking spaces required by Table 14.A? Proposed reductions in the required number of off-street parking spaces must be approved by the DRB. They are not automatic. 14.2.5.1 Be Close to Public Transit. The DRB may permit a development that is within a 10- minute walk of a bus stop to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces by as much as 20%, but only where the major employer/s in the proposed development commit to active participation in the Chittenden County Transit Authority’s discount bus pass program. 14.2.5.2 Have On-Street Parking. The DRB may permit a one-to-one (on-street for off- street) reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces for on-street parking that is available within 600 feet of a main entrance of the proposed development. This reduction of the number of off-street parking spaces may not, however, reduce the number of off-street parking spaces to less than two per dwelling. 14.2.5.3 Shared Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces required for a particular use may be reduced by a shared parking study required by WDB 14.2.2. 14.2.6 Can I reduce the area used for parking by using smaller spaces for compact cars? Yes. The DRB may permit compact car spaces (see Table 14.C for the dimensions) to comprise as many as 25% of the off-street parking spaces required by Table 14.A. These spaces shall be clearly identified by a sign and/or pavement marking that says “Compact Car Only.” Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Effective: 6/22/2009 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 6 14.2.7 Where must off-street parking spaces be located? 14.2.7.1 Ownership. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot or parcel and under the same ownership as the use they serve, except where a shared parking arrangement is required or permitted by WDB 14.2.2. 14.2.7.2 Distance: Nonresidential. The off-street parking spaces serving nonresidential developments must be within 600 feet of a main entrance for uses requiring customer parking and within 1,000 feet of an employee entrance for employee parking. 14.2.7.3 Distance: Residential. The off-street parking space/s serving a dwelling must be within 100 feet of the principal entrance to that dwelling. The DRB may allow a longer distance between parking and a dwelling in mixed-use developments. 14.3 Accessible Parking. Note that these requirements are more demanding in some ways than those of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 14.3.1 What is the minimum required number of accessible off-street parking spaces? See Table 14.B. 14.3.2 Don’t some uses need more or fewer accessible off-street parking spaces? The DRB may find that a development needs more or fewer accessible off-street parking spaces than are required by Table 14.B and modify the requirements of that table accordingly. The DRB’s action must still be consistent with the ADA. Examples of developments for which a modification may be appropriate include: Table 14.B – Required Number of Accessible Off-Street Parking Spaces Total Number of Spaces Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 1-15 1 16-30 2 31-45 3 46-60 4 61-75 5 76-100 6 greater than 100 spaces 6+ 4% of the spaces greater than 100 rounded to the nearest whole number 14.3.2.1 Hospitals and Medical Offices: at least 10% of the off-street parking spaces serving visitors and patients must be accessible. Specialty medical offices serving persons with mobility impairments may need as many as 20% accessible spaces. 14.3.2.2 Developments with Valet Parking: No accessible off-street spaces are required in parking areas used for valet parking. An accessible passenger loading zone is required. Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Effective: 6/22/2009 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 7 14.3.2.3 Industrial Uses. Industrial uses may be permitted to meet the ADA standards – which are somewhat lower - for the required numbers of accessible off-street parking spaces. 14.3.3 Where should accessible off-street parking spaces be located? Accessible off-street parking spaces and the routes between those spaces and the buildings or other destinations they serve must be clearly identified on the plans submitted with applications for permits. 14.3.3.1 Location of Accessible Routes. There must be a clearly marked accessible route that meets all ADA standards between the accessible off-street parking space required by Table 14.B and an accessible building entrance or other destination. Where a development has multiple accessible entrances or destinations, the required accessible off-street parking spaces should be dispersed and located near each accessible entrance. 14.3.3.2 Design of Accessible Routes. Accessible routes must be as short as reasonably possible, safe and convenient for people with mobility and visual impairments. Accessible routes should not cross aisles, driveways, or any other part of the vehicular circulation system on the site. The DRB may, however, permit an exception to this standard where physical constraints like difficult terrain or existing development make compliance infeasible. 14.4 Dimensional Standards 14.4.2 What are the minimum required dimensions for accessible off-street parking spaces and the associated aisles? Accessible off-street parking spaces must be designed to accommodate vans. They shall be at least nine feet (9’) wide with an adjacent aisle at least eight feet (8’) wide. A sidewalk may be used as an access aisle for end spaces. 14.4.1 What are the minimum required dimensions of off-street parking spaces? The dimensional standards for off-street parking spaces appear in Table 14.C.Table 14.C - Minimum Parking Space Dimensions Angle of Parking Space Width of Space Length of Space Width of Angled Space Length of Angled Space Minimum Back-Up Length STANDARD SPACES Parallel Parking 9.0’ 22.0’ - - - 45° Angle 9.0’ 20.0’ 12.7’ 20.5’ 15.0’ 60° Angle 9.0’ 20.0’ 10.4’ 21.8’ 18.0’ 90° Angle 9.0’ 20.0’ 9.0’ 20.0’ 24.0’ Minimum aisle width (one-way) 10’ Minimum aisle width (two-way) 20’ COMPACT SPACES Parallel Parking 8.0’ 20.0’ - - - 45° Angle 8.0’ 18.0’ 11.2’ 18.3’ 13.0’ 60° Angle 8.0’ 18.0’ 9.2’ 14.8’ 15.0’ 90° Angle 8.0’ 18.0’ 8.0’ 18.0’ 20.0’ Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Effective: 6/22/2009 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 8 14.4.2.1 Shared Aisles. Accessible off-street parking spaces may share an access aisle by using front-in and back-in parking. 14.4.2.2 Obstructions. Planters, curbs, wheel stops, and similar installations, including cars overhanging a sidewalk, must not obstruct accessible routes. There shall be no snow storage along accessible routes. 14.4.2.3 Grade. The aisle serving an accessible off-street parking space must be level with that space, with a grade that does not exceed 1:50 (2%) in any direction. 14.4.2.4 Curb Ramps. Curb ramps must be located outside the aisle and parking space. To put it another way, accessible parking spaces and the adjacent aisles must be level and on the same grade. Grade changes (ramps) must be built into the adjacent sidewalk. 14.4.2.5 Signs/Pavement Markings. Accessible off-street parking spaces must be marked by a sign showing the standard symbol of accessibility. This sign must be affixed to a post or a building where it will be clearly visible from a vehicle searching for accessible parking spaces. Aisles must be marked with contrasting stripes or hatching on the pavement. 14.5 Off-Street Loading 14.5.1 Where are off-street passenger loading areas required? Off-street passenger loading areas shall be provided as explained below. 14.5.1.1 Institutional and Entertainment Uses. Day care centers, theaters, schools, and other places for public assembly must provide at least one safe off-street passenger loading area. The DRB may require additional off-street loading passenger loading areas for institutional and entertainment uses that have more than one principal entrance. 14.5.1.2 Other Uses. The DRB may require that any other use which adjoins an arterial or collector road provide a safe, off-street passenger loading area. 14.5.2 Where are off-street freight loading areas required? Safe off-street freight loading areas must be provided for commercial and industrial development buildings that include more than 10,000 SF GFA. At least one off-street freight loading area of at least 600 square feet shall be provided, along with one additional off-street freight loading area for each additional 20,000 square feet of GFA. 14.6 Access to Off-Street Parking and Loading Areas. Chapter 13 of this bylaw establishes standards for all points of access, including those to parking and loading areas. 14.7 Circulation within Off-Street Parking Areas. The pattern of circulation in off-street parking areas shall provide safe and efficient access to individual parking spaces, protect pedestrians moving through the parking area, and facilitate safe access to adjoining roads. 14.7.1 Are there minimum aisle widths for parking areas? Yes. The minimum aisle widths are included in Table 14.C, which also provides dimensional standards for parking spaces. Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Effective: 6/22/2009 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 9 14.7.2 Must directional signs and/or pavement markings be provided in parking areas? Yes. Directional signs and pavement markings shall be used to guide traffic through parking areas and structures. 14.7.3 How must pedestrian access around, through, and to parking areas be provided? 14.7.3.1 Around. There shall be safe pedestrian access in the form of sidewalks around all parking and loading areas. The DRB may permit the use of a recreation path or other pedestrian way as an alternative to a sidewalk. 14.7.3.2 To. Accessible routes must be provided from parking areas to the building/s of other destinations they serve. WDB 14.3 provides standards for accessible routes. 14.7.3.3 Through. The DRB will require that safe pedestrian access be provided through large parking areas. 14.8 Bicycle Parking. Proposed bicycle parking must be shown on the plans submitted with an application for a permit. 14.8.1 How many bicycle parking spaces are required? Columns B and C of Table 14.A give the minimum number of required total and long term bicycle parking spaces for typical uses. There is no maximum. Column B provides the basis for calculating the total number of bicycle parking spaces that will be required. To express it as a formula: Total Required Bicycle Parking Spaces = Total Vehicular Parking Spaces Required (based on Column A) X the Percentage from Column B. For example, a 40,000 SF industrial building will require 40 vehicular parking spaces (Column A requires 1 per 1,000 GFA) and 2 bicycle parking spaces (Column B requires 5% of the vehicular total). 14.8.2 What is a short-term bicycle parking space? A short term bicycle parking space is a space in a bicycle rack that is large enough to accommodate a bicycle (approximately two by six feet), permits the locking of the bicycle frame and one wheel to the rack, and supports the bicycle in a stable position without damage. The number of short-term bicycle parking spaces that is required is calculated by subtracting the number of long term bicycle parking space required by Column C of Table 14.A from the total calculated using Column B. To express it as a formula: Required Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces = Total Required Bicycle Parking Spaces – Required Long-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces from Column C For example, a 100,000 SF GFA retail building needs 400 vehicular parking spaces (Column A requires 1 per 1,000 SF GFA), 28 total parking bicycle parking spaces, 6 long-term bicycle parking spaces (Column C says that 20% of all bicycle parking spaces must be long-term), and 22 short-term bicycle parking spaces. 14.8.3 Are there design standards for short-term bicycle parking? Yes. Short term bicycle parking must be as visible, as well lit, and as convenient for cyclists as the vehicular parking on the site is for drivers. Adopted by the Selectboard: 6/1/2009 Effective: 6/22/2009 Williston Unified Development Bylaw P a g e 14- | 10 14.8.3.1 Visibility. Short-term bicycle parking or a directional sign leading to it shall be visible from the principal entrance of the building it serves. Short term bicycle parking serving buildings with multiple entrances shall be dispersed so that it serves every principal entrance. Short term bicycle parking will ideally be within 50 feet of the building entrance. 14.8.3.2 Security. Bicycle racks shall be securely anchored to the ground, allow the bicycle wheel and frame to be locked to the rack with a U-lock, and be in a well-lit, highly visible location. 14.8.3.3 Paving. Short-term bicycle parking shall be on a paved surface. 14.8.4 What is a long-term bicycle parking space? A long-term bicycle parking space provides secure storage in a bicycle locker or a bicycle storage room or enclosure. These facilities must protect the entire bicycle, including its components and accessories against theft and the weather. They must also include a clothes storage locker that has a minimum size of 12” wide, 18” deep, and 36” high. Lockers do not need to be in the same location as the long term bicycle parking space. The required number of long-term bicycle parking spaces is given as a percent of the required number of total bicycle parking spaces and is listed in Column C of Table 17.A. 14.8.5 Can the number of required bicycle parking spaces be reduced? The DRB may reduce the bicycle parking requirements adopted in this chapter where the location and/or nature of the proposed development make the use of bicycles highly unlikely. 14.9 End-of-Trip Facilities 14.9.1 Why are end-of-trip facilities required? End-of-trip facilities are an important element in long range strategies to reduce energy consumption and dependence on nonrenewable energy resources. Few people can ride a bicycle even a modest distance to work if there is not a place to shower and change. 14.9.2 What end-of-trip facilities are required for developments? End-of-trip facilities include showers and a changing area. Facilities must be provided on-site or via an agreement with a nearby (within 600 feet) use. Table 14.D outlines the minimum number of required end-of-trip facilities based on the number of long-term bicycle parking spaces required. Table 14.D - Shower and Changing Facilities Required Long Term Bike Parking Spaces Minimum Number of Required Shower and Changing Facilities 1-3 1 4-18 1 per gender 17-30 2 per gender 30+ 3 per gender South Burlington PUD Project: Phase II Budget Estimate Draft: 9/23/2016 Proposed Scope of Work, Budget Task Description 1 LDR Technical Review‐‐"Housekeeping" Amendments Work with staff to identify, review potential LDR housekeeping edits Deliverable: Memo to PC 2 Outline: Bylaw Amendments (Articles, Sections) Prepare working outline of PUD, Master Plan bylaw amendments under LDRs (for selected types) Deliverable: Outline for Staff/PC Review 3 Initial Draft: PUD, FBC, Master Plan Bylaw Amendments (Sections) Prepare draft bylaw language (by article, section) for selected PUD types, FBC, master plans and illustrative graphics Deliverable: Draft Bylaw Language, Graphics for PC consideration 4 Final Draft: PUD, FBC, Master Plan Bylaw Amendments/Graphics Incorporate Staff/PC edits, following public presentation Prepare/edit graphics Deliverable: Hearing Draft of Final Bylaw Language, Graphics 5 PUD Guide [Optional, Recommended] Prepare Illustrated PUD Guide/Handbook outlining process, design guidelines for selected types, associated graphics‐‐for DRB, developers 6 Project Coordination Project Meetings (staff, consultants; monthly): 12 PC Meetings/Work Sessions (monthly): 12 Developer, Property Owner meetings (arranged w/staff): 10 Public Presentation: Draft Bylaw Amendments Planning Commission Hearing: Draft Bylaw Amendments Preliminary estimate, for purposes of project budgeting; subject to further review, ne Front Porch Community Planning & Design ________________________________________________________________________ [Oct‐Dec] [Oct‐Jun] [May] [Oct] [Nov‐Apr] [Apr‐Jun] SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 SEPTEMBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 September 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; S. Dopp, J. Dempsey, T. McKenzie, L. Ravin, C. Snyder, R. Neuer, L. Bresee, D. Leban 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Harrington: Noted that the city will be holding meetings on the upcoming TIF vote. Informational meetings will be held at the Community Library on 26 September and 26 October, and there will be informational items on upcoming City Council agendas. Mr. Conner: Staff is working on the scenic views project. Attended a forum on the new solar siting criteria. Communities must meet certain standards in order to have a voice in the siting process. The Public Service Board will have a hand in establishing those standards. Mr. Conner added that he was told the letter sent by the Planning Commission, Energy Committee, and City Council was a key piece in getting this going. There was a meeting last week with small groups of property owners on Williston Road regarding the future of the road and a possible parallel road to the north. They also discussed what could facilitate good development blocks in conjunction with Form Based Code. Mr. Riehle: Asked about the pink stakes on a part of Williston Road. Mr. Rabidoux said the state will be repaving that stretch of road. There will be bike lanes as part of that restriping. 2 Ms. Dopp asked if CCRPC will be coming to the city regarding solar siting. Mr. Conner said this will be on the next Planning Commission agenda (September 27th). Other city committees have been invited to attend that meeting. 4. Reorganization: a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair, Clerk b. Set regular meeting dates and time Mr. Conner presided over the election of officers. He opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Riehle nominated a slate of: Ms. Louisos as Chair, Ms. Harrington as Vice Chair, and Mr. Gagnon as Clerk. There were no further nominations, and the proposed slate of officers was elected 4-0 with Ms. Louisos and Ms. Harrington abstaining. Ms. Louisos presided over the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Harrington moved to set Planning Commission meetings for the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. at South Burlington City Hall. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Presentation of preferred alternatives of scoping of four bike/ped projects; Dorset Street, Allen Road, Airport Parkway, Spear Street/jughandle: Mr. Dempsey reviewed the history, noting that the purpose is to identify all biking alternatives and to identify a preferred alternative for each project based on maximum safety for all users and support of future walking and bike connections in the city. The project also provided an opinion of probably construction costs to serve as a basis for grant applications. Mr. Rabidoux said the city will be applying for one project at a time. He then reviewed the options and preferred alternatives for each project as follows: a. Allen Road: Of the 2 alternatives shown, the preferred alternative is #1, which is outside of the existing right-of-way. There is an estimated cost of $10,000 per parcel for acquisition of land. There is a 35 mph speed limit on the road. 3 b. Dorset Street: The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Only one alternative was considered viable to fill in the missing gap within the right-of-way. A short section will require a retaining wall. On a photo of the area, Mr. Rabidoux indicated some access management issues with driveways and showed the location of a striped crosswalk and the retaining wall. c. Airport Parkway: The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The road is wide enough for striped bike lanes. There would be a different treatment at intersection with Ethan Allen Road and Shamrock Road. Option 1 would be a modified roundabout. Option 2 would be a T-intersection approach with stop control devices. Alternative #1 is preferred. It would include a sidewalk on the Airport side, striped bike lanes all the way, and connection of some existing pieces of sidewalk. d. Spear Street: The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Three alternatives were considered. #1 included a 6-foot sidewalk on the east side and a shared use path from U.S. Route 2 to the UVM campus. Option #2 would have a 6-foot sidewalk with a 7-foot buffer, and a 10-foot shared use path to UVM. Option #3 would have an 8-11-foot shared use path on the west side on U.S. Route 2 to the South Burlington rec path. A wall would be needed in one area. Ms. Quest noted neighbors don’t like options #1 and #2. Mr. Dempsey showed a photo of Option #2, which would be a short-term alternative, and indicated the connection to the existing path. This is the preferred option from a safety point of view. Ms. Quest asked about the time-line. Mr. Rabidoux said if Spear Street were to be the first project, an application would be submitted within 6 months. It would then take several years before the project would be on the ground. However, if the city did its own project, it could be faster. Ms. Quest asked if UVM would chip on for the cost. Ms. Ravin of UVM said they don’t have the funding for this. Mr. Rabidoux then outlined the estimated costs for each of the projects as follows: Allen Road - $310,000 Dorset Street - $610,000 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road - $2,600,000 Spear Street - $490,000 4 Mr. Bresee asked about wetland issues. Mr. Rabidoux said they have identified all the “red flags.” Mr. Bresee asked if Allen Road will meet grade requirements, noting that they can’t get funding if the standards aren’t met. Mr. Klugo asked what the cost difference would be if the city did the work. Mr. Rabidoux said probably less than half. Mr. Klugo said that would get projects done faster and reduce the risk to pedestrians. Ms. Harrington asked about the possibility of a “speed bump” on Hinesburg Road at Hayes Ave. She noted that people don’t stop for pedestrians, even with the flashing yellow lights. Mr. Rabidoux said the city keeps asking the state for a crosswalk at Hayes Avenue, and they are continually turned down as the warrants aren’t met. Mr. Klugo asked if the flashing light could be red instead of yellow. Mr. Rabidoux said it can’t because it is a federal thing. Mr. Conner noted that residents near Dorset Street came into the office regarding safety concerns. He will forward these to Mr. Rabidoux. Mr. Conner also noted that as a result of recommendations from the Chamberlin-Airport Committee, there are new bike lands and pedestrian crosswalks. Mr. Rabidoux asked the Commission for support of the preferred alternatives in order to demonstrate community support in the grant process. Mr. Klugo moved to accept the preferred alternative for each of the four projects as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Riehle felt the Spear Street proposal costs should be shared with UVM as this project concerns the safety of UVM students. 6. Commission items: Discuss elements of City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Klugo said this discussion arose from prompting by people at South Burlington Realty regarding implementation of Form Based Code (FBC) in City Center. Discussions have focused on frontage and adequate parking concerns. Mr. Klugo then showed a sketch done by Tim McKenzie of one way to build out City Center. He noted that with FBC there is not as much parking provided as with other standards. Mr. Klugo said what he began to understand is that this is a question of transition from a “suburban” to 5 an “urban” environment and that developers are being asked to build 85% of a block at one time. He showed a concept of a 160,000 sq. ft. building which would not leave room for enough parking, and there would not yet be a parking garage because there wasn’t the development to support it…kind of a “chicken and the egg” situation. He said if you build to the required 85%, there is no room for parking, stormwater, and open space. Mr. Klugo summed up the challenge as how to get high-quality development with adequate parking, marketing capability, and management of the TIF clock. Mr. McKenzie said the secondary street frontage forces them to use land less efficiently as they are “going out, not up.” Mr. Klugo then showed a concept that could meet both the city’s and the developer’s needs. It included a 5-story building with the lot next door as a walled parking lot, usable until such time as there is a parking garage. At that time, the “parking lot” could be built on. Mr. Riehle felt that makes a lot of sense. Mr. McKenzie stressed that they are as incentivized as the city is to maximize development. Mr. Snyder said he felt the intent of the FBC can be accomplished; however, in the current format it is not financeable because of inadequate parking. Mr. Klugo stressed that City Center is a public/private partnership, and the city may have to accommodate something in the short term to get what it wants in the long term. He felt there is an opportunity to be broader in thinking and come up with something that will work for everyone. Ms. Harrington said it would help to have diagrams with figures to get beyond the “conceptual.” Mr. McKenzie said he will provide them. Mr. Snyder said he has a building read to go, but there is a problem with the secondary street code (located on Market Street where Mary Street comes in). He cited the irony that the best and worst for FBC is that it allows no modifications. Mr. Klugo said the city wants more than just an “efficient” building. 6 Ms. Leban said she likes the parking phasing idea with buildout over time. She also noted that green rooftops can be used to address stormwater concerns. Mr. Klugo noted that the City of Burlington is now requiring new roofs to hold a 24-hour storm event. Ms. Louisos said the Commission really wants City Center to work. This is more of a phasing issue than a conceptual issue. 7. Discuss Capital Improvement Plan additions/deletions for 2018-2027: Mr. Conner explained the nature of the Capital Improvement Plan and how it is updated. The Commission will see a draft for the coming year in November. He noted that additions to the Plan include replacement of the O’Brien Building at JC Park and a pedestrian crossing of Williston Road between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. He also noted that the Planning Commission can recommend additional projects. 8. Initial Discussion of Potential Shelburne Road Zoning Amendments – setbacks, heights, glazing: Mr. Conner noted that current zoning requires a minimum 50-foot setback from the right-of- way. Because parking in front of buildings is being discouraged or not allowed, applicants are requesting setback waivers. Mr. Conner showed a picture of the new Credit Union building on Shelburne Rd. It has a 35- foot setback with an entry door on Shelburne Road and a sidewalk leading to that door. He also showed a photo of the old building which did not include the street entrance. Mr. Conner said the DRB struggles with the waiver requests and has asked for a city policy on this. He then showed pictures of newer buildings on Shelburne Road with no parking in front. They are closer to the street with street-facing doors. These took a lot of waivers from the DRB to achieve. He then showed a picture of a building that got “half way there” (the Goodwill Building). It is closer to the street, but the entrance is on the side, not facing Shelburne Rd. Mr. Klugo cited the need for better landscaping on Shelburne Road. He cited the good job done at the gas station across from the Goodwill building, and the less than adequate landscaping at Goodwill. 7 Mr. Conner said staff is going to suggest some reduction in setbacks with a door and windows facing the street, and something “more significant” on corners. Details will be brought to the Commission at a future meeting. 9. Review draft language on amendments discussed at prior meetings: a. Front porches in R-4, front-yard fence height in residential districts: Mr. Conner noted that now with a 50-foot setback, there is no room for porches. The city has been reluctant to reduce the setback because porches have a tendency to become enclosed “rooms.” Because of the Chamberlin Neighborhood Committee’s desire to have more of a sense of “neighborhood,” they want opportunities for people to be in front of their houses. Porches could be open, with screening allowed, but without storm windows. Mr. Klugo felt this could become an enforcement issue. A second recommendation is to limit the height of fences in front of houses to a maximum of 4 feet. CNAPC felt this made it more inviting to know your neighbors. Mr. Klugo said he felt 8 feet is too high in the back as well. A 7’11” inch fence could block someone’s views. b. Affordable housing density bonus in the SEQ-NRN: Mr. Conner noted this applies to the exchanged piece of land in the JM Golf settlement. The bonus is allowed in every other district (except conservation areas) except this one. A resident asked if there could be affordable housing there. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t see why there shouldn’t be. Ms. Dopp expressed concern that this could mean more than the 32 units agreed upon. Mr. Klugo said that brings up the landscaping issue again. He felt there should be other considerations when there is a bonus given. Mr. Conner noted that the intent of the bonus is to defray some of the cost; if you require more landscaping, that cost goes up again. Mr. Klugo said he was OK with the bonus with some standards. 10. Other Business: a. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments, Public Hearing 13 September 2016: b. Colchester Town Plan Amendments, Public Hearing 4 October 2016 c. De minimum application to Public Service Board for wireless telecommunication facility, Spear Street and Hinesburg Road 8 No issues were raised on any of the three items. 11. Minutes of 9 August 2016 and 23 August 2016: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 9 August and 23 August 2016 as written. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk