►
From YouTube: Winooski Planning Commission - 3/9/2023
Description
Agenda: https://www.winooskivt.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03092023-1094?html=true
https://linktr.ee/townmeetingtv
00:00:00 Public Comment
00:01:27 Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
00:06:02 Unified Land Use and Development Regulations
01:29:16 City Updates
01:33:50 Other Business
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
B
C
D
I
I'll
keep
things
brief.
You
know,
I
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
encourage
you
to
consider
loosening
parking
minimums.
You
know.
I
talked
a
little
bit
about
like
why
that's
a
good
idea
from
like
economic
vitality
and
like
improving
housing,
affordability
reasons,
but
a
more
sort
of
immediate
and
self-interested
reasoning,
for
you
guys
is
that
s
100
is
proposing
to
require
all
your
municipalities
that
have
sewer
to
have
one
parking
unit
per
drawing
unit
and
like
that
would
be
the
cap
Statewide,
where
there's
sewer
so
you'll.
B
Yeah,
that's
right,
I
think
sorry,
Mike
I
think
I
had
sent
out
to
you
the
minutes
from
our
last
meeting.
February
23rd,
but
we
at
that
meeting
we
did
not
approve
the
minutes
of
February
9th.
So
what
was
included
with
the
agenda
were
the
minutes
for
February
9th,
not
the
23rd,
so
because
they
were
not
included.
We
aren't
able
to
approve
those
tonight.
So
I,
don't
know
if
you
all
have
had
a
chance
to
look
over
the
minutes
from
February,
9th
or
not
I
can
bring
those
up
on
the
screen.
B
B
So
if
you
recall
this
was
the
meeting
where
we
I
provided
a
legislative
update
for
you
all,
and
we
just
had
some
other
General
discussion
continuing
our
discussion.
I
believe
we
were
we,
but
we
did
more
parking
discussion
and
we're
getting
towards
the
bicycle
parking,
but
stopped
right
before
that,
so
I'll,
just
slowly
scroll
through
these.
G
G
F
B
B
So
we
are,
the
information
I
sent
out
is
basically
the
the
report
on
Article
4
with
the
various
sections,
including
the
information
up
through
Section
412,
which
is
on
parking.
I,
also
included
with
this
document,
section
515,
which
was
something
we
had
talked
about
several
meetings
ago,
on
incentives
for
historic
preservation
and
also
information
on
Section
6.6,
which
is
site
plan
review,
mostly
because
some
of
the
graphics
that
were
included
in
in
the
sections
of
article
4
that
we
reviewed
have
been
moved
into
that
site
plan
review
section.
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
show
how
I
was
how
we're
not
deleting
them
completely,
but
just
kind
of
relocating
them
as
they're,
more
appropriately
included
in
site
plan
review,
and
then
article
9
for
some
definitions.
So
what
I
thought
we
would
do
tonight
is
basically
start
at
the
beginning
in
in
section
4.1
and
start
to
re-review.
The
the
specific
changes
that
have
been
proposed
and
I've
got
some.
Some
items
highlighted
to
just
to
make
sure
that
you
all
are
comfortable
with
with
what
is
in
here.
B
E
Yeah
I
don't
know
if
it's
an
appropriate
time
to
bring
this
up,
but
I
am
kind
of
curious
about
the
the
public
comment
we
just
received
from
Michael
Arnold
sure
about
the
S
100
bill.
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
talk
about
that
after
the
meeting
or
what?
What
relation
that
has
to
what
we're
working
on
here.
B
B
On
that
bill,
but
one
of
the
items
that's
included
is
that
there's
language
that
would
limit
the
the
minimum
number
of
parking
spaces
that
a
municipality
can
require.
So
it
basically
says
that
if
you
have
water
and
waste
water
in
your
community,
you
cannot
require
more
than
one
parking
space
per
dwelling
unit.
B
I
think
there's
been
some
there's
been
some
change
to
that
that
that
allows
one
and
a
half
in
some
circumstances,
but
in
any
event,
what
Michael
was
alluding
to
is
that,
if
that,
if
s
100
goes
through
in
its
existing
form,
it
would
our
current
regulations
as
they're
drafted,
would
need
to
be
changed
again,
because
we
require
two
spaces
per
residential
units
in
the
residential,
a
residential
B
and
residential
C
zoning
districts.
So
that
bill
has
not
yet
gone
to
the
house
side.
B
They're
I
think
next,
so
they're
on
break
right
now
the
legislature
is
on
break
right
now
and
anticipating
that
they
will.
The
Senate
natural
resources
will
vote
that
bill
out
of
committee
next
week
early
next
week
and
then
I
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
need
to
go
into
any
of
the
finance
committees
first
or
go
to
the
house
side
for
review.
So
there's
still
some
work.
That
needs
to
be
done,
I
think
but
but
yeah.
That's
what
that's
what
he
was
referring
to.
E
B
D
B
B
B
All
right,
let
me
turn
up
the
volume
here.
All
right
Mike
can
you?
Can
you
hear
me
Mike
folks
on
Zoom,
can
you
hear
Mike?
Okay,
all
right,
I'll,
just
I'll
just
talk
a
little
louder
and
I
think
we
can
make
this
work
so
Joe
back
to
your
question.
I,
don't
know
if
we
really
have
a
timeline
for
when
when
anything's
gonna
happen
with
this
bill,
it
may
be
later
this
legislative
session.
B
E
B
B
If
it
is
something
that
does
end
up
in
the
final
form
of
the
bill,
then
I
think
it's
something
we
can
react
to
fairly
quickly,
because
it's
really
it
really
just
impacts
that
one
line
in
our
in
our
table
so
I
think
we
can.
We
can
change
it
and
I
believe.
Even
if
we
don't
change
it,
State
Statute
would
still
apply.
So
we
will
have
time
to
to
to
make
that
happen.
Officially.
Okay,
but
good
questions.
Thank
you
are.
B
No,
no
problem,
so
also
just
so,
you
guys
know:
Mike
is
trying
to
reboot
his
computer,
so
hopefully
he
will
be
able
to
join
us
again,
which
is
some
of
the
noise
that
you
or
some
of
the
sounds
you
were
just
hearing
so
so
anyway,
included
with
your
agenda
was
the
or
is
the
report
with
all
the
sections
we've
talked
about,
I
thought.
What
we
would
do
tonight
is
work
our
way
through
basically
starting
at
the
beginning,
as
I
mentioned
Sarah.
B
C
C
A
B
Think
it's
a
sign
that
we
all
need
to
get
back
in
a
room
together.
So
all
right,
I'm
gonna,
start
sharing
my
screen
and
we
will
just
start
walking
through
walking
through
this
information.
And
if
you
have
questions,
please
stop
me,
but
I
will
like
I
said:
I'll
highlight
things
as
as
necessary,
but
generally
a
lot
of
the
the
information
is
not
changed
from
previous
from
previous
discussions,
so
starting
in
section
4.1,
there's
some
new
language
here
related
to
Demolition
and
stabilization
and
abandonment,
I
believe
we've
reviewed
all
of
this.
B
Previously.
Some
of
this
will
relate
also
back
to
section
4.4
on
design
review.
So,
as
we
discussed
at
the
last
meeting,
the
language
in
section
4.4
we're
intending
to
keep
as
it
is
now
and
so
no
amendments
and
then
once
we
get
through
all
of
this
we'll
come
back
and
immediately
start
working
on
Section
4.4
for
some
actual
design
review
language.
So
this
the
information
in
section
4.1,
is
just
kind
of
set
up
some
of
that.
Some
of
that
discussion.
B
So
one
of
the
comments
that
Sarah
had
was
actually
in
this
section
she
was
she
was
suggesting.
Well,
she
had
two
suggestions.
One
is
that
we
don't
do
anything
with
this
until
we
do
something
with
Section
4.4.
So
that's
one
of
her
comments
that
we
leave
4.1
as
it
is
the
other
comment
she
had
was
to
include
the
word
irreparably
in
after
damaged
here
or
sorry
before
damaged,
so
something
that
is
irreparably
damaged
by
fire
explosion.
B
Natural
disaster
Act
of
God
Public
Enemy,
so
that
it's
not
just
a
minor
issue
then
leads
to
a
demolition
of
the
entire
structure.
So
she
thought
that
would
be
a
good
clarification.
I
agree
with
that.
So
that's
one
piece
of
it.
The
other
part
is
whether
or
not
you
all
want
to
move
forward
with
any
of
these
amendments
or,
as
Sarah
suggests,
we
wait
until
4.4
is
updated.
First.
A
A
B
A
The
other
question
I
have
and
one
of
my
when
my
computer
crashed
a
minute
ago.
I
lost
I
had
a
PDF
of
this,
with
notes
on
it
and
I
lost
that
so
I
have
to
go
for
memory,
but
the
a
talks
about
no
zoning
permits
required
for
all
these
things
and
then
down
below
and
I.
Don't
know
if
it's
deer
on
the
next
page
it
talks
about.
You
need
a
zoning
permit.
A
B
B
Yeah,
so
under
a
that's,
a
good
question
and
it
may
need
to
be
clarified
under
a
the
intent
here
is
that
if
something
happens
outside
the
control
of
the
the
property
owner
that,
for
whatever
reason,
if
there's
a
fire
explosion,
whatever
happens
that
that
causes
damage
to
the
property,
they
wouldn't
need
a
zoning
permit
to
rebuild
or
to
repair
that
that
property
to
its
current
state
or
to
its
pre-damaged
state
item.
D,
is
talking
about.
B
But
yeah
this
was
really.
This
is
really
done
to
clarify
that.
So
typically,
what
happens
when
we
get
a
zoning
permit
application
in
it's
for
demolition,
but
also
Redevelopment.
So
it's
it's
not
often
that
we
get
just
a
a
request
for
Demolition,
and
so
what
the
intent
here
under
D
is
really
to
clarify
that,
if
you're
coming
in
for
demolition,
you
still
need
to
get
a
zoning
permit,
even
though
the
demolition
permit
itself
the
actual
blue
card
that
we
issue
may
be
coming
from
a
different
office.
B
You
still
need
to
go
through
the
zoning
process
and
the
appeal
period
and
all
those
those
factors
as
well.
If
it's
only
for
demolition
like
I
said
generally,
that
happens
when
the
when
there's
the
Redevelopment
proposal,
so
we're
covering
both
demolition
with
the
Redevelopment
at
the
same
time
and
issuing
a
zoning
permit
for
for
both.
So
this
is
just
to
clarify
that,
if
you're
doing
one
without
the
other,
you
still
need
to
get
a
zoning
permit.
B
H
B
Sure
so,
first
for
something
like
that,
we
wouldn't
require
a
permit
anyway.
So
if
which
is
what
item
a
is
talking
about
that?
If
there
is
if,
if
a
building
is
damaged
by
fire
or
something
like
that,
where
it's
completely
unsalvageable,
then
there
would
be
no
need
for
a
permit
to
to
take
the
building
to
the
ground,
because
it's
unsafe.
B
So
D
is,
if
there's
no
issues
with
the
property
and
they
just
choose
to
to
go
in
and
redevelop
so,
for
example
like
the
the
property
at
355,
Main
Street,
that
was
the
old
Andes
used
cars
or
whatever
it
was
they
elected
to
demolish
that
to
rebuild
the
building.
That's
there
now.
So
in
that
instance,
that's
where
item
D
applies.
A
Some
place
in
here
and
I,
don't
know
if
it's
up
above
it
says:
driveway
shall
be
perpendicular
close
to
it,
yeah
right
right
there,
approximately
perpendicular,
I
guess
my
only
question
is:
we've
had
instances
or
maybe
Public
Works
allows
up
to
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
45
degree
angle
or
whatever.
It
is
because
we
ran
into
it
when
East
Spring
Street
is
that
I
didn't
see
where
that
is
taken
into
unless
it
relates
to
the
standards
for
the
winuski
Department
of
Public
Works.
So.
B
I
know
in
that
particular
instance:
there
was
an
amendment
made
to
section
4.9
to
add
in
non-conforming
lot
structures
right-of-ways
and
drives
so
I
know.
There
was
an
amendment
at
that
time
to
address
that
issue,
but
I
think
that's
something
that
would
be
covered
with
public
works
and
I
can
I.
Can
we
on
the
on
our
website
I?
Believe
we
have
the
detail?
We
at
least
have
the
curb
cut
detail.
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
a
driveway
detail
on
there,
but
but
yeah
there
was
I
know
that
was
a
consideration
at
the
time.
A
So
I'm
wondering,
though,
if
if
it
says
here,
access
shall
be
established,
approximately
perpendicular
to
the
street
I
mean
that
leaves
It
Wide,
Open,
What's,
approximate
70
degrees,
60
degrees,
90,
89
degrees
should
should
something
be
in
there.
You
know,
unless
otherwise
approved
by
the
Department
of
Public
Works,
or
something
like
that.
A
B
B
B
And
then
figures,
two
and
three
and
four
proposing
to
remove
from
this
section
and
move
into
section
6.6,
also
just
to
say
a
few
more
words
about
that.
We
talked
about
this
at
the
last
meeting.
Section
6.6
is
our
site
plan
review,
and
most
of
these
figures
are
coming
from
a
previous
version
of
the
regulations
that
included
site
plan
review
so
or
they
weren't
previously
included
under
site
plan
review
in
an
older
version
of
our
regulation,
so
basically
just
proposing
to
move
them
back
to
that
section.
B
And
yep
figure
five
as
well.
Sorry,
so
no
changes
there.
Here's
the
encroachment
for
existing
driveways
Sarah
had
a
comment
here
about
if
we
wanted
to
require
any
type
of
screening
against
the
adjacent
properties
for
this
encroachment,
I
think
I
kind
of
go
back
and
forth
on
that.
Just
because
sometimes
the
screening
May
encroach
into
the
driveway
and
make
it
harder
to
actually
put
the
the
two
car
width
driveway
in,
but
I
guess
I
think
it
depends
on
what
the
circumstances
may
require.
B
So
I'm
not
sure
how
folks
feel
about
about
doing
that,
and
it
I
should
also
point
out
that
there
would
be
a
foot
remaining
with
this
provision.
It
it's
allowed
to
go
up
to
four
feet.
They
can
go
closer
with
drb
approval
and
usually
in
the
past,
when
this
has
gone
to
the
drb,
they
have
talked
about
screening
against
the
adjacent
properties,
but
that's
only
if
they're
going
that
additional
encroachment.
So
we
can
include
some
language
here
if
you'd
like,
but
we
can
also
leave
it
open
again.
B
E
I
just
had
a
quick
question
regarding
that
not
necessarily
directly
to
this
issue,
but
regarding
screening,
I
was
kind
of
wondering
about
the
Park
Terrace
project
on
East
Allen
Street,
a
detail
of
the
the
there's.
Some
screening,
that's
in
front
of
two
of
the
entrances
and
I
was
wondering,
is
that
I'm
trying
to
remember
was
that
something
required
by
Form
based
code
or
was
that
something
that
developers
opted
to
do
are.
B
E
C
E
B
Yes,
so
what
we
would
do,
even
if
we
did
require
screening
if
we
were
to
amend
this,
to
require
screening
against
the
adjacent
property.
There
was
there's
still
limitations
on
how
far
it
can
extend
forward
in
towards
the
street,
mostly
for
one.
It
can't
go
into
the
right-of-way,
because
that's
city
property
and
two
we
generally
require
them
to
to
lower
it.
So
there
is
a
there
is
a
vision
clearance
to
allow
for
any
Vehicles
backing
out
to
see
pedestrians
or
vice
versa.
B
E
Also,
just
thinking
too,
that
kind
of
looking
at
that
that
element
as
built
that
it
might
be
a
little
bit
contradictory
to
what
we're
actually
looking
for
as
far
as
the
streetscape
with
form-based
code,
that,
like
we've,
talked
a
lot
about
having
like
an
Engaged
streetscape
and
actually,
when
you're
baffling
the
the
door
front,
like
the
fronts
of
the
property,
has
kind
of
the
opposite
effect
of
what
we're
looking
for
I,
just
maybe
subject
of
a
future
discussion.
I,
don't
know
if
there's
ever
future
edits
for
our
form-based
code.
B
A
B
E
B
H
F
Yeah
I,
sort
of,
and
thinking
about,
like
my
scenario
with
a
neighbor
like
so
I,
mean
how
that
would
work
like
the
neighbor
encroached
on
not
set
back
and
now
there's
only
like
two
feet
between
where
they
park
at
our
house.
So
I'm
like
yeah
I,
just
with
the
way
that
we're
developed,
I'm,
not
sure
I,
don't
really
know
how
that
would
work.
B
Yeah
and
I
think
it's
gonna
I
think
it's
also
gonna
be
situational
dependent
because
it
like
in
your
situation,
Abby
the
the
driveway
is
right
next
to
your
house,
but
it
so
it's
gonna
create
it
would
create
this
weird.
Well,
not
weird,
but
a
really
narrow
space
in
there.
That's
not
nothing
gonna
happen.
If
there's
screening
in
there
as
well,
whereas
if
it
was
on
the
other
side,
there
may
be
a
bigger
gap
between
or
maybe
against,
an
adjacent
driveway
as
well.
B
So
it's
just
driveway
next
to
driveway,
depending
on
how
the
how
the
properties
are
are
actually
developed,
so
I
think
requiring
screening
overall
is
personally
I
think
that
that
becomes
a
challenge,
one
for
enforcement
and
two
for
just
the
the
fact
that
it
may
create
these.
These
just
unusable
spaces.
B
B
So
then,
under
four
three,
so
two
things,
one
I
realize
that
this
has
an
a
without
a
b.
So
I
will
correct
that
in
one
form
or
fashion,
whether
these
all
just
become
letters
or
something
else,
but
that
will
be
changed.
Sarah
had
a
comment
about
this
added
language
unless
otherwise
noted
in
these
regulations-
and
basically
I
didn't
realize
this,
but
it's
it
is
kind
of
a
redundancy
in
this
sentence,
because
we
in
the
opening
we
say
the
proposed
use,
shall
be
subject
to
all
the
requirements
of
these
regulations
and
then
complete.
B
C
B
B
Nothing
I,
don't
believe,
there's
anything
new
in
that
section
either.
So
then,
in
section
4.7,
this
is
something
we
talked
about
previously
with
the
language.
So
nothing
new
has
changed
here
or
there's.
No.
Nothing
has
been
proposed
since
the
last
time
we
talked
about
this
and
settled
on
this
language
and
I
should
mention
sorry.
I
should
also
mention
that,
after
this,
after
you're
all
comfortable
with
this
review,
we
would
still
hold
a
public
hearing
on
all
this.
So
there
will
be
another
opportunity
to
look
at
it
again.
B
So
don't
don't
feel
like
you
need
to
be
fine-tooth
comb
with
everything
right
now
you're
welcome
to,
but
if,
if
something,
if
I'm
moving
too
quickly
for
you,
please
stop
me,
but
also
know
that
there
will
be
another
opportunity
or
more
opportunities
to
to
to
look
at
this
information
Okay.
So,
let's
see
again,
a
lot
of
this
remained
unchanged.
B
B
B
A
B
Yeah
yeah,
so
this
is
talking
about
non-conforming
structures
in
general
and
so
item
five
I
added
in
in
case.
The
use
of
that
structure
were
to
change
so
that
we
can,
because
it's
an
existing
structure
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
if
you're
changing
the
use
in
it,
that's
fine
unless
you're
doing
something
else
like
if
you're,
unless
you're
planning
to
make
an
alteration
to
the
structure,
then
you
need
to
do
it
in,
in
conformance
with
items
one
through
four
here.
B
C
B
A
C
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
Right
exactly
sorry,
yes,
non-conforming
non-residential,
so
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
lot
of
those
out
there
right
now,
yeah
in
the
residential
zoning
districts
and
the
rarb
and
RC.
So
there's
really
only
two
or
three
properties
that
I
can
think
of
offhand
and
I
believe.
At
least
one
of
them
has
already
gone
through
this
process.
Okay,
but
it
also,
you
know
it
has
minimum
areas
that
need
to
be
met,
Etc
so
and
then
also
the
parking
and
other
other
requirements
here.
So.
B
A
C
B
Okay
yeah,
so
all
right
next
is
the
Outdoor
Lighting
again.
This
is
similar
to
our
Landscaping
section
that
we
just
looked
at
in
four
seven
similar
language,
just
more
clarification,
nothing
new
from
the
last
time
we
looked
at
this
and
I
believe
we
carry
similar
language
through
in
section
411
yeah,
similar
language
as
well,
adding
in
this
language
again
nothing
different
than
what
you've
reviewed
previously.
B
Absolutely
so
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
new
on
this
first
page
just
to
highlight.
We
did
provide
that
this
item
two
for
maximum
parking,
that
if
you
exceed
125
percent,
you
need
to
go
to
the
drb,
basically
for
conditional
use,
except
in
the
rarb
and
RC
districts,
just
because
we're
already
requiring
two
spaces
per
unit
again.
That
might
be
something
we
need
to
change
later,
depending
on
legislation,
but
there
may
be
other
things.
We
need
to
change
with
the
legislation
as
well,
so
we
can
revisit
all
those.
B
Once
we
see
what
the
final
bill
looks
like
if
it
gets
to
that
point,
so
nothing
new
there,
the
let's
see
the
use
table
itself,
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
new
here
since
the
last
time
we
spoke,
the
biggest
discussion
I
believe
we
had
was
on
schools.
We
landed
on
three
spaces
per
instructional
space,
so
I
do
have
a
definition
for
instructional
space
as
well
that
we
can
look
at
in
a
bit
but
I,
don't
think
anything
has
changed
here.
A
C
B
B
With
someone
right
understood
understood
so
then
we
get
into
parking
adjustments.
This
green
language
was
moved,
so
it's
not
going
away
just
moving
to
a
different
section.
Similarly,
with
the
last
part
of
this
parking
adjustments,
language
I
believe
it's
just
moved
down
here.
Quite
frankly,
the
shared
use
section
so
Abby
this
will
be
new
for
you,
I,
don't
believe
you
were
with
us
the
last
time
we
spoke
about
this,
but
so
this
is
what
I
I
after
our
last
conversation.
This
is
what
I
drafted
to
kind
of
clean
this
up
and
I.
B
Believe.
Let
me
it's
been
a
little
bit
since
I've.
Looked
at
that
this
as
well.
So
I
will
try
to
explain
this
as
best
I
can
the
so
part
A
is
for
one
non-residential
unit
and
sharing
with
residential
parking,
so
mixed-use
buildings
with
just
one
space.
One
non-residential
space
can
share
the
parking
15
of
that
with
the
residential
parking
I.
So
this
to
your
to
your
original
question
earlier
Abby
about
the
minutes.
B
So
really,
what
this
is
intended
to
do,
then,
is
say,
doesn't
matter
how
many
non-residential
spaces
you
have
if
you've
got
at
least
two
those
two
spaces
can
share
parking
among
themselves.
Only
so
and
the
example
I
thought
of
was
211.
Main
Street,
where
the
fusion
Cafe
and
Wicked
Wings
are
located.
That
was
originally
proposed
as
three
spaces.
B
They
combined
two
of
them
to
make
I
believe
the
Wicked
Wings
space
and
kept
the
third
as
it's
as
it
was,
so
they
originally
proposed
three,
and
now
they
have
two.
So
this
would
Item
B
here
would
still
apply
in
either
of
those
scenarios
that
the
parking,
because
they
still
need
the
same
number
of
parking
spaces
for
the
total
square.
Footage
it's
about
five
thousand
square
feet
total
that
way
they
can
cut
it
up.
However,
they
want
for
the
number
of
of
units
they
have.
B
The
minimum
parking
is
still
going
to
be
the
same
regardless
of
the
number
of
spaces
and
they
can
share
among
those
spaces
equally
or
up
to
that
30
percent.
So,
instead
of
trying
to
instead
of
trying
to
differentiate
between
the
size
of
the
space
and
a
certain
percentage,
and
if
two
units
get
combined
or
two
units
get
split
up,
then
it's
a
different
percentage.
I
just
looked
at
it
as
two
or
more
spaces,
two
or
more
non-residential
spaces
to
be
able
to
share
among
themselves.
B
F
You
know
their
first
floor
space
for
non-residential
ages
to
kind
of
get
more
of
that
storefront
Office
Space.
You
know
providing
jobs
having
access
to
retail
and
using
this
like
sharing
accommodations,
to
encourage
developers
to
do
more
than
the
minimum
that
was
sort
of
where
the
conversation
we
were
having
around
this.
B
F
B
F
F
Have
a
little
cafe
in
that
one
and
it
was
like:
oh
wouldn't
it
be
great
if
there
was
more
than
just
a
little
just
a
little
Merit,
they
had
used
some
more
of
that
storefront.
First,
you
know
employment,
or
you
know
other
retail
space
could
having
incentive
about
sharing
parking,
get
developers
to
do
more
than
the
minimum
so
that
we
have
these
like
more
of
a
mixture
of
use,
yeah.
B
That's
a
good
question,
so
I
think
some
of
that
is
driven
by
market
and
how
many,
how
much
non-residential
space
the
the
property
owners
think
they
can
actually
lease,
and
it
I
think
also
is
a
is
a
factor
of
where
the
the
building
form
standard,
what
building
form
standard
the
property
is
located
along.
So
in
certain
areas
we
do
require
first
floor
non-residential,
so
they
they
don't
even
have
the
option
they
have
to
do
it
and
in
other
areas
it
is
an
option
right
now.
B
They
have
may
actually
encourage
that,
so
they
can
make
smaller
storefronts
and
more
of
them
that
could
be
converted
and
could
be
expanded
or
contracted
depending
on
the
business
and
may
actually
be
more
beneficial
to
smaller
startup
businesses
or
as
they
grow.
They
may
need
more
space
and
can
add
to
it
and
it's
not
going
to
impact
their
parking
needs.
F
C
B
B
Correct,
that's
the
way
it's
written
right
now,
so
that
so
that,
if
you
have
multiple
storefronts
you're,
they
they
could
be,
one
could
be
an
office,
one
could
be
a
restaurant
and
they
can
share
their
parking
because
they
have
different
hours
of
operation.
Similarly,
under
a
if
you
just
have
one
space
like
the
part
Terrace
example,
if
they
only
want
to
build
in
one
space,
they
can
share
with
the
residential
uses
that
are
there
as
well.
H
B
B
B
So
so
that's
60
of
that
non-residential
parking
is
what
can
be
shared,
so
I,
don't
I.
Think
my
guess
is
that
this
is
really
more
intended
for
some
of
the
industrial
uses
that
we
have
so
that
when
they're
doing
shift,
work
or
other
things
they
don't
need
to
put
in,
they
don't
need
to
to
build
to
a
an
industrial
standard
which
currently
is
is
listed
at
three
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
B
So,
if
you're
doing
you
know
a
50
000
square
foot
building
in
an
industrial
area,
you
would
need
150
parking
spaces,
but
that
50
000
square
feet
might
only
have
15
20
shift
workers
over
three
shifts.
So
you
don't
need
anywhere
near
that
parking
for.
What's
there
so
I
believe-
and
this
is
only
speculation,
I
believe
this
shared
use,
provision
was
to
say
you
could
share
up
to
60
percent
of
that
in
your
non-residential
space.
B
B
H
Square
feet
that
makes
perfect
sense
to
me.
I
just
wasn't
interested
in
60
percent,
but
I
do
understand
what
you
have
in
B.
So
the
minimum
requirement
for
non-residential
parking.
Can
you
go
back
up
to
the
table
and
show
me
what
what
that
would
be
if
it's
a
restaurant,
it's
one
space
for
500
square
feet,
Yes.
B
That's
that's.
The
intent
is
so
that
when
you
have
or
if
you
had
an
office
use,
for
example,
next
to
a
restaurant,
they
could
still
share
those
spaces
because
they're
going
to
be
on
off-peak
times
and
similarly,
if
it's
two
non-residential
uses
they're
going
to
potentially
either
be
on
off-peak
times
or
even
if
they
are
both
restaurants,
they're
they're
going
to
have
different
turnover
rates,
so
those
spaces
will
be
opening
up
more
regularly,
whereas
if
it's
a
residential
use,
people
are
either
gone
most
of
the
day
and
then
they're
all
night
long.
H
B
So
yeah,
so
this
went
away
from
a
square
footage
based
to
more
of
a
unit
a
number
of
units
number
of
commercial
storefront
space,
so
they
can
be
as
big
or
as
small
as
they
need
to
be
based
on
the
market,
and
the
percentage
is
they're
still
going
to
need
the
parking
it's
just
gonna,
if
they,
if
they
add
or
I
guess
if
they
cut
up
the
total
area
into
if
they
start
with
two
spaces
and
add
a
third,
they
still
have
the
same
number
of
total
spaces
needed.
Overall,
it's
just
now.
B
A
A
B
A
B
Yep
so,
and
then
I
don't
know
if
I
had
this
in
the
last
one
but
item
G
is
really
to
make
sure
that
if,
if
it's
a
phased
project
that,
if
they're
building
all
residential
in
the
first
phase-
and
they
have
future
phases
proposed
for
non-residential
space,
they
can't
take
advantage
of
that
of
the
the
shared
parking
until
those
future
phases
with
the
non-residential
uses
come
in.
So
you
can't.
B
A
C
C
A
B
C
B
Then
in
location
is
our
next
item
again.
I
think
this
is
pretty
consistent
with
what
we
locked.
We
looked
at
previously
I.
Think
I
updated
this
to
with
similar
language,
to
the
shared
use
about
the
Ada,
accessible
pedestrian
pathway,
so
just
to
have
the
consistency
in
in
all
these
different
sections,
so
I
think
that's
the
only
change
in
part
three
here:
public
parking
I.
B
Similarly
added
that
language
somewhere
yeah
under
item
I
down
here
that
it's
the
Ada
and
under
II
with
the
Ada,
but
this
was
updated,
based
on
our
last
conversations
for
the
location
to
be
within
100
feet
of
the
proposed
development
and
etc,
etc.
So
similar
language
with
the
500
feet
of
the
garage,
yeah,
Ada,
accessible
and
all
these
other
options.
F
B
B
Okay,
then,
the
next
section
e
as
a
new
section,
is
on
incentives.
So
this
has
changed
a
bit
from
the
last
time
we
looked
at
it.
One
I
did
remove
the
language
on
the
housing,
affordability
that
we
had
included,
so
that's
been
taken
out,
I
changed
it
to
I,
believe
it
was
one
and
a
half
spaces
previously
reduced
it
to
one
and
a
quarter
based
on
again
our
discussions,
because
we
have
that
requirement
for
the
extra
one
space
for
every
four
units.
This
would
basically
eliminate
that
with
the
underground
parking.
B
Sorry,
just
to
make
sure
we're
I
stated
that
so
this
is
this
would
apply
to
underground
parking
and
I
believe
those
are
the
two
oh
and
then
that
only
residential
parking
can
be
counted
towards
this
incentive.
So
the
if
the
parking
is
for
residential
uses,
it
can
be
counted
if
it's
not
intended
for
residential
uses,
it
would
not
be
counted
in
this
incentive
and
then
on
the
electric
vehicle
charging.
B
This
was
also
updated
to
eliminate
the
level
one
Chargers
as
having
any
incentive
and
then
level
two
for
a
space
and
a
half
and
level
three
or
higher.
For
two.
These
can't
be
individually
assigned
and
they
cannot
be
the
same.
Chargers
used
to
meet
the
commercial
building,
energy
standards
except
level.
Three
and
then
I
did
place.
This
item
e
so
that
to
put
a
cap
on
the
number
of
spaces
that
could
be
utilized
or
the
number
the
amount
of
reduction
that
they
could
get
for
electric
vehicle
charging.
B
F
B
B
B
And
then
on
the
use
page
I,
don't
know
if
I
changed
anything
here.
I
know
that
we
did
have
some
discussion
about
whether
or
not
some
of
the
long-term
numbers
were
too
high
and
if
we
should
maybe
look
at
bringing
them
down
versus
the
short
term
and
I,
don't
know
Abby.
If
you
had
any
thoughts
on
that
kind
of
going
back
to
the
previous
discussion
about
shared
use,
parking
I'm,
not
sure
that
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
like
personal
service
and
Retail
that
are
getting
into
the
20
000
square
feet
size.
B
So
I
don't
know
if
it
makes
sense
to
have
those
that
large
again
now
that
we
have
the
the
additional
requirement
that
at
least
one
short
term
or
sorry
at
least
two
short
term
and
one
long
term
per
for
for
any
of
these
uses
is
required.
It
may
not
be
as
critical
that
we
try
to
dial
in
the
numbers
as
much
so
just
wanted
to
I
know.
B
F
F
B
A
B
I
think
I
I
believe
I
added
that
in
on
the
next
page,
yeah
I
did
okay
well
the
bottom
of
this
page
and
the
top
of
the
next
page.
So
yes,
I,
did
add
in
some
language
to
that
because
of
that
point,
so
yeah
so
Abby.
If
you
can
send
me
the
updated
tables,
I'll
I'll
plug
them
in
and
that
way
we
don't
go
through
these
one
by
one
right
now
save.
F
To
the
original
table
which,
like
you
said,
some
of
them
are
flip-flops
like
there's.
The
short
term
should
always
be
more
than
the
long
term
so
like
for
some
reason.
The
industrial
and
office
got
flip-flopped
on
on
this
puppy
that
you
have,
but
these
numbers
are
all
based
off
the
City
of
Burlington
like
parking
requirements,
Locomotion
the
local
bike
path.
C
H
B
Yeah
and
it's
quite
possible
that
I
put
those
in
in
the
wrong
order,
as
I
was
going
through
too
so,
yes,
I'm
glad
I'm
glad
there
was
another
set
of
eyes
on
these
for
sure.
So,
okay,
well
yeah
you!
If
you
you
can
send
me
the
updated
table.
That'd
be
great!
So
then,
in
this
next
section,
I
think
what
was
added
here
Mike
to
your
point,
is
item
three
for
some
definitions.
Basically
and
I.
B
I
wasn't
sure
if
there
were
good
definitions
for
this,
so
I
just
tried
to
basically
say
that
short
term
is
if
you're
leaving
a
bike
unattended
for
a
period
not
more
than
12
48
hours,
and
that
long
term
is
that
it's
unattended
Beyond
48
hours
and
may
include
consecutive
days
multiple
consecutive
days,
I
didn't
know
if
it
should
be
24
hours
or
48
hours,
I
mean
I.
Think
you
know
you
leave
a
bike
overnight
somewhere
it
might
sit
for
a
couple
of
for
a
little
bit
and
then
you
go
collect
it.
A
A
You
know,
but
if
they
write
it
to
work,
they're,
probably
going
to
write
it
home.
If
it's
raining,
okay,
they
take
a
bus
instead
of
ride
the
bike
and
they
come
and
get
it
the
next
day,
but
you're
the
expert,
Abby
I,
just
I
just
I,
don't
know
I
just
don't
understand
this
need
for
short-term
and
long-term
parking.
F
I
can
help
with
the
definition
rights
about
clearance
and
more
has
to
do
with
having
a
weatherproof
speed
like
long-term
bike
parking
has
to
have
a
coverage
that
has
fall
so
it
put
it
it's
relevant
to
situations
that
are
not
residential,
so
people
can
buy
and
be
able
to
store
there
by
while
they're
working
or
they're
eating
in
a
place.
That's
not
sitting
out
in
the
elements,
and
that
just
goes
to
the
viability
of
a
year-round
like
biking
every
year
round
e
option.
F
B
B
Basically,
just
saying
that
needs
to
be
separated,
the
bike
parking
needs
to
be
separated
and
then
the
short
term
needs
to
be
on
site
in
a
covered
location
protected
from
the
elements
and
that
the
long
term
needs
to
be
completely
enclosed,
secure
on-site
facility
protected
from
the
elements
with
controlled
access,
limited
to
the
residents
or
tenants
of
the
building,
and
then
I
did
add
this
last
line
about
that
it
could
be
a
dedicated
room
on
site
or
individual,
storing,
Units
Storage
units
assigned
to
each
dwelling
or
similar
space.
I.
B
Think
that
was
based
on
at
our
last
meeting
Brendan's
comments
about
the
previous
building,
where
he
lived
that
had
like
a
storage
locker
in
front
of
the
parking
spaces
that
were
assigned
to
the
unit
that
that
would
I
think
satisfy
the
long-term
ability,
if
it's
as
long
as
it's
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
bike
itself.
So
that
could
be
considered
long-term
bike
storage
as
well
or
bike
parking.
B
And
I,
don't
think
anything
else
has
changed
in
this
section
yeah,
because
that's
basically
the
end
of
the
section
and
then
taking
out
this
part
change
of
use.
The
only
thing
I
added
here
was
to
clarify
that
under
item
three,
that
for
the
change
of
use
that
the
it
only
needs
to
be
brought
in
conformance
for
the
new
residential
or
new
square
footage,
I
believe
that
was
something
we
talked
about
previously
yeah.
We
talked
about
that
at
the
last
meeting
that
this
should
only
apply
to
those
new
spaces
and
I.
B
Think
that
is
the
only
other
item
there,
surface
parking,
I,
don't
believe
anything
changed
here
and
then
in
the
next
section
we
get
back
into
all
these
figures,
pretty
much
everything
from
here
on
out
I'm,
proposing
to
delete
because
and
move
to
the
to
the
site
plan
review
section.
So
that's
why
all
this
is
is
stricken
from
here
again,
it's
more
related
to
site,
plan,
review
and
and
I
think
it's
more
appropriate
there.
B
So
that's
where
you'll
find
those
items,
and
that
is
the
end
of
article
four,
so
803
that
might
be
a
good
place
to
pause
all
right.
If
everybody's
comfortable
and
then
we
can
look
at
so
this
language,
just
as
a
as
a
quick
primer
for
everybody
going
forward
section,
515
the
Adaptive
reuse
language
that
we
developed
to
kind
of
replace
the
design
review
kind
of
as
a
temporary
step,
because
we
already
had
it
developed
I'm,
providing
it
for
you
again.
B
So
really
nothing.
Nothing
is
new
here,
just
the
language
didn't
because
of
the
way
I
had
to
to
transfer
it
over.
It
came
over
as
new
language
instead
of
the
green
double
strike,
like
some
of
the
others
did,
but
you'll
notice
that
it's
basically
it's
all
pretty
much
the
same
as
what
was
in
there
previously.
B
So
just
to
give
you
that
little
update
and
then
in
the
definition
section
there's
several
definitions
that
I've
added
for
clarity
accessory
structure
is
one
that
we
have
in
our
our
Hazard
inundation
areas,
but
don't
have
included
in
the
base
regulations,
and
this
actually
came
up
as
I
had
an
issue,
a
violation
based
off
of
this.
So
we
added
I'm
proposing
to
add
accessory
structure
just
so
it's
clear
what
that
actually
means.
A
B
This
definition
for
certificate
of
appropriateness
is
something
that
is
related
to
the
new
design
review
language,
so
that
may
be
something
we
want
to
hold
off
on
including
some
clarifications
in
with
Demolition
and
with
two
unit
building
a
new
definition
for
fence,
because
we've
clarified
some
of
the
language
in
section
4.6,
instructional,
space,
new
definition,
because
that
shows
up
in
parking
clarification
on
Land
Development,
about
demolition
again
related
to
sections.
In
four
point:
sorry,
in
article
four
party
wall,
this
is
related
to
two
unit
and
both
of
those.
B
Actually,
these
definitions
are
again
because
of
some
situations
that
I've
seen
with
development,
where
somebody's,
basically
just
they'll,
have
a
single
unit,
dwelling
and
they'll,
basically
just
put
a
little
Breezeway
or
a
little
roof
line
and
build
another
building
and
say
that
that's
now
a
two
unit
and
so
I'm
trying
to
clarify
that
to
really
be
a
two
unit.
We
want
them
to
be
connected.
Somehow
so
party
wall
is
included
in
the
definition
of
two
unit.
Now
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
had
a
definition
of
party
wall
substantially
commenced.
B
Another
definition-
that's
in
our
inundation
Hazard
section,
but
not
in
here,
but
this
almost
LED
this
I'm
adding
this
because
I
almost
had
to
issue
a
violation
based
off
of
this
definition,
so
just
wanted
to
make
sure
it's
included
as
well
and
a
definition
for
wall.
So
anyway,
just
that's
basically
the
end
of
all
of
this,
but
we
can
commence
review
at
a
future
meeting.
So
just
to
give
you
that
was
I.
B
A
B
E
A
I
I
A
B
B
The
there
was
some
question
about
whether
or
not
the
church
actually
is
included
in
the
state
Register.
So
the
drb
wanted
to
reopen
the
hearing
to
take
testimony
on
that
question
specifically,
so
they
have
a
better
sense
of
whether
or
not
this
building
is
in
fact
listed
or
not,
mostly
because
that
hinges
on
the
decision
that
was
made
to
issue
the
zoning
permit.
So
they
will
be
having
a
hearing
next
Thursday
just
for
that
one,
basically
to
take
testimony
on
that
specific
question
so
that
they
are
better
informed
on
issuing
their
decision.
B
They
are
giving
the
appellant
the
the
opportunity
to
provide
that
testimony
and
and
invite
in
who
they
want
to
to
make
sure
that
they're
they
have
a.
They
have
a
clear
picture
on
on
whether
or
not
it
is
in
fact
listed
so
I
believe
the
agenda
should
be
posted,
I
think
it
may
have
actually
gotten
posted
today.
So
the
the
documents
that
were
provided
by
the
appellant
are
included
with
that
agenda.
Attachment.
F
C
E
As
well,
I
was
just
saying:
I
I,
read,
Because
I
will
often
walk
my
dog
around
that
block
in
front
of
the
scene.
I
was
seeing
the
signs
posted
for
the
hearing,
and
my
understanding
is
that
it's
it's
open,
but
they're
only
looking
for
testimony
from
people
who
are
like
basically
accredited
professionals
who
can
give
kind
of
a
test
to
whether
or
not
it's
it's
historic
status.
B
B
B
E
B
E
F
Know
I
had
one
thing
to
share
with
the
group:
we
had
an
interview
with
a
bike
care
provider.
Today
it
looks
like
Laura
will
move
forward
with
them.
So
that's
when
we
see
South,
Burlington
and
Burlington
would
be
the
participants
Under,
the
Umbrella
katma,
and
so
it
all
goes.
According
to
plan,
we
should
see
bike
chair
bikes
on
the
ground,
so.
F
F
F
G
F
Had
to
you
would
you
were
assessed
fees
if
you
walked
outside
the
service
area,
but
you
could
cut
there's
nothing
with
nothing.
The
assistant
did
not
cut
out
if
you
wanted
to
Pedal
out
of
the
surface
area
and
then
come
back
and
lock
it
within
the
service
area.
Is
that,
like
a
pretty
big
difference,
there.