Planning Commission

SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION 25 FEBRUARY 2025 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 February 2025, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, Acting Chair; P. Engels, D. Leban, C. Laurence ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, Senior City Planner; T. Barritt, R. Doyle 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Mr. Macdonald provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: There were no announcements. Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the Bourne property proposed project and noted that the City Council has approved a draft stipulated judgment which matches the 2024 DRB approval but adjusts the inclusionary units to the 2024 level. The applicant also has to meet the new EV-ready standards. The deadline for removal of the existing buildings is 1 May. There will then be 3 structures on the property including a mixed retail-residential building, a bank, and a 3-story residential building with underground parking. Ms. Peterson advised that the Equity Toolkit is complete and ready to present to the Commission, City Council, etc. There will be a presentation soon, and it will then go into use. PAGE 1 Ms. Peterson also noted that the Parks & Recreation Plan process has kicked off with a consultant. It includes a public input process now going on. 5. Form Based Code Draft Language Review and Discussion: Ms. Peterson directed attention to her moto which includes everything of note. She noted the “Table of Motivation” which includes such elements as variety of buildings, visual impact/bulk, street level experience, and successful buildout. Ms. Peterson also noted there are now buildings being built by other developers that look different from existing buildings. Mr. Macdonald asked if there would be other areas than UMall where a Master Plan would be appropriate. Ms. Peterson said there are some lots that could be combined (e.g., San Remo Drive and the area north of Williston Road) and become large enough for a Master Plan. Mr. Conner said conceivably the Price Chopper property could have phases of projects of 10 or 20 years. Ms. Peterson said the advantage of master planning is that you’re vested in the plan. It would be elective. Ms. Leban suggested putting a “pedestrian street” on the official city map so there is no future question. This could provide what the city is lacking, and it won’t happen if it isn’t done now. Ms. Peterson said feedback from developers is that when you require all buildings to front on a street, you wind up with dead spaces. A pedestrian street is a smaller street, live an extended curb space. She felt there is a merit to discussing a pedestrian-type street on an extended scale. Ms. Leban said it helps to create “shortcuts” and would keep the scale at a friendlier level. Ms. Peterson said the next agenda includes “street hierarchy” which would be the time for that discussion. Mr. Laurence asked if all the streets have to go through. Ms. Petersons said they all have to connect. They could go to a courtyard. Mr. Conner said at this time, all planned streets have to connect at both ends. If the Commission wants to have a conversation about a “pedestrian street,” this could have a “rec path connection.” Mr. Mittag asked if having one building behind another is being allowed. The building behind could be taller. Ms. Peterson said this could occur in the T-4 at the end of Market Street. Mr. Laurance asked why 12 stories is the maximum in T-5. Ms. Peterson said this is slated for discussion at an upcoming meeting; what is in tonight’s packet is simply a placeholder. There are certain areas where taller buildings work and others where they wouldn’t because of what is around the area. What was agreed on was a minimum of 3 stories in T-5. PLANNING COMMISSION 26 February 2025 PAGE 2 Ms. Peterson asked if the concerns are being satisfied by what has been suggested. Instead of giving developers more “must do” things, the box is being opened. Mr. Mittag said that corner windows are a wonderful idea. Ms. Conner said the original code had prohibited them, but now they can happen under the draft; this is an example of “opening the box”. Ms. Peterson stressed that they have tried to focus on things that really make a difference rather than things that narrow the box, which was never intended. Mr. Conner noted that if buildings are built with high-quality brick, they can be all brick. Ms. Peterson added that credit is also given for grand entrances. Mr. Conner said there must be a principal door on the street. Door spacing will also change, and there will be a difference between a “public entrance” and an operative door that can be locked. Mr. Mittag recalled conversation regarding apartments having access to the outside. He said balconies are the way to achieve that, and he felt there should be an incentive for them. Ms. Peterson said there would still be a requirement for a common space inside the building, but balconies could be another option. Mr. Conner added that balconies can count as a site amenity and how you do building breaks. Mr. Engels said the original Form Based Code was written for a different outcome from what exists now. He supported the proposed changes. Mr. Laurence raised the question of ground floor privacy. He felt windows should start up higher than 36 inches to allow for true privacy if that is the goal of the City; otherwise do not regulate at 36”. Ms. Leban said they should make it clear that the intent is for privacy and let the developer figure out how to do it. Ms. Peterson said that because there is an administrative approval, you have to be more specific. Ms. Leban said there are things about building design that relate to stormwater runoff. He suggested giving credit for green roofs as it is harder to do stormwater control with buildings o close together. Mr. Conner said stormwater regulations are “outcome based.” How you get to the outcome is up to you. Ms. Leban noted that green roofs are cheaper than what has been done in parking lots. Ms. Louisos noted the nice effect of the green roof at the Airport. Ms. Leban also noted the hospital. Mr. Laurence though a green roof should count as pervious surface. Ms. Peterson said she didn’t think it was at this time. Mr. Conner said that should be in the Stormwater Ordinance. He will share that with staff. Mr. Engels was surprised that developers were finding the administrative approval more difficult than going to the DRB. Mr. Conner said there are 2 issues: the “boxes” are very tight (down to inches in calculation), and when someone tried to do something creative, it PLANNING COMMISSION 26 February 2025 PAGE 3 led to questions (e.g., how to calculate). Mr. Engels suggested abandoning the Form Based Code and just going back to the DRB approval process which was the original idea. Mr. Laurence asked if the area to the north of Williston Road could become T-5. Ms. Peterson said they could say everything on Williston Road is 10 stories. T-4 is a little more flexible. There could be higher buildings north of Williston Rd. without it being T-5. Mr. Conner said T-5 requires first floor commercial and the intention is to control the commercial space in one area so there is a “downtown core.” Staff is recommending that on Market and Dorset Streets they refine down to “consumer facing commercial (retailers and restaurants), not miscellaneous office space. Mr. Mittag said T-5 would then be appropriate north of Williston Rd. Mr. MacDonald said it would dilute what is being done on Dorset Street. 6. LDR Height Regulations: Mr. Macdonald noted this has to do with the whole city, not just the Form Based Code areas. Mr. Conner said there has been an issue as to how height is calculated, and it is “tricky” as to how a new neighborhood is to be laid out. A lot of applicants are asking for waivers for things like a half-basement. On Market Street, the calculation is from the height of the adjacent street. Staff is going to look at all of these. Ms. Leban said this would be a good time to look at increasing the height in some districts to get some densities we are allowing. Mr. Engels cautioned members to remember the person who built a house near Overlook Park. Mr. Mittag moved to approve the project charge entitled “Building Heights,” with the addition of looking at increasing the height in some districts to get some densities we are allowing. Mr. Laurence seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 7. Municipal Planning Grant: Mr. Conner said it is time to apply for a Municipal Planning Grant. Staff considered a number of options and is recommending a “node on Fayette Drive.” Mr. Mittag moved that the Commission approve and pass on to the City Council the recommendation for a Municipal Planning Grant entitled “Vision of Strategic Growth in the City’s Southwest Area.” Mr. Laurence seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 8. Consider proposed street name: PLANNING COMMISSION 26 February 2025 PAGE 4 Ms. Peterson described the location of the street and said the project is to build housing for family members. E-911 found no conflicts with the name Maxine Way. Mr. Conner said it will be a private road for now but could become public in the future. He showed the location on the map and where the road could swing south to Meadowland. Phase 3 of the project would have the road built to the property line. Mr. Mittag moved to approve Maxine Way as presented. Ms. Leban seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 9. Meeting Minutes of 14 January 2025 and 28 January 2025: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 14 and 28 January as written. Mr. Laurence seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 10. Other Business: Staff outlined upcoming topics for Planning Commission meetings including: a. Supporting uses in commercial areas b. Removal of ledge/Nuisance Ordinance c. City Plan 2024 check-in d. Act 181/250 tiers (a spring/summer topic) As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:44 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 26 February 2025 PAGE 5