Planning Commission

SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION 25 MARCH 2025 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 March 2025, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, Acting Chair; P. Engels, D. Leban, C. Lawrence, H. Riehle ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; T. Barritt, R. Doyle 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. 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 or reports. 5. Form Based Code: Review of Article 8 and 11B: Ms. Peterson said this version clears up some of the sticking points, clarified language, and added items from the Planning Commission discussion. She said she considers this a 90% draft. It will be circulated internally over the next few weeks and also with the local community, business owners and members of the business community. It will also be published on the city’s website for public comment. PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 1 Staff is talking with an architectural firm that will do visualizations to give an idea of what things will look like. This should be available to the Commission for their 8 April meeting. Members then considered the various elements of the draft as follows: Building breaks: Ms. Leban questioned Section 8B regarding facades. Ms. Peterson said the intention is that if you have a stepback on an upper floor you have a usable amount of space. The same is true on the ground floor. The 16 feet is the width. Ms. Leban said the 2-foot balcony width is no usable space. Ms. Peterson said there could be a 2-foot “Juliet balcony” for façade purposes. It has to be deeper to count as seating space or a site amenity. Mr. Mittag said a balcony should be functional, not just something made to make a building look more interesting. He opposed it as “something that isn’t real.” Ms. Louisos said there is a use for it, just to open the door and get some fresh air. Ms. Peterson said it is common in older buildings. Ms. Riehle said Paris is filled with Juliet balconies. You don’t sit on them, but they can add light and air. She felt there should be language to encourage both. Mr. Engels asked the minimum balcony size. Ms. Peterson said the minimum is 28 sq. ft. with a minimum of 4 feet deep and 6 feet long. Mr. Conner showed a photo of a building indicating a stepback. He noted the building break must be for the majority of the building. Mr. MacDonald questioned the language “anchored by at least one entrance.” Ms. Peterson said the question is whether to have facades anchored by doors. She felt it wouldn’t take much to achieve that. Mr. Conner felt it makes sense, at least to get feedback from developers. Mr. MacDonald said the issue is whether they are unnecessarily driving up the cost of construction. Ms. Leban note Section 1D regarding changes in materials. She said she would not do it any more in City Center because it is getting to be monotonous. Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 2 Conner said it is forced by the standard. He added there is a lot of City Center to be built yet, and it things are removed, other things will get used a lot. Ms. Leban said you can have a building that relates to its neighbor without being a copy. She cited the buildings near Kennedy Drive and some in Williston as “ugly” because of this issue. Ms. Peterson said the amount of contrast isn’t regulated in FBC, and she prefers to keep more options in. Mr. Conner noted they have seen “30 years of beige” because of Act 250’s “blending in with the natural landscape.” Mr. Mittag agreed with leaving in more options and that they shouldn’t be guided by personal preferences. Mr. Doyle suggested never using the word “balcony” alone; use either “Juliet balcony” or “walk-out balcony.” That would eliminate the ambiguity. Mr. Barritt noted that New City Place in Burlington is covered with balconies. Fenestration and Glazing: Ms. Leban questioned whether C-3 makes sense since they’re not talking about 19th Century buildings. Ms. Peterson noted that Section “B” allows for the banking of windows. Ms. Leban asked why that section is needed at all. She suggested seeing what architects and developers think about it and go along with what they say. Re “tie-backs,” Ms. Leban said never to use them. They disintegrate and do not last. Mr. Conner said it is in the State code and not within the City’s authority. With regard to Section 807 B-1 (Stepbacks), Mr. Conner suggested possibly not requiring it at all. There could be a natural podium break as in City Place. Mr. Engels suggested graduated stepbacks. Mr. Laurence said that becomes a cost concern. Ms. Peterson said that for buildings of 8 stories, at least the top story must be set back. Members did not like the idea of a 14-story building with only the top story set back. Mr. Laurence suggested that all stories above the 8th be set back. Ms. Leban said that would be site-dependent. Ms. Louisos said this would be good to PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 3 review when they can see images. She suggested that 5 may be a better number than 8. Members agreed. Mr. Conner suggested “somewhere between the 3rd and 8th story.” He felt that with a range, they would get more useful feedback. T4 and T5 Open Space: Ms. Louisos said the open spaces shouldn’t be all balconies. Ms. Peterson said they also tweaked 11B so you can’t count just a raingarden. Mr. Conner noted that in T5, 6% of the building gross floor area must be for open space. He then asked where locating open space offsite comes in. Ms. Louisos questioned whether it’s OK if the building is located near a city park. Mr. MacDonald said a there should be a minimum set for open space to be onsite. Ms. Leban suggested that if you have more parking than building occupants can use, parking space could be designed so that there is specific patio space which could be used for parking at night. That would make things more flexible and would make it nice to see some of that parking space usable in the daytime. It would have to be designed that way. Ms. Peterson noted in that in T4 and T5, civic spaces can be offsite. More clarity could be added as to whether a nearby park would count. Open space can be done entirely on site or there could be a mix. Mr. MacDonald noted that in T5 all civic space can be offsite. Mr. Laurence said he was OK with that in theory but was concerned with some language regarding “contributions.” He was worried that the number is too low. Mr. Conner said the calculation was landed on to average out a bit so there isn’t a legal battle as to which parcel is worth more. He noted that everyone who has developed so far has put amenities on site or has given land for the stormwater facility/park. If developers are going to spend money on site amenities, they want to tell potential residents “look what we’re giving you for amenities.” Ms. Leban suggested asking designers if they could design a street as a pedestrian street and having that qualify as an amenity. Mr. Conner said there is a PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 4 risk/reward associated with that. There is a question as to a car being parked in “open space” most of the day. Mr. Laurence added he was concerned as to whether a parking space can be flexible. Ms. Leban noted there are buildings now without businesses on the first floor which is why there are open parking spaces. Mr. Conner noted that Trader Joe’s parking lot has a swale in it, but no one would put a lawn chair there. Ms. Peterson said there could be a courtyard that borders on a parking lot. This would allow pedestrian access around the building. She noted that a pedestrian street still needs to go somewhere. Mr. MacDonald asked if there is a way to incentivize pedestrian streets. Ms. Peterson said upgrade a pedestrian path and put a building to front on it. Mr. Laurence noted that the UVM building on Hadley Road/Shelburne Road has a garden area behind it with a giant fence behind that. He felt there could be potential if it didn’t end there. Mr. Conner said the Hadley Rd. neighbors were very much in favor of the fence because of history. There is a connection further down. Ms. Leban said a good question to ask developers is how can you design more for pedestrians and not for vehicles, and what would make you anxious to do that. Prohibited uses: Ms. Leban questioned “auto/motorcycle sales” and said she saw a car showroom in a mall in Florida. They do the same thing in NY. Ms. Peterson said you can do that in a T4 building but not in a T5. Ms. Leban asked if bicycles would be excluded. Ms. Peterson said they would not. Ms. Peterson asked about car rental and ride-share. Mr. Conner said staff would consider an office but not someplace where you physically get a car. Ms. Peterson suggested the possibility of a few cars out front. Ms. Leban asked about “self storage.” Mr. Conner noted that this is important to discuss. The back half of buildings next to City Hall have been approved for self- storage. He didn’t think that is a good use for City Center. It is not employment PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 5 and is not necessary for people living in the building. It is commercial self- storage. Ms. Riehle said one amenity a developer would want to offer is storage capacity. She felt saying 2% is getting into “the weeds.” Mr. Mittag said it should be an amenity for residents in the building. Mr. Conner said it is being prohibited as a commercial use. Mr. Mittag was concerned with auto/motorcycle sales, repairs, rentals. He felt they belong on Shelburne Road, not on Market St. A showroom without an inventory of cars would be OK on Williston Rd. He thought they should be prohibited in T3, 4, and 5. Ms. Peterson said they would be prohibited in non- conforming structures; if you build a building that meets all the form, they you could have autos. Mr. Conner added that existing auto uses (e.g. on San Remo Drive) could continue to exist. He said if the Commission is OK with not allowing new ones, he was OK with that. Mr. Mittag was OK with small engine repair but questioned manufacturing with prepared components. Mr. MacDonald noted that jewelry or clothing making does use “manufacturing equipment." Ms. Peterson said they will come back with definitions regarding “equipment,” “manufacturing,” etc. Regarding auto sales, Mr. Mittag and Ms. Riehle said “no,” Mr. MacDonald was OK, Mr. Laurence was opposed to a business that stores cars (as it uses up land), Ms. Leban was OK with a showroom, but not a traditional car sales facility, Ms. Louisos was OK with bicycles and scooters but not autos. Ms. Peterson said she will work up a limited parking option. She will also leave it in the draft and it can be discussed again. In a straw poll, a majority of members opposed car washes. Mr. Mittag opposed warehousing/distribution in all transects as they involve trucks. Ms. Petersons aid there are some small scale warehouses associated with a business . She suggested leaving it in for now. Mr. Doyle suggested possibly limiting outside storage (e.g., a lumber yard). PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 6 Regarding “operable entrances,” Mr. MacDonald thought having 2 of 3 entrances operable would be a problem. Mr. Conner asked if members were OK with staff sharing the document as a draft. In a straw poll, all members were OK with this. 6. Regional Future Land Use Map and Act 250 Tiers: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted there is now an update. Communities are invited to provide feedback by 19 May. Mr. Conner then showed the proposed map and noted it is more consistent with sewer service areas. The Edlund area has been changed to “rural.” A portion of Wheeler Nature Park is “conservation.” There is a “village” designation along Kimball Avenue. Other than that, it matches up with what the Commission previously saw. Ms. Leban noted that small parks are not included. Mr. Conner agreed. He said some are extensions of rural areas. Regarding Act 250 “tiers,” Mr. Conner said Act 180 set exemptions to Act 250 and set a path where that could become permanent. City Center has an exemption of 75 homes, and developments with 25% affordability are exempt as well. Developments on transit routes can have 50 homes with an exemption. However, if a development has ever been in Act 250, it is still required to go through Act 250. Mr. Conner noted the exemptions expire after 2027. Moving forward, communities can request CCRPC to submit for a Tier1-B classification (Mr. Conner showed a South Burlington area eligible for this status). New projects of 50 or fewer homes on 10 acres or fewer are eligible for no Act 250. The City Council will be asked if the City is seeking Tier 1B status. Staff is recommending the City seek that status. Ms. Leban noted that encourages development of smaller lots, which the City is trying to encourage. Mr. Conner said there will be a more in depth discussion of this at the next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 7  7. Meeting Minutes of 11 March 2025: Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 11 March 2025 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:24 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 25 March 2025 PAGE 8