Planning Commission

SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 29 April 2025, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels, D. Leban, C. Lawrence, H. Riehle ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; T. Barritt, T. Bailey, R. Doyle 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Conner said the Official Map discussion has been rescheduled to the next Planning Commission meeting. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Mr. Doyle said that people who rent are paying higher taxes which is not in the City’s power to change. This creates equity issues when housing is scarce. He felt that the LDRs greatly affect this. Large places like UMall cost municipalities with so much land for parking and the cost of infrastructure. Mr. Barritt noted that the State provides a “renters’ rebate” that can address some of Mr. Doyle’s issues. Mr. Barritt said that during Illuminate Vermont he studied the 2 buildings at Datillio Drive and Market Streets. He felt it would be nice in new LDRs to ask for changes in brick patterns. PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 1 Mr. Bailey noted that the Economic Development Committee meeting on 18 May will include presentations on the potential for economic development in the City. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner noted that staff is working with people from UVM to develop a structure for someone who wants to see a statewide and/or national zoning map. They are working on how to keep this current. Ms. Riehle asked where they get their funding. Mr. Conner did not know. Mr. Conner also noted that upcoming meeting will look at language regarding removal of bedrock (related to the City’s Nuisance Ordinance). 5. LDR Amendments: Table of Uses: Ms. Peterson showed the Table of Uses and noted that these fall into 4 categories: a. Municipal/Quasi-public: waste transfer station, hospitals, public recreation, community center, etc. b. Other Protected Uses: houses of worship, emergency shelters, group homes, etc. c. Other Specialized Uses: child care facilities, junk yards, adult care facilities, etc. d. Residential: permanent housing, living support facilities Among the questions that have arisen is that of gas stations. A store which also sells gas is different from a store in the Mall. Mr. Conner noted that gas stations must be at least 1000 feet apart, but the use is still there. Ms. Peterson questioned whether this would be a “motor vehicle” use category that would be regulated accordingly. Ms. Riehle asked about propane. Mr. Conner said there used to be one on San Remo Drive. Ms. Peterson said it is not economical but could fall under “trucking center commercial.’ PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 2 Mr. Laurence said “truck center” seems unclear and asked if the attempt is to regulate distributions centers. Ms. Peterson read a list of examples and noted there will always be an issue with trucks. Staff tried to define the use by “the core of the business.” She said there will always be unavoidable conflict and noted “truck center” vs. “distribution center.” She noted that a warehouse that serves only one business is an exception. Ms. Peterson then showed a chart indicating “high impact” to “low impact” on neighbors. Under “motor vehicle focused commercial,” Ms. Peterson noted some questions: a. Should there be a “medium scale”? b. Is there a better way to write the definition to not require a list of vehicle types? c. Is it clear that small electric vehicles (e.g., e-bikes) are not included? Questions that arise under “trucking centered commercial” include: a. Is there a better title? b. Is it clear this is not every commercial use that receives trucks? Mr. MacDonald suggested some medium scale uses on Williston Road. Ms. Peterson said she was fine with some small dealerships being regulated with large dealerships. Mr. Laurence said the definition seems clear. He asked whether it would be better to refer to State Statute as it could cause confusion if the City’s definition was different. Ms. Peterson said the City includes a few things more than the State definitions (e.g., jet skis), but she understood Mr. Laurence’s point. Mr. Mittag questioned where agricultural, construction equipment and motor homes would fall. He said there are some pretty large examples of this. He also noted that motorcycles can be very noisy close to residential uses. Ms. Peterson said if it is a large use, it would fall into the “large scale motor vehicle” category. PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 3 Ms. Louisos was not in favor of a “medium” range and felt they should be regulated as “large.” Mr. Laurence asked about agriculture. Mr. Conner said the City can’t regulate agriculture if it qualifies as a “farm.” Members were OK with the “trucking center commercial” title. Regarding the “General Commercial” category, Ms. Peterson said this is a “catchall” for lower-impact commercial uses that don’t have a consumer draw (e.g., very small manufacturers, sign shop, etc.). They don’t draw a lot of truck traffic and require less parking. Mr. Mittag asked where hospitals fit. Mr. MacDonald said they are a protected use. Ms. Leban noted there are emergency uses of some commercial buildings. Ms. Peterson said there is a State definition that includes temporary uses for emergencies. Ms. Peterson asked if it is necessary to separate “commercial outdoor impact” and “commercial outdoor recreation.” Mr. Conner noted that motorized recreation vehicles are prohibited. He said that where the City would want a lumber yard and where it would want a golf course are 2 different things. Mr. Laurence asked where a shooting range would fall. Ms. Petersons said it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the City of South Burlington. 6. LDR Amendments: Supporting Uses in Commercial Areas: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of feedback from the Economic Development Committee. Mr. Mittag asked about “corporate accommodations.” Ms. Peterson said there is a new definition. She also noted that Onlogic has updated its request from “corporate accommodations” to something more like an “extended stay hotel,” PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 4 somewhere people would stay more than 30 days. Ms. Peterson noted such facilities don’t pay sales taxes. Mr. Conner said as business models move into the future, the line will become more blurred. There will be overnight facilities with kitchenettes because that is what people want. Ms. Peterson said there could also be both in the same building. She wasn’t sure the “corporate accommodations” use was needed, and it may be eliminated. Mr. Bailey of the Economic Development Committee said there are businesses (e.g., PC Construction) that send people to Williston for what Onlogic is looking for. He said this is not an unusual business need. There is a 6-month limit so it does not become an apartment. He noted that the Committee has asked for changes to the “Extended Stay Hotel” definition to be as flexible as possible. He added that if a business wants to build a child care facility or a clinic as well, he would say “right on!.” He asked that when the Commission discusses restrictions to be sure there are business people in the room. Mr. Bailey noted that the category “Tech Hub” will also need extended stay facilities. Mr. Conner said there is nothing incompatible about an extended stay hotel and a restaurant in Tech Park. But he asked Mr. Bailey to consider that the city has limited resources of land for uses that are incompatible with residential areas. There is also the question of drawing consumers to an area where the intent was that they not be drawn. Mr. Bailey said the Committee did not delve into the area that Vermont Construction got cited for at the other end of the spectrum by placing workers in residential area housing. Mr. Bailey noted that GBIC has mapped industrial parks in Chittenden County. They are limited, and not are in the development process now. He said the amenities are needed there or you won’t get the businesses or the employees. Ms. Louisos asked how to protect those areas so they are there for the businesses the City wants there (e.g., limiting the number of hotels). Mr. Conner suggested using some high-level logic regarding extended stay hotels in some form in a PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 5 commercial/industrial area. Ms. Riehle felt the use should be allowed as she has heard from people that this is what they need. Mr. Conner questioned what would happen if the business moved out and the next business didn’t want the use there. Mr. Bailey said he was convinced enough by the need that this would not be an issue. Ms. Peterson said they could allow “close by” extended stay in areas where there are smaller lots and thus save the bigger lots for industrial uses. Mr. Engels said in the original commercial-industrial regulations, the Commission didn’t think so much about where people would have lunch. He felt a hotel is in order and that it is important to recognize the needs of businesses in that area. Mr. Bailey recommended the Commission take a tour of Onlogic. 7. LDR Amendments: Minor and Technical Amendments: Ms. Peterson noted this includes typos, formatting, and things that are required to change because of State Law. The 3 things that require Planning Commission input are: a. Updating 1-4 residential units in a commercial building are a mixed use, not a residential use b. Whether ADUs should be allowed to have basements c. The Rice High School situation which ended up not being allowed in a residential district. The options for this are either going back to the previous zoning or changing the current zoning to the zoning of the adjoining district. Staff prefers the latter, and members were OK with this. Members were also OK with basements in ADUs and the “mixed use” designation. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 6 As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 29 APRIL 2025 PAGE 7