Planning Commission

SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 May 2025, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market St, and via Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. Leban, C. Lawrence ALSO PRESENT: K. Peterson, City Planner; A. Bond, M. Biama, T. Barritt, N. Senecal, T. Bailey 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: 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 staff report. 5. LDR Amendments Review: a. Site Plan Requirements: Ms. Peterson noted that site plans up to 4-plexes have been exempted from Site Plan review, but the regulations have allowed up to three 4-unit structures on a 2- acre lot. This has around some concern. Staff presented members with several options. Mr. Mittag suggested a trigger of 8 units or higher for MSN and 6 units for LSN. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 PAGE 1 Mr. Laurence said they already have a big jump. He felt not having site plan review could cause a backlash. Ms. Leban was concerned with the kind of assistance Planning & Zoning can provide to an amateur developer. She cited solar on the roof as one concern. Ms. Peterson said there are some things that do apply at permit time and some that do not. Such things as “harmony with the site” solar, lighting, trash, etc. are reviewable only at site plan review. Ms. Leban felt there should be site plan review on a one-acre lot, possibly not on 2 acres. Ms. Louisos was concerned that there is no recourse if a developer does a bad job. Mr. Laurence said it would be weird to have review for two 4-plexes but not for an 8-plex. Ms. Peterson said that was the logic for saying anything over 4 units. She added there can be a delay with site plan review which can affect financing. Some things in site plan review can result in more expense (e.g., parking arrangement). Otherwise the cost for site plan review wouldn’t break a development. Ms. Louisos was concerned with which site amenities would apply and whether amenities might be overlooked in an area where they are important. She said that once you have more than a few units, those amenities are important. She was OK as long as there is some review. Ms. Leban asked about administrative review. Ms. Peterson said that would allow staff to require something to go to the DRB. Administrative review standards would have to be rewritten to allow for this as what exists may be too discretionary. There would also have to be new authorization for administrative review, and this would have to be run by the legal department as to how much discretion should be allowed in an administrative review.. Mr. Mittag was concerned with missing some infill opportunities. Ms. Peterson reminded members the point of the discussion was to remedy an inconsistence. Mr. Mittag said that with a 2-acre lot, you can have four side-by-side duplexes and still have a lot of space behind them. Ms. Peterson said that there are some 2-acre PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 PAGE 2 sites where there is less buildable space due to such things as wetlands and transmission lines. Ms. Louisos moved to go with Option 3. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0 by roll call vote. Ms. Leban suggested revisiting this after there is a situation. b. Minor technical amendments: No issues were raised. c. Calculation of height: No changes were recommended. d. Uses in Commercial Areas (LDR 25.03): Mr. Bailey noted that the Economic Development Committee had done some work on this, specifically the “accommodation” request from OnLogic. A long-term hotel is close to what OnLogic now wants, and the Committee has suggested some changes that would accommodate that request. Mr. Bailey said he was surprised when the “scale” issue was raised. Ms. Leban said the Commission did not want hotel-size buildings in the IT zone because they would eliminate space for IT uses. Mr. Laurence said the intent is for City Center to be the location for “people” uses. Mr. Bailey said hotels are not uncommon in industrial areas, and City Center is further from the Airport than the IT areas. Ms. Peterson said this is part of consolidating commercial districts. There is no longer a distinction between “hotel” and “extended stay hotels.” The idea has been to consolidate things based on impact on what is already there. She said there is a difference between an economic goal and a planning goal. There is no need for a 200-room hotel in a commercial district. That leaves room for trucking, 24-hour uses, etc. which would be disruptive to hotel guests. Ms. Peterson noted different scales of use are allowed in different zoning districts. “Accommodation Medium” would be allowed in IC Districts which has a 60-room average geared more to extended stay use. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 PAGE 3 Mr. Biama, representing Tech Park, asked for more consideration concerning “scales.” He noted there are some uses existing in Tech Park that would not be allowed under the new regulations including a fitness center and child care. Ms. Peterson said child care is allowed in almost all districts. She asked how large the Planet Fitness use is. Mr. Biama said 10,500 sq. ft. Ms. Peterson said the aim is not to have a large retailer that would draw people to the area (e.g., a Target). If Planet Fitness were 9800 sq. ft., it would be great. Mr. Barritt noted the State has said we allow ADUs. He suggested a “commercial ADU” concept on a small scale close to a primary business. Ms. Louisos said she thought they are already doing that. Ms. Peterson said even some minimal housing could result in incompatible units leading to landlord-tenant issues, etc. e. Table of Uses – Appendix B Ms. Bond supported an I-O use in the Tilley Drive area. Ms. Peterson said there is no reason for it to be excluded, and she was OK with including it. It can be in the Transit Overlay District. It also hinges on the survival of Green Mountain Transit. Medical facilities and social service facilities need to be accessible for people. Ms. Bond said the UVM Medical Center provides a scheduled bus service to Tilley Drive filling the gap until GMT can expand more. The bus stops at every building on Hinesburg Road and Tilley Drive. Members were OK with that edit to go into the draft. Mr. Biama noted that consumer facing large commercial and mixed IC is not allowed on Kimball Ave. Ms. Peterson said that was intentional as that is not the proposed use of that area. Staff recommends tweaking the definition of “large.” The 10,000 sq. ft. designation comes from other small cities in the east. It is a common cutoff between scales of businesses. 10,000 sq. ft. would be a pretty big restaurant. Mr. Laurence suggested moving a gym to “general commercial.” Ms. Peterson said general commercial is not an allowed use in some smaller scale places. You couldn’t have a yoga studio in the Orchards which you now can have. Ms. Peterson noted that small warehousing is allowed in one category and large warehousing in another. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 PAGE 4 Ms. Peterson suggested a category for “small consumer facing indoor recreation.” Mr. Biama noted that in other markets, to get a CO for a special use, the property has to have a certain number of parking spaces per gross area. Ms. Peterson noted the City has moved away from minimum parking requirements. Ms. Peterson asked if there could be “indoor recreation” that is different from a “gym.” She noted that a fitness center is different from a use that has a track and tennis courts. Ms. Louisos suggested a middle ground, and noted that some uses could also fall into either category. Ms. Leban noted that in Appendix B there are inaccurate definitions for A9 and A10. She also noted that “glare” is not correctly defined. She would like to take time offer a correct definition of “direct glare” that is simple to understand. Ms. Peterson was happy to consider that. f. Updates to City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Laurence questioned the definition of Child Care Facility. Ms. Peterson said the City’s definition is almost exactly the same as the State definition. She was happy to check on it. There were no other comments to the section. g. Bedrock removal: Members were OK with this section. h. Zoning District Boundary Adjustments: Members were OK with this section. 6. Possible action to warn the changes to the LDRs: Ms. Peterson noted some revisions made at this meeting and said she would be happier warning this when there were more Commission members present. Members agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 PAGE 5  7. Planning Commission Work Plan FY26: Ms. Peterson said this needs to be done at this meeting for presentation to the City Council on for their 2 June deadline. Two items are included in the Work Plan: a. Status update regarding FY25 work (Ms. Peterson was excited about the number of things that have been adopted or almost completed) b. Staff recommendations for FY26, some of which are continued from FY25 including ongoing projects being done by other entities (e.g., Master Planning) Mr. Mittag asked about the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Peterson said the Council did not put that on last year’s Policies and Priorities. Staff feels there are enough things on the list for the Commission to have on its plate. If the Tree Ordinance did go forward, there are other bodies that would deal with it. It is up to the Council to tell someone to do it. Ms. Louisos then moved to approve the draft FY26 Work Plan as presented and submit it to the City Council. Ms. Leban seconded. The motion passed 4-0 by a roll call vote. 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 9:13 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION 27 MAY 2025 PAGE 6