HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 08/25/2020South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, August 25, 2020
7:00 pm
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members
of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be
no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2020-08-25
By Telephone (audio only): Phone # (571) 317-3122, access code: 960-660-709
AGENDA:
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
4. ***Work Session on Land Development Regulation Overhaul (7:15 pm)
a. Presentation and discussion of Subdivision, Master Plan, and PUD Standards (7:15 pm)
b. Review and discussion of key questions (8:20 pm)
c. Staff update on Habitat Block map analysis; Commissioner questions (8:40 pm)
5. ***Review and approve minutes of November 27, 2018; December 17, 2019; February 3, 2020; February
11, 2020; August 11, 2020 (8:58 pm)
6. Other Business (8:59 pm)
7. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
*** attachments enclosed
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings
to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try
to call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo
DATE: August 25, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
Staff Report:
Presentation from housing working group to Council: a volunteer group of residents and property
owners in South Burlington presented the results of their recently-complete housing report. The
presentation and Q&A session is available for viewing via the Council meeting recording.
Library & City Hall under construction: if you have not recently been down Market Street, take a
look! The building is going up quickly.
4. ***Work Session on Land Development Regulation Overhaul (7:15 pm)
a. Presentation and discussion of Subdivision, Master Plan, and PUD Standards (7:15 pm)
b. Review and discussion of key questions (8:20 pm)
See enclosed staff memo. Staff will provide an accompanying presentation to the staff
memo which will be made available for review. See the memo for recommended meeting
objectives for this meeting.
c. Staff update on Habitat Block map analysis; Commissioner questions (8:40 pm)
At the August 11th meeting, staff was asked to prepare two mapping analyses around
Habitat Blocks. The Natural Resources Considerations for Zoning Interactive Map Viewer has
been updated to include these two layers:
• Areas of Habitat Blocks that exclude mapped Hazards, the NRP, and Parks zoning
districts. [Hazards are: wetlands & buffers, streams & buffers, 1% floodplains, river
corridors, and steep slopes over 25%]
o Results: total land area = 465 acres
• “Core” vs “Outer” Habitat Block with the same calculation above. Core Habitat Blocks
measured as being 100 meters inside the mapped Habitat Block.
o Results: Core Habitat excluding hazards, NRP, Parks Zone = 277 acres
o Results: Outer Habitat Block excluding hazards, NRP, Parks Zone = 187 acres
5. ***Review and approve minutes of November 27, 2018; December 17, 2019; February 3, 2020;
February 11, 2020; August 11, 2020 (8:58 pm)
Over the past few months we took a few minutes to go back and make sure that all minutes are in
order. We found one set from 2018 that had not been approved – my apologies – as well as minutes
from the end of 2019 and early 2020.
6. Other Business (8:59 pm)
7. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
*** item has attachments
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Subdivisions, PUDs, Master Plans, Site Plans
DATE: August 25, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
At your last meeting, the focus was on Article 12 and the draft Environmental Protection Standards. At this
meeting we’d like to take a similar tact, but on the “built environment” side of the equation, and then tie
them together.
Over the past year-plus, you’ve seen and provided input on a multitude of different pieces of this puzzle. I’m
sure it’s been a challenge to keep track of, and we appreciate all of your attention. At this meeting we’d like
to give you a snapshot of where we are with each of the pieces, what each does, and most importantly,
gather Commission feedback on a handful of extremely important remaining decision points.
Included in this memo are updates, proposed thresholds for, and key questions on the following:
1. Subdivision Standards
2. Planned Unit Developments
3. Master Plans
4. Site Plans
Staff will begin the meeting with a presentation. The presentation will highlight the goals of the project, what
these updates include and intended to do (and what they do not do), and where pieces of the work – namely
PUDs – complement other updates to the LDRs that the Commission may elect to undertake in the future.
Included in this presentation will be a discussion of two possible ways that the Commission may elect to
assign maximum density in a PUD (which may also vary by PUD type): Land-Based vs. Building-Type Based.
This determination in various PUD settings is the most significant remaining decision for the Commission in
terms of completing the PUD project. Most of the remaining key questions are about thresholds and how to
achieve the stated goals for this project.
The presentation will also reference the current Commission’s work, including expansion of the TDR program
and integration with Inclusionary Zoning. These will be addressed more fully at an upcoming meeting
Meeting objectives:
• Commissioners are clear proposed structure and role of subdivisions, master plan, PUD, site plan
• Commissioners are clear on role of Hazards, Level 1, Level 2 Resources
• Commissioners are clear on how a Conservation subdivision works or pose questions they have
• Commissioners are clear on options for calculating maximum density or pose questions they have
• Commissioners have identified any additional information needed to make decisions on critical
questions at upcoming meetings
2
Below please find a status report on each topic, staff recommendations, and key Commission questions
Key questions / future decisions for Commission consideration are in Red
1. Subdivisions:
Summary:
This is a major upgrade to this Article. Currently nearly all subdivisions, except for minor subdivisions
resulting in two lots, are also Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and therefore not generally tied to
underlying zoning district standards. This amended Article establishes clear standards for the subdivision
of land (creation and merger of lots, supporting infrastructure) under the City’s current zoning district
and environmental protection regulations. As proposed, all planned unit developments are considered
subdivisions, but not all subdivisions will qualify as types of planned unit development.
Principal Functions
• Establishes the pattern of land subdivision and subsequent development: arrangement of streets,
blocks, building lots, supporting infrastructure, civic and other open spaces, and connectivity with
transportation networks, adjoining parcels.
• Establishes street and block length standards applicable to residential & mixed-use zoning districts
• Newly created building lots must meet zoning district (or PUD) lot standards, and accommodate
development (uses) allowed within the zoning district.
• In a non-PUD subdivision, development density is based only on the Buildable Area, and is not
transferable from undevelopable land within the subdivision.
Proposed Applicability / Thresholds:
• Administrative Review for minor Boundary Line adjustments and lot mergers.
• DRB review required for all subdivisions per state law. The level of review varies by type of
subdivision, as currently defined under the LDRs:
• Minor Subdivision: 2 lots (final review)
• Major Subdivision: 3+ lots (preliminary, final review)
How Environmental Protection Standards are applied
• Resource protection standards under Articles 10 and 12 apply, as applicable to any form of
development, including allowed encroachments.
• Subdivision and building lot lines must avoid or, to the extent allowed under applicable regulations,
minimize the subdivision and physical fragmentation of protected resources. A building lot may
extend into a protected resource area only as necessary to meet minimum lot area and frontage
standards.
• Hazards / Level I Resource Areas must be set aside as undevelopable land (e.g., conserved open
space), and excluded from the calculation of “Buildable Area.” (see note re: Conservation
Subdivisions)
• Level I and II Resource Areas may be incorporated into a building lot so long as the building envelope
on the lot is delineated to exclude these resources.
3
How Density is Applied:
In a non-PUD subdivision, development density is determined based on zoning district standards (lot
sizes, frontage, etc.) as applied to the net buildable area. It is not transferrable from undevelopable
areas to developable areas within the subdivision.
Status:
Draft ready for Commission review (with adjustments to natural resource classification underway based
on Commission feedback). Final language to be modified based on Commission feedback on key items.
Staff to provide complete draft in September 2020.
Related Documents:
Standard Status
Environmental Protection Standards Provided to PC 5/26/20
Street types
PC previously reviewed; complete
Civic Space Types PC previously reviewed; need to assign to zoning
districts for subdivision
Updated planned rights-of-way Draft ready for review
Official Map On PC work plan; to be updated following IZ
Critical Remaining Commission Decisions Points on Subdivisions
• Confirm that in future subdivisions, Hazards and Level 1 Resources must be set aside as
undevelopable land (e.g., conservation lots) and excluded from density calculations
• Application of “walkable” street and block standards in residential and mixed use districts
Non-critical, important decision points on Subdivisions [future meeting this summer/fall]
• Review traffic level of service thresholds
• Review proposed standards for public vs private roads
• Confirm requirements for construction / payment of infrastructure connections
• Review proposed minimum civic space standards [non-PUD subdivisions]
4
2. Planned Unit Developments
Summary:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions, as currently required for all subdivisions of 10 or more
acres under the LDRs and all major subdivisions in the SEQ (and elective for 2 or more acres), provide
flexibility from applicable zoning district requirements by allowing the DRB to modify or waive required
lot sizes, setbacks, and other dimensional standards, ostensibly to meet stated community objectives in
conformance with the comprehensive plan. Current standards also allow for the calculation and
transfer of density across the entire subdivision, as applied within designated development areas. PUDs
currently function primarily as a means to modify or waive zoning standards, without any additional
design or development criteria intended to meet city objectives.
The intent of new PUD provisions, is to more clearly and specifically define planned unit development as
one or more “types” of planned development that allow for some flexibility within defined dimensional
and design parameters specific to each type. As proposed, PUD types function as “floating” zones that
relate to underlying zoning districts with regard to allowed uses (with limited additions) and minimum
densities of development, but otherwise incorporate dimensional and design standards – including land
allocation, and street, building, and civic space type standards – that vary by PUD type.
Principal Functions
• Allow or require integrated, comprehensive forms of planned development, e.g.:
• Traditional Neighborhood Development – walkable residential neighborhoods
• Neighborhood Commercial Development –walkable, mixed use centers
• Conservation PUDs – resource conservation, walkable neighborhoods
• Infill/Redevelopment – context sensitive modifications allowing integration, “best fit”
• Each PUD type is proposed as a “floating zone”– an overlay zone as defined under the current LDRs,
which is generally affiliated with an underlying zoning district in terms of allowed uses (with
additional uses assigned to certain PUD types), but dimensional and design standards for blocks lots,
and building form vary by PUD type.
• Each PUD type has minimum thresholds (triggers) for applicability.
• More than one PUD type may be permitted within a parcel or parcels, so long as minimums for each
are met
How Environmental Protection Standards are applied
• Resource protection standards under Articles 10 and 12 apply, as applicable to any form of
development, including allowed encroachments.
• Subdivision and building lot lines must avoid or, to the extent allowed under applicable regulations,
minimize the subdivision and physical fragmentation of protected resources
• Hazards Resource Areas must be set aside as undevelopable land (e.g., conserved open space), and
excluded from the calculation of “buildable area.”
• Level I Resource Areas are treated as follows:
• In a TND, NCD, or Infill/Redevelopment PUD, they are treated as a Hazard Resource Area
• In a Conservation PUD, they are treated as a Level II Resource Areas [note, this is a work is
progress based on Commissioner feedback at 8/11 meeting]
• Level II Resource Areas are included in the calculation of “buildable area” – e.g., for purposes of
determining the allowed density of development, and minimum land use (and resource land in
Conservation PUD) allocations as applicable; however resource protections standards apply
5
• Level II Resources may include land that is not otherwise regulated in Article 12, such as
Agricultural soils or farms, expanded riparian areas, other
• In a conservation PUD, the applicant has a right to build on 30% of non-Hazard land, which may
include some Level II Resources if these Level II resources exceed 70% of the remaining
property. Level II resources recommended be ranked for purposes of Conservation PUD
allocations.
Proposed Thresholds for PUDs:
Area Applicability Conservation TND NCD Infill/Redevelopment
0-2 acres Not Permitted
2-4 acres Elective Permitted Permitted up to TND/NCD threshold
4+ acres Mandatory (1) Permitted Permitted up to TND/NCD threshold
5+ acres Mandatory (1,2) Permitted Permitted Permitted up to TND threshold
10+ acres Mandatory (2) Permitted Permitted Permitted
(1) The Commission had previously indicated that PUDs should be required for all neighborhoods over 4 acres in
size in order to preclude large-lot, sub-Act 250 neighborhoods from being built. An alternative to requiring a
PUD for these 4-10 acre lots could be to establish a maximum lot size under standard subdivision. This has not
been fully examined but is an option for the Commission.
(2) Staff is working with Sharon Murray to review circumstances of single-buildings on large lots and how these
would related to PUD requirements.
Proposed Applicability of Individual PUD/PRD Types:
PUD Type Allowable Zoning Districts
Infill/ Redevelopment Applicable TND / NCD districts
Conservation PUD All Zoning Districts where thresholds are exceeded; R1, R2, SEQ-NR,
SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC, SEQ-NRP [additional limitations apply]
TND R1-PRD, R1-LV, R2, R4, R7, Lakeshore, Allen Rd, Swift St, C1-LR, R7-NC,
SEQ NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC
NCD R12, All C1- Districts, C2, Allen Road, Swift St, R7-NC
Simplified Developable Land Allocations [simplified, full version to be provided next month]
PUD Type Residential Min Non-Residential
Min
Open Space Min Unallocated
TND 70% 5% 10% (Civic) 15%
NCD 40% 25% 10% (Civic) 25%
Conservation 15% 0% 70% (65% Resource,
2% civic)
15%
6
Minimum and Maximum Residential Density, by PUD type
PUD Type Minimum Density Maximum Density
Infill/Redevelopment Greater of 4 units per Buildable Acre or
underlying zoning district max gross density
Land-Based 1 or 2, or Building-Based
[staff recommends Commission discuss
pros & cons of each]
TND Greater of 4 units per Buildable Acre or
underlying zoning district max gross
density, whichever is greater
Option: Minimum of 8 units per Buildable
Acre within ¼ mile of transit routes
Land-Based 1 or 2, or Building-Based
[staff recommends Building-Based]
NCD Greater of 8 units per Buildable Acre or
underlying zoning district max gross density
whichever is greater
Land-Based 1 or 2, or Building-Based
[staff recommends Building-Based]
Conservation Greater of 4 units per Buildable Acre or
underlying zoning district max gross density
Land-Based 1 or 2, or Building-Based
[staff recommends Commission discuss
pros and cons of each]
Maximum Density Alternatives:
Land Based Option 1 Land Based Option 2 Building Based
Source Underlying Zoning Minimum Density for
applicable PUD
Building Types
Base
calculation
Total land area
underlying zoning
district maximum
1.5 – 2 times the minimum
density for the PUD
Determined based on allowed
building types and associated lot
sizes as applied within Buildable
Areas
Bonuses, TDRs Added (eg, current
affordable housing)
2 – XX times the minimum
density for the PUD
Additional more compact building
types and/or greater allowed
percentage of more compact
building types
Status:
In development; awaiting PC review and determination on how to calculate Maximum Density
Related Documents:
Standard Status
Environmental Protection Standards Provided to PC 5/26/20
Subdivision Standards See above
Master Plan Standards See above
Street types PC previously reviewed; complete
Civic Space Types PC previously reviewed; need to assign to zoning
districts for subdivision
Building Types [except PRD] PC previously reviewed; Commission to review
updated detailed requirements
TDR standards for sending / receiving areas Under development
Site Plan Standards Ready for Commission Review
7
Critical Remaining Commission Decisions Points on Planned Unit Developments
• Determine whether to include infill/redevelopment PUDs for smaller residential parcels
• Determine How Maximum Density is to be calculated in TNDs, NCDs, Conservation,
Infill/Redevelopment
• Finalize list of Hazards, Level 1 Resource Protection Areas, Level 2 Resource Protection Areas
Non-critical, important decision points on master plans [future meeting this summer/fall]
• Finalize thresholds for PUDs and PUD types
• Review and Finalize Building Type standards
• Finalize allocations for each PUD type
• Determine standards for Infill/Redevelopment
• Determine allowed uses to apply to each
• Incorporate TDRs (sending, receiving) into PUD types
• Incorporate Inclusionary Zoning into PUD types
8
3. Master Plan
Summary:
As with subdivisions, this is a major upgrade to Article 15, to include more specific submission
requirements and review criteria. Master plans are intended to provide an overall plan for the orderly,
coordinated development of large tracts of land, and for more complex, phased development projects,
including most forms of planned unit development. The current Master Plan requirement under Article
15 applies to:
• Development of more than 10 dwelling units in the SEQ (also referred to in the SEQ as a
“regulating plan”)
• Development of more than 10 dwelling units in a 5-year period in the R1-Lakeshore District.
Current Master Plan provisions do not include specific review criteria; they simply establish a handful
thresholds for required amendments. They also give the DRB authority to determine the level of review
for future phases of development, but do not require phasing or overall design plans, and do not give the
applicant any vested rights.
The amended Master Plan would require applicants to identify protected resource areas, areas reserved
for future development, and the overall pattern of development (street, block layouts) within designated
development areas, to include the allocation of proposed land uses and civic space. The master plan
would also provide overall buildout estimates (budgets), proposed phasing schedules, and (potentially)
establish common design palates to be carried through the development. Where a design palate is
submitted and approved, it can be carried through future approvals. For the applicant, an approved
Master Plan would vest the project under current Land Development Regulations for a period of up to 10
years, for all future applications submitted under that Master Plan.
Principal Functions
• Applies to larger, more complex development – larger parcels, phased development, planned unit
development, multiple principal uses or buildings on a parcel
• Consists of a development (subdivision, land use, transportation, design) plan prepared to scale,
that establishes the overall framework for orderly, integrated subdivision and development of one
or more parcels of land.
• Used to determine project budgets at buildout (e.g., total developed area, acreage allocations by
use type, total housing units or gross square feet, total trip generation, stormwater volume, water
and sewer capacity allocations, etc.) and anticipated mitigation measures, improvements.
• Serves as the basis for project phasing (phasing plan), specifying the timing and sequence of
development, provision of civic space, public amenities, etc. in relation existing and planned
infrastructure capacity, required improvements, adopted capital improvement plan.
• May also serve as the basis for formal development agreements with the City (e.g., with regard to
provision of infrastructure, public facilities, amenities).
• Subsequent subdivision, development applications must be found to be consistent with the master
plan as approved.
• Vests the project under the current regulations for a period of up to 10 years, to provide assurances
necessary for project financing as necessary for large-scale projects, e.g.,
9
Proposed Thresholds:
As proposed, required for:
• Subdivision, development of any parcel equal to or greater than 4 acres (elective 2-4 acres)
• All Planned Unit Development
• Development occurring over 2 or more phases or 3 or more years
• Multiple principal buildings on a single lot (in association with preliminary site plan review)
How Environmental Protection Standards are applied
• Per Article 12 / Subdivision / PUD type standards
How Density is Applied:
• Per underlying zoning / PUD type standards
• Master Plan may approve multiple PUDs within a single application
Status:
Draft complete for Commission review in September. Minor modifications will be needed based on
Commission guidance on Subdivisions, PUDs
Related Documents:
Standard Status
Subdivision See above
PUDs See below
Site Plans See below
Critical Remaining Commission Decisions Points on Master Plans
• Thresholds for applicability [review in early September]
Non-critical, important decision points on master plans [future meeting this summer/fall]
• Amount of information required [include design palate]
10
4. Site Plans
Summary: Site plans are the specific, site-level design of how a building and its support infrastructure
are arranged on a lot. They apply to all development other than the subdivision of land, and single or
two family home properties in South Burlington. In the past these have been closely linked to PUDs and
in fact many commercial properties have applied as PUDs in order to obtain dimensional waivers, etc.
The proposed amendments would make clear the DRB / Administrative Officer’s purview with site plans
specifically, and establish clear (limited) authority to grant dimensional waivers where appropriate, thus
reserving the PUD tool for its intended purpose.
Principal Functions:
• Site level design for all development except single family homes & two family homes
• Includes building bulk, placement and architectural standards, as applicable
• Standards and arrangement of site features: parking, lighting, stormwater, site-level civic space,
landscaping, refuse removal, snow removal, etc.
• Allows for limited waiver of dimensional standards by the DRB
• Density, housing preservation, and inclusionary zoning standards applied
• Site-level traffic and transportation demand management [subset of a subdivision or PUD]
How Environmental Protection Standards are applied
Per Article 12 [may have been partially addressed via subdivision / PUD if lot was created after adoption
of regulations
Proposed Thresholds: As presently applied: all development other than single and two-family homes
Status: Draft ready for Commission review.
Related Documents:
Standard Status
Environmental Protection Standards Provided to PC 5/26/20
Subdivision Standards See above
Master Plan Standards See above
TDR Standards [may be applied now or later] Under development
Site-Level Civic Space Types [possible later
addition]
PC previously reviewed; need to assign amounts
per site plan – may be later project
Update underlying Zoning Districts if not a PUD
[including possible future modifications]
Not yet started
Critical Remaining Commission Decisions Points on Planned Unit Developments
• Review proposed changes to underlying zoning districts [in September]
Non-critical, important decision points on master plans [future meeting this summer/fall]
• Determine waiver authority for site plan applications
• Consider options for infill via TDR
• Consider site-level civic space requirements
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
27 NOVEMBER 2018
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 November
2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; S. Dooley, A.
Chalnick, D. Leban, T. Barritt, D. Burke, L. Murphy, D. Angus
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Conner asked to add to Other Business a 45-day notice from the Public Service Board.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Chalnick said that the Energy Committee would like to work with the Planning Commission
regarding changes to the LDRs to support South Burlington’s climate change pledge. Ms.
Louisos noted that Mr. Conner is the city’s Sustainability Coordinator. She also noted that the
Commission will be evaluating its work plan at this meeting and will sort out what it has been
asked to do. The Commission has been considering a possible bonus structure for
developments the provide something “extra special,” which could involve energy. The Energy
Committee could suggest possibly changes to the LDRs for the Commission to review as it has
done in the past.
Ms. Leban said the Bike & Pedestrian Committee would like to help promote bike and
pedestrian structure for new streets and streets that are redone. Ms. Louisos noted that the
Commission will be consolidating roadway standards. A preliminary draft of the standards is
posted on the city’s website.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby: She is hoping to attend the Vermont Energy and Climate Conference on
Saturday. She also noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has been invited to tour
Allard Square next Thursday.
2
Mr. Conner’s: Voters very substantially passed the 4 ballot items regarding the new City Hall-
Library-Senior Center.
Staff has been doing the math to see where new dwelling units in the city have
been located this year. 126 of these units have been located in the City Center/Form Based
Code area (this does not include the Cathedral Square building).
5. Recap of November 13th City Council Meeting /Adoption of Interim Zoning Bylaws:
Ms. Louisos noted that she and Mr. Gagnon attended the meeting. The City Council voted 4-1
to adopt Interim Zoning with the 4 study areas the Commission had discussed. The City
Manager then sent a letter summarizing the approach the Council wants to take. The
Commission will continue to have the consultants for the PUD project, but staff time will be a
big concern.
Mr. Mittag asked if there will be staff/legal time to review what the Commission comes up with.
Mr. Conner said if there is a need to review anything, that is within the Council’s priorities.
Mr. Mittag asked if Inclusionary Zoning will be included in what the Commission needs to work
on during Interim Zoning. Ms. Louisos said that is not part of the 4 assigned committees, but
the Commission should talk about that. Mr. Mittag said the Affordably Housing Committee has
done most of that work. Ms. Dooley said there was a lot of talk at the Council meeting
regarding Inclusionary Zoning. Ms. Ostby said she recalls asking if that was a priority and the
Council chair said yes. Mr. Klugo noted there was no direct instruction to include it. Mr.
Conner said that Mr. Dorn had felt that the City Council saw Inclusionary Zoning as a “secondary
priority” to the elements of Interim Zoning. Mr. Gagnon cautioned to be careful of “scope
creep.” Mr. Klugo said the Commission should deal with the primary priorities first and can ask
for clarification regarding Inclusionary Zoning.
Mr. Mittag also noted that he had done a draft of a TDR Ordinance which would need a legal
review. Ms. Louisos said that should be considered by the TDR Committee that is being set up.
Ms. Ostby asked whether having the LDRs catch up with the Comprehensive Plan is part of
Interim Zoning. Ms. Louisos said that all the recommendations of the Interim Zoning
committees will have to come to the Planning Commission for vetting. Mr. Klugo said there are
open issues from the last Interim Zoning that weren’t implemented, and there was a lot of
public comment about that. He felt they need to understand where their base line is.
Ms. Louisos said she felt the Commission’s entire work plan addresses elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3
Mr. Mittag said he thought that what the Council wants from the Commission are draft LDRs.
Ms. Louisos said that was the Commission’s goal with the PUD project.
Ms. Louisos suggested there be time on every agenda to get feedback from representatives to
the Interim Zoning committees so there are no surprises when the Commission gets the final
products. Mr. Klugo said he would like to see information prior to a meeting in order to review
it before the Commission has to respond to it. He asked who will set out the “master calendar”
of when drafts, final reports, etc. are due. Mr. Conner said that would by the City Manager
implementing the City Council’s request. Staff has laid out a timetable, but it is a work in
progress.
The floor was then opened for nominations to represent the Planning Commission on the TDR
and Open Space Interim Zoning Committees.
Ms. Louisos nominated Mr. Gagnon for the Open Space IZ Committee and Mr. Mittag for the
TDR IZ Committee. Mr. Mittag seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Gagnon
and Mr. Mittag were elected 6-0.
Mr. Klugo asked if there will be a statement of what the committees are supposed to
accomplish. Mr. Conner said Mr. Dorn and the Council will provide that. All committee
meetings will be public and subject to the open meeting law. The Council will take action on
committee nominations at their 17 December meeting.
6. Scheduling action concerning initial consideration of requests for amendments to the
Land Development Regulations discussed on 9 October 2018:
Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of discussion as to whether the Commission would take up
LDR amendment requests in the near future.
Mr. Conner noted there are two requests pending, the first would allow parking in front of
buildings (the specific request involves buildings on Shelburne Road) and the second relates to
scenic views.
Ms. Louisos noted the Council has indicated the Commission shouldn’t take up anything that is
not related to the Interim Zoning instructions. Mr. Gagnon felt the requests should be deferred
if they are not what the Commission has been told to do.
Mr. Burke noted that their request regarding scenic views started before Interim Zoning. He
asked that it should be addressed as soon as the Commission has time for it. Mr. Murphy made
the same request regarding front of building parking. Commission members agreed.
4
7. Commission Work Session: Planned Unit Developments:
a. Which elements to complete, which to phase for post IZ period
b. Introduction to application spreadsheet and review elements
Ms. LaRose reminded members that at the 23 October meeting staff presented a long list of
projects to complete. The Commission asked staff to see if anything could/should be moved to
a later date. Ms. LaRose said there are some pieces that could be done after the PUD standard
and a few that can be phased out.
Ms. LaRose then explained the nature of a PUD and noted that it has been used most often
because it is an easy way to get waivers. Mr. Conner added that some projects that are PUDs
now shouldn’t be. This means that some site standards have to be revised so this doesn’t
continue to happen.
Ms. LaRose then reviewed the 3 types of applications: site plans, subdivisions, and planned unit
developments (PUDs). She said there needs to be clarity as to what is expected under each of
these types. She then reviewed some of the issues that need to be addressed:
1. Master Plan Standards: these need to be clearer
2. Open Space, Building, Street Standards: These will be important for all the
types of applications.
3. Graphic Illustrations: These will be critical for understanding what is being
required. It makes it easier to understand if you can actually see what
something should look like.
4. Natural Resource Standards: After the JM Golf decision, staff realized that
these standards were vague and a rewrite began. But because of the first
interim zoning and work on the update of the Comprehensive Plan, work did
not progress. There is some grant money with the Regional Planning
Commission to do some of the work. Ms. LaRose noted that some of the “big
picture” items were already pulled out and put into the Comprehensive Plan,
but nothing specific got into the LDRs. Mr. Conner said the first thing the
Commission should address is buildable/nonbuildable areas and what it
means to be a “secondary resource.” Is it OK to have an incursion if there is
mitigation? Ms. LaRose added that they are also working on consistent
terminology. Mr. Conner stressed that the Comprehensive Plan can be
implemented in many ways, not only by regulatory solutions (e.g.,
education). Ms. LaRose said they are trying to build a connection between
the Comprehensive Plan strategies and what exists in the LDRs. One of the
5
standards is “compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,” and that’s like
“cherry picking.” She suggested there could be a requirement for 5 specific
things and then a choice of 5 more from a list of 10. She felt this is one of the
biggest improvements that can be made and one which the DRB would
appreciate the most.
5. Re-evaluation of Underlying Zoning Districts: Ms. LaRose noted that PUDs
were tied to a zoning district (there wouldn’t be a Conservation PUD on
Shelburne Rd.) Staff has been looking at all the zoning districts to be sure a
PUD type is right for that district. They have to look at every use in every
district to be sure something isn’t left out from where it could/should be.
Mr. Klugo asked if it is possible to do this by just saying it supersedes the
underlying zoning. Ms. LaRose said that is the intent, but you have to be sure
the right PUD districts are in the right zoning districts. Ms. Ostby asked what
if an IZ Committee comes back with a different recommendation. Mr.
Gagnon said every piece of land in the city has to have an underlying zoning.
If the Open Space IZ Committee recommends that something be kept open
and the city chooses not to use a mechanism to conserve it, there has to be a
zoning district to direct the development that happens there. Ms. Ostby said
there could be a bonus that the TDRs could offer. Ms. LaRose said still will
provide a chart of zoning districts and what changes could occur there. Mr.
Klugo said the Commission should only be looking at zoning in the IZ areas.
The others can be a “phase 2.”
Ms. LaRose said the issues to cover at a later date include: Master Plan standards related to City
Center, Miscellaneous clean-ups (there are many), and Natural Resource Standards to areas
specifically excluded from Interim Zoning.
Ms. LaRose then showed what an application for a PUD could look like. It would include
restraints (unbuildable areas) which would have a number associated with them. There would
then be a buildable number. For parcels that fall into 2 zoning districts, there would be an
average density.
Mr. Conner said there would be elements of the PUD standards that determine where the
development goes (e.g., in a Transit PUD, development would go near the transit).
Mr. LaRose said the purpose of a PUD is to allow for efficiency and creativity. She noted that
for certain PUD types, there would be a minimum land size, no matter what the underlying
zone is. Mr. Conner said there may be cases where a small project is in an area with larger
neighborhoods. Mr. Klugo said there is a need to figure out how to navigate the Act 250
“loophole” which allows up to 9 units to escape Act 250 review.
6
Ms. Dooley noted that the Kirby Cottages took up less than 2 acres (which would be a PUD
minimum) and was a great development. Mr. Conner said that is a great point and staff is
considering that. Mr. Klugo said they also have to understand that “highest and best use” can
change daily.
Mr. Klugo asked if there would be an administrative approval if a development proposal meets
all criteria and standards. Ms. LaRose didn’t think so. Mr. Klugo asked why a developer would
go through all of that and still not know if the project is going to be approved. Mr. Conner said
that is the lesson of the JM Golf decision: neighbors have a right to know what is like to be built.
Mr. Klugo felt that if a development meets all the standards it should be viewed the same as in
the Form Based Code district where there is administrative approval. Members agreed to
continue this discussion after Interim Zoning.
Mr. Angus cited an issue where he has attempted to put a tenant (skin care service) into a
building and has been turned down because of zoning. Ms. LaRose acknowledged that the
property is one of those where the underlying zoning doesn’t make sense. Part of the PUD
project could involve a new zoning for that area. Mr. Conner felt there could be a very simple
solution to this problem which wouldn’t take much time to do.
Ms. LaRose then explained how a formula would work: In the Traditional Neighborhood PUD,
you would eliminate the unbuildable areas and then be allowed to develop 70% of the
buildable areas with a distribution of housing types, some non-residential and usable open
space (e.g., a soccer field). 10% of the housing types would be of the developer’s choice. Mr.
Klugo said that would help address the market demand. Ms. LaRose noted that certain building
types would not be appropriate in all PUD types.
Mr. Klugo asked why there is a maximum density in a PUD. Mr. Conner said you don’t have to
have a maximum density. Realistically, there won’t be more than that. It will just be easier to
explain to the public.
Ms. LaRose noted there would be a minimum density based on the underlying density and the
proportion of buildable land. Mr. Klugo questioned whether the minimum density is too low
from the taxability point of view. Mr. Conner felt that is a good conversation to have.
Mr. Conner noted that the Traditional Neighborhood PUD doesn’t not work at less than 4 units
per acre.
8. Consider Resolution for Electric Vehicle charging Station Grant:
7
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Resolution for the Electric Vehicle Charging Station Grant as
presented. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
9. Meeting Minutes of 23 October 2018:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 October 2018 as written. Mr. Mittag
seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Macdonald abstaining.
10. Other Business:
a. Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission on draft amendments to
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 27 November 2018, 7 p.m.,
Burlington City Hall
b. Public Hearing by Burlington Planning Commission on draft plan BTV Burlington
Comprehensive Plan, December 5, 2018, Burlington City Hall
c. Public Hearing by Winooski Planning Commission on Draft Winooski Master Plan,
December 13, 2018, 6:30 p.m., Winooski City Hall
Mr. Conner noted these are information items.
Mr. Conner then presented 2 Public Service Board 45-day pre-application notices and identified
where the solar panels would be located. Mr. Klugo said he wouldn’t support either request
because of the process. Mr. Mittag agrees and noted this panels make the land unusable. Mr.
Klugo said the PSB should provide land that is usable as a mitigation similar to what happens
with wetlands, etc. Ms. Ostby asked if the Commission can request that the land below the
panels be filled with wildflowers and pollinators and possibly use for grazing. Commission
comments will be passed along to the Public Service Board.
Members agreed to hold only 1 meeting in December (11 December) as the second meeting
would fall on Christmas night.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 10:25 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
17 DECEMBER 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 17 December 2019 at
7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; J. Simson, S. Dooley, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, R.
Mahony, M. Simoneau
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm)
5. Continue Review proposed Land Development Regulation amendments: (7:10 pm)
a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center Form
Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are
north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District.
b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards [LDR-
19-13A], and; (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all
remaining parts of the City.
Commissioners held a work session to review draft amendments.
Mr. Conner reported that the legal review was completed for the draft in the packet, however not yet
for items that had been modified following delivery of the packet.
Commissioners discussed the draft amendments and items where the Commission had provided
guidance or sought further discussion from the prior meeting.
Commissioners discussed the contents of a letter received from O’Brien Brothers.
Staff was directed to make several modifications, to complete the legal review, and to have a fresh draft
in advance of the next meeting (January 14th).
6. Possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council
No action taken
7. Meeting Minutes (7:45 pm): December 11, 2018, November 26, 2019, December 10, 2019
Mr. Gagnon moved to approved minutes of December 11, 2018; November 26, 2019; and
December 10, 2019. Motion seconded by Duncan Macdonald. Approved 5-0.
8. Other Business No other business
9. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 pm
___________________________________
2
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
3 FEBRUARY 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, 3 February 2020, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald
ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; P. Kahn; K.
Montgomery; C. Jensen; A. Chalnick; A. Gill; F. Von Turkovich; E. Von Turkovich; M. Cota; E. Langfeldt; M.
Cota; M. Simoneau; S. Dooley; P. O'Brien; J. Larkin; J. Morway; J. Morway; K. Lord; J. Nick
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
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:
No announcements.
5. Continued Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report
recommendations
Staff shared an updated set of recommendations from the TDR Interim Zoning Committee Report based
on the Commission’s prior meeting discussions and feedback.
Commissioners reviewed the draft recommendations and members indicated that they felt they
generally represented the Commission’s feedback to date.
Ms. Louisos solicited comments from the public.
Mr. Langfeldt said that not being able to use a hazard as sending TDR doesn't make sense; if the
receiving area can absorb the density, why not? Mr. Mittag said that TDR may be used to tweak
conditions elsewhere
Mr. Kahn said that if one can build by transferring density within a property, should allow it to be used
as TDR as well.
Mr. O’Brien said that if you're a landowner and deciding whether to build or conserve a piece of land,
the City may wish to give the benefit of selling TDRs from hazards in order to get additional value for
conservation.
2
Mr. F Von Turkovich said that starting with a clean slate, wetlands do have an economic value of
wetlands. If you have a wetland next to your developable land, it enhances the value of the developable
part. Perhaps a wetland has a fraction of a TDR value?
Ms. Lord said that if you have an owner of TDRs, if you take some away, that's a direct economic impact.
Mr. Montgomery said that he was concerned that the Open Space report would be used in a regulatory
form.
Ms. Dooley said that in looking at new receiving areas, the Commission needs to consider traffic impact.
Mr. E .Von Turkovich asked whether there has there been a study of the economic value of TDRs? Mr.
Mittag replied that he had spoken with several TDR program managers and they have said it's difficult to
estimate TDRs until you determine the areas where you want to use them.
Ms. Morway said it’s important for everyone to remember why the TDR program started. Everyone feels
that they're not sure what's coming next, except that their property will be worth less. She said that
they had sold some, and that it's not a quick process and it's not cheap. And it's not easy to find
someone to buy them.
Mr. Kahn asked whether the Commission is contemplating retaining the NRP and adding, or replacing
the NRP? Ms. Louisos replied that the Commission has not talked about removing the NRP
Mr. Kahn said that a major focus has to be on new receiving areas.
Mr. Gill said that he is concerned that both allowing development on Open Space IZ parcels and also
having them be TDR sending areas. Could be creating uncertainty at Act 250.
Mr. Larkin said he wasn’t sure why he'd buy TDRs if there are other places, like City center FBC, don't
require them.
Mr. Langfeldt inquired about steep slopes. Members of the audience and Commissions had a extended
discussion of steep slope considerations.
Following discussion, Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission accept the revised recommendations as
written for our future work as a path forward on items 1-6 from the packet. Mr. Riehle seconded.
Motion approved 6-0.
6. Affirm Planning Commission Policy Intentions Related to Interim Zoning Committee and PUD
Project Work
Ms. Louisos discussed the list of items in the Commission’s packet. She reported that she and staff had
worked to prepare a list of the guidance previously given on various elements of Interim Zoning Work
and PUD project for review together and possible action by the Commission to affirm the list. This would
be helpful in preparing the Planning Commission’s presentation to Council next week, she said.
Members reviewed the numbered items one by one.
1. Regulated Natural Resources:
a. Tiered levels to include hazards, level 1, and level 2, per the resource considerations
document reviewed October 29, 2019, with updates per Arrowwood 2020 report and
continued work on steep slopes and agriculture. These will apply citywide as part of Chapter
12 update.
b. Accept findings of 2019 Arrowwood Report
3
i. Habitat blocks shall be defined per identified areas of report; Commission to evaluate
whether to include all blocks and/or regulate at the same levels. No additional lands to
be regulated as Level 1 habitat blocks.
c. Some exemptions or reduction in regulation (example, City Center area) are intended to be
reviewed shortly.
d. No additional natural resources regulated as hazards or level 1 beyond those identified and
accepted above. Those portions of parcels identified in the 2019 IZ Open Space report, that
are not a regulated hazard, level 1 or level 2 natural resource shall not be regulated as a
hazard, level 1 or level 2 natural resource.
Commissioners discussed. Staff was asked to clarify #1b. What did “findings” mean, as the
Commission has only received the prior week. It was suggested that it be changed to “findings &
methodology”. Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Nick asked whether there could be field verification? Ms. Louisos suggested that there could
be a commitment to update the report regularly.
2. Density Calculations:
a. Max Residential Density calculated: multiply total land area less hazards by average
weighted density
i. Maximum density would remove hazard lands in all cases. For development without
PUD, would also remove lands classified as Level 1 resource areas.
ii. Some exceptions for conservation PUDs.
b. Minimum residential densities would apply in PUDs
i. Calculate by multiplying land area exclusive of hazards and level 1 times residential
allocation x underlying density maximum.
ii. For SEQ, minimum density (of 4 units/acre for NRT/NR and 8u/acre for VC and VR)
would be calculated as an effective density based on impacted land. This would not
mandate use of TDRs to meet minimums.
c. Minimum and maximum commercial densities are intended; work is ongoing and details tbd.
Mr. Von Turkovich said that if a property owner has land in these areas, they may need to to buy
TDRs to make up for lost density on a property.
3. Changes to PUD requirements
a. Confirm PUD types (conservation, TND, NCD, Campus)
b. Remove required PUDs based on underlying zoning (airport, SEQ as example)
c. Require PUDS for 4+ acres (PC determination on 3/12/2019); special circumstances to be
discussed
d. PUDs to include mix of land allocations per PUD type
e. Open space, road, and building types will be specified from typology standards
4. Master Plan- required for phased projects; details forthcoming.
5. Affirm that some desired elements of work will take place after adoption of
PUD/Subdivision/Master Plan work. These phase 2 components include:
a. Score card for PUDs
b. Remainder of underlying zoning updates
c. Infill/small lot subdivision
4
d. How to fit building and open space types City-wide
e. Additional update to site plan standards
f. Reserved sections of article 12 and scenic views
6. TDR Report Recommendations
a. Per PC decisions 02/03/2020 (see separate memo)
7. Affirm intention for community outreach. General game plan to include testing and small group
meetings/listening sessions with diverse groups of stakeholders.
8. Open Space Report: for any portions of identified parcels not already restricted in PC work related
to natural resources (hazards, levels 1 and level 2), Commission recommends City Council review in
balance with Earth Economics report and other metrics and consider any potential conservation
using tools outside of the Land Development Regulations.
Commissioners discussed each of the above. Following discussion, Mr. Gagnon moved that the
Commission affirm the Planning Commission decisions as presented in the memo for presentation to
Council (with the addition of “and methodology to item #1b). Mr. Mittag Seconded. Motion approved
6-0.
Mr. Gagnon stressed that this was a working document and that these were, in his view, general
affirmations.
Mr. Macdonald said that the Commission needs to be conscious of downzoning in all discussions. This
must be a community conversation.
Ms. Ostby said that a helpful visual would be arrowwood report and overlay NRP on it.
9. Preparation for February 11th Joint Meeting with City Council (8:00 PM)
Ms. Louisos said she was prepared for the presentation with tonight’s guidance. The presentation
would be based on the prior week’s work, rearranged and with the feedback given at that time and
tonight. Mr. Mittag offered to assist with the presentation of the TDR portion of the report if needed.
10. Adjourn
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:35 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 11
February 2020, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
City Council Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman
Planning Commission Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, D. MacDonald,
M. Ostby, M. Mittag
Others Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose,
Planner; V. Bolduc, J. & F. Kochman, A. Chalnick, J. Morway, E. Langfeldt, S. Dopp, J. Nick, L.
Nadeau, D. Murdoch, B. Gardner, P. O’Brien, A. Gill, P. Kahn, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, D. Seff, S.
Dooley, M. Cota, Ms. Peters, other members of the public
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency:
Mr. Dorn provided instructions in case of an emergency.
2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to the agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Consent Agenda for City Council:
A. Authorize City Manger to negotiate and sign an agreement with the recommended
consultant, Stantec, to design and engineer the shared use path on the south end
of Dorset Street project
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. Planning Commission presentation, followed by joint discussion, of approach to and
status of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) amendments prioritized as part
Interim Zoning:
Ms. Riehle noted that the purpose of this meeting is to get the Planning Commission’s per-
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRUARY 2020
PAGE 2
spective on where they stand re: LDRs, PUDs, and the time-frame on studies. She added that
there are clearly different points of view, and the Council needs to find a balance. She asked
that everyone listen and understand the other person’s perspective, honor that, and find a way
to move forward.
Ms. Louisos then explained that the Planning Commission has been working on many
regulations and planning pieces for many years (e.g., natural resources, PUDs, etc.) in order to
bring about the city’s vision as put forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Many pieces are in draft
form. The goal is to have a community that is affordable, walkable, green, clean and with
available opportunities.
Ms. Louisos then showed a map of existing land coverage. She identified developed parcels,
open space areas, and larger parcels still available for development. She said the big thing the
Commission is working on is to look at thoughtful patterns, multiple types of natural resources,
and infrastructure. A lot of this, she noted, piggy-backs on what was done for City Center.
There are multiple approaches to changes in the LDRs. This is often called the PUD project, but
it is bigger than that. With any new development proposed, the aim would be to create a
neighborhood with connections, resources, etc. The Commission is also proposing changes to a
traditional subdivision and to Master Plans to bring about “place making.”
PUDs have traditionally been used to get a waiver and flexibility. The question is what the city
gets for that flexibility. The Commission will be proposing several types of PUDs for the future:
a. Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
b. Neighborhood Center Development
c. Conservation PUD
d. Campus/Business Park
Each would have its own development pattern and different components.
Ms. Louisos then showed what a TND would look like, how the land would be broken up. It
would be mostly residential with open space (e.g., resource land, civic space), and some non-
residential. Unallocated land could go into any of the other categories.
Ms. Louisos showed a pie chart of each type of PUD, indicating how different land allocations
change with each type. She noted that allowable housing types would also change. All
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRUARY 2020
PAGE 3
Undeveloped parcels would follow one of the types of PUDs. Smaller parcels could be re-
developed.
The Commission has also created levels for natural resources:
a. Hazards – flood plains, wetlands, etc. These would be no-build areas and
would not count toward buildable density. There could be some restricted
encroachment when there are no other options. These would have specific
criteria. A map of hazard areas showed wetlands, streams & buffers and
steep slopes
b. Level 1 & 2 Resource areas include habitat blocks, some steep slopes and
other resources valued by the community. In PUDs, these resource areas
would be included for density, and there would be regulations for different
types of encroachment. Ms. Louisos noted that some resources would have
to be field delineated.
Ms. Louisos noted that there will be new language to calculate the top of river banks. She also
showed a map of habitat blocks and noted there will be a separate meeting with the consultant
on this.
A “generic” development parcel was then shown, indicating an area of hazards, level 1
resources and some level 2 resources (subject to DRB review for impacts, possibly requiring
offsets), and what is left for development. Ms. Louisos noted that what is also new is the
requirement for a minimum as well as a maximum density in order to get efficient use of
developed land (e.g., cost of running utilities to an area). Minimum density would be calculated
by subtracting hazards and level 1 resources and taking 70% of the zoning for the area. The
new regulations will provide predictability regarding the tax base and what development would
look like to neighbors.
Ms. Louisos noted there would be different types of open space (e.g., plaza, green,, pocket
park, etc.), where they would be appropriate, and what would have to be included (e.g.,
benches, picnic tables, etc.), similar to City Center. Street types would also be considered
including placing of sidewalks, bike accommodations, and dimensions. Building types could
include row houses, cottage clusters, etc., and where they would be applicable.
Two consultants are working on the language for the new standards, and everything is being
reviewed by the Commission in pieces/outline form before language is determined.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRUARY 2020
PAGE 4
Ms. Louisos said the Commission has both an “aggressive” and a “very aggressive” schedule.
The feeling is that a 90-day schedule is not realistic, but they could bring something approvable
to the Council in June. This would allow time for public input but will require additional
meetings.
After the PUD and Master Plan work is adopted, the Commission will then be looking at
additional issues and recommendations:
a. Underlying zoning districts
b. Smaller lot subdivisions
c. Open space types city-wide
d. Sit plan standards update
e. Scenic views
f. Recommendations from the TDR report
With regard to the TDR report, Ms. Louisos noted that the Commissions recommendations are
not meshed perfectly with the Open Space report. The Commission did not mandate any TDR
changes.
Ms. Louisos said there are questions as to how to move forward based on the Open Space
Committee report. She showed an overlay map with recommended open space parcels added
to the Resource Map. The portions of the parcels that are resources are very regulated, and
the Commission is not using parcel boundaries for natural resource designations. The City
Council will have options regarding the recommended open space parcels (e.g., acquisition,
official city map and possible acquisition, etc.).
Mr. Chittenden asked about density minimums. Ms. Louisos stressed that no one would ever
have to buy a TDR to meet the minimum.
Mr. Barritt said he would like to see a comparison of the changes to different properties. Ms.
Louisos said the Commission would like to see that as well.
Ms. Riehle expressed the concern that if the door on Interim Zoning (IZ) was closed before the
Commission’s work is done, there could be a rush to develop.
Mr. Mittag said this is not an easy project to complete. He had some doubts about a June date.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRURY 2020
PAGE 5
Ms. Ostby felt it might be worth the time to landowners to let the project complete. She also
cited work being done by a volunteer group related to development.
6. Convene Public Hearing to hear comments related to the possible extension of Interim
Zoning in those areas currently covered by Interim Zoning for a 3-month period:
Ms. Emery moved to open the pubic hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Community input was then invited with the following responses:
Community Member: A lot of people have volunteered their time, and their recommendations
should be implemented before IZ ends. Three months is just a “blink” in the city’s history.
Mr. Kahn: Asked how it would be determined what goes where in a PUD. Ms. Louisos said
there is a map available which includes choices. Mr. Conner added it would generally be
related to today’s zoning with a few changes.
Mr. Simoneau: Would like the City Council to “get straight” with everyone, those who
support/don’t support IZ. He cited a lot of “heavy lifting.” He asked if it is the Council’s
intention to keep IZ in place until all work is done. Ms. Riehle said that discussion will occur
later in the agenda.
Ms. Worth: Spoke to the need for connectivity of wildlife corridors. Also questioned how
open space areas would be preserved. She was concerned the identified parcels would be
broken down just like any other parcels.
Mr. Gardner: Asked where a previously started development stands. Mr. Conner said it is a
question of when the Preliminary Plat was submitted. The regulations at that time would
prevail.
Mr. Chalnick: The TDR committee felt the open space parcels should be sending areas, never
receiving areas. He felt the open space parcels should automatically become Conservation
PUDs.
Ms. Morway: Noted that “steep slopes” weren’t in the City Council list but are on the Planning
Commission’s list. She was concerned with this disconnect.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRUARY 2020
PAGE 6
Mr. Langfeldt: Keeping IZ in place is making the housing crisis worse.
Mr. Nadeau: The public was told the reason for IZ was overload on city services, but
actually the real overload to city services is to areas outside the Southeast Quadrant that are
not under IZ.
Ms. Peters: City the need to end up with acceptable items. Urged patience and everyone’s
respect for the work being done.
Ms. Dopp: Didn’t feel affordable housing needs to be built in open areas.
Member of the Public: There is an affordable housing crisis which continues to get worse.
The city has a 2% vacancy rate, and this affects everyone in the community, the quality of life
and the schools.
Mr. Murdoch: Hoped for solid decisions around the work of the Open Space Committee.
Cited the need to know where other species will live.
Mr. Nick: Expressed concern with the Open Space Plan. It is vague as to how it will be
used. The city spent $5,000,000 in the past to conserve properties. Now looking at over
$100,000,000 in property. He felt this could lead to a “back door taking.”
Mr. Kochman: Was distressed by the polarization: affordable housing vs. open space.
He said the really affordable housing can’t be accomplished these days without subsidy. He felt
the Open Space Report was useful as an inventory, but “back door taking” has some resonance,
and the city needs to be careful what is regulated.
Ms. Greco: Asked the Council to take a broad, long-term view. Showed the stack of reports
done for the city with tax-payer money. Urged preservation of open lands.
Mr. Seff: Felt there would be a scramble to develop is IZ were not extended. Was
concerned that the current TDR bylaw makes areas in the Southeast Quadrant receiving areas
which are now identified as high priority conservation areas. Felt this should be resolved.
Member of the Public: Balancing development and conservation is daunting. Affordable
housing is a national issue and should be a shared responsibility.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRUARY 2020
PAGE 7
Ms. Dooley: IZ depresses the production of housing and increases the price of housing.
Inclusionary zoning will address housing for some people. For others, non-profits would have
to be involved. Urged the city to put more money in the Housing Trust Fund. She also cited the
need to have the 2 goals (affordable housing and open space) compliment each other.
Mr. Mittag: Noted the IZ was a response to people who felt the city was developing too
quickly. Felt IZ should be extended so there can be draft regulations before it ends.
Mr. Kaufman: Stressed that the charge to the Open Space Committee was not to identify lands
that should never be developed. It was to identify resources on the land. Even the Chair of the
Open Space Committee discusses how development should occur on those lands.
Mr. Barritt then moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
7. Status report of Studies related to the economic assessment of conservation and
development:
Mr. Dorn said the Earth Economics report is due by the end of the week. Mr. Stewart’s report is
due by the end of the month.
8. Determine Actions and Schedule follow-up meeting for additional work:
Mr. Conner said the Planning Commission recommends not doing everything in one shot. A few
important pieces need follow-up, specifically the Arrowwood Habitat Block Assessment (they
would be happy to make a presentation to both the Council and Planning Commission) and
areas from the Open Space report that the City Council has the tools to deal with.
A mutually convenient date for a joint meeting will be worked out.
9. Consider and possibly approve extending Interim Zoning in those areas currently
covered by Interim Zoning for a 3-month period:
Mr. Chittenden said he would vote against this as he didn’t feel it was necessary. He was
concerned with the possibility of the “taking” of people’s assets as well as with the process not
being balanced for affordability and opportunity.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
11 FEBRUARY 2020
PAGE 8
Ms. Riehle cited the need to balance all competing interests even though it won’t please
everyone. She added she is a big supporter of affordable housing but didn’t thing Interim
Zoning was preventing it from being built.
Ms. Emery cited the irreplaceable loss of affordable housing because of the Airport taking.
Mr. Barritt said the Planning Commission presentation convinced him to extend IZ as he felt
that the PUDs were the best way to see how to develop remaining land. He also cited the
housing that is now being built or ready to be built.
Mr. Kaufman said “taking” of land is never going to happen. He added he wasn’t overjoyed
with the Planning Commission time-line, but appreciates the hard work and the difficult nature
of the project. He felt it was appropriate to complete that work so that everyone can be a
winner.
Mr. Mittag questioned whether staff has the manpower to get everything done.
Mr. Barritt moved to extend Interim Zoning for 3 months. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden voting against.
10. Other Business:
No other issues were presented.
As there was no further business to come before the joint meeting, Mr. Barritt moved to
adjourn. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned
at 9:03 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 August 2020,
at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald,
P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; B. Shearer, F. Von Turkovich, C. &
A. Long, D. Long, A. Chalnick, R. Greco, J. Weith, J. Bellevance, S. Clarke
1. Opening Comments:
Ms. Louisos welcomed Mr. Engels to the Commission. She also noted that the Commission is
coming back to work in a “new world” after months of dealing with the pandemic, social issues
and more. She laid out the opportunities for public participation in remote meetings.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Ms. Ostby suggested that members acquaint themselves with the 10 March minutes which will
lay the groundwork for the Commission moving forward.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Conner noted that Cathyann LaRose has moved on from the City. He thanked her for her
15 years of service and reported that she has left big shoes to fill. Effort is underway to fill the
position.
5. Annual Appointments and Setting of Meeting Day and Time:
Mr. Conner presided over the election of a Commission Chair. He opened the floor for
nominations.
Mr. Riehle nominated a slate consisting of Jessica Louisos as Chair, Bernie Gagnon as Vice Chair
and Monica Ostby as Clerk. Mr. Mittag seconded. There were no further nominations. In the
vote that followed Ms. Louisos, Mr. Gagnon, and Ms. Ostby were elected unanimously.
2
Ms. Louisos presided over the remainder of the meeting.
Mr. Gagnon the moved that the Commission continue to meet on the second and fourth
Tuesdays of the month at 7 p.m. at a location to be determined for each meeting. Mr.
Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Review of Draft Environmental Protection Standards:
Ms. Louisos noted that she and Mr. Gagnon and the City Council Chair and Vice Chair and Mr.
Conner did a video chat as to how to coordinate on this. The hope had been for more feedback
from the council, but they were waiting for all the Interim Zoning (IZ) reports to be in. That has
now happened.
Ms. Louisos felt it would be good for members to look at the Chapter 12 overview to see if it is
in the direction that makes sense for the City Council and then have a meeting with the Council
and get their feedback and make any adjustments. The other piece of this, the PUD piece, will
be presented at the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Conner suggested they focus on “big questions” and not get into wordsmithing and small
details. Ms. Louisos said her idea of a “big question” is whether there is a lack of clarity as to
what a forest core is and whether a forest core is Level 1 or Level 2.
Mr. Macdonald said that when he got to the habitat section, it felt incomplete to him. He also
felt the mapping and delineation needs more structure.
Mr. Conner said what would be helpful is to consider what is the universe of natural resources
the Commission would like to have covered in this section. The draft as written represented
what the Commission had last talked about including all of the Arrowwood findings minus the
Form Based Code area. It also includes some key connectors that were presented by Jens Hilke.
The next level of discussion was going to be focused on other policy considerations.
Ms. Louisos said they need to be sure there are no other resources missing from the list.
Ms. Ostby felt that 12.05 and 12.07 are the 2 areas that are not thorough.
Mr. Conner then presented a series of maps:
Map #1: Current built environment (under four acres or 10% impervious or more) and
also properties in various stages of review
3
Map #2: Delineation of current regulations including wetlands, streams, NPR areas,
parks, etc.
Map #3: Proposed regulations, including forest blocks, steep slopes (over 20 or 25%),
etc.
Map #4: Proposed regulations plus conservation lands.
Map #5: All of the above shown together, indicating where development would be
permitted.
Map #6: Open Space IZ Committee recommendations for lands to be conserved.
Ms. Ostby recalled “fingers” of forest areas coming from forest blocks which they had just
begun to discuss in March. She also noted the concern of land owners regarding planning for
their property.
Mr. Conner noted that what Arrowwood put out was the best available review of habitat
blocks. How the Commission translates that into their policy work is a Commission decision.
He reminded members that they had removed Form Based Code areas and properties under
one acre from consideration. Mr. Conner said that Arrowwood identified a minimum area
needed to be a functional habitat block.
Ms. Louisos said that as it now stands, an entire habitat block is protected as Level 1. Ms. Ostby
said that a minimum habitat block should have a 10-acre core which could have no
encroachment and should be specifically mapped. She felt that should be identified as a
“hazard.” There should also be a separate conversation about connectors. Mr. Conner said
that people could do a habitat assessment as an option under the current draft, or could use
the mapped boundaries. This would give an applicant a “known quantity.” Ms. Ostby said she
didn’t agree with a full blanket statement and was willing to consider areas that may not be as
critical.
Mr. Engels noted comments he got from attorney Tom Bailey who has written LDRs for many
years. Mr. Bailey’s recommendation is to throw the draft out and start over. Mr. Macdonald
said he found some of Mr. Bailey’s points valid and brought to the forefront how little land is
available for housing in a city seeking to be “affordable.” He added that he wants to see the
PUD piece and see how the 2 pieces complement each other.
Ms. Ostby asked how many acres of land have been added to the map beyond what already has
some protection. Mr. Conner estimated 700 additional acres which were level 2 or had not
previously restricted. Ms. Ostby said the question is which of those 700 acres are valuable and
4
where there is some flexibility. She added that connectivity is also important from “core to
core.” Mr. Conner said he would work with the CCRPC to map this for the Commission.
Mr. Conner noted that Article 12 says where you can/cannot build. The PUD piece will dictate
where you can draw a subdivision line around a resource. Does the development get any
credits (e.g. shifting density) for the resource. He also noted there will be a Conservation
Subdivision which will state how much of a natural resource can be impacted.
Mr. Conner agreed to provide members with a document they can mark up with their
comments and return to him to coordinate into a compiled version.
Mr. Gagnon questioned whether members can agree on what is good and what can be
tweaked. He hoped that could happen with a complied document. He also questioned
whether a higher density could be allowed in some areas in order to provide housing. He
stressed the need to remember that these properties are assets to the people who own them.
Ms. Louisos said it makes sense to have the next meeting be on the PUDs so members can see
how it will all fit together.
Ms. Ostby said members should also look at meeting minutes where decisions were made.
Public comment was then solicited:
Ms. Greco felt that Chapter 12 leaves out some types of environmental resources such as
meadows, soils, etc., that need to be protected. She was also concerned with giving the DRB a
lot to do and that their decisions would be “subjective” and could cause dissent. She felt there
should be firm standards. She questioned the use of the word “hazard” and also felt “level 1”
and “level 2” need to be defined. She suggested having the Land Trust people work with the
Commission on this.
Mr. Gagnon was concerned with having people commenting prematurely on things that the
Commission will be changing.
7. Proposed amendment to allow additional coverage within the urban design district:
Ms. Louisos apologized for the delay in addressing this request. She also noted receipt of a
memo from the 3 Commission members who worked on this in recent weeks.
Mr. Gagnon noted the Commission had talked about this before the pandemic, and he felt that
what is being proposed is where the Commission was heading then, specifically exchanging the
additional coverage for some kind of mini-park. Mr. Riehle added that this would be applicable
5
to both the Shelburne Rd. and Williston Rd. corridors. The one question is how the public
would know the mini-parks are there…possibly a sidewalk leading to them. The mini-parks
must be adjacent to a street right-of-way. Mr. Gagnon said they did discuss the possibly having
the mini-parks for employees, not necessarily open to the public.
Mr. Macdonald questioned whether there would be a liability to the property owner if the mini-
parks are open to the public. Mr. Conner said he would look into that.
Ms. Ostby asked whether this could be an opportunity for a TDR. Mr. Conner said there is
nothing to prevent that in the future, but it would be a very complex undertaking. He did not
see it for the short term. Mr. Mittag said that since Mr. Shearer has been waiting 7 years for
this to be addressed, they had decided not to deal with TDRs now.
Mr. Conner said this would be a design feature more than anything, not necessarily an
allowance or a restriction at this point. It would be part of a site plan approval.
Mr. Shearer applauded the adding of Williston Road. He did question whether it would be
possible to find a place for a pocket park. He also didn’t think it would ever be used on his
property. They have an air conditioned lunchroom, and also have traffic on 3 sides of the
property. He would prefer to make a donation to something like the Library.
Mr. Gagnon said they identified 2 possible areas for a mini-park on the Google map. He also
thought they could add language that would allow for a donation in lieu of a park. Mr. Conner
said there would have to be a connection between the “donation” and the area where the
added coverage is happening. He also noted there is no park near the Shearer property. He
said he would talk with the City Attorney about what may be possible.
Mr. Mittag said the 2 areas they identified on the Shearer property were the northeast corner
behind Acura and the south side of the showroom. Mr. Shearer said the Acura area is a utility
location, very shady, and not pleasant. The other area is their snow removal site.
Members suggested an “either-or” option: a park or a TDR and possibly a “park fund.”
Mr. Gagnon said that Mr. Shearer has been left hanging a long time, and he would like to see
some language to keep this moving for his sake.
Mr. Shearer asked about the language Stephanie Clarke had provided and then coming up with
a trade-off later. Ms. Clarke said her proposal was specific to this situation: a multi-structure lot
with frontage on 2 roads in just the C-1Auto zone. Mr. Mittag asked whether that would be
legal. Mr. Conner said it would be on the borderline. He added that the feedback he had
gotten was that any plan should also meet a city goal.
6
Mr. Mittag suggested building into this a stipulation that he would buy a TDR in the future.
TDRs are available, but there isn’t currently a structure to accomplish them yet.
Mr. Gagnon proposed going with the language presented and adding the option of a TDR or
contribution to a fund. Other members liked that idea. Mr. Conner said he will come back with
options.
8. Commission Schedule and Work Plan:
Mr. Conner showed a listing of items on the Commission’s work plan:
a. Subdivision/Natural Resources/PUDs/TDRs/Master Plans
b. Individual non-controversial issues
c. Form Based Code amendments
d. Individual amendments with policy implications
Other items for consideration include:
a. Review of City policies in light of recent events (e.g., pandemic, social issues)
and possibly working on these with other community groups
Ms. Ostby asked where they are with IZ. Mr. Conner said the next 3-month extension expires in
September. The 2-year period ends in November. There is a potential for an additional year,
but the Council has not discussed this. Mr. Conner said it is his feeling that the Council expects
most of the work to be done by November.
9. Meeting Minutes of 10 March 2020:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 10 March 2020 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
10. 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 9:05 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk