HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 04/12/2022South Burlington Planning Commission
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, April 12, 2022
City Hall, 180 Market Street, Auditorium
7:00 pm
Members of the public may attend in person or digitally via GoToMeeting. Participation Options:
• In Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street
• Interactive Online: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/98114256459
• Telephone: 1 929 205 6099; Meeting ID: 981 1425 6459
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 (7:05 pm)
4. Commissioners’ Reports from Committees (7:10 pm)
5. *Consider update to Planning Commission Report on draft amendments to the Land Development
Regulations following changes prepared by the City Council (7:15 pm)
6. *Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Official Map #OM-22-01 to add bike/pedestrian
connections between planned I-89 bike/pedestrian bridge and Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry
Hill Road (7:25 pm)
7. Commission review of feedback, possible changes to draft, and possible action to approve and submit
draft Official Map Amendment and Planning Commission Report to City Council (7:40 pm)
8. Initial Review of Zoning Change Requests (7:45 pm)
a. Hotel and/or Hotel, Extended Stay use in Mixed Industrial-Commercial District; OnLogic
b. Additional Residential Use on east side of Hinesburg Road, currently in I/O District; Wright
9. *Review of a preliminary working draft of the Transferable Development Rights section for the LDRs (8:15
pm)
10. Introduction to FY23 Work Plan process (8:45 pm)
11. *Meeting Minutes (8:50 pm): March 8, 2022; March 22, 2022
12. Other Business (8:55 pm)
13. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP Kelsey Peterson
Director of Planning & Zoning City Planner
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public 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. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently presenting /
commenting will have their video on.
3. 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.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence.
To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute yourself and verbally
state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. 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 to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others
when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint. Indications
of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to allow other
participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. 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
influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written
comments will be circulated 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. Email
submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and
Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items specifically related to
the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message Commissioners or staff on policy items, as
this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-
Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat
messages will be part of the official meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently focused to help
guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published timing is a
guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda items scheduled later in
the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any expected change in the extent of the
agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end that will be covered “if time allows”.
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning;
Kelsey Peterson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: For April 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda
3. Announcements and staff report
a. Welcome to Andrew Chalnick! The City Council last week interviewed several excellent candidates for
the vacancy on the Planning Commission and selected Andrew Chalnick to fulfill the remainder of the
term left by Bernie Gagnon. Andrew’s appointment is effective immediately.
b. LDR amendments: The City Council received the proposed amendments approved by the Planning
Commission last month and warned a public hearing for May 2nd, with a proposed change (see item 5)
c. Staff is preparing a rolling three-month schedule for upcoming Planning Commission meetings with the
dual-intention of both planning allocation of staff time to different projects and establishing better
communication with the Commission about upcoming topics.
4. Commissioners’ Reports from Committees
5. Consider update to Planning Commission Report on draft amendments to the Land Development
Regulations following changes prepared by the City Council
City Council warned a public hearing for LDR-22-01, LDR-22-02, LDR-22-03, and LDR-22-04 for May 2,
2022. Their action to warn the hearing also included a change, as outlined in the attached transmittal memo.
Pursuant to State Statute, the Planning Commission must amend its Report in consideration of those changes.
Specifically:
24 VSA 4442(b) … If any part of the proposal is changed, the legislative body at least 10 days prior to the hearing
shall file a copy of the changed proposal with the clerk of the municipality and with the planning commission. The
planning commission shall amend the report prepared pu rsuant to subsection 4441(c) of this title to reflect the
changes made by the legislative body and shall submit that amended report to the legislative body at or prior to the
public hearing.
A proposed updated Planning Commission Report, as drafted by Staff, is included in this packet. The
Planning Commission’s next step would be to move to send the amended Planning Commission Report to
Council. The Planning Commission is required to take action on this item.
Possible motion: “I move to approve the updated Planning Commission Report on LDR-22-01, LDR-22-
02, LDR-22-03, and LDR-22-04, and submit the updated Report to the City Council.”
2
6. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Official Map #OM-22-01 to add bike/pedestrian
connections between planned I-89 bike/pedestrian bridge and Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry
Hill Road
This is the public hearing on amendments to the Official Map to show bike/ped connections from the
proposed I-89 bike/ped bridge to Williston Road, Dorset Street, and Quarry Hill Road. These additions to the
Official Map would hold the locations of these connections and prevent development that would impede these
connections, until the actual location, size, and layout of the path connections is determined and constructed.
In addition to the PDF version in your packet, here is a link to the proposed change to the Official Map,
via Interactive Web Map:
https://maps.southburlingtonvt.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=436fe4f3b4cf40aebb
5b0571a50dd8b1&extent=-73.192,44.4661,-73.1761,44.4722
Further discussion of the content of these amendments is included in the Planning Commission Packet
for the March 8, 2022 meeting, when this public hearing was warned. The Planning Commission Report was
approved at that time.
7. Commission review of feedback, possible changes to draft, and possible action to approve and submit the
draft Amendments and Planning Commission Report to City Council
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission should consider any feedback provided by the
public, either written or during the public hearing, and consider any desired changes to the draft. Commission
may make and approve changes to the draft and may, if it decides, vote to approve the amendments to submit
to the City Council.
Possible motion: “I move to approve draft amendment #OM-22-01 to the Official Map and to submit
the amendment and accompanying Planning Commission Report to the City Council.”
8. Initial Review of Zoning Change Requests
The Planning Commission has received two requests for changes to the LDRs. The Planning Commission
adopted a Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations in July 2018 (see
Policy on Public Requests for Amendments to the Land Development Regulations (revize.com) on the City of
South Burlington’s website and included in this packet). Under that policy, the Planning Commission has the
option to include the proposed amendment in the warning for the next public hearing on amendments to the
LDRs, table the request until related issues are undertaken or for consideration for the next annual work plan, or
decide not to pursue the amendment. The Planning Commission cannot consider zoning changes that would
affect single properties, but can consider the requests in the context of greater planning decisions and the City’s
vision for the affected areas in the future.
1. OnLogic is requesting a zoning change that would allow an “R2 occupancy building” at their new
facility in Technology Park at 443 Community Drive. It would include a training center and hotel
space for their employees and visitors. It would be “intended for training new employees, quarterly
team meetings, and hosting customers and suppliers.” [note: the term “R2 Occupancy” is from the
International Building Code. It refers to hotels, motels, apartments houses, group quarters, etc. It is
not a term in our LDRs]
3
Under the current LDRs, this use could be categorized as “Hotel” or “Hotel, extended stay”
depending on the details of the proposed use. These uses are not currently permitted in the Mixed
Industrial-Commercial District. There may be an additional type of use associated with the training
and meeting aspect, but that has not been fully determined. Any “Office, General” use to be
conducted at the same facility would be permitted.
The OnLogic property is located in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial district and the Transit Overlay
District. Enabling uses that would allow for the use OnLogic describes could apply as a change to
either of these entire districts. Alternatively, the zoning districts in this area can be reexamined and
the boundaries relocated in order to become more consistent with the City’s long-term vision for
the larger commercial/industrial area on the eastern end of Williston Road. This would be consistent
with City and Planning Commission goals to reexamine effective use of commercial and industrial
areas by various types of uses.
The Commission in past years has expressed interest in exploring what kinds of ancillary or support
uses could complement these business parks, while at the same time being mindful to not draw
away from their primary purpose as employment hubs for businesses that don’t easily co-exist with
residential areas and to not pull commercial activity away from the core areas of the City where the
Plan calls for prioritizing mixed use, pedestrian-oriented environments.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider placing examination of changes to this area,
which may allow OnLogic’s requested use on their specific property, as a candidate project, perhaps
alongside the review of industrial-area zoning, for the Planning Commission’s FY23 Work Plan.
2. The Wright family is requesting a change in zoning to allow for additional homes where their
property is located at 850 Hinesburg Road. There are currently three homes on the approximately
10.12-acre parcel. The property is located within the Industrial & Open Space (IO) district, which
allows one house per three acres. The property is located on the east side of Hinesburg Road at a
location where the west side of Hinesburg Road was recently rezoned to R7-NC.
There are similarly situated properties on the west side of Lime Kiln Road that have not made a
formal request, but have residential structures in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial district. The
circumstance differs slightly there, however, because the homes are immediately adjacent to an R4
Zoning District, which could be extended. It may be advisable to also address that are at the same
time as considering the request along Hinesburg Road.
This is a complex subject, particularly for along Hinesburg Road. As noted above, until recently this
area was zoned as Industrial and Open Space on both sides of Hinesburg Road. The east side
remains zoned in this manner, and is home to the Meadowland Business Park. It is one of a handful
of zoning districts that prioritize business and industrial uses over residential uses.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider placing addressing these two residential
inholdings inside commercial and/or industrial use zones as candidate projects for the FY23 Work
Plan. This would include long-term visioning for the future uses of these two areas – Hinesburg Road
immediately south of I-89 and Lime Kiln Road immediately north of its intersection with Airport
Parkway. The Planning Commission has already expressed interest in addressing Hinesburg Road
and the vision for future use on both sides (east and west) of that corridor, so adding it to the Work
Plan would be consistent with both this specific request and that larger planning discussion.
As noted, the Planning Commission can choose to decide not to pursue the amendment, include it in the
next public hearing on amendments, or table the amendment until the next work plan. Staff recommends that
both of these requests be considered a candidate for inclusion in the FY23 work plan. Both require further
review by the Planning Commission and Staff, but do merit further consideration.
Possible motion for each request: “I move to table this request until the next discussion of the annual
Planning Commission Work Plan for consideration of inclusion as a priority in the FY23 Work Plan.”
4
9. *Review of preliminary working draft of a Transferable Development Rights section for the LDRs
See enclosed memo
10. Introduction to FY23 Work Plan process
In the coming week, Staff intends to solicit input from Planning Commissioners about their priorities for
FY2023. This is intended to be a starting point for discussion of the FY2023 Work Plan at the next meeting on
April 26, 2022. Staff will compile the priorities of all Commissioners into a single document for circulation in the
next agenda packet, so all Commissioners will have information about others’ priorities in advance of the
discussion on April 26. Please be thinking about what your top priorities are for FY2023, with the understanding
that much (likely up to or over 50%) of the Planning Commission’s capacity will be taken up by the 2024
Comprehensive Plan.
11. *Meeting Minutes (8:50 pm): March 8, 2022; March 22, 2022
12. Other Business (8:55 pm)
13. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
180 Market Street South Burlingt on, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sb vt.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Donna Kinville, City Clerk
South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: South Burlington City Council, c/o Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Changes to draft Land Development Regulations; public hearing May 2, 2022
DATE: April 4, 2022
The City Council on April 4, 2022, received the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations
approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2022. In voting to hold a public hearing on May 2, 2022,
the City Council made a handful of changes to the draft as provided by the Commission.
Pursuant to 24 VSA 4442(b), a copy of the changed proposal is hereby provided to the City Clerk and to the
Planning Commission. It is show both in stand-along format and in an updated version of the complete set of
amendments warned for the public hearing. In accordance with the Statute, the planning commission is
requested to review and amend the Report prepared pursuant to subsection 4441(c) of this title to reflect
the changes made by the legislative body and to submit that amended Report to the City Council at or prior
to the public hearing.
Proposed Change to Draft LDR Amendments
Approved by City Council for Public Hearing
Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Key to amendments:
Red: proposed addition to current LDR
Yellow Highlight: proposed City Council change
2 DEFINITIONS
…
2.02 Specific Definitions
…
Security Identification Display Area: As defined by 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§1542, as revised.
14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
…
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
…
(2) Parking:
…
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or
more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board
shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
…
(viii) The building, or a portion thereof, being served by the parking area is contained
within the Security Identification Display Area of a publicly-owned and operated airport.
15.C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
…
15.C.07 General PUD
A.____Authority and Limitations.
(1) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary:
(a) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within that
Article.
(b) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized
within that Section.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 1
2 DEFINITIONS
2.02 Specific Definitions
. . .
Inclusionary ownership unit. A dwelling unit:
(1) The sales price for which does not exceed the maximum price for a household with a gross annual
income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), as calculated using a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) formula that defines a unit-specific household size based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of
bedrooms); and
(2) Which is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income at time of purchase
does not exceed 100% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the
household size; and
(3) The sales price for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA;
Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of
the purchasing household do not have to be the same.
Inclusionary rental unit. A dwelling unit:
(1) The rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA,
to which the unit is targeted, as calculated using a HUD formula that defines a unit-specific household size
based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) to which the inclusionary unit is targeted; and
(2) Which is rented by inhabitants whose gross annual household income at time of initial occupancy
does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the
household size; and
(3) The rent for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA;
Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of
the renting household do not have to be the same.
Inclusionary Unit. A dwelling unit that is either an Inclusionary Ownership Unit or an Inclusionary Rental Unit.
. . .
Inclusionary Unit. A housing unit that is affordable to a low- or moderate income household under
inclusionary zoning requirements.
. . .
Security Identification Display Area: As defined by 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1542, as
revised.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 1
3 GENERAL PROVISIONS
. . .
3.07 Height of Structures
. . .
3.07 Height of Structures
. . .
D. Waiver of Maximum Height Requirements
(1) Larger Rooftop Apparatus. Larger Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these
Regulations, and steeples for places of worship that are taller than normal height limitations established
in Table C-2 above may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to
the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses.
(2) R12, IA, PR, MU, C1-Air, C1-LR, AR, SW, IO, C2, Mixed IC, AIR, and AIR-IND Districts.
(a) Except within a Planned Unit Development, an applicant may seek approval from the
Development Review Board for the height of one or more structures to exceed the limitation set forth
in Table C-2 for structures within these zoning districts. Within a Planned Unit Development, the
ability of an applicant to seek approval for a structure to exceed the limitation in Table C-2 is heights
are established by PUD type.
(b) Submittal requirements. Any request for additional height shall be made in writing at the time
of application for a Site Plan. The request must include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the
elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade,
and height of the structure, and any supplemental information the Development Review Board deems
necessary in order to render a decision.
(c) Standards of Review.
(i) Demonstration of Compliance with the Provisions of Section 14.06 and 14.07; and,
(ii) Demonstration that the proposed structure will not have an undue adverse effect on
scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 1
8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT
. . .
8.08 Open Space Requirements
. . .
8.08 Open Space Requirements
D. General Civic Space / Site Amenity Notes
(1) In all Transect Zones, only Civic Space / Site Amenity areas meeting the requirements of
Appendix F Article 11.B and this article shall count towards the minimum qualifying requirements.
(2) In all Transect Zones landscaped parking lot dividers and median strips shall not be considered
qualifying Civic Space / Site Amenities. A divider between a parking lot and a qualifying street type
shall be considered qualifying where applicable and allowable.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 5
14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
. . .
14.06 General Review Standards
Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, the following general criteria and standards shall be
used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to
provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity,
invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The
Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in
the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself
to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the
applicant shall retain full responsibility for design.
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure
to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking
areas. The DRB shall consider the following:
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along the
street.
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street
and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s existing building
foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability within
the area proposed for development.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public
street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or
more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall
approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
(ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home;
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 2 of 5
(iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow
for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street;
(iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs
cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s);
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or
(vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the
following criteria:
(I) The lot is located in an approved subdivision where the parking on each lot in the
subdivision is proposed to be located between the building or buildings on each lot and the
public street so that a significant greenspace surrounded by buildings may be incorporated
similar to a college campus style “quad”, as detailed below.
(II) The parking on any lots that include a part of the greenspace shall be aligned in a
similar fashion so that the buildings are located between the greenspace and the parking and
so that the parking is located between the buildings and the public street to maintain the
integrity and continuity of the greenspace .
(III) The minimum required total area of the greenspace shall be 150,000 square feet. For
purposes of this subsection 14.07(B) (2)(b)(vi), “greenspace” shall be defined as a
consolidated and continuous landscaped area located across more than two lots in the
approved subdivision, similar in nature to a common open space, largely surrounded by
buildings, but shall not include building or impervious parking areas. The greenspace may
extend between buildings, but shall not extend beyond the building line of the principal
building on each lot that includes a portion of the greenspace. The greenspace shall consist
of pervious surfaces such as lawns, trees, plantings, wetlands, and gardens, and may include
impervious landscape features, such as path networks, sculptures, gazebos, water features,
footbridges, sitting areas, stone walls, and other features and amenities that may be built
within and throughout the greenspace in order to create a more attractive and enjoyable
environment. The area of the greenspace shall be calculated by measuring and adding the
portion of the total greenspace defined on the site plan for each lot in the approved
subdivision that includes a portion of the greenspace.
(vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open Space
Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be
designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations
of the use(s) on the lot;
(I) In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the
general requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to:
1. Distribution and related storage
2. Light manufacturing
3. Manufacturing
4. Processing and Storage
5. Warehousing and Distribution
(II) The parking shall be limited as follows:
1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public
street and the building(s);
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 3 of 5
2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping
features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more
of the following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Article 11.B, except for the location
standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area;
Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this
Open Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience
on the adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the
street right-of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The
open space shall represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking
spaces (not including circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the
building.
3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development
Review Board pursuant to Section 13.04 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent
to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public
street and the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the
percentage that must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be
equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between
a public street and the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget
before any increase was $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed
to be located between a public street and the building(s), then the minimum required
landscaping budget shall increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000,
and no less than 10% of the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated
to installation of landscaping in the front yard).
4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to
the building’s main entrance.
5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access
from the street to the building’s main entrance.
(viii) The building, or a portion thereof, being served by the parking area is contained
within the Security Identification Display Area of a publicly-owned and operated airport.
(c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the side of
buildings shall not exceed the width of building(s), Civic Spaces, and Site Amenities width along any
street frontage. This may be calculated separately or cumulatively for corner lots. Parking approved
pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection.
(d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the
building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot
abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the
front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with
sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of
each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials
and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers,
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 4 of 5
screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different
architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
(3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
(a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of development
defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations, position and orientation of
principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached building types.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features that
define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side and
back yard areas through context sensitive design.
D._____Site Amenity Requirement
(1) Sites are required to include a specific minimum area for appropriate Site Amenities. This
section does not apply to projects within the City Center FBC District (which are governed by Section 8.08).
(2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities:
(a) Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF.
(b) Additions or expansions exceeding 5,000 SF for existing non-residential structures.
(c) Any residential development, including conversion of non-residential structures to residential
use.
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross floor
area.
(b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as:
(i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit;
(ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or
(iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit.
(4) The DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site Amenity area if
the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing Civic Space or public park that is
accessible by the general public and located within five-hundred (500) feet of at least one pedestrian
access point for each building on the lot via a walking route and/or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable
connection” shall not include or require crossing a four-lane road.
(a) The DRB may, in its discretion, give a partial credit for the required Site Amenity area if some
but not all the buildings on the lot have pedestrian access points located within five-hundred (500)
feet of the Civic Space or public park, as described in Section 14.06(D)(4), above.
(b) The DRB cannot provide any credit to replace the remaining 50% of the Site Amenity area.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 5 of 5
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable
requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of
buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other
applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation
standards of Section 15.A.14.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved]
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design
Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the standards
contained therein.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing
structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the City
Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent
sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the
applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit
requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
F. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial
or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access
and circulation in the area.
G. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall
be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations
remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and
to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met.
H. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance
with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for
use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or
screened.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 1
15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots
. . .
B. Lots. All lots must be laid out to logically relate to topography and their intended use or purpose.
Building lots must be laid out within existing and planned street and block configurations, in such a way
that they can be developed in full compliance with their intended use and these Regulations. Unless
otherwise specified under these Regulations as applicable to the subdivision:
(1) All proposed lots must be numbered, as shown on subdivision plans and plats.
(2) The arrangement and configuration of lots must allow for the further subdivision of any
remaining developable land on the tract or parcel to be subdivided. Where proposed building lots
exceed minimum lot area requirements, the DRB may require that such lots be configured and
developed in a manner that allows for further subdivision and infill development.
(3) Building or other lots for existing or planned public facilities or uses, including public parks, as
shown on the City’s Official map or proposed for dedication to the City, must be labeled and shown
as such on the subdivision plan and plat.
(4) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the
total buildable area within the developed portion of any Major Subdivision exceeding two acres in
size must be allocated to functionally integrated civic space lots, as shown on the subdivision plan and
plat.
(a) Required civic space must incorporate one or more allowed Civic Space Types under
Article 11.B and meet associated type requirements.
(b) Designated civic space lots must have frontage on or pedestrian access from an abutting
street. The entrance to a civic space that does not front on an abutting street must be readily
visible, apparent, and accessible from the street.
(c) Civic space lots must be identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal
documents, as Civic Space lots to be maintained and managed in single or common ownership.
(d) For Major Subdivisions under six (6) acres, the DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit
for up to 50% of the required Civic Space area if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable
connection to an existing Civic Space or public park that is accessible by the general public and
located within five-hundred (500) feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building in
the subdivision, via a walking route or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable connection” shall not
include or require crossing a four-lane road.
i. The DRB may, in its discretion, give a partial credit for the required Civic Space area if
some but not all buildings in the subdivision have pedestrian access points located
within five-hundred (500) feet of the Civic Space or public park, as described in Section
15.A.16, above.
ii. The DRB cannot provide any credit to replace the remaining 50% of the required Civic
Space area.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
Council Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 1
15.B MASTER PLAN REVIEW
…
15.B.02 Applicability
…
15.B.02 Applicability
(A) Required Approval. Master plan review and approval by the DRB is required prior to preliminary
subdivision review under Article 15.A, or site plan review under Article 14, as applicable, for:
(1) Any Major Subdivision involving four (4) or more acres, except for any portion of Transect
Zone Subdivision within the City Center Form Based Code District.
(2) Any land subdivision or site development proposed to occur over two (2) or more phases, or
three (3) or more years.
(3) A Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C unless, at applicant request, Master Plan
review is waived by the DRB for a PUD on less than four (4) acres under 15.C.03.
(4) Multiple Structures on a Single-User Lot or Complex, in accordance with Section 3.09.
(5) The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract or parcel of land where
there exists clear potential for future growth and development beyond that presented in an
application, as necessary to establish physical and functional connections between areas of proposed
and potential future development.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 4
15.C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
15.C.01 Purpose
15.C.02 Applicability
15.C.03 Planned Unit Development Review
15.C.04 General PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types
15.C.05 Conservation Development
15.C.06 Traditional Neighborhood Development
15.C.07 General PUD
. . .
15.C.02 Applicability
A._____Floating Zone. For purposes of these Regulations, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an
unmapped overlay zoning district or “Floating Zone,” as allowed or required within an underlying zoning
district, which is applied to a particular tract or parcel of land proposed for subdivision and development.
A PUD is intended to function as a more flexible, design-based zoning district in which conservation or
form-based design standards also apply to proposed development. Where PUD standards differ from
underlying zoning district, site plan, or subdivision standards, PUD standards shall apply.
B._____PUD Types. The following types of Planned Unit Development are authorized under these
Regulations by Zoning District (Table 15.C-1), subject to the associated provisions and standards of review
for each PUD type:
(1) Conservation Development (CON PUD) Section 15.C.05
(2) Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND PUD) Section 15.C.06
(3) General PUD Section 15.C.07
C._____Required Planned Unit Development. PUD review and approval by the DRB under this Article is
required for any subdivision and development of a tract or parcel with a total area of four (4) or more
acres within any zoning district listed for CON PUD and TND PUDs under Table 15.C-1. General PUDs are
not mandatory in any district.
D._____Elective Planned Unit Development. An applicant may elect PUD review, as allowed within
specified zoning districts, for the subdivision and development of any tract or parcel:
(1) Less than four (4) acres that qualifies as a Conservation PUD under Subsection 15.C.05, in
which fifty percent (50%) or more of the total tract area includes one or more Hazards or Level I
Resources identified for protection under Article 12.
(2) Where the General PUD type is allowed under Table 15.C-1 or Section 15.C.07(C).
E._____PUD Type by Zoning District. The types of PUD allowed within an underlying zoning district are
specified by district in Table 15.C-1.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 2 of 4
Table 15.C-1 PUD Types by Zoning District
PUD Type Underlying Zoning Districts
Conservation Development (CON PUD)
(1) R1-PRD, R1-Lakeshore, R1-Lakeview, R2,
Lakeshore, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR,
SEQ-VC
(2) A tract or parcel in any PUD-allowed zoning
district in which a minimum of 50% of the total
tract or parcel area consists of Hazards and/or
Level I Resources (see Section 15.C.05)
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND
PUD)
R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, R1-Lakeshore, R2, R4, R7,
Lakeshore, Allen Road, Swift Street, R7-NC, SEQ-VR,
SEQ-VC
SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-NRT, only in association
with a Conservation PUD, in a designated
Development Area with a minimum Buildable Area
of 4 acres
General PUD
(1) C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-AUTO, C1-AIR, C1-
LR, C2, IC, AIR, AIR-I, I-O, and IA.
(2) As described in Section 15.C.07(C).
(1) Planned Unit Development review under this Article does not apply to subdivision and
development within those zoning districts for which no PUD type is specified. In addition,
(2)All PUD types are prohibited within any zoning district not listed in Table 15.C-1; and
(2) All PUD types are prohibited within the SEQ-NRP Subdistrict; except for land on a tract or parcel
within the SEQ-NRP that is included for conservation within a Conservation PUD.
…
15.C.04 General PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types
. . .
D. Development Density.
…
(5) Minimum (Base) Density. To ensure densities of development that support the efficient use
of land and infrastructure, walkability, and transit-supportive development within a PUD, the
following minimum residential densities of development (Base Density), expressed as the minimum
number of dwelling units per acre of Buildable Area, apply within designated Development Areas
proposed for residential or mixed use development, unless otherwise specified by PUD type:
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 3 of 4
(a) The minimum (base) density of residential development within a designated Residential
or Mixed Use Area, as specified by PUD Type, represents the minimum number of dwelling units
per acre (DU/A) that is either required or allowed by right under these Regulations, over one or
more phases of development under an approved PUD Master Plan.
(b) The required minimum (base) residential density within a designated Residential Area is
four dwelling units per acre (4 DU/A) or the maximum residential density allowed within the
underlying zoning district, whichever is greater, except within a Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) sub-
district. In the SEQ, the minimum (base) residential density is 4 DU/A.
(c) Within a designated Mixed Use Area, or within ½-mile of a transit route as shown on
Overlay District Map 2, the required residential base density is eight dwelling units per acre (8
DU/A) or the maximum residential density allowed within the underlying zoning district,
whichever is greater.
(d) The residential base density may also vary by subzone, as specified by PUD type, in
association with allowed housing types within that subzone.
(e) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall not be included in the calculation of residential base
density or the minimum number of required dwelling units (residential yield).
(f) The minimum number of dwelling units required or allowed by right (residential yield)
within a designated Residential or Mixed Use area, excluding ADUs, may be calculated as:
(6) Nonresidential Base Density. There is no minimum (base) density or intensity requirement
for nonresidential development within a designated Development Area.
(7) Maximum Development Density. The maximum development density allowed within any
PUD except a Conservation PUD shall be determined based on the total buildable area, proposed land
use allocations by use category, the allowed mix of building types, and associated building lot
standards as specified by PUD type.
(a) The DRB may allow for an increase in the overall density of residential development within
a designated Residential or Mixed Use area, for example through adjustments or modifications to
the required housing mix, allowed housing types, or associated building lot or height standards,
as necessary to accommodate the following:
(i) The purchase and transfer of development rights from land within the SEQ-NRP or
SEQ-NRT Subdistrict (Section 9.05 Transfer of Development Rights).
Total Buildable Area (A) x Land Allocation (%) x Base Density (DU/A) = Min DUs (#)
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 4 of 4
(ii) The incorporation of offset housing units under inclusionary zoning (Section 18.01
Inclusionary Zoning).
(iii) The incorporation of additional housing units awarded as an incentive for affordable
housing development under Section 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning).
(iv) The transfer of residential development density within a Conservation PUD from Level
I and other resource or open space areas identified for protection that are included in a
designated Conservation Area.
(v) Within a Conservation PUD the maximum residential development density within the
designated Development Area shall be capped as specified by zoning district under Section
15.C.05.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 1 of 4
15.C.07 General PUD 1
2
A.____Authority and Limitations. 3
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, to 4
approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a Planned 5
Unit Development (PUD), as further described in Section 15.C.01. 6
(2) Limitations on DRB authority under 14.04(A)(3)(b) apply. 7
(3) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary: 8
(a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized via 9
use of Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning. 10
(b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as 11
applicable. 12
(c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each zoning 13
district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of Transferrable 14
Development Rights. 15
(d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within that 16
Article. 17
(e) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized 18
within that Section. 19
20
B.____General PUD Description, Purpose, and Characteristics. A General PUD is a type of planned 21
development that allows for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in order to 22
encourage innovation in design and layout and efficient use of land consistent with the Comprehensive 23
Plan. Defining characteristics of a General PUD include well-planned, -sited, and -designed development 24
projects that: 25
26
• Conform to the goals in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and South Burlington 27
City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017. 28
• Support and enable affordable housing development. 29
• Contribute to the City’s economic vitality, in response to changing markets and consumer 30
demand, by providing needed housing, goods, services, and employment opportunities. 31
• Redevelop underperforming properties and commercial strips (retrofits), contaminated sites 32
(brownfields), and large expanses of parking (gray fields) into more compact forms of walkable, 33
pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development. 34
• Extend or re-establish existing street, sidewalk, and recreation path connections. 35
• Incorporate a density of development that supports walkable residential, mixed use, and transit-36
oriented development, compatible in design with the surrounding area. 37
• Improve the physical appearance, walkability, and amount of civic and green space within existing 38
residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, and commercial strip development. 39
• Introduce missing or complementary uses, facilities, services, amenities, or civic space intended 40
to serve the immediate and surrounding area. 41
• Foster context-sensitive transitions among and between neighborhoods, commercial areas, 42
mixed use areas, civic spaces, and natural resource areas. 43
44
C. Applicability. A General PUD is an allowed PUD type in the following circumstances: 45
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 2 of 4
(1) Within the underlying zoning districts listed in Table 15.C-1 for General PUD. 1
(2) For amendments to General PUDs approved under this Section. 2
(3) For minor amendments to existing PUDs reviewed and approved under the LDRs in effect until 3
November 10, 2021, the final subdivision approval for which has not expired, regardless of zoning 4
district. 5
(a) An amendment shall be considered “minor” if it does not significantly alter the overall 6
intent or scale of the PUD, or the relationship of the approved PUD to its surroundings. A minor 7
amendment may incorporate additional land not in the PUD as previously approved, but only to 8
the extent that the additional land does not cause the PUD to exceed other requirements of this 9
section. 10
D._____Conformance with PUD Standards. In addition to the specific standards under this Section, all 11
standards in Section 15.C.04 shall also apply. Application and review process for a General PUD is 12
governed by Section 15.C.03. 13
14
E._____Context. For planning and design purposes, “Planning Area” is defined as the area within ¼-mile 15
of the lot or parcel to be developed, as measured from the lot line or delineated PUD boundary. 16
17
F._____General PUD Compatibility and Context Analysis 18
(1) Compatibility. PUD compatibility with the Planning Area, as determined from a detailed 19
analysis of the Development Context, shall be a primary consideration in General PUD project design, 20
and for DRB review and approval. 21
(2) “Development Context” is defined to include: 22
(a) The prevalent or recurring pattern and form of development within the Planning Area, 23
including established street grid and streetscape elements, blocks, lots, buildings and yard areas, 24
civic spaces, and parking arrangements, and 25
(b) The character of the Planning Area, as defined by: 26
(i) The planned character of an area planned for redevelopment by the City as identified 27
in the Comprehensive Plan; 28
(ii) Approved, to-be-built or recently built (within ten (10) years) development projects 29
in the Planning Area; 30
(iii) Any updates to the underlying zoning district(s) in the Planning Area within the 31
preceding ten (10) years; or 32
(iv) Zoning district purpose statements, allowed uses, and district-specific development 33
standards. 34
(c) Current zoning purpose statements, uses, and standards only if the DRB finds there is no 35
relevant information under 15.C.07(F)(2)(a) or (b)(i) through (b)(iii), or the DRB finds that there is 36
a clear, established neighborhood street, block, and lot pattern. 37
(3) Context Analysis. The applicant must submit a written Analysis of the Development Context 38
within the Planning Area, which, at minimum, includes the information required for Master Plan 39
review under 15.B.04(C) and: 40
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 3 of 4
(a) Hazards, and Level I and Level II Resources regulated under Article 12. 1
(b) Prevalent pattern of land subdivision and development in the Planning Area, as defined 2
by block lengths; lot size and front lot line lengths; front, side, and rear setbacks; building height 3
and coverage; and existing parking arrangements. 4
(c) Streetscape elements, including the placement, orientation, and spacing of buildings 5
along the street, existing and planned sidewalks, and existing or planned landscaping, street 6
furniture, and lighting. 7
(d) Building types and styles, including any prevalent or character-defining architectural 8
features. 9
10
G._____General PUD Dimensional Standards. 11
(1) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district dimensional 12
standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall apply unless modified, reduced, 13
or waived by the DRB under (2) below. 14
(a) The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in order to 15
modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site Plan application 16
requirements using 14.05(G), Subdivision requirements using 15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay 17
District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or (K). 18
(b) The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3). 19
(c) Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived in underlying zoning districts 20
identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below, except as noted in 15.C.07(C)(2)(b) above. 21
The standards of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply. 22
(d) The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3). 23
(2) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the DRB 24
may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as necessary to: 25
(a) Accommodate reductions in the available area associated with infill or redevelopment, 26
that result in insufficient acreage to meet applicable dimensional standards; or 27
(b) Allow for more creative and efficient subdivision and site layout and design that advances 28
the purposes of the underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, 29
particularly in response to existing site limitations that cannot be eliminated; or 30
(c) Ensure that the pattern and form of proposed development is compatible with existing 31
or planned Development Context in the Planning Area determined under 15.C.07(F) and to 32
Transition Zone standards in 15.C.04(E); or 33
(d) Allow for greater energy efficiency, use of alternative energy, green building design, or 34
otherwise furthering of the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated 35
August 7, 2017. 36
(3) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning 37
Area under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G). 38
39
H._____Development Density. 40
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Warned for City Council Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing May 2, 2022
Page 4 of 4
(1) Development Density regulations and definitions included in Section 15.C.04(D) shall apply to 1
General PUDs. 2
(2) Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development density 3
in the underlying zoning district, except as follows. 4
(a) Density can be re-allocated within the PUD area within single zoning districts; 5
(b) Additional density may be achieved through either or both Inclusionary Zoning and 6
application of Transferrable Development Rights where specifically authorized by and as 7
regulated by Section 18.01 or Section 9.05. 8
9
I._____General PUD Design Standards 10
(1) Design Standards, Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing Site 11
Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for variations from 12
applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development context within the Planning 13
Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section 15C.09(G)(4). 14
(2) Streets. Streets within a General PUD must be compatible with and connect to existing and 15
planned public street, sidewalk, and path networks in the Planning Area. 16
(a) Street and block pattern requirements of the Subdivision regulations shall apply unless 17
waived by the DRB under Section 15C.09(G)(4). 18
(3) Parking. Parking design and building location requirements applicable in all underlying zones 19
and districts apply to General PUDs, including all requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2). 20
(4) Buildings. Buildings and associated building lots within a General PUD must be compatible 21
with the development context in the Planning Area as described under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G). 22
(5) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible with 23
the existing or planned development context. General PUDs must comply with applicable Civic Space 24
and/or Site Amenity requirements in Subdivision (Section 15.A.16(B)(4)) and Site Plan (Section 25
14.06(4)). 26
(a) Section 15.A.16(C)(4) requirement for minimum 10% of the total buildable area to be civic 27
space lots apply to General PUDs only for PUDs that involve subdivision of land resulting in three 28
(3) or more lots, not including the resulting lots that only contain civic space(s). 29
(b) In a General PUD, Civic Spaces required under Subdivision Regulations (Section 30
15.A.16(C)(4)) and under Site Plan Regulations (Section 14.06(4)) can be satisfied by a combination 31
of Civic Spaces, Site Amenities, or a combination, applied across the PUD area. 32
(6) Housing Mix. In a General PUD with more than four (4) residential dwelling units, a mix of 33
two or more dwelling unit types (as allowed within the applicable zoning district) must be provided as 34
described by Section 15.A.17. Types of dwelling units are differentiated by either housing type under 35
Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more than four (4) dwelling units, by number of 36
bedrooms per unit. 37
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Land Development Regulations
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday, March 22, 2022, 7:00 pm
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
Amended Report January 25, 2022:
On April 4, 2022, the South Burlington City Council made changes to the draft Land Development
Regulations approved by the Planning Commission. These changes include a modification to LDR-22-03,
site plan review standards of Relationship of Structures to the site, and to LDR-22-01, General PUD.
The Planning Commission has reviewed these changes pursuant to 24 VSA 4442(b), and has amended
this Report accordingly.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 22, 2022 at 7:00 pm, in
person and via Zoom electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-22-01: Establish a General Planned Unit Development Type for new PUDs and amendments to
existing PUDs
B. LDR-22-02: Establish Site Amenity requirements for new development, expansions, or residential
conversions subject to site plan review; add additional allowable Site Amenity types, and allow
partial credit to Site Amenity and Civic Space requirements for nearby publicly-accessible civic
spaces & parks
C. LDR-22-03: Augment Site Plan review standards of Relationship of Structures to the Site, and of
Relationship of Structures and Site and to Adjoining Area.
D. LDR-22-04: Minor and technical amendments to include:
• Adjust Master Plan applicability for single-user lots
• Definitions updates and corrections
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
2
A. LDR-22-01: Establish a General Planned Unit Development Type for new PUDs and
amendments to existing PUDs
Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment
This amendment would create a “General Planned Unit Development” Type to accompany the
existing “Traditional Neighborhood” and “Conservation” PUD types.
The General PUD would be permissible in zoning districts where the other two PUD types are not
available as options and for minor amendments to pre-existing PUDs approved under prior
regulations.
The General PUD would allow the Development Review Board to vary site plan, subdivision, and
other dimensional and design standards of the Land Development Regulations in order to better
achieve stated goals enumerated therein based on the needs of the site. The Development Review
Board may, for identified purposes, permit modifications to lot sizes, arrangement of buildings and
lots, building setbacks and heights, and re-allocation of density within the PUD. The General PUD
does not authorize increases in lot coverage, development density not otherwise allowed in the
Regulations, additional land uses, modification to the Environmental Protection Standards, or non-
dimensional / design standards such as inclusionary zoning or energy codes.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the
text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1,
2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The proposed General PUD is intended support the land use pattern envisioned through the
2016 Comprehensive Plan. The General PUD uses the City’s subdivision, site plan, zoning district
and general standards as the default and provides some flexibility in their application to meet
site-specific needs. A context assessment of the surrounding areas is required and provides
direction in the application of the standards. The General PUD will allow for site design and
layout that supports infill development, including housing, in difficult sites and where the
Development Review Board finds the intent of the Regulations are met. Relevant Comprehensive
Plan Objectives & Strategies:
Objective 3. Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and target income
level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden County, and maintains an efficient
use of land for use by future generations.
3
Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by
designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate
development of a high-density, City Center, mixed used transit corridors, and compact residential
neighborhoods.
Objective 6. Continue to be an economic hub for the region consistent with the land use goals of the city.
Objective 16: Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by
designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner.
Objective 31. Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through careful site
planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts t o critical wildlife resources, and that
incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife habitats as conserved open space.
Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road, Williston Road,
and Kennedy Drive Corridors, and other areas within the Transit service area.
Strategy 8. Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of residential building
and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing, clustered ho using and infill
residential development.
Ongoing Activity 1: Continue to refine the City’s Land Development Regulations to promote the Plan’s goals
and objectives.
Ongoing Activity 15: Continue to encourage and consider incentivizing neighborhoods that use a mix of
housing types and integrate different types next to each other, rather than creating monoculture of one
type of housing.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendments allow the DRB to vary dimensional and design standards within a
General PUD. They do not, however, alter the proposed or allowed land uses or densities
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The proposed amendments do not affect any specific proposals for planned community facilities.
B. LDR-22-02: Establish Site Amenity requirements for new development, expansions, or
residential conversions subject to site plan review; add additional allowable Site Amenity
types, and allow partial credit to Site Amenity and Civic Space requirements for nearby
publicly-accessible civic spaces & parks
Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment
This amendment would establish a common minimum requirement for new development or
residential conversions to include Site Amenities (private or common outdoor spaces for use by
4
residents/employees/visitors). Minimum amounts are 6% of non-residential building area or
between 60 and 100 s.f. per dwelling unit (depending on building size); both figures are drawn from
similar standards existing within the City Center Form Based Code. Site Amenity types are based on
those created for the City Center Form Based Code. Two additional types are proposed: indoor-
outdoor common area, and private balcony/porch.
The amendment would allow a Park or Civic Space that is located within 500 feet to count towards
50% of the minimum requirement if that distance is a safe, walkable connection.
The amendment would also create allowances related to minimum Civic Space associated with
major subdivisions. The minimum Civic Space requirement is proposed to be allowed to be off-site,
with 500 feet (safe & walkable) where the parcel to be subdivided is 6 areas in size or less.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the
text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February
1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and
shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall
include findings regarding how the proposal:
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The proposed amendments are identified in multiple places in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
Specific Goals and Objectives furthered by these amendments:
Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by
designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate
development of a high-density, City Center, mixed-used transit corridors, and compact residential
neighborhoods.
Objective 14. Seek a livable balance between public, commercial, and civic activity and private tranquility
and promote the health, peace, and well-being of residents in their daily lives.
Objective 15. For all new development, public and private, consider accessibility for users of differing ages
and physical abilities
Objective 16. Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by
designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner.
Objective 30. Proactively plan for a network of interconnected and contiguous open spaces to conserve and
accommodate ecological resources, active and passive recreation land, civic space s, scenic views and vistas,
forests and productive farmland and primary agricultural soils.
Strategy 35. Take into account the quality of life of residents, employees, and visitors in the development of
City policies, plans, projects, and regulations.
5
Strategy 68. Redefine open space in new developments such that usable, quality open space shall be
required. Qualifying open space should include civic spaces, recreation, wildlife habitat, and usable
agricultural lands.
Ongoing Action 11. Continue to build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good
quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner.
Safe, immediate access to outdoor spaces – private or shared – supports affordability by assuring that all
residents are able to access the outdoors without having to own a car or use other forms of transportation.
Further, the establishment of site amenities does not require a reduction in density. Additionally, most
new housing in the past decade or more has included such amenities.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be compatible with the proposed
future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The proposed amendments do not affect any specific proposals for planned community facilities.
C. LDR-22-03: Augment Site Plan review standards of Relationship of Structures to the Site,
and of Relationship of Structures and Site and to Adjoining Area.
Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendments would provide direction to applicants and the Development Review
Board on applying these standards. This includes direction in consideration of Street Frontage,
Building Placement and Orientation, Contract of Scale, Pedestrian Orientation, Pattern & Rhythm,
Architectural Features, and Privacy. Further, buildings that are wholly or partially within the
designated secure area of an Airport would be eligible for parking to be located between the
building and a public street.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the
text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February
1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and
shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall
include findings regarding how the proposal:
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
6
The proposed amendments provide greater clarity to applicants and the DRB on application of
the existing standards in the Regulations. The proposed amendments do not directly impact the
availability of safe and affordable housing. However, the amendments will foster more context-
sensitive design in new development, which in turn supports walkability and, indirectly, overall
safety of environments through greater pedestrian use.
Specific Goals and Objectives furthered by these amendments:
Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by
designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate
development of a high-density, City Center, mixed used transit corridors, and compact residential
neighborhoods.
Objective 16: Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by
designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner.
Strategy 35. Take into account the quality of life of residents, employees, and visitors in the development of
City policies, plans, projects, and regulations.
Strategy 118: Review the City’s Land Development Regulations so that land uses within the [Northeast]
Quadrant remain consistent with the continued operation of the airport.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be compatible with the proposed
future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The proposed amendments do not affect any specific proposals for planned community facilities.
D. LDR-22-04 Minor and technical amendments to include:
• Adjust Master Plan applicability for single-user lots
• Definitions updates and corrections
Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment
The amendments listed above represent minor adjustments to the regulations that promote
consistency in approach, policy, and organization within the Land Development Regulations.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the
text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February
1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
7
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and
shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall
include findings regarding how the proposal:
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The Comprehensive Plan supports consistency and streamlining of regulations.
Strategy 15. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of City regulations relating to permitting with an eye
toward ways to eliminate outdated or duplicative requirements and to further streamline the process of
obtaining needed permits with a specific focus on improving predictability of the process. Move as much of
the permitting process online as is viable to improve customer access and service.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be compatible with the proposed
future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment will not have any impact on planned
community facilities.
§¨¦89
§¨¦89
§¨¦189
¬«116
£¤2
£¤7
Jaycee
Park
City
Center
Park
Veterans
Memorial
ParkRed Rocks
Park Farrell Park
Wheeler
Nature Park
Szymanski
Park
Muddy Brook
Wetland
Reserve
Block Standard
Applicability
Non-Exempt
#2
#5
#1
#3
#4
#6
#7
#8
#9
Vermont
National
Country Club
UVM East
Woods
Natural Area
UVM
Wheelock
Barn
UVM Hort.
Farm LIMEKILNRDSWIFT
ST
WHITE
S
T
WILLISTON
RDAIRPORT
P
K
WY
CENTRALAVEPAT
CHENRDSPEARSTDORSET STKI
MB
A
LL
AVEKENNEDYDRAIRPORT
DR
C H E E S E F A C T O R Y R DO LDFARMRDLegend
Commuter Rail Station
Planned Street Right of Way
Proposed Road
New/Changed Road Network
Common Open Land
Golf Course
Institutional & Agricultural Lands
Proposed Park & Open Space
Existing Park and Open Space
Tax Parcel Boundary-2021
Form Based Code Area (346 acres)
Municipal Boundary
Recreation Paths
Easement
Existing Trail
Existing Recreation Path
Planned Rec Path or Trail
New or new location of rec path
Rec path to be moved
The following notations are hereby incorporated into the Official Map:
1. Blue circle #1 refers to the proposed realignment and reconstruction
of Airport Parkway to facilitate circulation between Lime Kiln Road and the
Airport.
2. Blue circle #2 refers to provision of a northbound on-ramp at Exit 13.
3. Blue circle #3 refers to creation of an appropriate internal roadway
network for development of the O’Brien farm property and provision of
between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an
immediately adjacent area.
4. Blue circle #4 refers to development of Exit 12B at Hinesburg Road and
a dead-end at Old Farm Road.
5. Blue circle #5, along with blue circle #4, refers to the development of
an appropriate roadway network to service Exit 12B and facilitate
connections to Williston Road, Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue.
6. Blue circle #6 refers to development of an internal roadway network
linking Queen City Park Road with Fayette Drive through the Martin’s
Foods and Southland properties.
7. Blue circle #7 refers to development of an appropriate roadway system
between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street through the Marceau and
Chittenden properties.
8. Blue circle #8 refers to acquisition of right-of-way and completion of a
reconfigured intersection at Spear Street and Swift Street.
9. Blue circle #9 refers to proposed recreation paths within 20’ planned
City rights of way.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles F
City of South Burlington
Official Map (Citywide)
Map Prepared by: M.Needle, CCRPC, using ArcGIS Pro
Proposed Amendment March 18, 2022
Block Standard
Applicability
Non-Exempt
UVM Centennial
Woods
Natural
Area
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sb vt.gov
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Official Map
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing April 12, 2022, 7:00 PM
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Official Map.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12th at 7:00 pm,
in person and via electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington
Official Map:
A. OM-22-01: Add bike/pedestrian connections between planned I-89 bike/pedestrian bridge and
Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry Hill Road
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency
with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted
February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as
enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
2
A. OM-22-01: Add bike/pedestrian connections between planned I-89 bike/pedestrian bridge and
Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry Hill Road
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
On the east side of I-89, this amendment would establish a connection from the planned
bicycle/pedestrian bridge across I-89, south of Exit 14, to Dorset Street and to Williston Road.
On the west side of I-89, this amendment would relocate the planned recreation path south of Exit
14, from within the I-89 right-of-way to adjacent private property. A 20’ recreation path easement
has previously been provided by the involved landowners for portions of this area. In addition, the
planned street connection from Quarry Hill Road to Williston Road is clarified to include a planned
recreation path as a continuation of the path along Quarry Hill Road and the adjacent stub road.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies that relate to transportation
infrastructure in this area:
Maps & Analysis
Map 10, Planned Infrastructure Improvements, and Map 6, Planned Rec Lanes and Paths, shows
a planned bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing I-89 south of Exit 14. The project purpose is
described as “To provide safe and efficient connectivity for walkers and cyclists between the City
Center are and housing, University of Vermont, and City of Burlington on the west side of the
Interstate” (p. 2-68).
The proposed improvements are also directly and indirectly supported by several objectives and
strategies within the 2016 Comprehensive Plan:
Comprehensive Plan Goals:
• Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
options while accommodating the automobile;
• Promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, air
quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and recreational
assets;
Comprehensive Plan Objectives:
• Objective 18. Connect neighborhoods with one another via road segments and with commercial
areas for local, slow speed circulation.
• Objective 20. Reduce the percentage of trips taken by single -occupancy vehicles in the City.
• Objective 47. Promote interconnectivity and integration of public facilities including schools and
school facilities open to the public with surrounding neighborhoods, to include safe routes for
children and neighborhood residents to walk and bicycle to school, a public library, recreation
services, and other city services.
3
Comprehensive Plan Strategies:
• Strategy 45. Develop and build a city-wide sidewalk and recreation path plan that identifies and
prioritizes gaps, to link various neighborhood and community focal points.
• Strategy 103. Regularly update the City’s Official Map to include the most up-to-date plans for
streets, parks, recreation paths, other civic spaces and utility infrastructure, including public paths,
greenways and civic spaces planned for public acquisition and development within the City Center.
Pursue public acquisition of mapped facilities through public dedication, and as available funding
allows.
• Strategy 105. Develop an efficient, convenient and attractive transportation and parking plan to
serve the center area and fund and maintain public parking facilities and walking, biking, and transit
amenities.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed facility will support the development of infrastructure to serve a compact, mixed
use, higher density City Center area.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The proposed facility will support the City’s plans to construct a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over I-
89 that would serve and connect neighborhoods and mixed use areas to the east and west of
the Interstate in the vicinity of Exit 14..
1
Betsy Brown
From:Paul Conner
Sent:Monday, March 21, 2022 1:15 PM
To:planning
Subject:FW: Comments on OM-22-01 bike/pedestrian connections
For the Planning Commission’s 4/12 public hearing.
Paul Conner, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street, South Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning
City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected
by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return ema il. Thank
you for your cooperation.
From: Keith Epstein <keithepstein@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 12:48 PM
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@southburlingtonvt.gov>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Comments on OM-22-01 bike/pedestrian connections
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Jessica and Paul,
I’m writing to share comments on OM-22-01, adding bike/pedestrian connections between I-89 bike/ped bridge and
Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry Hill Road. I’m not able to attend the meeting, so I’m sharing the comments by
email.
I am very much in favor of this amendment. I have walked from Quarry Hill apartments to the library on Market Street
several times, and these changes would make that walk much safer, easier, shorter, more convenient, and more
comfortable. Thank you for thinking about how to make it easier for people to get around our city without a car. These
changes will help a lot of people be healthier and make more sustainable choices without risking their safety, reduce
2
traffic, and reduce air and noise pollution. As South Burlington grows, it’s important that we keep expanding options for
people to get around by walking or biking. We just don’t have enough space to allow everyone to drive and park for
every trip they take.
Keith Epstein
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Kelsey Peterson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Memo on Draft Transferable Development Rights Article
DATE: For April 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting
Staff has provided the Planning Commission with a rough, preliminary draft of a Transferable
Development Rights Article for inclusion in the Land Development Regulations. This represents a rethinking of
the existing Transferable Development Rights system, including their use, the sending and receiving areas, and
how they are regulated. The draft was written based on the existing TDR regulations, the TDR Committee Report
from February 2020, and input from the Planning Commission and its members. This is a working draft as a
starting point for further Planning Commission discussion. To that end, Staff requests feedback from the
Commission on the following questions. Primarily goals for this meeting (April 12) would be receiving areas,
additional value incentives in certain zones, and to decide if the TDR program should be limited to use for
residential density.
This draft is a working draft. It incorporates many elements from the current LDRs, but does not fully
incorporate all references to TDRs throughout the current LDRs, nor does it fully address consistency with other
sections like Inclusionary Zoning or PUDs. The intention is to not change the policies of the current TDR program
within the SEQ; this restructures the language of the processes for TDR use, expands the receiving areas outside
the SEQ, and adds value incentives for TDR use outside the SEQ.
1. Should Residential Districts of R12, R7-NC, and R7 be receiving areas for TDRs?
Based on Planning Commission discussion at previous meetings, this draft is written to focus receiving areas on
the mixed-use and relatively dense residential areas along our transportation corridors. The receiving areas
maintain the current receiving areas in the SEQ subdistricts and expand to zoning districts in the areas of
Shelburne Road, Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive with at least seven (7) units per acre of residential density
allowed by right. This includes commercial zones that allow at least multi-family development and relatively
dense residential zones of R7, R7-NC, and R12. It does not include any districts that do not allow any residential
uses.
The Commission could decide to not allow use of TDRs in the R7, R7-NC, and/or R12 districts, as
primarily residential areas with an already relatively dense base density. However, multi-family dwellings are
permitted in these districts, making densities above 7 units per acre both viable and not out of line with the
permitted development of the area. Allowing use of TDRs to increase density above 7 units and/or for greater
lot coverage would allow for possibly more economically viable and more dense residential construction in these
areas, also reducing space not used for civic space, site amenity, or environmental protection.
2
2. How should TDR use be incentivized in specified areas?
Maximums
Table 19-1 provides the maximum allowed density and building and lot coverage enabled by the use of
TDRs, by zoning district.
The Planning Commission has a few options here. First, the Commission can set maximums for the
allowed increased-to residential density, lot coverage, and building height achieved through use of TDRs.
Second, the Commission could set no maximum residential density, but leave maximum lot coverage and/or
height. Third, the Commission could set no maximum for any of these three metrics, leaving limitations on
development to other regulations like setback requirements, civic space requirements, stormwater
management needs, landscaping requirements, etc.
In this draft, in C1-R15, C1-Auto, C1-R12, and C2, there is no maximum residential density obtained
through use of TDRs. In other non-SEQ districts, the maximum is 50% more than base density allowed by right in
that district. In SEQ subdistricts, the maximums remain the same as in the current TDR program. This
incentivizes use of TDRs in areas with no maximum, or at least does not limit their use in those areas. Staff
recommends consideration of having no maximum residential density, with or without maximum building
coverage or lot coverage. Residential density by units will be controlled by the limitations on building size and
other design considerations (including civic space or site amenity requirements, stormwater structures,
setbacks, etc.). It may not be effective to regulate how many units are in a building when the size, location, and
appearance of a building could be identical with varying numbers of units. This draft does not allow TDRs to be
used for additional building height. Most locations where additional residential density is most desirable (C1-
R15, C1-R12, C1-Auto and C-2) already have an effective height maximum of five stories, which is significantly
more than the current build-out of those areas.
Value per TDR
Table 19-2 provides how much density increase (defined by State statute as any of residential density,
lot coverage, building height, or decrease in minimum lot size) can be gained by use of 1 TDR
In the draft, TDRs are given more value in C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-Auto, and C2 than anywhere else. Staff
recommends giving more value to residential units in these mixed-use areas. The value could also be higher than
three units per TDR. This incentivizes use of TDRs in these districts, as the same purchase price for a TDR can get
a developer triple (or more?) value when received on a property.
Increases in lot and building coverage could be different, as in the draft, or could be the same regardless
of district. Lot and building coverage do not take into account building use, so additional lot or building coverage
could be used for residential, commercial, and mixed-use buildings, as allowed in the underlying zoning districts.
In the current TDR section, lot and building coverage can only be increased in areas underlying the Urban
Development Overlay. In the new draft, additional lot or building coverage is available via use of TDRs in all
receiving areas, with different values assigned to different areas. Hypothetically, lot and building coverage could
also have more value when used for residential or mixed-use development than in purely commercial
development. Lot and building coverage increases are not available in the SEQ subdistrict receiving areas.
3. State statute allows municipalities to allow TDRs to be used to reduce minimum allowable lot size –
do you want to allow TDRs to be used in that way?
This draft does not allow reduction of minimum lot size through use of TDRs. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission not use the TDR tool to decrease minimum lot sizes at this time. If the goal would be to
encourage greater density of lots, elimination of minimum lot sizes would be more effective at no cost to
developers. This is also a greater policy discussion outside the TDR program.
Initial Draft
For Planning Commission Discussion
April 12, 2022 PC Meeting
New Article 19? Transferable Development Rights
19.01 Authority & Purpose
A. Authority. The City of South Burlington has the authority under 24 V.S.A. § 4423 to establish bylaws
governing the transfer of development rights. The Transfer of Development Rights is hereby authorized
in order to encourage the conservation of open space, natural resources, scenic views and agricultural
uses, to promote well-planned residential development, and to encourage the concentration of
development towards priority areas within the City.
B. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the use of Transferable Development Rights
(“TDRs”) to encourage preservation of open space and well-planned residential use in the City.
Specifically, it is the intention of this section to regulate the transfer of development rights from areas
where land conservation is a priority to areas suited for additional development.
C. Definitions (to be placed in general definitions)
“Density Increase” – [to be defined upon final determination by the PC on allowances]
"Receiving area" – areas in which development rights may attached to a property.
"Receiving property" – a lot or parcel within a receiving area on which development rights can be
received.
"Sending area" – areas from which development rights can be acquired.
"Sending property" – a lot or parcel within a sending area from which development rights can be
severed.
19.02 Severance of Transferable Development Rights
A. Sending Areas and Sending Properties.
1. The following districts are designated as sending areas for TDRs:
a. Lands within the following districts: SEQ-NRP and SEQ-NRT
B. Assigned Density and Severing Rights: For the purposes of Transferable Development Rights,
lands are provided an Assigned Density.
1. The Assigned Density is determined by zoning district:
a. In the SEQ District, except as provided in (b), all land is provided an Assigned Density
of one point two (1.2) dwelling units and/or lots per gross acre, less any areas
defined as Hazards under these Regulations.
b. In the SEQ-VC Subdistrict, lots that were in existence as of the effective date of this
Article and that are two acres or less in size shall be allowed an assigned residential
density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre.
2. TDRs must be severed as whole numbers. Less than one TDR cannot be severed, therefore a
minimum of development rights from 0.83 acres can be severed from a sending property.
Initial Draft
For Planning Commission Discussion
April 12, 2022 PC Meeting
3. Severance of development rights from each 0.83 acres will equal one TDR for receipt on a
receiving property.
4. All properties within a sending area with remaining development rights have the ability to
be sending properties, except any property that has fully utilized its development rights.
C. Process for Severing Development Rights
1. Severance of development rights occurs when the owner of the sending property executes a
deed of severance.
2. Deeds of severance must include the written determination by the Administrative Officer
indicating the number of development rights being severed and the number of development
rights remaining on the property.
3. The deed of severance must be recorded in the City of South Burlington’s Land Records.
4. The deed of severance shall be in a form that is approved by the City Attorney and must
recite that it is a conveyance under 24 V.S.A. 4423 and recites the number of acres affected,
as required by 24 V.S.A. 4423(b)(3).
5. Severance of development rights must include a conservation easement granted to the City
of South Burlington under 10 V.S.A. ch. 155.
a. The conservation easement must be recorded in the City of South Burlington
Land Records.
6. The City may not require property owners to sever development rights as a condition of the
development of any property.
19.03 Receipt of Transferable Development Rights
A. Receiving Areas and Receiving Properties.
1. The following districts are designated as receiving areas for TDRs:
a. Residential Districts: SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR, R7, and R12.
b.Commercial Districts: R7-NC, C1-R15, C1-R12, C1-Limited Retail, C1-Auto,
Allen Road (AR), Swift Street (SW), C2, SEQ-VC
B. Receiving Development Rights
1. All properties within a receiving area are eligible to receive TDRs, up to the maximum
density increases in Table 19-1.
2. TDRs must be received as whole numbers.
3. Density increases on a receiving property may include an increase in lot coverage, increase
in building height, or increase in building bulk or allowed residential density (by number of
residential units allowed), allowed by zoning district in Table 19-2.
4. TDRs can be used for any combination of density increases as allowed by the zoning district
in Table 19-2 on a single property. Under no circumstances can any individual metric
exceed the maximum allowed in Table 19-1, except through use of inclusionary dwelling
units under Section 18.01 as follows:
a. In SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC, the Development Review Board may allow residential
structures containing one or more affordable dwelling units to have two
additional dwelling units, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per
Initial Draft
For Planning Commission Discussion
April 12, 2022 PC Meeting
structure. This provision shall not be interpreted to allow an increase in total
allowable number of units for the project as a whole.
C. Process for Receiving Development Rights
1. Receipt of transferable development rights occurs when the owner of a receiving property
executes a deed of receipt attaching the development right(s) to the receiving property.
2. A deed of receipt must be recorded in the City of South Burlington Land Records, including
the number of TDRs applied to the property.
3. The deed of transfer shall be in a form that is approved by the City Attorney, and must
recite that it is a conveyance under 24 V.S.A. 4423.
4. Nothing in this ordinance precludes combination of a deed of severance and deed of
receipt.
5. Any transfer of development rights to a receiving property pursuant to this Article only
authorizes a density increase. It does not alter any other regulations applicable to the
receiving property.
6. The City may not require property owners to receive a transfer of development rights as a
condition of the development of any property.
Table 19-1 Maximum Density Increases with TDRs
Zoning District(s) Max. Allowable Density
through TDRs
Max. Allowable Building and Lot
Coverage
C1-R15, C1-Auto, C1-R12, C2 No maximum 10 percentage points above existing
maximum
R12, C1-LR, AR, R7, R7-NC, SW 50% more than base
density allowed by right
[note to draft: coordinate
with Inclusionary Zoning
such that maximum does
not exceed 100% bonus
total]
10 percentage points above existing
maximum
SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, and SEQ-
NR
For development that is
not a Planned Unit
Development, 1.8 dwelling
units per gross acre, and 4
dwelling units per structure
For development that is a
Planned Unit Development,
as authorized within Article
15.C
-
SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC For development that is
not a Planned Unit
Development, 8 dwelling
units per gross acre, and 6
dwelling units per structure
-
Initial Draft
For Planning Commission Discussion
April 12, 2022 PC Meeting
For development that is a
Planned Unit Development,
au authorized within Article
15.C
Table 19-2 Density Increases per TDR Received
Zoning District(s) Increase in Residential
Density per TDR
Increase in Lot and Building Coverage
per TDR
C1-R15, C1-Auto, C1-R12, C2 3 dwelling units 10,000 SF
R12, C1-LR, AR 2 dwelling units 10,000 SF
R7, R7-NC, SW 1 dwelling unit 5,000 SF
SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN,
SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC
1 dwelling unit -
19.04 Determination of Development Rights
A. The City shall establish and maintain a system for recording and monitoring the severance,
ownership and receipt of transferable development rights.
B. The Administrative Officer has authority to determine the development rights available.
C. An application for a determination of the development rights available to be severed from a
sending property must include:
1. Completed application form(s).
2. A tax map, plat, or site plan showing the boundaries of each lot, tract or parcel from which
development rights are sought to be severed.
3. Determination of the existing zoning of the property.
4. A copy of the deed for the sending property.
5. A calculation of the number of development rights available to be severed from the
property and the number of those development rights proposed to be severed.
6. All applicable fees.
D. Development rights shall be calculated to the nearest whole number. Where the application of
this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to
the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded
down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up).
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
8 MARCH 2022
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 March 2022, at 7:00
p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Riehle, M. Ostby, Acting Chair, M. Mittag, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; D. Peters, N.
Hyman
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Ostby provided instructions for emergency exit.
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:
Mr. Mittag advised that the Climate Action Committee will meet on March 10th. Ms. Ostby said she
heard that at the State level there is enhancement to the current use program. People don’t have to
forest or harvest their land, just take care of it.
Mr. Conner: The City has hired Tom DiPietro as the new Public Works Director. He is the top
stormwater person in the State
UMall is under new ownership with some very dynamic people who are excited to
something great there. They are the same people who own Staples Plaza (not the land). They are
looking at 24/7 mixed uses.
The City Council has let the mask mandate expire. Masks are still “encouraged” at City-
owned buildings.
5. Commissioners’ Reports from Committees:
Mr. Engels: The Airport Rezoning Task Force has asked the consultant to provided 3 scenarios: a
“no” response, a “do nothing,” response, and a “what can be done” response. The City’s legal staff is
being asked to look into the “taking” issue. Ms. Peterson advised that she is working with the Deputy
City Attorney on this.
2
6. Official Map: Review proposed updates to Citywide Official Map and possible action to
approved Planning Commission Report and warn public hearing on proposed amendments:
a. OM-22-01: Add bike/pedestrian connections between planned I-89 bike/pedestrian
bridge and Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry Hill Road
Mr. Mittag moved to warn for a 12 April 2022 public hearing amendment to the Official Map OM:22-01
to add bike/ped connections between planned I-89 bike-ped bridge and Dorset Street, Williston Road
and Quarry Hill Road. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
7. Discussion of possible use of ARPA funds:
Mr. Conner explained that the city received about $4,500,000, some of which has already been
allocated. Committees have been asked to provide any specific interests for use of those funds. He
asked members if they had any thoughts on this.
Mr. Riehle suggested lighting on Kennedy Drive and a place to plant trees. He suggested 3 “buckets”
with 1/3 for housing, 1/3 for parks, and 1/3 allocated for the future.
Ms. Peterson suggested members consider who/what they are targeting to support with these one-time
funds.
Mr. Engels suggested something completely new such as an anti-poverty program so no one is hungry
and everyone has a place to live.
Ms. Ostby suggested looking at the aging infrastructure in the city in conjunction with the schools. She
also suggested something the community could use in its “off hours.”
Mr. Mittag suggested more school buses so fewer kids are driving to school.
Mr. Mittag said that money wouldn’t go very far, and the city probably couldn’t spend it by 2026.
Mr. Engels said it would be nice if they could say no money for studies or consultants.
Mr. Hyman suggested concentrating on incentivizing/promoting the new City Center, helping to
revitalize UMall, and demolishing the parking lot and Sears. He suggested it could be zoned as
residential with beautiful apartments.
Ms. Ostby suggested something that would promote job creation.
Mr. Conner suggested something like a commercial kitchen where home-based kitchens could grow
incrementally.
3
It was noted that the City of Burlington is providing a one-time property tax credit to those who meet
certain qualifications.
Mr. Riehle moved to suggest a 3-bucket plan for ARPA funds with 1/3 for housing, 1/3 for open
space/parks, and 1/3 for a future undetermined use. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
6. Begin 2024 Comprehensive Plan process: discussion of areas of focus and update:
Ms. Peterson asked what areas they might emphasize or de-emphasize.
Mr. Mittag said they are out of sync and should have done the Comp Plan first, then the LDRs. He felt it
would be hard to get in sync now.
Ms. Peterson said the Comp Plan can direct changes to the LDRs in the future. She suggested setting
priorities and a structure in place during May and June, then using July ’22 through July ’23 for
information gathering, tasking committees, writing drafts/getting feedback, and public outreach
(including workshops). She noted the new plan has to be adopted by February, 2024, so the City Council
should adopt it by the end of 2023. This means the Planning Commission should have a draft by August,
2023.
Mr. Engels felt the plan should be more definitive and authoritative. Mr. Mittag said it is “inspirational”
for the community, but he didn’t feel it had served the community well enough.
He felt the core of it should focus on climate mitigation and land use changes to support that as well as
focusing on safety/health of the community.
Mr. Riehle suggested they address other things on their plate (e.g., TDRs) first. Ms. Peterson said they
are very high on the list for the next few months.
Mr. Riehle said they should make it clear that with regard to the Regional Planning Commission, South
Burlington is making its own decisions.
Mr. Engels questioned whether Williston Rd. should be a priority since it provides a route for people to
drive through South Burlington.
Ms. Peterson noted that the Comprehensive Plan is also used by those who are funding grants to
determine what the city’s priorities are. She emphasized that policy statements should be made clearly.
Mr. Riehle cited how difficult it is to get speed limits lowered. Mr. Conner said the state will move the
needle a little if the community is clear.
Ms. Ostby cited the need to provide “teeth” for the Chamberlin neighborhood, so that people will want
to remain there and call it their “forever home.”
4
Mr. Mittag cited what immigrants have done to revitalize Burlington’s north end. Mr. Conner noted that
equity will be a key piece of the plan.
8. Consider Street Name Requests for the O’Brien Eastview Neighborhood:
Mr. Conner suggested switching Mabel Way for Barn Way and shortening Potash Brook Way to Potash
Way.
Mr. Mittag moved to accept the applicant’s proposal with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Riehle
seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
9. Minutes of 11 January and 25 January 2022:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 11 and 25 January 2022 as presented. Mr. Engels
seconded. Motion passed 4-0
10. Other Business:
Notice of Shelburne Selectboard on Interim Zoning Amendment
Mr. Conner noted that Shelburne is considering an Interim Zoning to limit the height of buildings in their
Form Based Code area to 2 stories.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:44 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION 22 MARCH 2022
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 March
2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting
remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; T. Bailey, M. Simoneau S. Dooley, S.
Dopp
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instruction 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:
Ms. Ostby noted there will be trailers in the elementary school parking lots. They will be used
for administrative offices. Mr. Conner said that the school district was told “if you need them,
just do it.”
Mr. Engels reported that the Airport Rezoning Task Force conducted a straw poll of the 3
options provided by the consultant. Five members voted to say “no.” One member voted to
delay action until there is a new Comprehensive Plan. There will be a public input session on
April 7th. The consultant is preparing a comment sheet which will go to the public at that
session. The Task Force will have its final vote on 21 April. Mr. Riehle asked whether the City of
Burlington has participated in the sessions. Mr. Engels said Nick Longo has been there. Ms.
Peterson added that Mr. Longo and Larry Lackey have participated. Mr. Lackey made the initial
presentation on behalf of the Airport. Ms. Peterson noted the public input session will be
advertised in The Other Paper. An updated draft will be available to the pu blic.
5. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: LDR-21-1,
LDR-21-2, LDR-21-3, LDR-21-4:
PLANNING COMMISSION
22 MARCH 2022
PAGE 2
Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Conner noted that staff received 3 email comments and a comment from the Committee
on Spaces for Dogs.
Mr. Conner said the legal review has been completed and resulted in a few little edits . One
significant edit allows balconies and porches as a site amenity, but they can count for only half
of the total site amenity requirement. Ms. Peterson added that the balcony has to be a
6’x8’minimum size.
Mr. Bailey noted that it is complicated to do something that overlaps a district where there is
already a traffic overlay. He liked the context, but said that what appears to be lacking is an
understanding of what the outcome will be. Ideally, it would be incentivizing housing in these
areas, but when you deal with infill, you cannot have the same econo my of scale. He didn’t
want it to become “un-doable.” He recommended a technical review outside of house to see
how this will work for people who are trying to build. This is especially important now that the
city has $1,000,000 in money for housing. He liked some of the details but noted that each one
adds an expense to what is already expensive.
Mr. Simoneau said that at this point in time, increased density is not being addressed. If the
Commission approves this based on status quo zoning, and then you increase the density, how
will it affect the PUDs that have been approved. The question is: what comes first, the PUDs or
the densities. He noted that the Spear Meadows project anguished for 15 years because
abutters were angered that R-4 zoning could be doubled by TDRs. People need to know up
front what the density can be and that it will not be exceeded. Mr. Simoneau also said that
reading through all the stuff the developer has to address, including authoring a report, it will
cost money and will work against affordable housing. He felt the expense is not necessary and
that the regulations are trying to quantify something that is at least in part subjective.
Ms. Louisos said the context analysis is one way to support “context,” how the planned project
fits the vision of the area. Mr. Simoneau suggested a “check box” method, not a narrative,
something more like the Form Based Code area has. Mr. Conner noted the General PUD is
never required. The applicant is getting broad authority to waive a lot of requirements. The
context report tells the Board what to think about.
As there was no further public comment, Mr. MacDonald moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION
22 MARCH 2022
PAGE 3
Mr. Mittag said the impact on surroundings can be significant which is why the context report is
important.
Ms. Ostby felt the Commission should set up a sub -committee to see the impact of these
regulations. She said she is all for streamlining and lowering hurdles. She loved the “check the
box” idea if that could be incorporated into the process. She felt that would add clarity to the
public as well.
Mr. MacDonald asked if there isn’t already a maximum density. Mr. Conner said R -2 became R-
4 when there was a PUD. He noted that R-12 could become more than R-12 with inclusionary
units and bonuses. He also noted that some communities don’t use a number. They call it
“medium density neighborhood” or “high density neighborhood.”
Mr. Riehle asked if there could be a map of absolutely maximum density.
Mr. Engels said everything the Commission does gets interpreted by the DRB. He said he would
like to hear from them about what the Commission has done.
Regarding technical review, Mr. Mittag said the city has professional staff, and the Commission
has done due diligence. He felt technical review was a bad idea.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations as
presented with recommended legal and technical chan ges provided in the meeting packet and
to submit the amendments and the Planning Commission Report to the City Council. Ms. Ostby
seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Conner said he would like to look for opportunities to streamline things. Ms. Peterson
noted there are some thing required in the context analysis that are required elsewhere in an
application.
6. Planning Commission Work Plan:
Mr. MacDonald asked if the Commission hadn’t moved “review of east-west roads” down in
terms of priority. Ms. Peterson said that will be reflected in the work plan for next year as that
discussion happened after the October/November work plan meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
22 MARCH 2022
PAGE 4
Mr. Conner stressed that this is a work plan, and they may not necessarily get to every item.
Ms. Louisos noted that some items are just to “make a plan” to do it.
Ms. Ostby said there are still some things from Interim Zoning that the Commission hasn’t
done. Ms. Peterson said that is the last item on the list.
Ms. Ostby asked if there will be an “infill PUD.” Mr. Conner said the idea is that the General
PUD becomes the last PUD. Infill in pre-existing neighborhood may not be a PUD.
7. Initial Policy Discussion on TDR Update:
Ms. Louisos noted staff’s review of the history to date.
Ms. Ostby noted an item left out of the February 3rd recommendation, to create a new
definition of what a dwelling unit is and what square footage should be. She felt it was
important to talk about that. Mr. Mittag said the Commission was grappling with trying to
define it by size and abandoned the idea. He also noted the report of the TD R IZ committee
was done in 2019, and they have learned a lot since then , so they shouldn’t be too attached to
that report.
Ms. Ostby said she was concerned that a TDR unit from a house could now be used for a studio
apartment which does not address the “missing middle.” Mr. Mittag noted that Spear
Meadows has used TDRs. Mr. Conner said they do have some triplexes and new homes there,
which is close to the “missing middle.”
Ms. Louisos raised the question of whether TDRs should be used only for residential units. Mr.
Mittag said they should be very flexible including commercial and industrial units. This could be
additional square feet of lot coverage or an additional story.
Mr. Conner raised the question of allowing more units on Shelburne Road with TDRs. This
could take the form of just allowing more density.
Mr. Engels asked the status of TDRs. Mr. Conner said there haven’t been a lot of additional
dwelling units in the last 2 years, maybe 10 or 12. He noted the Commission had added land to
the NRP, but they also said TDRs could not be used from hazards. Ms. Peterson said her
understanding is that there is a bottleneck with receiving areas and that if they were expanded
there would be more interest in TDRs.
PLANNING COMMISSION
22 MARCH 2022
PAGE 5
Ms. Ostby said the Commission has an obligation not to make it difficult for people to sell TDRs,
and that would involve expanding receiving areas. Mr. Riehle said lot coverage is an issue
because of quality of life and other issues.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether someone who wants a bigger house shouldn’t have to buy more
TDRS. She suggested doing it by square feet. Mr. MacDonald said then there is no incentive to
do it. Ms. Ostby questioned whether it is bad to incentivize small buildings.
Mr. Conner said he would have to talk with legal people. There are regulations as to what can
be transferred. There was a court decision that density as a number of units per acre is OK. He
wasn’t sure about square footage.
Mr. MacDonald asked about weighting a TDR from an area the city wants to conserve. Ms.
Peterson said there is a difficulty in determining what that is. There is also a “spot zoning” issue
when adjacent parcels are treated differently when there is very little difference between them
ecologically.
Mr. Conner said TDRs from agricultural areas can be used. He has seen a couple of instances
where a developer has taken advantage of this when it meets both state and local
requirements.
Ms. Louisos asked how members felt about having TDRs count for more. Ms. Ostby said as long
as it doesn’t harm the seller. Mr. Mittag said it is a negotiation between the buyer and seller.
Mr. Conner cited the need to be sure the market is balanced. Mr. Riehle noted a buyer can just
buy the TDRs and bank them and not say how they will be used.. Mr. Conner noted the TDRs
are not severed until they are used.
Mr. Conner asked if members were comfortable with using TDRs for additional lot coverage as
well as for additional dwelling units. The maximum added lot coverage would be 10%.
Mr. Riehle felt they should incentivize going “up” not “out.”
Members were OK with adding more units in the same size building. They also wanted to
discuss having bigger buildings.
Ms. Peterson said they should also discuss the value of TDRs in commercial buildings and in
mixed use buildings..
PLANNING COMMISSION
22 MARCH 2022
PAGE 6
Mr. MacDonald said they need to simplify and stimulate the market.
Mr. Mittag favored a “full but basic” ordinance now and dealing with nuances later.
Mr. Conner said if the Commission said you could double the density city-wide, would this by
OK in the Orchards. Mr. MacDonald felt there could be negative consequences.
Ms. Louisos suggested doing something the Commission is comfortable with and then looking
further.
Ms. Dopp asked how many TDRs are out there. Ms. Ostby said that can’t be answered easily at
this time. Mr. Mittag added that what they knew in 2019 has changed.
8. Meeting Minutes of 23 February 2022:
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 23 February 2022. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
9. Other Business:
Mr. Conner advised that Mr. Gagnon has stepped down from the Commission. There will be
interviews on 4 April for a replacement. Members agreed to wait until a new member is added
before voting on a new Vice Chair.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:35 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk