HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 02/09/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, February 9, 2021
7:00 pm
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and
members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone.
There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-02-09
Telephone (audio only): (872) 240-3412; Access Code: 671-612-981
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 (7:08 pm)
4. Presentation of Proposed Design for Lindenwood Drive Stormwater Treatment System, Emmalee
Cherington, Stormwater Project Manager (7:12 pm)
5. *Land Development Regulations Work Session (7:30 pm)
a. Continue Commission Review of Planned Unit Development / Traditional Neighborhood Development
PUD Type draft key questions (7:30 pm)
b. Consider Conservation PUD Key Questions (8:10 pm)
c. Consider expansion of Inclusionary Zoning to apply citywide to housing exceeding 12 dwelling units to
replace existing affordable housing density bonus, and Affordable Housing Committee recommendation
(8:50 pm) [time permitting]
d. Staff summary of waiver/modification/alternative compliance elements of draft LDRs (9:00 pm) [time
permitting]
6. Staff overview of next meeting & overall project schedule & hearing dates (9:05 pm)
7. Consider and possibly approval request for new street name: Rosita Lane (9:10 pm)
8. *Minutes: December 15, 2020, January 26, 2020 (9:12 pm)
9. Other Business: (9:13 pm)
a. *Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive
Development Ordinance, Tuesday, February 23, 6:45 pm via Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89830163519
b. *Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use and
Development Regulations, Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:30pm via Zoom https://zoom.us/s/94260618811
10. Adjourn (9:15 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings
to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try
to call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: February 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:08 pm)
Staff Report:
• Garden Street TIF Town Meeting Day ballot item. For information about the project being
considered, visit: http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/residents/city_center_tif_district/index.php
• CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program. The City Council approved the Planning Commission’s
recommended candidate project list for FY 22. The CCRPC will review all requests and make their
determinations in May.
• City Newsletter. The City is now publishing a bi-weekly e-newsletter. Spread the word! Join the list
by contacting Andrea Leo at aleo@sburl.com
• DRB Opening. The Development Review Board is seeking a volunteer to serve an immediate opening
on the DRB. Have interested persons contact Andrea Leo in the City Manager’s office at
aleo@sburl.com
• DRB Application Status and table of recent permits issued now online. Updated bi-weekly, here is a
link to these new resources (as well as a link to our archive of permits & DRB decisions)
• I-89 Corridor Study to update Council 2/16. Charlie Baker from the CCRPC will be providing a status
update on the I-89 Corridor project to Council at their next meeting, Tuesday, February 16th.
4. *Presentation of Proposed Design for Lindenwood Drive Stormwater Treatment System, Emmalee
Cherington, Stormwater Project Manager (7:12 pm)
Please see the enclosed memo and presentation slides from Emmalee Cherington in the City’s
Stormwater Division. No action is required of the Commission; this is a public input forum on the
proposed project.
5. Land Development Regulations Work Session (7:30 pm)
a. Continue Commission Review of Planned Unit Development / Traditional Neighborhood Development
PUD Type draft key questions (7:30 pm)
See enclosed memo & draft. This item is intended to pick up where the Commission left off in your
meeting with Sharon Murray on January 12th. Staff has noted the Commission’s direction in the draft
text, highlighted. We have not yet updated the draft itself; that is on our work schedule.
2
Commissioner Michael Mittag has provided some questions/comments for the Commission per
staff’s offer. These were emailed to Commissioners on 1/22. Staff encourages Commissioners to
review these, and we will be prepared to discuss them as well. [Should any member of the public
like them, we’re also happy to provide them upon request].
b. *Consider Conservation PUD Key Questions (8:10 pm)
See enclosed staff memo.
c. *Consider expansion of Inclusionary Zoning to apply citywide to housing exceeding 12 dwelling units
to replace existing affordable housing density bonus, and Affordable Housing Committee
recommendation (8:50 pm) [time permitting]
As we approach the completion of the PUD work, we’re seeking direction and guidance from the
Commission on the possible expansion of Inclusionary zoning to all development exceeding 12
dwelling units in the City. At present, the Inclusionary Zoning standards apply generally to the
Transit Overlay District (and specifically, to those areas NOT subject to the Interim Zoning Bylaw),
while the same equivalent supplemental development density is available elsewhere in the City
through the Affordable Density Bonus. The timing is relevant to this meeting because any
Inclusionary provisions would be best incorporated directly into the PUD Types as they are
developed rather than added-to at a later date.
The Affordable Housing Committee has submitted a recommendation that Inclusionary Zoning be
expanded; it is in your packet.
d. Staff summary of waiver/modification/alternative compliance elements of draft LDRs (9:00 pm)
[time permitting]
See the enclosed summary. Staff has compiled these so that Commissioners can review and let staff
know if this lines up with your expectations. We can schedule a discussion for your next meeting
should Commissioners have questions or wish to make modifications to the approaches.
6. Staff overview of next meeting & overall project schedule & hearing dates (9:05 pm)
Staff will briefly outline the overall project schedule status for Commissioners
7. Consider and possibly approval request for new street name: Rosita Lane (9:10 pm)
This request is for a private road that would commence at the end of Cheesefactory Lane (located off
Cheesefactory Road) and extend into Shelburne serving a handful of lots. Staff has reviewed and found
no conflicts. We have also shared the proposed name with the Town of Shelburne.
8. *Minutes: December 15, 2020, January 26, 2020 (9:12 pm)
9. Other Business: (9:13 pm)
a. *Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive
Development Ordinance, Tuesday, February 23, 6:45 pm via Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89830163519
b. *Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use and
Development Regulations, Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:30pm via Zoom
https://zoom.us/s/94260618811
10. Adjourn (9:15 pm)
Memo
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Emmalee Cherington, Stormwater Project Manager
Date: February 1, 2021
Re: Lindenwood Dr. Stormwater Treatment System Presentation
Potash Brook is on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) list of impaired
waterbodies for uncontrolled stormwater runoff. The ANR released a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for the Potash Brook watershed that was approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in 2006. The TMDL set a target to reduce the high-flow by 16.5% during
the 1-year storm event (2.1”/ 24 hour). In order to meet the target reduction in the Potash
Brook TMDL, the Stormwater Utility worked with a consultant to develop a Flow Restoration
Plan (FRP), which identifies a suite of Best Management Practices (BMPs) capable of
attaining the flow reduction targets.
The Potash Brook FRP proposed construction of a detention pond at the east end of
Lindenwood Drive to manage runoff from a 10.57-acre area (2.2 acres of impervious surface).
The proposed treatment system is designed to reduce the velocity of peak flows during the 1-
year, 24-hour storm by detaining the stormwater and slowly releasing it back into the
watershed. Additionally, the system will provide treatment for smaller storms which typically
carry higher pollutant loads.
As a condition of the grant funding the City has received for design and construction, we must
host public meetings to describe the overall goals of the project. It is our hope that interested
community members will benefit from this meeting by allowing time to ask questions and
share concerns before we move to the next level of design.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658 – 7961 or echerington@sburl.com.
Lindenwood Drive
Stormwater System Development
Presentation by:
Emmalee T. Cherington,
Stormwater Project Manager
City of South Burlington Public Works
Lindenwood Drive
Stormwater System Development
Existing Conditions
•Drainage Area: 10.6 Acres (2.2 Impervious).
•Collection system along Brewer Parkway
discharges directly to Potash Brook (an impaired
stream).
•No collection along Lindenwood Dr. which leads
to significant flooding after minor storms events.
Proposed Drainage Area Map
Existing flow
from Brewer
Pkwy
Current Conditions
Lindenwood Dr.: Flooding after storm events Outfall from Brewer Parkway causing erosion.
Lindenwood Drive- Stormwater System
Proposed Project
•Install collection system along Lindenwood Dr.
•Capture flow from Brewer Parkway.
•Construct Infiltration Basin on City owned parcel.
•Provide Water Quality and Channel Protection
treatment.
Benefits of the System
• Stormwater runoff flows much faster from impervious
surfaces, than naturally landcover and needs to be
diverted to ensure the runoff occurs at the desired rate.
• Dry basins provide channel protection by slowing the
runoff.
• Pretreatment tanks provide water quality treatment-
removing pollutants.
Lindenwood Drive
Proposed Stormwater Dry Basin
Bike Path
Proposed Location
Lindenwood Drive- Stormwater System
Proposed Location
Lindenwood Drive- Stormwater System
Proposed Location
Alternatives and Revisions
• Relocated the stormline away from the water
transmission line.
• Removed a large pretreatment tank that would
potentially impact a 30” maple tree.
• Considered an alternative location- down the slope
from the bike path.
Alternative Location
Pros & Cons of Alternative
Pros
• Lower elevation additional
flexibility in the closed drainage
system design.
• There would be no ponding
within the closed drainage
system.
Cons
• Significant tree clearing.
• Increased impact to the
wetland.
• Maintenance access road would
need to be much steeper than
the proposed design (15-20%).
• Bank stability concerns.
Landscaping and Fencing
Landscaping and Fencing
Project Schedule & Funding
Schedule
• 2/09/21 – Public Meeting
• Current Phase- Preliminary Design
• 1/15/22 – Anticipated Bid Date
Funding
• City received $303,574 VTrans Grant
• City obligation 20% match ($76,000)
Project Contact
• Emmalee Cherington, Project Manager
(802) 658-7961 x6115
echerington@sburl.com
Questions & Comments
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 0 5403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Follow-up on Draft Planned Unit Development (General) Standards & Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) PUD Standards
DATE: February 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Last month the Commission had its initial review of the draft Planned Unit Development General Standards
and Traditional Neighborhood Development specific requirements.
This week, staff is requesting that you pick up where you left off at that meeting. We have not yet made
changes to the draft based on the feedback provided, however, staff has updated the “comments” in the text
to reflect the Commission’s direction at that meeting, and turned the red / blue comments black where
they’ve been addressed.
Meeting objectives:
1. Discuss and provide direction on key staff/consultant questions
2. Provide feedback/direction on any big-picture Commissioner-identified questions
Depending on direction received, the next draft could be ready for the Commission to solicit community
feedback on.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 1 of 11
15C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1
2
DRAFT IS PROPOSED AS A FULL REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT STANDARDS. TEXT IN ITALICS IS NEW OR 3
SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED FROM CURRENT REGULATIONS; TEXT IN STANDARD TEXT IS UNCHANGED 4
OR SUBSTANTIVELY THE SAME AS CURRENT REGULATIONS. 5
6
Key to Comments: 7
“Notes” are notes for readers 8
“For PC discussion” in RED are priority questions from staff/consultant 9
“For PC discussion” in BLUE are secondary questions from staff/consultant 10
Notes have been updated to reflect Commission direction 1/12/20 11
12
15C.01 Purpose 13
15C.02 Applicability 14
15C.03 PUD Review 15
15C.04 General Standards 16
15C.05 Traditional Neighborhood Development 17
15C.06 Neighborhood Commercial Development 18
15C.07 Conservation Development 19
15C.08 Infill and Redevelopment 20
21
15C.01 Authority and Purpose [Currently 15.01, 15.02] 22
23
A. Authority 24
25
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, and 26
to approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a 27
Planned Unit Development (PUD). 28
29
(2) The DRB also has the authority to modify the Land Development Regulations in association 30
with PUD review, subject to the standards and conditions for Planned Unit Development under this 31
Article. In addition to modifications or waivers intended to accommodate site constraints under 32
Section 15A.XX of the subdivision regulations, this may also include modifications of underlying zoning 33
and subdivision regulations pertaining to blocks, building lots, allowed densities of development, and 34
the range and mix of allowed uses, , in return for more walkable and well-designed forms of residential, 35
mixed use and infill development, and the permanent conservation of important environmental 36
resource lands, as specified by PUD type. This may also include DRB review and approval of alternative 37
forms of compliance under PUD design standards, per Section 15C.04. 38
39
B. Purpose. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to promote a more comprehensive, 40
unified and integrated form of planned development that may vary from the strict standards of underlying 41
zoning and subdivision regulations, in order to achieve stated community goals and objectives in 42
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is the intent under this Article to allow for types 43
of planned development, in locations appropriate to each type, that: 44
Commented [PC1]: (1) Note to PC: This
paragraph is intended to outline the areas
where a PUD may modify the underlying
zoning district, in accordance with the
standards of this Article and the PUD type
itself. It is not a general “waiver” authority in
and of itself.
Commented [PC2]: (2) Update post
1/12/21. PC asked for this section to be clear
that modifications are within the boundaries
of the PUDs, and to reference alternative
compliance authority.
Commented [PC3]: (3) Note to PC: Purpose
statement here helps guide what the City is
seeking to achieve via PUD.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 2 of 11
1
• Promote the most efficient and cost-effective use of land, infrastructure, facilities and services; 2
• Offer flexibility, within defined parameters, to best achieve the intended purpose, design and 3
function of a PUD within the context of a particular site and its surroundings; 4
• Exclude or conserve environmental resources identified for protection under Articles 10 and 12; 5
• Complement, connect and fully integrate new development with adjoining neighborhoods, 6
properties and uses; 7
• Foster more traditional forms of compact, walkable, pedestrian-oriented residential 8
neighborhoods and mixed-use development; 9
• Incorporate a well-integrated variety and mix of housing types that serve a range of incomes, ages 10
and household sizes. 11
• Incorporate transit-supportive types and densities of development along existing and planned 12
transit routes; 13
• Allow for viable forms of compatible infill and redevelopment in previously developed areas of the 14
City served by municipal water and wastewater systems; and 15
• Provide opportunities for energy-efficient development and redevelopment. 16
17
18
15C.02 Applicability 19
20
A. Floating Zone. For purposes of these Regulations, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in its 21
application is considered an unmapped overlay zoning district or “Floating Zone” as applied to a particular 22
tract of land proposed for development. Eligibility for PUDs is enumerated in this Section A PUD is intended 23
to function as a more flexible, design-based zoning district in which conservation or form-based design 24
standards also apply to proposed development. Where PUD standards differ from underlying zoning 25
district, site plan, or subdivision standards, PUD standards shall apply. 26
27
B. PUD Types. The following types of Planned Unit Development are authorized under these 28
Regulations, subject to the associated provisions and standards of review for each: 29
30
(1) Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Section 15C.05 31
(2) Neighborhood Commercial Development (NCD) Section 15C.06 32
(3) Conservation Development (CON) Section 15C.07 33
(4) Infill or Redevelopment (IRD) Section 15C.08 34
35
C. PUD Type by Zoning District. The types of PUD allowed within an underlying zoning district are 36
specified by district under Table 15C-1. 37
38
Table 15C-1 PUD Types by Zoning District
PUD Type Underlying Zoning Districts
Note! In return for the flexibility and increases in density afforded Planned Unit Development projects
under this Article, it is expected that applicants and developers will adhere to higher standards of
subdivision, site plan, and building design.
Commented [PC4]: (4) Note to PC: This is
meant to say that PUDs can apply in various
places (eg, a Conservation PUD is an option
wherever a parcel over 2 acres in size has a
significant amount of natural resources).
Commented [PC5]: (5) Note to PC:
Additional PUD types could be added as time
allows, such as Campus.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 3 of 11
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
R1-PRD, R1-LV, R2, R4, R7, Lakeshore, Allen Road,
Swift Street, C1-LR, R7-NC, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-
VR, SEQ-VC
Neighborhood Commercial Development (NCD) R12, All C1 Districts, C2, Allen Road, Swift Street,
R7-NC
Conservation Development (CON)
Any zoning district in which 50% resource threshold
is exceeded (see Section 15C.07); R1-PRD, R1-LV, R2,
Lakeshore, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR
Infill or Redevelopment (IRD) Applicable TND and NCD Districts (listed above);
other districts as specified by subtype
1
(1) All PUD types are prohibited within the City Center FBC District. [Current] 2
3
(2) All PUD types are prohibited within the SEQ-NRP Subdistrict; however any PUD type may serve 4
as a receiving area for the transfer of development rights from land within the SEQ-NRP Subdistrict if 5
allowed by the PUD type. 6
7
(3) The applicant may select any PUD type allowed within the underlying zoning district as 8
applicable to their project. 9
10
(4) A PUD that includes land in two or more underlying zoning districts must be an allowed PUD 11
type in each zoning district. In association with master plan or PUD approval, the DRB may, within the 12
area included in the PUD: 13
14
(a) Extend underlying district regulations, and associated PUD provisions, by up to fifty (50) 15
[100] feet in either direction of the zoning district line. 16
17
(b) Require a designated “Transition Zone” under Subsection 15C.04(E), within or along the 18
district boundary or the delineated PUD perimeter, as necessary to mitigate the impacts of 19
development on adjoining properties and uses. 20
21
B. Multiple PUDs. Multiple PUDs per tract may be allowed if the total tract acreage is sufficient to 22
accommodate the minimum buildable or conservation acreage required for each PUD type. These may 23
include different PUD types, as allowed within the underlying zoning district(s), to be developed in one or 24
more phases as part of an integrated whole under an approved master plan. 25
26
C. Noncontiguous PUD. A PUD may include noncontiguous tracts or parcels of land under single, 27
common [or separate] ownership that are identified for coordinated, complementary forms of 28
development under an approved master plan. 29
30
15C.03 PUD Review [Currently 15.02,15.03, 15.04 as applicable] 31
32
A. Required Planned Unit Development. PUD review and approval by the DRB under this Article is 33
required for any subdivision and development in which the total tract area includes a [contiguous] 34
Buildable Area of four (4) or more acres within any zoning district listed under Table 15C-1. 35
Commented [SM6]: (6) Updated note, 2/9
For PC discussion:
A. Density. How should minimum density be
applied. Brief discussion on 1/12 about
using the highest minimum for all districts.
Would this be ok with an R4 and R12
district? Alternative could be blended
minimum based on % of the PUD in each
district
B. Uses. Generally, the allowed uses in a
PUD will be from the underlying zoning,
with a small handful added (eg,
neighborhood commercial uses in a TND). Is
this sufficient or could a TND include the
allowed uses from ANY of the underlying
districts, regardless of location?
Commented [PC7]: (7) Note to PC: new
provision could apply, for example to UVM
properties under their campus master plan;
allow for the transfer of density within a
noncontiguous Conservation PUD in the SEQ;
or accommodate off-site
mitigation/improvements—e.g., a
neighborhood park -- as applicable.
Commented [PC8]: (8) Note to PC:
recommend that the acreage thresholds for
required PUDs be for “buildable area” not just
parcel area. Helps assure the development has
enough size.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 4 of 11
1
B. Elective Planned Unit Development. An applicant may elect PUD review, as allowed within 2
specified zoning districts, for the subdivision and development of any tract of land that includes a 3
buildable area of two (2) or more contiguous acres and qualifies as either: 4
5
(1) An Infill or Redevelopment PUD under Subsection 15C.08; or 6
(2) A Conservation PUD under Subsection 15C.07, in which 50% or more of the total tract area is 7
included in one or more Hazard, Level I or Level II environmental resource areas identified for 8
protection under Articles 10 and 12. 9
10
C. Combined Review. It is the intent of these regulations to establish a unified process for the 11
review of a PUD as [either] a Major Subdivision under Article 15, [or a Site Plan under Article 14 if no 12
subdivision of land is proposed], and provisions and standards specific to a Planned Unit Development 13
under this Article. A PUD is therefore subject to Sketch Plan Review (15A.05), either Subdivision Review 14
(Article 15) [or Site Plan Review (Article 14)], Master Plan Review (15B.XX), and PUD review, except as 15
provided below. 16
17
(1) An approved Master Plan is required for any PUD [of four (4) or more acres,]. A PUD Master 18
Plan submitted for review under Article 15B must also comply with applicable PUD standards under 19
this Article. 20
21
(2) At the request of an applicant: 22
23
(a) The DRB may, following Sketch Plan Review, waive Master Plan Review [and Preliminary 24
Subdivision [or Site Plan] Review for any [Infill or Redevelopment] PUD of less than four (4) acres. 25
[Note: ensure consistency with relevant Subdivision and Master Plan (XX.01) sections.] 26
27
(b) PUD Master Plan review by the DRB under Section 15B.XX may be combined with 28
preliminary subdivision [or site plan] review under Section 15A.06, for one or more phases of 29
development, if the application requirements and standards for each type of review are met. 30
31
(c) The DRB may also agree to combine preliminary with final subdivision review for one or 32
more phases of PUD development where either a PUD Master Plan has been previously approved 33
and is in effect, or where no Master Plan Review is required. 34
35
D. PUD Application Requirements. 36
37
(1) A PUD application may involve one or more contiguous [or noncontiguous] properties under 38
single or multiple ownership, if incorporated under a common PUD application; however all properties 39
must come under the direct control of the applicant or developer as required for subsequent permitting 40
and development. 41
42
(2) In addition to master plan and preliminary subdivision [or site plan] application requirements 43
under Sections 15A.XX and 15B.XX, the application for a proposed PUD must include the following: 44
Commented [PC9]: (9) For PC discussion,
from Sharon Murray: Per PC request as
generally applicable citywide to Conservation
PUDs. As proposed, to be generally allowed
on an elective basis for any parcel of 2+ acres
in which 50+% of the land area is in one or
more protected resources under Articles 10 or
12.
Recommend that in this context this be
limited to certain zoning districts (e.g., SEQ,
Forest Block overlay) rather than applying
citywide, if truly meant as a form of
“Conservation PUD” intended to preserve
large tracts of working farm, forest and other
resource lands; and then substitute
“clustering” as a form of infill development on
smaller parcels.
Update 2/9/21 – See separate memo on
Conservation PUD questions.
Commented [PC10]: (10) For PC discussion
– where a PUD would apply to a singular site
plan.
Commented [PC11]: (11) Note to PC: staff
is working on a flow chart for PC review
related to these combined/waived steps.
Commented [PC12]: (12) For PC discussion:
for consideration as allowed per statute—staff
request for legal review.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 5 of 11
1
(a) A statement and description of PUD conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in 2
effect at the time of application, including applicable land use, development and infrastructure 3
policies specific to the area proposed for development. 4
5
(b) Documentation of project conformance with any proposed, previously approved or 6
amended master plan for the PUD in effect at the time of application. 7
8
(c) A statement and description of project conformance with the description and intent of the 9
PUD type(s) proposed. 10
11
(d) A statement and description of how the proposed PUD complies with the design standards 12
specific to the selected PUD type(s). [A PUD checklist/scoring sheet indicating how the proposed 13
PUD meets each of the design elements specified for the selected PUD type(s).] 14
15
(e) A list and description of requested modifications, waivers, or other forms of relief from 16
the strict standards of these Regulations sought through PUD review, including applicable zoning 17
district, subdivision, site plan or PUD standards and associated mitigation measures, or alternative 18
forms of compliance under Section 15C.04(C), that are proposed to meet the intent or to offset the 19
adverse impacts of any standard modified or waived by the DRB. 20
21
15C.04 General Standards 22
23
A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD must conform to the City’s 24
Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of application. Conformance with the plan in this context means 25
that the proposed PUD must: 26
27
(1) Advance any clearly stated plan policies and objectives specific to the type and location of the 28
proposed development; 29
30
(2) Incorporate preferred settlement patterns, including future land uses, densities and intensities 31
of development referenced in the land use plan, as implemented through planned unit development 32
provisions specific to each PUD type. 33
34
(3) Incorporate, as applicable, planned facilities, services and infrastructure identified in the 35
utilities and facilities plan, as implemented under the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program 36
(CIP) and Official Map. 37
38
B. Conformance with the Master Plan. Each phase of a PUD developed in one or more phases must 39
conform to the PUD Master Plan, as approved or amended by the DRB under Article 15B, including the 40
approved development plan, phasing schedule, buildout budget, management plan, and any associated 41
development agreements or conditions of master plan approval. 42
43
Commented [PC13]: (13) Update post-
1/12/21 meeting. PC provided direction to
update to allow for alternative compliance
and to be clear in this section that that is the
method by which modifications are allowable
Commented [PC14]: (14) Note: Included
here per statutory requirement specific to
PUDs—must be included as a standard of
review given that PUDs in effect vary or alter
underlying zoning intended to implement the
plan, as necessary to achieve other stated
community goals and objectives. Guidance for
interpretation is included below.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 6 of 11
C. Compliance with Regulations. The provisions and standards specific to a PUD under this Article 1
supersede underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan standards. 2
3
(1) Any provision or standard under these Regulations applicable to the proposed development 4
that is not superseded, modified or waived by the DRB in association with PUD review shall remain in 5
effect, including relevant resource protection standards under Articles 10 and 12. 6
7
(2) A PUD must also comply with other applicable city ordinances and regulations listed under 8
Section 15A.XX in effect at the time of application, unless modified or waived by the DRB in 9
consultation with city or state officials having shared jurisdiction. 10
11
(a) Official Map. The PUD must incorporate planned public facilities and capital 12
improvements included in the City’s adopted Official Map and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 13
in effect at the time of application, unless modified or waived by the DRB. 14
15
(b) Impact Fees. Development within the PUD is also subject to impact fees enacted under 16
the City’s impact fee ordinance; however the if the applicant or a subsequent developer is required, 17
in association with PUD approval, to provide land or to construct a facility explicitly included in the 18
calculation of an impact fee, they may then [apply for] receive credit against the impact fee in an 19
amount equal to the value of the dedicated land or cost of construction. [Note: per requirement 20
to reference/address impact fees under PUD statutes.] 21
22
(3) Alternative Compliance. In order to provide a degree of flexibility necessary to address unique 23
site conditions or constraints; compatibility with existing or planned development in the vicinity; or to 24
allow for exceptional and innovative design, one or more PUD standards under this Article may be 25
modified at applicant request, subject to separate DRB review and approval. Note that alternative 26
compliance does not constitute an exemption from a PUD standard. Allowed modifications include 27
proposed functional or design alternatives that may be considered in place of a specific requirement 28
under this Article, if the intent of the requirement is met or exceeded. In approving a request for 29
alternative compliance, the DRB must find that the proposed alternative: 30
31
(a) Conforms to the description, intent and defining characteristics of the selected PUD 32
type(s); 33
(b) Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified; 34
(c) Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design and 35
quality to that required under the standard to be modified; and 36
(d) Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the vicinity 37
of the planned development (e.g., with regard to walkability, traffic, parking, drainage). 38
39
The DRB in approving an alternative form of compliance may attach conditions as necessary to ensure 40
compliance, or to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from a proposed alternative. 41
42
D. Development Density. 43
44
Commented [PC15]: (15) Note: Per drafts
and Commission discussion, a minimum (base)
residential density is generally required within
designated development areas [TBD regarding
Conservation PUDs]. Density transfers within
the PUD are still allowed but, outside of a
Conservation PUD, the maximum allowed
density is instead regulated based on allowed
building types, and associated building (lot,
height) standards, in keeping with the intent
of a PUD.]
[Currently, under 15.03(B) transfers of density
within a PUD are allowed, but “the overall
density or FAR allowable for the land in
question shall be the same as for the
underlying district(s) involved in the
application.”]
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 7 of 11
(1) Intent. A Planned Unit Development is intended to accommodate higher densities of 1
development within designated development areas than may be allowed within the underlying zoning 2
district, as necessary to accommodate: 3
4
(a) A more efficient and cost-effective use of land, facilities, services, and infrastructure; 5
(b) Densities that support a walkable, pedestrian-oriented pattern of development; or 6
(c) Transit-supportive densities of development along existing and planned transit routes. 7
8
Within a PUD, the overall density and intensity of development shall be determined based on the total 9
buildable area included within designated development areas, proposed land use allocations, PUD 10
density and dimensional standards, and allowed building types and standards as specified by PUD 11
type. Building lot, [footprint], and height standards also vary by building type, where applicable (see 12
Appendix ___). 13
14
(2) Buildable Area. The buildable area within a PUD is defined as the total tract area, less the 15
area occupied by the following physical and legal site limitations or constraints: 16
17
(a) The area occupied by known Hazards, as defined and regulated under Articles 10 and 12; 18
(b) The area occupied by Level I environmental resource areas, as defined and regulated 19
under Articles 10 and 12; 20
(c) Existing and planned street and railroad rights-of-way; and 21
(d) Transmission line rights-of-way. 22
23
(3) Land Use Allocations. The Land Use Allocation is defined as the minimum percentage of 24
Buildable Area within one or more designated development areas that must be allocated to a 25
particular category of land use, as indicated on the PUD master plan and delineated on preliminary 26
and final subdivision plans. These include the following use categories, as specified by PUD type: 27
28
(a) Residential – intended to accommodate allowed residential uses, a variety and mix of 29
housing types, associated building lots, and onsite or shared residential parking areas. 30
31
(b) Mixed Use – intended to accommodate a mix of compatible residential and nonresidential 32
uses and building types, associated building lots, onsite parking areas and separately designated 33
principal or shared parking lots or facilities serving the development. 34
35
(c) Civic Space – intended to accommodate one or more civic spaces and associated civic 36
space lots by civic space type. 37
38
(d) Resource Land –intended to accommodate Level I and Level II natural resource areas 39
regulated under Articles 10 and 12, or other designated open space areas, within one or more 40
separately delineated conservation parcels. 41
42
(e) Unallocated – intended for allocation by the applicant under one or more of the above 43
use categories as allowed by PUD type, to provide some flexibility in defining the overall mix of 44
Commented [PC16]: (16)Note: Staff
working on this piece.
Commented [PC17]: (17)Note: see current
LDR definition of “mixed use.”
Commented [PC18]: (18)Note to PC: This is
a work in progress. Need to be certain it works
both within a Conservation PUD and as
applicable in other forms if applicant chooses.
Also need to consider in relation to “buildable
area” as initially defined above and transfer of
development density.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 8 of 11
proposed development. This may also be designated on the PUD master plan as unallocated “reserved 1
land ,” subject to reallocation under an approved master plan amendment. 2
3
4
(4) Base Density. 5
6
(a) Residential Base Density. To ensure densities of development that support the efficient 7
use of land and infrastructure, walkability, and transit-supportive development within a PUD, the 8
following minimum residential densities of development (Base Density), expressed as the 9
minimum number of dwelling units per acre of Buildable Area, apply within designated 10
development areas proposed for residential or mixed use development, unless otherwise specified 11
by PUD type: 12
13
(i) The required minimum (base) residential density within a Buildable Area designated 14
for residential development is four dwelling units per acre (4 DU/A) or the maximum 15
residential density allowed within the underlying zoning district, whichever is greater. 16
17
(ii) Within a designated mixed use area, or within ½-mile of an existing or planned transit 18
route, the required residential base density is eight dwelling units per acre (8 DU/A) or the 19
maximum residential density allowed within the underlying zoning district, whichever is 20
greater. 21
22
(iii) The residential base density may also vary by subzone, as specified by PUD type, in 23
association with allowed housing types within that subzone. 24
25
(iv) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall not be included in the calculation of residential 26
base density or the minimum number of required dwelling units (residential yield). 27
28
(v) The minimum required number of dwelling units allowed by right (residential yield) 29
within a designated residential or mixed use area, excluding ADUs, may be calculated as: 30
31
32
33
(b) Nonresidential Base Density. There is no minimum base density or intensity requirement 34
for nonresidential development within a designated development area. 35
36
(c) Maximum Development Density. The maximum development density allowed within any 37
PUD, except within a Conservation PUD, shall be determined based on the total buildable area, 38
proposed land use allocations by use category, the allowed mix of building types, and associated 39
building lot standards as specified by PUD type. 40
41
The DRB may allow for an increase in the overall density of residential development within a 42
designated residential or mixed use area, for example through adjustments or modifications to 43
Total Buildable Area (A) x Land Allocation (%) x Base Density (DU/A) = Min DUs (#)
Commented [PC19]: (19) Note to PC:
Suggested, as discussed especially in relation
to SEQ w/re to need to acquire development
rights through TDRs, etc.
Commented [PC20]: (20) For PC discussion,
in relation to Conservation PUDs. Recommend
discuss pros & cons at meeting. Update
2/9/21 – See separate memo on Conservation
PUD questions.
Commented [PC21]: (21)Note to draft –
address base density in SEQ and allowance to
identify undesignated areas in the Master Plan
(noter added 2/2/21)
Commented [PC22]: (22) Note to draft:
define these terms more precisely.
Commented [PC23]: (23) For PC discussion.
This would apply in a TND or an NCD, but
“transition zones” would also still be required
to ensure compatibility.
From Sharon: also to accommodate density
transfers under TDRs, offset units, etc.,
Commented [PC24]: (24) Note: Per staff
discussions to date re defining GSF or FAR
standards for this purpose. It appears that at
some point FARs were used, as currently
referenced under Article 15 and defined in the
LDRs.
Commented [PC25]: (25) Note: staff /
Sharon working on quantifying allowable
amounts here, but first need to calibrate
“base” building types.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 9 of 11
the required housing mix, allowed housing types, or associated building lot or height standards, 1
only as necessary to accommodate the following: 2
3
(i) The incorporation of development rights transferred from land within the SEQ-NRP or 4
SEQ-NRT Subdistrict under Section ____. 5
6
(ii) The incorporation of required housing unit offsets under inclusionary zoning 7
provisions under Section ___. 8
9
(iii) The incorporation of additional housing units allowed as an incentive for additional 10
affordable housing development under Section 18.14. 11
12
(iv) The transfer of residential development density (development rights) within a 13
Conservation PUD from Level I and Level II resource areas identified for protection under 14
Articles 10 and 12. 15
16
E. Transition Zone. A PUD may also incorporate one or more transition zones along PUD boundaries, 17
as indicated on the master plan and delineated on preliminary and final subdivision [or site] plans, to 18
include the minimum land area necessary to either extend and integrate compatible, complementary 19
forms of planned development, or to separate and buffer conflicting, incompatible forms of planned 20
development, in relation to existing and planned development in the vicinity of the PUD. 21
22
(a) The transition area for analysis and delineation must at minimum incorporate the prevalent 23
pattern of development directly abutting and within the vicinity of the PUD, including the relative 24
layout, type and density of existing and planned development (e.g., street, block and lot 25
configurations, building placement and height); existing and planned transportation and 26
infrastructure connections; traffic patterns; public facilities and services; and civic space, resource land 27
and other designated open space areas located within one-quarter to one-half mile of PUD boundaries. 28
29
(b) Acceptable design techniques and modifications applied within transition zones, subject to 30
DRB review and approval, include but may not be limited to: 31
32
(i) Avoiding incompatible land uses along PUD boundaries; e.g., by ensuring that similar, or 33
compatible uses are located on facing blocks or lots, and incompatible uses abut rear lot lines or 34
are otherwise separated by buffers or open space. 35
36
(ii) Using existing natural features, such as changes in topography, riparian corridors, or tree 37
stands to visually screen or functionally separate different forms and intensities of development. 38
39
(iii) Modifying street and block dimensions and standards as necessary to connect with or 40
extend adjoining street, block and path networks. 41
42
(iv) Using streets and streetscape elements to visually define transitions and functionally 43
integrate or separate different forms and intensities of development. 44
Commented [PC26]: (26) [Note: suggested
in relation to proposed inclusionary housing
provisions, as applicable to PUDs.]
Commented [PC27]: (27) Note to PC: in
current PUD standards.
Commented [PC28]: (28) Note to PC: This
section is intended to address the issues of
“transition” between existing development
and the proposed neighborhood.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 10 of 11
1
(v) Matching the relative density or intensity of adjoining development along PUD boundaries 2
by adjusting or averaging lot dimensions (frontage, depth); building type, orientation and spacing 3
(front, side setbacks); or building height (step downs) within the transition zone. 4
5
(vi) Designating common civic or other open space areas (e.g., greenbelts, parks, greens, 6
squares or plazas) to visually define transition areas and to functionally integrate or separate 7
different forms and intensities of development. 8
9
(vii) Incorporating greenbelts or vegetative buffers and screening of sufficient width and 10
density to visually and functionally separate incompatible forms and intensities of development. 11
12
F. Allowed Uses. Allowed uses within a PUD, unless otherwise expressly allowed or prohibited by 13
PUD type, include any use listed in Appendix C as a permitted or conditional use in the underlying zoning 14
district(s) that can be accommodated within, or in association with, designated land use allocations and 15
allowed building types. 16
17
(1) Conditional uses allowed within the underlying zoning district shall be considered permitted 18
uses within a PUD. Separate conditional use review and approval shall not be required. 19
20
G. PUD Dimensional Standards. PUD dimensional standards define a range of block, lot, and 21
building height dimensions which are intended to provide, within defined parameters, some flexibility in 22
the overall pattern of development specific to each PUD type. Where these vary from building type 23
standards, the upper and lower PUD dimensional limits (minimum and maximum) shall apply. 24
25
H. Street, Building, and Civic Space Types. Each PUD type includes a list of allowed “types” of 26
development, representing the key elements or components necessary to support and achieve the desired 27
form, density and mix of development specific to each PUD type. These include, as listed for each PUD 28
type, allowed: 29
(1) Street types, and associated street standards, under Appendix ___; 30
(2) Building types, and associated building and building lot standards, under Appendix ___; and 31
(3) Civic space types, and associated civic space and lot standards, under Appendix ___. 32
33
I. Solar Siting Preferences. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate renewable energy facilities, 34
and in particular roof- or ground-mounted solar energy facilities that are compatible with PUD layout and 35
design, as specified by PUD type. Any areas reserved for ground mounted solar installations serving the 36
development must be indicated on the master plan and depicted on preliminary and final subdivision plans. 37
38
J. PUD Design Standards. A proposed PUD must also incorporate and comply with design standards 39
specific to that PUD type, except as modified under an alternate form of compliance approved by the DRB, 40
or as applicable to an Infill or Redevelopment PUD. 41
42
15C.05 Traditional Neighborhood Development 43
15C.06 Neighborhood Commercial Development 44
Commented [PC29]: (29) Note: As
currently provided under 15.03(B) – at some
point it might be appropriate to define
allowed uses more specifically in relation to
PUD and allowed building types (i.e., include
separate PUD use tables.]
Commented [PC30]: (30) Note: under a
scoring system, these could be weighted in
relation to priority or preference, to ensure
that a minimum standard of design is met as
required for approval, and/or to assign bonus
points for exceptional design, public
amenities, etc.
Article 15C Planned Unit Development Initial Draft For Planning Commission Review
2021-01-12 with notes following meeting
Page 11 of 11
15C.07 Conservation Development 1
15C.08 Infill and Redevelopment 2
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
1
15C.05 Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) 1
[NOTE: THIS IS A WORKING DRAFT FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION RE FORMAT, STANDARDS, ETC. WITH THE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY. AS DRAFTED, ALSO INTENDED TO BE GENERALLY 3
CONSISTENT WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE’S NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AREA 4
DESIGNATION PROGRAM…] 5
6
Key to Comments: 7
“Notes” are notes for readers 8
“For PC discussion” in RED are priority questions from staff/consultant 9
“For PC discussion” in BLUE are secondary questions from staff/consultant 10
11
12
A. Description. A Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) is a type of planned development 13
that results in a more compact, pedestrian-oriented form of neighborhood development characterized 14
by a discernable center such as a central green or square; walkable, interconnected residential streets 15
and blocks; a variety of housing types that front on local streets; and smaller civic spaces and facilities 16
strategically located throughout to serve neighborhood residents. A TND may include one or more 17
distinct, but interconnected neighborhoods that can be traversed from center to edge in a ten- to 18
fifteen-minute walk. It may involve new, greenfield development in areas served by existing or 19
extended city infrastructure, smaller compatible or complementary infill development on vacant or 20
underdeveloped parcels within or immediately adjacent to an established neighborhood, or a 21
combination of the two. 22
23
B. TND Characteristics. Defining characteristics of a Traditional Neighborhood Development 24
(TND) include: 25
• Predominantly residential uses, with limited supporting civic and neighborhood commercial 26
uses. 27
• Efficient, highly interconnected local street, sidewalk and path network that accommodates all 28
users, while also limiting through traffic on neighborhood streets. 29
• Walkable, pedestrian-oriented blocks, building lots, and streetscapes that include continuous, 30
uninterrupted, ADA-compliant sidewalks as established by the Street Type. 31
• Recreation paths within greenways or along busier streets that connect with or serve the 32
adjoining neighborhood. 33
• Direct pedestrian access to transit facilities, and neighborhood goods and services located 34
within easy walking distance (¼- to ½-mile) of neighborhood areas. 35
• Predominantly detached buildings, including a variety and integrated mix of housing types, that 36
are oriented to and front directly on local streets, courtyards, or civic spaces. 37
• A centrally located, well-defined civic space, such as a square or green, that contributes to 38
neighborhood identity and accommodates neighborhood gatherings. 39
• Smaller civic spaces and facilities, such as pocket parks and playgrounds, within direct walking 40
distance (¼-mile) of the preponderance of neighborhood residences, that encourage social 41
interaction and provide access to outdoor recreation and neighborhood activities. 42
• Amenities (e.g., civic, streetscape, recreational, open space improvements) that contribute to 43
the built environment, and enhance neighborhood character, pedestrian access, and use. 44
Commented [SM1]: (1) Note to PC: These,
along with the purpose statement are to be
used by the DRB in reviewing/evaluating
alternative forms of compliance, if the PC goes
that route
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
2
• Vehicle access to adjoining lots primarily from a rear alley, side street, or shared service lane or 1
driveway. 2
• Onsite parking areas, and detached accessory buildings (including garages), that are located to 3
the rear [or side] of fronting, principal buildings, and screened from view from adjoining streets 4
and civic spaces. 5
• Attached garages that, where allowed by building type, are set back from, and do not visually 6
dominate or obscure the front building façade or main building entrance. 7
8
C. Applicability. A Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) is an allowed PUD type within 9
the underlying, primarily residential zoning districts listed in Table 15C-1. 10
11
(1) The boundaries of the TND, as indicated on the PUD master plan, and more specifically 12
delineated on preliminary and final subdivision plans, must delineate a unified, compact, and 13
walkable form of neighborhood development, typically defined as an area within a ¼- to ½-mile walk 14
from TND center to edge. TND boundaries must include designated development areas within the 15
tract to be developed, and exclude large, contiguous Hazard and Level I environmental resource 16
areas identified for protection under Articles 10 and 12, as necessary to maintain a compact and 17
well-integrated form of neighborhood development. 18
19
(2) A TND at minimum must incorporate one or more contiguous or highly interconnected 20
development areas equaling 10 acres or more, as designated on the master plan and delineated on 21
preliminary and final subdivision plans. 22
23
(3) An Infill TND must incorporate a designated development area of four (4) acres or more, to 24
include buildable vacant or underdeveloped land within or adjacent to an established neighborhood, 25
within the City’s existing water and sewer service areas. 26
27
(4) A TND may border or be accessed from an arterial street but must not be traversed or 28
divided by an arterial street. No residential building lots within a TND may front directly on or be 29
individually accessed from an arterial street. 30
31
D. TND Dimensional Standards. A TND must meet TND acreage, land use allocation, density, 32
coverage, height, building, and building lot dimensional standards under Table 15C.05-1 unless modified 33
or waived by the DRB as applicable within an Infill TND or a designated Edge or Transition Zone, or in in 34
association with an approved form of alternative compliance under TND design standards. Building and 35
building lot standards also vary by allowed building type, listed under Table 15C.05-2b. 36
37
38
Table 15C.05-1 TND Dimensional Standards
Minimum Maximum Note:
Total Buildable Tract Area (Acres)
Full TND 10 A --- Connected, generally contiguous, as
necessary to allow for integrated, unified
neighborhood development Infill TND 4 A <10 A
Land Allocation (% Buildable Area)
Residential 65% 85%
Commented [PC2]: (2) Note to PC: An “Infill
PUD” [separate from an Infill TND] could also
be permitted down to 2 acres in size. At that
scale, though, we would need to distinguish its
features from a TND, as it’s too small to have
some of the typical components.
Commented [PC3]: (3) Note to PC: At a
December meeting there was a question as to
how/whether a “cottage court” type mini-
neighborhood, like Kirby Cottages, could be
allowed on less than 2 acres. This could be
achieved by allowing that structure through a
standard subdivision (allowing for homes and
lots to face onto the court rather than a
street) and does not HAVE to be a PUD
[example: aa cottage court is permitted in the
FBC T3]. Staff recommends this question/idea
be posted to the Affordable Housing
Committee. *Also, I believe there was some
work done on this subject by a working group
some years ago. That would be a good starting
point.
Commented [PC4]: (4) For PC Discussion. In
order to include this, we’ll need to review and
possibly amend the map of “arterial roads” in
the Comprehensive Plan. Also need to
consider places such as Williston Road in the
vicinity of Mayfair Park.
Commented [PC5]: (5) Note to PC: The
standard below would supersede subdivision
or underlying district standards.
Commented [PC6]: (6) Note to draft
following PC direction 1/12: be specific on
standard for Infill TND, not a “waiver.
Commented [PC7]: (7) Note to PC: See
discussion of direction to applicants & the DRB
under Article 15C – PUDs.
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
3
Nonresidential/Mixed Use 5% 25% Unallocated = developer option; may also
be “reserved” subject to allocation under
PUD master plan amendment.
Maximum % by category includes entire
unallocated portion (20%).
Civic Space 10% 30%
Resource Land 0% 20%
Unallocated 0% 20%
Buildable Area Coverage Limit (% Impervious) --- 40% [60%] As applied to total buildable area; not to
individual building lots.
Height Limit (FT) --- 35 [40] FT Height limits (stories) vary by building type.
Residential Density (DU/Acre)
Residential – Neighborhood Area 4DU/A or
District Variable
Minimum = Base Density (DU/A), or
maximum specified for underlying zoning
district (District), whichever is greater.
Minimum density within transit area =
minimum within ½-mile of an existing or
planned transit route.
Maximum density dependent on selected
building (housing) types.
Residential –Transit Area 8 DU/A or
District Variable
Residential – Center 8 DU/A or
District Variable
Nonresidential Density --- Variable Maximum density dependent on selected
building types
Block
Perimeter (FT) 800 FT 2,000 FT Midblock connection, pedestrian pass
required for any block length > 500 FT Average Length (FT) 200 FT 500 FT
Building Lot
Area (SF) 2,500 SF 10,000 SF Building lot standards also vary by building
type; the more restrictive apply Width to Depth (Ratio) 1:2 1:5
Frontage Width (FT) 25 FT 80 FT
Frontage Buildout (% Width) 35% [40%] ---
Building
Front Setback (FT) 10 FT 25 FT Building standards also vary by building
type; the more restrictive apply.
Min and max front setbacks define the
Build-to Zone (BTZ) as measured from
street right-of-way or civic space lot line.
Minimum side setback (0 FT) applies to
attached building types, where applicable.
Side Setback (FT) 0/5 FT 10 FT
Rear Setback – Principal (FT) 10 FT ---
Rear Setback – Accessory (FT) 5 FT ---
Height– Principal (Stories) 1.5 2.5
Height – Accessory (Stories) 1.0 2.0
1
E. TND Street, Building and Civic Space Types. Street, building and civic space types allowed 2
within a TND are specified by TND subzone under Tables 15C.05-2(a)-(c). Separate DRB approval is 3
required for a street, building or civic type within the TND Edge (Transition) Subzone that is not allowed 4
type within an adjoining Neighborhood Center or Residential Subzone, to ensure that the proposed type 5
is compatible with the type and form of adjacent development. 6
Table 15C.05-2B TND Building Types (also see associated standards under Appendix ___)
Table 15C.05-2A TND Street Types (also see associated standards under Appendix ___)
Center Neighborhood Edge/Transition
Neighborhood – Narrow ◼
Neighborhood ◼ ◼ ◼
Support ◼
Alley ◼ ◼ ◼
Pedestrian Street/Pass ◼ ◼ ◼
Bicycle Boulevard
Commented [PC8]: (8) For PC discussion: a
possible allowance for an increase amount in
the SEQ as an alternative to having the land be
“reserved.”
Commented [PC9]: (9) Note to PC: Staff is
evaluating whether to apply the maximums
from the underlying zoning district rather than
a blanket figure here. Need, though, to be
certain that allowed building types match up.
Commented [PC10]: (10) For PC discussion.
This minimum would be for the Residential
Allocation of the Buildable Area only.
Commented [PC11]: (11) For PC Discussion.
See above.
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
4
Center Neighborhood Edge/Transition
Residential
Detached House ◼ ◼ ◼
Duplex ◼ ◼ ◼
Multiplex, Small ◼ ◼ ◼
Carriage House (ADU) ◼ ◼ ◼
Cottage Court ◼
Town House ◼
Live/Work (Variant) ◼
Multiplex, Medium
Nonresidential
Civic ◼ ◼ ◼
Cottage Commercial ◼
Neighborhood Storefront ◼
Table 15C.05-2C TND Civic Space Types (also see associated standards under Appendix ___)
Center Neighborhood Edge/Transition
Green ◼
Square ◼
Plaza
Courtyard ◼ ◼ ◼
Neighborhood Park
Pocket Park/Plaza ◼ ◼ ◼
Playground ◼
Greenway ◼
◼ – Allowed; – May be allowed, subject to separate DRB review and approval, in relation to context.
1
F. TND Design Standards. 2
3
(1) The plan for a TND must incorporate each of the following TND design standards, unless 4
modified or waived by the Development Review Board for an Infill TND, or in association with an 5
approved form of alternative compliance under Section 15C.04. 6
7
(a) The DRB may modify or waive one or more required standards under this subsection for 8
an Infill TND that can be met off site, if located within a ¼- to ½-mile of the TND boundary; or as 9
necessary to complement or fully integrate new neighborhood development with existing 10
development in the vicinity of the project. See Infill PUD under Section ___. 11
12
(b) Any proposed form of alternative compliance under a TND design standard must 13
achieve the intent of standard to be modified, as required under Section 15C.04(C). 14
15
(2) Purpose. The applicant for any TND must demonstrate how the TND is consistent with the 16
stated description and defining characteristics of a TND under 15C.05(A) and (B) above. 17
18
(3) Context. For planning and design purposes, the “neighborhood area” includes all existing 19
and proposed properties, buildings, and uses located within a ¼-mile “pedestrian shed” or, if located 20
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
5
on an existing or planned transit route [within the Transit Overlay District], within a ½-mile “transit 1
shed” of the tract or parcel to be developed, as measured from the approximate center of the TND. 2
3
(a) The TND must be designed to establish or to otherwise incorporate and complement 4
the existing and planned pattern of neighborhood development in the vicinity of the project, 5
consistent with TND connectivity and design standards under this section. 6
7
(4) TND Subzones: Designated development areas, and associated land use allocations within a 8
TND must include the following subzones, as generally indicated on the master plan, and more 9
specifically identified on preliminary and final subdivision plans: 10
11
(a) Neighborhood Center. Consisting of a distinct, attractive, centrally located civic space 12
such as a central square or green that serves the surrounding residential neighborhood, is 13
intended for access and use by all neighborhood residents, and is fronted on at least three sides 14
by allowed housing types, or one or more neighborhood-scale nonresidential civic or 15
commercial buildings. A TND center may be located on or accessed from a collector street, if 16
fully integrated with the surrounding residential neighborhood. 17
18
(b) Neighborhood Residential. Consisting of one or more compact residential blocks, 19
bounded by local streets, that incorporate an integrated mix of housing types, at a density of 20
not less than four (4) to eight (8) dwelling units per acre, unless otherwise specified under Table 21
15C-X; and smaller civic spaces (e.g., pocket parks or playgrounds) that are strategically located 22
within a ¼-mile mile walking distance of all [the majority of] dwelling units within the TND. 23
24
(c) Neighborhood Edge. A TND must either have a clearly defined “edge” that physically 25
and visually distinguishes the TND from the surrounding area (e.g., a greenway, park or 26
conserved area); or [as applicable to an Infill TND], include one or more designated “transition 27
zones” or areas along the periphery, in which street and path connections to adjoining 28
properties are maintained, but dimensional standards, street and building types may be 29
adjusted as necessary to integrate new development with the adjoining existing or planned form 30
of development. As provided for transition zones under Subsection 15C.04(E): 31
32
(i) A TND transition area may accommodate lot sizes, densities and building types that 33
complement or fully integrate with the existing or planned pattern of adjacent 34
development. 35
36
(ii) A TND transition area may also incorporate a greenway or buffer as necessary to 37
separate the TND from resources identified for protection, or from adjoining incompatible 38
nonresidential uses or forms of development. 39
40
(5) TND Street and Path Network. The TND must incorporate a highly interconnected street 41
grid that, in addition to meeting relevant connectivity, street and block standards under Article 15A, 42
also incorporates TND block standards and street types. The local street and path network must 43
Commented [PC12]: (12) Note to PC: Staff
and Sharon working to make sure there is
sufficient guidance here. Input welcome!
Commented [PC13]: (13) Note from
Sharon: Some TND regulations more
quantitatively reference either a connectivity
index/ratio (total # street intersections/# of
segments) or minimum intersection density (#
intersections/area). See allowed TND Street
Types(Table XX.XX)].
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
6
serve all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders and, to emphasize and ensure 1
pedestrian access and walkability, include: 2
3
(a) “T” street intersections, located as necessary to limit through traffic on neighborhood 4
streets and, where appropriate, to incorporate terminating views of prominent civic spaces, 5
buildings, or adjoining conserved lands. 6
7
(b) Sidewalks that meet minimum ADA requirements and street type standards along both 8
sides of each street, pedestrian street crossings at street intersections and, where the block 9
length exceeds 500 feet, a mid-block pedestrian passage and street crossing. Street trees, 10
furniture, lighting, and other streetscape elements may also be required, as specified by street 11
type. 12
13
(c) Direct (shortest linear distance) pedestrian sidewalk or path connections from local 14
streets to the main entrances of all principal buildings; and to civic spaces, recreation paths, 15
shared parking areas, and existing or planned transit stops or facilities serving the 16
neighborhood, including any off-site facility (e.g., neighborhood park, transit stop, commercial 17
center) within the extended ¼- to ½-mile neighborhood area that is available and intended for 18
use by TND residents. 19
20
(d) Off-street walking and recreation paths as necessary to connect with existing or planned 21
facilities on adjoining properties; or to provide more direct, internal pedestrian and bicycle 22
connections that cannot be accommodated on local streets. 23
24
25
(6) Vehicle Access and Parking. A TND must be designed to give pedestrian access and 26
movement priority over vehicle access within blocks, along fronting streets, and to principal 27
buildings and civic spaces. 28
29
(a) To ensure walkability within a TND, the number and width of curb cuts and driveways 30
on fronting streets or block faces must be minimized to the extent physically and functionally 31
feasible, as necessary to avoid breaks in adjoining sidewalks. 32
33
(i) Rear lot alley or service lane access, or shared driveway access from a fronting or 34
side street, is required for any building lot with a street frontage width of less than 50 feet, 35
and for attached building types, including duplexes. 36
37
(ii) Vehicle access (e.g., driveway) to a building lot from a fronting street must be 38
physically separated and visually distinct from pedestrian street access (sidewalk or path) 39
and the main building entrance. 40
41
(iii) The width of a driveway from a fronting or side street must not exceed ten (10) feet 42
where it crosses an adjoining sidewalk along the street; and must not result in a physical or 43
Commented [PC14]: (14) Note to PC: Staff
working on this, to relate to the street types,
to allow for possible alternative compliance,
and to set a “density threshold” where this
would apply. This is an important but
challenging interface of the need for good
pedestrian infrastructure in compact areas on
the one hand, vs cost of installation to
developer, cost of maintenance to the city,
and equitable distribution of city maintenance
resources across the city.
Commented [PC15]: (15) For PC discussion.
Commented [PC16]: (16) For PC Discussion.
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
7
visual interruption in the adjoining sidewalk. The sidewalk must clearly extend across the 1
driveway. 2
3
(b) Off-site parking within a TND may include designated shared parking areas within 4
walking distance of, or on-street parking along adjoining building lot frontage, as allowed by 5
street type. 6
7
(c) Onsite parking on a building lot within a TND, as also specified by housing or other 8
building type, may include: 9
10
(i) driveway parking outside of the front setback area [build-to-zone]; 11
(ii) parking spaces located to the rear of the building lot, behind the principal building; 12
(iii) parking within the primary building footprint (e.g., “tuck-under” or “pedestal” 13
parking), or within an attached or detached accessory structure (garage, carriage house or 14
carport), that meets associated building requirements under (8) below. 15
16
(d) With the exception of designated handicapped spaces, shared parking and service areas 17
serving more than one [two] dwelling unit or building lot must be located to the rear or side of 18
the building lot(s) behind the principal building(s); and must be screened from view from the 19
street and from adjoining residential properties [by a landscaped dividing wall or fence]. 20
21
(e) No principal parking lot or facility may be located on a corner lot, except as specifically 22
approved by the DRB for a phased development in which the parking lot is reserved for 23
conversion to a building lot under a subsequent phase of development. 24
25
(7) Housing Mix. The TND must include a well-integrated mix of housing types, as specified by 26
subzone, that also vary in style by block, street, and building lot. 27
28
(i) A TND of ten (10) acres or more must include a minimum of three (3) allowed 29
housing types, none of which represents more than 50% [less than 15%] of the total number 30
of dwelling units within the TND. 31
32
(ii) An Infill TND of four (4) acres, but less than ten (10) acres, must include a minimum 33
of two allowed housing types, neither of which represents more than 60% [less than 30%] of 34
the total number of dwelling units within the TND. 35
36
(iii) Housing types and styles must be mixed within neighborhoods and blocks, along a 37
street or block face, rather than compartmentalized into areas of near-identical housing. 38
Where housing styles are repeated, as is common for attached housing types (townhouses), 39
variations in architectural elements, fenestration, materials or color must be used to 40
enhance visual variety. 41
42
(iv) A small multiplex within a TND must resemble in appearance a larger detached 43
house that is compatible in form and style with other housing types located along the same 44
Commented [SM17]: (17) Note to Draft:
Need to review in relation to site plan, parking
standards…
Commented [PC18]: (18) For PC (or AHC)
discussion. There are pros and cons to each.
Commented [PC19]: (19) For PC (or AHC)
discussion.
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
8
street or block. Corner lots with rear alley or side street vehicle access are preferred for this 1
housing type. 2
3
(8) Buildings. See allowed TND building types, as specified by subzone under ___, and 4
associated building standards under Appendix __. 5
6
(a) All principal buildings, including primary building façades and main entrances, must 7
front on a street, a designated civic space, or a common courtyard, and not on an adjoining 8
parking area. Secondary entrances may access side or rear yards, garages, or parking areas. 9
10
(b) All principal buildings must be oriented parallel to the fronting street or civic space, 11
preferably with the narrower building façade facing the street, in proportion to building lot 12
width and depth, to minimize the distance between adjoining buildings, and main building 13
entrances. 14
15
(c) The primary building façade, and any frontage features such as porches, balconies, 16
stoops, canopies or awnings, must be located within the Build-to-Zone (BTZ) defined by 17
minimum and maximum front setback distances. The primary building façade must also meet 18
the minimum frontage buildout requirement within the BTZ. 19
20
(d) Frontage types allowed within the TND, as specified by building type, include dooryards, 21
porches, balconies and stoops that create a semi-private space oriented to the street, to 22
promote social interaction, and neighborhood safety and security (to provide “eyes on the 23
street”). [Note: some regs also require a minimum % of units to include porches.] 24
25
(i) A front porch must have a minimum width of eight (8) feet, and a minimum depth, 26
as measured horizontally from the building façade, of six (6) feet. [Current: some regs 27
require that a porch occupy a minimum % of the front façade – e.g., 40 – 50%.] 28
29
(e) Auto-oriented principal uses and buildings, and drive-through facilities, which may be 30
allowed within the underlying zoning district, are expressly prohibited within a TND. Pedestrian-31
oriented walkup facilities (e.g., ATMs, take-out windows) are allowed. 32
33
(f) Accessory buildings allowed within a TND include detached carriage houses (accessory 34
dwelling units), garages, garden sheds and other small accessory buildings or structures typical 35
of and incidental to a residential or civic use. 36
37
(i) A detached accessory building must be located to the rear of the building lot, behind 38
the principal building, must be separated from the main building by at least ten (10) feet, 39
and must meet relevant accessory structure side and rear setback and height requirements. 40
41
(ii) Garage placement options on a residential building lot are depicted in Fig. XX. 42
43
Commented [PC20]: (20) Note to Draft:
Cross-reference with section on accessory
structures, which has language to deal with
unusual circumstances such as through-lots
and corner lots.
Initial Draft for Planning Commission
January 12, 2020 with changes agreed upon at meeting
9
(iii) An attached garage must be set back a minimum of twelve (12) as measured 1
horizontally from the primary (front) building façade, excluding any projecting front porch, 2
stoop, balcony, or bay window; and must not physically or visibly dominate the front façade 3
or main building entrance. The width of a front facing garage must not exceed the lesser of 4
40 percent of the total width of the primary building façade or XX feet. 5
6
(1) Civic Spaces. See allowed TND Civic Space Types by subzone under Table 15C.05-2C and 7
Appendix __. A TND must include the following designated public or commonly held and managed 8
civic spaces, at minimum representing ten percent (10%) of the total Buildable Area of the TND, 9
except as modified or waived by the DRB for an infill TND [,or in association with an approved form 10
of alternative compliance]: 11
12
(a) A well-landscaped, centrally located green or square, bordered [on at least three sides] 13
by neighborhood streets, and fronting residential, nonresidential, or civic buildings, which serves 14
as a neighborhood focal point and gathering or event space; and 15
16
(b) Smaller civic spaces such as pocket parks or playgrounds that are strategically located 17
by block or street, within walking distance (no more than ¼-mile) of all neighborhood 18
residences. Other accessible designated open space areas (e.g., resource land or a stormwater 19
facility) that can accommodate compatible recreational uses may also be considered in meeting 20
this requirement. 21
22
(c) For an infill TND, one or more a accessible civic spaces within direct walking distance (no 23
more than ¼-mile) of neighborhood residences may be used to meet TND civic space 24
requirements, in lieu of providing civic space within the TND. 25
26
. 27
Commented [PC21]: (21) For PC discussion.
Sharon recommends expanding from 8 to 12
feet, and clarifying that the distance is
measured from the building façade, not the
porch.
Commented [PC22]: (22) For PC discussion.
Rooted on the current SEQ standards, but
recommend stronger standard here to
promote pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods.
(23) Related, for PC consideration: mirroring
this language in Article 3 to apply to all new
homes, not only ones in TNDs.
Commented [SM23]: (24) For PC
discussion: Consistent with subdivision
standards, and current TND land use
allocation – but might want to consider
increasing slightly.
Commented [PC24]: (25) Commission
direction 12/01: allow as alternative
compliance, not waiver.
Note to draft: specify standard for infill TND if
different, rather than as a “waiver”.
Commented [PC25]: (26) Note: sample
“points-based” system example deleted
following Commission review 1/12.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Conservation PUDs follow-up
DATE: February 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Late last fall the Commission outlined some of the possible options for a Conservation PUD. Commissioners
provided some guidance which is summarized below. At this meeting we hope to get feedback on the
following key issues:
1. Overall Objectives. Beyond the basic structures below (eligible areas, minimum conservation areas),
there are several options for the City, depending on the Commission’s objectives. Examples:
a. Scale and form of development in remaining areas. The regulations could encourage a hamlet (a
mini-TND, for example, with a minimum density) or rely on underlying zoning/subdivision
requirements
b. Estate lot / small cluster allowances. The Commission had previously discussed the possibility of
allowing for a family complex, or a handful of estate lots. If this were permitted, what might be
required? Greater conservation amount (85% or more?), land dedication to a public entity,
and/or reserving land for future development by a future generation?
2. Summary of Conservation PUD decisions to date, related discussion items
a. Eligibility: R1 Districts, R2 Districts, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR Districts, any parcel with
Hazards and Level 1 Resources exceeding 50% of the parcel size
o For Commission discussion: In some communities, Conservation PUDs are triggered only when
a certain amount of natural resources are present on the parcel, because the community has
development objectives for less-encumbered parcels. As drafted, a Conservation PUD is
allowed as an option in the R1, R2, and residential SEQ districts. Does the Commission remain
confort6able with allowing an option?
b. Conservation Amount: Min 70% of land area. [note, A conservation PUD is not permitted in the SEQ-
NRP, therefore land zoned NRP within a parcel is not eligible to count towards the 70% minimum)
o For discussion: should this 70% minimum conservation include or exclude Hazards? The PC
previously decided that density would not be eligible to be transferred from a Hazard to the
remainder of the parcel. Staff recommends that regardless of the decision, the 70% should be
consistent (ie, if hazards are included, then min 70% of total parcel would be conserved. If
hazards are excluded, then min 70% of non-hazard areas would be conserved).
o For discussion: Additional Conservation option (see below)
2
c. Development Density Maximum: underlying zoning district maximum for gross area, hazards
removed.
o For discussion: should bonuses be permitted (eg: 15% bonus for conserving additional land)\
o For discussion: Can TDRs be transferred into a Conservation PUD, or would the maximum
density within the buildable area be restricted to the base density of the parcel
d. Development Density Minimum:
o For discussion: a “standard” Conservation PUD would not have a minimum density. However,
if the Commission wished to encourage / require a “mini-TND” on these parcels, a minimum
density of 4 units/acre within the designated development area could be applied
e. Conservation priorities (top to bottom):
o [Hazards, if part of calculation – see note above]
o Core Habitat Blocks
o Habitat Connectors
o Habitat Blocks
o Level II Resources
o Supplemental priorities:
▪ Additional buffers to hazards, level I, level II resources
▪ Prime / Statewide agricultural soils & historically working lands
Affordable Housing Committee to Planning Commission Page 1
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
Members: Chris Trombly, Chair; Sandy Dooley, Vice Chair; Leslie Black-Plumeau;
Vince Bolduc; Patrick O’Brien; and John Simson
To: Jessica Louisos, Chair, South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Chris Trombly, Chair, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
Date: February 2, 2021
Subject: Recommendation on Expansion of Inclusionary Zoning
At its February 2nd meeting, the Affordable Housing Committee voted unanimously to recommend
that the Planning Commission include in the package of land development regulations (LDRs) you
are preparing, a section that will expand the application of Inclusionary Zoning rules to the entire
City. We believe this expansion is necessary to make our LDRs more congruent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). We summarize our reasoning below (all quotes are in italics).
First, we cite the first goal stated under the Plan’s Vision & Goals: Here and into the future, South
Burlington is . . . Affordable & Community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and
opportunity for our residents and visitors. ♦ Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes,
lifestyles, and stages of life. (p. 1-1).
In the Plan’s Housing chapter, the opening paragraph includes the following: “Provision of safe
and affordable housing that is well-matched to residents’ circumstances is an essential
requirement for the City to maintain its quality of life, retain existing businesses and support
economic development, and attract future residents.” (p. 2-10). Further down this page the first of
the key issues and needs identified is: “Preserving and promoting the development of additional
housing that is affordable to households of all income levels throughout the City.” (Emphasis
added.)
Later in the chapter the Plan states, “To meet the City’s goals for diversity and affordability, a wider
spectrum of housing will have to be built in South Burlington.” (p. 2-12). To emphasize the
importance of this need, the plan includes numerical targets for the number of Inclusionary
Housing units to be constructed by 2025 “to maintain a housing profile similar to what presently
exists in the City with a diversity of housing types across the price range.” These targets are, by
2025, 1,080 new affordable housing units – 840 housing units affordable to households earning up
to 80% of the AMI (Area Median Income) and 240 housing units affordable to households earning
between 80% and 120% of the AMI. (p. 2-13) These numbers are useful because they provide the
bases for measuring the City’s progress in meeting these targets.
Note: the City’s LDRs use the term “Inclusionary Housing” to refer to residential units to which
prices limits (rent or purchase price), renter or purchaser income limits, and perpetuity
requirements apply. For rental units, there are limits on increases in rent. These Inclusionary
Housing units are what the committee views as “official affordable housing” (our term). We use the
term Affordably Priced housing for residential units that the owner offers at affordable prices but do
not qualify as Inclusionary Housing.
At 2021, we are midway to 2025; if new Inclusionary Housing units had been added in even
proportions annually and we met our target, we would have added 540 new Inclusionary units by
Affordable Housing Committee to Planning Commission Page 2
this date. The Inclusionary Housing data below include units owned by a for-profit developer or a
nonprofit housing organization for which there is a high probability that Inclusionary rules apply
even though not required. The number of new Inclusionary Housing units built (or converted to
residential use) since 2016 is 127; three Inclusionary units (Kirby Cottages) were lost when the City
of Burlington (airport) purchased them. This yields a net gain of 124 Inclusionary Housing units.
The number approved by the Development Review Board (DRB) but not yet built or completed is
84. In addition, Champlain Housing Trust (CHT) purchased Dorset Commons because its rents
were already affordable; plus, the property owner wanted them to remain affordable. Of the 99
units, 78 are now Inclusionary Housing; the remaining 21 are not but likely have Affordably Priced
rents. While this did not add to the number of South Burlington units having affordable prices,
CHT’s purchase gives assurance that the units will remain affordable in perpetuity. In addition, two
local developers have separately indicated plans to build 43 and 78 units, respectively, of which 12
will be Inclusionary Housing and the remaining 109 will be Affordably Priced. The City’s
Inclusionary Zoning rules were likely the primary factor in the development of 53% of the new or to
be built units described above, whether Inclusionary or Affordably Priced.
Clearly, we are making progress. The total, combining the units approved (built and unbuilt), the
anticipated units (both Inclusionary and Affordable Priced), and the 99 Dorset Commons units
(whose prices, whether Inclusionary or Affordably Priced, are not newly affordable), is 428 units or
112 fewer units fewer than our target for 2021. Unfortunately, should the numbers added continue
at this pace, we will not reach the 2025 targets. Meanwhile, about one in eight City households
pays half or more of its income for housing.
What is the City’s role? The Plan goes on to address this question. Note: “The proportion of new
affordable residential units, both rental and owner-occupied, built in South Burlington in the coming
decade must increase substantially in order to support its economic vitality and maintain its current
housing profile. It is clear that the market alone will not produce that supply.” (p. 2-14) Several
techniques are mentioned, one of which follows: “Location of affordable, elderly, and/or higher
density housing near schools, parks, shopping centers, employment centers, daycare facilities,
transportation corridors, emergency services, and public transportation.” (p. 2-15) Based on our
knowledge of the City, we have not identified a single location in the City that meets all of these
criteria. Because of this, we believe the intent is to pay attention to these factors in siting
affordable housing, but not say that all must be present for the location of affordable housing. For
example, “transportation corridors” are mentioned. When considering the Southeast Quadrant,
locations near Spear and Dorset Streets and Hinesburg Road would be appropriate.
The housing targets described above are referenced in the first of the Housing chapter’s four
objectives, which reads as follows, “Offer a full spectrum of housing choices that includes options
affordable to households of varying income levels and sizes by striving to meet the housing
targets set forth in this plan.” (p. 2-14, emphasis added) What tools should the City use to meet
these targets? The chapter’s first strategy (Strategy 4) sets forth a wide array of potential policies:
“Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovative approaches to preserving and
increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing. Potential tools should be
explored and could include form-based codes that would allow a variety of residential and mixed
use building types, transferable development rights, neighborhood preservation overlay districts,
household definition regulations, inclusionary zoning (emphasis added), bonuses and incentives,
waivers and expedited review processes, and/or a housing retention ordinance.” (p. 2-16) To its
credit, South Burlington has already put in place many of these strategies. The fifth strategy stated
Affordable Housing Committee to Planning Commission Page 3
is: “Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of residential building
and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing, clustered housing and infill
residential development.” The Planning Commission’s work on Planned Unit Development
regulations is fully consistent with this strategy.
Some assert that affordable housing should be located solely or primarily in the City’s Transit
Overlay District. While the Plan mentions increasing the supply of rental (emphasis added)
affordable housing within City Center and transit corridors, increasing the supply should not be
read to mean all affordable housing should be located in the City Center district or along transit
routes. It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan’s section on the Southeast Quadrant
includes a paragraph on “Affordable Housing in the SEQ.” (pp. 3-32-33) The challenge that the
high cost of SEQ land presents is cited, as well as the fact that affordable ownership units are part
of the Dorset Farms and South Village Master Plans. Two statements included in the SEQ section
demonstrate the recognition that methods of addressing the challenge of affordability have been
explored: “The SEQ Concept Plan has evaluated how increased ‘buildable’ densities might
increase the opportunity for affordable housing as well.” (p. 3-33) “With the completion of the SEQ
planning process, there has been strong interest in building neighborhoods at higher densities in
order to conserve more of the SEQ’s priority open space lands.”
In addition, there is growing awareness of the role that zoning provisions have played in creating
and/or perpetuating neighborhoods segregated by race and/or socio-economic status and the
negative consequences flowing from these effects. The City of Portland, Oregon, has articulated
this new awareness by distinguishing its prior housing strategy that focused on transit–oriented
neighborhoods from its new “equitable housing strategy” that incorporates “values of inclusion,
equal access to opportunity, and diversity in our communities. This strategic approach will help
leverage affordable housing investment dollars, services and protections, ensuring that all
people—regardless of race, ethnicity, family status or disability—have a range of choices for where
to live now and in the future.” A related finding comes from a study of local (Vermont) immigrants’
transportation needs, which concluded that even for immigrants living in transit-served
municipalities a car is necessary for the household to access jobs, health care appointments,
language classes, and childcare, all of which are essential for healthy family functioning.
In conclusion, the committee reiterates our recommendation that the Planning Commission include
expansion of our Inclusionary Zoning rules to apply City-wide in its upcoming package of proposed
LDR changes. Integral to this proposal is the committee’s recommendation to consider higher rent
and purchase price and household income limits in some areas, as appropriate. Our
recommendation is congruent with Comp Plan goals, compatible with and complementary to the
PUD LDRs that you are in the last stage of defining, necessary to improve progress toward
meeting the Plan’s affordable housing targets, and consistent with efforts to promote greater equity
and opportunity in our City’s neighborhoods.
Request: The committee seeks to have this recommendation included as an agenda item for an
upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Please share this memorandum with all members of the
Planning Commission. Thank you for listening/reading and your ongoing service to our
community.
cc: Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning
Affordable Housing Committee to Planning Commission Page 4
Photos of local Inclusionary Housing units
(1) Duplex, Queensbury Road (CHT), South Burlington
(2) Allard Square, Market Street (Cathedral Square), South Burlington
(3) Center unit of triplex (for-profit developer), Aspen Circle, Shelburne
Affordable Housing Committee to Planning Commission Page 5
Summary of Waiver Provisions in Draft LDRsWORKING SUMMARYFebruary 3, 2021Area of Review Type of Flexibility Standard Change from current standard LocationSubdivision1. Waiver or modification of applicable subdivision dimensional standards (blocks, lots, streets, etc.)Allows modification or waiver due to physical site constraints or due to Hazards or Level 1 ResourcesSpecifies applicability, establishes standards that are separate from a PUD15.A.01B2. Modification of allowed street types and standards in a subdivisionAllows modification of types or standards where DRB finds alternate proposal achieves purpose & goals; provide DRB with guidanceCurrent standard applies in City Center FBC. Provides greater direction to applicant and DRB as to when to allow modifications15.A.14C(7)Master Plan1. Waiver of certain project elements (summary statistics) to be determined.New standard Article 15.B2. Authority to establish / waive certain process steps for applications receiving Master Plan approvalGeneral authority based on the master plan Similar to current Article 15.BSite PlanWaiver of dimensional standards, such as building heights and setbacksAllows for minor adjustments to a site plan if purposes are metCurrently, waivers other than height must be via PUD; this allows for minor site adjustments14.04Planned Unit Development1. PUD Type supersedes underlying zoning district and subdivision standards for overall arrangement, block size & streets, allocations of land (residential, non‐residential civic, resource), lot size & dimension, building types, density, allowed uses, setbacks, heights, street types PUD type establishes applicable minimums / maximums. Flexibility is within these parametersFlexibility is spelled out in the minimums/maximums; replaces general "waiver" allowance that applied to all aspects of a PUD & Site Plan15.C.01A2. Transition area allowance for modification of specific PUD‐type standardsAllows for adjustments to lot, block, building type requirements to create a transition from existing developmentNew standard 15.C3. Alternative Compliance for design standards regulated by the PUDNew standard See above 15.C.04C(3)4. Specific to the PUD Type, waiver of applicability of certain standards for "infill" versions of the PUDDemonstration of applicability New standard Article 15.CEnvironmental Protection StdsGeneral exemptionsExempts uses/activities not subject to local review, unimproved paths, and removal of invasive species, diseased plants, hazardsMinor changes restricting certain previously permitted activities such as snow storage, etc.ThroughoutRestricted Infrastructure Encroachment & Stormwater RestorationAllows for infrastructure (streets, paths, utilities, stormwater) to be placed within areas regulated by Environmental Protection Standards under limited circumstancesMust demonstrate need and lack of alternative options; must also meet specific supplemental standards for each resource. Stormwater restoration projects have greater flexibilityAt present there is no standard establishing appropriate circumstances for encroachments.12.10Habitat Blocks1. Applicant may modify boundary of habitat block with DRB approval. In all cases, net amount of land in Habitat Block must be equal or greaterThree options for applicant based on scale of proposal; greater size includes more substantial reviewNew standard 12.05D2. For parcels with >70% habitat block coverage, allowance for up to 30% of the parcel to be designated as buildable area via site plan, subdivision, or Conservation PUD.Prioritization of habitat block areas to be retainedNew standard 12.05E, 15.CHabitat ConnectorsApplicant may relocate the connector from the mapped location; DRB may accept narrower connector if existing conditions do not allow for full widthDemonstration that Habitat connector remains functionalNew standard 12.06C
Area of Review Type of Flexibility Standard Change from current standard LocationRiver Corridors / Stream BuffersAllows for renovations to existing buildings Per Federal & State guidelines Impacts subject to Restricted Infrastructure standards10.07Wetlands ‐ Class I and IIAllows for impacts to class II wetlands/buffers within City Center FBC district if criteria are metAssessment of functions and values of the wetland/bufferProhibits impacts to class I & II wetlands & buffers outside City Center FBC district; presently allowed if functional & values are retained / mitigated12.03Wetlands ‐ Class IIIAllows for impacts to class III wetlands/buffers Assessment of functions and values of the wetland/bufferAdditional specify on standards. Exempts impacts to class III wetland buffers for wetlands <300 s.f.12.03Floodplains ‐ 100 yearAllows for maintenance of pre‐existing buildings/structures/utilitiesPer Federal & State rules Specific standards for historic structures added 10.01Floodplains ‐ 500 yearZone B1: allows substantial renovation/new construction that is floodproofed; Zone B2 allows renovation of existing buildingsBased on Federal & State rules for 100‐year floodplainsNew standard 10.01Steep Slopes15‐25% allows new construction with appropriate stabilization/erosion control; 25% only with Restricted InfrastructureEngineering analysis New standard 12.09Design standardsGarage setbacks standardRequirement for garage to be set back from principal façade may be waived by DRBApplies if garage is side‐loaded and has appearance of a frontNo change 3.16, Article 9Civic Buildings / Places of Worship in FBCBuilding Envelope Standards height, glazing, entry standards may be waived by the DRB due to specific nature of the facilitiesNo change 8.06A,BEntry Spacing, FBC T4 DistrictAlternative Compliance may be granted by the DRB Demonstration that the alternative compliance meets specific pedestrian‐oriented objectivesNo change 8.06HGeneralNonconformitiesAllows for certain modifications to pre‐existing nonconforming uses, buildings, lotsSpecific nonconformity circumstances; limits on expansionNo change 3. 11, 8.11Process/SubmittalProcess /submittal waivers Authorizes DRB to waive certain process steps and submittal materials if not relevant to the applicationClarifications ThroughoutZoning District BoundariesApply rules of one zoning district up to 50' into adjacent zoning districtBoard may grant where this modification achieves purposes and results in more consistent designNo changeLots/Buildings in existence prior to 1972Reduced setbacks & increased lot coverage, authority for further setback reduction as conditional useAuthorizes additional reduction in setbacks if certain specific criteria are metNo change 3.06JVarianceState Law allows an applicant, on appeal, to seek a variance from the strict standards of a regulation.State law establishes five criteria, all of which must be met. The "bar" is very high for granting of a variance.No changeNOTES:1. Legal Review has not yet been completed. Consultant has specifically requested that City Attorney review applicability of Alternative Compliance under VT Enabling Statutes2. Staff has requested consultant double‐check this list for completeness / confirmation. Underway as of writing.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 15 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; R. Gonda, D. Seff, S. Dooley, R. Greco, J.
Bellavance, S. Dopp
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Gonda noted that the Natural Resources Committee is working on identifying habitat connectivity.
They will assign a priority to the areas they map. The result would be a satellite map. They hope to
finish this be mid-February/early March.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Conner said that in the next few meetings, the Committee will see a recommendation from the
Affordable Housing Committee regarding matching the city’s regulations to the new State regulations
regarding accessory dwellings. The Energy Committee is considering having the city adopt the energy
stretch code for commercial as well as residential buildings.
4. Continued Review of Land Development Regulations changes:
Mr. Gagnon suggested the information sent out by Mr. Conner regarding stream buffers be part of any
discussion regarding changing stream buffers so as to be consistent with state and federal standards
especially where setbacks are measured from (e.g., the top of the banks).
Mr. Macdonald asked whether the figures in Article 12 prior to Mr. Mittag’s proposal are those from the
state. Mr. Conner said that generally speaking, South Burlington standards mirror State Class 1 and
Class 2 wetland standards. The State does not regulate Class 3 wetlands and South Burlington does.
The Army Corps of Engineers does regulate Class 3 wetlands of an acre or more, but they do not
regulate buffers.
Ms. Louisos said changing the regulations to measure from the top of the stream bank results in a wider
buffer. She added that 50 feet is relatively consistent in State regulations. Fish & Wildlife recommends
100 feet from larger streams.
2
Mr. Mittag said his suggested buffers are because of climate considerations and what can be expected.
Buffers do more than prevent floods. They reduce volumes of overland flow, provide shade and
maintain habitat and corridors for species. He said he didn’t care about what the State does but what
South Burlington should do.
Members then reviewed specific passages.
Ms. Ostby said she had a concern with 12.1(b). She felt it may be oversimplifying and be of concern to
the public, especially if this is the only thing some people read. Mr. Conner suggested coming back to
it, and he would make a note to make it clearer.
Ms. Ostby asked whether the 500-year flood plain protects buffer areas. Mr. Conner said in some cases
it does. He said he would be willing to map what is in some of the proposals. Mr. Gagnon felt it was
“apples & oranges.” The flood plain measures flooding. Buffers are a measurement from the top of the
bank. Ms. Louisos said many areas overlap. She said there are other benefits of flood storage and are
concerns with where the water may migrate to. Benefits overlap as well. There is a wide range of
stream functions (water quality, shading, flood storage, etc.), and there are suggestions as to what the
buffer number should be to protect each function. Some say just protect the 500 year flood plain and
you’ll be good. Very few articles talk about intermittent streams. Ms. Louisos felt some of the areas
should overlap.
Mr. Gagnon said he felt the numbers were a little arbitrary, and he would like to know their basis. Mr.
Mittag said he just looked at Arrowwood because it is specific to South Burlington. The 50-foot and 100-
foot were arbitrary, he added. He also noted that a flood plain is mainly to protect property. Ms.
Louisos said there is new national literature in which FEMA notes that there are other values to flood
plains, not just to protect property.
Mr. Gagnon asked what are considered major streams. Mr. Conner said that in South Burlington the
major streams are the Winooski River, Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook.
Ms. Louisos said she was not convinced that intermittent streams need that much more buffer.
Mr. Macdonald agreed. He said he would like to see what 300 feet looks like on the 3 major streams.
Mr. Gagnon said he would like that as well. Mr. Mittag said there may be places along the major
streams where a 300-foot buffer in not available.
Ms. Greco said they should save as much as possible because climate change is accelerating much more
quickly than was thought. She was concerned with paragraph 2 which says other provisions could
supersede these provisions. She felt that made things “murky.”
Mr. Albrecht said the Commission also has to think about land use patterns. He noted the challenge of
mixing residential with commercial, specifically with a lot of residential areas not near the core so
people have to drive for groceries, the Post Office, etc. That is not good for global warming.
3
Ms. Bellavance asked how the standards are addressing the Open Space Committee report and the
recommended 25 parcels. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Gagnon was on that committee. She stressed
that what is different about the Land Development Regulations is that they do not go “parcel by parcel.”
The Commission can talk about the resource, regardless of where the parcel lines are. Ms. Ostby said
that the habitat blocks complement the Open Space Report.
Mr. Conner said the work done by the Open Space Committee helped inform the Commission to hire
Arrowwood. On regulatory rules, the Commission can’t look at parcels because zoning has to be “blind
to ownership.” They can look at resources. He also stressed that a property could have resources on
only 10% of the property, and the Open Space Report identified the whole property.
Members agreed to send the buffer recommendations to Taylor Newton at CCRPC to review and
comment on.
Regarding snow storage in the stream buffer, Ms. Louisos said she agrees it is not a reliable location.
Other members agreed as there could be toxins in the snow.
Members discussed the possibility of paths in the buffer. Mr. Gagnon noted the path at Technology
Park that crosses the wetland. He could see some clearing for a path. Mr. Conner said crossings are
identified elsewhere. He was concerned with a path having to be 25 feet outside the buffer which could
discourage a path from ever being there. Mr. Conner noted that unpaved trails are not subject to rules
and he recommended allowing them. Members agreed.
Regarding crossings, Mr. Conner said there are general standards that apply to stream buffers. Ms.
Louisos said she liked how it was written before Mr. Mittag’s comments. There are times when a
crossing makes sense, if it done correctly. She also noted there are strong criteria when a crossing is
allowed. Members agreed.
Members then considered the question of recreation uses in buffers. Mr. Mittag felt they should remain
natural buffers. Mr. MacDonald felt there could be an issue with prohibiting someone from walking
along the stream or fishing. Ms. Ostby felt people would create their own paths by walking there. She
felt it was OK if they put down a blanket and had a picnic, but not to allow structures. Mr. Conner
stressed that the clearing of vegetation would not be allowed. Mr. Gagnon said if a rotten tree fell, it
would be allowed to be cleared as “maintenance.” Mr. Conner said it would.
Regarding wetlands, Mr. Mittag said the guidance is that “bigger is better.” Restoration can happen
naturally if the buffer is big enough.
Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Mittag’s proposal is more stringent than State or Federal regulations, and
the city’s regulations were already more stringent because the city regulates Class 3 wetlands. Mr.
Gagnon asked if the State is considering any more stringent regulations regarding buffers. Ms. Louisos
said she did not believe so. Mr. Gagnon said he was hesitant to change if there are no State plans to
expand the regulations.
4
Mr. Conner noted that Class 3 wetlands have a significantly lower function/value. Requiring a significant
buffer around Class 3 wetlands would bump up against what the Commission is trying to do with other
design standards. He suggested eliminating the buffer around any Class 3 wetland of less than 300 feet.
Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald supported keeping the regulations as written before Mr. Mittag’s
changes. Mr. Mittag said Vermont has lost half of its wetlands. If you widen the buffer, you make it
more resilient over time. Mr. Gagnon said he wants to be consistent with current State regulations. He
noted that developers are often required to get State permits, and he wanted to stick with what the
State has. Ms. Ostby said that makes sense.
Ms. Louisos noted there were notes in the “chat” regarding balancing protection and development.
She said she favored leaving #1 as is to get public comment and having #2 with a 50-foot buffer for Class
3 wetlands more than 300 feet. She also indicated she would like to see this mapped to see what it
looks like. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to map it but noted that mapping wetlands on a city-wise
basis is not a perfect science.
Ms. Ostby asked if it is possible to contact land owners involved in this to be sure they go to the public
hearing. Ms. Louisos said they are widely spread across the city.
Mr. Conner noted that currently the DRB can look at Class 1 & 2 wetlands and buffers more stringently
than Class 3.
Mr. Macdonald asked what getting a wetland permit from the State involves. Ms. Louisos said wetland
scientists are very strict in the state. It has to do with function and value. They look at other ways to
avoid impact. Mr. Gagnon said there is a mitigation piece as well. Mr. Conner noted there are times
when impacts to buffers are allowed. He cited City Center development which was a Class 2 wetland.
Mr. Riehle asked if there are cases in South Burlington where permits were denied. Mr. Conner said it is
hard to say. If an applicant didn’t get a State permit, they did not apply to South Burlington.
Mr. Riehle asked Ms. Louisos if she had seen development that shouldn’t have happened. Ms. Louisos
said she hadn’t. Wetland scientists are so committed to their work. She felt they were doing a good job.
Ms. Ostby said where they can keep things streamlined for owners where the State is doing a good job,
she felt they should leave things as they are.
Mr. Mittag felt they should lead the State. Ms. Louisos felt they are already doing that by regulating
Class 3 wetlands.
Under Section 12:05(b) Mr. Mittag what if it is an environmentally sensitive piece of land. Ms. Louisos
said this means that someone can clear a tree that is threatening a house. This is allowed only to 50 feet
around an existing building. Mr. Mittag asked what about a tree on another owner’s property. Mr.
Conner noted that any land within 50 feet of a house can be cleared. He said there is significant case
law regarding a tree threatening another person’s property and the responsibility for removing that
tree.
5
Mr. Conner then noted that there are about 10-12 privately owned parcels that are more than 70%
forested. The regulations could say “here is an area where we are OK with an impact” rather than just
say 30% is OK. Ms. Louisos asked how that would work with other resources that aren’t mapped. Ms.
Ostby felt the land-owner should make the decision.
Regarding modifications/possible exceptions, Mr. Mittag said he added a few qualifications.
Ms. Louisos said that in #1, you would not be able to reduce the amount of land. Ms. Ostby said they
had discussed that depending on the layout of the blocks, an owner should be able to alter the block as
long as the whole of the block remains. Mr. Conner suggested keeping some judgment for the DRB for a
quirky situation. Ms. Louisos said one instance could be to get a well.
Ms. Ostby felt it was important to say that Arrowwood removed anything less than 20 acres. She felt
that as long as there is no net reduction to a block and a buffer is added elsewhere on the block, the net
effect would be the same. Mr. Mittag felt it was a huge job to create a habitat block elsewhere. Ms.
Louisos said they don’t have perfect mapping, and it might actually be better habitat if the line is moved
over.
Mr. Gagnon said the purpose was to allow latitude for what is on the site, especially invasives. Ms.
Louisos agreed.
Mr. Gagnon noted that at the beginning of the meeting Ms. Ostby had drawn 2 lines of possible
connectors. He felt it would be good to see that mapped. Mr. Conner said he spoke with Jens who said
those 2 specific ones were not at the same priority level to restrict development there. It could be a city
goal to work with the landowners on those areas to restore the connections, but that would be separate
from the regulations. Jens also cautioned about “sightings” being used to determine regulations. Ms.
Greco said she has hundreds of video clips of wildlife in her backyard. Mr. Mittag noted that where her
house is was once a major connector and habitat block.
Members agreed to hold a special meeting to continue the discussion during the first full week of
January.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
26 JANUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2021, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Dorn, City Manager; I. Blanchard, Project
Manager; T. Newton, CCRPC; V. Bolduc, S. Dopp, D. Long, S. Dooley, C. Long, C. Trombley
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos reminded members to attend to the Open Meeting Law Training they received via email. If
all members have completed it by the end of February, there can be a session in March regarding any
questions. Mr. Conner said he would re-send the link.
Mr. Riehle noted an article in the Williston Observer about Taft’s Corners. It said there will be no more
big box stores, and they are hiring a consultant to look into Form Based Code. Mr. Conner noted that
Taylor Newton of CCRPC is part of that process.
4. Presentation of Upcoming March Ballot Item for Tax Increment Financing Garden Street
Section Completion:
Mr. Dorn reviewed the history of the ballot item to connect two sections of Garden Street.
Ms. Blanchard then showed an overview slide of the project. She noted that Sections “A” and “C”
represent this project. Section “A” includes the area between Trader Joe’s and Healthy Living. The
project there includes lighting, utilities, curbing and bicycle facilities. Section “C” is for full construction
of the street through to Midas Drive with lighting, curbing, utilities and bike facilities. Ms. Blanchard
showed plans with a cross section at each end of the street.
Ms. Blanchard then explained that this project is 100% TIF eligible and explained the nature of tax
incremental financing. She showed a chart for debt authorization. The total bond is for $4,002,550.
Passage of the ballot item will not increase the city’s tax rate; however, if the increment does not occur,
the city would have to service the debt.
2
Mr. Dorn noted that this will be the fourth time the city has taken TIF debt to the voters (others are
Market Street completions, the Library/City Hall building, and City Center Park). Mr. Dorn also noted
that the city has authorization to incur debt only until the end of 2022. He explained that there are
already 2 additional City Center projects fully approved. Dover Place will have 30 units of mainly
affordable housing. Prospect Place will be a mixed use project to be built right after Dover Place. The
incremental taxes from both of these projects will become part of the financing for the two sections of
Garden Street.
Mr. Conner noted that Dover Place and Prospect Place developments include requirements to complete
Garden Street.
5. Continued Planning Commission Work Session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development
Regulations:
a. Updated Environmental Protections Standards
b. Review, Summary and Status of Complete Working Draft of LDRs
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of public comment asking for strong natural resource standards to be adopted
before the end of Interim Zoning.
Ms. Ostby noted receipt of comments from Patrick O’Brien and Vince Bolduc to discuss when the
Commission gets to the relevant sections.
Mr. Newton then said that there are 3 big policy issues to discuss: buffers, wetlands, and Class 3
wetlands.
With regard to stream and surface water buffers, Mr. Newton suggested combining river corridors and
stream buffer standards as mapped, as they are roughly the same area. Mr. Gagnon noted the
Commission had defined buffers by distance from the top of the bank. He asked if that would go away
under Mr. Newton’s suggestion. Mr. Newton said the geographic area is mapped by the State. For
major streams, the geographic area is mapped by the State according to the size of the river, type of
soils, and area prone to erosion. The city’s 3 streams that fall into this category are Muddy Brook,
portions of the Potash Brook and the Winooski River. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the State standard is
less than the measured distance. Ms. Louisos noted that for smaller streams, the measure is currently
from the centerline of the stream in South Burlington but proposed to be measures from top of bank.
The City can just adopt that buffer if it wants to. The current local measurement from major streams is
100 feet.
Mr. Conner referred to the Potash Brook chart and noted the closeness of the 50/100-foot buffer and
the defined river corridor. He noted that with the Winooski River, the State’s standard is more
substantial. He also noted that all of Muddy Brook is mapped by the State.
Ms. Ostby asked if combining the stream buffer and river corridors impacts the 500-year flood plain.
Mr. Newton said not at all.
3
Ms. Louisos said she fully supports the State’s mapped river corridors. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald
said they support what Mr. Newton has presented. Mr. Gagnon added that he is concerned with
property that is an asset for its owner who has paid taxes on it for a long time. Mr. Conner asked
whether an addition to a home would be allowed. Mr. Newton said no new structures could be built.
Ms. Ostby said she agrees with Mr. Gagnon that measuring from the top of the bank provides more
protection than what exists now. Ms. Louisos said that because there will be habitat blocks, she was OK
to go with what Mr. Gagnon is saying.
Ms. Dooley asked whether the 50-foot buffer had bad results and added that if it isn’t broken, don’t fix
it.
Mr. Mittag said he was concerned with what is coming in 10-15 years regarding climate change. He felt
it was a resiliency concern. Ms. Ostby felt there were protections in multiple layers. Mr. Gagnon felt
the 100 and 500 year flood plains address resiliency.
Mr. Riehle asked about a section through Butler Farms. Mr. Conner showed a map with the current
buffer and a 100-foot buffer. Mr. Bolduc asked whether 20-30 of the homes would not have been able
to be built with the 100-foot buffer. Ms. Louisos said they couldn’t have been built in their current
location.
Mr. Conner said there is one other feature of the proposed regulations. The backyards of people’s
homes go directly to the street. In the future regulations, hazards and Class 1 resources can’t be
included in people’s house lots. People now are mowing right to the stream.
Mr. Conner showed a map indicating the 100 and 500 year flood plains.
Ms. Louisos noted the substantial overlap of resources and buffer areas around streams.
Mr. Engels asked what happens to Potash Brook at Dorset Street. Mr. Conner said it goes underground
next to Healthy Living and reappears at the UVM Miller Farm. It briefly goes into Burlington at the golf
course. Eventually, it meets up with the main line of Potash Brook at 150 Swift Street, goes through
Queen City Park and into the Lake. Ms. Louisos noted that the city would not longer allow a long section
of a stream to go underground.
Mr. Engels then asked about water in City Center. Mr. Conner explained there are substantial
stormwater facilities being built. Water is being treated at Market Street. Mr. Conner added that he
actually saw some ducks going through there.
Mr. Newton said he removed some language regarding stream alteration. That is not in the city’s
jurisdiction. There is a section of the regulations to provide a referral to a stream alteration engineer.
Mr. Conner said the State has jurisdiction over where water is. The city regulates everything beside it
(e.g., buffers).
4
Members were in favor of combining river corridor and stream buffer standards, with the more
restrictive of each applying.
For buffers, in a straw poll Messrs. Gagnon and Macdonald and Ms. Louisos and Ms. Ostby favored using
the river corridors where mapped by the state, 100 foot buffers from larger streams and 50 feet from
smaller streams measured from the top of the stream bank. Messrs. Riehle, Mittag, and Engels favored
larger buffers.
Regarding buffers related to wetlands, Mr. Newton said his recommendation is to think about them by
zoning district. In the Commercial/Form Based Code/Industrial/Airport zones, he recommended
maintaining the existing wetland buffers. In the Residential and SEQ zones, increase the buffers to 100
feet from Class 1 and 2 wetlands.
Mr. Newton said he does not recommend regulating Class 3 wetlands for administrative reasons. The
city cannot rely on the state, which does not regulate Class 3 wetlands at all. There is often a “self-
verification” process from the homeowner, and the city would have to hire someone to verify this. Class
3 wetlands are also generally smaller with less function, and there may be too many of them.
Mr. Conner showed a map of Class 2 wetlands and their buffers. He stressed that these are estimates
and that wetlands require field delineation.
Mr. Gagnon said it seems like what you should want is a wider buffer in a developed area than in a
residential area where you don’t have runoff from parking lots, etc. He felt that what is being proposed
is “backwards.” Ms. Louisos said the concern with industrial areas is a good one when there is more
pavement (e.g., parking lots). That could be a policy decision. She added that it is important to have
absorption upstream and cited the Middlebury situation where this was the case, and there was no
downstream flooding during Irene.
Mr. Conner noted there is a challenge with wide buffers in some commercial areas. He cited Technology
Park where development sites are getting squeezed on all sides by wetlands and buffers. He felt they
could say “restricted infrastructure allowed” if it meets all standards. The exception would be Form
Based Code/Market Street where offsite mitigation might be appropriate.
Mr. Gagnon said he was good with what is proposed, now that it has been explained.
Ms. Ostby asked if it is possible for a Class 3 wetland to become Class 2, and would it then be added to
the Class 2 map. Mr. Conner said wetland delineation in Vermont is good for only 5 years; then it has to
be remapped. The regulations don’t go to a map. You have to delineate the wetland.
Mr. Mittag said he preferred regulating Class 3 wetlands in some “lighthanded way.” Mr. Riehle said he
thought Class 3 wetlands have a place. He wouldn’t want them all covered with development. He felt
they could be determined by species and plants. Mr. Macdonald agreed. Mr. Conner expressed
concern that the buffer could be larger than the Class 3 wetland. Mr. Mittag suggested a 10-foot buffer
5
in such instances. Mr. Conner cited the challenge to the DRB. Applicants say the Class 3 wetland has
few functions/values, and this puts the DRB in a tight spot.
Mr. Newton said Class 3 wetlands tend to be small. If they get larger, they become Class 2. It is also
hard to know where they are.
Mr. Conner cited the example of a property off Gregory Drive. It is a Class 3 wetland. An applicant said
they met with the State wetlands people who agreed it was not a Class 2. Mr. Conner said that is usually
the best they can get unless the city hires its own person, and that can be tricky because wetlands can
be delineated at only a certain time of year. He added that he would advocate for the ability to work on
a case by case basis to allow for some flexibility.
Ms. Louisos noted there is a physical separation between Class 3 wetlands and other waters.
Mr. Mittag noted that the city now regulations Class 3 wetlands of 300 feet or more.
Mr. Gagnon summarized the Commission’s thinking regarding wetland buffers as follows:
Industrial zones, etc. – keep the 50-foot buffer, more stringent regulations and allow only
restricted infrastructure
Rural areas – 100-foot buffer from Class 2 wetlands, 200 feet from Class 1
Class 3 wetlands – as previously drafted, with standards for the DRB to review
Mr. Conner said he can work with that. He also asked that the same allowances as now be allowed for
Class 2 buffers in City Center. Members agreed.
Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton did a good job cleaning up the standards in habitat blocks as to what
happens with forestry operations. There appears to be an inconsistency in State rules which say that
forestry is exempt from local regulations but also say that this does not preclude wildlife management
by communities. Staff has reached out to the Chittenden County Forester to get a determination. He
felt this was a “good question.”
Mr. Gagnon drew attention to Vince Bolduc’s letter regarding invasive species. Mr. Gagnon noted there
was a project to do a mass removal of invasives to improve habitat for birds, and he wanted to allow for
that kind of activity in forest blocks. He added that proper management can improve a habitat. Mr.
Conner said that Mr. Bolduc proposed some good language for that. Ms. Ostby felt the city should
encourage people to maintain these habitat blocks. She noted that East Woods is overgrown with
buckthorn. Mr. Gagnon said this should definitely happen on lands the city has purchased. Mr. Newton
said a tax stabilization agreement could help accomplish that.
Mr. Engels noted that a while ago the Commission discussed a page in the draft about waivers and the
DRB. He felt they should get back to that. Mr. Conner said that based on the Commission’s guidance at
its last meeting, staff was clarifying the authority for “alternative compliance” in Planned Unit
6
Developments and taking a look through the rest of the waivers for the Commission. In Article 12, the
only flexibility for the DRB is what is contained in the Article.
Ms. Ostby said that definitions need to be strengthened and other definitions (e.g., core) need to be
added. She noted that Tom Bailey’s letter expressed confusion as to what a habitat block is.
Mr. Macdonald asked whether Article 12 would be released separately to the public. Mr. Conner said
that those who have concerns regarding development may feel better if they get the whole document.
Mr. Conner said they almost now have a full draft. The only piece not in the Commission’s hands is the
Neighborhood Commercial PUD section. He hoped that in the upcoming month the Commission will get
public feedback on the whole thing, even if it isn’t perfect. He noted that the Commission can make
changes after a public hearing.
Mr. Conner then enumerated some “housekeeping” considerations including consolidating zoning
districts and considering Article 9 a TDR section. He noted that the Affordable Housing Committee
recommends that TDRs be used more widely in the city. He would like Commission guidance on that.
Ms. Ostby suggested holding off on infill PUDs until after Interim Zoning.
6. Meeting Minutes of 7 and 12 January 2021:
Mr. Mittag presented a correction to the 7 January minutes in written form.
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 7 January as amended and the Minutes of 12 January as
written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Other Business:
Mr. Conner said the next meeting will include a return to the PUD discussion, a clear description of
where there is flexibility and under what circumstances, and what is the likely density in PUDs.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:42 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: South Burlington Planning Director
Colchester Planning Director
Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
Chittenden County Regional Planning Director
VT Department of Housing and Community Development
FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington
DATE: January 29, 2021
RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments
Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
ZA-21-03: R-L Boundary at 925 North Ave
ZA-21-04: Adaptive Reuse Definition
ZA-21-05: Parking Garage Illumination Standard
ZA-21-06: Shoreline Property Setbacks & Buffer Zone
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:45 pm via a virtual meeting on the platform Zoom.
Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning
Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at
the hearing to me by close of business on January 28, 2021.
Thank you.
CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair
David White, FAICP, Director, Office of City Planning
Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner, Department of Permitting & Inspections
Kimberlee Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
Burlington Planning Commission
149 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401
www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz
Phone: (802) 865-7144
Andy Montroll, Chair
Bruce Baker, Vice Chair
Yves Bradley
Alex Friend
Emily Lee
Harris Roen
Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendment
ZA-21-03 R-L Boundary at 925 North Ave
ZA-21-04 Adaptive Reuse Definition
ZA-21-05 Parking Garage Illumination Standard
ZA-21-06 Shoreline Property Setbacks & Buffer Zone
Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington
Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of
Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). Per Act 92, Secs. 5 and 6, the public
hearing will take place during the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 23, 2021
beginning at 6:45pm. You may access the hearing/meeting as follows:
To join from a Computer, please click this URL to join, and enter the Webinar ID if prompted:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89830163519
To join by phone, dial this number and enter the Webinar ID when prompted:
Number: +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 898 3016 3519
Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b):
Statement of purpose:
The purpose of the proposed amendments are as follows:
ZA-21-03: To rezone approximately 2.4 acres of the property located at 925 North Avenue
from RCO-C to R-L.
ZA-21-04: To more accurately reflect the intent and purpose of adaptive reuse as it pertains
to reuse of historic buildings.
ZA-21-05: To refer to the current lighting standard for parking garages as established by
IESNA.
ZA-21-06: To establish maximum front yard setback for shoreline properties within the
waterfront residential zones and establish no-mow standards along the shoreline.
Geographic areas affected:
These amendments apply to the following areas of the city:
ZA-21-03: Approximately 2.4 acres of R-L zoned land located at 925 North Avenue.
ZA-21-04: All areas and zoning districts within the city.
ZA-21-05: All areas and zoning districts within the city.
ZA-21-06: Properties within the waterfront residential (WRL & WRM) zones with frontage
along Lake Champlain or the Winooski River.
List of section headings affected:
The proposed amendments modify the following sections of the Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Warning p. 2
ZA-21-03, 21-04, 21-05, 21-06
ZA-21-03: Modifies Map 4.3.1-1 Base Zoning Districts; Map 4.4.5-1 Residential Zoning Districts;
Map 4.4.6-1 Recreation, Conservation, Open Space Districts; and Map 4.5.1-1 Design Review
Overlay.
ZA-21-04: Modifies “adaptive reuse” definition in Sec. 13.1.2 Definitions.
ZA-21-05: Modifies Sec.5.5.2 (f) 5. Parking Garage Lighting.
ZA-21-06: Modifies Table 4.4.5-3 Residential District Dimensional Standards, Sec. 4.5.4 (a) and
Sec 4.5.4 (c) 4.
The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance is available online at
www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO. The proposed amendment can be reviewed in hard copy posted
on the first floor of City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington or on the department’s website at
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO/Proposed-Amendments-Before-the-Planning-Commission
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Tuttle, Principal Planner, Office of City Planning
DATE: January 27, 2021
RE: Proposed CDO Amendment: R-L Boundary at 925 North Ave.
Overview & Background
This amendment was requested by the Board of Trustees for the Burlington Elks Lodge #916,
located at 925 North Avenue. Representatives from the Elks have discussed this property with the
Mayor and a number of City departments since 2014. Various options have been considered to
enable the future use of the portion of the property abutting North Avenue by the Elks, while
balancing conservation and connectivity to the Bike Path and adjacent Arms Forest and Rock Point
lands. The Elks have re-engaged the City in this discussion, with a request to move the boundary
between the R-L and RCO zoning districts to the west.
The Elks’ property at 925 North Avenue stretches east to west between North Avenue and the
lakeshore, intersecting the bike path easement, and north to south between the boundary of the
residential properties along Killarney Drive and the Arms Park and Rock Point properties. The
approximately 400 feet of depth of the parcel from North Avenue is zoned R-L, while the balance of
the property is zoned RCO-Conservation.
The Elks are requesting that the R-L boundary be moved to the west, from its current point between
25 and 41 Killarney Drive to a point between 65 and 75 Killarney Drive—a distance of approximately
340 feet. According to a survey conducted by the Elks, this change would rezone approximately 2.4
acres of the property from RCO to R-L. This is illustrated on the maps attached to this memo.
The requested change has been determined by the Elks to enable flexibility for additions or
alterations to the Elks property to remain viable in its current location. Presently, the portion of the
property zoned R-L is nonconforming in its lot coverage. The current R-L boundary encompasses
just the developed portion of the property, with a 35% lot coverage limit. The requested change
would move the boundary line west, beyond the clearing behind the Elks parking lot, into the
wooded area abutting Arms Park. The boundary has been proposed to enable the property to
become conforming and allow a modest increase in lot coverage to meet the Elks future needs.
The attached maps indicate portions of the property are also within the Natural Resource Overlay
zone—specifically significant natural areas and wetland areas mapped as part of the Open Space
Protection Plan. The NR Overlay- Natural Areas zone applies to much of the 2.4 acres requested to
be rezoned. There are several trails traversing the private property that connect North Avenue and
the bike path to trails in Arms Park and Rock Point.
Proposed Amendment
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement
The intent of the proposed amendment is to rezone approximately 2.4 acres of the property
located at 925 North Avenue from RCO-C to R-L.
Proposed Amendments
The following amendments to the Burlington CDO are included in this proposal:
1. Amend map 4.3.1-1 Base Zoning Districts
This rezones 2.4 acres of the property at 925 North Avenue from RCO-C to R-L. See
attached maps.
2. Amend maps 4.4.5-1 Residential Zoning Districts; 4.4.6-1 Recreation, Conservation, Open
Space Districts; and 4.5.1-1 Design Review Overlay.
These changes ensure consistency among other maps tied to either the RCO or
Residential zoning districts. See attached maps.
The excerpt of map 4.5.4-1 Natural Resource Overlay District is not proposed to be amended,
and is included herein only to illustrate where the overlay districts apply to the portion of the
property being rezoned.
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is prepared in
accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Theme Dynamic Distinctive Inclusive Connected
Land Use Conserve Sustain Grow
Compatibility with Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment is compatible with the future land use plan in planBTV:
Comprehensive Plan. planBTV identifies the North Avenue Corridor as an area planned to
accommodate future growth, while the lands to the west and south of the developed area of
the Elks Property as an area to conserve. Rezoning a portion of the property to RL enables
greater intensity of development on the Elks property near North Avenue, while protecting the
open space and natural communities contained on the western portion of the property. The
Natural Resource Overlay districts are not proposed to change, and provide an additional
protection against development encroaching into the significant natural areas on the property.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
The proposed amendment has no impact on housing safety or affordability.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and identifies
any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
Requested by
property owner
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission
1/26/21
Approved for
Public Hearing
1/26/21
Public
Hearing
2/23/21
Approved &
forwarded to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
Ordinance Cmte
discussion
CCOC
Recommends
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance Cmte
recommend as
modified
Second Read
& Public
Hearing
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
RCO-C
RL
RCO-RG
NAC
RL-W
RCO-RG
RCO-C
CITY OF
BURLINGTON
Excerpt of Base Zoning Districts Map
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Map 4.3.1-1
Proposed Map for ZA-21-03, January 22, 2021
Base Zoning Districts
Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC)
Residential - Low Density (RL)
Waterfront Residential - Low Density (RL-W)
RCO - Recreation/Greenspace (RCO-RG
RCO - Conservation (RCO-C)
Change RCO to RL
´
Elks Lodge
Rock Point
Arms Park
CITY OF
BURLINGTON
Excerpt of Residential Districts Map
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Map 4.4.5-1
Map for Proposed ZA-21-03, January 22, 2021
Residential Districts
Residential - Medium Density (RM)
Residential - Low Density (RL)
Waterfront Residential - Low Density (RL-W)
Change RCO to RL
´Killarney DrArms Park
N
o
r
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
CITY OF
BURLINGTON
Excerpt of Recreation, Conservation, Open Space Districts Map
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Map 4.4.6-1
Map for Proposed ZA-21-03, January 22, 2021
Elks Lodge
N
o
r
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
Arms ParkKillarney DrRCO Districts
DISTRICT
RCO - Conservation
RCO - Recreation/Greenspace
Change RCO to RL
´
ETHAN ALLEN PWCITY OF
BURLINGTON
Excerpt Design Review Overlay Districts Map
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Map 4.5.1-1
Map for Proposed ZA-20-03, January 22, 2021
Design Review Overlay Districts
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICABLE
NOT APPLICABLE
Change DR to NA
´
N
o
r
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
Elks Lodge
Arms ParkKillarney Dr
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Mary O’Neil, Principal Planner
Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager
DATE: January 27, 2021
RE: Proposed CDO Amendment: Adaptive Reuse Definition
Overview & Background
Adaptive Reuse, in accepted language and common development practice refers to the process of
reusing an old site or building for a purpose other than which it was built or for which it was designed,
while retaining their historic features. Along with brownfield reclamation, adaptive reuse is often
utilized as a key tool in land conservation and the reduction of urban sprawl. Retention and
rehabilitation of existing buildings also reduces the consumption of building materials, resources,
energy and water needed for new construction.
Adaptive reuse deals with the issues of conservation and heritage policies. When old buildings
become unsuitable for their programmatic requirements, as progress in technology, politics, and
economics moves faster than the built environment, adaptive reuse comes in as a sustainable option
for the reclamation of sites. In many situations, the types of buildings most likely to become subjects
of adaptive reuse include 1) industrial buildings, as the process of manufacture moves away from
cities; 2) political buildings, such as palaces and buildings which cannot support current and future
visitors of the site; and 3) community buildings such as churches or schools where the use has
changed over time. (Think the Adams School on South Union Street, or the Steeple Market in Fairfax.)
Adaptive reuse is as an effective way of reducing urban sprawl and environmental impact. By reusing
an existing structure within a site, the energy required to create these spaces is lessened, as is the
material waste that comes from destroying old sites and rebuilding using new materials. Through
adaptive reuse old, unoccupied buildings can become suitable sites for many different types of use.
It is the structural example of reduce-reuse-recycle.
The current Article 13 definition of adaptive reuse misses the key point as to reuse of an historic
structure for something other than what it was originally built for. This amendment would revise the
definition to include that point.
The Planning Commission Ordinance Committee discussed this amendment October 1, 2020 and
unanimously recommended forwarding the amendment to the full Planning Commission for
consideration.
Proposed Amendment
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement
The intent of the proposed amendment is to more accurately reflect the intent and purpose of
adaptive reuse as it pertains to reuse of historic buildings.
Proposed Amendments
Deleted language is crossed out and new language is underlined in red.
[Begin text amendment]
Sec. 13.1.2 Definitions
Adaptive Reuse: For the purposes of this ordinance, adaptive reuse shall refer to The rehabilitation
and reuse of a building or site listed or eligible for listing in the United States Department of the
Interior’s National Register of Historic Places or the Vermont State Register of Historic Places for a
purpose other than that for which it was built or for which it was designed where alterations do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials, features or finishes.
[End text amendment]
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is prepared in
accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Theme Dynamic Distinctive Inclusive Connected
Land Use Conserve Sustain Grow
Compatibility with Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment does not impact the types or density of potential land use and
density. Standards as to adaptive reuse remain unchanged. The amendment revises the
Article 13 definition to better reflect the intent and purpose of adaptive reuse of historic
buildings.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
The proposed amendment has no impact on housing safety or affordability.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and identifies
any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
Staff, PC OC
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission
1/26/21
Approved for
Public Hearing
1/26/21
Public
Hearing
2/23/21
Approved &
forwarded to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance Cmte
discussion
Ordinance Cmte
recommend as
modified
Second Read
& Public
Hearing
CCOC
Recommends
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Mary O’Neil, Principal Planner
Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager
DATE: January 27, 2021
RE: Proposed CDO Amendment: Parking Garage Illumination Standard
Overview & Background
Sec. 5.5.2, Outdoor Lighting, (f) Specific Outdoor Lighting Standards, 5, Parking Garage Lighting, of the
CDO sets the standard for illumination within parking garages. The language presently reads:
A. Light levels shall not exceed minimums recommended in IESNA document RP-20-98 or current
edition.
This standard is out of date. The referenced document has been replaced (not simply updated) at
least twice. Rather than referring to a specific document, the Planning Commission Ordinance
Committee recommended changing the section to simply refer to the current IESNA (Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America) standard for parking garage illumination.
The Planning Commission Ordinance Committee discussed this amendment April 4, 2019 and
unanimously recommended forwarding the amendment to the full Planning Commission for
consideration.
Proposed Amendment
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement
The intent of the proposed amendment is quite simply to refer to the current lighting standard
for parking garages as established by IESNA.
Proposed Amendments
Deleted language is crossed out and new language is underlined in red.
[Begin text amendment]
PART 5: Performance Standards
Sec. 5.5.2 Outdoor Lighting
(f) Specific Outdoor Lighting Standards
5. Parking Garage Lighting
Recommended illumination levels for parking garages are generally higher and more uniform that
that of exterior parking lots. Non-cut-off, up-light and in-direct light is often used to create a uniform
lighting environment and an added feeling of security.
A. Light levels shall not exceed minimums currently recommended in by IESNA document
RP-20-98 or current edition.
B. Any fixture visible from the exterior of the garage facility shall be a full cutoff or cut-off
fixture or shall be constructed in a manner that prevents glare to be visible from the
exterior of the parking garage (see examples pictured below)
6. – 9. As written.
[End text amendment]
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is prepared in
accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Theme Dynamic Distinctive Inclusive Connected
Land Use Conserve Sustain Grow
Compatibility with Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment does not impact the types or density of potential land use and
density. It simply brings the standards for parking garage illumination up to date, and the
wording is such that reference will remain current.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
The proposed amendment has no impact on housing safety or affordability.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and identifies
any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
Staff, PC OC
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission
1/26/21
Approve for
Public Hearing
1/26/21
Public
Hearing
2/23/21
Approved &
forwarded to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance Cmte
discussion
Ordinance Cmte
recommend as
modified
Second Read
& Public
Hearing
CCOC
Recommends
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager
DATE: February 23, 2021
RE: Shoreline property setbacks & buffer zone
Overview & Background
This amendment seeks to establish a maximum front yard setback for shoreline properties in the
waterfront residential districts and to provide a measure of shoreline naturalization upon
development of shoreline properties.
The maximum front yard setback is proposed to remedy a recurring problem wherein the front yard
setback, based on the average of neighboring properties, pushes development closer towards the
shoreline and further into the riparian and littoral conservation zone. The shoreline is irregular. As a
result, many shoreline properties vary in depth. In turn, placement of homes on these properties also
varies. The residential front yard setback is based on the average of neighboring homes and works
well in uniform neighborhoods. The average in these cases provides consistency along the street
edge. Among shoreline properties, the variability of lot configurations and building locations renders
the use of the average inappropriate. In some cases, strict use of the average actually pushes
redevelopment closer towards the shoreline than existing development, counter to the intent of the
riparian and littoral conservation zone. This amendment proposes a maximum front yard setback for
waterfront residential properties to avoid recurrence of this problem.
The provision for shoreline naturalization is intended to establish a development threshold for
improving shoreline conditions by allowing for some vegetative regeneration. Within the riparian and
littoral conservation zone, development involving site work is reviewed by the Conservation Board
with an eye towards tree retention and stormwater management capacity. Redevelopment of
Burlington’s widely developed shorelines has a fairly low bar for shoreline impacts. Existing
conditions cannot be made worse, but there is currently no provision for improving vegetative
conditions along the shoreline. The proposed amendment, applied to development above a certain
threshold, will allow for some degree of vegetative regeneration by establishing no-mow areas along
the shoreline.
The Conservation Board reviewed this draft amendment December 7, 2020 and unanimously
recommended approval. The Planning Commision Ordiance Committee discussed this amendment
January 7, 2021 and unanimously recommended forwarding the amendment to the full Planning
Commission for consideration.
Proposed Amendment
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement
The intent of the proposed amendment is to enhance protection of the city’s environmentally
sensitive shorelines. The city has already identified the need to protect surface waters from
encroaching development and from nonpoint source pollution associated with stormwater
runoff. It has also identified the need to preserve natural vegetative cover along the shoreline
to protect native plants, wildlife habitat and corridors, and water quality.
The proposed maximum setback for shoreline properties within the waterfront residential
zones will substantially limit occurrences of the average front yard setback requirement
pushing development closer towards the shoreline.
The no-mow provision is a simple and effective way to allow for vegetative regeneration along
the shoreline. Such regeneration is consistent with the city’s articulated goals of protecting
shoreline integrity, water quality, and wildlife habitat.
Proposed Amendments
Deleted language is crossed out and new language is underlined in red.
[Begin text amendment]
Sec. 4.4.5 Residential Districts
(a) Purpose:
As written.
(b) Dimensional Standards and Density
The density and intensity of development, dimensions of building lots, the heights of
buildings and their setbacks from property boundary lines, and the limits on lot coverage
shall be governed by the following standards:
Table 4.4.5-1: Minimum Lot Size and Frontage: RL, RL-W, RM and RM-W2
Lot Frontage1 Lot Size
Use (linear feet) (square feet)
RL,WRL RM,WRM RL, WRL3 RM,
WRM
Single detached
dwelling Min:
60’
Min:
30’
Min:
6,000 NA Duplex and above Min:
10,000
1. The DRB may adjust the frontage requirements for lots fronting on cul -de-sacs,
multiple streets, or corner lots reflecting the existing neighborhood pattern on each
respective street.
2. There are no minimum lot size or frontage requirements in the RH District.
3. Exception: Larger minimum lot size in RL and WRL larger lot overlay district; refer to
Section 4.5.5 & Table 5.5-1.
Table 4.4.5-2: Base Residential Density
District Maximum dwelling units per
acre1
Low Density: RL, RL-W 7 units/acre
Medium Density: RM, RM-W 20 units/acre
High Density: RH 40 units/acre
Inclusive of new streets but exclusive of existing streets, and without bonuses or any
Inclusionary Zoning allowances.
Table 4.4.5-3: Residential District Dimensional Standards
Zoning
District
Max. Lot
Coverage1
Setbacks1, 3, 4, 5, 6 Max.
Height1
Front27 Side3 Rear Waterfront
RL; WRL 35%
Min/Max:
Ave. of 2
adjacent lots on
both sides +/-
5-feet
Min:
10% of lot
width Or ave.
of side yard
setback of 2
adjacent lots
on both sides
Max
required:
20-feet
Min:
25% of lot
depth but
in no event
less than
20’
Max
required:
75-feet
Min:
75’ feet from
the ordinary
high water
mark of Lake
Champlain
and the
Winooski
River
35-feet
RM 40% Min/Max:
Ave of 2
adjacent lots on
both sides +/- 5-
feet
Min:
10% of lot
width Or ave.
of side yard
setback of 2
adjacent lots
on both sides
Max
required:
20-feet
Min:
25% of lot
depth but
in no event
less than
20’
Max
required:
75-feet
NA 35-feet
WRM 60% Min/Max: Ave
of 2 adjacent
lots on both
sides +/- 5-feet
Min:
10% of lot
width Or ave.
of side yard
setback of 2
adjacent lots
on both sides
Max
required:
20-feet
Min:
25% of lot
depth but
in no event
less than
20’
Max
required:
75-feet
Min:
75’ feet from
the ordinary
high water
mark of Lake
Champlain
and the
Winooski
River
35-feet
(60-feet
under Sec.
4.4.5(d)2A)
RH 80% Min/Max: Ave
of 2 adjacent
lots on both
sides +/- 5-feet
Min:
10% of lot
width Or ave.
of side yard
setback of 2
adjacent lots
on both sides
Max
required:
20-feet
Min:
25% of lot
depth but
in no event
less than
20’
Max
required:
75-feet
NA 35-feet
1. An additional ten per cent (10%) lot coverage may be permitted for accessory residential features
per (d)3A below. Measurement of and exceptions to coverage, setback, and height standards are
found in Art 5.
2. Average front yard setback of the principal structures on the 2 adjacent lots on both sides within
the same block having the same street frontage. See Sec. 5.2.4.
3. In no event shall the side yard setback be required to exceed 20-feet, or the rear-yard setback
be required to exceed 75-feet.
Table 4.4.5-3: Residential District Dimensional Standards
Zoning
District
Max. Lot
Coverage1
Setbacks1, 3, 4, 5, 6 Max.
Height1
Front27 Side3 Rear Waterfront
4. Additional setbacks from the lakeshore and other water features may be applicable per the
requirements of the Sec 4.5.4 Riparian and Littoral Conservation Overlay Zone.
5. The side yard setback shall be calculated based on the 4 adjacent properties (2 on each side of
the subject property). The right side yard setback is the average of the right side yard setback of
the principal structures on these 4 properties. The left yard setback is the average of the left side
yard setback of the principal structures on these 4 properties. The adjacent properties shall be
within the same block having the same street frontage as the subject property. See Sec. 5.2.5.
6. Where there are fewer than 2 adjacent lots on both sides within the same block having the same
street frontage, the average side yard setback shall be calculated from the fewer number of lots.
Where there are no adjacent lots, the setback shall be 10% of the lot width.
7. For properties in the WRL and WRM zones with frontage along Lake Champlain or the Winooski
River the front yard setback shall not be required to exceed 50 feet in any event.
(c) Permitted and Conditional Uses:
As written.
(d) District Specific Regulations:
As written.
Sec. 4.5.4 Natural Resource Protection Overlay (NR) District
(a) Purpose and Authority:
The Natural Resource Protection Overlay District is intended to:
Protect surface waters and wetlands from encroachment by development, and from
sources of non-point pollution;
Preserve natural lakeshore vegetative cover where reasonably possible consistent with
the Vermont Shoreland Protection Act, and the protection of native plants and vegetative
cover that provide lake shoreland wildlife habitat, to the greatest extent possible;
Protect the functions and values of Burlington’s wetlands;
Protect and enhance water quality near public beaches and other water-based recreation
areas from sources of non-point pollution;
Preserve natural features and communities, geologic features and cultural sites for
education and research.
Provide opportunities for public access where feasible and appropriate;
Facilitate connections and corridors for wildlife between areas of publicly protected sites.
Ensure that development that occurs within a Flood Hazard Area conforms to the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Minimize and prevent the loss of life and property, the disruption of commerce, the
impairment of the tax base, and the extraordinary public expenditures and demands on
public services that result from flooding and other flood related hazards; and
Ensure that the design and construction of development in flood and other hazard areas
are accomplished in a manner that minimizes or eliminates the potential for flood and
loss or damage to life and property; and
Manage all flood hazard areas designated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 753; and
Make the City of Burlington and its residents eligible for federal flood insurance and other
federal disaster recovery and hazard mitigation funds as may be available.
(b) Areas Affected
As written.
(c) District Specific Regulations: Riparian and Littoral Conservation Zone:
1. Permitted Uses:
Except where otherwise noted herein, only the following uses are permitted within the Riparian
and Littoral Conservation Zone and its associated buffer subject to the requirements and
limitations set forth below under subpart 4.
A. Normal maintenance of existing lawns and maintained grounds including mowing, trimming
of vegetation and the removal of dead or diseased vegetation around a residence, decorative
landscaping and planting, vegetable and flower gardens, and the repair of existing private
landscaping structures such as walkways and walls;
B. “Accepted agricultural and silvicultural practices” as defined under 24 VSA Ch 117;
C. Normal maintenance of constructed wetlands and stormwater systems, provided that
naturally occurring wetlands are not disturbed in conjunction with the maintenance;
D. Normal maintenance of existing docks, roads, rail lines, bridges, and culverts provided that
disturbance to any shoreland is minimized in conjunction with such maintenance;
E. Selective cutting of less than 25 percent of the trees six inches or more in diameter at breast
height over any 10 year cycle; and,
F. Recreational and educational activities such as hiking, walking, fishing, nature study, and bird
watching and associated boardwalks and unimproved trails.
2. Prohibited Uses:
Except where noted herein, the following uses shall be prohibited within the Riparian and Littoral
Conservation Zone and its associated buffer.
A. The deposition or introduction of organic and inorganic chemicals, including herbicides and
pesticides, except when the application of pesticides is reviewed and approved by the BCB
and DRB, and performed by an applicator certified by the Vermont Department of
Agriculture for the sole purpose of controlling invasive species and subject to the
requirements of the City’s pesticide application ordinance (Burlington Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 17, Section 9); and,
B. The off-road use of any motorized vehicles including ATVs or dirt bikes (the temporary use of
motorized vehicles used to construct and maintain permitted or regulated activities are
specifically exempted from this prohibition);
3. Regulated Uses:
Except where otherwise noted herein, all uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the
respective underlying zoning district, including any construction of buildings or other
structures, and roads, parking areas or any other impervious surface, may be approved only
within the Riparian and Littoral Conservation Zone and its associated buffer after review and
approval pursuant to the requirements and limitations below under Subpart 4.
4. Requirements:
1. Any land disturbing activities (i.e., vegetation has been removed, or the landscape has been
graded or filled resulting in bare soil surfaces) shall include a stormwater management,
erosion prevention and sediment control plan pursuant to the requirements of Sec 5.5.3 to be
reviewed by the conservation board and approved by the city engineer.
In making determinations and decisions required herein, the city engineer shall consider the
requirements of the most recent State of Vermont Stormwater Management Rules and
Guidance document. The city engineer shall require the best practicable means be used to
manage stormwater, prevent erosion, and control sedimentation. The city engineer is hereby
authorized to develop performance standards to ensure conformance with these state
stormwater management rules;.
For properties with frontage along Lake Champlain or the Winooski River, development that
includes 400 square feet or more of new or redeveloped lot coverage shall establish a no-
mow zone along the shoreline. A no-mow zone is a new or existing vegetated area that is not
mowed more than once per year and allows vegetation to grow and mature. (Refer to
Shoreland Best Management Practices established by Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation.). A no-mow zone shall be at least 15 ft. wide as measured inland
from the 100 ft. elevation and shall be of a size equivalent to, or greater than, the new or
redeveloped lot coverage, except that in no event shall a no-mow zone be required to
extend more than 50 ft. wide as measured inland from the 100 ft. elevation or extend along
more than 80% of a property’s shoreline frontage;
For properties with frontage along Lake Champlain or the Winooski River, development shall
be located no closer to the shoreline than existing development wherever reasonably
possible.
2. Agricultural and silvicultural activities shall follow Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Water Quality;
3. Installation of any seawalls, rip-rap or other shoreland retention structures shall be submitted
for review by the conservation board who shall consult with the city engineer prior to
issuance of a recommendation to the DRB; and,
4. No new stormwater outfall shall directly discharge into any surface water without approval
and implementation of a stormwater management plan approved by the city engineer.
[End text amendment]
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is prepared in
accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Theme Dynamic Distinctive Inclusive Connected
Land Use Conserve Sustain Grow
Compatibility with Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment does not impact the types or density of potential land use and
density. It provides enhanced protection of Burlington’s environmentally sensitive shorelines
and is consistent with express goals of the city to protect its shorelines, water quality, and
wildlife habitat and contiguity. The amendment enables more appropriate development siting
and establishes a threshold for improving shoreline conditions.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
The proposed amendment has no impact on housing safety or affordability.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and identifies
any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
Staff, Conservation
Board
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission
1/26/21
Approve for
Public Hearing
1/26/21
Public
Hearing
2/23/21
Approved &
forwarded to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance Cmte
discussion
Ordinance Cmte
recommend as
modified
Second Read
& Public
Hearing
CCOC
Recommends
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
Memorandum
To: The City of Burlington Planning Director
The City of South Burlington Planning Director
The Town of Colchester Planning Director
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development
From: Eric Vorwald, AICP
Planning and Zoning Manager
RE: Proposed Amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations – Articles I, II, and IX; and Section 5.1
DATE: February 01, 2021
________________________________________
Enclosed with this memo, please find proposed amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations. The amendments relate specifically to:
• Article I - Authority & Purpose
• Article II - Zoning Districts
• Article IX - Definitions
• Section 5.1 - Accessory Dwelling
These amendments also create a new Section 2.16 to address properties in multiple zoning districts.
The City of Winooski Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, February 25, 2021
at 6:30pm to take public comments on the proposed amendments. This hearing will be held by
electronic means only via Zoom Webinar. Use https://zoom.us/s/94260618811 to join by computer
or 646.558.8656 to join by telephone (toll charges may apply). If prompted, the webinar ID for this
meeting is 942 6061 8811.
Please ensure this information is provided to the chair of your Planning Commission. Comments
related to these amendments should be submitted in writing to me by the close of business on Monday,
February 22, 2021.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF WINOOSKI
UNIFIED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
In accordance with 24 V.S.A §4441 and §4444, the City of Winooski Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Thursday, February 25, 2021 beginning at 6:30 p.m. This hearing will be held by
electronic means only using Zoom Webinar. Use https://zoom.us/s/94260618811 to join by computer
or 646.558.8656 to join by telephone (toll charges may apply). If prompted, the webinar ID for this
meeting is 942 6061 8811.
Amendments to the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations
• Article I - Authority & Purpose
• Article II - Zoning Districts
• Article IX - Definitions
• Section 5.1 - Accessory Dwelling
Statement of Purpose: The purpose of these amendments are as follows:
Article I – Provide clarification regarding the applicability of these regulations and consistency
with terminology throughout the regulations.
Article II – Provide clarification on interpretation of zoning district boundaries (Section 2.1) and
uses (Section 2.3); and provides updates to the use table (Section 2.4) and dimensional
standards (Section 2.5). Also adds a new section (Section 2.16) to regulate properties in multiple
zoning districts.
Article IX – Provide clarification on several definitions and adds new definitions for terms that
are not clearly defined elsewhere.
Section 5.1 – Updates the regulations for accessory dwelling units for consistency with statutory
changes as outlined in Act 179 of 2020.
Geographic Area Affected: the proposed amendments will apply to the entirety of the City of
Winooski.
Section Headings Impacted:
Article I – Clarifies terminology for consistency with definitions in Section 1.3. B. and F.; and
adds a new subsection G to Section 1.3 to clarify application of the regulations.
Article II – Adds language to Section 2.1 regarding the interpretation of zoning district
boundaries. Section 2.3 D. is amended to provide clarity related to uses not included in the use
Planning Commission Public Hearing
ULUDR Amendments
February 25, 2021
Page 2 of 2
table or otherwise defined in the regulations. Section 2.4 is updated to add uses to existing
zoning districts, renumber footnotes, and provide consistency with terms utilized in the
regulations. Section 2.5 is updated to align dimensional requirements for building lots with
existing lot dimensions. Adds Section 2.16 as a new section to provide regulations for properties
with multiple zoning districts.
Article IX – Adds new terms that do not currently exist and clarifies existing terms for
consistency with regulations.
Section 5.1 – Amendments are provided to align the regulation of accessory dwelling units with
statutory changes as enacted in the 2020 legislative session through Act 179.
The full text of these amendments is available at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, during
normal business hours or by contacting Eric Vorwald, AICP, City of Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
by calling 802.655.6410 or evorwald@winooskivt.gov.
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Eric Vorwald, AICP
Planning & Zoning Manager
RE: Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations including Articles I, II, and IX; and Section 5.1
DATE: February 01, 2021
________________________________________
This memo provides information related to proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations. These amendments specifically impact the following articles and
sections:
• Article I - Authority & Purpose
• Article II - Zoning Districts
• Article IX - Definitions
• Section 5.1 - Accessory Dwelling
These amendments also create a new Section 2.16 to address properties in multiple zoning districts.
Background
In 2016, the City undertook a comprehensive update to the Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations (ULUDR). This was the first comprehensive update in over 20 years. Among other
changes, this update included a new Appendix B, which provides regulations for the Gateway Zoning
Districts through the form-based code. While these changes improved the regulations, staff has
identified several areas where additional clarity or amendments could improve the interpretation of
the regulations. Additionally, several conflicts exist that need to be clarified. With this in mind, staff
has been reviewing each section of the ULUDR and proposing amendments to the Planning
Commission for their consideration.
Purpose of Amendments
These amendments are being proposed to provide clarity for interpretation of the regulations, and to
align the ULUDR with statutory changes that have been enacted by the Vermont Legislature. Specific
legislative changes are incorporated into Section 5.1 regarding the regulation of accessory dwelling
units. This includes changes and additions to the definitions (Article IX) and the use table (Section 2.4).
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 2 of 9
Additional amendments are proposed to support specific changes to state statute and to ensure
consistency in the regulations. In addition, a new section (Section 2.16) is being proposed to address
properties that have multiple zoning districts.
Proposed Amendments
The following pages include the text of Articles I, II, and IX; and Section 5.1 including proposed changes.
Proposed additional text is shown in red and underlined. Text that appears with a strikeout is proposed
to be deleted. If specific sections are not included, no changes are being proposed in these sections.
ARTICLE I – AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
************
SECTION 1.3 - APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION
A These regulations, and their administration and enforcement, are subject to all provisions of the Act as
may be amended from time to time.
B. No land subdivision or land development as defined in Article IX of these regulations, shall commence in
the City of Winooski except in conformance with these regulations. Land subdivision Subdivision or land
development not specifically authorized under these regulations, unless exempted under the Act, is
prohibited.
C. These regulations are not intended to repeal, annul, or in any way impair any previously issued permit
or approval. All land subdivisions, uses, and structures legally in existence as of the effective date of
these regulations are allowed to continue. Changes or alterations to pre-existing subdivisions,
structures, or uses must meet all applicable requirements of these regulations, including requirements
for nonconforming lots, uses and structures.
D. Where these regulations impose a greater restriction on the use of land or a structure than is required
by any other statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, these regulations shall apply.
F. Additional municipal, state or federal permits may be required beyond those identified in these
regulations. It is the applicant’s responsibility to secure all required municipal, state and federal permits
prior to commencing land subdivision and land development.
G. Unless specifically included, these regulations shall only apply to building lots within the City. Any project
proposed in or above the City right-of-way shall require permitting and be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works for any applicable standards that may apply. This review, approval, and
permitting may include consultation with other City departments, including the City Council.
************
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 3 of 9
ARTICLE II - ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION 2.1 - ZONING MAP
The official zoning map, ‘City of Winooski Zoning Map’ is hereby adopted as part of these Regulations and is on
file with the City Clerk. The Zoning Map shall be amended in accordance with the Act [§ 4441, § 4442 and
§ 4444]. Any uncertainty as to the location of a district, overlay, or flood hazard area boundary line on
the zoning map, including zoning boundary errors identified through the surveying of lot or property
boundaries, shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) with rights of appeal to the
Development Review Board (DRB).
SECTION 2.2 - LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS
The City of Winooski Zoning Map and these Regulations divide the City into the following districts:
A. Residential A, ‘R-A’ (formally referred to as R-1-A)
B. Residential B, ‘R-B’ (formally referred to as R-1-B)
C. Residential C, ‘R-C’ (formally referred to as R-2)
D. Central Business District, ‘C-1’
E. General Commercial, ‘C-2’
F. Downtown Core, ‘DC’
G. Gateway, ‘G’
H. Industrial, ‘I’
I. Public, ‘P’
J. Flood Hazard Area, ‘FHA’
SECTION 2.3 - APPLICABILITY
A. Development of lots may only be permissible based on the uses and dimensional criteria defined in this
Article, and in accordance with the review procedures defined in this regulation and all applicable local,
state and federal ordinances and regulations.
B. All lots created after the effective date of these regulations that are intended for development must meet
minimum applicable frontage requirements along public road rights-of-way, and area and yard
dimensional requirements for the district(s) in which they are located unless modified or waived by the
DRB for planned unit development under Section 6.3, or under Section 6.8.
C. For the Gateway Districts, no lot intended for development shall be so reduced that development cannot
be established in accordance with the Building Form Standards in Part 4 of Appendix B of these
regulations.
D. Any proposed USE not specifically permitted or prohibited in this Ordinance identified in the use table of
Section 2.4, described in Article IX or otherwise regulated in this Ordinance may shall be reviewed through
the considered as a Conditional Use process by the DRB and reviewed in accordance with Section 6.7 of
these regulations.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 4 of 9
SECTION 2.4 - LAND USE TABLE
LAND USE Residential A
R-A21
Residential B
R-B21
Residential C
R-C32
Central
Business
District
C-1
General
Commercial
C-2
Downtown
Core
DC
Gateway
Urban
General &
Storefront13
Gateway
Townhouse
Small
Apartment/
Detached
Residential1
3
Industrial
I
Public
P
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single Family Unit
Dwelling P P P
See Part 4
of the
Form-
Based Code
See Part 4
of the
Form-
Based Code
Accessory Dwelling
Unit4 P P P
Two Family Unit
Dwelling (attached) P P CU
Detached Cottage CU CU CU
Multi-Family Unit (3+
units)5 P4 CU P
Assisted Living &
Residential Care Homes P CU P P P
Bed-and-Breakfast
(B&B) CU CU P CU P P P
Family Child Care Home P P P P P P P P
Group Home6 P/CU5 P/CU5 P/CU5 P/CU5 P/CU5 P/CU5 P/CU5 P/CU5
Home Occupation P P P P P P P P
COMMERCIAL USES
Adult Establishment CU
Alcohol Manufacturing
Facility CU CU CU P P
Animal Care & Boarding P
Bar CU CUP P
Brew Pub CU CU CUP P CU
Industry CU P P
Laboratory CU P
Lodging Establishment P CU P P
Office P P P P CU
Personal Service
Establishment P P P P
Retail Sales P P P P CU
Retail Sales,
Neighborhood
Commercial
CU CU P
Recreation &
Entertainment,
Commercial
P CU P P CU
Restaurant P P P P
Restaurant, Café CU CU CU CUP CU
Restaurant with Drive-
thru P
Vehicle Repair & Sales CU P P
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 5 of 9
Notes:
21. Maximum dwelling units per lot in R-A and R-B shall be 2 total dwelling units no matter how it is configured in the allowable use types as listed above (i.e. Two Family
Dwelling in R-B only, Single Family Dwelling and Accessory Dwelling, or Single Family Dwelling and Detached Cottage).
32. Maximum dwelling units per lot in R-C shall be 3 total dwelling units no matter how it is configured (i.e. Two Family Dwelling and a Detached Cottage, or Single Family
Dwelling and Accessory Dwelling and Detached Cottage).
13. Some of the FBC permitted uses are subject to specific Development and Performance Standards in Section 804 of the code in Appendix B.
4. One accessory dwelling consistent with Section 5.1 is permitted per lot.
45. Maximum density for Multi-family housing in C1 is 60 units/acre.
56. If a group home locates within 1,000’ of another group home it shall be subject to Conditional Use review and approval.
7. One accessory structure not to exceed 100 square feet per lot is exempt under Section 6.13, otherwise all applicable dimensional standards in Section 2.5 shall apply.
68. Accessory Supporting Use shall be limited to “uses” or structures such as administrative offices or services that relate to the “primary” use of the site/parcel and shall be
operated (solely) by the property owner or owner representative for the purpose of providing services to the site. Supporting Uses may be incorporated into an existing
structure or in a standalone structure provided the dimensional requirements of Section 2.5 are met.
LAND USE Residential A
R-A21
Residential B
R-B21
Residential C
R-C32
Central
Business
District
C-1
General
Commercial
C-2
Downtown
Core
DC
Gateway
Urban
General &
Storefront13
Gateway
Townhouse
Small
Apartment/
Detached
Residential1
3
Industrial
I
Public
P
CIVIC & PUBLIC USES
Association, Fraternal
Organization, Social
Club
P CU P P P
Crematorium P P
Cultural Facility P CU P P P
Daycare Facility CU CU CU P CUP P P P P P
Education Facility CU CU CU P CUP P P P P P
Funeral Home P P P P
Healthcare Facility P CU P P
Recreation &
Entertainment, Non-
Commercial
P P P P CU P P P CU P
Religious Facility P P P P P P P P P
OTHER
Accessory Structure76 CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Accessory Supporting
Use86 CU CU CU CUP CUP CUP CUP CU CU CU
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 6 of 9
SECTION 2.5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS TABLE
Notes:
1. Conditional upon attainment of all necessary State and City stormwater management approvals.
************
SECTION 2.16 – LOTS IN MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS
A. Purpose. Each lot in the City of Winooski is intended to be governed by o ne zoning district. Through lot
line adjustments, including mergers or subdivisions, circumstances may arise where one lot has multiple
zoning districts. This section is intended to provide guidance in instances where development is proposed
on a lot with multiple zoning districts.
B. Applicability. This section shall apply to all lots or properties within the City of Winooski.
Residential A
R-A
Residential B
R-B
Residential C
R-C
Central
Business
District
C-1
General
Commercial
C-2
Downtown
Core
DC
Gateway
Districts
Industrial
I
Public
P Parcel Lot Size (Minimum
Square Feet) 10,000 7,500 7,500 3,000 7,500 NA
See
Appendix B
20,000 NA
Frontage
(Minimum Feet) 75 75 7550 50 75 NA 100 NA
Lot Depth
(Minimum Feet) 100 100 60 60 60 NA 60 NA
Lot Coverage
(Maximum %) 40 50 50 1001 80 NA 70 50 Primary Structure Front Setback
(Minimum Feet) 20 10 10 0 0 NA 10 10
Rear Setback
(Minimum Feet) 15 15 15 0 0 NA 10 15
Side Setback
(Minimum Feet) 15 10 10 0 0 NA 10 10
Building Height
(Maximum Feet) 35 35 35 60 35 See
Appendix C 35 35 Accessory Structure Front Setback
(Minimum Feet) 10 10 10 NA NA NA 10
Rear Setback
(Minimum Feet) 5 5 5 NA NA NA 5
Side Setback
(Minimum Feet) 5 5 5 NA NA NA 5
Building Height
(Maximum Feet) 35 35 35 NA NA See
Appendix C 35
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 7 of 9
C. Specific land development standards for each zo ning district, including uses identified in Section 2.4,
dimensional standards identified in Section 2.5, and any other applicable standards that are outlined in
these regulations, including the appendices, will apply to the corresponding zoning district on the lot.
D. Any development proposal for a lot with multiple zoning districts shall require site plan approval from the
Development Review Board and meet the requirements of Section 6.6 regardless of the proposed use(s).
Other information may also be required depending on the specific request being proposed.
E. Review by the Development Review Board will be solely for the purpose of site plan approval including
any specific conditions deemed appropriate, unless conditional use approval, waivers, or variances are
also being requested as outlined in Section 6.7 or Section 6.8.
F. Owners of lots with multiple zoning districts may request a change in zoning as outlined in Section 1.4.
************
ARTICLE IX - DEFINITIONS
Accessory Dwelling: An accessory dwelling is an independent efficiency or one bedroom A distinct dwelling unit
that is located within or appurtenant to an owner-occupied single-unit dwelling, and that is clearly subordinate
to that dwelling. An accessory dwelling has facilities and provisions for independent living, including sleeping,
food preparation, and sanitation. Accessory dwellings are regulated under Section 5.1.
Deck: An above ground outdoor living space that is open to the sky, but may be temporarily covered by an awning
or partially covered by a pergola. When attached to the primary structure, a deck will be considered part of the
primary structure and subject to the dimensional standards of Table 2.5.
Dwelling, Multi-Unit (or Multi-family): A building or structure or portion thereof containing three or more
dwelling units.
Dwelling, Single-Unit (or Single Family Dwelling): A detached building or structure containing only one dwelling
unit.
Dwelling, Two-Unit (or Two Family Dwelling): A detached building or structure containing only two dwelling
units.
Dwelling Unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof contain complete house-keeping facilities for
only one familyhousehold, and having no enclosed space other than vestibules, entrances, or other hallways, in
common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding house, rooming house, convalescent home, fraternity or
sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar home or similar structure shall not be deemed to
constitute a dwelling unit.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 8 of 9
Owner: The person or persons holding legal title to the property as recorded in the City’s Land Records. In the
event a trust, estate, or other ownership interest holds title, the controlling person or persons of said entity shall
be considered the owner.
Owner-Occupied: Where owner occupancy is required by these regulations it shall mean maintaining principal
residency at a property or premise year-round.
Patio: A patio is an improved at-grade living space that is open to the sky.
Supporting Use: A use that is clearly subordinate to the primary use on a lot. A supporting use may be considered
on a conditional basis by the DRB if the use is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district where it is proposed
and the property is in conformance (or could be made conforming) with these regulations.
************
ARTICLE V – SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
SECTION 5.1 - ACCESSORY DWELLING
A. Accessory dwelling units are a permitted use in all districts where single-unit detached dwellings are
permitted. An accessory dwelling unit is an efficiency or one-bedroom apartment that is part of or
detacheda distinct unit that is located within or appurtenant to from a single-unit dwelling on an owner-
occupied dwellinglot., and An accessory dwelling unit is clearly subordinate to a single-unit dwelling and
has facilities and provisions for independent living, including sleeping, food preparation, and sanitation,
provided there is compliance with all the following:
1. The property has a sufficient wastewater allocation;
2. The accessory unit does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total habitable floor area of the
single-unit dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is greater; and,
3. Setback, coverage, and off-street parking requirements specified in the bylaws are met.
B. A Zoning Permit is required for any accessory dwelling unit. In addition, it shall require Conditional Use
approval if it involves or requires any of the following:
1. Construction of an addition or new accessory structure;
2. An increase in the building height or habitable floor area of the existing dwelling; or
3. An increase in the dimensions of the parking area.
C. At time of sale or transfer of title the accessory residential use shall continue provided that one of the
dwelling units is and remains owner-occupied.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
February 01, 2021
Page 9 of 9
************
Consistency with the Winooski Master Plan
The following information is provided to address the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4441 regarding
consistency of the proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Master Plan, adopted March 2019.
Specifically, statute requires municipalities to consider three parts when reviewing proposals for new
or amended bylaws. These considerations include:
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 City updated their Master Plan in 2019. The master plan includes multiple components that
discuss housing options and affordability, and protection of existing stable neighborhoods.
Amendments to Section 5.1 will align with state statute thereby furthering affordable housing
goals. Also, the proposed changes increase development options for properties located along
the gateways, where development is encouraged, and includes opportunities to expand the
locations of day care and education facilities (through changes to the use table). These changes
are intended to increase the locations where daycares can be developed. Expanding options
for childcare has been identified in the Master Plan as a need throughout the City.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The future land use map included in the Master Plan identifies development density along the
corridors, while limiting development in the residentially zoned areas. The proposed changes
maintain this development pattern and density. While several uses are being added to the
residential zoning districts, they are being included as conditional uses which will require review
and approval by the Development Review Board. This review will help ensure compatibility
with the future land use and density in these locations. Otherwise, the proposed amendments
will remain consistent with the future land uses and densities identified in the Master Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
No adverse impacts to planned community facilities have been identified as a result of the
proposed amendments.