HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 03/09/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, March 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/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc-2021-03-09
Telephone (audio only) (408) 650-3123; Access Code: 989-690-557
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
4. Commission reflections on Open Meeting Law guidance; Q&A with City Attorney Andrew Bolduc (7:15 pm)
5. *Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session (7:35 pm)
a. Review overall project schedule and discuss possibility of advancing Environmental Protection Standards
[Articles 10 and 12, and related amendments] in advance of others (7:35 pm)
b. Continue discussion of options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently applicable into
PUDs; consider possible expansion / replacement of current affordable housing density bonus structure
(7:55 pm)
c. Consider proposal from Commissioner Ostby consider a basic vs expanded Conservation PUD (8:30 pm)
d. Overview of “related amendments” to PUD/Subdivision/Environmental Protection standards updates;
Commission prioritization [time permitting] (8:45 pm)
6. Provide direction on selection of name for new street adjacent to Library/City Hall (8:55 pm)
7. *Minutes: February 23, 2021 (9:00 pm)
8. Other Business (9:01 pm)
9. Adjourn (9:03 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings
to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently
presenting / commenting will have their video on.
3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant
in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute
yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint.
Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to
allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning
and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items
specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message
Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages
on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of
Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official
meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently
focused to help guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published
timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda
items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any
expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end
that will be covered “if time allows”.
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: March 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 (7:10 pm)
• Immediately prior to last week’s special meeting, staff met with the Natural Resources and
Conservation Committee to discuss the draft Environmental Protection Standards. Committee
members raised some good questions that we’re collecting.
• Staff is meeting with the Recreation & Parks Committee on Monday 3/8 to discuss the Open Space
Types as part of the PUDs.
• As you’ve no doubt seen, the voters approved the Garden Street TIF project, which will enable us to
complete the connection from Market Street to Midas Drive and streetscape at the far western end
of the street
• This past week, staff issued the zoning permit for a 43-unit residential building at 324 Garden Street.
This building will be located immediately north of the recently-built Champlain Housing Trust
building in City Center.
4. Commission reflections on Open Meeting Law guidance; Q&A with City Attorney Andrew Bolduc (7:15
pm)
As mentioned last month, City Attorney Andrew Bolduc has been invited for a Q&A with Commissioners
about the Open Meeting Law and how it relates to the Commission’s work. Here is a link to the training
video we put together a handful of years ago that Council Chair Helen Riehle asked all
committee/commission/board members to refresh on this winter:
http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/government/city_committees_boards/resou
rces_for_committee_members.php
If you have questions or discussion items to share in advance of the meeting, please send them along to
Paul; feel free also to bring your questions directly to the meeting.
2
5. *Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session (7:35 pm)
a. Review overall project schedule and discuss possibility of advancing Environmental Protection
Standards [Articles 10 and 12, and related amendments] in advance of others (7:35 pm)
Following up from the update to the City Council late last month, Jessica would like to discuss overall
project schedule and timing of various project pieces. Staff has been asked to assess the implications
and feasibility of separating portions of the Commission’s work, and will bring this to the meeting on
Tuesday.
b. Continue discussion of options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently applicable
into PUDs; consider possible expansion / replacement of current affordable housing density bonus
structure (7:55 pm)
Per the Commission’s request, please find the enclosed staff memo on this subject.
c. Consider proposal from Commissioner Ostby consider a basic vs expanded Conservation PUD (8:25
pm)
From Commissioner Ostby: “My suggestion is to use IZ to create the "basic" Conservation PUD which
is applicable to parcels with 65-70% of acreage within Hazards and Level1s, including Habitat Blocks
and Habitat Connectors.
This model would result in permanent conservation of only lands that the PC has decided are the
resources most in need to protection - the Hazards and Level1s.
It would prevent PUD zoning from permanently conserving other resources outside of these highest
ranked, until at a later date the PC has time to consider the impact of permanent conservation of
what is otherwise buildable land. Permanent is permanent. It cannot be reconsidered later.
I can say that there will be voices concerned about any form of permanency within this PUD. That
even a 100 year "lease" or protection is too long.
Putting hours of staff, consultant, and PC time into creating a looser PUD, while we know in advance
there will be disagreement over the concept of Conservation at all is likely to push our ability to
responsibly complete a Conservation PUD. There are many consequences to consider and it is my
opinion that we can't meet IZ target end dates and do it justice.
Note that the TND calculator shows that even in cases of lots with nearly 50% Hazard and Level1,
such as the Hill Farm, higher density than current regs can be achieved. So how would a
Conservation PUD help such lots anyway?
And currently, without it a land owner can conserve their land via a land trust or similar options if
they wish.
Instead, post IZ, an "expanded" Conservation PUD could consider
- applicability to lots of lesser Hazard/Level1 coverage
- conservation of natural resources beyond Hazard/Level1
3
- the impact of permanency of this expansion
- and the impact of housing goals given the loss of buildable land. (This is when such an idea as
minimum density buyouts could occur.)
Clearly a Conservation PUD is needed for the most extreme cases when PUDs are launched.”
d. Overview of “related amendments” to PUD/Subdivision/Environmental Protection standards
updates; Commission prioritization [time permitting] (8:45 pm)
Staff will provide an overview of the “related amendments” listed in Staff’s memo from January 26th.
Staff would like to discuss which areas to focus on first within this list.
6. Provide direction on selection of name for new street adjacent to Library/City Hall (8:55 pm)
As you know, a new public street has been constructed that connects Market Street to Marcotte Central
School. Staff would like to take the opportunity to provide the Commission with some candidate names
for this new street. We thought that the most efficient way to go forward with this would be to have the
Commission provide us with a “category” that we could then bring back options for, and would love to
get this initial guidance at this week’s meeting. Example categories:
• A name that complements to Market Street & Garden Street
• A person significant to South Burlington
• An aspirational quality of City Center or South Burlington
• Others…
7. *Minutes: February 23, 2021 (9:00 pm)
8. Other Business (9:01 pm)
Anticipated agenda for March 16th
9. Adjourn (9:03 pm)
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: Update of Inclusionary Zoning Standards - Review
DATE: March 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
At your February 23rd, meeting staff was requested to provide a review of options, alternatives, and
implications of the work to update the Inclusionary Zoning work to complement your work on Planned Unit
Developments. Specifically,
A. In areas where Inclusionary Zoning is already applicable, what are options for integrating them into
PUDs and what would need to be done for non-PUD projects
B. What are the pros/cons of expanding Inclusionary Zoning citywide once #1 is addressed.
A. Replacement/integration where Inclusionary Zoning is already in place.
For future development projects that would not be a under the future Planned Unit Development standards
(such as a site plan for a multi-unit building), the existing language would be retained essentially as is.
For Traditional Neighborhood (TND) and Neighborhood Commercial (NCD) Planned Unit Developments, the
current system of offering additional dwelling units as offsets and bonuses will need to be replaced.
The relevant State Statute reads as follows:
24 VSA 4414(7): Inclusionary Zoning
…
These provisions, at a minimum, shall comply with all the following:
…
Include development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of providing affordable
housing units, such as density bonuses, reductions or waivers of minimum lot, dimensional or parking
requirements, reductions or waivers of applicable fees, or reductions or waivers of required public or
nonpublic improvements.
As a general approach, and based on Commission discussions around the form and function of TND and
NCDs, staff is recommending that any Inclusionary Zoning “incentives” be designed directly into the
standards for these PUDs rather than as “add-ons” that would alter their planned character as has been
developed by the Commission.
With that approach in mind, and with the continued objective of implementing a system that is attainable
for the private sector, staff recommends the following general “package” of incentives and offsets be
considered:
2
1. Identify and retain recent regulatory amendments that support the feasibility of affordable housing:
• Elimination / Reduction of parking requirements. In 2019, minimum parking requirements for single
and two-family homes were eliminated, and minimums for multi-family housing outside City Center
were reduced by approximately half1. [no requirement for single & two family homes, .88 per unit
for studio/1 br, 1.9 per unit for 2+ bedrooms]
• Existing Developer Options. The current Inclusionary Zoning standards offer a developer to credit
each 3-bedroom Inclusionary Unit to count as two of the required units, and for each 4-bedroom
Inclusionary Units to count as three of the required units. In addition, there are options to donate
land in lieu of constructing inclusionary units.
• Existing design flexibility. Inclusionary Units can be in any building type, so long as they have the
same average number of bedrooms as market rate units and are distributed throughout the plan
2. Enumerate specific elements of the proposed PUDs that support the economic feasibility of providing
affordable housing:
• Within TNDs/NCDs:
o These PUD types establish no maximum density, removing the existing caps
o Building types include significant reductions in allowable lot sizes rom current base standards
o These PUD types establish a minimum density, providing the developer with a known minimum
• Within Conservation PUD:
o PUD type as drafted allows density transfer from Level 1 resource areas [outside hazard areas]
3. Implement a menu of incentives targeted directly at affordable housing. These could include some or all
of the following:
• Reduce or eliminate of zoning permit fees for affordable units
• Further reduce of minimum parking for 2+ bedroom units
• Within the SEQ’s receiving areas, continue to require no TDRs for affordable units2
• Within a TND: Raise the minimum density from 4 du/acre to 5 or 6 du/acre
• Within a Conservation PUDs, allow for a density bonus similar to the current allowances
B. Implications to expanding Inclusionary Zoning standards to apply city-wide and eliminate the “affordable
housing density bonus” that currently applies outside the transit overlay district
• Benefits:
o Developers and staff would be operating under a single set of rules
o Would promote a range of household incomes in all neighborhoods
o Would support Comprehensive Plan affordability goals
• Considerations:
o If not sufficiently incentivized, an inclusionary zoning program can have the unintended effect of
placing a damper on housing of all kinds, including affordable
o Reducing parking for 2+ BR units could create a demand for overnight use of on-street parking,
which is prohibited in the winter.
o Reduction or elimination of zoning permit fees is a reduction in General Fund revenue to the
City [assuming the homes would still have been built]
o Allowing for affordable units to not require TDRs does not provide a market for their sale
1 The City Center Form Based Code includes a maximum and no minimum on parking for residential uses in the T4 and T5 districts.
2 The current regulations require no TDRs for “bonus” affordable units in the SEQ’s receiving areas. The Regulations do not explicitly
state, however, whether TDRs are requires for permanently affordable units that are provided by a developer when they are not seeking
a density bonus.
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: Summary of Proposed Amendments, Winter/Spring 2021
DATE: January 26, 2021 Planning Commission meeting -- Updated March 4th [in red]
Below please find a summary of each of the proposed topics contained within the draft Spring
2021 amendments to the LDRs, the status of each, and an index. A full version of these draft
regulations is available on the City’s website. [note, this version is unchanged from 1/26/21]
1. Subdivisions/Master Plans/PUDs
LDR-20-02 Replace Subdivision Standards
Summary: Update and re-write of Subdivision Standards & Procedures. Proposed subdivisions
identify buildable areas and areas unsuitable for development. Regulated natural resources are
identified with larger resources on their own lots. Sets forth design process: streets, blocks, lots.
Standards similar to current SEQ standards for connectivity, block scale, lots, as well as designs to
support renewable energy. A portion of buildable area must be planned civic space. Streets
designed for intended function based on street types. Establishes procedures for modifications.
Status: Planned Commission has reviewed complete draft. Staff working on updates to reflect
Commission feedback.
Affected Sections: Primary: New Section 15A, replaces former Article 15.
Other affected sections: Article 9 (SEQ street standards, block layout, civic space), Article 15
(current subdivision), Section 2.02 (definitions), 3.05B (lots on a private road), 17.08 (hearing
procedures), Article 11 (street types), Appendix E (submission)
LDR-20-03 Master Plan Standards
Summary: Proposed replacement of existing Master Plan standards. Intended to closely
complement the draft Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards and provide a clear,
broad-brush picture of the proposed development. The draft standards require a context
assessment, demonstration of connectivity of resources and infrastructure, buildout budgets, and
the standards to be applied to assure consistency in design. The DRB is authorized to approve a
schema or design palate for a project, both of which could vest those elements of the Plan under the
Regulations in effect at the time of the Master Plan for a certain number of years, and/or to
determine that elements of the project have been shown but are not sufficiently provided so as to
2
vest that element of the project under the current Regulations. The Master Plan is structure to
incentivize an applicant to provide detail early. The applicant and City would then be bound by those
elements of the project.
Status: Draft presented to Planning Commission November 2020. Staff is preparing the adjustments
requested by the Commission.
Affected Sections: New Article 15B, replaces Article 15 (current master plan). Additional affected
sections: 2.02 (definitions), 17.08 (hearing procedures), Appendix E (submission)
LDR-20-04 Planned Unit Developments
Summary: Proposed replacement of PUD standards; establishment 3-4 PUD “types” for different
settings, integration existing SEQ standards into city-wide PUD standards. The proposed bylaw
would set a threshold (4 acres) above which a PUD would be required for subdivisions or multiple
principal buildings. Building from the subdivision and master plan standards, PUDs establish
modified standards for lots, building types, and other lot arrangements, providing flexibility within a
range. Further modifications as “alternative compliance” for certain standards are authorized where
the applicant demonstrates an equal or better outcomes based on the specific purposes of the PUD.
Initial PUD types include Traditional Neighborhood (TND), Neighborhood Commercial (NCD),
Conservation, and Infill. Each includes an allocation of land uses (residential, non-residential, civic,
resource, reserved). Permitted uses within the PUD type include those from the underlying zoning
district plus a limited set of additional non-residential uses authorized within the PUD. Within the
TND and NCD types, maximum density is determined by the allowed Building Types within the PUD
and the specific dimensional standards that accompany each type. Minimum density within the TND
and NCD is based on the underlying zoning district or a minimum threshold applicable to the PUD
type. Within a Conservation PUD, density is measured based on the underlying zoning district and
building types do not apply. Street types and civic space types are identified by PUD Type.
Status: Commissioners have reviewed the PUD General standards and TND PUD standards. Staff is
preparing updated based on guidance. Commission to review upon update [see also building types,
below] NCD, Conservation, and Infill PUD types are under development; anticipated late
March/early April.
Affected Sections: New Article 15C, replaces Article 15 (current PUD) and significant portions of
Article 9 (current SEQ). Other affected sections: 2.02 (definitions), 3.06 (lots), 3.07 (heights of
buildings), Article 11 (street types, building types, civic space types), Section 13.28 (Neighborhood
Commercial Use), Section 17.08 (hearing procedures), Appendix E (submission requirements),
Appendix C (table of uses). Articles 5-7 (establishment of zoning districts);
2. Environmental Protection Standard Update
LDR-20-01 Update Environmental Protection Standards
Summary: Generally revises Environmental Protection Standards and criteria for impacts, including
specific standards for infrastructure. Key provisions:
3
• Streams: Stream buffers measured from top of bank/slope. Commission is considering possible
expansion of buffers for major and minor streams
• Wetlands: Commission is considering possible expansion of buffers for major and minor
streams, and distinguishing relative priority / role of Class III wetlands and buffers.
• Floodplains. Commission proposal to establish regulations for the 500-year floodplain, divided
into “undeveloped” and “developed” areas of the City. New structures would generally
prohibited in the undeveloped areas. New structures and substantial improvements to existing
structures in developed areas must meet floodproofing standards. General clean-up of existing
100-year floodplain standards to match State of Vermont recommendations
• River corridors. Adopted standards in 2019. Minor amendments for consistency of language.
• Steep Slopes. New development on slopes over 25% is generally prohibited. New development
on 15-25% slopes must demonstrate stability and erosion control measures
• Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species. Mapped RTEs must be verified and if found,
protected.
• Habitat Blocks and connectors. Development is generally prohibited in mapped habitat blocks,
with authority to seek re-alignments under specific circumstances. Habitat connectors must b e
maintained and may be adjusted from mapped areas.
• Infrastructure encroachment. New section providing standards for determining overall
appropriateness of the encroachment of infrastructure (roads, utilities, stormwater) into areas
regulated by this Article.
Status: Commission completed review of draft Articles 10 & 12; staff preparing draft for public
comment and input.
Affected Sections: Primary sections: 10.01, 10.06, Article 12. Other sections: 2.02, Appendix E
(submissions), maps
3. Related to PUD/ Subdivision/ Master Plan
LDR-20-11 Site Plan Review Standards; modifications
Summary: Updates general site plan standards to ensure that cross-references to related standards
are included. Revises waiver standards to allow site plan review to stand "on its own" [currently
many properties use PUD as a tool to seek waivers from standards]. Sets guidelines for modifications
to zoning district standards to the DRB; establishes standards for when adjacent streetscape
improvements are needed. Also allows for very minor site changes to be approved via zoning permit
only if standards are met.
Status: First version of updated draft ready for PC review January 26, 2021.
Affected Sections: Article 14 (site plan & conditional use review), Section 5.08 & 6.05 (supplemental
standards for commercial & industrial districts), 17.08 (public hearing procedures)
LDR-20-05 Building Types (PUDs)
Summary. Establishes specific building types for applicability in certain Planned Unit Development
types. Each building type (eg, single family, small multi-family, etc.) includes building characteristics
and a permitted range of lot and building dimensional standards. Where applied, these standards
replace underlying zoning district requirements.
4
Status: First draft had been reviewed by Planning Commission and Affordable Housing Committee
late 2019/early 2021. Staff has begun updated review with Affordable Housing Committee, Planning
Commission, and consultants based on TND & NCD PUD-type work.
Applicable Sections: New Article 11A. Applies to Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and
Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) Planned Unit Development Types.
LDR-20-06 Civic Space Types
Summary. Modifies/Expands Civic Space Types. Civic Space types are applied to meet minimum
space allocations in the City Center FBC, PUDs, and Subdivisions, and as an offset for lot coverage
bonus allowance in the Urban Design Overlay District.
Status: Initial drafts reviewed by Recreation & Parks / Natural Resources Conservation Committee
late 2019. Staff met with Rec & Parks Committee February 2021 to go over PUD work in general;
meeting again in March 2021 to review specific Civic Space Types.
Applicable Sections. Move to new Article 11B, replaces Appendix F. Applies to FBC, Urban Design
Overlay, Subdivision, PUDs.
LDR-20-07 Street Types
Summary. Replaces street three sets of standards from City Center FBC, Southeast Quadrant, and
General with a single set of standards for the cross-sections of allowable street types across the City.
Status: Previously reviewed by Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee.
Applicable Sections: New Article 11C, replaces sections in Article 9, Article 11, Article 15. Cross
references in Articles 15A (subdivision), 15B (Master Plan), 15C (PUD), and Article 8 (City Center
FBC).
LDR-20-10 SEQ-NRP building & envelope standards
Summary: Establishes a maximum building envelope for any allowed development in the SEQ-NRP
district; allows homes to be in buildings containing up to three dwellings (current requirement is for
single family homes only), but does not change allowable total dwelling units.
Status: Commission reviewed October 2020.
Affected Sections: Section 9.12 (NRP).
LDR-20-08 Modify Required setback on Arterials & Collectors
Summary: Separates required setbacks from the subject of Planned Rights-of-Way (previously
required together). Eliminates larger setbacks (50') from most streets and relies on underlying
zoning. Removes conflict with SEQ standards.
Status: First Draft ready for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021.
Affected Sections: 3.06 (setbacks and rights of way), Article 9 (SEQ)
5
LDR-20-09 Modify Planned City Rights-of-Way
Summary: Provides greater clarification for how a planned ROW is to be measured, and notes that
"existing" ROW is a typical and not necessarily the actual existing along all roadways. Eliminates
planned ROW from road segments not anticipated for future widening.
Status: First Draft ready for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021.
Affected Sections: Section 3.06 (setbacks and rights of way)
LDR-20-17 Update SEQ Residential Design Standards, apply citywide outside PUDs
Summary: This amendment expands the applicability of basic residential face standards to new
single and two-family homes in the city which are not subject to Building Type standards under the
TND or NCD PUD Type. This would include homes on existing lots, homes built on subdivided lots
without a PUD, and homes build through Conservation Planned Unit Developments. The current
standards apply to all development involving a subdivision or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant. The
standards themselves would:
• Continue to require that buildings are designed with a focus on sun-facing windows, but replace
the minimum percentage of all windows facing south with a design standard of orientation of
living space;
• Continue to require front-facing garages to be set back from the principal façade of the building
• Establish a maximum of 40% of the front of the building to be garage doors. This replaces a
minimum “non-garage” façade requirement for two-family homes.
• Continue to require a variety of styles of homes in subdivisions.
Status: First Draft ready for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021.
Note 1/26: As not all future development in the SEQ would require a PUD review (ie, small
subdivisions <4 acres], standards would need to apply at least to all subdivisions in the SEQ in order
to retain a similar standard. Expansion to citywide applicability is recommended but not directly
connected to the PUD updates.
Affected Sections: Replace Sections 9.06, 9.07, 9.08 with New Section 3.16
4. Zoning District Amendments [related and unrelated to PUDs]:
Below are a series of proposed amendments to zoning districts. In some cases they are directly related
to and necessitated by the PUDs (ie, where the zoning district itself references density bonuses for
PUDs) while others are not specifically required by the PUD project but have been discussed by the
Planning Commission. Each is noted below.
LDR-20-15 Revision to Residential 2 (R2) Zoning District
Summary: Removes density increase granted through a PUD to the R2 district. Density is established
instead by PUD type. No district boundary changes.
Status: Planning Commission reviewed generally September 2020 and previously. Specific language
available for PC review 1/26.
Note 1/26: These changes are a direct component of the update PUDs.
6
Affected sections: 4.02 (R2 District)
LDR-20-16 Revisions to Residential 1 (R1) Zoning Districts, including R1, R1-LV, R1-PRD
Summary: Consolidates subdistricts of R1 (R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, and R1-Lakeshore), removes
density increased granted through PUD, and instead applies, where allowed, through PUDs.
R1-PRD and R1-Lakeshore become R1-PUD.
R1-Lakeview is consolidated into Lakeshore neighborhood.
Status: Planning Commission reviewed generally September 2020 and previously. Specific language
available for PC review 1/26.
Note 1/26: Changes addressing density increases in R1-PRD and R1-Lakeview are a necessary
component of the updated PUDs. Zoning district consolidation is not required at this time, but
Commission may elect to proceed.
Affected Sections: Section 4.01 (Residential 1 zoning districts)
LDR-20-13 Updates to C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-Air, C1-Auto Zoning Districts
Summary: Eliminates C1-R12 zoning district and C1-Air zoning district. C1-R12 west of I-89 becomes
C1-R15, C1-R12 near Kennedy Drive and C1-Air become Transition Commercial. Purpose statement
for C1-R15 revised. C1-Auto purpose statement revised; possible realignment and clarifications re
display vehicles
Status: Planning Commission reviewed generally September 2020 and previously. Specific language
available for PC review 1/26.
Note 1/26: These changes are not required in order to complete the PUD project but do aid with
consistency.
Affected Sections: 3.01 (zoning districts), Article 5 (commercial and mixed use districts)
LDR-20-14 Transition Mixed Use and Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts
Summary: Establishes two new zoning districts to replace Allen Road, Swift Street, R7-NC and C1-LR
districts, and apply per zoning map.
LDR-20-14A: Converts portions of R7, C1-LR to Neighborhood Mixed Use
LDR-20-14B: Converts C1-LR, R7-NR, Allen Road, Swift Street, portion of I/O to Transitional Mixed
Use
Note: changes zoning on 3 parcels from Industrial-Open Space to Neighborhood Mixed Use. This
change would enable larger parcels to quality for an allowed Planned Unit Development type of
mixed use and align the zoning for this area with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map.
Note 1/26: With exception of I/O district amendment, these changes are not required in order to
complete the PUD project but do aid with consistency.
7
Status: Commission reviewed conceptually and with maps. Draft language available for review 1/26.
Affected Sections: 3.01 (zoning districts), Article 5 (commercial and mixed use districts), Appendix C
(table of uses and dimensions)
LDR-20-26 Update Table of Uses and Table of Dimensions
Summary: This amendment updates the Table of Uses to be consistent with the updated PUDs and
zoning district amendments. Specifically:
• Individual uses previously listed as “PUD” are changed to be permitted (or conditional).
Previously, properties proposing these uses (such as multi-family residential in certain districts)
were ONLY allowed as part of a PUD review. PUD review is no longer tied to individual uses.
Instead, if the use is allowed, it can be reviewed as a permitted use under site plan review.
• PUD Types, and any uses specifically enabled by the PUD itself. A PUD type also may include any
use that is permitted within the underlying district. However as certain PUD types are intended
to become small nodes of activity in our community, PUDs are proposed to bring with them a
handful of supplemental allowed uses. This allowance replaces the “limited neighborhood
commercial” provision added a few years ago that was crafted as a bridge to the future PUDs.
• Updated table of uses and table of dimensions to reflect consolidated districts as described
above
Status: Initial draft available for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021
Affected Sections: Appendix C
LDR-20-27 Eliminate SEQ-NRN Subdistrict
Summary: Possible elimination of SEQ-NRN subdistrict, and conversion of the parcel to SEQ-NR. This
subdistrict was established in 2016 as part of the master plan settlement agreement with JAM Golf,
to enable up to 32 dwelling units on exchanged land that had previously been city-owned. The
property owners have submitted a complete application for development and as such are subject to
the current regulations. This district applies only to this parcel and so the district itself may no
longer be needed.
Status: Available for Commission Review January 26, 2021
Note 1/26: This amendment is not required in order to complete the PUD project, but does save
space and remove complexities of district-specific standards that are otherwise proposed to be
removed for other SEQ subdistricts as they become integrated with citywide PUD standards.
Applicable Sections: Section 9.08 (SEQ NR, NRT, NRN).
A NOTE REGARDING ARTICLE 9 / SEQ
A result of the proposed amendments above is that Article 9, currently dedicated to the SEQ and
including the standards for Transferable Development Rights, is mostly removed. Open Space standards
have been integrated into Article 12 (Environmental Protection Standards). Lot, block, and civic space
standards have been integrated into Article 15A (subdivision) and Article 15C (planned unit
developments). Street and sidewalk standards have been integrated into Article 15A and citywide Street
types. Building design standards have been integrated into Article 15C (planned unit development) and
8
Article 11A (Building Types) for PUDs, and are proposed, as noted above, to be applied citywide under
Section 3.16 for all development that is not using Building Types.
Following all of these amendment, there are only a handful of remaining elements in Article 9 proper.
Staff is recommending, for ease of use, that the remaining pieces be assigned as such:
Create new Section 4.08 [within residential zoning districts] to contain the Establishment of SEQ zoning
district & subdistricts and the SEQ-NRP standards
Dedicate Article 9 entirely to Transfer of Development Rights (thus untying it from being “rooted” in the
SEQ and being more clear as to the fact that it can apply citywide).
5. Minor Amendments – LDR-20-21 and LDR-19-07
Summaries:
• LDR-20-21A Retaining walls, 13.25. Allows approval of a retaining wall within 5’ of a property line
subject to DRB review as a conditional use.
• LDR-20-21B Bus Shelters, 13.09. Removes requirement for review through LDRs if located within a
public ROW [note: all other projects within the City’s right-of-way are not reviewed under the LDRs
unless they are part of a development application; bus shelters are an anomaly. Structures in the
ROW are the responsibility of DPW.
• LDR-20-21C RV Parking, Section 3.09. Amendment would allow RVs to be placed (parked) in the
same locations as an accessory structure on that same property, plus of course the driveway.
Currently RV parking areas are more restrictive and limited only to being behind all facades of the
house (ie, there is no guidance/allowance for unusual circumstances such as through-lots or corner
lots).
• LDR-20-21D Traffic visibility 3.06(E): Change from 30’ to 25’ to be consistent throughout Regulations
• LDR-20-21E Airport Approach Cones & FAA review (3.07, 6.02, 6.03, 13.03): Updates language
pertaining demonstration of submittal of project to the Federal Aviation Authority. New language
was prepared in consultation with the FAA.
• LDR-20-21F Earth Products (13.17): Clarify that maintenance of approved stormwater facilities does
not require permits; tidies language concerning exempted activities.
• LDR-20-21G Utility Cabinets and Similar (Section 13.18): simplifies language, updates landscaping
requirements
• LDR-19-07 Solar Canopies in Parking Areas (Section 13.06). Commission had previously reviewed and
provided direction to be more clear about applicable areas (Summer 2019). Updated text included.
Status: The amendments above are available for review January 26, 2021
Affected Sections: See references above.
6. Technical Amendments – LDR-20-18
• LDR-20-18A Re-Organization of Sections (Throughout). Relocates several sections and chapters for
better flow for users and to place “like” standards in proximate parts of the LDRs. Note: This is not
yet reflected in the 1/26/21 draft.
• LDR-20-18B Establishment of Zoning Districts (3.01): Revise district section and map references
• LDR-20-18C Structures requiring setbacks (3.06(F)): Remove redundant text.
• LDR-20-18D Setbacks for pre-existing lots (Section 3.06(J)): Clarify administrative / DRB review.
• LDR-20-18E Setbacks and Buffer Strips Adjacent to Residential Districts (3.06(I)): clarifies language,
makes exception for PUDs and Master Plan as those are reviewed separately.
9
• LDR-20-18F Height of Structures (3.07): clarifies process and links requests for waiver of maximum
heights to Site Plan waiver standards.
• LDR-20-18G Height of Accessory Structure (3.07): clarifies applicability of standards for accessory
structures exceeding the height of a principal building.
• LDR-20-18H Additional Height Standards (3.07): updates cross-references to other sections of the
LDRs addressing Height of structures and buildings.
• LDR-20-18I Comprehensive Plan implementation references (throughout): removes redundant
references to “implanting the Comprehensive Plan” from each individual zoning district (the
statement is included in Section 1.01 of the LDRs); streamline wording for uses;
• LDR-20-18J Drive-throughs (Section 5.01, 5.02, 13.11, Table C-1): consolidate standards and improve
clarity as to when drive-throughs are permitted / prohibited
• LDR-20-18K Fence requirements (Article 9, Section 13.17): Relocate standards for fences in the SEQ
into Section 13.17, fences
• LDR-20-18L Typos, numbering, & spelling (throughout) Corrects misspelled words, incorrect cross-
references, subsection misnumbering.
Status: The amendments above are available for review January 26, 2021
Affected Sections: See references above.
7. OTHER AMENDMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT, NOT IN PRESENT DRAFT
LDR-20-28 Update Inclusionary Zoning for compatibility with revised PUDs; possible expansion
Citywide to replace affordable housing density bonus
Summary: The revised PUD Types will necessitate revisions to the existing Inclusionary Zoning
standards. In addition, there is a proposal from Affordable Housing Committee to expand
applicability of Inclusionary Zoning requirement to all residential/mixed use areas, for site plans,
subdivision, and Planned Unit Developments. Expansion would replace the affordable housing
bonus provisions that apply in these areas presently.
Status: Affordable Housing Committee has recommended. Article 18 Amendments are ready for
review; Standards under development within PUDs. Commission discussed 2/23 and requested staff
prepare an analysis. Commission to discuss 3/9.
Applicable Sections: Sections 18.01 (Inclusionary Zoning), 18.02 (Affordable Housing bonus). Related
amendments in Article 15C (PUDs) - Not yet included in draft amendments.
LDR-20-12 Expand Use of TDRs
Summary: Would expand applicability of TDRs to including sending and receiving areas throughout
the city
Status: Initial expansion adopted December 2020. Additional expansions to be developed by the
Planning Commission based on February 2020 Commission guidance and TDR Interim Zoning
Committee Report. Not yet included in draft amendments.
Applicable Sections: Updated Article 9.
10
LDR-20-22 Accessory Dwelling Units; Pre-Existing Small Lots; Conditional Use Review Criteria for
3-4 unit buildings
Summary: Amendments designed to implement Act 179, enacted in fall 2020. Accessory Dwelling
Units minimum allowances have increased, to greater of 900 s.f. or 30% of size of principal building.
Lot must be owner-occupied. ADU must be regulated in same manner as a single family home on the
same parcel (city may be less restrictive as well). Amendments to this section were reviewed by the
Affordable Housing Committee and required updates to LDRs regarding accessory structures in
general as well. Other legislative changes modify allowances for buildings on pre-existing small lots
and limit conditional use review authority for 3- and 4-plexes. The new statutory language is
updated in the draft LDRs.
Status: Affordable Housing Committee to review draft language winter/spring 2021 for possible
inclusion thereafter. Not included in draft
Applicable Sections: 3.05 (lots), 3.10 (accessory structures), 14.10 (conditional uses)
LDR-20-25 Accessory Structures
Summary: Modifies allowance for the number of accessory structures on a lot and references total
footprint of accessory structures as part of total lot building coverage instead currently limitation of
of 50% of ground floor area of principal building; removes special reference to garage connection.
Coordinates with accessory dwelling unit amendments (LDR-20-22)
Status: Under development, to be proposed alongside LDR-20-22. Not included in draft
Affected Sections: Section 3.10 (Accessory Structures)
LDR-20-** Temporary Uses & Structures:
Summary: Clarifies allowance for structures associated with temporary, exempt activities and
codifies allowance for temporary a winter temporary carport. Would also create more allowances
for multi-month tents, etc. to allow for flexibility in businesses.
Status: Under development.
Affected Sections: Section 3.08
LDR-21-** Rooftop Solar Requirements for buildings subject to CBES
Summary: Would require solar-ready roofs, and possibly solar installation, on new or substantially
altered non-residential building and residential buildings of four or more stories.
Status: Planning Commission requested staff research questions and provide draft of solar-ready
roof requirement.
Section: Section 3.15(D)
LDR-21-** Construction Noise from blasting / drilling
Summary: would set standards for review of construction noise associated with blasting or drilling of
ledge or similar activities
11
Status: Staff has discussed conceptually with City Council based on their guidance. Presently
researching options.
Section: Possible New Section 16.04
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
23 FEBRUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 February
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; M. Kane, A. Jensen-Vargas, C.
Trombly, S. Dopp, V. Bolduc, J. Bellavance, A. Chalnick, S. Dooley
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 said she attended the City Council, and they were happy for an update. They were
also curious about the Commission’s schedule and are interested in a May completion. They
want another update in April. There was a brief discussion about Articles 10 and 12, and the
Ms. Louisos offered an update to a Council question from December of whether those could be
separated for approval. Ms. Louisos said she told them the Commission was doing it all as a
package at this stage, and would continue to evaluate.
Mr. Macdonald said he attended the second meeting of the Swift/Spear Street committee. A
consultant presented an information sheet that will go to the public with a survey included.
The Committee hopes to present to the Planning Commission at a later March meeting.
Mr. Conner noted he had met with the Parks and Recreation Committee and will go back to
them next month with some specifics. Mr. Conner also noted that last Friday he participated in
a meeting for the regional bike share program. The positive news is that it may be possible to
replace bikes with electric bikes.
Mr. Conner reminded members of the pre-Town Meeting joint meeting of the City Council and
School Board at 7 p.m. on 1 March. There will also be a debate between candidates for Council
and School Board positions.
2
4. Review of possibly updated meeting participation guidelines:
Ms. Louisos noted that it had been brought to her attention that the meeting participation
guidelines were very specific to “in-person” meetings. She sent a draft of guidelines for
Commission members participation and guidelines for public participation. She felt these
should be adopted. The guidelines include the following:
a. Generally stay muted to avoid background noise
b. Raise a hand to speak
c. Try to give every member an equal chance to speak (currently there is not a
balance in how much each person is speaking) and possibly keep a record of
speaking times
d. Avoid repeating the same point
e. Try to keep comments to the policy level rather than phrasing or words;
leave language to staff and the legal team
Ms. Louisos said that Mr. Gagnon will help with check-ins regarding timing.
There were “time permitting” items on the last agenda. Mr. Gagnon will also try to evaluate by
8:30 p.m. whether there are items that won’t be addressed (for the benefit of people who may
be attending to hear those items).
Mr. Mittag suggested members end suggested edits to Ms. Louisos and not use meeting times
for that.
Ms. Louisos explained how members of the public can get attention and suggested they use the
“chat” for comments specifically related to the agenda item under discussion.
5. Visualization and calculation of development in Traditional Neighborhood Planned
Unit Development:
a. Discuss/review of principal “levers” that shape the form of Traditional
Neighborhood Developments, options for Commissioners:
Mr. Conner introduced Make Kane of SE Group who has been helping with the visual
presentation. He said that this discussion will focus on the form of a Traditional Neighborhood,
including how to deal with density.
Mr. Kane noted that they have been testing the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
regulations against sites in South Burlington to see what the ordinance would do to create a
TND form. He then reviewed what they have found with specific neighborhoods as follows:
3
1. Simpson Court/Sunset Avenue:
Zoning: R-4
Developed at: 3.9/acre
Type(s) of housing: All single family homes
Mr. Kane said this is a traditional subdivision neighborhood with no diversity of housing forms.
Buildings relate to the street grid. There is no civic space. There is a sidewalk but no other
form of connectivity.
2. Appletree/Hadley Ave.
Zoning: R-4
Developed at: 4.3/acre
Type(s) of housing: Mostly single family, some multi-family
There are different types of single family homes and some multi-family buildings. There is no
sidewalk, but there are long alleys. Mr. Conner noted this neighborhood has diversity in lot
sizes which work well together. The duplexes and triplexes are “hidden within.”
3. Village at Dorset Park:
Zoning: SEQ-NR
Developed at: 6.5/acre
Type(s) of housing: Single family, duplexes, 4 plexes
Though there is diversity of housing types, there is no “integrated diversity”’ all single family
homes are together, etc. There is a modified grid with opportunities for future connections
(this is an element of a TND). There are some amenities. This development is moving toward a
TND.
4. South Village, Phase I:
Zoning: SEQ-NR
Developed at: 8.9/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, 2-family, 3-family, multi-family
There is no civic open space though there are open spaces. There is connection to existing
circulation systems.
4
5. O’Brien Hillside Phase I:
Zoning: R-12
Developed at: 8/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, 2-family
Mr. Kane noted there is a 3-acre park in the center of this development. It does not have a
strong grid (due to steeper terrain). There could possibly have been improved connectivity, but
development is organized around a central space. It takes advantage of existing network
systems. It does advance some TND principles though it does not have a number of diverse
housing types.
6. Rye Meadows:
Zoning: SEQ-NR
Net Density: 6.1/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, cottage, 4-plex
There is a park in the center of the development. It also has a street grid, but there could be
better connectivity to other neighborhoods. There is a diversity of unit types on a block. The
“cottage court” is integrated into the plan and has its own central green. Mr. Conner noted
that commercial buildings on Hinesburg Rd. create a noise buffer between Rt. 116 and the
residential neighborhood. Any one of those buildings could become a neighborhood shop. The
stormwater pond is a buffer to the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Kane noted the opportunity to
connect to other developments.
Mr. Conner explained the “net density” concept which will be the focus of future regulations.
This eliminates common areas, wetlands, park land, roads, stormwater pond, and commercial
development to determine the density of the actual residential areas.
7. “5 Sisters” (Howard/Catherine Streets in Burlington):
Developed at: 10.5-12/acre
Type(s) of housing: single family, 2 family, 3 family, 4 family
Mr. Conner noted that there is some on-street parking. Almost every building has the feel of a
single family house.
Mr. Kane then showed an approach from Ithaca, New York. It is developed at 8-12 units per
acre. Most buildings are multiplex but look more like single family homes. There is a sidewalk,
parking in the rear, a central green, a mini-market and gas station.
5
Mr. Kane then showed a large-scale TND from Bradburn, Colorado which has a diversity of
forms, a central green, large multiplex buildings, consistency of character, and alleys to allow
for connectivity/circulation.
Mr. Kane then explained that they did a test of a South Burlington parcel, a property off Spear
Street which is the right size for a TND. It has R-2 zoning, a wetland, a habitat block/corridor,
existing development around it, and a multi-use path. It also has a “jog” for a challenge. The
land area is 16.26 acres. After the removal of restraints, it has a buildable area of 9.16 acres of
which 17% would be civic open space and about 85% residential. Mr. Kane stressed that what
they came up with is abased on draft regulations, not the zoning/regulations that exist now,
and that this parcel was selected as a sample without discussion with the property owner.
Mr. Kane said that for purposes of the illustration, they set a target density of about 8 units per
acre, of which 4.15 could be single family homes (about 30 units), 1.32 acres could be multi-
family (about 10 units), .61 could be a “cottage court,” (about 5 units) and 1.5 acres could be
duplexes (about 12 units). Mr. Conner noted there would be at least 3 housing types, with a
minimum of 15% of each type. 50% can be of one building type. Mr. Kane added that a small
building could be put in the open space. These were selections made by SE Group to fit within
the proposed regulations, as a developer would do.
Ms. Ostby asked why not just have target density of 12/acre. Mr. Conner said the more you go
to the high end in density, you bump up against other constraints (e.g., multi-purpose buildings
can only be at the corners, and there are a limited number of corners). Mr. Gagnon added that
this allows for different building types, and a percentage of each.
Mr. Kane note that other things in the regulations will limit or encourage density (e.g., lot
shape, parking, etc.). He then showed a concept of what the “test” development could look
like, including a shared parking lot for multi-lexes. The key points of this development are a
grid to support on-street parking, parking in the rear with carports, the “cottage court”
integrated into the plan, a central civic space, a variety of housing types, an alley to reduce curb
cuts, the preserved buffer and habitat corridor, and a larger multiplex building with shared
parking.
The question arose as to how to communicate this in the regulations. Mr. Kane noted the
inclusion of block diagrams, defining the characteristics of buildings, height and mass,
placement, etc.
Ms. Ostby asked what the density could have been under the current regulations. Mr. Conner
said mathematically it would be 2 units per acre but 4 per acre with a PUD. 64 units would be
allowed but without guidance as to how those units would be arranged. Mr. Kane also noted
6
that under the current regulations there would be setback requirements, etc. He stressed that
the new plan is not very much off numerically, but the characteristics are very different.
Mr. Conner then showed a TND “Potential Development Calculator” and noted this leads to
effective density based on housing types. It provides total residential land acreage and at least
3 housing types. He also showed how housing types can be adjusted to meet the requirements.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas noted that if the community being designed is facing south, there would be
solar. She said there are companies that specialize in panels over carports and garages. Mr.
Kane said the plan he showed was north-south oriented.
Ms. Ostby said they will need to show how the building type approach is equaling out the
density concern. Mr. Conner said he is working with CCRPC to give a rough build-out
calculation which should answer that concern.
Ms. Dooley said this approach promotes developments that function as neighborhoods.
6. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session:
a. Discuss options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently
applicable into PUDs” consider possible expansion/replacement of current
affordable housing density bonus structure
b. Summary/review of provisions for waivers/alternative development standards in
the draft LDRs (time permitting)
Mr. Conner said that Inclusionary Zoning is now in effect in the Transit Overlay District. It
provides for offsets and a bonus structure. Elsewhere in the city, there is an “affordable density
bonus.” Both establish the same maximum density. In the example the Commission just saw, if
you keep the bonus, it would have to be modified to be compatible with the new calculations.
There is also the option to apply inclusionary zoning elsewhere in the city. Mr. Conner
reminded members that State law requires incentives with inclusionary zoning, and that can be
accomplished with the new PUD types. The question is what kind of incentives to offer. For
example, one large inclusionary unit (multi-bedroom) could equal 2 inclusionary units.
Mr. Riehle said his concern is there would be more incentive for a developer to building multi-
family buildings instead of single-family homes, and you won’t find single-family or cottage
homes. He wanted to see areas more attractive to young families. Mr. Conner replied that the
incentives can foster what the city wants. If you want 3-bedroom homes, you can incentivize
that.
7
Mr. Conner noted there is now an application for O’Brien Eastview. They have to meet the
inclusionary requirement. Their affordable units will be 3-bedroom units. Each of these will
count as 2 affordable units. They will build 10 larger ones to meet the requirement. This is
what also makes financial sense to them.
Other possible incentives could be allowing 55% of one building type or eliminating zoning
permit fees, or having the proposed development go first in the review process.
Members were asked to think about applying inclusionary zoning to other city locations. Mr.
Gagnon said he would want to know the advantages/disadvantages. He was leaning toward a
“yes.”
Mr. Macdonald said it seems to make sense to have the same approach citywide, if there aren’t
unintended consequences.
Mr. Engels asked about Article 18 in relation to this discussion. Mr. Conner said Article 18
includes the 2 tools for affordability: inclusionary zoning and density bonuses. That Article
would have to be refined.
Mr. Trombly said he appreciated this discussion. He felt it would be helpful if they could hear
concerns. He stressed that the housing market is not now meeting the need. He offered the
services of the Affordable Housing Committee to help provide clarity.
Ms. Dooley seconded those thoughts. She noted that due to sequencing of putting affordable
units in South Village, most will be home ownership. Developers are getting some experience
with this, and the Commission may want to talk with developers. She favored one set of rules
instead of 2.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas said she is a resident of South Village, and one great thing there is the store
that sells milk, etc. She felt it was good to have a small grocery so people don’t have to get in
their cars for every need. This could also serve as a community hub with a bulletin board.
Mr. Conner noted that one feature of a TND is to allow a small portion of the neighborhood to
have what Ms. Jensen-Vargas described, a small retail store, small market, small restaurant, etc.
Regarding the summary/review of potential waivers, etc., Mr. Conner referred to the table that
describes every place in the regulations where there are flexibility options. Mr. Gagnon
suggested members review tis and add a brief discussion at the beginning of the next meeting.
Ms. Dooley felt the word “waiver” gives the wrong impression. She acknowledged you can
never write rules to take into account every situation, but she suggested using a different term.
8
7. Minutes of 15 December 2020, 26 January and 9 February 2021:
Mr. Mittag was concerned that the minutes don’t indicate what was approved. It was noted
that when there is no formal motion to approve, there could be a “straw poll.”
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 15 December 2020, 26 January and 9 February
2021 as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Other Business:
Ms. Louisos suggested members reserve time for a meeting every week as there is a lot of
material from consultants that they have not yet gotten to. Mr. Conner noted there is likely to
be a Wednesday meeting in March regarding the Interstate study.
Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission reserve Tuesdays at 7 until mid-April, and that the first
meeting in March be on Wednesday, 3 March, due to the election of 2 March. Mr. Mittag
seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mittag suggested restricting agendas to what can
reasonably be accomplished in one meeting.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:17 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk