HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 09/14/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, September 14, 2021
City Hall, 180 Market Street, Auditorium
7:00 pm
The Planning Commission will attend this meeting in person. Members of the public may attend in
person or digitally via GoToMeeting. Participation Options:
In person: South Burlington City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street
Interactive Online (audio & video) https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-09-14
Telephone (audio only): (224) 501-3412, Access Code: 692-621-029
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm)
4. *Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:20 pm)
a. Review applicability of each PUD Type throughout the City
b. Discuss possible changes to underlying zoning district designations in locations throughout the City
c. Review LDR amendment elements to be completed in the current round and which to be in future
Round
d. Additional Amendments to the current round of amendments
5. Meeting Minutes (8:57 pm): August 18, 2021, August 24, 2021
6. Other Business: (8:58 pm)
a. Review Project Schedule
b. Proposed amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaw and Subdivision Regulations; Shelburne Planning
Commission public hearing September 23, 2021, 7 pm, Shelburne Town Offices
c. Update on Spear Street Solar, LLC
7. Adjourn (9:10 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: September 14, 2021 Planning Commission Special 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 (7:05 pm)
4. *Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:20 pm)
a. Review applicability of each PUD Type throughout the City
See enclosed memo
b. Discuss possible changes to underlying zoning district designations in locations throughout the City
See enclosed memo
c. Review LDR amendment elements to be completed in the current round and which to be in future
Round
Discussed in memo above
d. Additional Amendments to the current round of amendments
There are a handful of additional amendments for the Commission to review. We can discuss which
ones the PC wishes to advance. These include:
PUD-Related:
• Final Civic Space & Building Space Types
• Planned Street ROWs & Minimum Setbacks
• Site Plan updated Standards
• Changes to allowed uses in underlying zoning that presently are required to be PUDs
Unrelated:
• Child Care exemption from housing preservation
• Accessory Dwelling Units & Accessory Structures
• Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses in multi-facility buildings
2
5. Meeting Minutes (8:57 pm): August 18, 2021, August 24, 2021
6. Other Business: (8:58 pm)
a. Review Project Schedule
b. Proposed amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaw and Subdivision Regulations; Shelburne Planning
Commission public hearing September 23, 2021, 7 pm, Shelburne Town Offices
See enclosed package
c. Update on Spear Street Solar, LLC
Staff will provide an update at the meeting
7. Adjourn (9:10 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: PUD Applicability Updated Draft
DATE: September 14, 2021 Planning Commission Special meeting
Below are two updated tables of PUD applicability based on direction provided by the Commission. The first
shows PUD types applicable by Zoning District; the second shows acreage thresholds. Following that are key
discussion points for the Commission to consider. Text in red within the chart shows a change from the
September 2020 Draft.
Staff is working on mapping of these. In the meantime, enclosed is a zoning district map of the City.
PUD Type Applicability by Zoning Districts
PUD Type Underlying Zoning Districts
Traditional
Neighborhood
Development
(TND)
(1) R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, R1-Lakeshore, R2, R4, R7, Lakeshore, Allen Road, Swift Street, C1-
Limited Retail, R7-Neighborhood Commercial, SEQ-Village Commercial, C1-R12
(2) In association with a Conservation PUD: SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR [See notes
concerns R1-Lakeshore and R1-Lakeview]
Neighborhood
Commercial
Development
(NCD)
TBD—recommend that the NCD be saved for the next round of amendments.
[prior draft applicability was R12, All C1 Districts, C2, Allen Road, Swift Street, R7-NC]
Conservation
Development
(CON)
(1) R1-PRD, R1-Lakeshore, R1-Lakeview, R2, Lakeshore, SEQ-Neighborhood Residential, SEQ-
Neighborhood Residential-Transition, SEQ-Neighborhood Residential-North, SEQ-Village
Residential; or
(2) Any zoning district in which 50% resource threshold is exceeded (see Section 15C.07)
Infill or
Redevelopment
(IRD)
Infill TND and NCD have been moved to the TND/NCD chapters and will be applicable in the
zoning districts in which TNDs/NCDs apply.
Commission previously voted to postpone Infill/ Redevelopment Residential &
Infill/Redevelopment Mixed Use Options, eligible on 2-4 acre parcels. The draft is ready but
may need additional vetting. [Intent would be that the IRD is allowed where the applicable
PUD type is allowed)
No PUD Type All other Zoning Districts
2
Thresholds, Requirements
Size
PUD
Applicability [in
districts allowing PUDs]
PUD TYPE (as allowed or required within underlying district)
CON PUD TND PUD NCD PUD IRD PUD
0-2
acres Optional N/A N/A N/A Elective (TBD)
2-4
acres Optional Elective Elective Elective (TBD) Elective (TBD)
4+
acres Mandatory
(1) Elective where
enabled
(2) Required in
SEQ-NR, SEQ-
NRT, SEQ-NRN,
SEQ-VR
[See note
about R1-LS
and R1-LV)
Elective Elective (TBD) N/A (TBD)
For Commission discussion:
1) Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) PUD Type:
o Given that the Commission has not yet seen this type in its full text, staff recommends that the
NCD NOT be included in this first round of PUDs. Parcels in the underlying districts would simply
not be eligible to be PUDs. Master Plan standards would still apply, and the site plan standards
have been updated to provide limited dimensional flexibility that has been the source of a
number of PUDs in the past.
2) Infill / Redevelopment PUD Types:
o This PUD type was previously (last month) planned to contain four sub-types: an infill TND on
parcels under 10 acres, an infill NCD on parcels under 4 acres, a “residential infill/redevelopment”
PUD on residential parcels 2-4 acres, and a “mixed-use infill/redevelopment” PUD on commercial
properties 2-4 acres. This was somewhat difficult to follow
o Staff & Sharon are proposing to split these up. The “infill TND” will go into the TND chapter, and
the “Infill NCD” will go into the NCD chapter. The “residential infill” and “mixed use infill”, which
are intended for the smaller, really infill parcels, will stand on their own.
▪ The Commission voted this past spring not to include these very small 2-4 acre infills
unless necessary at this time. We have determined that while it’s a great tool, it’s not
critical under the Commission’s current priority focus and so if the PC is not comfortable
with its intricacies yet, its can be put into the next round of amendments.
3) Parcels including land within the SEQ-NRN, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR Districts:
3
o PUD Threshold: Confirm Conservation PUD required for any parcel with 4+ acres of land within
one of these development districts.
o Below Threshold: Confirm that for parcels that fall below the threshold of a Conservation PUD,
underlying zoning & subdivision would allow 1.2 units per acre without use of TDRs, and up to
the zoning district maximum (4 or 8 depending on the subdistrict) units per acre with use of
TDRs. All Hazards & Level 1 would be excluded from the eligible land area.
o NOTE: As drafted, a 3.9 acre parcel with no Hazards or Level Resources 1 could have up to 15 (or
30) homes on it, while a 4.0 acre parcel would be limited to 7 homes. These are extremes but
possible.
o Conservation PUDs that have 4+ acres of buildable land remaining after the 70% conservation
would be eligible for an infill TND within the buildable 30%
o Staff recommends the Commission require a “diversity of housing styles” to be in any such
subdivision above a minimum threshold of ~4 lots. (This would retain the current standard
applicable to all PUDs/subdivisions in the SEQ). Could also require a diversity of housing types.
4) Parcels within the R1-PRD, R1-LS, R1-LV, and R2 Districts.
o These are proposed to be R1s only for density purposes. Remove the current “density increase”
granted by PUD. Instead, density would be established by PUD type and eligibility (underlying
zoning for a standard Conservation PUD, building types for TND).
o R1-Lakeshore and R1-Lakeview (along Lake Champlain): does the Commission wish to allow
TNDs as stand-alone PUDs, or only allow a TND in association with a Conservation PUD (see
above under SEQ)?
5) Parcels within the C1-R12 District (Williston Road by Airport Road and behind the Double Tree):
o Staff recommends this district, along Williston Road, be eligible for a TND. Prior drafts included
only NCD as an option here.
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: Underlying Zoning Districts
DATE: September 14, 2021 Planning Commission Special meeting
The Commission last week discussed changes to the boundaries or designation of a handful of zoning districts,
with the intent of following up at this meeting. They include:
1. Parcels along the west side of Hinesburg Road presently zoned Industrial/Open Space
The Commission discussed the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s re-designation of the buildable portion of
this land to a neighborhood/mixed use district, and also whether to retain a portion for “business park”
in some manner. Staff was requested to provide a recommendation. The parcels are shown below
(white with green circles, west of Hinesburg Road shown with the Grey line).
2
Staff recommends that the parcel be re-designated as a mixed-use zoning district, and that the parcel
further be eligible to be a TND (and when the PUD type is developed, an NCD. Assuming the parcel is
designated as a TND & NCD (when prepared), density on the property will be determined by the PUD
type and so in effect the underlying zoning will only be important for determining allowed uses.
The Residential 7 – Neighborhood Commercial District allows uses such as:
• Residential
• Child Care Facilities
• Congregate Care
• Community Center
• Financial Institution
• Funeral Homes, Crematoriums
• Personal Instruction
• Place of Worship
• Office, General
• Office, Medical
• Recreation Facility, indoor
• Retail (up to a maximum size
• Restaurant, short-order
• Restaurant, standard
If this list is too extensive, the Commission could:
(a) Limit which uses are allowed in a TND, but allow all of them in an NCD when that option is available
If this list isn’t quite right, the Commission could select another district:
(b) The Swift Street is similar to the above, but also allows educational facilities, research facilities,
hotels, extended stay hotels, and indoor recreation facilities. It does not allow financial institutions
(c) The Commercial 1-Limited Retail is also similar. It does not allow community center, commercial
parking facilities, and manufacturing from previously assembled parts
Note: None of the districts discussed above include “Light Industry,” which is a broad term that applies
to places that make & assemble equipment, parts, food, etc. If the Commission wishes to include this,
staff has two options:
- A portion of the area, perhaps along Hinesburg Road near to the Interstate, could remain as
Industrial/Open Space.
- As a future project, the Commission could look to define light industry more precisely, to separate
small facilities such as a brewery from larger facilities such as a manufacturer.
3
2. Parcels along the west side of Dorset Street, south of Nowland Farm Road.
The Commission discussed whether to extend the SEQ-Natural Resources Protection district from the
habitat block / great swamp that crosses the western edge of this land east to the stream/wetland/
floodplain that runs north-south parallel to Dorset Street, and if so whether to retain portions adjacent
to existing roadways or neighborhoods in the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential District. Green on the
map below shows the NRP boundary in this area, dark blue shows Hazards, and light blue shows habitat
blocks outside the current NRP.
4
3. SEQ-NRP Boundaries throughout the SEQ. The Commission last fall had proposed expansions of the
SEQ-NRP in certain areas. The Commission elected to exclude these changes from being a part of the
Environmental Protection Standards Draft, but the Commission’s intent was to return to this subject.
Here is a map showing the draft from last fall. Light blue were proposed additions to the NRP.
§¨¦89
§¨¦1 8 9
§¨¦89
R1-PRDR1-PRD
R1-L
R1
-LVSouth Burlington, Vermont
¹
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Data Disclaimer:
Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City
of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The
City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City
from all liability related to the material and its use. The City
shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental,
consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com
with questions
Note:
Parcel line data is provided for informational purposes only.
The City reserves the right to update the Official Zoning Map
with new parcel data as it becomes available.
Transect Zone 1 Disclaimer:
The T1 Transect Zone depicts stream buffer, wetland, and
wetland buffer areas on the Official Zoning Map. Stream buffer,
wetland, and wetland buffer areas are shown for illustrative
purposes only. Depicted stream buffer, wetland, and wetland
buffer boundaries are approximate. The diagram should not be
construed as showing all stream buffers, wetland, and wetland
buffer areas, nor the precise locations of such stream buffers,
wetland, or wetland buffer areas. Stream buffer, wetland, and
wetland buffer delineation for permitting purposes must be
determined in accordance with Article 10 and 12 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations, as applicable.
Effective April 11, 2016
Zoning Map
P:\Planning&Zoning\Zoning\ZoningMap\2016\ZoningMap_Effective_2016_04_11.mxd
Zoning Districts
Residential Districts
Residential 1
Residential 1 -
Residential 2
Residential 4
Residential 7
Res 7-Neighborhood
Commercial
Residential 12
Lakeshore Neighborhood
Queen City Park
Form Based Code
Districts
Transect Zone 1
Transect Zone 3
Transect Zone 3 Plus
Transect Zone 4
Transect Zone 5
Municipal & Institutional
Municipal
Park & Recreation
Interstate Highway Overlay
Institutional & Agricultural-North
Institutional & Agricultural-South
Southeast Quadrant Subdistricts
Natural Resource Protection
Neighborhood Residential North
Neighborhood Residential
Neighborhood Residential Transition
Village Commercial
Village Residential
Commercial Districts
Commercial 1 - Residential 12
Commercial 1 - Limited Retail
Commercial 1 - Residential 15
Commercial 1 - Airport
j j jjjjjjj
Commercial 1 - Automobile
Commercial 2
Swift Street
Allen Road
Industrial and Airport Districts
Mixed Industrial & Commerical
o o o
o o oAirport
Airport Industrial
(((((
(((((
(((((
Industrial & Open Space
Districts
Districts
Districts
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
18 AUGUST 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 18 August 2021, at
7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos; T. Riehle, M. Ostby (acting Chair), M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Murray, Consultant; J. Nick, S. Dooley, C.
Trombly
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. Nick said it would help to know the Commission’s next steps
Ms. Ostby said that this meeting would focus on Conservation PUDs and how things link with
subdivisions and master planning. Mr. Conner added that at the next meeting he will have a master list
of scheduling which he can send to Mr. Nick. Mr. Macdonald asked when they are going to go back and
finish Chapters 10 and 12. Mr. Conner said the meeting after next.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos noted that she had mailed the letter to the solar consultant after the City Attorney looked it
over.
Mr. Conner: Last night, the City Council established a Climate Action Task Force. They will be looking
for a Planning Commission member to serve. The Task Force will be developing a plan and will be asking
for input from various committees. This is a very high Council priority. Mr. Mittag said he would be
interested in serving on the Task Force.
4. Continue Review of Land Development Regulations:
a. Conservation PUDs; their connection with subdivisions and master plans
Mr. Conner said the Commission has a lot of tools to work with. He suggested members make each tool
as functions as they want it to work. In September, the Commission can discuss where to apply those
tools.
Ms. Murray said the draft reflects the discussions at past meetings. She asked members to look at pages
2 and 3 and noted that the list applies where there is 50% or more resources on a property. The
requirement in a Conservation PUD is to conserve 70%. The question is what goes on the remainder of
the property.
Planning Commission
18 August 2021
2
Mr. Conner noted that the Hazards, Level 1 and Level 2 resources may be only 32% of the land. He
suggested the other 18% could be buffers. Ms. Murray said there way also be something that has local
interest.
Mr. Conner said they also have to consider continuity so you don’t have “spots of conservation.” He
also cited the importance of providing guidelines to the DRB. Mr. Riehle said the landowner may have a
different priority than what should go there, and you just may have to rely on the landowner.
Ms. Murray said there is no prioritization of the resources beyond Hazards & Level 1. It may not be
needed. If something is really important, it may be possible to kick it up to a Level 1. Mr. Conner
suggested deleting #4 and then not prioritizing the rest.
Ms. Murray noted there is also a requirement for a meeting with neighbors to see what is important to
them. Mr. Conner suggested the applicant indicate why they selected what they did. Ms. Murray said
would be a submission requirement.
Ms. Murray said the proposal is to allow transfer of development rights (TDRs). This can be done within
the parcel or to another area, but not both. Mr. Conner said you can’t do half and half or do part now
and some later. Ms. Ostby asked why not. Ms. Murray said you can split it, but you can’t “double dip.”
Mr. Trombly asked if the Conservation PUD would be required if there is 70% resources. Mr. Conner
said in a Conservation PUD, you have to conserve 70%. The Commission is reserving discussion on when
it may be required possibly to next month.
Ms. Murray said areas for encroachment (e.g., a solar display) can’t count as part of the 70%. Mr.
Conner added that there are very limited times when you can put a stormwater installation in a buffer,
but it won’t count to the 70%.
Mr. Mittag asked about a required installation that the landowner doesn’t control like a power line
going through. Mr. Conner noted a Velco swath could be farmed.
Ms. Ostby said encroachment of a certain kind can be beneficial and enhance the environment like a
solar display. She questioned whether to count them. Mr. Mittag said you can farm under a solar
display. Mr. Conner said he was leaning to keeping it very strict except for a power line that the
applicant has no control over.
Mr. Nick asked if this is an effort to force the Hill Farm into a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner said they
are not deciding tonight where Conservation PUDs should happen. Mr. Nick noted that the Regional
Plan says this is an area where development should happen. Ms. Ostby said a letter to the Commission
could be helpful. She anticipated discussion would occur at the 14 September meeting.
Ms. Murray noted that in a Conservation PUD management of the land is important as it says how the
resources will be protected. There will have to be a management plan. Mr. Mittag said he would
Planning Commission
18 August 2021
3
eliminate landscape architectures from the list as he didn’t think they have the expertise to manage
resources. Ms. Murray said some landscape architects do specialize in areas of conservation. She added
you wouldn’t want a civil engineer doing it.
Ms. Louisos asked where the Management Plan would go. Ms. Murray said it could be in the Land
records or the Homeowners Association records. Mr. Conner said it should be clarified if it is to go in the
Land Records.
A majority of member agreed to remove landscape architects from the list.
Mr. Trombly said 70% of the land could be turned over to the city or to the HOA for monitoring. What
would that cost be? Ms. Murray said the HOA could lease farmland and make money. But there could
be costs. Mr. Trombly said those costs impact affordability and narrow the range of who can afford to
live in a Conservation PUD. Mr. Mittag said it would depend on the type of resource. Mr. Conner added
with a wetland, there may just have to be assurance that there are no encroachments. But he did
acknowledge the validity of Mr. Trombly’s point. Ms. Murray said sometimes a management fund is
required. Mr. Conner said he would like to discuss this further but not now. He noted South Village has
done some interesting things. Ms. Ostby said they do have to keep costs in mind.
Ms. Ostby said that with an affordability bonus, the density in the 30% of a Conservation PUD could be
significant. She felt it would be good to have a picture of that. She didn’t think that potential for density
has been envisioned.
Mr. Conner said that in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) you wind up with about 4 units an acre net in the
developable are. With bonuses, it could be 6 per acre. But that’s after you deduct for roads. He felt
Ms. Ostby’s point was appropriate when you are dealing with Shelburne Road.
Ms. Ostby asked if it is sure the development opportunity is the same as without a PUD, the same
number of units. Mr. Conner said it is but with 2 caveats: the acreage for hazards come out. Also, in the
Conservation PUD, in the Conservation PUD it does not become a receiving area for external TRDs. Ms.
Ostby asked why not. Mr. Mittag asked why not if it is used to come up to the density. Mr. Conner
asked how high they are willing to go with TDRs. Mr. Mittag suggested possibly setting a maximum
density, as much as possible that looks OK. Ms. Ostby said if the Commission decides some places can
only be a Conservation PUD, this becomes an issue. Mr. Conner said that if the 30% which is
developable becomes a TND, you get more density but with higher standards.
Ms. Dooley asked whether Conservation PUDs are compatible with Inclusionary Zoning. Mr. Conner said
Inclusionary Zoning will apply city-wide if you build 12 or more units. How bonuses work with a TND is a
bit tricky. With a development of 22 units, 2 have to be affordable. For those units the developer gets 2
offset units for a total of 24 units. There is also a bonus if the developer chooses to have more
affordable units.
Mr. Trombly asked the thought process in applying a maximum density. Mr. Conner said the purpose of
a Conservation PUD is not to reduce what could be bult. You get that reallocated, more clustered.
Planning Commission
18 August 2021
4
Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission is open to allowing TDRs in a Conservation PUD. Ms.
Murray said if you do that, you are increasing the maximum density in the SEQ. Ms. Ostby said they
could say a TND is required if you want to bring in TDRs. Mr. Conner suggested saying only up to what
the property could generate as a whole or some percentage more. He added he was leaning toward
requiring design standards so you get more units but better quality. Ms. Murray felt that made sense.
Ms. Murray said she would welcome feedback regarding design standards. Ms. Ostby suggested
flexibility regarding entrances facing the street.
Mr. Conner said he would like to be able to break out policy level comments separately from things that
are just technical.
5. Minutes of 13 July and 27 July 2021:
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 13 and 27 July as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. The
motion passed with all present voting in favor.
6. Other Business:
Mr. Conner reminded members of meetings on 24 and 31 August and possibly 7 September.
The next meeting will focus on Infill PUDs.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:11 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
24 AUGUST 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 24,
2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting
remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; D. Leban, J. Nick, J. Larkin, S.
Dooley, other members of the public
1. Emergency Evacuation Plans:
Mr. Conner provided emergency evacuation information
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Leban noted that she had sent a copy of infill housing information from Portland, Oregon.
She said the Commission should consider what kind of housing they want and then modify the
regulations to accommodate it rather than the other way around. She felt architects should be
consulted to have designs fit a neighborhood.
Mr. Nick said he understands the effort to conserve land but asked whether the city knows
what is already conserved. He felt it would be wise to have that number. He also drew
attention to an article in Vermont Digger which quotes Mr. Conner and Charlie Baker of CCRPC
regarding gearing new development to urban areas. Mr. Nick said South Burlington is a popular
place to live and work. He felt the Hill Farm is clearly infill development and he was concerned
with what he sees as an attempt to limit development on this property. He cited the need to
develop close to Burlington rather than creating longer commutes with more greenhouse
gases. He is concerned that there is no talk of a higher use mixed PUD, which is what he
presented as a concept for the Hill Farm several years ago and what was positively received.
Mr. Conner noted the Hill Farm is zoned Industrial-Open Space which has limited residential
use. Mr. Riehle felt the Commission should talk about that. Ms. Louisos suggested Mr. Nick
send an email regarding his vision for that land. Mr. Conner said Industrial-Open Space may not
be the right zoning, and the Commission may want to establish a new zone there that allows for
Planning Commission
24 August 2021
2
more residential. Mr. Macdonald thought the Neighborhood Commercial PUD might work
there, but the Commission hasn’t gotten to that yet.
Mr. Conner said all the pieces for Neighborhood Commercial PUD exist, but they are not fully
written out yet.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby said there seems to be confusion among the City Council regarding whether the
regulations make affordable housing perpetual. She felt it should be clarified that the
regulations create perpetual affordable housing. Mr. Conner said there could be a question
when someone chose to make something affordable.
Mr. Conner noted that Colin McNeil has been appointed City Attorney to replace Andrew
Bolduc who became Deputy City Manager. Mr. McNeil has worked with the city before. He will
start the first or second week in September.
5. Continued Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Mr. Conner said this is the first review of Infill PUDs. They are really intended to operate in a
way to complement other PUDs. They allow for a traditional neighborhood with modifications
of the TND when standards would be difficult to meet. They also serve to insert something into
an already built environment. As such, there may be a major utility line or some buildings that
would have to be worked around.
Ms. Ostby asked why a standard TND wouldn’t work. Mr. Conner said the standard TND
requires full blocks and a certain amount of open space which may not be able to be
accommodated. He added that the Infill PUD would only be applied to a smaller piece of
property (e.g., 10 acres). If there is already a park across the street, that could count as the
required park.
Ms. Ostby asked what is “in it” for someone with a Conservation PUD. Mr. Conner supposed a
10-acre piece of land, 40% of which is covered with wetland and forest. In a standard
subdivision, you can only subdivide from the remaining 6 acres. In a Conservation PUD, you
protect 70% but get the density from about the whole property. Ms. Ostby asked if you can put
a TND into the developed area. Mr. Conner said you could. Ms. Ostby asked if an Infill PUD
would work there. Mr. Conner said it could be a “mini-TND.” It could be 4 acres or less, instead
of needing 10 acres. Ms. Ostby was concerned that addressing anything under 4 acres during
Interim Zoning would be a lot to go through including things the Commission hasn’t had to
address so far (e.g., road frontage). She said if you don’t have to address road frontage, it
would be OK, but that’s in the current regulations. Mr. Conner said all forms lean very heavily
Planning Commission
24 August 2021
3
on frontage on the street. Ms. Ostby said the 2-4 acre parcels on the map don’t usually have
the possibility for street frontage because of the shapes of the parcels. Mr. Conner said
buildings can fronton a street or cottages can face a “courtyard.” The regulations wouldn’t
allow a building that was just “stuck there” with no relationship to the neighborhood. Ms.
Ostby said if it’s not as complicated as she thinks it is, she’s OK with it.
Mr. Engels asked if an Infill PUD can be in an open area. Mr. Conner said that is a good
question. Mr. Conner said there could be a green site on Shelburne Rd. where everything
around it is built up, and you might want to go with a traditional PUD there.
Ms. Louisos said she likes this option for sites that aren’t big enough to support other PUDs.
She wanted to be sure development is happening efficiently. She felt concerns should be
addressed, but the idea should not be thrown out.
Mr. Riehle questioned where the green space will be in City Center when there are 1000 units
there. He wanted to see a space for kids to throw a ball around. Mr. Conner said subdivisions
and PUD types require 10% of the space to be devoted to “civic space.” Where to have a city-
wide park is another question. Mr. Conner added that the Infill PUD does give the DRB the
ability to reduce certain minimums when they are accessible within a quarter mile. In a 10-acre
PUD, you have to provide for those things. He also noted that staff always encourages people
to think creatively (e.g., working with adjacent properties to get something better for both
properties.
Ms. Louisos asked what happens if what is next door to a property is something the city doesn’t
want. Does the Infill developer have to match that? Mr. Conner said that is a good question
and is very important on the residential side.
Ms. Ostby asked what about a piece with one large house and whether that would lead to
“McMansions.”
Mr. MacDonald recalled the Highland Terrace neighborhood where neighbors were not happy
with infill development. He felt there will be some feedback. Mr. Conner said Highland Terrace
is a place where they can look at underlying zoning. What is being built is exactly what the
zoning calls for.
Mr. Conner said the issue is you want to build in the character of a neighborhood when that
character is great, not when it isn’t. He added that with what Ms. Murray has written you do
get development but you have to meet the character of the neighborhood, and you have to be
creative.
Planning Commission
24 August 2021
4
Mr. Conner noted that if the zoning doesn’t match what is around it, that zoning will have to be
reconsidered to solve the issue.
Ms. Ostby said that under base density, the minimum required density is 4 per acre or the
maximum allowed in the underlying zoning. She asked if the zoning is 2 per acre whether that
number becomes 4 per acre. Mr. Conner said it does otherwise the economics won’t work.
Ms. Ostby felt that makes sense with a larger parcel, but with 2-3 acres, there is not a lot of
room. Mr. Conner said the next paragraph allows the DRB to be more flexible in certain
circumstances. He stressed that a PUD is always a negotiation.
Ms. Ostby said she felt this could be a very good thing but questioned why they would create
something that have problems. She thought that as it is written, it is giving very strong
motivation for someone to do an Infill PUD. Ms. Louisos said the Commission will be discussing
where these are acceptable.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether to allow infill in an R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Conner responded
that what they are seeing now is 9 or fewer units being built on 5 and 6 acre parcels in order to
avoid Act 250. Those parcels can never be built on again, and that is not efficient use of land.
The Infill PUD can address that.
Mr. Conner then reviewed some input from Mr. Mittag. He generally liked the Infill PUD but
felt there should be more design flexibility. He also felt that areas on Shelburne Rd. should be
integrated in and drive-throughs should be prohibited. The parcels should also have 25% or
fewer resources (Level 1, 2 or hazards). Mr. Conner noted that drive-throughs are prohibited in
most places in the city.
Ms. Ostby felt that with Shelburne Road and residential mixed us, there should be more
distance from the road because of noise issues. She cited friends who have moved from a
beautiful apartment in the new Larkin building on Shelburne Road because of the noise. Mr.
Conner said that is not easy to address though he understands the importance.
Mr. Riehle said he generally likes from p. 5 on, though he thought the DRB will have challenges.
Ms. Ostby questioned the requirement to orient a building to the street particularly when the
views are to the rear and to address privacy and noise mitigation. Mr. Conner noted that 2
years ago the Commission required doors to the street. Ms. Ostby said they now have
experience. There are large parcels with views to the back of them in the Auto zoning area.
Mr. Larkin acknowledged that there have been noise complaints from residents of the
Shelburne Road building, but the majority of people are OK. He said the complaints wouldn’t
Planning Commission
24 August 2021
5
preclude them from doing that kind of building again. When a building is nearer to the road,
they can get more units in, and they can provide a lower price point on some units.
Mr. MacDonald said he is fairly comfortable with the Infill PUDs. They just need to work out
some details.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether an Infill PUD will work in the buildable area of a Conservation
PUD. Mr. Conner said they could say a “cottage court” can be built on a smaller piece of
acreage. Ms. Ostby asked whether 4 families could get together, tear down their homes, and
build something like this. Mr. Conner said they could but they would have to meet all the
regulations including replacing all the 4 dwelling units.
Ms. Leban asked how you add a unit to a one-story ranch house. She felt you shouldn’t want to
match that. She asked if there is an exception to “contextual obligations.” Mr. Conner said the
solution to that is not at the PUD level; it is at the zoning level. You can have a triplex that looks
like a single family home, but that is another discussion.
Ms. Leban asked if there is an allowance for increased density for an efficiency apartment
regarding affordability. Mr. Conner noted that accessory units don’t count for density by State
law. Any single family dwelling on its own lot can have an accessory apartment that meets
certain requirements.
Ms. Dooley said what is especially important in the TDNs is the promotion of strong
neighborhoods. She said she supports no drive-throughs. She also stressed that Kirby Cottages
are below the Infill PUD threshold. Ms. Louisos read from the regulations regarding preserving
neighborhoods and noted there are standards that try to achieve that.
Ms. Ostby asked if she is alone in her concern with building orientation with regard to
Shelburne Road. She noted that if you build housing in the old Hannaford off Shelburne Road,
you are facing Lowe’s, and there are beautiful views in the other direction. She felt that the
decision to have buildings front on a road should be reconsidered in instance such as this. Mr.
Riehle noted that some buildings on Hinesburg Road have created a “front door façade” with
the actual entrances to the side and rear. Ms. Ostby said a grove of trees would be appealing
as you drive down Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner said you can’t change the regulations just for
the PUDs.
In a straw poll of members, 3 felt the regulation should stand as written, 1 wants it changed.
Mr. Riehle abstained. Mr. Riehle said he agrees with Ms. Ostby regarding trees, and he was
torn about allowing a greater setback. Mr. Conner stressed that the aim is to continue the
pattern of development.
Planning Commission
24 August 2021
6
6. Other Business:
Mr. Conner said that the hope is for the next meeting to bring back the TND, Conservation PUD,
and Infill TND. Ms. Murray may also have the Commercial ready. The meeting following that
will deal with all the other things, what has to be done, what is already done, etc. One of the
things that will come up next week is “carving out” parcels. Ms. Ostby felt they should have a
straw poll as to whether to allow Infill PUDs in unbuilt areas. Mr. Conner said there is also the
question of whether to allow a Conservation PUD in a buildable area. Mr. Mac Donald asked
how they will define “unbuilt.” Is it no building? What about one building? Mr. Conner said if
the Commission says no infill, they can go back to the underlying zoning.
Mr. Louisos said the word “infill” may be the problem. She felt the tool is important, but she
wasn’t sure it was necessarily “infill.” Ms. Ostby said size is the only difference between this
and a regular TND. Ms. Louisos suggested possibly calling it a “small TND. Mr. Conner said he’d
like to think about that.
Regarding the Williston changes, Mr. Conner noted they are considering reducing but not
eliminating parking standards. Mr. Macdonald noted they are also considering cannabis sales.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:32 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk