Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Heights Massing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners review 10–14‑story visualizations for South Burlington city center, seek public feedback
Summary
City planning staff presented massing and height visualizations showing possible 10–14‑story buildings for parts of the city center and Dorset/Market Street area, prompting questions about scale, podiums, neighborhood transitions and how renderings will be used in public outreach.
South Burlington Planning Commission members reviewed new massing visualizations showing a range of potential building heights in the city center and along Dorset and Market streets, including options that reach roughly 10–12 stories and an alternate set scaled to roughly 14 stories.
Planners said the images are intended to show an upper range of what the form‑based code and revised height limits could allow, not a build‑out prediction. Staff and the commission discussed design details—podium heights, rooftop setbacks, stepbacks between the third and eighth floors, and where taller forms would abut existing three‑story neighborhoods.
Staff noted the visualizations were produced quickly by the consultant Freeman as a narrow massing study and do not include detailed facade treatments or full form‑based code standards. Paul (staff member) told the commission the models show a realistic “sweet spot” range and that consultants produced two sets of images at slightly different maximum heights so the public can compare. Staff said the version in the meeting packet is labeled and the slightly taller variant (two stories higher) was circulated to commissioners only that day.
Commissioners pressed for additional perspectives to help residents judge neighborhood impacts: low‑angle street views showing how taller blocks step down to three‑story residential areas, and cross‑sections that demonstrate how buildings on San Remo Drive (selected as a representative T4 area) would step down toward adjacent homes. Commissioner Duncan said a view showing 8‑story buildings on Dorset stepping down to 3‑story blocks facing neighborhoods would be “very helpful” for public outreach.
Several commissioners and members of the public urged staff to add building envelopes or more realistic facades in some slides so the public does not interpret the massing boxes as final architectural design. Commissioner Paul Ingalls offered to create example renderings (including “dressed up” facades, windows and landscaping) to supplement the consultant’s study. Commissioners also discussed whether showing highly finished marketing‑style images could mislead the public into thinking the renderings are design commitments rather than scale exercises.
The commission discussed technical details reflected in the visualizations: staff said the consultant estimated a typical residential story is closer to 11 feet (to accommodate structure and mechanicals) rather than the 10 feet used in earlier calculations; that difference reduces the number of stories that fit within a given maximum feet cap; and that the presentation includes alternative story/feet combinations for commissioners to review.
Commissioners also discussed construction types and materials as they relate to massing: staff reported architects flagged mass timber as an increasing option that can change podium requirements; commissioners noted curtain‑wall systems and structural choices affect upper‑story floor heights and rooftop profiles.
Staff said the consultant was asked to avoid showing every parcel built to maximum height; the renderings intentionally show variation across blocks and leave many existing buildings (for example Trader Joe’s and other long‑lived commercial buildings) in place. Staff proposed showing both the current labeled packet slides and the slightly taller variant during public outreach so residents can compare the ranges under consideration.
The discussion closed with agreement that additional viewpoints, building envelopes, and a small set of real‑world photo comparisons would help public understanding. Commissioners agreed staff should prepare materials for public presentations that clearly label these images as massing‑level studies, show stepdowns to neighborhoods, and include low‑angle perspectives and example facades rather than only abstract building blocks.
Ending
Staff said they will circulate the slightly taller PDF to commissioners for review and will ask the consultant for additional perspectives; commissioner Paul Ingalls offered to supply example renderings for the packet.
