Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates open‑space rules: on‑site amenities, off‑site civic space and flexible parking
Summary
Commissioners reviewed how the draft form‑based code would meet open‑space requirements—whether on‑site amenities can be replaced by off‑site civic space, how balconies count, and whether parking areas can be designed as flexible pedestrian space—and asked staff to clarify rules and incentives.
Planning commissioners in South Burlington debated how proposed form‑based code changes would fulfill open‑space requirements, with commissioners seeking clearer limits on when developers can count off‑site civic space and asking whether streets or parking areas can be designed as flexible public space.
The draft allows open space requirements to be met through a combination of on‑site site amenities (balconies, courtyards, indoor common areas) and larger civic spaces; for T5 the draft references a 6% open‑space requirement expressed as a percent of gross floor area. A staff member explained that some civic space options may be located off‑site when they meet scale and proximity rules, and that a “large development area” civic option is eligible only for planned areas of at least 15 acres.
Why it matters: Commissioners worried the draft could permit entirely off‑site solutions that provide little direct benefit to building residents. They also discussed using open‑space credit to incentivize pedestrian streets and flexible parking designs, rather than allowing developers to count small, hard‑to‑use landscape islands in parking lots as open space.
Discussion highlights
- Off‑site civic space and scale: Staff explained there are distinct categories—site amenities (smaller, intended primarily for a building’s residents) and civic spaces (larger, neighborhood‑serving areas). Civic spaces can count as open space off‑site if they meet distance and scale standards (the draft referenced quarter‑mile or half‑mile walking distances depending on type). The “large development area” option that gives broader flexibility requires a planned area of at least 15 acres.
- Counting balconies and site amenities: Commissioners sought clarity about whether balconies could make up the entirety of required open space. Staff confirmed that, under the current draft, a project could meet its open‑space obligation with on‑site amenities but that the code text could be clarified to specify minimum on‑site elements if the commission prefers.
- Flexible parking and pedestrian streets: Several commissioners urged the staff to explore rules that would allow developers to create streets designed primarily for pedestrians or flexible plazas that function as parking at night but active public space in daytime. Commissioners said incentives—such as allowing open‑space credit for pedestrian streets identified in the city plan—would encourage better ground‑level design while avoiding dead or unusable spaces.
Directions to staff
Commissioners asked staff to clarify when off‑site civic space is acceptable, to consider whether the draft should require some minimum on‑site open space in higher intensity districts, and to define standards for what counts as meaningful, usable open space (not small planted islands in parking lots). Staff agreed to refine the wording and return with clearer table entries and examples.
Ending
Staff will refine the draft’s open‑space language, including the on‑site versus off‑site rules, and return with clarifications and examples for the commission to review during public circulation of the draft.
