Planning commission advances draft updates to Article 8/11B, focuses on building breaks, balconies and stepbacks

Planning commission members in South Burlington on a review of proposed revisions to Article 8 and 11B of the city’s form‑based code discussed detailed design standards for building breaks, balconies, upper‑story stepbacks and facade materials and directed staff to circulate the draft with edits for broader stakeholder feedback.

The draft version presented by planning staff was described as largely complete: “We consider this to be about a 90% draft,” a staff member told commissioners, adding the intention to circulate it as a static draft for roughly six weeks while staff continues outreach to development review, the fire department, the city manager’s office, the local development community and business owners.

Why it matters: the changes would alter how new buildings in city center break their massing at the street and how apartments are given credit for visual interest and on‑site amenities. Commissioners said clearer rules could change how developers design podiums, terraces and towers and affect construction feasibility and neighborhood character.

Most of the commissioners supported keeping the draft moving through public circulation while asking for additional technical feedback from architects and developers. Commissioners asked staff to return with visual massing studies before the April 8 meeting to illustrate what 10‑ to 14‑story buildings would look like in the city center.

Key technical points and discussion

- Building breaks: The draft defines a “significant building break” in part as a vertical plane shift of at least 8 feet in depth for a minimum horizontal span (the example discussed was 8 feet deep by 16 linear feet). Commissioners asked staff to clarify the written definition and to confirm that the intent is to require a break across a meaningful portion of the pedestrian‑level facade rather than a single high‑level penthouse setback. Staff said the standard is horizontal in nature (spacing and extent), not just a single amenity on the top floor.

- Balconies: The draft separates narrow, Juliet‑style balconies from full, usable balconies. Under the proposal a shallow Juliet balcony (about 2 feet deep) could count as a visual facade break but would not count toward a building’s required site amenities; a functional balcony that counts toward site amenity obligations was proposed as a minimum of 4 feet deep, 6 feet wide and at least 28 square feet total. Commissioners debated whether 2‑foot balconies are “mock” features that risk being decorative only; other commissioners said Juliet balconies can provide light, ventilation and a meaningful connection to outdoors for residents who cannot easily leave their units. Staff said the credit rules are intended to encourage features that developers will actually build: “If you give them some credit for a 2‑foot balcony, they may do a 2‑foot balcony.”

- Stepbacks and tower massing: The draft would require stepbacks on taller buildings to reduce the perceived mass at street level. One proposed approach requires the top story of any building eight stories or taller to be set back a minimum of 12 feet, with the option for that setback to begin below the top story. Commissioners debated whether the requirement should apply to all stories above eight or be phrased as a range (for example, requiring stepbacks above the third floor in certain subdistricts) and asked staff to revisit the draft language after reviewing massing visuals.

- Facade spacing and openings: The draft ties building breaks to the spacing of doors and facade openings; staff noted door spacing standards in the draft call for entrances roughly every 20 to 40 feet while building break spacing limits facades to between 20 and 60 feet for a single uninterrupted facade segment. Commissioners suggested anchoring some facade changes to actual entrances to avoid “fake facades” that appear as separate buildings but lack pedestrian access.

- Materials and “exterior decoration”: Commissioners discussed including or removing options that count “minor changes in materials” as a building break, noting that some current city center buildings already use this approach and that overuse can look repetitive. Staff recommended keeping broader options in the code and seeking design feedback from architects.

What commissioners asked staff to do

- Produce context visuals showing how proposed heights and stepbacks would appear at street level in several city center locations. - Clarify and tighten draft language on the required horizontal extent of a building break, the measurement conventions for window mullions and banking and how entrances should anchor facade changes. - Continue targeted outreach to architects, developers, finance professionals and small business owners and surface specific technical questions (for example, whether an 8‑by‑16 foot break unduly penalizes typical stair or service cores).

Decision and next steps

Commissioners agreed by general consent to let staff circulate a revised static draft, with the understanding the code numbers and stepback distances could be adjusted after stakeholder feedback and visualizations. Staff said it will continue internal review and schedule meetings with the local architecture firm preparing massing visuals ahead of the April 8 meeting.

Ending

Staff will return with visuals and refined code language; commissioners asked that staff collect specific feedback from architects and developers on the numeric thresholds before finalizing the draft for public hearings.