Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/29/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 29 APRIL 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEBMERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Dreher, Consultant; P. Nowak. L. Michaels, G. Beaudoin, P. Engels, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, W. Rapp, T. Duff, L. Ravin, M. Mittag, M. Simoneau, B. Nowak, P. Tompkins, S. Dopp 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Quest asked to add a brief discussion of “solar ready roofs” to Other Business. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commission Announcements & Staff Report: Ms. Louisos reported that the attended last night’s City Council meeting and reported on Commission activities in the past year. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council has warned a public hearing on the minor amendment to the impact fee ordinance regarding child care facilities. 4. Presentation & discussion with Paul Dreher: Mr. Dreher said the City Center process/thinking is translatable city-wide. “T” zones are universal and can be calibrated to different parts of the city. He said the process will be to look at different districts in the city to see how they might be improved. Mr. Dreher noted that on important thing the Form Based Codes Committee did related to non‐conformities for which they did a “case by case scenario.” Language is being written for areas that don’t fall into the transect zones. Ms. Louisos asked where a non‐“T” zone might be created. Mr. Dreher said he began with a conversation with John Illick regarding Technology Park and also could include the area behind the Airport and areas of Shelburne Road. He will run these by staff. Mr. Dreher said a non‐“T” zone could happen piecemeal and allow for incremental development to occur. This differs from a PUD, which is all pre-planned. PUD standards are not typically concerned with the full range as in a transect zone. One problem at Technology Park is that there is no residential space for visitors. Mr. Illick feels this would make the environment more healthy. Mr. Dreher said there can be standards that would have a T-5 right next to a T-1. Another idea being considered is a PUD centered on agrarian development. Mr. Dreher said he is trying to get the right percentage of each use (T-1 to T-5). This would tend to reduce the need for cars by making it possible to walk to work and services. If a developer sticks to the regulations, the plan would automatically be approved all the way through. Mr. Michaels asked if there will be another meeting where examples of this would be shown. Mr. Dreher said he is on a very tight schedule and suggested talking with staff. Mr. Rapp said the Committee needs to get going on this as there are only 2 months left in Mr. Dreher’s contract. Mr. Dreher noted there are very special things the DRB would still review. Mr. Dreher said they want the full mix of uses. He noted the Southeast Quadrant is “all houses and roads.” He is trying for a road network with a variety of uses so people don’t have to go to City Center for groceries and where there is the potential for employment. Ms. Harrington felt they didn’t want to set up competition for City Center. Mr. Dreher said there would be smaller groceries to serve the immediate population. Mr. McKenzie noted that even a small grocery store will generate truck traffic, and he questioned whether people want these trucks rumbling through their neighborhoods. Mr. Simoneau noted Burlington has some services in neighborhoods. They also did away with fixed percentages of uses in various neighborhoods as it was found to be onerous. Ms. Ravin noted the densities are much higher in Burlington. She asked if there are parameters for densities in South Burlington. She said what is there now wouldn’t support small groceries. Mr. Dreher said most neighborhoods in South Burlington create suburban sprawl, not density. What they are trying to get is multi-use with a grid street network. Mr. Michaels said that what happens will be dictated by the market. Ms. Harrington asked how quickly policy decisions need to be made. Mr. Dreher said he anticipates getting something to the Commission by the end of June. He felt he could come back for short meetings after that. He said he would make recommendations based on the visioning sessions and meetings held in the city. Mr. Riehle said if Mr. Dreher could provide examples, it would help. Mr. Mittag asked if there will be a policy to prevent competition for City Center (e.g., K-Mart Plaza). Mr. Dreher said the use policy is very liberal in form based codes. He felt it might make sense to layer in some use constraints in various parts of the city. They might say “all uses are allowed except….: or “certain uses on certain street types are not allowed.” There could be a chart of allowed/disallowed uses, though he didn’t recommend that. Mr. Gagnon said he preferred more allowed uses and fewer disallowed. Mr. McKenzie noted there is a difference between liberal uses in an already built environment and a non-built one. Mr. Gagnon said he had no problem with a law office in a home. Mr. Riehle noted areas of Burlington where houses all became offices and totally changed neighborhoods. Regarding the map, Mr. Dreher said there might be more activity allowed at intersections, with some “nodes” along corridors where T‐5 is not appropriate. In some pre-existing neighborhoods, there might be some small services (newspaper place, coffee shop, etc.). Ms. Greco noted there are no T-1 zones indicated. Mr. Dreher said that would represent a major downzoning to landowners, and there are some areas that are already protected. Ms. Tompkins asked if the Southeast Quadrant is off the record permanently. Ms. Louisos said it is for the next few months. Mr. Conner added that the next focus will be the Chamberlin area because the city has a grant for that work. With regard to TDRs, Ms. Louisos noted there was a sub-committee that looked into this. Mr. Conner said the task was to see how they could be incorporated. Mr. Dreher said that for TDRs to work there would have to be a density cap or height limits. He suggested having TDRs only in T-4 and T-5 areas. TDRs could result in having impact fees waived or reduced or having an expedited permitting process. A member of the audience felt that wasn’t enough to make the deal happen. Mr. Dreher said they would then probably have to have a density cap. Mr. Dreher noted the overall process would be similar to that of City Center, with limited review by the DRB. Places where there is consensus as to what should happen would have no review. Emerging vision areas could have some DRB review with very strict criteria. T-2 and T-3 zones would be automatic, if they are not proposing single or 2-family houses. The DRB might deal with street types, but would not have broad leeway. Mr. Conner asked if the regulations would create a lot for each principal building, and noted that subdivisions are reviewed by the DRB per State law). Mr. Dreher said they would. Mr. Conner asked if the concept is then that what gets put in each lot could be administrative. Mr. Dreher agreed. Ms. Dopp asked about design review as she thought form based codes was about what “things look like.” Mr. Dreher said there would be enough in the way of visual standards to guarantee architectural quality. They can create “form standards” which have nothing to do with “taste.” Mr. Conner noted the Design Review Board occasionally provides feedback on a special question. They do deal with the City Center design district. Their role in the future is up for discussion. Ms. Quest asked if UVM land would be outside the form based code. Mr. Dreher noted that UVM is one of the largest landowners in the city. Public institutions are considered civic sites and are exempt from certain regulations in City Center. He felt that exempting large tracts of land is not a great idea. He suggested sitting down with UVM to assign T-zones and then hold them in compliance to that. They could identify some non-transect zones. Ms. Quest asked if it possible for them just to stay in the old zoning. Mr. Dreher felt that if they develop in a manner not compatible with form based codes, it could be a problem. Ms. Ravin asked “what is broken, what are they trying to fix?” Mr. Dreher said what UVM has on its land now may not be compatible with form based codes. Mr. Conner suggested making use of UVM’s Master Plan where there are built out elements and making suggestions for those. They can then look at the open lands and consider long-term things. Mr. Rapp felt they should be treated the same as other landowners. Ms. Ravin said there are some state regulations that make UVM different. Also, UVM can hold onto land for many years. She added that UVM welcomes the dialog but the more flexibility, the better. With regard to street typology, Mr. Dreher said he will have something to Mr. Conner this week. With regard to T-zones within existing neighborhoods, Mr. Conner asked the Commission if they would like Mr. Dreher to try to reflect what is there today. Ms. Louisos said yes. They have heard from people about preserving their neighborhoods. Commission members said they would like to see single family homes and some duplexes. Ms. Louisos asked if there can be a pallet of choices for a neighborhood. Mr. Dreher said absolutely. Ms. Greco noted people say they want something like Mayfair Park. Mr. Conner noted you couldn’t build Mayfair Park affordably today. Mr. Dreher said he will attempt to augment the open space requirements to create a sense of place. Mr. Conner asked if allowing self-storage units in the I-O districts would create a conflict (there has been a request for this in the area near the Airport). Mr. Dreher said it would be no problem. 5. Other Business: a. Meeting Schedule: The next Planning Commission meeting is on 13 May. Several Commission members are not available on the 27th, so members were OK with having the following meeting on the 20th of May. b. Solar Ready Roofing: Ms. Quest asked that this be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Conner said there are substantial structural issues that relate to this according to the Fire Chief. He will add it to the next agenda. 6. Minutes: No minutes were presented for review. [Click here for Minutes for March 11, 2014] [Click here for Minutes for March 25, 2014] Ms. Dopp asked about sewage capacity in City Center. Members agreed to have that discussion after the form based code is put out for public comment. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Suite 300, 42 Central Street 802.355.7451 Newport, VT 05855 email:dreherdesign@gmail.com ...................................................................................................................................................................... dreherdesign M e m o To: Paul Conner Date: 4.29.14 Subject: Report on City Wide Land Development Regulation—to do list. Generally, the FBCC City Center work product and subsequent/additional work product by the Planning Commission has established the framework for the City Wide LDR re-write/overhaul. Creation of the City Center BES, robust Non-Conformity language, Street Typology, general language and early City Wide map iterations represents much of the heavy lifting in the LDR overhaul process. The BES can be calibrated and modified to perpetuate the desirable “DNA’ of the various existing neighborhoods and built fabric throughout the City of South Burlington. The Non-Conformity language is flexible enough and but also sufficiently demanding to promote incremental improvements to the public realm and economic vitality of the City of South Burlington. The Street Typology is applicable throughout the city and because the Street Typology public workshops considered the entire city the parameters for the full palette of street types city wide have been established. Additional work will need to be performed on the following items to complete the LDR re-write/overhaul. • Non-Transect Zones. Non-Transect Zones are sections of the City that do not have a readily apparent place/position on the transect or in short existing sections of the city that do not fit into the T-5 through T-1 range. The Non-Transect Zone language/standards will acknowledge that the “DNA” of the various areas can be discovered and enhanced. Generally, the Non-Transect Zone language/standards will endeavor incrementally improve the public realm and street networks or connectivity. Potential Non-Transect Zones include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Business Parks 2. Light industrial 3. Warehouse • Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Typically, in all new PUD standards some percentage of each of T-5 through T-1 zones and street networks will be required. The percentage, orientation and Street Type palette will vary based on the overall goals of the PUD—The intent of new PUD standards will be to create standards that will not only serve its (the PUD’s) purpose but also build multi-purpose places. The PUD categories include but are not limited to: 1. Traditional Neighborhood Community Design 2. Agrarian Node 3. Business Node (not all that dissimilar to TCND) Additional questions regarding PUD to be determined are: A. Are there other parameters in addition to the percentage of T-zones and Street Types such as open space or prime agricultural soils, etc. B. What is DRB role in approval of overall PUD and subsequent individual projects within the PUD? Are subsequent individual project permits administrative? • Uses. In City Center use constraints/regulations were minimal. This may be less desirable City Wide. The following potential option for “use ‘regulations: 1. Liberal—similar to City Center 2. Form requirements and precise disallowed uses 3. Use based on Street Types 4. Hybrid of 2 & 3 5. Other If “use” constraints are desired the Planning Commission will determine, what they are and where. • Map—Map work—somewhat self-explanatory and largely complete. Additional items to consider: 1. Transect Designation and Non-Transect designation. 2. Consider Nodes throughout 3. Consideration of corridors and nodes (Shelburne Road, Williston Road, etc) 4. Transportation oriented nodes 5. Neighborhood commercial nodes (neighborhood stores, services, etc) • Transfer Development Right (TDR). In general, define receiving areas and mechanisms to determine process and applicability. We will consider the following: 1. Caps A. Height Caps B. Density Cap C. Other 2. Community acceptance of exceeding caps (greater desities, taller building, etc.) 3. Finding the balance between a cap being detrimental (produces undesirable outcomes—too low density or poor land-use) and/or an actual (usable) incentive. • Overall Process 1. What triggers DRB review A. Vision based process i. When community vision is clear (example Shelburne Road) the process may be administrative. ii. And when community vision is emerging or nascent the review process (for other than single or two family dwellings) may be more rigorous—DRB review. Review criteria may be “form” requirements (described in the BES and Street Types) and site plan review? iii. Or, generally, (non PUD) T-5, T-4 (if BES and other applicable standards are met) may be reviewed administratively. T-3, T-2 (for other than single or two family dwellings) always DRB reviewed— criteria BES, Street Types, and site plan review(?) 2. What criteria does DRB use A. Limit to BES and Street Type criteria B. Site Plan Review? C. Other • UVM—UVM is one of the largest landowners in the City of South Burlington. Typically, public institutions, that serve the public would be considered “Civic Building” and “Civic Sites” and would be exempt from certain standards—see City Center language. Blanket exceptions to large tracts of land may not be in keeping with the community vision. For UVM consider the following: 1. Assign T-zones (T-5 through T-1) in collaboration with UVM and require compliance. 2. Same as above, except pre-identified (UVM) non-transect zones. 3. Other • Street Typology—in process • Variety of Transect “T” types. Generally, to accommodate/perpetuate/enhance existing neighborhoods and other existing built fabric there will be variations on the established City Center BES. The proposed breakdown is as follows: T-5 = 1 T-4 = 2, 3 max. T-3 = 3, 4 max • Placemaking guidelines. In collaboration with PPS incorporate results from community vision workshops into Placemaking guidelines and recommendations. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 MARCH 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 March 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Barritt, P. Nowak, R. Maynes, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, P. Engels, A. Cosak, P. Nowak 1. Agenda: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Open to the Public for Items Not Related to the Agenda: Mr. Barritt spoke to the need of a process at the DRB for what energy standard a building should have to meet or exceed. The goal would be to improve energy efficiency in the city. 3. Planning Commission Announcements and Staff Report: Ms. Calcagni: There is renewed interest on the Affordable Housing Committee to hammer out details. They have been hampered by vacations, etc., but are looking to the Commission for a hard and fast deadline. Members agreed to look at this under Other Business. Ms. Quest: Attended the Efficiency Vermont meeting last night. There is a push to invest in renewables. Mr. Conner: The next Commission meeting will feature a panel to address the economics of development, including mixed use, market economics, etc. The panel will include a local developer, commercial real estate person, and a mixed use developer in Winooski. Questions from the Commission for the panel to respond to will be solicited to in advance of the meeting. Ms. Louisos suggested asking Ilona Blanchard to attend as well to respond to TIF questions. 4. Land Development Regulations Amendment Request – Self storage in Mixed Commercial Industrial District: Members agreed to postpone this item as the applicants were not notified that the item would be discussed tonight. 5. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: a. Discuss review City Center Form Based Code map area b. Review draft Private Open Space concepts for City Center Form Based Code c. Status update on amendments requested of Paul Dreher d. Review of above may also include other elements of City Center form Based Code 2 Mr. Conner indicated three single family homes on Village Green. He noted the parcel behind Price Chopper is designated T3, and everything else around it is T-3+. He said staff’s recommendation is that this parcel be T3+ as well. Members agreed it should be consistent with the designation to the south. Mr. Conner also indicated an area near Staples where staff recommends the boundary follow the property line. Members agreed. Mr. Conner then showed the T1 area of 15 acres to be green, wetland or wetland buffer. He showed a piece of land not included in the 15 acres that is also largely wet. Staff suggests removing the T1 designation and showing it as T4. The wetland standards will continue to be in effect, but because this is not an exact drawing, it can create confusion. Mr. Conner recommended this be consistent throughout the city. Mr. Gagnon was concerned that giving it a designation might send the message that something will be built on it. Mr. Simoneau said he supported staff’s desire to be uniform throughout the city since there are already tools in place to address concerns that may arise. Mr. Conner suggested there could be both designations with a note that where there is a conflict, the regulations will apply. He would have to run this idea by the City Attorney. Mr. McKenzie noted that the federal money to build Market St. is tied to having the 15 areas of open space. Mr. Riehle said he supports staff’s recommendation. Mr. Gagnon asked if it can be shown as T1 with an indication that boundaries are approximate. Mr. Conner replied that if the boundaries are not right, what should they be. He didn’t want that to be a staff decision. It was suggested that the designation could be T4 with “crosshatching” to indicate that it is wetland. Mr. Conner noted that there are other wetlands in City Center which have not been delineated. Members agreed to have staff run various ideas by the City Attorney. Mr. Conner then indicated a small green area on the map. He said Paul Dreher suggests it could be a “green connection.” Mr. Conner said staff feels you shouldn’t represent something as a park on land that isn’t owned by the city. Members agreed to remove the “green” and make it “orange.” Mr. Conner showed two parcels owned by the Sheraton. He suggested these be added as T4. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner then indicated 100 acres that goes back to Patchen Road. There is a portion of this that is zoned Commercial-1, R-12, the same as Williston Road. Mr. Conner pointed to a tiny triangle which is part of the Quarry Ridge housing development but is zoned C-1. The recommendation is to rezone it R- 4, the same as the housing development. Mr. Conner indicated another parcel which would still be under the old zoning and said this could be awkward. The recommendation is that it be in the T4 district. Mr. Gagnon asked why it couldn’t be T3. Mr. Conner said it has been zoned as Commercial at least since the mid-1970’s and it would be a significant downzoning to go to a T3. Members were OK with making it T4. Mr. Conner then noted three parcels which are zoned C-1, R-12 (the Rotisserie, The Other Paper, and Holiday Video). They are not proposed to be in the code. Staff recommends they be T4. The type of 3 issue exists near Staples next to where Quarry Hill went in. Staff also recommends this be T4. Members were OK with both of these. For an area near Green Mountain Suites and the electric substation, staff recommends following parcel lines and making it T4. He showed where the line goes through The Pines. The recommendation is to move the line and have it all be T4. Members were OK with this. On the U-Mall property behind Hannaford, Mr. Conner showed an area zoned R-4. Staff has no problem with it becoming T4. It is mostly ravine and wetland. Members were OK with leaving it as T4 and crosshatching it leaving open the option for Mr. Conner to come back with any issues raised by the City Attorney. Mr. Conner noted that staff has spoken with the Superintendent of School’s office. Under Form Based Codes, Central School becomes a “school only” designation. Staff is waiting for input as to what designation the School Board wants. Mr. Conner showed an area where it is unclear if the existing boundary is inside the T5 line. Staff feels the boundary should be a straight line across. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner noted that staff has received information from the Open Space consultant regarding specifics of open space areas. About 20% of Market Street area is designated as open space. Mr. Conner distributed a map of a City Center “pedestrian shed.” There is a question as to how best to address privately owned open space. There is also a question as to whether open space should occur on a small property or whether the owner should provide it elsewhere. Mr. Conner noted there is also a question as to what is reasonable to provide the space the public has been talking about and still not precluding what is envisioned by the landowner. With regard to residential area open space, Mr. Conner noted that this may not be open to the public (as with the Farrell property). There is a question as to whether balconies would count for some of the residential open space. Mr. Riehle said he would have to be convinced about that. Members considered whether commercial open space (e.g., places for employees to eat lunch) should be both visually and physically available to the public. Members felt that 75% should contribute to the public realm. On the residential property, 50% should be “common space.” Mr. Conner said staff will test these out to see how they match with existing space. In T3, the recommendation is that 25% must be unpaved. Staff recommends adding a stipulation for common open space of 100 sq. ft. per unit. There could be a lesser percentage with a larger building. With respect to qualifying open space, members considered what a “plaza” might be. Mr. Conner said minimum size is typically half an acre, rectangular, with 20% unpaved. T3 could allow everything that T5 allows but the recommendation is for a more limited pallet. 4 Ms. Louisos said she felt T3 should include a “park.” She didn’t want every alley being considered as open space. Mr. Conner noted there was talk about off-site open space, possibly making a wetland area more accessible (e.g., with a boardwalk). He suggested this could be a contribution to open space calculations, making it an “enhancement.” Mr. Maynes asked if it would make sense to take down a forest area to create open space. Ms. Dopp said the forest could be valuable as a natural resource. With regard to the amendments requested of Paul Dreher, Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Dreher recommends the following: a. 75% of glazing be “see-through” and 25% not have to be b. With regard to garage doors in T3, Mr. Dreher drafted something for a single garage with a note that it may not be what a T3 should be. Mr. Simoneau said that not to allow garage doors to be oriented to the street would be onerous. It would also require more pavement to have them in the rear. He felt they should continue to be allowed as they normally are and not preclude them being oriented to the street. Ms. Louisos noted garages can also face an alley. Members liked the language as currently written. c. Civic buildings would be exempt from standards such as glazing and could be built further back as is common with public buildings. d. With regard to what happens in T3 if someone decides on a bakery on the first floor and 2 units above it, Mr. Draher suggested that 1500 sq. ft. be considered “a unit.” This would not discourage a mixed use building. 6. Minutes of 28 January and 11 February 2014: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 28 January with a spelling correction. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to table the minutes of 11 February. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted there will be a panel presentation on 25 March focusing on economic issues related to development. The meeting of 8 April will include discussion of the Official City Map, city-wide standards, style of writing, and remaining Form Based Codes issues. Other conversations that need to happen include: street type issues, affordable housing and a full red- line version of the code. With regard to inclusionary zoning, Mr. Conner noted that before there is a requirement in the regulations for inclusionary zoning, there must be a statement to that purpose in the 5 Comprehensive Plan, which there currently is not. He felt inclusionary zoning could be added later, if desired. Members discussed the possibility of a special meeting, possibly on the 5th Tuesday in April. Mr. Conner said this could work out well. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ____________________________________, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 MARCH 2014 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 March 2014, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, T. Harrington, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; Panel Members: J. Dousevicz, A. Burns, L. Williams; M. Simoneau, A. Germain, F. & J. Kochman, S. Dopp, B. Maynes, T. McKenzie, T. Duff, L. Michaels, D. Leban 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: A brief report form the Open Space Committee representative was added under Other Business. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: No announcements were made. 4. Update from Sustainable Agriculture Sub-Committee: Ms. Quest said the Sub-Committee continues to discuss a possible Spear Street agricultural corridor, possibly small farms and orchards. They are also working on recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan and on a recommendation to the Planning Commission to assess the sewage capacity for City Center and Southeast Quadrant plans. Ms. Louisos noted that staff is already working on the sewage capacity issue. 5. Panel Discussion – Development, Economics, and City Center: Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission wanted to be sure the city produces the best plan for City Center. Several weeks ago, they heard a presentation regarding the TIF District, and this meeting features a panel of economic experts in the field of development. Ms. Louisos then invited panel members to introduce themselves: Andy Burnes: Mr. Burnes is President of Halkeen Real Estate Management Company in Massachusetts. The company developed the Winooski project in 2004 and has been active in the project through 2011. They focus on housing, both affordable and mixed use, and their efforts stretch from New England to Miami. They also do urban redevelopment projects. Jed Dousevicz: Mr. Dousevicz specializes in commercial real estate. Larry Williams: Mr. Williams is a principal in Redstone, local management company, with over one million square feet of space. They are in the process of a downtown Burlington development parallel to 2 what could happen in City Center and face some of the same issues. They are also in the running for a downtown Montpelier development. They have just finished 72 units in downtown Winooski and hope for a second phase later in the spring. Mr. Riehle said he wished these experts had been involved in the Form Based Codes Committee discussion. He asked where South Burlington could go wrong in trying to get the City Center development going. Mr. Williams said he felt the city is working in the right place and that Form Based Codes is the right way to do it. He noted that the City of Burlington just changed a 50-50 (residential-commercial) regulations because nobody could make that work. Now Burlington is seeing plans for projects. He urged the South Burlington to put rules in place that allow people to do something. Mr. Burnes said the market will dictate what works. There needs to be flexibility to allow the market to avail itself of what will work. He noted that his company was ravaged by the fall in the market. They were committed to 250 condos but built only 70 or so. They were also driven by a TIF that didn’t allow for flexibility. He noted that there is now a very strong residential market in the Greater Burlington area. Mr. Riehle said they city wants a place where the community would come. He asked if that’s possible in this one complex. Mr. Dousevicz said if you try to force too much, it won’t work. He cautioned against having only structured parking. He felt that any retail planning should have eye-level/sight-level parking. Mr. Williams felt the key is density; the more compact, the better, including buildings closer to the street. He felt this would be hard to accomplish without structured parking. He felt this is where the TIF should be deployed. Mr. Gagnon noted that discussions have focused around square footage, building heights, etc. he asked whether multi-story (residential above commercial) is good for development or whether it is limiting. He also asked whether banning one-story buildings is good. Mr. Williams said his vision is a dense area with a major artery and smaller arteries. He wouldn’t allow one story buildings and he wouldn’t go above 5 stories (the economics don’t go much beyond that). Mr. Dousevicz said he prefers stand-alone congregate housing structures which create a sense that “this building is ours.” These are the people who will be walking to the retail/restaurants, etc. He felt it would take time to market the residential above commercial buildings. Mr. Burnes said they have had a great deal of trouble with retail below residential. A lot of the retail space has been vacant for a long time. He felt there is a place for retail in mixed projects, but you have to let the market dictate, and you need flexibility. He added that retail is changing, particularly with the internet. Mr. Burnes also said you have to think of how long development in the City Center will take. 3 He cautioned about getting locked into a specific footage of retail. He said “the easier it is to implement your vision, the better.” Ms. Louisos noted there are different zoning areas planned in the City Center. One area requires retail on the first floor. Most areas are more flexible. Mr. Williams said the city will find out if it was right or wrong in this. He asked if the landowner wants to develop this land. He noted that in Winooski the city bought the land and then developed it. Mr. Riehle noted that the owner hasn’t been asked that specifically, but he couldn’t see the city buying the land. He added he would like to one entity do the whole project instead of piecemeal. Mr. Williams said he felt it would go better being done piecemeal. Ms. LaRose noted that the City Center area has had 10 different boundaries in recent years. There are quite a few landowners now, especially in the developed areas which are ripe for redevelopment. City Center zoning is in many pieces (Williston Road, Dorset Street, San Remo Drive, etc.) with possibly hundreds of landowners. Ms. Blanchard noted the TIF district is 106 acres, some of which is undeveloped. She described some of the principal breakdowns and opportunities they present. Ms. Quest asked the panel how they would imagine all of this coming together. Mr. Burnes said that with the characteristics of the district, it will depend on how things thrive. He stressed that it’s a place many businesses want to be in. Mr. Dousevicz said the question is where it starts. Infrastructure is expensive and usually has to be done before there are tenants. He said it is a risk. Mr. Kochman said he thought City Center was going to be for municipal uses (City Hall, Library, etc.), and other things could follow. It would create a gathering place to which developers would be drawn. Mr. Dousevicz said there are some well-known retailers looking for space – large users. There is also a very high vacancy for commercial office space (14.5% vacancy). He felt the market will dictate what goes up. He added that putting up 50,000 sq. ft. of chopped up retail space is ridiculous. A member of the audience asked if there is a market for residential use. Mr. Williams said there is. The vacancy rate is about 1%, which drives up rents. They are seeing a lot of residential development now because interest rates are down. This will slow when rates go back up. He felt the City Center area could take 1,000 residential units. Ms. Harrington asked how many residential units you would have to build to make it financially viable with retail on the first floor. Mr. Williams said you have to build a little at a time (30 to 40 units), 1200 sq. ft. per unit. Land costs per unit are $4500. Ms. Harrington then asked if it is feasible to have 1500 sq. ft. single family starter homes. Mr. Burnes said the VHFA is trying to address that market. Resources to support that are difficult. He hoped that with more competition and more being built, costs will come down. He stressed that land costs are very high. Mr. Williams felt that a density bonus and lower infrastructure costs might help for smaller homes. 4 Ms. Calcagni noted there is an affordable housing group looking at inclusionary zoning. She asked if this is done in Winooski. Mr. Burnes said they had to do it because of TIF financing and a loan that required affordable housing. Mr. Williams added there was also a tax credit involved. But, he stressed, a 4, 6, or 8 unit development in South Burlington can’t do that. Mr. Williams also felt that the City of Burlington has suffered because of the inclusionary zoning. It means the numbers don’t work. Each affordable unit adds $100,000 to the costs. Without additional funding, that can’t happen. Mr. Simoneau asked if panel members would characterize “large stores” as anchors. Mr. Dousevicz said yes. Mr. Simoneau asked if they could be multi-story. Mr. Dousevicz said no. Mr. Simoneau asked what it would take to accommodate an anchor. Mr. Dousevicz said a large parking lot. He didn’t feel structured parking would work. Mr. Burnes noted that retail in the Winooski “rotary” is a disaster and was a mistake. He felt that “out front” parking can work, but for high peak areas structured parking is needed. He felt using the TIF for structured parking is good and has worked in Massachusetts. Ms. Greco questioned whether they can build a place people can afford to live, small homes without huge infrastructure. She said the dominating force shouldn’t be shopping but living and services. Mr. Williams said he thinks the city would want more density than single family detached houses. Mr. Burnes said the Winooski project created a sense of place. The Riverwalk has traffic on an amazing basis. He added that South Burlington’s challenge is the number of landowners; Winooski controlled its own destiny. Mr. Kochman cited an example in Rome where a large fast food place was “hidden” behind more quaint uses and suggested this could happen with a larger store in City Center. He felt the city should give up the idea of zoning for affordable housing as it’s either subsidized or doesn’t work. He felt it could be “encouraged” but not “mandated.” An audience member asked why an anchor store cares about having 4 floors above them. Mr. Dousevicz said they want to be the identity and also want to have higher ceilings. Mr. Duff suggested looking at an area in Hanover, New Hampshire. There is retail with commercial and residential above it. It also has structured parking. It is a transition between the urban downtown and a residential area. Ms. LaRose said raised the issue of “cost thresholds,” such as the need for elevators, steel vs. wood construction, financing cutoffs, etc. Mr. Williams said he wished it was that easy. He said that 5 stories and more has to be steel construction. Any multi-story needs elevators. There should be a minimum of 7-8,000 sq. ft. per floor minimum. Beyond that, it’s all design. He also cited extraordinary costs such as soils and approval process costs. He noted that in Winooski they had a permit in 75 days for a $15,000,000 project. 5 Mr. Burnes said they city would want to eliminate as many hurdles as possible. There will always be cycles in a large project, but the permitting process can “kill you.” He said they would never have touched the Winooski project without the permits already being in place. Mr. Burnes also said you can create value to the land and get owners on board. You get them to work together for you. Ms. Leban felt the city needs a very experienced developer to make things happen. Panel members agreed. Ms. Dopp asked about occupancy rate in Winooski. Mr. Burnes said they are full. Mr. Williams said they are also full. Mr. Burnes said the city may have a location for a big box store with more flexibility. Ms. Louisos asked if that could include 2 stories. Mr. Burnes said it could and he knew one that would be very interested. If you make the process easier, businesses will be more flexible. Smart retailers understand things are changing. Ms. Leban asked if there is a model near here with high-density housing. She cited areas in New York with 4 or 5 stories of one unit per floor. She said that is not what she is seeing proposed in South Burlington. She want to see an inviting walking environment with buildings that “make you comfortable.” Mr. Burnes said 4 or 5 stories are needed to get the density and the feel. Ms. Louisos described the characteristics of the T3, T4 and T5 areas and asked if that made sense. Mr. Burnes said “that’s your vision.” Mr. Williams felt it was reasonable. Ms. Louisos said there are height maximum per floor. Mr. Dousevicz said that won’t work. Mr. Williams asked why you would constrain a good design for an arbitrary height limit. Ms. Calcagni noted Forb Based Codes language encourages energy efficiency. She asked if the panel had experience with that. Mr. Williams said they’d done it when they could justify the cost, and they do it because it will reduce energy costs down the road. He added that to make roofs “solar ready,” the roofs have to be heavier, which is a higher cost. He stressed that he didn’t want to be told where to put his mechanicals on a roof. Commission members thanked the panel for their participation. 6. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes: a. Discuss style of writing Ms. LaRose said a decision has to be made soon on whether to form based codes is appropriate city- wide. She noted that certain pieces of it could be appropriate in some neighborhoods. There could also be dimensional standards or focus on a specific element of the code. There could also be a different style in a commercial neighborhood. She noted that a hybrid code is not unusual. The question is the review process and what can be reviewed administratively. 6 Mr. Gagnon felt form based codes make sense in City Center because there is a clean slate. City-wide, everything is built with existing neighborhoods. Changing that could cause a lot of non-compliance. Ms. LaRose noted they often get requests, such as a front deck, that the traditional code does not allow for. That could happen under form based codes. Mr. Gagnon felt that would be fine as long as you don’t make all the homes in Mayfair Park, etc., non-compliant. Ms. LaRose noted that Paul Dreher’s contract excludes the Airport area and Southeast Quadrant. Ms. LaRose also noted that the existing code does not always reflect what exists on the street. Ms. Dopp felt it is better to fix the problems than to have a clean sweep. Ms. Quest noted that Mr. Dreher said he needs a Comprehensive Plan before he can do anything. Ms. LaRose said there are some areas that are not defined…such as behind Windjammer. A member of the audience added there is a question of allowing storage units in the Commercial-Industrial area. It is allowed across the street. Ms. Calcagni said she didn’t think a corner grocery should be precluded and didn’t know how form based codes would deal with that. Mr. Simoneau suggested having Paul Dreher figure out what approach is best for the community. Ms. LaRose said they don’t want him spending time on something the city won’t like. Mr. Gagnon felt he should concentrate more on less developed neighborhoods where development is possible. Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure the city was ready for “any use anywhere.” Ms. LaRose suggested having Paul Dreher work on a messy map and then look at some specific areas (e.g., Shelburne Road). 7. Other Business: a. Update on Open Space Committee: Ms. Benton said she has been out of town a lot and is not up to speed on what the Committee is doing. She can no longer attend meetings. Ms. Louisos said she can possibly attend the next meeting. b. Upcoming Meetings: A special meeting on 29 April has not yet been finalized. Ms. Quest asked when the Commission will get to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. LaRose said some things would have to be updated if they are in the regulations (e.g., inclusionary zoning), but otherwise it’s not required that the Comprehensive Plan be done first. She noted that staff has been working on pieces of the Plan that need to be done (i.e., Police, Fire, etc.). Mr. Riehle said if there is nothing that conflicts with City Center and Form Based Codes, he felt the Comprehensive Plan should be done after those things. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk