Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/25/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 JANUARY 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Saturday, 25 January 2014, at 1:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Benton, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Dreher, Consultant (via phone); M. Simoneau, P. Engels, R. Greco Members continued their review of the recommendations of the Form Based Codes Committee as follows: Ms. Quest said she wanted to be sure that City Center was not all “big box stores.” Mr. Conner noted the Commission had said they wanted to hear from someone who can talk to the economics of this. He suggested they could do this at the end of their review of the Form Based Codes Committee’s report. Mr. Simoneau said he didn’t recall the Committee’s actual vote on that, but he did recall an interest in being able to accommodate an “anchor.” He liked the idea of the Commission making a list of their concerns. Mr. Engels added that with the requirement for a 2-story building and doors every 36 feet, there would never be a “big box.” Ms. Harrington suggested asking Paul Dreher about that. [Click here for additional public comments regarding UMall] Mr. Simoneau said that looking at the language in T5 for exceptions (i.e., 24 foot building height, doors every 50 feet or less, glazing standards, etc.), you’re not looking at a “monolith.” He felt the standards should be consistent with everything that is in the City Center. Members then discussed the concerns of Iby Street residents about water being displaced into the neighborhood. Mr. Conner noted that the Stormwater people met with residents on those concerns. Ms. LaRose will check with Stormwater people as to what happened. Mr. Gagnon had no problem with the Form Based Codes Committee not addressing stormwater as it is adequately addressed elsewhere. Mr. Conner said there is a state standard whenever you disturb an acre or more. The draft city standard under development lowers that to half an acre. If you disturb that much you must meet the standard and not worsen any existing condition. The issue now is to deal with problems that are not the fault of any new development. He noted that Ilona Blanchard and her group are discussing with property owners for a joint stormwater concept for City Center instead of each property dealing with individually. Mr. Riehle asked if it is possible that a system could be put in that would allow for underground parking or a large building. Mr. Gagnon said the issue is still to manage the water. Stormwater systems treat only surface water. Ms. Louisos agreed with Mr. Gagnon that dealing with stormwater is not a function of the Form Based Code. Members agreed but noted that the draft stormwater standards are under development. Members then considered the T3 area. Ms. Louisos felt it was pretty intensive and that residents would want what’s next to them to look more like them. Ms. Benton felt buildings should be a maximum of 2 stories and that 2.5 stories was too high. Mr. Engels suggested that strip could be made a T1. He questioned whether this would even be an issue if stormwater concerns are addressed. In considering the Interstate overlay, traffic overlay, transit overlay, and landscaping requirements, Mr. Conner noted there are no buildings allowed within 100 feet of the Interstate. He said that Paul Dreher is OK with leaving that requirement in. Mr. Conner also noted that the traffic overlay may be replaced later on, but recommended it be left in for now. Regarding landscaping, requirements are in a section of the LDRs that include street trees, etc. The initial draft of the Code exempts that entire section, but upon further review, there are certain elements such as private property landscaping minimums, where staff and Paul Dreher think there may be an opportunity to open up the landscaping requirement to include other amenities, such as benches. Members were OK with keeping those requirements. Regarding Mary Street, Ms. Quest said she would like it to remain closed at the end. She said most of the houses are owned by a developer and are rented. It is a place for affordable housing, and saw no reason to open it. Mr. Gagnon noted that Form Based Codes does not relate to the opening and closing of streets. That is the province of the City Council. Mr. Gagnon added that there will be traffic studies done for different buildings. Mary Street could be evaluated at that time, and people on the street could weigh in then. Mr. Conner said it is the official city map that relates to opening/closing of streets. There is no clear intent in the Form Based Code to connect or open Mary Street. Ms. Louisos noted that even under current zoning, Mary Street is zoned for quite dense development, and the people who live there know the potential. She added that Mary Street people don’t disagree with the zoning. They just don’t want a change to T4 until the neighborhood changes. They don’t want traffic “zooming by” now. Ms. Greco said she didn’t want to promote one goal (City Center) at the expense of another (affordable housing). There is also the issue of sacrificing a neighborhood for a city center. She noted that people in the Airport area want to close off their streets because they have become thoroughfares and Airport parking areas and this has destroyed their neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon said he would show only existing streets on the map and let the future take care of where additional street go. Mr. Simoneau said they have to also be aware of placement of infrastructure. Mr. Conner felt this was a good topic for an “official map discussion.” Members then considered glazing standards: Mr. Gagnon said the reasons for glazing are to break up large areas of buildings, and in that case he didn’t care if you can see through the glass or not. He didn’t think the Commission should dictate this and that the standard should be open enough to allow for different uses for different reasons. Mr. Conner noted that Paul Dreher is working on glazing standards for upper floors. Mr. Simoneau said there could be some very creative glass (e.g., stained glass) and that shouldn’t be precluded. Mr. Gagnon suggested something like 80% glazing with 50% of it being see-thru. Mr. Conner said the reality is that retailers will do what they want to do (e.g., open and close blinds, curtains, etc.). Mr. Engels suggested talking to Paul Dreher about this as there are reasons for the numbers. Corner building standards were then discussed: Mr. Conner said the glazing standards say “on its principal façade,” and the question with a corner building is which façade is this. Staff’s suggestion is that if the building corners on 2 major streets, the standard should be on both sides. If it is a major and a minor street corner, the standard should be only on the major street. There could be a list of street types that would be used for this purpose. Mr. Conner added that for a building on 2 minor streets, they could look at what faces the streets. If it’s housing, the windows should face the houses. [Click here for Street Typologies] Ms. Benton said she wanted glazing on minor streets because you want people to go there too. Mr. Conner said they could say all streets except alleys. Members then considered civic building review criteria: Ms. Louisos noted that civic buildings are exempt from the building envelop standards. Mr. Conner added that glazing, setbacks, and heights would also not apply. Mr. Gagnon asked a civic building wouldn’t have to meet all the standards. Mr. Riehle said you might it set back to accommodate a flagpole. Ms. Louisos cited the fountain in Burlington’s City Hall Park. She said they wouldn’t want a civic building to look like all other buildings. Mr. Conner also noted the desire to have some creativity. City Hall could have a “grand entrance.” Ms. Benton noted that city halls often have a very tall first floor and asked if that would be precluded. Mr. Conner said it isn’t clear if a taller first floor would count as two floors. Mr. Simoneau said in the end they might want to exempt civic buildings from standards. Mr. Gagnon said they don’t want it completely out of context. Mr. Riehle said they also have to take security issues into consideration. Members then considered “Step Back”/Flexibility: Mr. Riehle raised the question of inhibiting something like an atrium with an outside seating restaurant. At this point, a call was placed to Paul Dreher and members asked specific questions of him: Ms. Louisos asked if there is a way to limit the possibility of having a box store on every block. Mr. Dreher said you could limit it to every other block. He said the intent was to accommodate an anchor store in City Center. Mr. Conner noted a major property owner said it was not the intent to have a big box on every block. Mr. Gagnon said it is not known how this will build out, and you have to be fair. If you say every other block, you could lock someone out. Mr. Dreher said that’s OK. The first one was first, and zoning rights aren’t always equal. He added that it is in nobody’s interest to have one story buildings, so he wouldn’t worry so much about it. Mr. Conner noted the regulations also apply to the Williston Road area (both sides), including Staples Plaza, where one-story buildings have been the history. Mr. Dreher said that in no way is he an advocate for one-story buildings. Ms. Louisos then asked about glazing standards and whether glass has to be see-thru or can be blocked out. She asked Mr. Dreher for a clear definition. Mr. Dreher said the intent is not to have glass blocked out but for there to be transparency. He said he would do some research on a definition so that streets feel “walkable.” Mr. Conner asked if Mr. Dreher was leaning toward all glazing being see-thru or some percentage. Mr. Dreher said it is not always practical, and he would see what other codes say. Ms. Louisos then asked whether windows should be taller rather than wider. Mr. Dreher said the language needs to be adjusted to accommodate store- front type windows. Ms. Louisos said they also want to require horizontal and vertical breaks for upper story windows. Ms. Louisos then noted that the Commission suggests having a final map that shows only existing streets and zoning districts, not potential streets. Mr. Dreher felt that makes sense. Ms. Louisos then asked about exemptions for civic buildings and whether they should be exempt from all regulations. Mr. Dreher said purists exempt them across the board. He would like to do some thinking about that since it could include things such as schools. Ms. Louisos suggested a possible list of criteria for a civic building to meet. With regard to building setbacks, Ms. Louisos asked whether there should be more leniency for secondary frontages. Mr. Dreher said the streetscape can “fall apart” when you do that. Mr. Riehle said they might not relax the standard for a whole building but for something like a garden or plaza. Mr. Dreher said he would model that. He was not necessarily stuck on 12 feet. A different setback made sense for public spaces. Following the call with Mr. Dreher, members considered the possibility of limiting big buildings in T5 to 2. Mr. Simoneau noted this could preclude a drugstore from the area. Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of one or 2 to have some flexibility. Mr. Conner noted there could be a movie theater which really doesn’t allow for a use above it. Mr. Riehle suggested one in the T5 area and possibly more in T4. A poll of members found that only Mr. Gagnon wanted one in the T5. Other members were OK with a limited number in T4. Ms. Harrington felt that even there the building should appear to be 2 stories. Mr. Gagnon noted there are already a lot of one story buildings in the City Center area and asked if the Commission wanted to make them all non- conforming. Mr. Conner noted the number of one-story buildings on the Burger King block. Mr. Conner asked what if someone wants to build a very small building. Ms. LaRose noted the Design Review Committee felt that much more in keeping with a downtown. Mr. Engels said that at $1,500,000 an acre, you won’t see that. Mr. Simoneau stressed the importance of keeping options open, especially in light of the TIF district. Members then voted on whether to allow large buildings, about one every thousand feet, with the visual appearance of 2 stories, in T4. The vote was 5-2 in favor, with Ms. Benton and Ms. Quest voting against. Members then concurred on removing the exemption for meeting door standards for buildings with 20,000 sq. ft. Members then considered the question of electronic charging stations: Ms. Calcagni noted the state is doing some work on this. Mr. Gagnon had no problem in T5. Mr. Conner said one problem is there is no standardization with cars on which side the pump is on. This could be a safety issue. He suggested exempting them from regulations but not requiring them yet. Mr. Simoneau asked if this would be an encouraged amenity, and who would pay for it. He suggested it could be encouraged rather than required. Mr. Conner said the regulations could say this is not considered a gas station. Mr. Gagnon said someone ultimately has to pay for that power. Mr. Conner said you will begin to see them in office buildings and places where people will be stopping for 20 minutes. When it becomes economically viable, there will be more. He felt they have to consider this is not a “service station” use. Members then considered light access: Mr. Engels asked if buildings are very tall, will they block out the light. Mr. Conner noted that buildings over 4 stories have to be set back. Members discussed whether to require or to “encourage” solar in all buildings. The suggestion was to encourage all buildings to be solar ready. Members asked that Mr. Conner provide a list of “shoulds” from the current regulations to see if any ought to be “shalls.” As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 3 Overall, the designation T4 zone does not appear to support either your existing uses or provide flexibility for future uses that are consistent with a 50+ acre lot that supports a shopping center. Build to lines which may be appropriate for City blocks or small lots do not readily apply themselves to this property, and would render the majority of your site as undevelopable. It would be more appropriate for the Mall to have a different zoning designation that compliments the City Center and furthers its goals, but does not severely limit viable economic development of your site. As written it seems that you would be forced to subdivide your land. Is this the intent? Sheila McIntyre (Umall) 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 4 Any reference to “Blocks” seems to create an unclear situation for an existing Mall on a single 50+ acre lot. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 5 Building Frontage 70% developed. This is OK to have as a goal, but it says “REQUIRED”. I don’t see how they can mandate that for an existing lot, especially when the lot is more than 50 acres and spans almost 2000 ft. along Dorset St. Not clear how natural resources factor into this requirement as about 250 ft of your lot frontage is wetland/stream buffer. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 12/12/2013 Clarification T-Zone Review 1 6 Build To Line: 12 ft max puts ALL future development within 12 ft of Dorset Street. Will not work for your site. Note your internal access drives are not streets and should not be treated as streets as it is one lot. You need to maintain flexibility within your one (large) lot to move drives as may be beneficial for future use and development. Again, maintain flexibility. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Draft FBC has changed since this comment was provided. 7 Building Levels: Two REQUIRED leaves no flexibility. Not necessarily consistent with existing and future uses on your lot. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 Draft FBC has changed since this comment was provided. 8 Lot size, lot coverage, units per acre: no restrictions is good!Sheila McIntyre (Umall) 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 9 I note that our Executive Drive property in the current C-1 district is now a proposed T-3 under the latest Messy Map listing. Since none of our existing buildings are compliant with the T-3 designation, I'm assuming this is a mapping error. If it's not, what must we do to be designated T-4 like the rest of our C-1 neighbors have been? Craig Bensen 7/24/2013 8/20/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Has been changed to T4 10 In a T3 zone the rule says 4 units per acre minimum. Should an applicant own a 2 acre plot would she not be allowed to build a single family dwelling? Would she have to build 8 units? Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Comment appears to apply to areas outside the City Center 11 T-3 is said to have "typical" single family dwellings and "occasional" Apartment buildings. Will there be any rule or standards defining these broad notions? Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Comment appears to apply to areas outside the City Center 12 There is a no Minimum build to line on Principle Frontage... South Burlington neighborhoods are accustomed to set backs.... This is a big change in how the City neighborhood will look. Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Comment appears to apply to areas outside the City Center 13 T-3 establishes rules based upon "units per acre". What is the definition of an "acre". Is it a buidable acre or just a straight multiplication of acres time units? A lot of 10 acres with 9 acres of pond and wetland has 1 "Buildable acre" I would assume Otherwise with the 4 units per acre MINIMUM the sole buildable acre must have 40 units?? Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 25 Garage doors at 90 degree angle to the road seems like a bad idea to me. It requires much more paved area to be able to maneuver a vehicle around a corner into the garage. More paved area is bad for stormwater management, looks ugly, is expensive to maintain, and takes more time to clear snow. It also is more difficult to enter and exit without damaging the vehicle and garage, especially in the winter when the driveway is slippery with ice and snow. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 26 For retail only on ground level, how is retail defined? Does that mean no dance studios, art galleries, law offices, barbers, eateries, etc? I think all those uses should be allowed on ground level, but I don't think of them as being "retail". Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 27 % of glazing: on the left side, it says "80% of width of building", and on the right side is says "no less than 80%". Is it supposed to be exactly 80%, or a minimum 80%? The way it's written is hard to tell, so the language should be clarified so it's easy to understand and enforce. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 38 I like that the garage door requirements have been broadened, but I don't think the minimum 45' setback should be required. That requirement means there will be 45' of extra paved driveway - space that could be put to much better use as a flower/vegetable garden, lawn, patio, deck. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 39 T4 general notes has a bullet with no text.Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 40 The parking location and standards for T4, first sentence, seems to be missing a word or two. It doesn't make sense as written. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 41 Percentage of glazing is written as an exact percentage. It's impossible to meet an exact percentage. It should be specified as a range, minimum, or maximum. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 42 The T5 elevation view shows retail required on ground level, even though that requirement was removed from the special regulations text on the 2nd page. That could be confusing. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 50 I spoke to Debra following a chat I had earlier today with Kevin Dorn. I had mentioned to Kevin today and at a prior meeting, that we have continued interest from Starbucks (presently situated across the street) if and only if we secure a drive thru. Starbucks has adopted a staunch drive thru format nationwide which ironically is a huge relief to parking. Starbucks is currently testing a new juice bar concept in CA (to be included within their coffee platform) and if same proves successful they will look at suitable markets throughout the country and I personally feel that this area would be a perfect fit. In any event Kevin indicated that the city ordinance regarding drive thru locations was being re- visited by the city and suggested we speak with you regarding same. Having said that I would respectfully ask that the city please consider same here. Jeff Halvorsen 11/4/2013 11/4/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 Draft FBC Code allows for drivethroughs under certain conditions 51 Quick intro for any future readers of this email: We own 135 Hinesburg Rd (Southern corner of Market & Rt 116). Our property falls in the T-3 Neighborhood, and all subsequent comments are directly solely at the T-3 Neighborhood. In review of the draft regulations as they stand, there are two items that I would like to comment on that I feel needs greater detail/ attention: David Shenk 11/7/2013 11/7/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Introductory statement 52 1. “Lot Size: Width: 70’min – 120’ Max or 150’ if Cottage Court”. a. Our property has a combined width of approximately 380’ +- along Market street. I am not sure the intent of the word “Lot” in the proposed regulations, but if the intent is to break-up the buildings, the statement should be re-worded to clearly identify the true intent. b. I see an issue with the word “Lot”, because it is our intent to keep the land legal parcel intact, and not break it up into smaller parcels. c. We do feel that it would be appropriate to break-up any buildings that are constructed to prevent a seemingly long singular structure. d. I would propose a MAX width of a single structure to be no less than 100’, this would give the ability to have at least 4 “breaks” in the structure (break required every 24’ per proposed regs.) David Shenk 11/7/2013 11/7/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 53 1. Percentage of Lot Coverage: 65%. a. What does this include? I assume the building. What about other impervious area; such as walks, drives, parking, etc…? David Shenk 11/7/2013 11/7/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 54 I feel the committee has done a great job drafting regulations that fit our parcel. Our parcel is inherently transitional due to its proximity to single family homes and to the future core of the new City Center. I feel the regulations can accommodate very reasonable buffers while allowing an easing of increased density as structures get larger toward the City Center. David Shenk 11/7/2013 11/7/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 59 Thank you for the time you are spending on this important issue for our city. It is one of those ‘forever’ decisions that deserve our full attention. This decision may end up defining South Burlington. Will we be just another downtown shopping place, or a truly unique Vermont city? We should rightfully take our time to produce a plan that captures what the residents of South Burlington want, not settle for what finances dictate. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 Statement 60 Like many of you, I participated in the city center visioning and planning process for the past two years; and I attended most of the meetings held by the past and current consultants. But, I was unpleasantly surprised during last Tuesday’s Planning Commission meeting when I saw the city center map produced by the form based codes committee. It did not look at all like the map that resulted from past visioning sessions and residents’ suggestions. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 61 I would hope that South Burlington city center does not become just another place to shop, or an extension of the U-Mall, but rather a unique place to experience our city and our state. First and foremost, our city center should be a sense of pride and joy for residents of South Burlington: somewhere they can come to meet and talk and eat and do business and reside and enjoy life. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 2 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 62 Heavy Truck Traffic is not defined. Needs to be defined.Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical T-Zone Review 1 63 What's the reason for 10' setback on garages if not oriented 90 degrees to the street? It seems like a useless requirement to me. I think 90 degree angle and any garage setback should be changed to "encouraged" or eliminated. They both increase the amount of pavement required (either longer to get to the 10' setback, or wider to allow turning room to get into a 90 degree angle garage). That space could be put to much better use as a flower/vegetable garden, lawn, patio, deck. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 113 Would civic (city) buildings have to meet the Code?Helen Riehle 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 114 If we're going to attract people to the the T5 and shops, the best approach is to have a centralized parking structure, not miles or parking everywhere. Ted Cress 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 115 Building style is very important. This is why I mention brownstones, which are very cozy.Meaghan Emery 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 155 I have now read the entire (!) draft Form-Based Code document. I appreciate all of the work and input that has gone into this by a multitude of committees of staff, volunteers, and consultants. Karen Unsworth 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 156 The first impression is how radically different this is from the zoning of the 1970’s. For example, the specifications and photos for the “Lane” street type could have been used as a texbook example of “bad planning” at that time. However, I understand the present thinking behind this, the building- envelope requirements, and other items. Karen Unsworth 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 157 The central question is whether this is what I “envisioned” as a City Center to give an “urban feel”. Yes, it is. I agree that we have a unique opportunity in this area of the City, with some public holdings and with landowners (most notably S.B. Realty) who are willing to partner in this effort. It is good that this new type of code is being tried just in the City Center for now, in order that we can see how it really works on the ground. Karen Unsworth 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 158 As a resident and a property owner (part of a family entity) in the area, obviously I wanted to see how this affects us. We have no immediate development plans. However, we may want to change the Village Green parcels to high-density residential use, several years from now. I see nothing in the proposed regulations that would prevent that. As always, the key is knowing in advance what the rules are. Karen Unsworth 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 159 Obviously, I can’t speak for owners of other properties in the designated area, but my impression is that this is beneficial. Karen Unsworth 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 160 1. The Transect Zones page is VERY helpful, digestible and clear.Glenn Sproul 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 161 2. The map leaves me with a couple questions: Is the purple "Special District" the present Central School property? --- Is there a town green planned anywhere?? I don't see one. Is it assumed the city will buy enough land for such a green to go with civic structures if it wants such a green? I expect this echoes the concerns expressed in the Open Space memo to you. Glenn Sproul 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 162 4. The Draft City Center Code Components is overwhelming! There's a huge amount of detail, mind- numbing in its extent, but seemingly clearly written, at least the parts I read. I assume this is all to the point of making it quick and straightforward for a proposed building to be checked for compliance by the DRB, and approved if it is in compliance. Glenn Sproul 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 183 Consistency of style is important. I recommend the code give materials suggestions within the T5 for consistency between buildings Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 184 I would like for City Center to be a lively place to be in the evening. There are pitfalls to making this happen. One is related to T5 - if it's all office, everyone will go home at 5 pm. We need people living there to create a vibrancy in the evenings and weekends. This relates to a the need for small places for activities such as a market. WE need draws and generator - city buildings, a post office; we need to encourage these. Rick Hubbard 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 185 I live in a proposed T3.A have a few comments:Linus Levens 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 186 1. If you had a high point in City Center that had a view - a scenic element - it would create a sense of Vermont in City Center Linus Levens 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 187 My big concern is the potential for economic loss within the T3 area if it's zoned commercial. Do we know what effect it will have? Linus Levens 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy T-Zone Review 1 228 Thank you for hosting the public forums recently. Unfortunately, our schedules have been busy enough that my wife and I were only able to But there are two concerns/thoughts that we would like to share--attend part of Saturday's gathering. We had to leave early, so we could not give any feedback. Tom & Eunice Branch 12/8/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 229 1. We live on the north side of Iby Street, and for the over 20 years that we have lived here, there have been quiet woods behind our house. Is it possible that the T-3 development that abuts the Iby Street homes could be offices of small business professionals (doctors, lawyers, CPA's, etc)? That would mean that they are mostly occupied during business hours, but during the evenings, weekends and holidays, they would mostly be quiet and empty. I think that would provide a smooth transition in the neighborhood, allowing for reasonable development of the area, but at the same time, helping to maintain the privacy and quiet of our street. That's one thing that attracted us to the property. Now, while we know that some development is inevitable, I would hope for something that would help preserve the quiet and peaceful quality of our street. Tom & Eunice Branch 12/8/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 234 As you know Geri Reilly Real Estate very recently relocated their offices to 340 Dorset St. This section of Dorset is bordered on the North and South by San Remo Drive. It struck me walking around the East side entrance to the space how much like Pine St. in Burlington San Remo Drive is. Pine St. has become a dynamic area, with numerous small retail, service, and light industrial uses intermingled in the landscape. There’s also a strong presence of the “Arts”, as the area is really the home of the South End Arts Hop. The arts infuse the Pine St area with an energy that makes what was once a drab mixed industrial zone an always interesting environment to be in. Michael Simoneau 12/9/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 235 The reason I share this is I believe San Remo is as Pine St. was before its’ recent “artsy” emergence. It is a jewel in the making, and could be a real asset to the fabric of City Center, which should have a many layered fabric of different types of businesses located in close proximity to the residential population. The T-4 FBC designation wants to promote an emergent development pattern that would be quite different, though the draft non-conformity language should insure that San Remo won’t need to be redeveloped with a T-4 character that is so different from the present, and where I could see it evolving as a Pine St. like area. Michael Simoneau 12/9/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 236 San Remo is one of these places that kind of has its’ own DNA. We have already decided to affix a couple of designations in the T-3 area of City Center. Is there merit to doing the same in the San Remo neighborhood? Perhaps T-4 SR? Michael Simoneau 12/9/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 237 These thoughts are offered as a private citizen, and do not necessarily represent those of the FBCC!Michael Simoneau 12/9/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a T-Zone Review 1 239 Another issue that was raised was that we have designed a code where the look and feel of a New England village has been lost and developers are free to do whatever they want in terms of design. We are very clear in the building envelop standards that buildings will be between 2 and 6 stories in T5 and they will have doorways every 36 feet and they will have first floors that will be 80% glass and that in T4 and T3 buildings units will have individual access to the street. This means that these buildings will look like the kind of buildings that you see in New England towns. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 240 Another refrain that has been echoed is that the code we have written will make City Center a commercial only area like the Umall. The fact is that at least 75% or more of City Center will be residential. The idea has always been to have a livable walkable community and the code has done just that. This is true of all three transects. There will be residences above the first floor stores in the T5 transect. T4 will be primarily condos, apartments and townhouses with some commercial. T3 is residential by definition. All residents will have individual access to the street. There will be porches and sidewalks and truly human environments. My guess is that Umall will transform and look like City Center 20 years with primarily residential mixed use redevelopment. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 3 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 241 A good example of how City Center will NOT be is Farrell Street behind Shaw's which is a classic example of suburban sprawl. The buildings there are set way back from the road. There is no individual access to Farrell Street. Farrell Street is wide and traffic moves dangerously fast cutting through from Swift Street to Shelburne Road. Retail is concentrated in strip malls along Shelburne Road and is completely separated from the residential area. It is always interesting for me to walk from my classic T3 old Eastwood neighborhood into the suburban wasteland that is Farrell Street. For some reason my dog loves it. Maybe because of all the other dog smells and nothing else. I hate it. For me it is just blank walls and traffic zipping by with only the occasional other person walking their dog. This, I repeat, is exactly NOT what City Center will be. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 242 In your deliberations please focus on what the code is and ignore the distractions. The code is the transects, the building envelop standards and the streetscapes. The streetscapes came directly out of the visioning sessions. Again it was not our job to design a street grid. What we have offered as part of the code is that when a street is built it will follow the streetscapes precisely just as the buildings will be precisely what the BESs say they will be. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 243 This is the beauty of form based code. We as a citizen committee and you as citizen Planning Commissioners and all of the other citizen committees that have weighed in and all of the citizens that have participated or commented get to write our own land development regulations and determine through form based code exactly what our city will look like. We can and, with the City Center code, have in fact written code that will halt suburban sprawl. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 244 I am sure you know now to focus on the transects, the BES and the streetscapes. Perhaps the most important of the three is the streetscapes. We all seem to understand what the transects are and that the BESs match the transects and make the transects unique to South Burlington. The final piece of the puzzle is the streetscape. To envision the built environment you need to include all three. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 245 Review the code with the thought of making it tighter. For example, doors can be 30 feet instead of 36 feet and there does not need to be an exception to the two floor minimum for a box store anchor tenant. Consult with Paul Dreher on how to make the code do what you want it to do. Ask him what the implications are of every aspect of the code and of every change you purpose. We spent a year reviewing every word and every detail of the code. Nothing passed our attention thoughtlessly and nothing should pass yours. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 246 It is a simple straight forward code. I have always thought that understanding it is a zen experience. People say that zen is passed on to another person like a candle is lit by another candle flame to flame. I had the ah ha experience the first time I talked to Paul Dreher. I have had the experience myself of passing the ah ha experience on to others. Once you get it, it makes perfect since and nothing could be simpler or more empowering. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 255 Thank you for the note and the opportunity to clarify our concerns [7/11/2013] based on the updated draft. I will be happy to respond to you in more detail tomorrow as we do not see how all of the Mall’s concerns have been addressed. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) #########12/14/2013 12/14/2013 Policy T-Zone Review 1 280 See attached letter dated January 3, 2014 on Map, T-zone, Nonconformities, block sizes Heather Tremblay 1/4/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 Policy T-zone review 1 286 T-1 is a regulatory boundary for something that lots of regulations already address. The T1 line does not address the physical area already protected by these regulations and is thus both arbitrary and more restrictive than existing regulations. Property owners to Ilona Blanchard 1/16/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 Policy T-zone review 1 287 In T-3, there is a minimum of # of units per acre. This should specify residential units for the lay reader. Property owners to Ilona Blanchard 1/16/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 Technical T-zone review 1 288 In T-3 what is “detached mixed-use storefront”?Property owners to Ilona Blanchard 1/16/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 Technical T-zone review 1 14 There seems to be no FBC standard that seeks to protect one zone from another. Why?. Current rules require attention to the impact of a PUD or development on neighboring parcels. 4 unit Minimum and no Maximum in 7-3 will have a huge impact on the neighboring T-2 neighborhoods and without transition zones it will not work. Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Transitions 2 Comment appears to apply to areas outside the City Center 36 My name is Cynthia Stanley. I am a teacher, a single mother and a taxpayer of South Burlington. I have resided at 22 Iby Street with my son for the past 5 years. I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate to have found a house on this street for many reasons; it is a dead end, not much traffic, woods at the end of the street, and a good neighborhood to raise my child, with caring neighbors. I understand that I cannot stop City Center from becoming a reality, whether I agree with it or not. I also understand that I cannot prevent the owner of the property that abuts our backyards, from building there. I do think that we should have a say in the matter though. I know your meetings are open, but by having them at noon on Thursdays make them inaccessible to us that must work! That point aside, when I was informed that you were discussing the possibility of constructing three-story townhouses directly behind our backyards I was a bit taken aback, to say the least. We are a neighborhood of one to one and half story ranch houses and saltboxes. I can’t understand how constructing buildings that are three stories tall on the next street fits in. I used to live on Queensbury Rd in a two-story townhouse. That would be a building that might be easier to live with. The height of the buildings is not the only problem I have with this project. What do you plan to do with all the water that is there? I have attached a few pictures that show the amount of flooding that occurred after this spring’s rains. Even now, with no building back there, all of my neighbors’ basements flood; what will happen when densely packed three story buildings are erected there? I do hope you reconsider this course of action and take the residents of Iby Streets concern into consideration. Cynthia Stanley 10/9/2013 10/10/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Transitions 2 37 Anita, Thanks for the memory jog ref the proposal of high density building at the Hinesburg Road entrance to Market Street. Frankly, we are somewhat disappointed that the goal posts have changed, yet again ! After all the meetings that our neighborhood has attended over the last few years, where the idea of initially a Green Space (with an alternate low density 1 to 2 level housing) entrance at the Hinesburg Road end gradually increasing to the proposed 4 to 5 story level housing/commercial City Center, it seems to have progressed to naught. As the route of Market Street has not altered (my memory seems to suggest that the proposal was to leave Market Street where it is to ensure high density housing would not occur until further down Market Street), we, as a collective, have been misled by South Burlington City Council. I have spoken with several of the neighbours, who are all as distraught and disappointed as we are. I have attached, for your information, a copy of the petition we circulated a while ago amongst the folks in and around Iby Street, Barrett Street and Hinesburg Road. The original, signed copy was handed to the council some time ago. I have heard NOTHING of it since. Please protest this proposal, to the extent you are able. I have copied Paul Conner. Les and Annie Parker #########10/10/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Transitions 2 55 2. “When City Center T-3 abuts an existing neighborhood a Transitional Buffer shall be required”. a. There is no definition currently – but at last week’s meeting two ideas were proposed: (i) 20' planted area (ii) 8' planted areas + 12' driveway. b. Our parcel is only 90’ deep, and feel that a 20’ planted area would be very restrictive when trying to accommodate circulation around a future structure. c. I like the 8’ planted area + 12’ driveway idea because it allows for rear parking & circulation. d. I encourage a definition of the planted area to be definitive enough to require a dense/ heavily screened rear (i) We would do this regardless (6' fence, cedar hedge, etc.). e. Regardless of rear buffers, our intent is to build a structure very close to Market St, so irrespective of rear-setbacks, the actual structure will be significantly distanced from the rear boundary line. f. I am attaching a cut-section thru our parcel to show how the lot could be developed using the proposed regulations while accommodating rear circulation and a reasonable transition to the land owners in the rear of our parcel. (i) This is only a cross section, and can't be used to assess density &frequency of structures along Market St frontage. David Shenk 11/7/2013 11/7/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Transitions 2 116 Is there a "buffer" area between Iby Street and Market Street?Cindy Stanley 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Transitions 2 117 Would like to see development in a tactful way that makes gradual transition into impacted neighborhoods Stephen Bove 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Transitions 2 188 The transition from Iby Street, make it a more natural transition. I am concerned about the Iby Street to Market Street area. A dense row of housing would be abrupt. Chris Ford 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Transitions 2 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 4 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 43 Question - if Dick’s Sporting Goods or Walgreens want to build in a T-4 zone in City Center would they be required to have two usable stories or would they be required to appear to have two stories? Heather Tremblay #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Building Heights 3 118 The FBC Committee was very aware that water is a big issue. The six story maximum reflects that there are limitations on the ground because of this. Paul Engels 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 119 I'm feeling that the standard for first floor heights in T5 and T4 are too tall and realized this at the very end of the Committee process. Looking at Route 2a, trying to think of it on a different street like Market Street. Anita Germain 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 120 I disagree [on floor heights] a little bit. The ceiling heights will have drop ceilings. In addition, the road profile will be very different, with 11' travel lanes, 8' of parking, and 21' of sidewalk & amenities. Tim McKenzie 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 189 I have a bit of unease that independent landowners can make individual decisions, to, for example, have four 6-story buildings in a row. Gerry Silverstein 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 190 The FBC Committee was charged with creating a liable, walkable downtown. It's not news that the code is for an urban downtown. For me this is good as this is the exact opposite of the traditional zoning of strip malls. Paul Engels 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 191 My gut says that 3 stories are enough. I like places with smaller retail on the first floor, in a village style Lisa Alexandra 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 192 4. Box stores. I don't fully understand the regulation it feels that there may be too much leeway for them. I wouldn't want to too many of these. To some extent it may be ok, I'd want variety and to have them only under certain circumstances. Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Building Heights 3 247 Also it is not true that we want six story buildings between the civic green and Market Street. I remember clearly how that falsehood developed. It was when we received our first 3D modeling of City Center. The modeler put buildings along Market Street in front of the green. As soon as we saw it we pointed it out and stated clearly that the green had to be open to Market Street and the change was made to eliminate those 3D building models. Unfortunately the iteration of the 3D modeling to which we objected was the one that the Open Space committee received and upon which they based their criticism and their outrage and the erroneous claim that we opposed a city green or that it would be shut off to Market Street. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. We want a central civic green prominently located and central to downtown which is why our recommendation was what it was. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Building Heights 3 248 CIty Center will look like a New England downtown because these are the dimensions of a New England downtown. If you walk around Burlington or St. Johnsbury or any other 19th century New England town you will find buildings 2 to six stories or maybe even slightly taller with glass store fronts on the 1st floor with offices and residences above and you will see homes with access to the street. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Building Heights 3 121 What are we going to do about water with new buildings? I live on Iby Street where it is already wet Cindy Stanley 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Stormwater 4 122 Rainfall in the back of Iby Street has become more of a problem in the last three years Les Parker 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Stormwater 4 123 If there is going to be more land covered along Market Street, where will the water go? Need to make sure water is cared for Stephen Bove 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Stormwater 4 124 Water has been in that [Iby Street] area since development has taken place in past years and with storms hovering longer Stephen Bove 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Stormwater 4 193 I am also concerned about water and stormwater in this [Iby Street] area Chris Ford 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Stormwater 4 230 2. When we get heavy rains, there is often water standing in our backyard. We are concerned that more development in the area will cause water to roll off toward our yard and increase this problem, and potentially leading to flooding in our basement. So we are particularly concerned that the issue of adequate drainage be addressed during the plans for development in our neighborhood. Tom & Eunice Branch 12/8/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Stormwater 4 2 "All new buildings with sloped roofs shall orient their roofs towards True South to maximize solar gain potential. Keith Epstein 6/30/2013 10/10/2013 7/9/2013 Policy Other 6 Comments provided to PC as part of separate LDR amendment. PC reported that this would be best considered at a wider scale 19 Another element worth considering is allowances/requirements for electric vehicle parking/charging locations. Tim Perrin, VEIC 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 20 Landscaping is a tricky one. Although there may be specific requirements worth including, the interaction between a building’s energy use and nearby vegetation is somewhat site-specific. Nick/Paul, please chime in if anything really obvious jumps out at you. Again, perhaps some “…encouraged” language could be drafted as guidelines. Tim Perrin, VEIC 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 21 I do believe FBCs are a vehicle to incorporate solar-friendly standards for new development. Although something like building orientation will be more a factor of street patterning, perhaps requirements for solar load-bearing roofs and/or other technical nuances that are much easier to include at the design of a building to integrate solar than afterwards. (I admit this is outside EVT’s/my technical expertise so unfortunately do not have specifics of what those elements may be.) Even if you can’t get those design elements included as requirements, perhaps they are worth being called out as “…encouraged” (similar to awnings, stoops, vestibules). Tim Perrin, VEIC 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 22 The only potential conflict between the FBC as currently drafted and CBES relates to glazing requirements. The FBC sets minimum requirements for glazing on specific facades; CBES sets a maximum of 40% of the whole building wall area. There may be times if the building is a standalone structure or on an end-cap where the FBC glazing requirements could approach or cross this 40% maximum threshold set by CBES (but would likely be the exception, not the rule). And if a stretch code is adopted that lowers this maximum threshold further, the issue may come more into play. Tim Perrin, VEIC 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 Appears to have been resolved at FBC meeting. Was a clarification 23 The community’s prevailing energy code—either statewide CBES/RBES or a “stretch” code eventually adopted by the community in a parallel path—must be complied with in addition to the form-based code. Our recommendation is to include language in the form-based code that states as much, without getting into the technical details of R-values, etc. Tim Perrin, VEIC 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 24 This form-based code (FBC) is used to inform the requirements (“must have”) of the visible attributes of new development, not suggestions/recommendations (“nice to have”). However, there are a few times when the code deviates from this regulatory mantra by weakening language to “…is encouraged”. Tim Perrin, VEIC 9/23/2013 9/23/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 28 Some cities have recently required solar on all new buildings. I think that's a great idea.Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Policy Other 6 29 I think all buildings that FBC apply to should be "solar ready. This removes a barrier to a future owner installing a solar system, and is a great way for the city to support solar. There's been lots of talk from City Council and Planning Commission about prioritizing rooftop solar over ground mount, but no action. The details of this need to be determined, but at a minimum the building should be built strong enough to support solar panels and ballast if needed, have space for electrical conduit, space to mount inverters, put HVAC units and vent pipes to the North end of the roof, and orient roof slopes to the South where possible. We could work out the details by looking at what other communities have done and discussing with solar contractors. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Policy Other 6 44 LEED silver is a great addition! Why not include it in T5, and make it required? Does the language "encouraged" ever accomplish anything, or is it typically ignored? I would ignore it if I was a developer. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 45 I think solar ready roofs should be required (not encouraged) on ALL building in City Center. The details of this need to be determined, but at a minimum the building should be built strong enough to support solar panels and ballast if needed, have chases for electrical conduit, space to mount inverters, put HVAC units and vent pipes to the North end of the roof, and orient roof slopes to the South where possible or flat. We could work out the details by looking at what other communities have done and discussing with solar contractors. At least a requirement to locate rooftop HVAC units at the North side of flat and slightly sloping roofs to allow sunlight to hit the roof where solar panels could be placed. That could be shown in the plan/elevation views. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 56 2. Our parcel has frontage on both Hinesburg Rd (90’) and Market Street (380’) – which road is primary and which is secondary? a. We assume Market St. would be primary & Hinesburg secondary David Shenk 11/7/2013 11/7/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 57 School District Safety Overlay District. See letter & map dated 11-11-2013 SB School District #########12/12/2013 PC Presentatio Policy Other 6 58 This map still shows a public road going right through the middle of the Windjammer Parking lot. I would hate for people to think that is going to happen. I understand that much of this is a “work in progress” but I have brought this concern of ours up before and that road placement has not changed. Laura O'Connell #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 5 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 64 A very important aspect I strongly urge the FCC to consider is to create some flexibility to the BES (Building Envelope Standards) where "some" of the buildings may be allowed a greater setback than others (but not a lot). I understand the current setback is about 5ft from the ROW line for all buildings for the core of city center; however if we can allow a small additional setback for certain types of retail, restaurants, coffee shops etc.. we then can create some small urban pocket parks and eddy spaces that allow for pedestrian gatherings and lingering. In addition, if we can remove a small amount of parking in front of these spaces (as an option) we can create this diversity of space for pedestrian activity in the city center. Paul Simon 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 65 I personally disagree with holding a strong and consistent building line along the entire city center, especially when we require a minimum of 2-actively used floors or more stories for the T-5. Here and there, a building setback an additional 10 feet with activity on the 2nd floor (such as outdoor terrace space) looking down to an active urban open space in front of the building can be an attractive aesthetic, help break up and diversify building placement, and add an important element back within the plans for the city center for park & urban open space. Even smaller areas where an extra 5ft allows pedestrian seating can provide an aesthetic of value and contribute toward the pedestrian and walkable fabric. Paul Simon 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 66 A good example is the Garden Street side of the Trader Joe's building where the plaza will be created; here the TJ building is setback further than the 2nd building further East, developing a framework for the small plaza area. Paul Simon 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 67 Providing enough of these spaces along Market and Garden streets would be better than a "central green" and provide all that is needed for the scale of SB city center; Many Central Greens unfortunately are disconnected from the pedestrians depending on how the road network is developed. Pocket parks between buildings and parklets where a small amount of on-street parking is removed creates more-used lively activity areas along the pedestrian way without having to cross vehicular traffic ways. Paul Simon 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 68 Having seen and involved with good and bad examples developed in Boston, I believe the thickened edge along the building fabric is the way to go for SB City Center. where we can create these "look at me while I look at you" spaces like the small urban plaza developed on the South side of Trader Joe's. Paul Simon 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 69 On the current form based code committee city center map, the village green is gone, replaced by five and six-story buildings. The map does show a park area, but it is on the outskirts, not integral to the city center. The downtown area is devoted to large stores for shopping. This is extremely disappointing and upsetting to see. For comparison purposes during the public sessions and on the city website, would you please display the map from the past planning sessions that captured the residents’ vision adjacent to the form based codes map of city center. This will make it easier for the average person to compare both plans. They are clearly very different, and reflect conflicting visions. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 70 Windows are required to be taller than wide, but diagram on page 37 shows windows that are wider than tall. Diagrams should be consistent with the requirements, or change the requirements if that's not what is wanted. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 71 LEED silver encouraged is a good start, but "encouraged" is not strong enough. We all agree that reducing energy use and building sustainably is important, so let's codify it by requiring LEED silver or stronger energy requirements like Energy Star, PassiveHouse, etc. We will never meet the State of VT's 90% renewable energy by 2050 if we keep building buildings the way we typically do. There are several architecture and engineering firms in Vermont who build net zero energy homes and offices regularly. It will become the standard during the lifetime of the City Center buildings, so let's get out in front of the curve and build low energy buildings now. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 72 Solar Ready needs to be strengthened. Get rid of "To the extent possible" and Solar Ready needs a more rigorous definition that is easily enforceable. At a minimum the building should be built strong enough to support solar panels and ballast if needed, have space for electrical conduit, space to mount inverters, locate HVAC units and vent pipes to the North end of the roof to avoid shading, and orient sloped roof slopes to the South where possible. We could work out the details by looking at what other communities have done and discussing with solar contractors. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 73 There are cases where solar ready does not make sense, like if a building has a lot of shade, so the document should allow for relaxation of the solar ready requirement in those unusual circumstances. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 74 There should be language that says all utilities shall be underground, to improve reliability (no wind, snow, squirrels) and aesthetics. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 75 Electric vehicles are becoming more popular, so we should consider requiring or allowing (with certain rules) electric vehicle charging stations. Maybe parking spaces with EV charging don't count towards required # of spaces, so this could be a way for a developer to add more than is allowed if they want to. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 125 Terrific job on this John Dinkledge 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora n/a Other 6 126 The University Mall has been welcomed to participate; thank you for this. We support the FBC and the process. One concern is to remind everyone that the Mall does exist and will be here. We're hoping the exemption [nonconformities] in the current draft remains. We believe the current draft works for us. Heather Tremblay 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Other 6 163 Add an up front statement clarifying that FBC is strictly a zoning mechanism that applies primarily to private development and does not establish public amenities on private lands. Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 164 Add a Table of Contents to facilitate document navigation.Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 165 Add to Appendix A, the "Map" of the City Center on page 26 supplementary info and a Legend that:Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Other 6 166 1. Briefly defines the T-1, T-2, etc areas and the meaning of the color code designations.Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 167 3. Identifies the names of existing city owned park areas, where applicable. Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Other 6 194 While reviewing the City Center FBC, I noticed a missing element which I believe should be included: facilities for "level 2" (240V/30-40Amp) electric car charging at municipal parking areas, as well as hotels. Electric car owners are particularly motivated by the availability of chargers, and they will favor retail districts that offer this amenity. The car charging station at Healthy Living, for example, regularly draws visitors from Montreal and Boston because of its proximity to shopping, and because there are few other car charging options in the greater Burlington area. The best locations for "level 2" chargers are those where a car will be parked for 4-8 hours: hotels and workplace parking lots. To get a meaningful charge, particularly for someone from outside the area, at least 4-hours of charging is necessary. Car chargers, such as the ChargePoint brand, can be set up to accept credit card billing for the electricity used, though many municipalities opt for free charging as a way of attracting visitors and encouraging clean, quiet electric vehicle use by local residents. Once a charger is put into service, it becomes recognized by a number of free listing services that direct drivers to the chargers. These include smartphone apps by ChargePoint, PlugShare, and CarStations. Electric car owners use these apps when planning trips. I would like to suggest that "level 2" car chargers be included in the FBC for any future hotel construction, as well as future city-owned parking facilities likely to be used by people working in the City Center. The State of Vermont, in collaboration with Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, is making a push right now to encourage the use of electric cars across the state. Since Vermont has one of the greenest electric grids in the country, we are in an unusually good position to reap the environmental benefits of electric vehicles. VEIC can help the City of South Burlington with electric car charging implementation. I suggest contacting Dave Roberts at droberts@veic.org Todd Lockwood 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 249 However, it was not our charge to develop street grids or assign park space. We wrote code that includes transects, building envelop standards and streetscapes and I believe we have done so superbly. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Other 6 256 In the short term, one thing that Heather and I had noticed and inquired about at the PC hearing with you and Paul was the map and that it included several features that we questioned: Sheila McIntyre (Umall) #########12/14/2013 12/14/2013 Policy Other 6 257 1) There are ‘gray lines’ that appear to be parcel lines on the Mall property. No one seems to know where they came from or why they are there, but we would like to have them removed from the map. The only parcel besides the main Mall parcel is the People’s Bank parcel. 205 Dorset and the dentist office are also separate parcels but also under separate ownership. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) #########12/14/2013 12/14/2013 Technical Other 6 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 6 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 258 2) There are what appear to be “street spurs” that come off of Dorset Street into the Mall parcel that seem to indicate some form of intersection (?). There are no existing or planned streets inside the Mall parcel and of particular concern is that some line up with existing driveways and some do not. No one could indicate what they were for or why they were there and to avoid any future confusion and planning conflicts, we also request that they be removed from the map. Any future “streets” into or on the Mall property would have to include very in depth and technical analysis, as well as an evaluation of the impact on existing businesses, safety, circulation, and existing leases. Sheila McIntyre (Umall) #########12/14/2013 12/14/2013 Policy Other 6 76 18.4 Administrative Site Plan Review. * DRB should still take part in the review of projects. Giving full control to the Administrative Officer puts too much responsibility on one person. There are ambiguities in the FBC and possible misinterpretations, and it would be too easy for the Administrative Officer to accidentally approve an application that shouldn't be approved because of a violation. Multiple people (the DRB) looking at an application will result in better conformance to the codes we are developing. Removing DRB review also removes the chance for the public to review and comment on projects. That is not a direction I think the city should go. Changing this section to eliminate review solely by the AO would also remove section 18.5. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Review Process 7 127 The Bike Ped Committee currently has the ability to review projects for bike=ped features. Will this be the same or exist in the future? Roy Neuer 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Review Process 7 250 I know there is concern about citizen input into permitting. We have written a tight code with no ambiguity. There should be little for the DRB to do. When this code is adopted developers will know what is expected of them when they build in City Center. If they adhere to the code they get a permit to build and we will all know exactly what they will build. Now is the time for citizen input. We make the rules. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Review Process 7 289 I read the Planning Commission meeting summary in the Other Paper today, and a couple things caught my eye. The first one was about development review. I think it is very important for to maintain DRB review, even for projects that the developer thinks meets all the FBC requirements. There are bound to be ambiguities in the FBC as written, and they can be sorted out much better at the DRB in the public eye than with an administrative review. It is not a straightforward decision to determine whether a project meets the requirements of the FBC, so this difficult task should not be left up to one administrator. These developments will be with us for many decades, so we should do everything we can to write the FBC clearly and make sure they are followed. The draft FBC that I saw had plenty of "should" clauses, which are not clear to developers or the people in charge of enforcing the FBC. Keith Epstein 1/23/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 Policy Review Process 7 128 I am concerned about "T-creep". Could someone with a parcel in 2 districts ask the DRB or PC to have the non-t-zone part of the property be included as a T-zone? Tim Barritt 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Technical Special Exceptions 8 30 Open space requirement: I think the criteria should be based on the area of impermeable surface, not the building area. A large parking lot should require open space the same as a building would. Also, I think 5% is too low. 15-20% would create a much more pleasant community. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Policy Open Space 9 46 Open space requirement: I think the criteria should be based on the area of impermeable surface, not the building area. A large parking lot should require open space the same as a building would. Also, I think 5% is too low. 15-20% would create a much more pleasant community. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 repeat Open Space 9 77 Open space requirements: parking lots, alleys, mews, parking spaces, etc. should be included in the 50,000 square feet calculation. A parking lot and parking spaces are just as impermeable and non- open as a building. I think the required percentage should be 15% to 20%, not 5% to give more public space. Part of what makes a place feel good is having a space to rest or get away or play within the area. More well-designed open space accomplishes that. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Open Space 9 78 Open space requirement should apply to all transects, not just T5. We need open space in many places, so every person has easy access. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Open Space 9 79 The Open Space Committee has an excellent vision for open space in City Center, and I support the themes of their presentation and letter to the Planning Commission. The draft FBC document does not adequately address how useful public space will be created. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Open Space 9 129 What are the tools to make sure we have larger open spaces in City Center Helen Riehle 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Open Space 9 130 I understand that the map allows the vision. How do we ensure it happens? Flexibility could be a mish- mash. Brenda 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Open Space 9 195 Overall I am pretty excited about the FBC. I was introduced to it by the first project. I do have some concerns, however: Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Open Space 9 196 We need to think about incorporating private open space into the T5 and T4. The T5 is not specific enough and is smaller than the current regulations. We also need a variety in those spaces. Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Open Space 9 15 TDR's (Transferable Development Rights) are not handled in the T-# format I have seen. What exactly will the TDR "Bonus" be? Density is no longer limited in T-3. Where will TDR's be allowed? No answers yet. Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 Policy TDRs 10 TDR Subcommittee formed by PC on 9/10 131 It's very important for the city center to have places to play and socio-economic mixity through incentives, public investment, etc. Not to forget urban gardens also Meaghan Emery 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Affordable Housing 11 132 I support having the green space, pedestrian walkways, and mixity that was talked about Naomi Misuda 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Affordable Housing 11 31 To encourage public transit, I think that bus stops with a roof, 3 sides, and at least an 8 foot bench should be required at some specified interval. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Policy Street Types 12 32 I think recycle bins should be required at the same frequency as waste bins.Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Technical Street Types 12 33 Where the BES refers to "foot traffic", I think it should be changed to "foot and cycle" traffic. Bike racks are being required often, presumable because of high expectation and encouragement of cycle traffic. Good to make that clear in the transect definition. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Technical Street Types 12 47 Waste bin requirement was removed from T5. Was that intentional? I think recycle bins should be there also. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 48 There is nothing about bus stops. To encourage public transit, I think that bus stops with a roof, 3 sides, and at least an 8 foot bench should be required at some specified interval. Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 repeat Street Types 12 49 There is a lower case letter h in "BENChES" in the T5 streetscape standards, section D.Keith Epstein #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 80 Block perimeter - where is it measured? Center of street, inside edge of street, edge of buildings?Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 81 Page 3 says Alleys shall be encouraged to minimize curb cuts. There will be a curb cut for each alley, so this sentence should explain how alleys minimize curb cuts. I think it means that several buildings would share an alley, so each building does not need it's own curb cut. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 82 Street Typology is not defined. Needs to be defined.Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 83 T5 should have waste bins like the other zones. Also recycle bins should be next to waste bins. Question to consider - who is responsible for emptying/maintaining waste and recycle bins? Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 84 Street tree standards: What does "minimal average spacing" mean? Use a better term or give a good definition to get the desired results. Street tree species should be selected to make sure they don't grow tall enough to shade future solar panels on roofs. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 85 The document gives great lip service to bikes (in the introductory text and graphical icons) but when you look at the details it's not that great. As planners, please try to make every street safe for any 10 year old child to bike to school safely. When the only bike facility on a 35 mph design speed road is a sharrow, that doesn't cut it. Increasing bicyclist comfort, safety, and convenience pays back in reduced traffic and road wear, increased health, employee productivity, reduced fuel expenses (sent out of state and country), and reduced parking requirements. We are starting from the ground level with planning this development, so let's use this opportunity to design it in a way that is forward thinking - really giving priority to bikes and pedestrians. I think it would be wise for the Planning Commission to ask Local Motion to review the features that relate to transportation, as they can offer great advise on how to accomplish the goals of being people centered, rather than automotive centered. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 86 Bike parking: 2 bike racks or 20 bike parking spaces is confusing. If the goal is to have at least 20 bike parking spaces, than say "bike rack or racks that can accommodate at least 20 bikes" Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 87 There needs to be some minimum standards for the bike racks - no steel that will rust, must be able to lock the whole bike, etc. Take the time to define it well so we don't end up with substandard, unused racks. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 7 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 88 Street typologies need more covered bus stops with benches. Get rid of "ornamental" in the bus stop descriptions. It implies looks are most important. The goal is functional (keep people dry, warm, informed with signage, and comfortable (benches). Once those goals are met, they can be made to look good. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 89 Neighborhood Street - bike blvd looks like it doesn't have a buffered bike lane, only sharrows. It should have a buffered bike lane. Transit facilities should be permitted here. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 90 Destination Street/Type 2 and Type 3 says bicycles disembark and park at edge. That sounds to me like cyclists are expected to get off their bikes and walk through. That seems absurd - why expect cyclists to park their bikes and walk when people can drive cars and trucks through? If that is not the intent, than the language should be changed to more clearly indicate the intent. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 91 Mew bicycle facilities says "not permitted". Change to none or n/a. And they should bike racks for employees to park their bikes, as employee entrances to buildings are likely to be off a mew. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 92 Bicycle facilities not permitted on path? What does that mean?Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 93 Commercial street: bike path should be listed also as an option for bicycle facilities.Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 94 Market street doesn't have a street typology listed - that's one of the most important ones so it should be in there. So much work from multiple committees, staff, and consultants went into creating the Market St. typology, so it should be in the document so it gets implemented that way. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 95 There should be language that says no stormwater grates in the bike lane/path. Stormwater grates in the bike lane are dangerous, and make the bike lane be functionally about 2 feet smaller because cyclists ride to the left of the grates. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 96 The town of Williston has some interesting ideas in their Unified Development Bylaws relating the car and bicycle parking that I think we should consider. See http://www.town.williston.vt.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={26EA4BDF-4482-4523-B051- 394E7ACEDA5C}&DE={245182CC-BF06-4BCA-9866-B8AD59423475} chapter 14 for details. They discuss having "compact car only" parking spaces, which allows more cars to fit in a certain area, details on pedestrian access in and around parking lots, design standards for bicycle parking, requirements for long term bicycle parking (secure storage), and requirements for showers/changing areas (for sweaty bike commuters or mid-day excercisers). I especially like the requirements for long term bicycle parking and office showers, as they remove barriers for people to bike to work, thus leaving more car parking for customers. South Burlington bike/pedestrian committee is researching how South Burlington can become recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community by the Leage of American Bicyclists, and these types of regulations will help us achieve that excellent goal. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 133 50 feet seems too wide between street trees along Market Street Helen Riehle 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 134 Thinking back to the Trader Joe's project, what will be the requirements are road connections between parcels under the Code? Tim Barritt 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 135 I agree that this [road connections] is a very important to resolve and have clarity on John Dinkledge 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 136 Keep the impacts on property owners in mind. What is going to happen for Mary Street? Traffic will increase if it is opened up. It would be a negative if opened up. Norbert Camerlengo 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 137 Need to be careful not to make thoroughfares from one end of town to the other.Ted Cress 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 138 Streetscape. It is a major disappointment that the bicycle boulevard does not include bicycle facilities. Sharrows are not acceptable. I prepared a street list - reviewed by the Rec Path Committee - and provided it. Donna Leban 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 139 Need a little more emphasis on protected parking for bicycles Roy Neuer 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 140 Nose in parking should be prohibited. Very unsafe as they pull out for cyclists Roy Neuer 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 141 There were concepts in August [at Community Visioning Week] for bicycles to be separated from roads through City Center. Where is this? Barbara Service 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 142 The Bike Ped committee's recommendations were considered and not included in the street types.Roy Neuer 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 143 Will the Code eliminate the curb cut problem along Williston Road?Meaghan Emery 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 168 2. Defines the street typology designations such as SS, NS, NN, NSBB, CB, PA.Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 169 Add to Appendix C, Street Typologies:Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Street Types 12 170 1. A Table of Contents.Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 171 2. Define the symbols used for "Modal Priority" e.g. is the umbrella a rain shelter or outdoor dining?Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 172 3. For each page of each typology note the name and capital letter designation used on the map in Appendix A. Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 173 Add a reference to or the actual Market Street Typology perhaps in Appendix C or a new appendix D. I can't find the latest design on the City website. Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 174 Here are my suggestions on Bicycle Parking on South Burlington Street Types.David Jacobowitz 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Street Types 12 175 If we want to encourage bicyclists to come to the shopping area, we must give them convenient, safe and non-obstructive places to park. David Jacobowitz 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 176 Especially in pedestrian areas and narrow lanes and mews, the bike parking should be out of the general travel paths. David Jacobowitz 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 177 For the following street types, bike parking should be required — indoor or protected outdoor parking, such as lockers, or inside small shacks that are off to the side. Lanes, Mews, Destination Streets/Type 2, Support Streets, Commercial Streets. Commercial Boulevards David Jacobowitz 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 178 There should be a minimum distribution of these facilities (as with doors opening onto the public spaces). There may be different spacing requirement for these types of streets. That is for further discussion. David Jacobowitz 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 179 The emphasis on bike paths connected to the rest of the City is good, although by the time this is all built, I probably will have traded in my bike and my Honda for a handicapped-accessible van! Karen Unsworth 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 180 3. The Street Typology page seems generally clear, but the "Typical Cross-Section" looks pretty much the same for several different street types. What, for instance, are the differences between Neighborhood Street and Neighborhood Street/Bike Boulevard, as shown on the Typical Cross- Sections? Glenn Sproul 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 The Typologies diagrams have been updated since this comment was provided. 197 Mary Street is zoned as a dead end. I'd like to keep it that way. If it were opened up, people would fly down the road as they did before the concrete barrier were put up. There are currently three other streets zoned to go into Market Street. This is a neighborhood and is currently all residential Tracey Hayes 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 198 Transportation. There are tradeoffs we need to address. The ability to "cut through" some neighborhoods to allow Williston Road to work is important. Rick Hubbard 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 199 3. The Majority of the streetscape don't have accommodations for cyclists. Shared lanes and arrows are not sufficient. We need protected lanes. Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 200 I like the streetscape types that allow for "back ways" through City Center such as with Mews and Lanes Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Street Types 12 201 It is essential that Garden Street or other support streets which are "alternate" routes for bicycles for Market Street (festival street) include a specific bicycle lane - ie, on street Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 202 A separate recreation path does not take the place of a bicycle lane (a rec path may be included in parkland at some later date Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 203 Bicycle lane can take the place of on-street parking if street is not wide enough Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 204 If bike lane is adjacent to parking, it needs to be at least 5' wide to permit door opening without endangering cyclists Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 205 A separate bike lane can also be separated from the street by a greenbekt, similar to Dorset Street.Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 206 Support Street. Design speed of 29 mph makes separate bike lane advisable Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 8 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 207 Support Street. Sidewalk width. Recommend "where 16', 6' can be delineated for bicycle lane"Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 208 Support Street. Bicycle facilities: "particularly where commercial or festival street does not have a bicycle lane" Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 209 Mew. Bicycles should not be excluded Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 210 Mew. Paving may be used to encourage a more pedestrian salce, and slow bicycle traffic.Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 211 Mew. Bicycle faciltiies: Not permitted with "no separate bike lane"Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 212 Mew. On street bicyle parking. "This would be an ideal area to include bicycle parking"Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 213 Path. A path needs to be specifically shown in open space & Dumont park planning documents Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 214 Alley. Bicycle facilities. Recommend "Sharrows not required"Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 215 Commercial Street. Not sure about the distinction between a Comemrcial Street and a Commercial Boulevard. Which is Williston Rod? Market Street? Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 216 Commercial Street. Where commercial street are also the main through street for commuters, bicycle traffic must be accomodated with bike lanes or separate bicycle path Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 217 Commercial Street. In areas with lower volume of pedestrian traffic, a combinaed area may have a pedestrian and separate bike lane, as long as they are clearly designated as on Dorset Street. Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 218 Avenue. Show examples of bike lane and buffered bike lane or cycle track Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 219 Avenue. Examples? Williston Road (east end), Dorset Street (south of Kennedy) Hinesburg Road, Swift Street, Patchen Road, Queen City Road Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 220 Avenue. bicycle facilties - bike lane, buffered bike lane, or cycle track - "Agreed"Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 221 Commercial Boulevard. Show cycle track or buffered bike lane.Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical Street Types 12 222 Commercial Boulevard. This would include Williston Road closest to I89 to Hibesburg Rd. Dorset Street - main from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. Shelburne Road. Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 223 Commecial Boulevard. bicycle facilties - bike lane, buffered bike lane, or cycle track - "Agreed"Donna Leban 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 231 As property owners on Mary Street my wife, Susan Camerlengo, and myself, Norbert Camerlengo, are against the FBC present designations of Mary Street as a support street for the City Center, which would open up our dead end and quit street to heavy traffic and parking. It would destroy our neighborhood. Norbert Camerlengo 12/8/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 232 Thank you for seeking input from the public regarding the draft Form-based Code. As the attached notes indicate, the incomplete street typologies do not adequately support safe, energy-saving, and health-supporting cycling throughout the city for citizen Marcy Murray 12/8/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 233 If we are serious about reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions while improving both health for citizens and easy access to storefronts, we can't afford to pass up this opportunity to make clean- energy travel a priority safety-wise. Please adjust the street typologies and code language with the aim of ensuring that cyclists of all ages can access all parts of the city safely. Marcy Murray 12/8/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 238 I would like the Planning Commission to consider putting bicycle parking specifications in the Street Types section of the FBC. David Jacobowitz #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 251 A T5 BES alley will look different than a T5 BES support street. The code specifies narrow streets with parking and wide sidewalks to slow traffic and promote walking. We want City Center to be a place that human beings love to be. That is what will make it special and an attraction. Imagine the varieties of built environment available through the code when you consider all three components of the code and yet all environments are designed for human beings and under our control. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Street Types 12 16 Will there be a build out limit? Will there be some limit on the pace of construction (So many units permitted, or per cent growth in units per year?) School impact etc etc. Any other attention to the impact of what will be a major rate of change in the pace of development in the City T-3 areas? Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Additional Items 13 Comment applies to parts of the City outside the draft FBC 17 T-3 will cover a huge expanse South Burlington based on the current messy maps. It will impact many many more citizens than any other designation I believe. The impact will substantially increase the build out of the areas impacted, well beyond today's zoning rules. Bill Gilbert 8/27/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Additional Items 13 Comment applies to parts of the City outside the draft FBC 18 The emerging “Messy Map” contemplates “Downzoning” resulting in changes in zoning classification of many areas of the City especially in the SEQ. These changes will reduce density or standards previously allowed on many properties. There are several major potential legal challenges against downzoning including direct challenge of the act, “spot zoning,” “takings,” substantive due process, equal protection, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. South Burlington has previously compensated victims of downzoning with the issuance of TDR’s (Transferable Development Rights). Bill Gilbert 9/19/2013 9/19/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Additional Items 13 Comment appears to apply to areas outside the City Center 34 Before considering applying Form Based Codes to the entire City, I think we should give them several years of testing with City Center. We'll learn what works for us and what doesn't, and we can apply what we learned to the rest of South Burlington. Keith Epstein 9/25/2013 9/26/2013 10/8/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 35 Allow storage unit business on Ethan Allen Road Jasdeep Pannu 9/30/2013 10/10/2013 11/24/2013 n/a Additional Items 13 Applies to area outside of City Center proposed FBC 97 Rather than having a central green surrounded with outdoors recreation areas and civic buildings, it now looks like many other large downtown areas. In fact, it seems to resemble downtown Burlington, something people specifically said they did not want, as they did not want to take people away from or compete with Burlington. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 98 During previous meetings, residents talked about wanting South Burlington’s downtown to have a unique look, and, most importantly, to look like Vermont. One man advocated for saving much of the current open green area and building a “Central Park” like city center. Others suggested having an ice skating pond in the winter and a duck pond in the summer, and recreation and play and gathering areas year-round. One even suggested having a tower from which to view the mountains. The map which resulted from past visioning sessions showed a large central green with walking areas and outdoor gathering areas surrounded by civic buildings, such as city hall, a library, a post office, a senior center, and small shops and restaurants and residential housing. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 99 I wholeheartedly support what the majority of the residents preferred during past years’ visioning and planning sessions: that being having a Vermont-style village green as the centerpiece of our city center. I urge you to restore this village green to our city center, and abandon the commercial shopping center concept. Rosanne Greco 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 100 i like the green walking space surrounded by shops as long as it doesn't cut into undeveloped land Amelia Payne 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 101 On a related topic, before considering applying Form Based Codes to the entire City, I think we should give them several years of testing with City Center. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 102 We'll learn what works for us and what doesn't, and we can apply what we learned to the rest of South Burlington. I think the city should stop paying the Form Based Codes consultants once the City Center FBC are done, and we can rehire them in several years if we decide to expand it citywide. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 144 The City should buy the parcel at the west end of Dumont Park Les Parker 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 145 A City-wide messy map will need to be be a lengthy, diligent process. We're kidding ourselves if we think it will be only a few months Tim Duff 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 146 My vision is for a central green and municipal buildings around it. Shops and buildings would be around that and have interconnected green spaces. I hope that vision and the FBC can be reconciled Jennifer Kochman 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral at Input Mtg 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 147 An extension past December 7th is needed to allow committees like the Bike Ped Committee to review the Street types. They were just provided. Roy Neuer 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 148 I second having a central green as a destination. We need to position ourselves to attack this challenge Sarah Dopp 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 149 I would offer that all of these visions and desires can be accommodated on a map. We're looking at a zoning map right now and not a site plan. Public-private partnerships, TIFs, other pieces all work together. The Code can enable all of this to happen. Michael Simoneau 12/5/2013 12/5/2013 Oral 12/5/2013 Ora Technical Additional Items 13 150 There is a shared desire for more assurance on Civic building. There is a Committee working on this. They are meeting tonight and next Thursday Sandy Dooley 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 9 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 151 I don't think bicycle ways can happen block by block. It has to be written into a plan to connect each development as it takes place. Ted Cress 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 152 I'd like to leave everyone with a thought. What we have here is a zoning map that just tells what development can occur. It's not a site plan. Tim McKenzie 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Technical Additional Items 13 153 I encourage everyone to think as far outside the box as we can to the details. Solutions to everything if we're creative and are willing to pay. 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 154 I share Jennifer Kochman's vision of open land, but it's privately owned land. It is incumbent on citizens to impress on the City Council the need to buy land be to be willing to pay for it. Michael Mittag 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 12/5/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 181 Good for you all for taking this on!Glenn Sproul 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a Additional Items 13 224 1. This map does not have a central green on Market Street. The idea of a green behind a a building doesn't meet the needs. A City Hall is a part of this as well. Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 225 2. A central green could handle a lot of the stormwater needs as well if we're creative.Laurel Williams 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 226 There are many things going on elsewhere, such as the airport. I have a concern that there isn't coordination between what's happening at the Airport area and the City Center. Linus Levens 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 227 I feel strongly that a Library should be included in the City Center Gretchen Michaels 12/7/2013 12/12/2013 12/7/2013 Ora Policy Additional Items 13 252 It simply is not true that the FBCC eliminated the village green from City Center. Paul Conner instructed Paul Dreher a few weeks ago to remove the civic park from the transect map. I assume he did this to relieve any anxiety that this map is an official city map and not just a map of transects. An official map designating a park might be considered a taking. This map shows only the transects. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 253 We did have thoughts on where the park should be just as we had thoughts about the boulevard that had been envisioned between Williston Road and Market Street. In our deliberations it became apparent that a boulevard was not necessary and a better place for the green is on the property currently owned by the people who owned the Chinese restaurant that is now the night club Venue. The reason we thought this was better than at the intersection of Market and Garden was three fold. First, we thought it would serve as an open space welcoming area to Market Street that would include the city's civic buildings and be more integrated into downtown. Second, as we evolved in our thought, City Center began to look more like a transitional area from the very dense T5 area near Dorset Street to the less dense T3 area near Hinesburg Road rather than the epicentral green surrounded by rings of development. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 254 We also began to think that 20 years from now the likely center of downtown South Burlington will be the corner of Dorset Street and Market Street and not the corner of Market and Garden. This will mean that a civic green on the curve where Venue is will actually be much more centrally located than a green at the corner of Market and Garden which would be on the edge of the downtown area and only a block from where we envision a 15 acre park along Potash Brook. Paul Engels #########12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Policy Additional Items 13 260 There are couple of things that I have wanted to mention. The first is about Paul Dreher's credentials and qualifications to be our form based code consultant. He is an architect who has bachelor and master's degrees in architecture from MIT. He grew up in Newport VT and returned to his hometown to be the Newport's planning director. He wrote a form based code for Newport which is now the basis for the recent redevelopment announced forNewport. He completely shares our values for a liveable walkable community and he understands Vermont statutes and Vermont development issues like few people on the planet. Paul Engels #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 261 The other thing I want to mention is that the Form Based Code committee voted to have renderings done of the buildings in City Center. I don't know if this was done or if you have received them but renderings were approved by the committee. We were told that there were limited resources and we had to choose between a 3D modeling of Williston Road and the renderings of the City Center buildings. We felt that the 3D modeling was more important but that the renderings would be necessary to illustrate City Center and the choices we had made about City Center. Paul Engels #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 262 I hope that everyone understands that almost every moment of this past year and a half has been a struggle for the FBC committee and our consultant. We took our role as a citizen committee very seriously and we took our approach to bottom up rather than top down planning equally seriously. Bottom up means that we the citizens do the planning. Top down means that the planning is left to professional planners. The resulting code that you have came from the citizen's of South Burlington and goes to you our citizen commissioners and then to our City Council. It is a true community created form based code. Paul Engels #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 263 The idea that our committee was controlled by the developers is nonsense.Paul Engels #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 264 Developers were a small minority of the committee and did not have any more impact on the outcome than the neighbors on Iby Street. Having said that though it must be remembered that our original mandate was to develop the City Center area. As long as I have been involved with this it has been well known and widely accepted that City Center would be mixed use dense urban development. The idea has always been that dense urban development would take development pressure off of the rest of the city. If it looks like we are pro development, it is because it has always been understood that we would develop code that would encourage the development of a dense urban downtown and not just another suburban strip mall or housing development. Paul Engels #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 265 Finally, it must not be lost that we have focused on City Center becoming an attraction. When we say attraction we do not mean a shopping attraction. By attraction we mean a must be experienced part of Vermont like Church Street, Shelburne Farms, Shelburne Museum, Ben & Jerry's or Vermont Teddy Bear. We have not determined what the nature of the attraction should be but we have written code that will make it possible. I would think that since we have a twenty year opportunity to develop our own downtown, that we will develop a City Center that is a model to the world of a truly human community and that we will take advantage of all of the technological, environmental and social advances of 21st Century. Paul Engels #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 266 [reply to email from Paul Engels] This is a very well written letter that thoughtfully conveys the FBCC's mindset and how the process by which our recommended code was conducted. Michael Simoneau #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 267 I note your references to impressions that some people have that the development community controlled or had too great an influence on the outcome. I don't know exactly where people got that idea. I do know that many choose to blame developers for outcomes they aren't happy with, though with the benefit of many years of hindsight. Many also are prone to demonizing them as being solely motivated by profit and willing to subordinate the public good for their benefit. This is unfortunately human nature at work. Michael Simoneau #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 268 The next few months will challenge us, the FBCC, as well as the PC and City Council, to overcome development related anxieties. I have found myself substituting the word growth for development as the concept is easier to embrace. Responsible, sustainable growth is an absolute necessity for survival for all of us, be it South Burlington, Vermont, the United States, and our World. I feel it likely that the PC and City Council would agree, so I'm optimistic that we can work through our differences, though with great effort and patience required. Michael Simoneau #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 269 Hope you had a great Christmas and I look forward to our committee reinvesting itself in this process in the New Year! Michael Simoneau #########1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 270 [reple to email from Mike Sinoneau] You state with some certainty that " Responsible, sustainable growth is an absolute necessity for the survival for all of us." I believe that you've got it exactly wrong! Economic Growth as we have defined it, is not "an absolute necessity", instead it threatens the survival of all of us and we must find another way to secure our future well-being and prosperity without growth. In light of what we have learned about the effects of constant growth on our planet and on our well-being, the words "sustainable" and "growth" can no longer be used together. Michael Mittag 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 271 We cannot preserve a habitable planet and pursue endless economic growth at the same time! Economic growth in the orthodox sense is not sustainable. This economic orthodoxy is dangerously out of touch with the real world of climate change, global warming and dwindling resources. The consumption-driven economic growth model cannot secure sustainable, equitable and healthy lives for the 7-9 billion people we expect will populate our planet by 2050. Michael Mittag 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 Form Based Code Input Input from Public revised 1/24/2014 10 1 A B C D E G H I J K Comment Commenter Date provided to City Provided to Consultant Provided to Planning Commission Policy or Technical Topic #Response 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 272 This does not mean we must forgo our prosperity and well-being. It means we in the rich, developed world must find zero or low growth ways of achieving it. Open lands and forests are absolutely necessary for the survival of the processes that drive our planet's ecology and for the production of enough food to feed the 9 billion.Land and forest conservation is one area where we can control the impact of our economic activity. We must decouple our economic activity from its impacts. Michael Mittag 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 273 I believe that the FBCC and the Planning Commission should keep these concerns foremost in their minds and take them into account when considering development/growth proposals in South Burlington. Michael Mittag 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 274 [reply to email from Michael Mittag] Cheer up... Malthus was wrong and your dour outlook will lead to greater hardship for all. Bill Gilbert 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 275 The rate of growth of world population has halved since the 1960s; the absolute number added to the population each year has been falling for more than 20 years. According to the United Nations, population will probably cease growing altogether by 2070. This miraculous collapse of fertility has not been caused by Malthusian misery, or coercion (except in China), but by the very opposite: enrichment, urbanization, female emancipation, education and above all the defeat of child mortality - which means that women start to plan families rather than continue breeding. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/room-for-all.aspx Bill Gilbert 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 276 As John Stuart Mill put it, "not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage". http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-vested-interests-in-doom.aspx Bill Gilbert 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 277 What is more, pessimism has become a hallmark of the Left, chiefly because it justifies activism. Once upon a time conservatives lamented the way the world had gone to the dogs since the golden age (and some still do), while socialists championed growth, technology and innovation to liberate the working class. Zero growth will impoverish low and middle income Vermonters. That is not a good future. Bill Gilbert 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 278 As Robert Solow (MIT) writes: Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments. Bill Gilbert 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 279 Over the past half century, none of our threatened eco-pocalypses have played out as predicted. Some came partly true; some were averted by action; some were wholly chimerical. This raises a question that many find discomforting: With a track record like this, why should people accept the cataclysmic claims now being made about climate change? http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/apocalypse-not.aspx Bill Gilbert 1/1/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 281 [reply to email from Bill Gilbert] Sorry to not join in earlier in this good year-end/year-beginning discussion but I have been so busy trying to stay cool here in Costa Rica……….. Will Raap 1/5/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 282 My view is that both Bill (the growth optimist) and Mike (the "dour" futurist) missed the real need and opening for a better future. We clearly have a global resources problem as successful capitalists (e.g. Jeremy Grantham:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/can-jeremy-grantham-profit-from-ecological- mayhem.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ) and savvy academics (Stockholm Center for Resilience: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries.html) help us see. But the goal should not be more economic growth per se as GDP measures it, but growth in well-being that also strenghtens the economy as well as communities and ecosystems. Is this possible? Of course, but we need to change how we define "progress", as the FBC effort is helping to do. Will Raap 1/5/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 283 All growth as measured by GDP (consumed goods and services) is not good (e.g. growth in cancer treatment, traffic deaths, incarceration) and some growth contained in GDP measurements is plain "bad" (e.g. pollution that squanders resources and wastes energy, land development that unnecessarily diminishes quality of life for current residents (human and others), etc). More healthy and alive neighborhoods and downtowns vs disconnected suburbias and strip malls is "good" growth. More local renewable energy production and local ownership vs climate change propelling fossil fuels that fund our enemies is "good" growth. More fresh local food (including ice cream and cheese that fund the VT working landscape) vs industrial ag that can have unintended and undesirable consequences (http://www.willraap.org/?p=1546) in "good" growth. Sponsoring such good growth requires questioning the incentives and metrics that foster "bad" growth. VT is in fact leading this effort at the state level with Genuine Progress Indicator initiatives: http://vtdigger.org/2013/07/30/lawmakers-get-a-peek-at-genuine-progress-indicator-progress . Will Raap 1/5/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 284 Often, a middle path is the healthy choice. That is why I support FBC efforts. Now, let's apply FBC to the rest of South Burlington and not allow more dawdling. Will Raap 1/5/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 285 [reply to email from Will Raap] Well said Will. Responsible, hopefully sustainable,….. Mike Simoneau 1/5/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 n/a Additional Items 13 290 Second, I think it is wise to try FBC in City Center first for a few years before expanding it city wide. We will certainly learn as it is implemented, and we can make changes to improve it before using it for the entire city. I don't see any need to rush to implement Form Based Codes in the whole city on a short time scale. Keith Epstein 1/23/2014 1/25/2014 1/25/2014 Policy Additional Items 13 103 Formatting: There is inconsistent tab usage and amount, use of (a) or a. for subheadings is inconsistent, and bold type usage is inconsistent. For example, see section 18.7 C (1), (2) and (3). Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 104 Page 12 "South Burlington" is misspelled.Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 105 18.7 B (1) (a) and 18.7 B (1) (c) seem to contradict each other. (a) says that existing uses that violate the code may continue, and (c) says that existing uses that violate the code may not continue. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 106 Same thing with 18.7 C (1) (a) and 18.7 C (1) (c).Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 107 Definitions should be earlier in the document, so terms are defined before they are used. That makes the document easier to understand and abide by. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 108 Build-to Line has two different definitions. Pick one.Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 109 Building Envelope Standards is not defined. Needs to be defined.Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 110 Building Levels definitions says "shall include basements and not cellars" What's the difference between a basement and a cellar? Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 111 Building Mass is a bad definition, and I don't think it should be used. Mass is different from area, so Building Area should be used instead. Area can be expressed in square footage, square meters, or any other units of length squared. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 112 Unpaved ground area definition is wrong. It says it's hardscape. Hardscape is paved. Paved area can't be unpaved area. Keith Epstein 12/4/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 Technical n/a 14 182 Here are some suggestions that I think may help make the ref document easier to understand and navigate. Roy Neuer 12/6/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 n/a n/a 14 259 Thanks for the opportunity to provide additional detailed comments and to elaborate on the comments previously provided. I will submit further comments tomorrow (12/13). Sheila McIntyre (Umall) #########12/14/2013 12/14/2013 Policy n/a 14 Form Based Code Input Input from City Committees 1/24/2014 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 A B C D E F G Comment Commentor Date Povided to Consultant Provided to FBC Committee Provided to Plan. Comm. Comments Ms. Louisos moved that the Form Based Codes Committee consider the appropriate type for Airport Parkway between Kirby Road and Lime Kiln Road. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.Planning Commission 6/25/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 n/a Mr. Gagnon moved that the Form Based Codes Committee evaluate neighborhood streets with respect to design vehicle and accessibility and not having restrictions on delivery vehicles. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Harrington voting against.Planning Commission 6/25/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 n/a Mr. Riehle moved to ask the Form Based Codes Committee to consider redesignating the section of Williston Road between Airport Road and Hinesburg Road as NSBB. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously.Planning Commission 6/25/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 n/a Mr. Conner then raised the question of possibly having dirt roads as future city streets. There are only two of these now (Market Street and National Guard Road). The city no longer owns a grader, and there is a significant price tag to maintaining that kind of street. Mr. Riehle said he would want to know the cost, upkeep, etc.Planning Commission 6/25/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 n/a Acknowledge and aggressively publicize the science-confirmed threat of climate change, the significant role that South Burlington’s transportation-related emissions contribute to climate change, and the city’s preference that citizens use non- motorized or group (transit or carpool) travel to maximize climate health, citizen health, and disposable income (from lower personal gas and car repair expenses, and fewer dollars sent out of the community for gasoline purchases).Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 Minimize transportation-related carbon emissions by maximizing the convenience and safety of public transportation and non-motorized usage, e.g., bikes.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 Work diligently to quickly add safe bikeways and bike lanes throughout the entire city so that citizens can travel in two directions on each street and only truly need cars for out-of-town travel and inclement weather.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 Work with neighboring towns to expand this network of safe bike lanes Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 Maximize non-motorized travel by preserving the distinct separation of non-motorized and motorized traffic (as shown in the Recommended Cross Section of the First Draft Street Typology) by elevating all bike/non-motorized paths or by protecting them with trees or other barriers.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o Where such separation is not possible, have bike lanes of different color or lane material.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o Where roads must be shared without bike lanes or wide shoulders, require low vehicle speeds and use visible messages on asphalt and/or signage demanding safe road-sharing and kindness.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o Educate city government and city committee members that protected bikeways could yield significant increases in business for retail establishments (as experienced in New York City: http://www.americabikes.org/nyc_study_finds_protected_bicycle_lanes_boost_local_ business)Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 Use a design that prevents open car doors from hitting bike lane users where parking must be adjacent to bike/non-motorized travel lanes.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 To ensure that typology requirements do not hinder the energy efficiency of buildings that will eventually be constructed along these roadways:Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o Where feasible, streets should be aligned to facilitate rooftop solar installations (N/S, E/W).Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o Buildings (and roofs) built on the street grid should be aligned to facilitate rooftop solar installations on south-facing roofs.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o The selection of allowable trees planted along the street should be limited to those with a mature height that will not shade solar arrays on rooftops.Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 o Care should be taken that requirements for landscaping & trees planted along the street (and in front of buildings) will not impact the ability Energy Committee 6/27/2013 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 12/12/2013 1. Like the concept of the “non-transect zones” in the commercial- industrial areas Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a The Messy Map and T-Zones will need to be sensitive to the differences between different existing neighborhoods that are all generally “T3s”Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Interested in an idea of having 1-2 T5 zones along Shelburne Road (Kmart possibly? And perhaps another?) to create “nodes” of activity Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Interested in the idea of having “uses” within the T3 relate the street types (ie, perhaps a Neighborhood Street in a T3 would be residential entirely, but a Neighborhood Street Bike Boul, which is a slightly higher use street, could have local commercial enterprises.Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a The Natural Resource Protection District should be looked at closely Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Liked the idea of using a form a new “PUDs” for larger pieces of land such as O’Brien and others Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Agreed that the areas current shown as “white” are good discussion areas Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Airport area question: how does the community code it if we’re not yet ready to know the future for this very important area yet?Planning Commission 7/25/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/aPublic entrance every 30 feet in front of a building in the T-5 area with there being nothing more than 40 feet without an entrance. Members briefly discussed the issue of spaces between doors and whether this was a hard and fast standard.Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a The T-3 zone as drafted is acknowledged to be reflective only of the T3 zone proposed to be most immediately adjacent/within City Center. The PC reserves the interest in examining future iterations of other T3 zones;Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a There do not appear to be substantial differences between T5, T4, and T3 zones, at least enough to indicate a lessening of intensity;Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a The T5 zone is indicated to have 5% open space. The T4 and T3 do not indicate any open space requirements. Is this oversight or intentional? Are there to be any open space requirements for the T4 and T3 zones? How much? Are there any expectations of what constitutes open space?Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Are street furniture/amenity zone pieces required by the developer? Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a The lot coverage in T3 is “inappropriate” with no maximum. Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Discuss garage door provisions: what about small and narrow lots? What about buildings with rear alley access?Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Discuss the village green: not shown in plans; PC not okay with location shown.Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a Seeking examples of agriculture in FBC text: what does sample writing look like? Planning Commission 8/13/2013 9/4/2013 9/4/2013 n/a "The committee discussed the June 17th draft Building Envelope Standards (BES) for T5, T4, and T3 prepared by the Form Based Codes Committee, and prepared a written response. Keith (Epstein) moved, Don (Cummings) seconded, and the following response was approved unanimously: The draft Building Envelope Standards document does not address the energy goals set forth in the 2012 draft comprehensive plan. We request that the Form Based Codes committee meet with the Energy committee and experts from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) to discuss how to incorporate language that ensures the energy goals will be met." Energy Committee 9/12/2013 9/12/2013 10/10/2013 12/12/2013 FBC Committee scheduled meeting with VEIC & Energy Committee for October 10, 2013 See Street Types recommendation dates 10-9-2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Co 10/14/2013 10/16/2013 12/12/2013 See City Center Report dated 10-23-2013 Open Space Committee 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 11/12/2013 Form Based Code Input Input from City Committees 1/24/2014 12 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 A B C D E F G The Form-based Code draft is incomplete. It should include the previously agreed- upon street typology for Market Street. Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 Any references to transportation modes should include cycling in the language (not just the icons).Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 Some street typology descriptions are unclear about permitted bicycle use. In general, SBEC wants to see bicycle traffic allowed and made safe on ALL street typologies.Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 § For example, regarding the “Path” street typology: why are bicycle facilities not permitted? Perhaps it should say N/A to be consistent.Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 § Another example: Destination Street/Type 2 and /Type 3. Remove “disembark and park at edge.”Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 Solar-ready-related language for structures needs to be strengthened and better defined.Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 Tree species should be selected so that mature heights do not interfere with current or future rooftop solar installations on neighboring buildings.Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 Street typologies and parking facilities standards should include electric vehicle charging stations.Energy Committee 12/5/2013 12/12/2013 See Meeting notes from 12/9/2013 Design Review Committee12/13/2013 12/14/2013 12/14/2013 See Bike Ped Committee notes from 12/12/2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Co 12/13/2013 12/14/2013 12/14/2013 Street Trees should be 30 feet on center, not the 50 as proposed;Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 Concern for minimum unit requirement creating an unintentional consequence: for example, if a 1 acre lot has a single home, the draft regulations would prohibit the division of that home into 2 units, as 4 units/acre is the minimum. Is the transition from 1-2 units on a one acre lot undesirable? The code doesn’t seem to indicate this. DRC members felt this could be an easy technical fix. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 There is a strong need for clear definition of “Building Break.” The Committee offers to assist with this. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 Parapets would be acceptable to count towards minimum building heights if they were 4-sided. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 Parking lots should be set back greater than 25 feet.Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 2.5 stories is an appropriate maximum height (as drafted) for T3. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 Large buildings, as defined in the code, should not be permitted to be 1 story in the T5. In the T4, they should only be permitted with mitigation for the excess land consumption they would cause. For example, large one story buildings are excessively land consumptive. Mitigation may permit for structured parking to offset this. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 There should be more discussion and greater thought given to design review of buildings in the City Center area. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 Transitions are weak; districting should be considered to mitigate sharp transitions between T-zones and existing neighborhoods.Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 Consider the density and impact of commercial development and not just residential. Design Review Cmtte 12/9/2013 12/14/2013 South Burlington Open Space Committee 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com 1 MEMO: CITY CENTER OPEN SPACE To: South Burlington Form Based Code Committee October 23, 2013 The Open Space Committee, one of four interim zoning committees appointed by the City Council, has been working since June to develop an updated open space strategy for the city, including a framework to more clearly define and address “functional” open space for use in long-term planning, development review and regulation, and in city land acquisition and management. This work includes the inventory and mapping of the city’s open space resources (in progress), a review of current and draft plans, bylaws and ordinances (completed), an analysis of open space standards from around the country – including how open space can be addressed under form based codes (completed) – and the development of draft open space matrices and transects for local consideration (attached). A complete report, including draft plan and bylaw language, will be presented for your consideration at project’s end. This memo is being forwarded per the direction that, in the interim, we all focus on South Burlington’s planned City Center. Background Open space broadly defined encompasses both undeveloped land – including natural and scenic resource areas and working farm and forest land – and developed land – including park and recreation areas and civic gathering spaces. These four categories of functional open space – resource conservation areas, working lands, park and recreation areas and civic space – provide the framework to more specifically address types of open space by function, form, size and setting. It’s important to note that these open space categories and types are not mutually exclusive – a particular open space area may serve multiple, compatible functions – but are intended to help identify the most appropriate use(s) of a particular open space, given its site characteristics and context. Open spaces also vary in size and scope – from very small yards, patio and rooftop gardens and mini or “pocket” parks to much larger tracts of farm and forest land and regional parks – and with regard to ownership, management and public access. This is reflected in form based codes that classify “forms” of open space – e.g., for natural resource conservation, farming and food production and civic space – in relation to standard FBC sectors and transect zones (T1-T5).1 The Open Space Committee’s initial “open space transect” classification for use in coding urban open space areas is presented in the table below. 1 The most comprehensive treatment of open space under form based codes is found in versions of the SmartCode (www.smartcodecentral.org), as used in preparing the City Center conceptual plan included in its TIF District application. In this code conservation areas (T1,T2) and civic spaces (CS) are separately identified in the regulating plan and accompanying code. South Burlington Open Space Committee: City Center 2 Urban Open Space: Type by Category Transect Resource Conservation Urban Food/Forest Park & Recreation Civic Space T4 Zone Linear Primary Conservation Area -- Surface water, buffer -- Shoreline, buffer -- Wetland, buffer -- Hazard Area (Flood, etc) Urban Forest Tree Canopy Community Garden Patio/Roof Garden Community Park Neighborhood Park School Park Playground Mini/Pocket Park Green Square Greenway Street Trees Recreation Path Pedestrian Walkway Streetscape T5 Zone Linear Primary Conservation Area -- Surface water, buffer --Shoreline, buffer --Wetland, buffer --Hazard area (Flood, etc) Tree Canopy Patio/Roof Garden Playground Mini/Pocket Park Green Square Plaza Courtyard Greenway Street Trees Recreation Path Pedestrian Walkway Streetscape Note: Resource conservation areas, within the context of FBCs, are often separately coded as “T1” zones that cross, overlay or are otherwise indicated within other transect zones (e.g., on the regulating plan) as no-build areas. Planned civic spaces, park and recreation areas, as indicated on a regulating plan, are also often separately coded (“CS”) by transect zone. Linear features typically cross transect zones, but may also be more specifically coded by zone (e.g., to include different streetscape standards by zone, as proposed by the FBC Committee). Urban Open Space The benefits of open space – including green space – within a more urban, built environment cannot be overstated. Numerous studies and real world examples have demonstrated the importance of urban open space to both the natural and built environment, and for the health and well-being of city residents. Once treated largely as an “amenity” in urban development, urban open space is now understood to serve critical, much-needed social, cultural, economic and ecological functions:  Urban green space – and especially enclosed tree canopies – intercept rainfall, filter and reduce air and water pollution, moderate urban temperatures, wind patterns and climate, provide shade, and help manage stormwater runoff. New urban development is now being designed to retain and incorporate “green infrastructure” including multi-functional bioretention areas and riparian greenways to better manage and treat urban runoff. Urban vegetation also sequesters significant amounts of atmospheric carbon, reduces overall energy use and provides habitat for local wildlife.  Park and recreation areas – including community parks, recreation paths and pedestrian walkways within urban centers – increase opportunities for both passive and active recreation, offer a psychological respite from the demands of city life, make urban neighborhoods more livable and increase property values. Local parks, small lots and common land within higher density multifamily neighborhoods may also host community gardens that support household food production.  Civic gathering spaces – such as public greens, squares, plazas and streets – “democratize” and diversify urban life by providing a venue for all types of people to meet, mingle and interact and, when used to host civic events such as markets and festivals, draw people and business downtown. South Burlington Open Space Committee: City Center 3  Primary Resource Conservation Areas City Center: Open Space Resources South Burlington’s planned city center as defined in the Environmental Assessment encompasses approximately 61 acres of currently undeveloped land. This area is bisected by Market Street, and bordered by existing higher density commercial and residential development. Approximately 22.5 acres of the total is planned for impervious, higher density mixed used development within the commercial core. The city center area includes the following existing and planned open space resources, classified according to the above classification system, as identified from available state natural resource data and city center studies and plans completed to date – including the city’s TIF District Plan and the more detailed, revised environmental assessment for planned Market Street improvements:2 *As proposed in the City Center 2012 TIF District Plan Many established cities around the country are working to retrofit and “green” their built environments in response to a changing climate and changing demographics, and to create more attractive downtowns for business investment and neighborhood redevelopment. South Burlington is in the enviable position of being able to plan for, develop and incorporate urban open space – including green infrastructure – in the underlying framework of our new urban center. This aspect of city center development is highlighted in the City Center’s 2012 TIF District Plan, as since approved by the state. 2 South Burlington, Market Street Improvements, STP 5200 (17), Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (May 2010). Vermont Natural Resource Atlas and Biofinder, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (GIS mapping programs). Resource Conservation Areas  Tributary 3 of Potash Brook – impaired water, Zone 2 surface water source protection area (200-foot buffer), 500-year floodplain, riparian and aquatic habitat; proposed greenway  Class 2 Wetlands – 13 palustrine and riverine wetland areas associated with Tributary 3, totaling 7.74 acres; primary functions–groundwater recharge, sediment/toxicant retention  500-year floodplain– along Tributary 3  Unfragmented, 28-acre habitat block – limited value for biodiversity, given location  Primary agricultural soils – approximately 44 acres of soil of statewide importance Urban Farm/Forest Areas  Urban forest – roughly 50 acres of mostly second growth (including Dumont Park), predominantly Oak-Pine-Northern Hardwood Park and Recreation Areas  Central School –recreation facilities; also largest “open land” herbaceous habitat area  Dumont Park – largely undeveloped, public wooded area, trail network proposed*  Recreation Path/Boardwalk (along Tributary 3) – proposed* Civic Space  Market Street – main street  Central Public Square/Green – proposed*  New, interconnected streetscapes, pedestrian walkways – proposed* South Burlington Open Space Committee: City Center 4 Anticipated impacts of City Center development on identified resources are detailed in the Market Street environmental assessment, along with planned mitigation measures that rely heavily on the preservation and incorporation of existing and planned green space. Central to the proposed mitigation plan is the restoration of the wetland-stream complex associated with Tributary 3. Other measures designed to reduce runoff include the use of bioretention areas (e.g., central green, other green space), constructed wetlands, vegetated swales and porous pavement. City Center TIF District Plan: Placemaking Improvements (pp.12,13) An essential component of the public infrastructure envisioned is the creation of a place that residents, businesses and developers recognize as a successful downtown for South Burlington. This includes building out a central green, restoring the environmental integrity of natural areas such as Dumont Park and the area around Tributary 3, installing the nature tails and bikeways that connect City Center to adjoining neighborhoods, interpreting their importance through signage and wayfinding, and building civic structures that will anchor the downtown. The central green was a very popular element in the most recent concept plan. Primarily green, this area at the heart of the downtown may also be designed to host a market structure to support farmer’s markets, concerts and fairs. This green is intended to be surrounded on two sides by streets featuring higher quality pavers that may be closed off for festivals and other events. The central green may also be used for the storage and infiltration of stormwater and is estimated to cost $2,715,244. Future development on at least one side of the central green is expected to be mixed use with commercial uses on the ground floor. The green will host events on a regular basis to attract visitors. The attraction of many people on foot will increase visibility of commercial spaces adjacent to the green and support the ability of property owners to build the ground floor for and lease the ground floor to restaurant and retail establishments. The development of this green is expected to be contiguous with the design and installation of the stormwater infrastructure as it is one of the larger infiltration areas upland of Tributary 3. The installation of Dumont Park area including the Tributary 3 trail network, restoration of flora and fauna and development of passive recreation spaces with interpretive signage along pathways will support residential and commercial development in the area. As developable lots are expected to be relatively small with non-built land are used for circulation infrastructure such as sidewalks and parking, public parklands support the mental and physical well-being of future residents and employees. Restored and accessible natural areas along the Tributary 3 and within Dumont Park will ensure that every new structure is within walking distance of a park. TIF Application August 2012 with Form Based Codes Concept Plan of 2011 Key Open Space Features  Interconnected green space  Central Green/Square on Market Street, bordered by civic buildings, oriented to sun  Greenway along the length of Tributary 3, including riparian, wetland buffers  Dumont Park – undeveloped, wooded area w/ trail network  Other greens, courtyards, bio- retention areas  Pedestrian connections – streetscapes, walkways, trails  Extensive tree canopy  Street trees South Burlington Open Space Committee Memo: City Center 5 Proposed Form Based Code The Open Space Committee has reviewed the draft form based code prepared by the Form Based Code Committee – including the committee’s initial definition of “urban open space,” the “messy map” of the City Center, and associated building envelope standards. These were reviewed against our proposed open space classifications, the City Center Concept Plan included in the city’s TIF District application, and FBC standards for civic space referenced in the initial draft code that accompanied the concept plan. We understand that the current approach taken by the FBC Committee differs from the SmartCode that informed the development of the concept plan. As such, open space may not be depicted or addressed in the same way under this coding scheme. We do want to ensure, however, that open space – as long planned for the city center and included for funding in the TIF District Plan and the Council’s draft capital improvement program – is fully incorporated into any regulating plan and standards that govern the center’s future development. Urban open space – including civic and green space – should be an integral aspect of city center development; not an afterthought. Our initial observations regarding the current proposal are highlighted as follows: Working Definition: Urban Open Space The FBC Committee’s draft working definition of “urban open space (9/26/13 Memo): This broad definition is generally consistent with our classification of urban open space by type and transect zone, but it does not more specifically address the forms and functions of different open space areas within an urban setting – including resource protection. We recommend that these be more specifically considered and defined under separate open space forms, definitions and standards specific to the City Center (T4, T5 zones), e.g., as outlined in the above table, and as illustrated in the attached example specific to “civic space” as referenced in the initial draft code for the City Center. Urban Open Space: is the open space or areas for plazas, parks, green spaces and other public areas. The landscape of urban open spaces can range from playing fields to highly maintained environments (hardscaped) to relatively natural landscapes. They are open to public access, however urban open spaces may be privately owned. Urban open spaces may be configured as a green, square, park, playground, community garden or small farm plot. Required Urban Open Space may be supplied within a 500’ radius of the site subject to this requirement (9/26/13). South Burlington Open Space Committee Memo: City Center 6 Messy Map  The version of the “messy map” reviewed by the committee identifies only a portion of the proposed riparian greenway along Tributary 3 – it does not extend along the length of the tributary, nor does it incorporate neighboring wetland areas that have been identified for protection, restoration and incorporation in the center’s integrated stormwater management system. This area is currently coded as “Civic/Park” and could function as both a natural and recreational greenway as long as its natural functions, including stream flow restoration and stormwater management, are given priority. We recommend instead that this area be coded on the final regulating plan – along the full extent of Tributary 3 – as a “T1” primary resource conservation area (greenway). This would allow for compatible, passive recreational use, but would prohibit buildings and other structures except for those that support intended functions – including the proposed boardwalk, stream and wetland restoration measures and planned stream crossings.  There is no central green or square on Market Street. As shown on the map, a second, smaller “Park/Civic” area is instead located off of Market Street, to the rear of a T5-Zone – potentially behind a block of 6-story buildings. The proposed green does not have direct physical or visual access to Market Street or proposed civic buildings, or connections to other open space, limiting its function as a civic space. In this location and context, solar access also may be reduced. The central green and other strategically located civic and green space should be shown on the regulating plan – and on the city’s official map, if intended for public acquisition and ownership as proposed. Open space forms and related requirements for private development should also be identified in associated open space standards.  Street and pedestrian connections are not shown within the “Special District” which includes the Central School property. Connections throughout the city center – including proposed street, pedestrian and path rights-of-way that integrate existing and planned civic spaces, parks and greenways, and also provide greenspace (e.g., medians, street trees) should be shown on the regulating plan – and on the city’s official map, if intended for public acquisition. Central Green: Appropriate Size? Our research also suggests that a central park or green should be large enough to serve its intended functions (for civic, recreation and market/festival space, stormwater retention, climate moderation) but small enough to provide more intimate outdoor gathering and seating space–to function as an outdoor “room.” Model FBC standards suggest a central square or green should be no smaller than ½ acre and no larger than 5 acres. City and village greens in Vermont range in size from 1.2 acres (Waterbury Village) to 4.8 acres (St. Albans). Burlington City Park, behind City Hall is 1.7 acres, with direct pedestrian access to Church Street Marketplace (in effect a linear public plaza). The Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee would like to include a recreational component within South Burlington’s central green (e.g., a skating rink, playground) which would require some additional space – suggesting that a 2+ acre park may be more appropriate. The size of the green or square should also reflect the elevation of facing building fronts (e.g., 1 to 2 feet in width for every foot of building height). South Burlington Open Space Committee Memo: City Center 7 FBC Open Space Forms, Standards South Burlington’s current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) only generally address urban open space in City Center Districts – through floor area ratio (FAR) density and maximum site coverage (impervious surface) requirements, required stream and wetland setbacks, and an incentive (density bonus) for the “provision of special, public-oriented amenities such as parks, courtyards, pedestrian ways, etc.“ There are no specific requirements for the provision of urban open or civic space – but if open space areas are provided, City Center design review standards for accessible open space apply. The FBC Committee, to date, has not proposed separate open or civic space standards for the T4 and T3 zones comprising the City Center. In addition to the Park/Civic spaces shown on the messy map, the FBC Committee’s draft building envelope standard (BES) for the T5 zone does include the following open space requirement: “ For every 50,000 square feet of building, require 5% of that to be dedicated/landscape and public green space.” This requirement at minimum needs some clarification in its application – for example, with regard to:  whether the 5% open space requirement is based on building footprint, gross or net floor area,  whether open space is required for less than 50,000 square feet of building,  whether open space is to be provided on- and/or off-site (e.g., within 500 feet, as referenced under the committee’s definition of urban open space),  the appropriate type or form of the open space to be provided in relation to its function(s) and  ownership – e.g., as publicly-dedicated space (e.g., for a public park or green), a privately held and maintained space that is accessible to the public (e.g., a front yard area or plaza) or a private open space for use of building occupants (e.g., a rear yard or internal courtyard). Open space is not specifically addressed under the proposed BES for other transect zones, including the T4 zone which comprises the majority of the City Center. The Open Space Committee is also concerned that a general requirement of only 5% reduces open space/yard area requirements under the current land development regulations as generally defined for the City Center District under maximum site coverage requirements. Within urban areas, maximum lot coverage requirements typically range from 70% to 90% – and occasionally up to 100% for very densely built centers served by extensive stormwater infrastructure systems. Under the current regulations for the Center District, 95% site coverage is allowed only for master planned development within the highest density (CD1) subdistrict – which anticipates that these built areas will be served by stormwater infrastructure and/or be offset by planned open space areas. Otherwise maximum site coverage within City Center Design Review District (LDRs, Article 11) D. Accessible open space. When providing open space on a site, it shall be designed to be visually and physically accessible from the public street. Open space should add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing by or overlooking the site from neighboring properties. If open space is intended for active use, it should include such elements as benches, shade trees, and refuse containers and be so designed to maximize its accessibility for all individuals, including the disabled, and encourage social interaction. The siting of open space on a lot shall also consider the potential impact of buildings, both existing and potential, on shadow casting and solar access. South Burlington Open Space Committee Memo: City Center 8 the City Center ranges from 80% to 90% (leaving 10% to 20% “open” at least for stormwater management purposes). Though it is clear from the messy map that the intent is to limit the T5 zone to Market Street, which will be served by stormwater infrastructure, the overall amount of “effective” open space within the City Center (which may also include permeable green roofs, porous pavement, landscaped yard areas, etc.) should be maximized for purposes of stormwater management – and to provide functional, attractive and interconnected civic and green space. We recommend that separate open space types or forms be established by transect zone, to include the Open Space Committee’s classification of urban open space types for T4 and T5 zones highlighted in the above table – using the attached SmartCode form-based standards and definitions specific to civic spaces as a model. These may be adapted and separately incorporated in the code by zone, and/or for designated park and civic spaces shown on the regulating plan. As noted above, the Open Space Committee also recommends that the proposed greenway along Tributary 3, associated wetlands – and potentially the adjoining area of Dumont Park – be separately identified and coded as a “T1” resource conservation area. Open Space Committee Recommendations In sum, based on available information and our work completed to date, the Open Space Committee recommends the following with regard to open and green space within the proposed City Center: 1. Urban open space should be integrated into the underlying fabric and infrastructure of the City Center – as “green infrastructure” critical to its development – and not addressed simply as an amenity or afterthought. Civic, recreation, conservation and other open space areas – including linear streetscapes, paths and greenways – should be separately identified and incorporated in ongoing City Center master planning, stormwater management planning, and in the regulating plan that serves as the basis for proposed form-based codes. 2. Maintain the community vision of urban open space – including interconnected civic and green space – included in the Concept Plan for the City Center, as referenced in the city’s TIF District Plan, and in the revised environmental assessment prepared for Market Street. At minimum designated open space areas should include:  A centrally located, publicly-owned green or square on Market Street of sufficient area (e.g., 2+ acres) to serve its intended functions – as civic, market, festival and recreational space, and as a bio-retention area for stormwater management. Buildings should front on the green as opposed to having the green tucked at the rear of buildings.  A designated greenway along the length of Tributary 3 of sufficient width to accommodate stream and wetland restoration and anticipated urban runoff at build-out, to protect adjoining South Burlington Open Space Committee Memo: City Center 9 riparian and wetland areas, to include the 500-year floodplain, to meet required source protection area setbacks, and to incorporate passive recreation, including the proposed boardwalk.  Dumont Park as a largely undeveloped, wooded resource conservation area, linked and crossed by pedestrian trails, to provide the environmental benefits of an urban forest, and to buffer and moderate the effects of higher density development, especially on nearby residential neighborhoods, while also accommodating compatible recreational uses.  Central School property – as an existing and planned civic and recreational area that incorporates pedestrian links (e.g., sidewalks or separate walkways) to other open space areas within and outside of the City Center, including the central green and Jaycee Park across Williston Road.  Additional green space as necessary to manage stormwater runoff and, within T4 Zones, to accommodate small neighborhood parks or playgrounds.  Language should be drafted that would encourage development to keep mature and important trees when possible, or at least consider preservation elements in the design. 3. Update draft comprehensive plan objectives and strategies for the City Center to more specifically address urban open space – including planned resource conservation, civic and recreation space. Open Space Committee recommended edits to the current draft are attached. 4. Define separate open space types or “forms” and standards by transect zone (or as separately identified on the regulating plan) for inclusion in the form-based code proposed for the City Center. At minimum, this should include consideration of the following:  Working classification of open space types and functions by transect zone (table) – including for the City Center mapped T4 and T5 zones.  Separately coding identified primary resource conservation areas (Tributary 3 corridor and wetlands, Dumont Park) as “T1” (no build) zones.  Model FBC standards (e.g., Smart Code) standards for open space, including in this context, civic space (attached).  Current LDR provisions for open space within the City Center District – as the basis for more specific FBC requirements (e.g., with regard to tree canopy/cover, furniture, lighting, etc.  Current LDR resource protection provisions – including in this context, for surface waters, weltands and stormwater management. South Burlington Open Space Committee Memo: City Center 10  Existing language in the current South Burlington Land Development Regulations relating to landscaping of parking areas should be maintained at this time. 5. Clearly identify city center open space areas and rights-of-way, as well as civic building sites, intended for public acquisition and ownership as included in the TIF District plan (e.g., the central green or square, recreation path/boardwalk, stormwater management areas) on the regulating plan, on the city’s official map, and in the adopted capital budget and program. The Open Space Committee recognizes that these comments are based on an iterative draft currently undergoing discussions and revisions by the Form Based Code Committee and, soon, the Planning Commission. The Open Space Committee would be available to discuss these recommendations as part of a joint meeting if so requested, and respectfully reserves the opportunity to continue to comment on changing drafts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. STREET *NOTES Type Prio rity Airport Parkway Important to have a continuous facility, even if character changes. Great connector to Colchester NSBB 1 Patchen Road Important to have a continuous facility, even if character changes. Great connector to BTV and Williston NSBB 1 White Street NSBB 1 Hinesburg Road * (indicated as Rural Connector south of I89)NSBB 2 Richard Terrace/Hanover St/Dumont Avenue NSBB 3 Kimball Avenue CC 2 Grandview Drive/Twin Oaks Terrace/ Hayes Ave NS 3 Dorset Street - south of Kennedy Drive (indicated as Commercial Blvd north to Williston Rd) Connecting sections of bike path from neighborhoods to park and school NSBB 1 Songbird Road NSBB 3 Proctor Avenue * (labeled as NS- already an established bike route with no existing bike lane) Add sharrows to indicate bike route. Neighborhood street is wo high traffic volume, parking on the street creates "door zone" where cyclists should be encouraged to use the full lane.NSBB 1 Eastwood Drive * (labeled as NS – already an established bike route, with a shared use path on east side of street) Improve continuity onto Farrell to Dorset. Needs signage.NSBB 2 Meadow Road * (labeled as NS- already an established bike route with no existing bike lane)Similar to Proctor- sharrows would help here NSBB 2 Swift Street * (labeled as RC and CA west of Spear Street) Street width needs to be made uniform so a uniform bike lane/shoulder can be applied NSBB 2 Nowland Farm Road NSBB 3 Midland Avenue NSBB 3 OVERALL SBRPC Recommendations 10/9/2013 Notes: Priority levels: 1= high priority, 2=lower priority, 3 = no change. Priority levels are specifically for the actions discussed in the notes column. OVERALL Allen Road East, and other roads in South Village * (map does not show connection to Midland Avenue Shared Use Path)NSBB 3 Allen Road * (labeled as RH – already has a partial shared use path, is lacking badly needed sidewalks and bike lane, largely residential, not rural) integrate connections to bus stops.NS 1 Imperial Drive/Worth Street/Andrews Avenue * (labeled as NS – currently part of the Champlain Bikeways route and is marked as a bike route)Committee requests sharrows be used here NS 2 Vale Drive * (neighborhood road with future shared use path (SUP) connection to Swift Street SUP. Sharrows.NS 2 Old Cross Road * (part of road has Shared Use Path adjacent) needs better markings.NS 2 Park Road/Dorset Height Rd * (established part of bike route, with off road SUP)NS 2 Market Street – east of Garden Street (planned)NSBB 1 Airport Drive One section is bad, rest is wide enough for a bike lane on both sides CB 2 Williston Road – West of Hinesburg Road Dorset Street – north of Kennedy Drive Shelburne Road CB 1 Airport Drive Improvements needed when redone CB 1 Market Street (planned)– west of Garden Street (planned) Sharrows on sidewalk or other signage if bicycles are expected to mix with ped. traffic on wide sidewalks.DS 1 Williston Road – East of Hinesburg Road CB 1 Tilley Drive * - labeled as IAR on map (already has shared use path, little truck traffic)CA 3 Farrell Street * street is an important link between existing SUP, and links high density residential to Farrell Park Various bike/ped elements already present but need to be coordinated and connected.NSBB 2 Joy Drive – large residential area at east end requires sidewalks connecting to Farrell SUP.CA 2 Swift Street – western end (important and dangerous street crossing for access to SUP at Farrell Street)Clear markings or bollards needed by the retina Center NSBB 2 Fayette Road (important link for Champlain bikeways route, which currently goes only to Imperial Drive) Need safe street crossing at Fayette/Cortland Ave.This is an alternate route to Shelburne road NSBB 1 Commerce Ave IAR 3 Garden Street – This is the alternate route for bicycles traveling west on Market Street. As such, it must continue the SUP from the corner of Market to Dorset Street.NSBB 1 Kennedy Drive – currently has SUP on one side, bike-able shoulder in both directions.B 3 Meadowlands Drive (currently has SUP on one side, wide, no painted lines currently)IAR 3 Community Drive (see comment under Commerce Avenue)CA 2 Gregory Drive Intersection with Williston Road needs treatment to prevent turning vehicle conflicts with bicycles on Wiliston Road.IAR 3 Holmes Road * (industrial use closest to Shelburne Rd)?IAR 3 Bartlett Bay Road * (industrial use closest to Shelburne Rd)?IAR 3 Spear Street – one of the highest use roads for on-road bicycling – one of the highest use roads for on-road bicycling NSBB 1 Van Sicklin Road *Sharrows and signage needed. Sight lines are bad.RC 2 Cheesefactory Road *Sharrows and signage needed. Sight lines are bad.RC 2 Dorset Street –south of Dorset Farms neighborhood 2nd most heavily used road for bicyclists RC 2 Old Farm Road Consider planned development NSBB 2 Meadowwood Drive (off Swift)NS 2 Swift Street ext.(possible extension to neighborhoods on Hinesburg Road RD 2 Street Typologies • Page 36+ These street typologies do not represent the compromise reached by several committees for Market Street. They don’t seem to include the multi-use sidewalks at all, and if “Commercial Boulevard” doesn’t apply to City Center, it seems that bicyclists will always be in the road (given that for “Avenue,” “bike lane” is in the road). [Note: In the main document, the street types partially summarized below don’t yet have corresponding South Burlington street names, and the “Typical Cross Sections” illustrations are not yet accurate.]* Design Target Bicycle Type Speed Speed Facilities Neighborhood Street 25 mph 20-25 Shared lane Neighborhood Street (narrow) 25 15-20 Share-the-road signage Neighborhood Street (bike blvd) 25 20-25 “ & sharrow markings Lane 15 15 Shared lane or sharrow markings Destination Street/Type 2 (front door to 15 15 Shared with vehicles City Center) Destination Street/Type 3 (shared space) 15 15 “ (front door to City Center) Support Street 29 15-20 Shared lane, sharrow, or bike lane Mew n/a n/a Not permitted Path n/a n/a Not permitted (but design vehicle is “bicycle”…) Alley n/a 10 Shared lane or sharrow Commercial Street 20 15 Shared lane, or sharrow, or bike lane Avenue 30 25-30 Bike lane, buffered bike lane, or cycle track Commercial Boulevard 30 30 Buffered bike lane or cycle track * Notes on this version [from the FBC document] This draft version of the Street Typology represents only those street types present in City Center. Typical cross sections have been filled with a placeholder sample image with individual cross sections to be completed once street parameters have been finalized. Additional precedent images will also be added in later versions. Some parameters, descriptions, and roles are expected to change based on community and committee feedback as part of the ongoing iterative process.