Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/25/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 MARCH 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 March 2014, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, T. Riehle, T. Harrington, S. Quest, G. Calcagni, B. Gagnon, B. Benton ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; Panel Members: J. Dousevicz, A. Burns, L. Williams; M. Simoneau, A. Germain, F. & J. Kochman, S. Dopp, B. Maynes, T. McKenzie, T. Duff, L. Michaels, D. Leban 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: A brief report form the Open Space Committee representative was added under Other Business. 2. Open to the Public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner Announcements and Staff Report: No announcements were made. 4. Update from Sustainable Agriculture Sub-Committee: Ms. Quest said the Sub-Committee continues to discuss a possible Spear Street agricultural corridor, possibly small farms and orchards. They are also working on recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan and on a recommendation to the Planning Commission to assess the sewage capacity for City Center and Southeast Quadrant plans. Ms. Louisos noted that staff is already working on the sewage capacity issue. 5. Panel Discussion – Development, Economics, and City Center: Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission wanted to be sure the city produces the best plan for City Center. Several weeks ago, they heard a presentation regarding the TIF District, and this meeting features a panel of economic experts in the field of development. Ms. Louisos then invited panel members to introduce themselves: Andy Burnes: Mr. Burnes is President of Halkeen Real Estate Management Company in Massachusetts. The company developed the Winooski project in 2004 and has been active in the project through 2011. They focus on housing, both affordable and mixed use, and their efforts stretch from New England to Miami. They also do urban redevelopment projects. Jed Dousevicz: Mr. Dousevicz specializes in commercial real estate. Larry Williams: Mr. Williams is a principal in Redstone, local management company, with over one million square feet of space. They are in the process of a downtown Burlington development parallel to what could happen in City Center and face some of the same issues. They are also in the running for a downtown Montpelier development. They have just finished 72 units in downtown Winooski and hope for a second phase later in the spring. Mr. Riehle said he wished these experts had been involved in the Form Based Codes Committee discussion. He asked where South Burlington could go wrong in trying to get the City Center development going. Mr. Williams said he felt the city is working in the right place and that Form Based Codes is the right way to do it. He noted that the City of Burlington just changed a 50-50 (residential-commercial) regulations because nobody could make that work. Now Burlington is seeing plans for projects. He urged the South Burlington to put rules in place that allow people to do something. Mr. Burnes said the market will dictate what works. There needs to be flexibility to allow the market to avail itself of what will work. He noted that his company was ravaged by the fall in the market. They were committed to 250 condos but built only 70 or so. They were also driven by a TIF that didn’t allow for flexibility. He noted that there is now a very strong residential market in the Greater Burlington area. Mr. Riehle said they city wants a place where the community would come. He asked if that’s possible in this one complex. Mr. Dousevicz said if you try to force too much, it won’t work. He cautioned against having only structured parking. He felt that any retail planning should have eye-level/sight-level parking. Mr. Williams felt the key is density; the more compact, the better, including buildings closer to the street. He felt this would be hard to accomplish without structured parking. He felt this is where the TIF should be deployed. Mr. Gagnon noted that discussions have focused around square footage, building heights, etc. he asked whether multi-story (residential above commercial) is good for development or whether it is limiting. He also asked whether banning one-story buildings is good. Mr. Williams said his vision is a dense area with a major artery and smaller arteries. He wouldn’t allow one story buildings and he wouldn’t go above 5 stories (the economics don’t go much beyond that). Mr. Dousevicz said he prefers stand‐alone congregate housing structures which create a sense that “this building is ours.” These are the people who will be walking to the retail/restaurants, etc. He felt it would take time to market the residential above commercial buildings. Mr. Burnes said they have had a great deal of trouble with retail below residential. A lot of the retail space has been vacant for a long time. He felt there is a place for retail in mixed projects, but you have to let the market dictate, and you need flexibility. He added that retail is changing, particularly with the internet. Mr. Burnes also said you have to think of how long development in the City Center will take. He cautioned about getting locked into a specific footage of retail. He said “the easier it is to implement your vision, the better.” Ms. Louisos noted there are different zoning areas planned in the City Center. One area requires retail on the first floor. Most areas are more flexible. Mr. Williams said the city will find out if it was right or wrong in this. He asked if the landowner wants to develop this land. He noted that in Winooski the city bought the land and then developed it. Mr. Riehle noted that the owner hasn’t been asked that specifically, but he couldn’t see the city buying the land. He added he would like to one entity do the whole project instead of piecemeal. Mr. Williams said he felt it would go better being done piecemeal. Ms. LaRose noted that the City Center area has had 10 different boundaries in recent years. There are quite a few landowners now, especially in the developed areas which are ripe for redevelopment. City Center zoning is in many pieces (Williston Road, Dorset Street, San Remo Drive, etc.) with possibly hundreds of landowners. Ms. Blanchard noted the TIF district is 106 acres, some of which is undeveloped. She described some of the principal breakdowns and opportunities they present. Ms. Quest asked the panel how they would imagine all of this coming together. Mr. Burnes said that with the characteristics of the district, it will depend on how things thrive. He stressed that it’s a place many businesses want to be in. Mr. Dousevicz said the question is where it starts. Infrastructure is expensive and usually has to be done before there are tenants. He said it is a risk. Mr. Kochman said he thought City Center was going to be for municipal uses (City Hall, Library, etc.), and other things could follow. It would create a gathering place to which developers would be drawn. Mr. Dousevicz said there are some well‐known retailers looking for space – large users. There is also a very high vacancy for commercial office space (14.5% vacancy). He felt the market will dictate what goes up. He added that putting up 50,000 sq. ft. of chopped up retail space is ridiculous. A member of the audience asked if there is a market for residential use. Mr. Williams said there is. The vacancy rate is about 1%, which drives up rents. They are seeing a lot of residential development now because interest rates are down. This will slow when rates go back up. He felt the City Center area could take 1,000 residential units. Ms. Harrington asked how many residential units you would have to build to make it financially viable with retail on the first floor. Mr. Williams said you have to build a little at a time (30 to 40 units), 1200 sq. ft. per unit. Land costs per unit are $4500. Ms. Harrington then asked if it is feasible to have 1500 sq. ft. single family starter homes. Mr. Burnes said the VHFA is trying to address that market. Resources to support that are difficult. He hoped that with more competition and more being built, costs will come down. He stressed that land costs are very high. Mr. Williams felt that a density bonus and lower infrastructure costs might help for smaller homes. Ms. Calcagni noted there is an affordable housing group looking at inclusionary zoning. She asked if this is done in Winooski. Mr. Burnes said they had to do it because of TIF financing and a loan that required affordable housing. Mr. Williams added there was also a tax credit involved. But, he stressed, a 4, 6, or 8 unit development in South Burlington can’t do that. Mr. Williams also felt that the City of Burlington has suffered because of the inclusionary zoning. It means the numbers don’t work. Each affordable unit adds $100,000 to the costs. Without additional funding, that can’t happen. Mr. Simoneau asked if panel members would characterize “large stores” as anchors. Mr. Dousevicz said yes. Mr. Simoneau asked if they could be multi-story. Mr. Dousevicz said no. Mr. Simoneau asked what it would take to accommodate an anchor. Mr. Dousevicz said a large parking lot. He didn’t feel structured parking would work. Mr. Burnes noted that retail in the Winooski “rotary” is a disaster and was a mistake. He felt that “out front” parking can work, but for high peak areas structured parking is needed. He felt using the TIF for structured parking is good and has worked in Massachusetts. Ms. Greco questioned whether they can build a place people can afford to live, small homes without huge infrastructure. She said the dominating force shouldn’t be shopping but living and services. Mr. Williams said he thinks the city would want more density than single family detached houses. Mr. Burnes said the Winooski project created a sense of place. The Riverwalk has traffic on an amazing basis. He added that South Burlington’s challenge is the number of landowners; Winooski controlled its own destiny. Mr. Kochman cited an example in Rome where a large fast food place was “hidden” behind more quaint uses and suggested this could happen with a larger store in City Center. He felt the city should give up the idea of zoning for affordable housing as it’s either subsidized or doesn’t work. He felt it could be “encouraged” but not “mandated.” An audience member asked why an anchor store cares about having 4 floors above them. Mr. Dousevicz said they want to be the identity and also want to have higher ceilings. Mr. Duff suggested looking at an area in Hanover, New Hampshire. There is retail with commercial and residential above it. It also has structured parking. It is a transition between the urban downtown and a residential area. Ms. LaRose said raised the issue of “cost thresholds,” such as the need for elevators, steel vs. wood construction, financing cutoffs, etc. Mr. Williams said he wished it was that easy. He said that 5 stories and more has to be steel construction. Any multi-story needs elevators. There should be a minimum of 7-8,000 sq. ft. per floor minimum. Beyond that, it’s all design. He also cited extraordinary costs such as soils and approval process costs. He noted that in Winooski they had a permit in 75 days for a $15,000,000 project. Mr. Burnes said they city would want to eliminate as many hurdles as possible. There will always be cycles in a large project, but the permitting process can “kill you.” He said they would never have touched the Winooski project without the permits already being in place. Mr. Burnes also said you can create value to the land and get owners on board. You get them to work together for you. Ms. Leban felt the city needs a very experienced developer to make things happen. Panel members agreed. Ms. Dopp asked about occupancy rate in Winooski. Mr. Burnes said they are full. Mr. Williams said they are also full. Mr. Burnes said the city may have a location for a big box store with more flexibility. Ms. Louisos asked if that could include 2 stories. Mr. Burnes said it could and he knew one that would be very interested. If you make the process easier, businesses will be more flexible. Smart retailers understand things are changing. Ms. Leban asked if there is a model near here with high-density housing. She cited areas in New York with 4 or 5 stories of one unit per floor. She said that is not what she is seeing proposed in South Burlington. She want to see an inviting walking environment with buildings that “make you comfortable.” Mr. Burnes said 4 or 5 stories are needed to get the density and the feel. Ms. Louisos described the characteristics of the T3, T4 and T5 areas and asked if that made sense. Mr. Burnes said “that’s your vision.” Mr. Williams felt it was reasonable. Ms. Louisos said there are height maximum per floor. Mr. Dousevicz said that won’t work. Mr. Williams asked why you would constrain a good design for an arbitrary height limit. Ms. Calcagni noted Forb Based Codes language encourages energy efficiency. She asked if the panel had experience with that. Mr. Williams said they’d done it when they could justify the cost, and they do it because it will reduce energy costs down the road. He added that to make roofs “solar ready,” the roofs have to be heavier, which is a higher cost. He stressed that he didn’t want to be told where to put his mechanicals on a roof. Commission members thanked the panel for their participation. 6. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Codes: a. Discuss style of writing Ms. LaRose said a decision has to be made soon on whether to form based codes is appropriate city-wide. She noted that certain pieces of it could be appropriate in some neighborhoods. There could also be dimensional standards or focus on a specific element of the code. There could also be a different style in a commercial neighborhood. She noted that a hybrid code is not unusual. The question is the review process and what can be reviewed administratively. Mr. Gagnon felt form based codes make sense in City Center because there is a clean slate. City-wide, everything is built with existing neighborhoods. Changing that could cause a lot of non-compliance. Ms. LaRose noted they often get requests, such as a front deck, that the traditional code does not allow for. That could happen under form based codes. Mr. Gagnon felt that would be fine as long as you don’t make all the homes in Mayfair Park, etc., non‐compliant. Ms. LaRose noted that Paul Dreher’s contract excludes the Airport area and Southeast Quadrant. Ms. LaRose also noted that the existing code does not always reflect what exists on the street. Ms. Dopp felt it is better to fix the problems than to have a clean sweep. Ms. Quest noted that Mr. Dreher said he needs a Comprehensive Plan before he can do anything. Ms. LaRose said there are some areas that are not defined…such as behind Windjammer. A member of the audience added there is a question of allowing storage units in the Commercial-Industrial area. It is allowed across the street. Ms. Calcagni said she didn’t think a corner grocery should be precluded and didn’t know how form based codes would deal with that. Mr. Simoneau suggested having Paul Dreher figure out what approach is best for the community. Ms. LaRose said they don’t want him spending time on something the city won’t like. Mr. Gagnon felt he should concentrate more on less developed neighborhoods where development is possible. Ms. Louisos said she wasn’t sure the city was ready for “any use anywhere.” Ms. LaRose suggested having Paul Dreher work on a messy map and then look at some specific areas (e.g., Shelburne Road). 7. Other Business: a. Update on Open Space Committee: Ms. Benton said she has been out of town a lot and is not up to speed on what the Committee is doing. She can no longer attend meetings. Ms. Louisos said she can possibly attend the next meeting. b. Upcoming Meetings: A special meeting on 29 April has not yet been finalized. Ms. Quest asked when the Commission will get to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. LaRose said some things would have to be updated if they are in the regulations (e.g., inclusionary zoning), but otherwise it’s not required that the Comprehensive Plan be done first. She noted that staff has been working on pieces of the Plan that need to be done (i.e., Police, Fire, etc.). Mr. Riehle said if there is nothing that conflicts with City Center and Form Based Codes, he felt the Comprehensive Plan should be done after those things. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. ,Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.