Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/08/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 APRIL 2014 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 8 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, S. Quest, B. Gagnon, T. Harrington, G. Calcagni ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, T. McKenzie, R. Greco, B. Maynes, P. Engels, K. Nolan 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements & staff report: Ms. Quest: UVM is forming a “sustainable committee”; they have received a Gold Award for sustainability. Mr. Conner: City Hall renovations continue. The Recreation Department has moved into their new space downstairs. The hope is to have a display area upstairs for ongoing projects. Staff is working toward a full draft of the Form Based Code for the next Commission meeting. 4. Debrief of March 25th panel and identify any recommended changes to draft City Center FBC based on this discussion: Ms. Quest asked about having retail on the first floor when there is no residential base. Mr. Conner said there is more flexibility than just retail; there can be commercial uses as well. He added that a successful downtown core exists when pedestrians feel comfortable walking to the end, and residential uses are not very interesting to people. Mr. McKenzie said one thing the FBC Committee wanted to leave room for is an anchor store at the far end to draw traffic. They were also not limited to retail on the ground floor and felt commercial uses such as a stockbroker, doctor, service use, etc. would be appropriate. Mr. McKenzie added that at some point, the highest and best use will be retail; the question is how to get there. He noted that the office vacancy rate is now very high in the area. Mr. Riehle asked if housing coming before commercial space could create “foot traffic.” Mr. McKenzie said it would as it creates a demand for things like coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. Mr. Gagnon said the key point is to get some infrastructure in first and to make the permitting process easier for developers. Mr. McKenzie said it would be helpful if a developer could get a permit when a project meets all the criteria, without having to go through a hearing process. Ms. Quest asked about the possibility of civic buildings. Mr. Conner said the TIF and other things are working toward that. Ms. Dopp noted that the upstairs spaces at Maple Tree Place are empty. Mr. McKenzie said the mixed use that he sees working best is an office building next to a building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. He also noted that new construction is 30% more expensive than refurbishing older buildings. Ms. Louisos said that the need for surface parking was mentioned a number of times. Mr. McKenzie said parking standards in Form Based Codes are below what a retailer would need and probably below what a retailer would accept. Mr. Conner noted that staff is working with the Regional Planning Commission and Campus Traffic Management to look to and start to put in place a long-term plan for transportation management. A shuttle bus service is one option being considered as well as leasable parking spaces in an area. Mr. McKenzie stressed that an “anchor store” is not a “big box” store; it would be about 12,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. 5. Update on Work of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, including development of inclusionary zoning and other work: Ms. Calcagni said the Committee has a complete Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which will be voted on and will be ready for the red-line FBC presentation. They will then get back to work on the potential for an affordable housing trust. Basically, the Inclusionary Zoning requirement is for developments of 12 units or more to have 15% of units affordable. Units would be geared to people earning 80-120% of the median income. Mr. Conner reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to allow for inclusionary zoning. 6. Discuss potential parameters for City Center and public open space: [Click here for City Center Open Space Memo] Mr. Conner reviewed what currently exists in the way of open space within a 5 to 8 minute walking distance of the core of Market Street. This includes J. C. Park, Dumont Port, 15 acres of open space asked for by a federal assessment (Potash Brook, buffer, wetlands associated with it, etc.), the potential Market Street stormwater facility. Ms. Quest said she was confused about the official city map. Mr. Conner explained that a landowner is required to accommodate whatever is on the official city map. If a plan for development does not do this, the plan is denied. The city then has 45 days in which to purchase the property. If the city does not purchase the property, the plan goes back to the DRB with no restrictions. Members then discussed the functions of open space including: a gathering spot, multi-purpose area, civic buildings. Ms. Greco noted there was public comment about what people wanted and that should be looked at again. Mr. Maynes asked if Trader Joe’s and Pier I are in the TIF district. Mr. Conner said they are the first properties that would be eligible to generate money for the TIF. Healthy Living predates the TIF. Mr. Maynes asked how much business would be required to generate money for a $3,000,000 town green. Mr. Conner said the CIP has an initial estimate of that, including impact fees. Mr. LaRose stressed that the Planning Commission is not in a position to decide whether there should be a parking garage. The City Council is the only one “writing checks.” Members agreed that there should be public open space adjacent to civic buildings. Mr. Conner then addressed the “framing” of open space. He noted that some small spaces feel large. He noted an area in Boston that looks fine when it is full of people but looks empty otherwise. Both Swanton and Fair Haven have very large greens, and there is never anyone in them. Ms. Quest added that Maple Tree Place is smaller than downtown Burlington but is usually empty so it looks larger. Members felt that there should be open space adjacent to a street which could be closed for event purposes. Members agreed on the need for seating and for a “concentration of people.” Ms. Dopp suggested a “spur path” to take people to Williston Road. Mr. Riehle felt that the Civic Center area should have public amenities. Mr. Conner noted that Burlington is working on an outdoor seating area in conjunction with a pub. Members then considered the appropriate size for open space. They felt the heights of surrounding buildings was a factor as well as the surrounding uses. Mr. Gagnon suggested a possible minimum size. Ms. Louisos noted there had been a suggestion of space for ice skating. Ms. LaRose said this can be a small area for families or a large area such as Providence has for Friday night events. Mr. Riehle said this is very expensive land and he questioned whether such a space is affordable. 7. Discuss potential elements of City Center area Official Map amendments: Mr. Conner cited the need for accuracy and the burden on a municipality to identify where things should be. He then reviewed specific areas as follows: a. A parallel road to Williston Road on the north side: affected properties would have to be clearly identified. Mr. Conner showed a previous map with one version of a road. The current plan starts on a different property. b. Mary Street: the concept is for a road next to the Double Tree. Various iterations affect different property owners. c. An area where one block is larger than the maximum block perimeter. Mr. Conner asked whether that is OK or whether there should be a road cutting across the property, possibly a rec path connecting to Dumont Park d. Central green space: The City Attorney has said that if the public wants this, there has to be a location determined for it. There is a procedure to amend this by City Council resolution if a different decision is later made. 8. Continued Planning Commission Work Session on Draft City Center Form Based Code: Mr. Conner said he had talked with Paul Dreher about uses that would new under FBC and what would happen with an existing non-conforming building where some uses are now not allowed. Mr. Dreher said this can be addressed. The School Board has submitted a list of uses they would not want to see in City Center because of the proximity to Central School. These include: adult uses, junk yards, motor freight terminals, Airport uses, bars/night clubs, bulk storage, cannabis dispensary, fraternity/sorority house, manufacturing/research. Mr. Riehle asked about a wine store. Mr. Conner felt retailing might not be included. Mr. Gagnon did not want to preclude a wine bar, which is a social gathering place. Mr. McKenzie said you can’t tell a hotel they can’t have a bar. Mr. Simoneau said manufacturing and research with hazardous materials is another hornet’s nest. He questioned how you would define “hazardous material.” Mr. Gagnon said there can be hazardous materials in a dentist’s office. He did not want to limit that. Mr. Conner noted that “adult uses” and junk yards are prohibited city‐wide. He suggested continuing that prohibition in City Center and other wise allowing the code to dictate where things go. Mr. Gagnon suggested also prohibiting motor freight terminals in all T-zones. Staff will take a crack at how to define and deal with “heavy truck traffic.” 9. Review Upcoming Meeting Schedule for City Center and City-Wide Form Based Code: Mr. Conner raised the possibility of a special meeting on 29 April at which Paul Dreher can provide an idea of what the rest of the city might look like. Ms. Louisos said the FBC Committee should be invited to participate in that meeting. There was also discussion of possibly changing the 13 May meeting to 6 May. 10. Continue Discussion of style of writing for city-wide LDRs: Ms. LaRose said Paul Dreher will drive around the city to see how many zones there might be and what possible types of zoning. Mr. Conner said there is a possibility of “transect” zones for many industrial uses. Mr. Connor stressed that regulations do not have to follow any one philosophical line. Mr. Riehle asked about streetscapes. Mr. Conner said the work from the fall workshops on that can be folded in. One question is how UVM land will be addressed. 11. Consider request by Burlington Electric Department to waive 45-day notice period for proposed 500 kw solar array at BTV: [Click here for Email Correspondence for Burlington Electric Department Solar Project] Mr. Conner explained that regulation for the 45-day warning period and the ability to waive that. He added that waiving this period does not limit the ability to provide input later. Mr. Nolan of Burlington Electric said the Public Service Bureau may not hold a public hearing on this application. Everything will have to be filed with the application, and the PSB can approve it from that submission. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council could request a public hearing. Mr. Gagnon said if the PSB has a public notification process, he was OK with the waiver. Mr. Nolan noted the solar array would show 12 inches above the parking deck at its highest point. Mr. Riehle moved to grant the request to waive the 45-day notice period for the proposed 500 kw solar array at BTV as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Staff will prepare a letter to this effect. 12. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: April 8, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting SUBJECT: City Center Public Open Space Planning Tools At a previous meeting the Planning Commission asked Staff to explore all potential tools available for identifying and creating opportunities for the acquisition of public civic and/or green spaces in the City Center area. For the purposes of this memo, and in alignment with the Open Space Committee’s working definition, these will collectively be referred to as Public Open Space. At that meeting, the Commission stated that it would like to review the desirable characteristics of the Public Open Space in City Center. Enclosed with your packet are the report from the Open Space Committee from November 2013, a sampling of Vermont central open spaces, and a submittal from the Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee. At Tuesday’s meeting, staff will also be providing a map depicting the most recent version of the information we have about expected Open Space within the City Center area. Goals and Guidance The determination of land to be targeting for open space acquisition – via a tool such as the Official Map or other - should be based on the community’s needs and goals. Some questions to help get here include: 1. Goal for public open space. What is to be the primary function(s) of the public open space? Examples include: programmed park, green and passive landscaped areas, paved function space, natural area. The areas to these questions may determine the appropriate geography and size of the spaces. 2. Should the space be accessory / adjacent to the planned civic buildings? 3. Heights of adjacent buildings. The consultant hired to develop the Open Space Report with the Open Space Committee has gathered research which provides that the size of a public open space should be relative to the buildings around it. See attached examples. 4. Should the open space be adjacent to a street that can be closed for event purposes? 2 5. What other open spaces are in the City Center pedestrian shed? What purposes do they already serve, or will they serve in the future? What gaps are there? Should new spaces be affiliated with these ones? 6. To what extent can/should the city look to maximize the “multi-purpose” potential for land as open space (eg, combining with stormwater facilities on or below ground, or combining with an existing open space feature) 7. What is the appropriate size for open space? Our research to date suggests that a central open space 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 one or more outdoor “rooms.” 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 in building height). Model FBC standards suggest a central square or green should be no smaller than ½ acre and no larger than 5 acres. Central greens in Vermont range in size from 1.2 acres (Waterbury Village) to 5 acres or more (St. Albans, Shelburne), and are typically bordered by civic buildings that also offer public facilities. Burlington City Park behind City Hall is 1.7 acres, with direct pedestrian access to Church Street Marketplace (a linear public plaza). Shelburne’s larger village green (~5.2 acres) includes civic buildings. In consideration of the size for any central open space in City Center, the context of other adjacent open spaces should also be considered, including Dumont Park, the Potash Brook Tributary 3 wetlands area, the proposed interactive Market Street stormwater facility, and Jaycee Park. Regulatory Context: 24 V.S.A. § 4421 allows that a “municipality may adopt an official map that identifies future municipal utility and facility improvements, such as road or recreational path rights-of-way, parkland, utility rights- of-way, and other public improvements, in order to provide the opportunity for the community to acquire land identified for public improvements…” South Burlington has an adopted Official Map and has utilized this resource to identify land for the above improvements. It is a legally viable tool that has been used to successfully meet the community’s desires. Changes to the Official Map are made following much the same process as changes to the Land Development Regulations. This tool is a one option that would identify planned areas for possible municipal acquisition of public open spaces. Actual acquisition through this means requires that the municipality pays or negotiates a fair market value for the property, and a decision to this affect has a restricted time frame once an identified property is subject to a development application. Identifying which parcel(s) to be included on the Official Map does come with challenges in itself, including understanding the impacts of that designation on said parcels. More on this item in the following item on the agenda. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN CITY CENTER Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee January 20, 2014; updated February 4 OUTSIDE We would like to have a green space of at least two acres adjacent to the Municipal Building. In addition to Dumont Park, other open space distributed throughout the developed areas should have consolidated open spaces. In other words, in blocks of private buildings, a certain percent of the block should be shared open green space. It should not be the rule to have each building set aside a small lot of green space. Open Space distributed among the linked green areas should have: • Some shade trees • A playground for young children • A picnic area with tables, barbecue grills, a pavilion and a drinking fountain • Toilet facilities • Benches • An off-leash area for dogs • Readily available poop bags and trash cans • Accessible paths for shared use by walkers and bicycles • A fitness trail • In Dumont Park, boardwalks or other appropriate walkways to protect the natural environment • Clear and adequate signage throughout 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. The Vermont Statutes Online Title 24: Municipal and County Government Chapter 117: MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Sub-Chapter 007: Bylaws 24 V.S.A. § 4421. Official map § 4421. Official map A municipality may adopt an official map that identifies future municipal utility and facility improvements, such as road or recreational path rights-of-way, parkland, utility rights-of-way, and other public improvements, in order to provide the opportunity for the community to acquire land identified for public improvements prior to development for other use and to identify the locations of required public facilities for new subdivisions and other development under review by the municipality. (1) Preparation of an official map. For the purposes of this chapter, the official map shall be based upon the most accurate data available as to the location and width of existing and proposed streets and drainageways and the location of all existing and proposed parks, schools, and other public facilities. Where questions arise in the administration of this section that require more precise determinations of the location of any street right-of-way line on all drainageways or the location of any park, school, or any other public facility, the legislative body shall have a survey prepared of the street or section, park, school, or other public facility in question, that may by resolution of the legislative body become a part of the official map. (2) Changes to the official map. After adoption of the official map, the recordation of plats that have been approved as provided by this chapter, or the adoption of any urban renewal plan under chapter 85 of this title, shall, without further action, modify the official map accordingly. Minor changes in the location of proposed public facilities may also be made to particular sections of the official map if the change is recommended by a majority of the planning commission and approved by resolution of the legislative body. This process may take place concurrently with review of development or subdivision of a parcel that is proposed to be subject to a map change. (3) Status of mapped public facilities. The adoption, as part of an official map, of any existing or proposed street or street line or drainageway, or any proposed park, school, or other public facility, shall not constitute a taking or acceptance of land by the municipality, nor shall the adoption of any street in an official map constitute the opening Page 1 of 2The Vermont Statutes Online 4/4/2014http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117&Section=04421 or establishment of the street for public use or obligate the municipality in any way for the maintenance of the street. (4) Building on properties with mapped public facilities. No zoning permit may be issued for any land development within the lines of any street, drainageway, park, school, or other public facility shown on the official map, except as specifically provided in this section. No person shall recover any damages for the taking for public use of any land development constructed within the lines of any proposed street, drainageway, park, school, or other public facility after it has been included in the official map, and any such land development shall be removed at the expense of the owner. (A) If a permit for any land development within the lines of any proposed street, drainageway, park, school, or other public facility shown on an official map is denied pursuant to subdivision (5) of this section, the legislative body shall have 120 days from the date of the denial of the permit to institute proceedings to acquire that land or interest in that land, and if no such proceedings are started within that time, the administrative officer shall issue the permit if the application otherwise conforms to all the applicable bylaws. (B) A municipality may specify in its bylaws that conditional use review is required for any structure within the line of any public facility shown on the official map or within a specified area adjacent to the lines on the map. If conditional use review is required for these structures, the purpose of the review shall be to ensure that the structure is compatible with the location and function of existing and planned public facilities. If the conditional use is denied, the procedure provided in subdivision (4)(A) of this section shall be instituted. (5) Development review for properties with mapped public facilities. Any application for subdivision or other development review that involves property on which the official map shows a public facility shall demonstrate that the mapped public facility will be accommodated by the proposed subdivision or development in accordance with the municipality's bylaws. Failure to accommodate the mapped public facility or obtain a minor change in the official map shall result in the denial of the development or subdivision. The legislative body shall have 120 days from the date of the denial of the permit to institute proceedings to acquire that land or interest in land, and if these proceedings are not started within that time, the appropriate municipal panel shall review the application without regard to the proposed public facilities. (Added 2003, No. 115 (Adj. Sess.), § 95.) Page 2 of 2The Vermont Statutes Online 4/4/2014http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117&Section=04421 List of Current or Potential Prohibited Uses within the City Center FBC District LAND USE CATEGORY STATUS, CURRENT LDRS STATUS, PROPOSED CC FBC (note: all uses are permitted in the FBC unless specifcally prohibited) STATUS, PROPOSED SCHOOL SAFETY DISTRICT Adult Uses Prohibited City Wide Prohibited in T3 Prohibited Junk Yards Prohibited City Wide Prohibited Motor freight terminals Prohibited in Central Districts Prohibited Uses with Heavy Truck Traffic Permitted except as described in this table Prohibited in T3 Airport Prohibited in Central and C1 Districts Prohibited Bar or Night Club Permitted in Central & C1 Districts Permitted only after 5 pm Bulk Storage Permitted in Central & C1 Districts except as described in this table Prohibited Cannabis Dispensary Permitted in Central & C1 Districts Prohibited Fraternity or Sorority House Permitted in Central & C1 Districts except as described in this table Prohibited Manufacturing / research using harazdous materials Permitted in Central & C1 Districts except as described in this table Prohibited * Note: the School Safety Overlay District also proposed prohition of certain medical offices. The Planning Commission voted in January 2013 to table discussion of this recommendation to a future date. From:Nolan, Ken To:Paul Conner Cc:Chad Farrell (chad@encoreredevelopment.com); "Derek Moretz" Subject:RE: Burlington Electric Department Solar project at Airport Date:Monday, March 31, 2014 10:24:59 AM Paul, I asked Encore Redevelopment (who are designing the system for us) to answer your question, and their response is as follows: The array should not be visible from the street as the panels must respect an 8ft setback from edge of deck. With the panels standing only 12in. tall on the high side and the deck is 60ft. tall, there should be no line of site from the street. As for your wind turbine question, there are no wind turbines proposed in this project. I don’t see BED proposing wind turbines in the foreseeable future, but cannot speak for what the airport might choose to do on its own. If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thanks for the reply, and for moving our request along. Best Ken Kenneth A. Nolan Manager of Power Resources Burlington Electric Department 585 Pine Street Burlington, VT 05401 802-865-7316 802-734-8802 cell From: Paul Conner [mailto:pconner@sburl.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 10:15 AM To: Nolan, Ken Cc: Chad Farrell (chad@encoreredevelopment.com); 'Derek Moretz' Subject: RE: Burlington Electric Department Solar project at Airport Hi Ken, Per our policy, we’ll bring this request before the Planning Commission, likely at their next meeting (April 8th). They will then make the decision about the remainder of the 45 days. One quick question for you: Can you describe how visible the solar units will be from the street, and how high they will be off the top of the garage? I’ve read the narrative but was hoping for a little more detail. Also, the original concept that was shown when the project for the garage went to the DRB also had wind turbines. Is that still in the mix? Thanks! Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Nolan, Ken [mailto:KNolan@burlingtonelectric.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:55 PM To: Paul Conner Cc: Chad Farrell (chad@encoreredevelopment.com); 'Derek Moretz' Subject: Burlington Electric Department Solar project at Airport Paul. I’m putting a hard copy in the mail today, but also wanted to give you an electronic version of a 45- day notice letter for a solar project Burlington Electric (BED) is proposing at the Burlington International Airport. When the airport parking garage was built several years ago the roof was designed to house a solar array, but the solar was never added. We’ve now contracted with Encore Redevelopment to construct the array for us, and are preparing to enter the state permitting process. A copy of this letter is also being sent to Kevin Dorn to provide notice to the city council. We’re hoping to move quickly to get the array installed before snow flies next fall (assuming it leaves at some point this spring), so would appreciate a waiver of the 45-day notice. The letter provides more details, but if it would help to have a meeting to discuss the proposal in detail we’d be more than happy to do so at your convenience. Please don’t hesitate to contact me, or Chad or Derek (at Encore) directly, if you have any questions. Best. Ken Nolan Kenneth A. Nolan Manager of Power Resources Burlington Electric Department 585 Pine Street Burlington, VT 05401 802-865-7316 802-734-8802 cell