HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Center FBC Technical Items Working Group - 10/01/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER FBC TECHNICAL ITEMS WORKING GROUP
Task Force of the Planning Commission
MEETING MINUTES
1 OCTOBER 2014
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 1 October 2014, at
11:00 A.M., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. McKenzie; D. Bell; M. Simoneau; M. Mittag
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Riehle
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Belair,
Administrative Officer
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items:
No changes to the agenda were proposed.
2. Comments & Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items:
No comments.
3. Review and discuss technical items related to the draft City Center Form Based Code
Mr. Conner recommended the group start with Open Space. Members agreed.
Mr. Conner then provided an overview of an approach for the group’s recommendation. The issue, he
said, is how to adapt the current standard for existing development to the new proposed FBC as they
are not using the same metric. The current draft is unclear as to how existing properties which may be in
compliance with their maximum lot coverage is to be translated to new construction under the draft
Code.
Ms. LaRose gave an example, of the University Mall. Today, the UMall has a 70% maximum lot coverage,
which they are in compliance with. If a new building is proposed, it is relatively clear that the new
building must meet its “open space” requirement under the draft Code, but what is to be made of the
existing property, buildings, and lot coverage? Can existing green spaces be built upon?
Mr. Conner said that staff had looked at this issue and had a recommendation: properties, at the time of
either a new construction or an amount of addition over a certain amount, shall be required to perform
a one-time exercise of identifying all potential “open space” up to the required percentage of building
square footage on the lot. “potential open space” would be defined as open spaces within the Qualifying
Open Space Table in the draft FBC that meet the first three criteria – type, size, and location. The
applicant would NOT be required to upgrade these spaces as this time. In the future, expansions to
existing buildings could meet their required open space by upgrading these identified areas to meet the
full standards.
2
Questions for consideration from members: what would be the requirement to make a “translation”?
Mr. Conner suggested perhaps 5,000 square feet of new building, or 500-1,000 square fee of new
impervious. Mr. Simoneau suggested this could perhaps be a percentage.
Ms. Bell asked about interior open space at a place such as the UMall. Mr. Conner said that staff had just
spoken with the UMall about this the day before. The UMall is going to perform an exercise looking at
how much potential open space they have on their lot and from there will review and further discuss
possible qualifying open spaces. Mr. Mittag said he was not sure that he was comfortable with interior
open spaces, or rooftops, counting as it could result in losses of any green spaces.
Members reviewed the criteria for a second site, the former Burger King on Williston Road.
Members agreed to advance this concept to the Planning Commission, with the understanding that
additional sites would need to be tested and thresholds set.
Members then discussed Rights-of-Way and non-conforming properties.
Mr. Conner said the following meeting with the UMall, staff had a suggestion for addressing the
dedication of ROW on properties that have pre-existing parking and circulation areas. Rather than
require a ROW dedication, it might be simpler and achieve similar results to have the applicant
“identify” these roadways on a plan for approval rather than provide offers of dedication to the city. The
Offers would create a lot of legal paperwork that may change multiple times as a property like the UMall
further develops.
Mr. Simoneau asked about properties north of Williston Road. Mr. Conner said that these would be
shown on the official map as they cross multiple properties. He also added that the city should have
discussions with those property owners before proceeding with the official map.
Mr. Mackenzie asked whether the city actually wanted to have these future roads, as opposed to private
circulation. Mr. Conner said that this was his understanding, but this was a very long term vision, tied to
the timelines of the development community. He said that this was among the goals of the Form based
Codes effort.
Members were generally ok with this approach.
Ms. LaRose reported that following the last meeting, she had met with the director of Public Works to
discuss the group’s request to insert minimum ROW into the Street Types and then to have the draft
language regarding new streets refer to this section. She said that DPW felt that in most cases, a street
would wind up being at least 50 in ROW. This was also a standard in most ROWs (3 rods) as a minimum.
Beyond that, the minimum ROW may vary based on needs of a particular roadway. This, she said, was
Mr. Dreher previously reported he had left it open. She suggested an approach that would list a
3
minimum ROW of 50’, instead of 60’, and then point to the Street Types for additional guidance. Within
the Street Types, there could be an explicit statement that the “modification of standards” criteria could
apply to the ROW so that a narrower ROW could be approved by the DRB.
Mr. Mackenzie said that he was not certain how all of this would apply, and expressed concern over the
overall standards being discussed.
Mr. Simoneau asked about the minimum lot depth that had been discussed at a previous meeting,
adjacent to a street. Mr. Conner said that the group had discussed having a 80’ minimum for lots with
off-site parking approved, and 140’ for those without off-site parking.
Mr. Conner said he would write all of this up. Mr. Simoneau asked whether a vote would be required or
if comments could be provided via email. Mr, Mittag asked about having the draft prepared in time for
Friday, before he went away. Mr. Conner said he would try.
Mr. Conner suggested that he draft up the language and share it. Members would be invited to
individually share comments or “ok” back. Depending on the nature of the comments, another meeting
and a vote may or may not be needed. He offered to discuss with the chair of the Planning Commission
and Mr. Simoneau as chair of this group. Members were ok with this.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 pm.
________________________________,