From: Lee Buffinton <l.buffinton@gmail.com>
Date: June 29, 2016 at 9:36:08 AM EDT
To: Meagan Tuttle <mtuttle@burlingtonvt.gov>, "David E. White" <DEWhite@burlingtonvt.gov>, Yves Bradley <ybradley@vermontrealestate.com>, "bbaker@cdbesq.com" <bbaker@cdbesq.com>, "andym@montrolllaw.com" <andym@montrolllaw.com>, Emily Lee <emilyannicklee@gmail.com>, "Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur (jwb@burlingtontelecom.net)" <jwb@burlingtontelecom.net>, Harris Roen <harris@roen.net>
Subject: Communication for discussion at June 29th meeting and for the record
To my fellow Planning Commissioners,
Clearly
plan BTV and all of us on the Planning Commission support a vibrant,
mixed-use, mall redevelopment with a healthy mix of retail, commercial,
and diverse residential spaces to meet the needs of the city. The
City and the developer deserve credit for working so hard together
toward this vision and, in particular, the effort to re-open St. Paul
Street and Pine Street as complete, public streets. While these efforts
are exactly what plan BTV envisioned, some of the specific zoning
amendments as proposed are not consistent with plan BTV and, therefore,
should be reconsidered and reconfigured in order to meet the legal
requirement, avoid legal wrangling over potential spot zoning, and
facilitate redevelopment.
3 areas of concern:
Proposed zoning amendment to allow post secondary schools and community colleges as a permitted use-
Under
this proposal the entire mall could be turned into a college or
university campus, exempt from Inclusionary Zoning requirements and
without the conditional use review that is currently mandated. Nowhere
in planBTV does it suggest that we put a college campus downtown! A
college campus does not align with plan BTV's call for mixed use retail,
commercial and diverse residential uses at the mall site. Nor would a
college campus address the goal of creating more affordable and
moderately priced housing downtown essential for workforce housing,
seniors, and others, as prioritized in plan BTV. It's essential to
retain conditional use review of any proposed secondary school/college
at this site.
Proposed zoning amendment to
raise building height limits from the current 65' by right to 160' (14
stories) by right with no provision for requiring additional public
benefits such as affordable or senior housing.
This
proposal represents a dramatic increase in building height and a major
change in policy that has little basis in the adopted plan BTV or the
draft Form Based Code.
While Plan BTV wisely
calls for "larger residential, mixed-use buildings" at the current
one-story mall site as well as strategic infill and liner buildings, the
plan does not suggest the need for any increase in our current height
limits and says; "While allowing for even taller isn't necessarily the
answer, efforts to encourage development that more fully utilizes the
permitted development envelope need to be supported". Plan BTV seems to
be responding to public sentiment and cites its public survey that
found only a very small percentage of respondents who were dissatisfied
with the scale of buildings downtown. Even the plan's graphic images of
what a redeveloped mall site could look like show new buildings no
taller than 6 to 8 stories in keeping with our current height limits.
Furthermore,
14-story buildings towering over historic Bank Street, Cherry Street
and the new sections of St. Paul and Pine Streets could block sunlight
and increase and alter wind currents and downdrafts at these locations,
potentially diminishing the positive pedestrian experience that plan BTV
envisions. In addition such heights would seem to be at odds with
Section 6 of our current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that emphasizes
the importance of maintaining neighborhood proportions of scale and mass
and sensitive transitions between new buildings and existing
neighborhoods.
Under this proposed zoning
amendment to allow 14-story buildings by right a developer could put in
the bare minimum number of inclusionary zoning units (15-25%) and all
of the remaining units (75 to 85%) could be luxury apartments. This
fundamental policy shift would be counter to plan BTV's strong emphasis
on creating a variety of housing options: "more choices, more types,
more affordable, more diversity". Plan BTV calls on us as a city to use
"a number of strategies that can and should be employed to encourage
the creation of significantly more housing- particularly affordable and
affordable market-rate units". Specifically cited in plan BTV's vision
for the mall are "downtown workers, young professionals, and empty
nesters" who need affordable and moderately priced housing downtown. By
adopting a massive height increase with no incentives attached we could
lose on an opportunity to get the housing variety that our city needs.
Proposed
zoning amendments that would allow for surface parking lots and a
parking garage to be built to the perimeter of a building at any floor
except the first floor.
Surface parking lots, whether on
the ground or on the top deck of a parking garage, are completely at
odds with 21st century planning and the green roofs and stormwater
management called for in plan BTV.
In regard
to parking, plan BTV emphasizes underground or wrapped parking where
needed, stating: "In all cases, any new facilities should be wrapped
with mixed-use buildings to screen the parking and activate the street."
Our plan does not say that this only applies at the ground floor
level. Lastly, plan BTV emphasizes the need for the city to "work
closely with developers to manage their parking needs" and consider
alternatives to building conventional parking garages. I urge that we
delete the amendment allowing for surface parking and make the parking
garage section more consistent with plan BTV objectives.
In conclusion:
We as a Planning Commission have been urged to
adopt,
in their entirety, the zoning amendments to enable the mall
redevelopment as proposed. However, we would not be performing our due
diligence or meeting our legal obligations if we passed the particular
zoning amendments cited above as written. I'm no lawyer, but it seems
to me that we need to avoid the potential lengthy legal mess associated
with accusations of "spot zoning" by making absolutely sure that any
zoning amendments comply with the goals of our publicly supported plan
BTV.
Until we go through the public process of
changing it, plan BTV is our guide for Burlington's future. The city
supports and wants plan BTV. Developers want certainty. We can have
both.
I respectfully request of my fellow
planning commissioners that we reshape proposed zoning amendments as
needed to keep us on solid legal ground and to better reflect the vision
and values of Plan BTV and the citizens of Burlington.
Thank you.
Lee Buffinton
Please remember to let members of the Board know that you appreciate their hard work and efforts to ensure due diligence - they are under a lot of pressure both from other committee members and other departments to come to a decision post haste, and to make the decision favored by the administration. There seemed to me to be a great deal of condescension, deliberate obtuseness, and outright rudeness from some board members.
ReplyDeleteKind words of support, appreciation, and recognition can go a long way.
Thank you Lee! Well said.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, we can't thank Lee and other commission members enough for their time and passion in defense of our city. They are all volunteers and devote enormous amounts of time. This is a particularly difficult situation, because the staff is pushing so hard for one outcome. I would like to thank Lee Buffinton especially for her very hard work and diligence, but most other members of the commission are also working overtime on this very rushed proposal. Thanks is due to all who take this process seriously, no matter what their personal opinions are...just as long as they take care to represent the people whom they serve.
ReplyDelete