Dear City Councilors and Planning Commissioners,
When it comes to Mall redevelopment, the Sinex proposal, the
predevelopment agreement, the zoning ordinance, and the height details of the
overlay request, I’ve become increasingly concerned that there is a systemic
problem of overlapping, conflating and confusing issues that should be handled
as discrete items with adequate time and due diligence for each. Clear facts
and differentiation between issues is desperately needed.
A zoning change and its specific perimeters is a big deal with future
implications and should not be confused with the details requested for a
specific project. All zoning change details should rely on the principles of
Plan BTV. The Planning Commission has said at numerous meetings that they have
spent more time on much less significant zoning changes than they have on the
proposed set. I contend that the speed of this process, and the details of the
zoning changes are being driven by one project, thus raising concerns about
spot zoning. City staff ,“partnering” with Sinex in a team to facilitate this
effort, is having a very negative effect on democratic process.
It’s become increasingly clear that while general concepts of
increased density, infill and the zoning changes needed to facilitate them, are
indeed supported in PlanBTV — the increased HEIGHT of buildings is NOT, nor is
the specific height proposed.
PlanBTV focuses on “human scale,” lake and mountain views, a
majority satisfaction with building heights AS THEY ARE, and the idea that
“taller” is not necessarily the answer. To say Plan BTV supports 160 feet “by
right” is completely untrue. The public is getting tired of hearing members
of city staff, council or commission try to make a claim that 14-story
towers are supported in Plan BTV. They simply are not.
160 feet, plus mechanicals, “by right” was driven by one project,
and one developer. And the eager folks of P&Z have made it their baby.
Where else could an increase of NINETY-FIVE FEET over current “by right”
heights come from? This height did not come from public process and it is not
supported by the majority of the public. As one participant of PlanBTV’s public
process said to me, unsolicited, and I quote, the details of this zoning change
“make plan BTVs workshops and charrettes seem completely BOGUS”. Was the
charrette a charade?
The mall redevelopment as a general theme IS supported in
PlanBTV, but that is where the connection ends. The Sinex project does not
include moderately-priced housing, senior housing, public space, parking below
ground, true street connectivity or livability in its
14-story three-towered mega-block. Very few of the guidelines set forth by PlanBTV for the mall redevelopment are actualized in the current proposal.
14-story three-towered mega-block. Very few of the guidelines set forth by PlanBTV for the mall redevelopment are actualized in the current proposal.
In scouring the web, the definition I find over and over for the
human scale favored in PlanBTV is 6-8 stories or a 1 to 1 ratio with street
width. That means a 60 foot building with a 60 foot street. These “mid-rise”
buildings are: the most adaptable to changing economic times, the most
cost effective to build, are more environmentally sound than their tower
counterparts, and have proven to be the most livable, due to allowing greater
connection between building dwellers and the street life below (think Paris).
The benefits of mall redevelopment for our city’s economy, downtown vitality,
and job growth, are all JUST AS POSSIBLE in a 6-8 story, human-scaled, package.
Please! Stand up for what is right and is truly consistent with PlanBTV, and
the public will stand behind you. The rhetoric coming from City Hall will have
you thinking that all is lost in our city if these heights and this town center
project do not happen. Not true.
What we are dealing with at this moment in time is a flawed
process, flawed zoning change details, and a flawed mall redevelopment
proposal. The Sinex project (as it is currently proposed) is not too big to
fail and letting it go will allow for proper focus on the bigger issues —
preventing a real failure. There is a tremendous opportunity to do this right,
and with full public support.
Amey Radcliffe,
Burlington property owner,
Burlington business owner
If allowed to go to construction, it will be too big, and like with the Stenger projects, regulators will have to look the other way, breached agreements will have to be ignored, developer will call the tune and city councilors will make lousy excuses for pushing the project.
ReplyDelete