Planning Commission Meeting, 9/13/16, on Cambrian Rise
In what was expected to be the final meeting of the Planning
Commission on Planning and Zoning’s proposal to change the designation of the
former Burlington College Land from medium development, waterfront (MD-W) to
Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC-CR), the Planning Commission delayed their
decision. The suggestion for a continuance rather than a definitive vote
originated with Eric Farrell, a member of the audience, when it became clear
that the PC would not approve the NAC-Cambrian Rise proposal at this meeting.
Only four of the six Commissioners were present even after a 40 minute delay,
amounting to a bare quorum. Harris Roen made it clear that he would vote
against the proposed amendment, meaning it would fail.
This proposal
would create a new zoning district for the property allowing mixed-use and a
modification of the existing caps on building height, density, and the method
by which these are calculated. P&Z proposed that this new method of calculation
be applied to both Cambrian Heights and written into the Comprehensive
Development Ordinance and applied city-wide. This aspect of the amendment
failed to gain the support of Emily Lee and Andy Montroll and the Commission
voted to send the amendment back to P&Z for re-writing so that the altered
method of measurement was limited to Cambrian Rise.
Speaking against
the proposed amendment were three members of Coalition for a Livable City.
Charles Simpson called for a full Act 250 review of the project before any
approval, with special emphasis on transportation issues. With up to 770 units
under consideration by the developer including 80 senior units, the impact on
this two lane section of North Ave. between the fire station and Burlington
High School, is significant. Seniors require more intensive ambulance service
which in Burlington comes with a fire truck.
As the “Cambrian Rise” designation makes clear, topography does not
allow any vehicle access other than North Ave. to the site. By changing zoning
to allow NAC facilities, non-residential traffic will be generated. Permitted
non-residential uses include animal grooming, appliance sales/service, art
gallery/studio, automobile & marine parts sales, a bakery, a bank, a beauty
parlor, billiard parlor, bowling alley, café, cinema, convenience store, crisis
counseling center, daycare, dental lab, dry cleaner, grocery store up to 10,000
sq. ft., health club, hostel, hotel, library, museum, offices, performing arts
studio, pet store, pharmacy, photo studio, and post office, among others. While
the intent of an NAC is to include services for local residents, it is clear
that the business model for many of these enterprises will require outside
employees and a wide customers base, adding to the traffic flow.
Andy Simon
presented objections to the overall development plan as articulated by Save
Open Space-Burlington (SOS-B). These include the failure of the plan to
preserve a maximum amount of open space and wildlife habitat, view-scapes, or
public access to extensive recreational land. The impact of the city’s largest
development project to-date on surface water adjacent to an already fragile
lake ecosystem on which the economy of Burlington depends has not been
sufficiently mitigated. Joanne Hunt of SOS-B spoke as well in support of Andy’s
position and against permitting this project.
Along with
developer Eric Farrell, Michael Monte of the Champlain Housing Trust spoke in
strong support of the project, Monte citing the backlog of affordable housing
requests by the area’s low-income and homeless population.
At one point in
the proceedings, Planning Director David White explained that the calculation
for maximum residential units is based on the roughly 33 acres of the entire
plot and that this zoning change will not alter the medium residential density,
waterfront (MR-W) currently applied to the 12 acres to become public parkland
for which the developer will be paid 2 million dollars. Simpson then again
addressed the Commission to say this was highly irregular. Not only was the
public park being used to ventilate the dense Cambrian Rise development
providing a view scape, recreational land, public gardens, and some surface
water mitigation at public expense, now it was clear that these 12 acres were
the basis for increasing the density of the private portion of the project in a
bait-and-switch maneuver.
Much of the
ensuing discussion centered on P&Z’s efforts to clarify the height limits.
Director White apologized for misspeaking at the previous PC meeting when he
said that heights wouldn’t be changed with this amendment. They would be, he
said. Because of the existing Orphanage building, new construction on that
parcel can legally rise to 65 feet, the distance to the half-way point of the
Orphanage roof. Because the project conforms to Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)
regulations and generates 25% affordable units, an additional 10-ft. of height
can be added beyond statutory limits. As a result, P&Z proposes a lot
coverage limit of 72% and an FAR of 2.5. Both numbers include the IZ bonus of
10 ft. in height and 0.5 FAR. presumably calculated on the entire 33 acres but
with building limited to the 21 acres that remain private land. P&C
recommends a nominal maximum height of 80 ft., a third higher than the current
60ft. limit on WRM, but agian the bonus could make this 90-ft. Still, White
explained, the height as seen from North Ave. would appear to conform to
existing zoning. The complicating factor, he explained, was site slope.
Presently, height is measured from the set-back grade on flat parcels and the
midpoint in sloped parcels. As White states in the amendment packet, “A maximum
height of 80-ft is proposed to ensure that new buildings can actually be 65-ft.
in height at the street level consistent with the current allowed height given
the Orphanage. This also means, however, that a building could be built to a
maximum of 80-ft at the street level if it were on a flat site.” He then
proposed that on sloped lots, rather than measuring to the mid-point, one story
simply be added as measured from the downside of the slope. This would allow
the nominal maximum height to be 65-ft. but as measured from the downside, to
be 65-ft plus the one additional story. Unstated was that 10-ft. IZ bonus could
also be added “by-right”.
The
Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO) creating the NCZ-Cambrian Rise
(NAC-CR), Table 4.4.2-1, would allow residences on the ground floor, unlike
other NACs. New language would permit heights of 80-ft plus 10-ft and an FAR of
2.0 plus 0.5 here and a new method of measuring height city-wide. One
additional story would be allowed on buildings on sloped lots above what is
nominally specified by zoning. It was to this general change to the CDO that
Emily Lee object to and the reason the PC sent the amendment back to P&Z
staff for redrafting.
What we have in
the Cambrian Rise case is a series of duplicitous maneuvers by P&Z designed
to soften the public’s perception of increased density and height. Here, a park
is purchased by the public which in effect alleviates the developer of his
open-space and surface water mitigation obligation while delivering the lake
views, community gardens, recreational space, and veneer of wild life habitat
that add profit solely to the developer. The park--ostensibly a public
facility--will be for the development’s residents but maintained at public
expense. Then, rather than taking the development itself as the platform on
which to calculate floor area ratios (FAR) and thus density, the public park is
included. Building height increases are disguised by a new method that focuses
on high-ground visual appearance rather than actual height from the lower end
of sloped lots and simply adds a story above nominal maximums wherever plots
incline--virtually all of the city. Finally, the obvious housing needs of the
poor, addressed through the IZ formula, are used to justify specific projects
without any consideration of alternate
ways of addressing homelessness: a higher minimum wage; rent control; or
additional direct investment by Champlain Housing Trust in other locations.
Instead the only City response is promotion of intense commercial development
with an IZ component, and official shaming open-space and balanced growth
advocates.
.
-Charles Simpson
No comments:
Post a Comment