HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-21-18_311 Market St_Snyder Braverman_PP FP#SD-21-18
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-18_311 Market St_Snyder Braverman_PP FP_2021-
07-06.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: June 16, 2021
Plans received: May 17, 2021
311 Market Street
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-18
Meeting date: July 6, 2021
Owner
South Burlington City Center, LLC
P.O. Box 2204
South Burlington, VT 05407
Applicant
Snyder Braverman Development Co., LLC
4076 Shelburne Rd, Suite 6
Shelburne, VT 05482
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0450-00000
Form Based Code Transect Zone 4
11.9 acres
Engineer
Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc.
14 Morse Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-18 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC to subdivide
an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of 0.8 ac (Lot M4), 1.4 ac (Lot M5), 0.4 ac (Lot M6) and 9.4 ac (Lot L)
#SD-21-18
2
for the purpose of constructing a project on lots M4, M5 and M6 which will be reviewed under separate
site plan application, 311 Market Street.
1. This description is altered from the warned description, which follows. Staff considers the change in
lot areas does not require re-warning, but recommends the Board confirm agreement.
Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-18 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC to subdivide
an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of 1.0 ac (Lot M4), 1.2 ac (Lot M5), 0.4 ac (Lot M6) and 9.4 ac (Lot L)
for the purpose of constructing a project on lots M4, M5 and M6 which will be reviewed under separate
site plan application, 311 Market Street
CONTEXT
The sketch plan was reviewed by the Board on May 5, 2021. The subject property is located in the Form
Based Code-Transect 4 Zoning District and the Transit Overlay District.
In 2018, the Board approved a conditional use application (#CU-18-01) for the proposed wetland impacts
of the overall development.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following
comments. Numbered comments for the Board attention are in red.
A) 15.18 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PUDS, SUDVIDISIONS, TRANSECT ZONE SUBDIVISIONS AND
MASTER PLANS
Staff considers demonstration of a feasible development lot to be a prerequisite for subdivision approval.
Standards (1), (2), (6), and (7) pertain specifically to site design and are not applicable for review of this
subdivision.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
Access
The applicant has modified the proposed lot boundaries from what was reviewed by the Board at
the sketch plan level and what was originally submitted on May 17. The applicant provided the
following justification for the change.
Having a preliminary unit and bedroom count now for the building on Lot M5, it is apparent
that additional parking will be needed for this building. For a variety of reasons, the parking
for the building on Lot M5 needs to be on Lot M5, rather than subject to an easement or
agreement on the adjacent lot.
The applicant is proposing that lots M4, M5, and M6 be accessed via two curb cuts: via a previously
approved shared access on Garden Street, and a proposed curb cut on Market Street. At sketch,
the applicant stated that the curb cut on Market Street was necessary to support the development
#SD-21-18
3
of all three lots. At sketch, the Board indicated they were accepting of the proposed curb cut
configuration based on the indication that both the Garden Street and Market Street curb cuts
would be shared by all the “M” lots.
The Garden Street curb cut created a 55-foot wide shared access easement for vehicular access
to proposed Lots M1, M2 and M3 as well as the newly proposed Lot M4. The easement does not
appear to cover proposed lot M5 & M6.
The Market Street curb cut is proposed to be located on Lot M5. There is no easement indicated
for this access to be shared by Lots M4 and M6.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that there will be shared access
easements for all involved lots prior to closing the hearing.
Circulation
Staff considers the proposed lot configuration results in an oddly shaped lot which requires the
users of Lots M4 and M6 to have the right to access Lot M5. In particular, the parking spaces
conceptually considered for Lot M4 cannot be accessed without driving across the proposed
irregularly shaped portion of Lot 5, nor can the rear of Lot M6 be accessed by delivery vehicles or
trash pickup vehicles without driving across Lot M5.
3. Since individual lots resulting from a subdivision should be developable according to the standards
of the land development regulations, and the applicant has not demonstrated that Lots M4 and
M6 are developable without access to Lot M5, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to provide a cross lot easement to allow users of each lot to access each other lot.
Traffic Management
The applicant provided the following preliminary estimate of trip generation for the conceptual
design on lots M4, M5 and M6.
Lot # Dwelling Units Land Use Category PM Peak Hour Trip
Generation
M4 51 Multifamily mid-rise 23
M5 57 Multifamily mid-rise 26
M6 20 Multifamily mid-rise 14
Staff considers the number of generated trips will not result in unreasonable congestion of
adjacent roads.
Parking
Within the form based code zoning district, parking is limited to 2 spaces per unit. The applicant
is envisioning around 105 surface parking spaces plus additional subsurface parking for the
estimated 128 residential units.
There is no apparent parking or paved access to the building on Lot M6, either for vehicles or
pedestrians. The applicant noted at sketch that they try to provide 1.5 parking spaces per
residential unit. The applicant has indicated the building on Lot M6 is envisioned to contain 20
dwelling units.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that the lot can support a
building which allows access for delivery vehicles and dumpster pickup, and provides adequate
parking through provision of a shared parking option agreement with a nearby property
#SD-21-18
4
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related
to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee
with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The Board approved a conditional use application (#CU-18-01) for the proposed wetland impacts
of the overall development. The applicant’s conceptual site configuration is consistent with the
approved wetland impacts.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which
it is located. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of lot
lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations.
Generally speaking, Staff considers the proposed subdivision to facilitate the dimensional
standards required of development in the T4 zoning district. Specific concerns pertaining to the
ability to meet frontage buildout requirements are addressed above.
(6) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only
apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
There are several existing, proposed, and planned pedestrian easements in the area:
• The applicant is proposing a 20-foot pedestrian path easement connecting the goose
/ stormwater park along Market Street to City Center Park and back to Lot M2 and
Garden Street. The easement is proposed to connect to a 15’ easement at Lot M2 and
west. [Marked as G and H on the subdivision plat]
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed
alignment of the easement matches the constructed location of the shared use path
at the north side of the City Center Park property
Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plans to
refer to the easement as a multi-use path easement.
• The applicant is showing an existing 15’ easement [marked as letter A on the
subdivision plat) connecting Market Street to City Center Park.
• The City Center Park conceptual site plan (Exhibit A) included in the City Council
resolution and referred to by the applicant at sketch includes a pedestrian connection
from San Remo Drive, across to the Healthy Living Property, and then to Lot K and the
proposed pedestrian easement.
6. Neither of these connections are shown on the proposed subdivision plat. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plat to include these
easements.
• The City Center Park conceptual site plan additionally shows a walkway and treehouse
overlooking the Potash Brook.
#SD-21-18
5
7. These potential features are not shown on the Subdivision Plat. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to modify their plat to include easements for these
features.
(7) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and
type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable.
(8) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
The Project is located in the Central District. The objectives of the central district pertain to
creation of a City Center with a strong identity and mix of uses, including residential and non-
residential uses, open spaces areas, and centralized stormwater management features.
Emphasis is given to promotion of interconnectivity which will result in minimizing parking
demand. Staff considers this criterion met.
(9) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less
runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater
as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
The impacts of development on the proposed sites, and the management of runoff therefrom,
will be reviewed at the time of site plan application for each parcel. The Board approved a
conditional use application (#CU-18-01) for the proposed wetland impacts for the overall
development. Staff considers this criterion met.
B) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
8.04 Blocks, Streets and Alleys
A. General Standards
(2) Construction of Streets N/A
(3) Perimeter and Length of Blocks. N/A
(4) Frontage Buildout. Frontage buildout requirements for the applicable Transect Zone shall
apply along all streets pursuant to the BES.
Within the T4, frontage buildout is required to be 70% along primary and secondary facades. Of
the conceptual buildings shown on Lots M4, M5 and M6, only the Market Street facing façade of
Lot M6 does not meet the frontage buildout.
Staff also notes that for Lot M6, the east façade facing the public park will be considered a
secondary façade and will be required to meet standards pertaining to the building, including
entrance and glazing minimums.
#SD-21-18
6
8. Because there will be a need to provide sidewalk access to required entrances on the east side of
the building, Staff considers it will be difficult to achieve a higher frontage buildout on Market
Street, and recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that frontage buildout
can be met while providing access to required entrances prior to closing the hearing.
(5) Connectivity.
This criterion pertains to connectivity between streets. Staff considers it to be not applicable.
(6) Build-to-Zones
Staff considers the applicant has demonstrated build-to-zone criteria can be met for this proposed
subdivision.
B. Location of blocks and streets. The subject property is exempt from block lengths and perimeter
standards.
C) ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.06 Landscaping, Screening and Street Trees
13.14 Bicycle Parking & Storage
13.17 Fences
13.18 Utility Cabinets
The applicant has provided a draft site plan for the purposes of showing how the development on Lots
M4, M5 and M6 is proposed to be generally configured. Staff considers that the applicable standards of
Article 13 will be reviewed as part of the site plan application for the Form Based Code district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner