HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-24-02 - Supplemental - 0112 Garden Street#MS-24-02
Staff Comments
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MS-24-_alt entrance_2024-.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 25, 2024
Plans received: August 23, 2024
112 GARDEN STREET
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-24-02
Meeting date: June 4, 2024
Owner/Applicant
Prospect Place Apartments, LLC
4076 Shelburne Rd.
Shelburne VT 05482
Engineer
The Snyder Group, Inc.
4076 Shelburne Rd.
Shelburne, VT 05482
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0450-00000.M1
FBC-T4 Zoning District
2.63 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Miscellaneous permit application #MS-24-02 of Prospect Place Apartments, LLC. for alternative
entrance compliance as allowed under the Land Development Regulations Section 8.06H for a
mixed-use building consisting of 120 units and 6,800 sf of commercial space, 112 Garden Street.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 08/23/2024 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
#MS-24-02
Staff Comments
2
CONTEXT
The proposed project is located within the Form Based Code T4 zoning district, meaning its site
plan has been approved administratively. The site plan which approved construction of the
building, #SP-22-033, left the first floor commercial spaces as vacant. The applicant later obtained
administrative site plan amendment #SP-22-050 to add childcare as a use. That decision included
the following condition of approval, a version of which is typically included in all FBC decisions
containing non-residential uses.
All entrances to the non-residential space must be public and must be operated in a
manner consistent with the definition of public entrance. At the time of this approval, this
includes all approved exterior entrances to the space approved as café and the space as
approved as daycare. All entrances to the residential spaces, including the fitness room
and main lobby entrance, must be operated in a manner consistent with the definition of
operable entrance.”
The relevant definitions are as follows.
Public Entrance: An entrance to a building that is useable and open to the public during
business hours. Any such door must, at a minimum, be useable and open to the public for
entry. Distances between and average frequency of public entrances shall be measured
per building.
Operable Entrance: An entrance to a building that is useable and accessible to the tenants
/ owners to access that portion of the building that is available for their use. An operable
entrance may be to an individual residential or commercial unit, or to some or all of the
building. Any such door must be available for entry and exit. Distances between and
average frequency of operable entrances shall be measured per building.
The applicant is now seeking Development Review Board approval under Section 8.08H for an
entrance configuration for the childcare portion of the building which differs from the strict
entrance requirements of Section 8.13C(6). The applicant has provided an application narrative
and plan supporting their request.
The residential portion of the building is currently operational. The applicant is making this
request for the childcare use.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
8.06H. Alternate Compliance for Entrances in T4
(1) Authority. The Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and
approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for development that differs from the
strict requirements of Section 8.13(C)(6) [T4 Urban Multi-Use District Building Envelope
Standards, Entrances] subject to the standards and limitations below.
This section specially authorizes the Board to consider alternatives to doorway entrance
standards in the T4 District.
The applicant has met the standards pertaining to frequency and maximum distance between
entrances, as well as standards pertaining to glazing and building breaks. Thus the appearance
of the building will comply fully with the Building Envelope Standards, though the functionality
will not.
#MS-24-02
Staff Comments
3
(2) Entrance standard intent. It is the intent of Section 8.13(C)(6)(a-e), in concert with other
standards of Section 8.13, to establish a regular, consistently pedestrian-friendly environment
in the applicable district. The presence of regular, Operable entrances is designed to foster a
built pattern consisting of attractive, engaging, and interactive built forms. Users along a street
are presented with an inviting street presence of the building and are engaged throughout its
length. This section is also intended to support the viability of activities within adjacent
buildings (existing or future) by creating a pedestrian environment where the user has reason
and interest to walk the entire length of a building and engage with the next building rather
than have an uninviting and unengaging environment where a user would turn around.
Staff notes this standard refers to operable entrances while public entrances are required for
non-residential first story use. The distinction between operable entrances and public entrances
is that public entrances are open to anyone from the exterior, while operable entrances are open
to tenants/owners of the building without necessarily being open to the general public. Staff
considers this standard applies to both public and operable entrances.
The Board can see the configuration of the building, as construction is already complete. The
approved elevations are included in the packet for the Board. The Board should bear in mind
that Garden Street is curved and portions of the non-street facing facades are also visible
depending on where along the street you are located.
(3) Standards for review. In making its determination, the Development Review Board shall
consider the following standards:
Staff reminds the Board that the following standards require the applicant to advance specific
elements of the City’s goals, which is a higher bar than not conflicting with them.
(a) The Board finds that the alterative design advances the specific objectives of the
Central District of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that is equal or greater than the
standard contained within the BES.
The Comprehensive Plan (now titled City Plan) has been heavily amended since adoption
of this standard, and specific objectives have been replaced by “Goals and Actions.”
Goals specific to the Balance Mixed Use and Commercial: High Scale Area land use
designation are as follows:
Goal 77: Create cohesive, diverse, dynamic and people-oriented places with a strong
identity and “sense of place”
Goal 78: Establish urban-style vibrant streetscapes, civic spaces, public art and public
facilities to create a destination
Goal 79: Support mixed-use development that realize the vision of this Plan
Actions applicable to this land use designation, and to the specific geography of the
Central District of the Comprehensive Plan are as follows.
Mixed Use and Commercial: High Scale Area Actions
Action 129: Minimize overall demand for parking through design, regulations, and
investments that foster pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use and provide efficient,
aesthetically pleasing shared parking options
Action 130: Focus infill and redevelopment in these areas and at a higher scale and
urban-level of density
Action 131: Support existing businesses and affordability of commercial spaces
#MS-24-02
Staff Comments
4
Action 132: Develop vibrant streetscapes and public gathering spaces to enable events
and community gathering
Action 133: Incorporate green spaces, street trees, and other strategies to reduce the heat
island effect
Action 134: Streamline regulations and explore options to incentivize development in
line with the vision of this Plan
Action 135: Establish future Right-of-Way standards for streetscapes
Action 136: Align landscaping and lighting land development regulations with this Plan
to build quality public spaces and compact mixed-use communities
Central District Actions
Action 141: Continue to focus City resources on nimbly developing City Center as South
Burlington’s downtown
Action 142: Create a village streetscape, including a village green
Action 143: Encourage highest-scale use in City Center
Action 144: Actively program and support events in City Center public spaces throughout
the year
Action 145: Support the establishment of a Main Street-style, community-based
organization to nurture, promote and otherwise support City Center
Action 146: Evaluate and update form-based code and Land Development Regulations
as needed to adapt over time
The proposed alternative design is to provide a 95 sf patio area to the north of the proposed
building. This area will be enhanced with supplemental shrub plantings and seats. The
existing approved use of this area is lawn.
Staff considers the proposed alternative to potentially advance goals #77 and #78, and
actions #132 and #145 relative to the approved use as lawn.
The applicant has excerpted a general statement from the City Plan in their application
narrative that is not specifically responsive to this criterion.
(b) The Board finds that the alternative design advances the Purpose of the Transect Zone
as stated in these Land Development Regulations in a manner that is equal to or greater
than the standard contained within the BES.
The purpose of the transect zone is as follows.
Generally a multi-use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas
adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial uses
are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of
freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T-4 is multimodal oriented with an
emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism. Parking (not including on-street parking)
shall be away (or hidden) from the street.
The applicant argues that the alternative reduces the unengaged space between the
building at 112 Garden Street and the future building at 200 Garden Street. Since the
applicant is proposing to omit the public function of the approved entrances, Staff
considers the alternative also increases the unengaged space along the northern portion of
200 Garden Street facade.
#MS-24-02
Staff Comments
5
(c) The Board finds that the alterative design advances the Intent of the standard as
stated in this Section in a manner that is equal to or greater than the standard contained
within the BES.
This standard refers to the entrance standard intent paragraph above. Relevant elements of
the above intent include
• establish a regular, consistently pedestrian friendly environment
• foster a built pattern of attractive, engaging, and interactive built forms
• present users with an inviting street presence of the building
• engage users along the length of the building
• create a reason and interest for users to walk the entire length of a building and
engage with the next building rather than creating an environment where a user
would turn around
The BES requires public entrances to be spaced at no greater than 46-ft and with an average
frequency of 36-ft. The applicant’s proposal would result in a max spacing of 78 ft and an
average frequency of 33.5 ft. The maximum space would be at the north end of the building.
The spacing for the remainder of the building would remain at less than 46-ft, and range
from approximately 20 to 29 feet.
1. The applicant’s narrative argues that the proposed alternative establishes a regular,
consistently pedestrian-friendly environment by creating a link between adjacent buildings
and reducing the emphasis on the shared driveway serving 112 and the future 200 Garden
Street. While Staff agrees the alternative supports the final element of the Entrance Standard
Intent as summarized above, compared to public entrances along the commercial length of
the building, Staff considers the proposed alternative detracts from other elements of the
Entrance Standard Intent by reducing the engagement along the commercial length of the
building. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider this criterion met.
(d) Any proposed alternative shall be incorporated along all facades of a building for
which alternate compliance is being sought and shall be distributed along the entire façade
in a manner which meets or exceeds the average frequency and maximum spacing as
required by the BES.
There are only entrance standards for the Garden Street façade. The applicant has proposed
an alternative only at the northern most corner of the building, though they are proposing
to not meet entrance standards only for the northern most 78 ft of the building.
2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss what alternatives they considered
that would meet the above criteria for the entire length of the daycare area, and why those
alternatives were rejected.
(e) Any proposed alternative shall be not be counted or calculated as meeting or
contributing to any other required element or financial obligation of these Regulations.
The building as it exists meets the requirements of the regulations and the only element the
applicant is proposing to change is the operability of the entrances. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(f) Any proposed alternative shall fulfill its function in all seasons.
3. If the Board considers the proposed concept to be acceptable, Staff recommends the Board
consider requiring the applicant to supply a larger and potentially different tree at initial
planting. A 1.5 inch caliper crabapple tree will be relatively small and will take several years
#MS-24-02
Staff Comments
6
to grow into a feature of the space. Staff recommends the Board also discuss whether a tree
that bears edible fruit or a tree with particularly interesting foliage such as dogwood, hop
hornbeam, or sassafras would provide a more engaging streetscape.
If the Board approves the proposed alternative, Staff recommends the Board include a
condition requiring this area to be cleared of snow on the same schedule as the site
sidewalks during the winter, in addition to receiving landscaping maintenance on the same
schedule as the remainder of the site.
(g) Creative alternatives are encouraged. Any proposed alternatives, however, shall
consist of original design elements. In the case of artwork, only Commissioned artwork
shall be considered.
The provided elements do not include artwork or commissioned works.
OTHER
If the Board approves the proposed alternative, Staff recommends the Board include a condition
that the alternative entrance configuration is only permissible while the childcare use remains, and
any change in use would either be required to meet the strict entrance requirements of Section
8.13C(6) or seek a new alternative entrance approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner