Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-24-02 - Decision - 0112 Garden Street#MS-24-02 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 112 GARDEN STREET – PROSPECT PLACE APARTMENTS, LLC MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-24-02 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 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. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Administrative Officer finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Prospect Place Apartments, LLC is seeking 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. 2. The subject property is owned by Prospect Place Apartments, LLC. 3. The subject parcel ID is 0450-00000.M1 4. The application was received on August 23, 2024. 5. The applicant is seeking Development Review Board approval under Section 8.08H for an entrance configuration for the new 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. 6. The plans submitted consist of the following: Plan Description Sheet Number Date of Last Revision Landscape Plan Sheet L1 08/21/2024 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. #MS-24-02 2 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 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. (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. 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. The Board finds this standard applies to both public and operable entrances. (3) Standards for review. In making its determination, the Development Review Board shall consider the following standards: 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. #MS-24-02 3 (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 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 #MS-24-02 4 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. The Board finds the proposed alternative advances 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, the proposed alternative simultaneously increases the unengaged space along the northern portion of 200 Garden Street facade. (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. The Board finds the proposed alternative supports the final element of the Entrance Standard Intent as summarized above. The Board finds the applicant must maintain the doors in a manner that makes them appear as front doors. Specifically, the doors for the daycare must be maintained in the same manner as other public entrances, with the exception of their operability. For instance, if the #MS-24-02 5 applicant provides seasonal landscaping at the other public entrances, they must provide the same seasonal landscaping at the daycare doors. Doors shall not be covered or blocked from the interior. (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, commensurate with their proposal for relief from entrance standards only for the northern-most 78 ft of the building. The Board finds this criterion met. (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. The Board finds this criterion met. (f) Any proposed alternative shall fulfill its function in all seasons. In order to increase the functionality of the proposed alternative and because a 1.5 inch caliper crabapple tree will be relatively small and will take several years to grow into a feature of the space, the Board finds the applicant must revise the plans to replace the proposed 1.5 inch caliper crabapple tree with a 2.5 inch sassafras tree. The Board finds the approved patio area must 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 The Board finds the alternative entrance configuration to only be permissible while the childcare use remains. 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. DECISION Motion by John Moscatelli, seconded by Jody Lesko, to approve miscellaneous application #MS- 24-02 of Prospect Place Apartments, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This portion of the project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. #MS-24-02 6 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. a. revise the plans to replace the proposed 1.5 inch caliper crabapple tree with a 2.5 inch sassafras tree. 4. The applicant must maintain the doors in a manner that makes them appear as front doors. Specifically, the doors for the daycare must be maintained in the same manner as other public entrances, with the exception of their operability. For instance, if the applicant provides seasonal landscaping at the other public entrances, they must provide the same seasonal landscaping at the daycare doors. Doors shall not be covered or blocked from the interior. 5. The approved patio area must 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. 6. Any change to the alternative entrances shown on the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. 7. the alternative entrance configuration shall only be permissible while the childcare use remains. Any change in use must either meet the strict entrance requirements of Section 8.13C(6) or seek a new alternative entrance approval. 8. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. John Moscatelli Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Charles Johnston Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jody Lesko Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Signed this __ day of November, 2024, by ____________________________________ Dawn Philibert, Chair PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to 24 VSA §4465, an interested person may appeal this decision by filing a Notice of Appeal with the clerk of the Development Review Board. This Notice of Appeal must be accompanied with a $233 filing fee and be filed within 15 days of the date of this decision. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.