Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 05/07/2019
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 May 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; Andrew Bolduc, City Attorney; D. Crawford, J. Decker, C. Snyder, K. Braverman, A. Rowe, T. McKenzie, P. Boisvert 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to apply at that time. 5. Design Review Application #DR-19-01 of SB Signs, Inc., to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP) for four building signs in black, red and white, 321 Dorset Street: Mr. Decker noted this is the new multi-use building with apartments upstairs and a Dermatology office and Laser Focus Medical Spa downstairs. Mr. Wilking asked why staff is asking for all capital letters. Ms. Keene said staff felt it was more consistent to use all capitals. Mr. Wilking said he didn’t want to set dictating capitals or mixed as a precedent as it might go against what is in an applicant’s logo. Ms. Keene said staff was fine with either and recommended capitals because they were predominant in the application. Mr. Decker said they preferred all capitals. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close DR-19-01. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-10 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC, to subdivide an existing 4.1 acre lot into three lots of 3.26 acres (Lot B1), 0.38 acres (lot B2) and 0.45 acres (Lot B3) for the purpose of constructing a project on Lots B2 and B3, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 268 Market Street: Mr. Braverman said the site is on the northwest corner of Garden and Market Streets. The plan is for a mixed use building with retail on the first floor and 40 residential units above. Mr. Braverman then outlined the form based code issues that they are dealing with: #1 – frontage buildout requirement #2 – whether there can be lots without buildings (lot B3 would contain parking and driveway access Mr. Kochman asked why they are dealing with these issues if this application is just for a subdivision. Ms. Keene read from the regulations requiring assurance that the subdivision will provide a buildable lot. The Board then addressed staff comments as follows: Regarding the frontage buildout requirement, Ms. Keene noted that 2 sketch plans for the lot are being reviewed concurrently by the DRB and the question is whether they should be reviewed together. The Board will have to decide if they will allow the frontage requirement to be met across each zoning district or on a lot-by-lot basis. In the T5 zone, the requirement is for 85% frontage coverage. Staff feels lot B3 would not be developable to 85%. Mr. Miller noted that having a driveway is not what the Planning Commission wanted for the T5 district. Further buildout on Garden Street would meet the requirement. To have just a driveway makes this lot nondevelopable. Mr. Braverman said the heart of the issue is whether they can have a lot without a building on it. Mr. Wilking said if they move the building, they can make it work. Ms. Keene said they can’t have a building on two lots. Mr. Braverman said there are elements of development in City Center that need to be on separate lots (e.g., open space). Mr. Rowe asked where do the regulations require a building be on a lot. Ms. Keene said 85% of the frontage must be built out. Mr. Braverman said that runs contrary to the open space requirements. Ms. Keene said open space can be off-site. Mr. Braverman noted the words “can be.” He also noted the issue of a park. If you have a park on a lot, you can’t have a building. Ms. Smith asked why they need another driveway. Mr. Braverman said for marketability and more efficient use of the land. Mr. Kochman said it is incumbent on the applicant to create lots that can comply with the regulations. Ms. Keene asked if the Board would consider calculating buildout on the whole lot regardless of where the lot lines are…85% in T5 and 70% in T4. Mr. Sullivan asked if the lots have to be in common ownership to do that. Ms. Keene said yes at the time when the calculation is made but that they don’t have to stay in common ownership. Mr. Braverman asked if there is language that contemplates that. Ms. Keene said it is “an interpretation.” Mr. Wilking said the fundamental problem is the layout of the lots. Mr. Braverman noted the absence of language regarding access to underground parking, trash removal, etc.. The codes says to have as much parking underground as possible. The problem is how to get cars under the building without gobbling up the land. Mr. Rowe said the language seems to preclude buildings without road frontage. Mr. Braverman said the geometry of the land is wide and deep. You can have buildings that front on open space and interior lots. Ms. Keene said they could build another street that is not on the official map. Mr. Braverman questioned why you would build another street in a pedestrian-oriented development. Mr. Braverman then showed the lot for a park which would have residential units facing it, but it can’t be done if the building has to face a street. Mr. Miller noted the potential for “alleys,” but Ms. Keene said the building has to front on a “street.” She then added that the LDRs have small regulations that accumulate to dictate a particular form and that it may be that only one or two options meet all the rules. Mr. Kochman asked if the 85% rule can apply only to “existing streets.” Ms. Keene said that goes against the intent of the LDR chapter. Mr. Kochman said it is very difficult to meet all the objectives of the chapter and noted the “torture” the Board has to go through to construe what is reasonably coherent so they don’t wind up with an “irrational result.” Mr. Miller said he would like Staff to do some research on the intent of the language. Staff note #4 refers to the Allard Square lot and requires subdivision of and to the city before any development can occur on Lot B. The applicant understood this. #5 – Ms. Keene noted that the next application proposes a subdivision. The question arises: if there are 2 subdivision of the same property, which mylar shows the existing conditions of one lot and the other lot. This raises a potential title issue. Mr. Wilking said the later one would have to have everything on it. Ms. Keene said they should be combined for fairness. Mr. Braverman said they want to understand the city’s application and then can speak to it more clearly. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue SD-19-10 to 18 June 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-19-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC, to extend the regulations of the Form Based Code Transect 4 zoning district up to fifty feet into the Form Based Code Transect 5 zoning district to allow construction of a driveway access nearer than currently permitted to Market Street, 268 Market Street: Mr. Braverman noted that the background of the last item applies to this application as well. He then explained that no curb cuts are allowed on Market Street in T5. This increases the need to curb cuts (service alleys) on Garden Street or the street to the school. Ms. Keene said the T5 is intended for big buildings. The applicant intends to build a building that is not as big as the regulations intended. Mr. Braverman said they see this building as one of many buildings on this block. The question is how to gain access to service the buildings (e.g. for trash removal, etc.). He felt there wasn’t much attention given in the regulations to servicing mixed use buildings. He felt they should get it right and not build something that isn’t serviceable. Mr. McKenzie explained that the Form Based Code Committee used a “messy map” to develop transect codes. What they didn’t get right was the depth of the building (floor plan). The issue is the frontage buildup. 85% of the frontage must be built out. The question is whether that is 85% of the total frontage or 85% of each lot. Ms. Smith asked whether the 85% has to be at ground level. Ms. Keene said she thinks it does. Mr. McKenzie asked whether an “alley” can run right along the back of the building. Mr. Braverman said a curb cut for an “alley” would solve everything including efficient use of land, street scape, etc. Mr. Kochman said that not to have an alley behind the building is ridiculous. Ms. Keene asked if the Board has a fundamental issue with moving this application forward if they deal with the subdivision issues. Mr. Sullivan thought it would be OK. Mr. Kochman suggested changing the lot size and having the long leg of an “L” on Garden Street. Mr. Wilking said they may have no choice, but they still have to cover the 85% frontage, and you wind up with ends of the buildings on Market St. which is what is not wanted. Mr. Sullivan said that unless the Planning Commission Oks curb cuts in T5, it can’t be done. Mr. Wilking felt the applicant was right in how he was going about it, but he had a problem with how the property was subdivided in the first place. Mr. Braverman explained the legal issues with separate ownership. Mr. Snyder added that issues are being driven by the parking garage. The applicant agreed to continue the application to try to figure out how to make things work. Mr. Wilking moved to continue CU-19-01 to 18 June. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-13 of the City of South Burlington to subdivide a 4.09 acre lot into three lots of 0.27 acres, 0.61 acres, and 3.21 acres for the purpose of constructing a project on the 0.61 acre lot and dedicating the 0.27 acre lot as a public right-of-way, which will be reviewed under a separate site plan application, 180 Market Street: Mr. Bolduc noted this is a 3-lot subdivision of the middle lot on the street. The city has an option to purchase the lot for a future city building. Regarding reviewing both projects at the same time, Mr. Bolduc said it makes logistical sense; however, there are questions regarding the eastern side of the property, and the city prefers to have its application move forward. The proposed street would have a 60-foot right-of-way. It would be a “support street” and would be perpendicular to Market Street. There would be a 25 mph speed limit. The street will service the school property with a curb cut for the eastern parcel (remaining lot B). It will be compatible with similarly sized streets and would play a secondary role to Garden St. Mr. Bolduc said they understand the problem of having a mylar with one and not the other subdivision on it. He noted there is an irrevocable offer of dedication for the street. The city wants to keep the public and private projects separate. Ms. Keene noted the potential for this application to get a mylar in before the other project. Mr. Kochman said they should get the pubic application done first, then let the private applicant solve their issues and get that done. Mr. Boisvert said the city can get its preliminary and final plat in within the next few weeks. Mr. Wilking said whoever gets there first, gets the mylar. The second one has to revise the mylar. Ms. Keene said that would be a perfect scenario. Mr. Wilking said they shouldn’t hold up one project for the other. Mr. Boisvert said if the city proceeds, the two projects become “unentangled.” There are no conflicts between the two plans. Mr. Snyder said they would be happy if the city would approach them regarding the use of the adjacent property. He noted there is no rec path shown on this plan, and it would result in more than the 60-foot right-of-way. Mr. Bolduc said this is a draft plan. Mr. McKenzie said this will be a support street that stays within the 60 feet. There will be a sidewalk on the Snyder-Braverman side. It would be bituminous until the site is developed. Mr. Snyder noted the sidewalk goes through a curb cut, and he felt the sidewalk would be better on the other side. Ms. Keene said that in the final iteration, there will be a 6-foot sidewalk on each side, so that is not an issue. Mr. Braverman said the curb cut on the school street is a vital primary access to the lot he will be developing. Mr. Snyder said the Memorandum of Understanding says it can be only a secondary access. Mr. Bolduc said the School District recognizes the new street will be a public road. He added that the School Board does not have has power over the design of what is in the public road segment but has stated its preference for the curb cut to be a secondary access. Mr. Braverman asked whether the frontage issue applies to the application. Ms. Keene said this subdivision does not affect the frontage issue but the frontage issue applies to the project in general. Mr. Snyder said they want to be sure everyone is speaking the same language and that the public piece needs to incorporate all of the required pieces. Mr. Wilking agreed that everyone should play by the same rules. Mr. Snyder noted they would not be allowed to propose this project because of the easement, parking, etc. Mr. Crawford commented that it was comforting to watch the Board, developers, architects communicate in words that don’t get people worked up. No further issues were raised. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-19-12 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 27.8 acre parcel into two lots of 6.2 acres and 21.2 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive: and 10. Site Plan Application #SP-19-07 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to construct a 25,560 sq. ft., 31 foot high warehouse building, paved parking area, and associated site improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot, 284 Meadowland Drive: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuation of both items to 21 May 2019. Ms. Keene noted that a second property has to be involved in these applications because of stormwater considerations. If these 2 applications are heard on 21 May, they would have to be heard again on 18 June, but if they were heard on 21 May they could have a short meeting on 18 June. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue SD-19-12 and SP-19-07 to 18 June 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Minutes of 16 April 2019: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 16 April 2019 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Other Business: Consider clarifying amendments to the Development Review Board Rules of Procedure Members agreed to continue this to a future meeting. It was discussed that the item should be earlier in the agenda. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:13 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #DR-19-01 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SB SIGNS, INC – 321 DORSET ST MASTER SIGNAGE PERMIT #DR-18-08 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Design Review application #DR-19-01 of SB Signs, Inc. to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP) for four (4) building signs in black, red and white, 321 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 7, 2019. The applicant was represented by Courtney Boutin. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, SB Signs Inc, seeks to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP). 2. The permit includes four wall signs in black, red and white. 3. The owners of record of the subject property is Mitchwartz Properties. 4. The application was received on March 25, 2019. 5. The applicant submitted a rendering of the proposed signs which consists of one emblem in black and white, one set of text in blue, one set of text in blue and red, and one set of text in white. The applicant has represented verbally that they do not wish for approval for blue signs and will be using black for the signs shown represented in blue. The signs are proposed to range from 9 sq ft to 23 sq ft. 6. The property lies within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. 7. The Master Sign Permit does not approve specific signs. The approvability of the exact signs shown must be evaluated separately in a Permanent Sign Application. SIGN ORDINANCE Section 6: Dorset Street/City Center Sign District of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance reads in part that the Development Review Board must consider the following standards: (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. #DR-19-01 2 (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation. (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes. (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high-quality materials complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related. The applicant’s proposed signs use a consistent typeface which varies in boldness and whether the letters are capitalized or not. The Board finds the applicant’s boldness variation acceptable but finds applicant must amend their proposal to use only capital letters on the Dorset Side of the building. The signs are proposed to be constructed of painted aluminum or acrylic with applied vinyl. The signs are wall mounted therefore pedestrian scale is not an issue. The applicant is proposing only three predominant colors, black, white and red. The Board finds these criteria have been met. Section 8(d) reads in part that the Board must consider the following: (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces, sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color illustrations thereof. (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually. (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer. The proposed text signs use a sans serif font with individual cut-out letters. The proposed logo sign is an illuminated sign cabinet. The text signs are proposed to be either halo lit or unlit. The signs are proposed to be between 9 and 23 sq ft. There are no freestanding signs proposed. The Board finds these criteria have been met. Section 9(h) addresses standards specifically for free-standing signs within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. No freestanding signs are proposed. Section 21(e) pertains to lighting: #DR-19-01 3 (e) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, internally illuminated signs shall utilize opaque backgrounds and translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, so as to insure that the lettering, logos and/or graphics are illuminated rather than the background. Translucent backgrounds utilizing dark colors may be used with white, clear or other light translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, provided the Design Review Committee determines that the effect will be consistent with the intent of this provision. The applicant has indicated that the textual signs will be halo lit or unlit. The logo sign will be an illuminated sign cabinet with a white sign on a black background. The Board finds this criterion met. DECISION Motion by __, seconded by __, to approve sign design review application #DR-19-01 of SB Signs, Inc subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. The sign colors permitted are white, black and red. 3. The final plans must be revised to show the change below and three full-size copies must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to obtaining a permanent sign permit. Any additional changes to any of the plans will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. a. The signs on Dorset Street must be revised to use only capital letters. 4. The applicant must obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to installation of any signs on the property. 5. Any changes to the approved plan require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. 6. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs must be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Sullivan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _. #DR-19-01 4 Signed this ____ day of May, 2019 by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-19-10_268 Market St_S Burlington City Center LLC_Sketch_2019-04-02.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 29, 2019 Plans received: March 8, 2019 268 Market Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-10 Meeting date: April 2, 2019 Owner South Burlington City Center, LLC P.O. Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05407 Engineer Lamoureux & Dickinson 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0450-00002 Form Based Code Transect Zone 5, Transect Zone 4 4.09 acres Applicant Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite #6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Location Map PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-19-10 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC to subdivide an existing 4.1 acre lot into three lots of 3.26 acres (Lot B1), 0.38 acres (Lot B2) and 0.45 acres (Lot B3) for the purpose of constructing a project on Lots B2 and B3, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 268 Market Street. 2 CONTEXT This application was continued without being heard from April 2, 2019. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into three lots in preparation for development on the two smaller subdivided lots. The applicant plans to further subdivide the larger remaining lot in the future. The development of all lots will be subject to administrative review through the Form Based Code process. The DRB is responsible for review of subdivisions within the Form Based Code district to ensure that the proposed lots are legal and developable. Therefore these staff comments focus on those elements of the proposed subdivision and omits discussion of the proposed development except as relevant to the DRB’s authority. Two sketch plan applications for the existing lot are being reviewed concurrently by the DRB. Subdivision of the eastern portion of the existing lot (referred to as Lots B1, B2 and B3 by this applicant) is the subject of this application, while subdivision of the western portion of the existing lot (referred to as Lots B1, B2 and B by a separate applicant) is being reviewed as application #SD-19-13. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS There are no minimum lot dimensions within the T5 and T4 districts. Curb cuts are prohibited within the T5 district. The applicant has indicated they wish to have the Board apply the standards of the T4 district 50-ft into the T5 district in order to allow for a curb cut in a district that permits it, and has submitted a separate conditional use application in support of this request. Staff considers the Board should not approve this subdivision without simultaneously approving the conditional use application as the Board’s decision on that request will impact this request. 1. Staff considers the applicant’s requested conditional use application could result in future problems with frontage buildout and recommends the Board discuss this application and #CU-19- 01 concurrently. Frontage buildout requirements for each of the T4 and T5 zoning districts apply to individual lots. Staff considers that it may be possible to grant a condition allowing the frontage buildout to be met over multiple lots if the lots were one lot at the time of application. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they would allow the frontage buildout to be met over multiple lots within the same zoning district. Consistent with the Board’s decision on recent applications and with case law, the rules of one zoning district may not be applied in another zoning district beyond the above-mentioned allowable 50-foot adjustment. Therefore in the case of a lot that is split between two zoning districts, the required minimum frontage buildout must be met in each zoning district. The T5 district requires 85% frontage buildout. 3 Should the DRB grant the conditional use request, the applicant’s proposed subdivision appears to result in an unbuildable T5 frontage of 25-feet on Lot B3. Staff considers the DRB may determine they can consider the T5 district as a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis. However, Staff notes that this would require a building that is at least 85 feet in width along Garden Street. 3. Staff recommends that the Board consider whether they would calculate frontage buildout for the T5 district as a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis and discuss with the applicant the requirement that the entirely of the T5 must meet the 85% frontage building, whether on a single lot or, upon approval, across multiple lots. The buildings shown on the plans do not meet this requirement. The Board’s responsibility under LDR 15.10A is to approve buildable lots: 15.10A Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions. The remainder of the district’s dimensional requirements pertain to buildings and parking and will be reviewed administratively as part of the Form Based Code site plan approval process. B) OFFICIAL MAP Condition #6 of #SD-17-03 states: No approvals for land development on any portion of the parcel identified as Lot B on the Subdivision Plat may be issued until the planned street shown on the Official Map as crossing Lot B is subdivided and offered to the City via an irrevocable offer of dedication. The LDRs define “land development” in part as follows: The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure, or of any mining, excavation or landfill, and any change in the use of any building or other structure, or land, or extension of use of land. 4. Condition #6 of SD-17-03 precludes the applicant from obtaining site plan approval for any Project on Lot B without subdividing the planned street from Lot B and providing it to the City via an irrevocable offer of dedication. Staff considers Condition #6 sets a “not later than” point in time, but the Board may elect to require it sooner under this application if it so chooses. C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 5. As discussed above, there are two concurrent subdivision applications for the subject property. Staff recommends the Board require the applications to be combined or reviewed consecutively without overlap for preliminary and final plat. Without such combination, there are numerous potential legal issues which could result from conditions of approval (such as those which address irrevocable offers and mylars) not being addressed in a timely manner. #SD-19-13 also proposes to subdivide the planned street from Lot B. Combining the applications would also address staff comment #4 above (pertaining to the ROW requirement). Subdivisions are required to be compatible with the planned development patterns as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. 4 Purpose of the T4 zoning district: 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. Purpose of the T5 zoning district: Emphasis is on Market Street with high volume foot traffic. Create a street-oriented public realm that encourages a dense downtown, multi-use/multi-purpose built environment. Retail and other commercial uses must be on the ground floor, with and mixed uses permitted above. Parking (not including on-street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. (8) 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. While not the subject of this application, Staff notes some of the lots shown on the provided Future Subdivision Plat could not be built upon under the current regulations. The applicant is pursuing this with the FBC committee. The lots that are the subject of this application do not appear to preclude adjustment of the interior lots to meet the current regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SOUTH BURLINGTONSCHOOL DISTRICTN/FVOL. 39, PG. 661DOUGLAS HUDSONN/FVOL. 1017, PG. 181MARY STREETVOL. 78, PAGE 235THIRTY THREE MARYSTREET LLCN/FVOL. 750, PG. 585CENTURY PARTNERS, LPN/FVOL. 360, PG. 410POON TRUST, LLC.N/FVOL. 780, PG. 728DORSET SQUAREASSOCIATESN/FVOL. 194, PG. 77VOL. 194, PG. 80VOL. 194, PG. 82VOL. 194, PG 90VOL. 266, PG. 120SOUTH BURLINGTON CITYCENTER, LLC. N/FVOL. 853, PG. 222MARKET STREETVOL. 687, PAGE 143( FORMERLY KNOWN ASCORPORATE WAY)CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTONN/FVOL. 697, PG. 402MARKET STREETVOL. 288, PAGE 1VOL. 288, PAGE 4 EXISTING EASEMENT TO CITY OFSOUTH BURLINGTON (SEE NOTE 9)CMF0.3' AGCMF0.2' AG1/2" IPF1.2' AG241.48'S73°25'30"ES73°23'45"EN46°25'12"WEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTOF SCHOOL DRIVEWAY80'60'TYPICAL 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT TOGREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION,AS RECORDED IN VOL. 207, PAGE 51010'CMS60'LOT AL = 85.08'R = 340.00'20.89'N 29°14'34"E72.75'N 13°31'32"EIPSIPSCMSCMS51.14'S73°33'10"E20.76'S73°23'45"ELOT DLOT C64' WIDE RIGHT OF WAY64'N43°36'05"E N43°36'05"E 466.41'CMSCMSGARDEN STREET64.00ALLARD SQUARE LIMITEDPARTNERSHIPN/FLOT B1140,606 SFS73°23'45"E67.39'93.00'60.00'4.47'S73°23'45"ECMSCMSCMSCMSLOT B216,544 SFT-4 TRANSECT ZONET-5 TRANSECT ZONELOT B321,146 SFS46°25'12"E158.79'N43°34'48"E63.50'N46°25'12"W56.04'N46°25'12"W214.82'214.78'N43°34'48"E77.02' 115.00' 305.17' 51.48' 76.52'482.36'215.32'SNYDER-BRAVERMANDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLCN/FVOL. 1438, PG 248SOUTH BURLINGTON CITYCENTER, LLC. N/FVOL. 853, PG. 222MARY STREETN43°34'48"E Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULD ONLY BE USED FORTHE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:REVISIONSFINAL LOCAL REVIEWPRELIMINARYSKETCH/CONCEPTSOUTH BURLINGTONCITY CENTER, LLCLANDS OFMARKET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT15143KMRABRABRDLH/DJG02-20-19sht. no.scaledatecheckeddrawndesignsurveyproject no.RECORD DRAWINGCONSTRUCTIONACT 250 REVIEWdescriptiondatebyPL-1AS NOTEDMAG N E TICPROJECTSITE RICK MARCOTTECENTRAL SCHOOLWILLISTON ROADWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLOCATION PLANNTS N/F LEGENDTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS PLAT IS BASEDON INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM PERTINENTDEEDS AND/OR OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS, ANDMARKERS EVIDENT ON THE PROPERTY, ANDCONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 27 VSA§1403. DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____, 2019__________________________PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON PIPE SETCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDNOW OR FORMERLYABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADELANDOWNERSOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLCC/O SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CO.P.O. BOX 2204SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05407DEED REFERENCE:VOL. 853, PAGE 222TAX MAP PARCEL:0450-00002IPFIPSNOTES:1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORD RESEARCH INCLUDINGTHE USE OF THE FOLLOWING PLATS:A."CORPORATE CIRCLE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTYCORP., PROPERTY PLAT." BY WEBSTER-MARTIN, INC., DATED SEPT. 1981, LAST REVISED5-27-92, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 248 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDRECORDS.B. "ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, CENTURY PARTNERS, 100 DORSET STREET, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT." BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DATED DECEMBER 9,1997, LAST REVISED 11/26/07, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 509 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOUTH BURLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL, 10MARKET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. " BY CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC., DATED MAY 19, 2004, LAST REVISED 12-17-04 AS RECORDED IN SLIDE447 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.D. "SUBDIVISION ASND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, LANDS OF SOUTHBURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC", SHEET PL-1, BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSONCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DATED 10-14-16, LAST REVISED 04-04-18 AS RECORDED INSLIDE 625.1 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.E. "SUBDIVISION ASND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, LANDS OF SOUTHBURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC", SHEET PL-2, BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSONCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DATED 01-25-18, LAST REVISED 06-11-18 AS RECORDED INSLIDE 625.2 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS RECORDED INOCTOBER, 2016,3. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY.4. A CLOSED TRAVERSE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN OCTOBER, 2016. THE METHODS ANDTHE RESULTING ERROR OF CLOSURE MEET OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM PRECISIONREQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN SURVEYS.AGBGSUBDIVISION PLATCMFAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE____ DAY OF _______________, 2019SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAIDRESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ___________ 2019 BY(CLERK OR CHAIRMAN)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. __________________ , 2019ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY CLERK__ M., AND RECORDED IN SLIDE# ________RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT________ O'CLOCKCITY CLERK'S OFFICECONCRETE MONUMENT TO BE SETCMSCALCULATED POINT NO MARKER SETMARY STREETGRAPHIC SCALE60060120240(IN FEET)1" = 60 ft.5. MONUMENTATION FOUND IS AS NOTED ON PLAN. IRON PIPES SET ARE 1" DIAMETERWITH A PLASTIC CAP.6. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR MARKET STREET OF 80 FEET IS BASED ON A DEEDRECORDED IN VOL. 687, PAGE 143.7. THE EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT TO GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION ALONGTHE NORTHERLY SIDE OF MARKET STREET IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED TO WITHINTHE MARKET STREET RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF LOT B1 & B2..8. THERE ARE EXISTING STORMWATER PIPES, ORIGINATING ON THE SOUTH BURLINGTONSCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY, CROSSING LOT B1. NO DRAINAGE RIGHTS WERE FOUNDIN THE CITY LAND RECORDS.9. LOT B1 IS SUBJECT TO A 30' WIDE MINIMUM WIDTH EASEMENT (SHOWN IN THEAPPROXIMATE LOCATION) TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR PEDESTRIAN ANDVEHICULAR ACCESS FROM CORPORATE WAY (AKA MARKET STREET) TO THE CENTRALSCHOOL AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN REFERENCED IN NOTE 1A ABOVE AND ASREFERENCED IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHBURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, AS RECORDEDIN VOL. 281, PGS. 550-555.10.LOT B1 IS SUBJECT TO ACCESS AND STORMWATER EASEMENTS TO THESNYDER-BRAVERMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC AS RECORDED IN VOL. 1395, PGS.133-135 SOUTH BURLINGTONSCHOOL DISTRICTN/FVOL. 39, PG. 661DOUGLAS HUDSONN/FVOL. 1017, PG. 181MARY STREETVOL. 78, PAGE 235THIRTY THREE MARYSTREET LLCN/FVOL. 750, PG. 585CENTURY PARTNERS, LPN/FVOL. 360, PG. 410POON TRUST, LLC.N/FVOL. 780, PG. 728DORSET SQUAREASSOCIATESN/FVOL. 194, PG. 77VOL. 194, PG. 80VOL. 194, PG. 82VOL. 194, PG 90VOL. 266, PG. 120SOUTH BURLINGTON CITYCENTER, LLC. N/FVOL. 853, PG. 222MARKET STREETVOL. 687, PAGE 143( FORMERLY KNOWN ASCORPORATE WAY)CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTONN/FVOL. 697, PG. 402MARKET STREETVOL. 288, PAGE 1VOL. 288, PAGE 4 EXISTING EASEMENT TO CITY OFSOUTH BURLINGTON (SEE NOTE 9)CMF0.3' AG1/2" IPF1.2' AG241.48'S73°25'30"ES73°23'45"EN46°25'12"WEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTOF SCHOOL DRIVEWAY80'TYPICAL 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT TOGREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION,AS RECORDED IN VOL. 207, PAGE 51010'60'LOT AL = 85.08'R = 340.00'20.89'N 29°14'34"E72.75'N 13°31'32"EIPSIPSCMSCMS39.37'S73°33'10"E11.77'S73°33'10"E20.76'S73°23'45"ELOT DLOT C64' WIDE RIGHT OF WAY64'N43°36'05"E 433.67' N43°36'05"E 466.41'CMSCMS23.98'GARDEN STREET64.00LOT B4FUTURE PUBLIC STREET S73°23'45"E67.39'93.00'60.00'4.47'S73°23'45"E60'LOT B2LOT B6LOT B9T-4 TRANSECT ZONET-5 TRANSECT ZONE48'LOT B10LOT B7LOT B8LOT B5LOT B3LOT B11LOT B12LOT B1MARY STREETConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULD ONLY BE USED FORTHE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:REVISIONSFINAL LOCAL REVIEWPRELIMINARYSKETCH/CONCEPTSOUTH BURLINGTONCITY CENTER, LLCLANDS OFMARKET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT15143KMRABRABRDLH/DJG02-20-19sht. no.scaledatecheckeddrawndesignsurveyproject no.RECORD DRAWINGCONSTRUCTIONACT 250 REVIEWdescriptiondatebyPL-1AS NOTEDMAG N E TICPROJECTSITE RICK MARCOTTECENTRAL SCHOOLWILLISTON ROADWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLOCATION PLANNTS N/F LEGENDTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS PLAT IS BASEDON INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM PERTINENTDEEDS AND/OR OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS, ANDMARKERS EVIDENT ON THE PROPERTY, ANDCONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 27 VSA§1403. DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____, 2019__________________________PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON PIPE SETCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDNOW OR FORMERLYABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADELANDOWNERSOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLCC/O SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CO.P.O. BOX 2204SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05407DEED REFERENCE:VOL. 853, PAGE 222TAX MAP PARCEL:0450-00002IPFIPSNOTES:1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORD RESEARCH INCLUDINGTHE USE OF THE FOLLOWING PLATS:A."CORPORATE CIRCLE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTYCORP., PROPERTY PLAT." BY WEBSTER-MARTIN, INC., DATED SEPT. 1981, LAST REVISED5-27-92, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 248 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDRECORDS.B. "ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, CENTURY PARTNERS, 100 DORSET STREET, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT." BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DATED DECEMBER 9,1997, LAST REVISED 11/26/07, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 509 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOUTH BURLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL, 10MARKET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT. " BY CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC., DATED MAY 19, 2004, LAST REVISED 12-17-04 AS RECORDED IN SLIDE447 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.D. "SUBDIVISION ASND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, LANDS OF SOUTHBURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC", SHEET PL-1, BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSONCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DATED 10-14-16, LAST REVISED 04-04-18 AS RECORDED INSLIDE 625.1 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.E. "SUBDIVISION ASND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, LANDS OF SOUTHBURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC", SHEET PL-2, BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSONCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DATED 01-25-18, LAST REVISED 06-11-18 AS RECORDED INSLIDE 625.2 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS RECORDED INOCTOBER, 2016,3. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY.4. A CLOSED TRAVERSE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN OCTOBER, 2016. THE METHODS ANDTHE RESULTING ERROR OF CLOSURE MEET OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM PRECISIONREQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN SURVEYS.AGBGSUBDIVISION PLAT(FUTURE)CMFAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE____ DAY OF _______________, 2019SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAIDRESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ___________ 2019 BY(CLERK OR CHAIRMAN)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. __________________ , 2019ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY CLERK__ M., AND RECORDED IN SLIDE# ________RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT________ O'CLOCKCITY CLERK'S OFFICECONCRETE MONUMENT TO BE SETCMSCALCULATED POINT NO MARKER SETMARY STREETGRAPHIC SCALE60060120240(IN FEET)1" = 60 ft.5. MONUMENTATION FOUND IS AS NOTED ON PLAN. IRON PIPES SET ARE 1" DIAMETERWITH A PLASTIC CAP.6. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR MARKET STREET OF 80 FEET IS BASED ON A DEEDRECORDED IN VOL. 687, PAGE 143.7. THE EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT TO GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION ALONGTHE NORTHERLY SIDE OF MARKET STREET IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED TO WITHINTHE MARKET STREET RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF LOT A.8. THERE ARE EXISTING STORMWATER PIPES, ORIGINATING ON THE SOUTH BURLINGTONSCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY, CROSSING LOT B1. NO DRAINAGE RIGHTS WERE FOUNDIN THE CITY LAND RECORDS.9. LOT B1 IS SUBJECT TO A 30' WIDE MINIMUM WIDTH EASEMENT (SHOWN IN THEAPPROXIMATE LOCATION) TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR PEDESTRIAN ANDVEHICULAR ACCESS FROM CORPORATE WAY (AKA MARKET STREET) TO THE CENTRALSCHOOL AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN REFERENCED IN NOTE 1A ABOVE AND ASREFERENCED IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHBURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, AS RECORDEDIN VOL. 281, PGS. 550-555.10.LOT B1 IS SUBJECT TO ACCESS AND STORMWATER EASEMENTS TO THESNYDER-BRAVERMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC AS RECORDED IN VOL. 1395, PGS.133-135 South Burlington School District 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 1810-01175 City of South Burlington c/o Planning & Zoning Dept 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 0450-00000 Poon Trust, LLC 1569 Essex Road Williston, VT 05495 Allard Square Limited Partnership 412 Farrell Street, Suite 100 South Burlington, VT, 05403 Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 South Burlington City Center, LLC P.O. Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05407 AB1CDEFGTYPICAL PROPOSEDLOT DESIGNATIONNOTE: MAP ANNOTATED BYLAMOUREUX & DICKINSON ON02-01-18 TO PRESENT THE LAYOUTOF LOTS A-G ON THE NORTH SIDEOF MARKET STREETB2B3 #CU-19-01 Staff Comments 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU-19-01_268 Market St_S Burlington City Center LLC_2019- 05-07.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: May 3, 2019 Plans received: March 8, 2018 268 Market St Conditional Use Application #CU-19-01 Meeting date: May 7, 2019 Owner/Applicant South Burlington City Center, LLC P.O. Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05407 Engineer Lamoureux & Dickinson 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0450-00002 Form Based Code District Transect Zone 5, Transect Zone 4 4.09 acres Applicant Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite #6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Location Map PROJECT DESCRPTION Conditional use application #CU-19-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC to extend the regulations of the Form Based Code Transect 4 zoning district up to fifty (50) feet into the Form Based Code Transect 5 zoning district to allow construction of a driveway access nearer than currently permitted to Market Street, 268 Market Street. #CU-19-01 Staff Comments 2 COMMENTS Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 3/8/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT This application was continued without being heard from April 2, 2019. The proposed project is located within the Form Based Code T4 and T5 zoning districts, meaning its site plan will be reviewed administratively. The applicant has requested that the regulations of the T4 zoning district be applied up to fifty (50) feet into the T5 zoning district across all of the existing lot, and all of the lots proposed to be created by a subdivision of the existing lot, as described under Section 3.03C. Two sketch plan applications for the existing lot are being reviewed concurrently by the DRB. Subdivision of the eastern portion of the existing lot (referred to as Lots B1, B2 and B3 by an applicant) is being reviewed as application #SD-19-10, and subdivision of the western portion of the existing lot (referred to as Lots B1, B2 and B by a separate applicant) is being reviewed as application #SD-19-13. The applicant for this conditional use application is requesting subdivision of the eastern portion of the existing lot. The applicant plans to construct a mixed use multi-story building with a below grade parking deck on the southeastern subdivided lot. The eastern subdivided lot is planned to provide surface parking for the southeastern subdivided lot and future adjacent buildings. The central area is planned for future subdivision. The City’s official map includes a planned north-south street just west of the center of the existing lot. This new street is not contemplated in this conditional use application. The applicant has provided an application narrative, and future subdivision plan supporting their request. The applicant has not yet submitted their site plan application because the final form of the proposed building will be dependent on whether the Board grants their request for an adjusted location at which zoning district regulations apply. APPLICABLE STANDARDS 3.02C. Split Lots. Where a district boundary line divides a lot which was in a single ownership at the time of passage of these regulations, the Development Review Board may permit, as a conditional use, the extension of the regulations for either portion of the lot but not to exceed fifty (50) feet beyond the district line into the remaining portion of the lot (See Article 14 for Conditional Use Review). This provision shall not apply to the boundary lines of any overlay or floating district. Staff notes the T5/T4 line was established in contemplation of a single building being in T5, with an alleyway of behind it. Staff considers the question of where that line should be (ie, how far back the building should go) – is a fair matter for the Board to weigh. The applicant appears to have met the intent of locating a single building within the T5. #CU-19-01 Staff Comments 3 The applicant has stated the reason for their request is to allow an access drive off Garden Street in close proximity to the proposed parking on the eastern subdivided lot. Other differences between the T4 and T5 zoning districts are first floor usage being restricted to non- residential, greater frequency of doors and windows, higher percentage frontage buildout, and prohibition of curb cuts in the T5. Though the applicant has indicated the purpose of their request is to allow an entrance on Garden Street, Staff considers that their request would have significant effect on other elements of the development potential of the affected parcel, in particular the frontage buildout requirements. As shown on the provided Future Subdivision Plat, the applicant intends to construct a building at the corner of Market and Garden Streets. Concerns with frontage buildout requirements are discussed in the staff notes for #SD-19-10 and are equally applicable to this conditional use application. Staff considers the requested adjustment neither helps nor hinders the frontage buildout issues, but whether the request is approved strongly affects how the applicant must address those issues. Staff recommends the Board therefore provide clear direction on whether they would grant the requested adjustment, in consideration of the remainder of these staff comments. Beyond the frontage buildout requirement discussed in staff notes for #SD-19-10, Staff considers that the applicant’s request is too broad and should be limited to adjustment of the regulations within proposed lots B2 and B3 only. As discussed above, there are a number of additional requirements which differ between the T4 and T5 zoning districts. At this time without any conceptual development plan for the remainder of the existing lot, Staff considers it premature to review and grant an adjustment to regulations, and so recommends the Board’s consideration of the request be limited to Lots B2 and B3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they have any concerns with revising their conditional use request to only extend to the limits of proposed lots B2 and B3. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Pursuant to Section 3.02C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (Split Lots), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E): 14.10E General Review Standards The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. The elements of the City Center project addressed by this application will have no adverse effect upon the capacity of community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met. #CU-19-01 Staff Comments 4 (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. Purpose of the T4 zoning district: 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. Purpose of the T5 zoning district: Emphasis is on Market Street with high volume foot traffic. Create a street-oriented public realm that encourages a dense downtown, multi-use/multi-purpose built environment. Retail and other commercial uses must be on the ground floor, with and mixed uses permitted above. Parking (not including on-street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. Staff considers that the proposed zoning adjustment will have an effect of on the character of the area by allowing a curb cut within the T5 district on Garden Street, which would not be permitted but for the applicant’s requested change. The purpose of the T5 includes high volume foot traffic. The T5 zoning district is centered on Market Street, with Garden and other cross streets included for the first approximately 150 feet. Staff recommends the Board consider the potential effect of this change on the purpose of the T5. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. By allowing the access road to be located approximately 100 feet from Market Street, some traffic impacts may occur, specifically in terms of the ability of users to exit the site during peak hours at full-build. Staff considers this a secondary concern and recommends the Board take traffic impacts into consideration when evaluating this request. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. Staff considers this criterion met. The request is allowed under 3.02C. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The elements of the City Center project addressed by this application will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met. #CU-19-01 Staff Comments 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-19-13_180 Market St_City of South Burlington_Sketch_2019-05-07.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: May 3, 2019 Plans received: April 16, 2019 180 Market Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-13 Meeting date: May 7, 2019 Owner South Burlington City Center, LLC P.O. Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05407 Applicant City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0450-00002 Form Based Code Transect Zone 5, Transect Zone 4 4.10 acres Engineer Latitudes Land Surveying 1 Mill Street, Suite 169 Burlington, VT Location Map PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-19-13 of the City of South Burlington to subdivide a 4.09 acre lot into three lots of 0.27 acres, 0.61 acres, and 3.21 acres for the purpose of constructing a project on the 0.61 acre lot and dedicating the 0.27 acre lot as a public right of way, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 180 Market Street. 2 CONTEXT The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into three lots in preparation for development on the western lot and creation of a public right of way on the central lot. The owner plans to further subdivide the larger remaining lot in the future. The development of the western lot will be subject to administrative review through the Form Based Code process. The DRB is responsible for review of subdivisions within the Form Based Code district to ensure that the proposed lots are legal and developable. Therefore these staff comments focus on those elements of the proposed subdivision and omits discussion of the proposed development except as relevant to the DRB’s authority. Two sketch plan applications for the existing lot are being reviewed concurrently by the DRB. Subdivision of the western portion of the existing lot (referred to as Lots B1, B2 and B by this applicant applicant) is the subject of this application, while subdivision of the eastern portion of the existing lot (referred to as Lots B1, B2 and B3 by a separate applicant) is being reviewed as application #SD-19-10. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS There are no minimum lot dimensions within the T5 and T4 districts. Staff has no concerns with the proposed lot dimensions. Block lengths and perimeter standards are exempt for this location (LDR Section 8.04B(1)(a)). The applicant is proposing to access the site via a proposed driveway off the proposed City right of way. Curb cuts in the T4 and T5 are limited to a minimum 100-ft spacing on the proposed right of way. While Staff considers the planned access drive for the building on Lot B1 appears to be too close to the planned access drive for the school, the access configuration is not the subject of this application. Staff considers the proposed subdivision, which is the subject of this application, could not be reconfigured so as to better support the planned access therefore does not recommend the Board temper their endorsement of the subdivision because of potential planned access configuration issues. B) OFFICIAL MAP The Proposed City right of way is shown on the official map. Staff has no concerns with this project’s compliance with the official map. C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS As discussed above, there are two concurrent subdivision applications for the subject property. Staff recommends the Board require the applications to be combined or reviewed consecutively without overlap for preliminary and final plat. Without such combination, there are numerous potential legal issues which could result from conditions of approval (such as those which address irrevocable offers and mylars) not being addressed in a timely manner. 3 Staff considers the planned location of the access drive for the subdivided lot on an easement on the adjacent lot to the north may create challenges with meeting the minimum required frontage buildout requirements of the T4 zoning districts for the property to the north. However, as above, Staff considers the proposed subdivision, which is the subject of this application, could not be reconfigured so as to better support the frontage buildout on the adjacent lot therefore does not recommend the Board temper their endorsement of the subdivision because of potential planned frontage buildout issues. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting The applicant has proposed a 60-foot ROW for a future City street. The street does not have a designated type on the official map. 8.04B(2)(b) and (c) state that where the street is proposed to be public but a specific Street Type is not designated on the official map, the minimum street right-of-way width shall be as identified within Article 11. In the T5 district, the minimum ROW width for a qualifying street is 50-ft (“Neighborhood Street Narrow”). The applicant is proposing greater than the minimum ROW width therefore Staff considers the minimum PUD standards pertaining to roadways are met. 11.03B(3) requires the DRB to determine the applicable street type for the proposed ROW. The DRB should make its determination based on consideration of the applicant’s proposed street type and reasons for that proposal; the projected traffic volumes; and a statement of compatibility with the adjacent roadways. This street is proposed to be a “Support Street” type, selected for compatibility with similarly sized planned streets in the vicinity. Traffic volumes are not available at this time. Staff supports this designation. Staff recommends the Board familiarize themselves with the requirements of 11.03B(3) and provide preliminary feedback to the applicant on street type at this hearing. Protection of Natural Resource Areas Natural resource area impacts associated with Lot B were approved under #CU-18-01. Stormwater from the development associated with the proposed subdivision is proposed to be treated off-site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 April 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Leinwohl, G. Richards, N. Longo, P. O’Leary, D. Crawford, K. & W. Hays, D. Seff, N. Hyman, S. Dopp, D. Partite, P. Kahn, R. Greco, S. Losier,kR. Rushford, M. Byrne, D. Peters, S. Baumaroun, A. Shields, L. Lackey, F. Landry, D. Blodgett, P. Kelley, C. Montgomery, C. Gendron, A. Chalnick, B. Bartlett, A. Portz, S. Partio, G. Rabideau, L. Hammond 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to do the Minutes as Item #5 as several members will be recusing themselves for later items. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to apply at that time. 5. Minutes of 19 March and 2 April 2019: Ms. Smith noted the incorrect spelling of Mr. Behr’s name and Ms. Keene’s name on p. 4 and p. 5 of the 2 April Minutes. Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 19 March and 2 April with the noted spelling corrections. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 2 6. Appeal #AO‐19‐02 of Dennys, Inc., appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer to deny the Certificate of Occupancy, 730 Shelburne Road: Mr. Conner noted that the project began in the spring of 2018. Mr. Belair issued the initial decisions. The issue is exterior lighting, specifically a series of red slats that are lighted at night. Mr. Conner showed photos taken from different points on Swift Street. The lights are visible from Shelburne Road and even from the south end of Pine Street. Section 13.07 of the LDRs states that all exterior lights shall have shielding and be directed downward so as not to be visible from any residential street. Mr. Conner then showed a cutsheet of types of lights that are and are not acceptable. He also drew attention to 2 site plan approvals which include a stipulation that all exterior lights shall be shielded. Mr. Baumaroun stated that the lights were always in the plan and were never brought up as an issue. They were inspected during construction. Mr. Kochman asked whether the lights were turned on during the inspection. Mr. Baumaroun said they were not turned on. Mr. Conner noted that the “inspections” were by the Fire Department, etc., not by Planning & Zoning staff. Mr. Sullivan noted the applicant did not object to the stipulation at the time of site plan approval. Ms. Hall said she spoke with Ray Belair on 10 April. He said he only reviewed what is referenced in the approval, which does not show anything regarding the lights in question. The applicant said the lighting is shown on sheet A5. Ms. Hall said the plans that were emailed to Mr. Belair did not include that sheet. The applicant said a full set of plans was submitted on 29 May. Mr. Kochman said he agrees with Mr. Sullivan and cannot see a basis for the applicant not to comply with the stipulation. If there was an issue, the approval motion should have been appealed. He felt the applicant is stuck with the permit they were given. Mr. Wilking added that it is not clear on the plan that the callout for the tower lighting isn’t part of the lighting of the Denny’s name. Mr. Behr said that in reviewing the drawing the DRB would have no idea that this was the outcome. Even if pointed downward it would still have the same effect and be viewed from a distance. The applicant replied, “That’s the idea.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Sullivan referred to a Vermont Supreme Court case from 2005 and read a statement from the Court. Mr. Conner noted the approval only references a 6‐page set of plans and does not include the sheet with the lighting. The applicant said the 6 pages were the schematic sent first. The 20 sheets were the full plans sent later. Members agreed they would be denying the appeal. Ms. Keene said the Board will render its decision in 2 weeks. The applicant’s option then would be to turn off the lights or to appeal the Board’s decision to the Vermont Environmental Court. Mr. Conner added they could also submit a different solution. Ms. Keene said if the applicant wants to submit a new application before the Board renders its decision, they must withdraw the appeal. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close Appeal #AO‐19‐02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐07 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash facility, 2) constructing anew 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wah facility; and 3) constructing a 2,353 sq. ft. six‐position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl noted that 4 of the staff comments refer to landscaping, and prior to the meeting he provided staff with a revised plan that is in compliance. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Are in compliance with what is required. 2. They have added 4 shade trees to an added island and are in conformance. 3. They will replace the soil that is on the island. 4. Spacing of trees has been adjusted to 20 feet as the Arborist requested. 5. They will comply with the Fire Chief’s request. Mr. Leinwohl pointed out the shortened queueing lanes. These will be made clear to people parking cars. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐19‐07. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 4 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐11 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 102‐room, 5‐story hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Rabideau said they have begun engineering work and have discovered communications equipment which requires converting the building into an L‐shape. They have also addressed a concern of the DRB that the street side of the building was “too plain.” Mr. Rabideau showed the new plan with new materials facing the street. There is also a door on the street side. The building is a little shorter, and the actual floor area is reduced by about 300 square feet. The number of rooms remains the same. Staff comments were reviewed as follows: 1. The Airport has identified the need for the hotel, and it will offer food items to people using the Airport. Mr. Behr expressed concern that there is no longer a walkway from the Airport to the hotel. Mr. Rabideau said there is a walkway, but the have eliminated the sky bridge. Mr. Wilking questioned the tax status of the hotel, noting that the Airport has a payment in lieu of taxes agreement with the City. 2. Regarding the setback waiver, Mr. Rabideau indicated the utility corridor with communications equipment that is crucial to the Airport. It would cost $500,000 to relocate the equipment. Ms. Keene noted that 50 feet are required, and they are asking for 34 feet. Members were OK with the waiver. 3. Members were OK with the height waiver. 4. Members were concerned with lighting standards that relate to the Airport and felt the compliance note should come from the project’s electrical engineer. Mr. Longo said they will provide that statement. 5. Regarding access to the parking garage, Mr. Rabideau said the Airport has people who look at this full time and they have had to convince them that this is right. He showed the plan indicating a special tactile pavement where people would turn in to unload, etc. Mr. Gendron said there will an area in the garage just for hotel parking. Mr. Rabideau said he agrees with the Fire Chief about eliminating one parking space (he indicated it). He also noted DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 5 they have eliminated the road that went around the hotel as it would have complicated things because the space between the hotel and garage is not wide enough. That area has been turned into a pedestrian access and an area for bike storage. Ms. Keene said staff is concerned with the crosswalk alignment. Mr. Rabideau said they are trying to avoid a conflict with cars waiting to go into the garage. Mr. Gendron added they are trying to get pedestrians to the Airport the safest way, and that is through the garage. There are lighted signs and markings on the ground for safety. Mr. Miller stressed the need for good lighting there 24/7. He was OK with as there is slow, one‐way traffic, and there is landscaping to prevent people from walking where they shouldn’t, and there will be signage. Mr. Behr suggested extending the paving pattern with the same material. Mr. Rabideau said they will be happy to do that. Mr. Wilking asked if the bollards are lighted. Mr. Rabideau said they are. Mr. Portz said there is also a light pole that directly hits this area. 6. Ms. Keene said staff has no concerns with the area that used to be a road between the hotel and garage. Members liked this plan much better. 7. Mr. Rabideau said they agree with the landscaping amount but asked about credits for perennials and grasses. Mr. Portz said they understand this is usually not included, but they play a big part in the plan. He noted the issues with heights of plantings. He noted that stormwater areas will be planted with perennials. Mr. Miller cited the need to have “some teeth” into enforcing the maintenance of the perennials. Mr. Wilking noted that grasses and perennials were approved on a Pizzagalli plan. Mr. Rabideau said they will provide a landscape maintenance plan and stressed that the Airport is keenly interested in the landscaping on the whole Airport property. 8. Regarding stormwater Mr. Gendron explained the 2 separate systems, one south of the patio and one just east of the porte cochère. They are working with the Stormwater Superintendent to finalize this and are waiting for soil data (which was held up by big piles of snow in the area). 9. The EPSC plan will be corrected. 10. Regarding the 25% reduction in trip generation, Mr. Gendron said this is related to airline staff who will be using the hotel and will not have vehicles. Mr. Wilking suggested checking with other hotels to substantiate this. The Board invited the applicant to substantiate their 25% claim if they’d like. 11. Regarding the Fire Chief’s comments, Mr. Rabideau said there is a hydrant the Chief may have missed (he indicated it on the plan). They are OK with removing the one parking space noted earlier. Regarding the concern for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 6 setting up the aerial ladder truck, Mr. Rabideau said they would prefer to come back with a firm plan for that. 12. They will provide a statement from the manufacturer that lights are downcast. 13. They will get it done. 14. There is a master plan for bike storage. Lockers will be in a common place on the Airport. Mr. Gendron noted the terminal and FAA building are upgrading to provide bike racks. 15. Hotel staff has shower and lockers in the basement. This will be indicated on the plan. 16. Signage will be removed from the plan. Ms. Greco asked about solar panels for the hotel. Mr. Rabideau said the roof will be solar ready, and it will be a function of whether there are still credits available. Mr. Miller noted that credits have been reduced from 30 to 26. Mr. Crawford said he was impressed by the landscape plan and protection of existing trees. He asked why there are no trees on Airport Road. Mr. Portz explained that is because of the utility lines. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD‐19‐11 to 21 May 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued Master Plan Application #MP‐18‐01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐ 18‐29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller turned the Chair over to Mr. Cota. As he will be leaving the Board in July, he felt continuity was important. Mr. Cota read staff comments regarding the use of TDRs that may be overturned by the Court. A modified plan has been submitted by the applicant which the applicant has indicated attempts to mitigate the risk associated with the use of TDRs. In his comment letter, Mr. Seff suggested waiting until the Supreme Court has ruled, but the applicant does not wish to wait. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 7 Mr. O’Leary said everything in the plan is the same except the phasing plan. There are 5 separate phases, similar to what was submitted before. The first 4 phases total 83 units. The 5th phase includes all the units that require TDRs. They are asked the Board to approve the Master Plan for all phases and for preliminary plat, phases 1‐4, not phase 5. Mr. Behr had an issue with this because of the TDR bonus, which may not happen, and the city could be looking at a plan with “blank spaces.” Mr. O’Leary identified on the plan what is in Phase 5. He said if those units are not built, the areas would be added to open space. There also wouldn’t be multi‐family buildings, though these could be put into phases 1‐4. Mr. Kahn said it is still a cohesive plan, just with more open space. Mr. O’Leary said all the amenities would remain as well. Ms. Keene noted this is similar to what the Board did with the O’Brien project, but the O’Brien project phases were clustered together. Mr. Kochman asked why this doesn’t require a new application. He felt it is a material change, with half the density. The applicant said it is not a material change, just a change in when things will be built. Mr. O’Leary said the LDRs allow for phasing, and it was always a phased project. Mr. Cota said the Board is not going to make a decision on whether it is a material change tonight. Mr. Kochman said he doesn’t necessarily agree with the jurisdictional question raised by Mr. Seff, but he did agree with the riparian connection risk. Mr. Cota said the people who live in the first four phases might be used to the open space and would have a problem if Phase 5 is built. Mr. O’Leary said buyers would be given full information when they buy their homes. Mr. Kahn said the public offering statement given to buyers would disclose Phase 5. Regarding Overlay Map #7, Mr. O’Leary said people got information from Biofinder which was a desk‐top survey with no field work. He said they would create a topo map and delineate everything and go out with experts for field verification. They would also verify where the 100‐ year flood plain is. He added that they know the wetland map is wrong. They have been out with the state to identify what they have to stay away from. Mr. Kochman said the Comprehensive Plan states you can’t build there. Mr. O’Leary said that hasn’t been followed in the past. Mr. Behr said Map 7 is there for the applicant to do further study and clarification. Public Comment was then solicited as follows: Mr. Lambert: Supports the development. Lives in Cider Mill development and loves the neighborhood, and would encourage his children to live there. Feels it makes sense to have DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 8 smaller homes on smaller lots. Cited walking trails and the conveniences of this place to live. He wanted to see more children in the city and in the schools, also homes for retirees. Mr. Blodgett: Lives in the existing house. Said there is a silent majority enjoying their homes which were built by these builders. He felt it is a reasonable plan for the city. Mr. Hyman cited conflict over Cider Mill. He felt the density in this project is all over the place and doesn’t consider wildlife. Mr. Seff felt there is no authority to hear this application or to make a decision while there is a Supreme Court case. Mr. Chalnick said the LDRs say to respect the map, and there is nothing in the LDRs that says you have to delineate. He felt the map matches what is in Biofinder and is the best information the State has. Mr. Shields had several concerns including the setback of the houses from Dorset Street and the 2 exits onto Dorset St. which are 629 feet apart. There is also the possibility of a third exit 600 feet away. There appear to be over 500 waivers from the guidelines on lot coverage, front yard setbacks, etc. He didn’t know how the Board makes these determinations. Mr. Kochman said they are authorized to make those changes. Regarding the buffer between zones, Mr. Shields said the regulations said they have to be in single ownership, and he didn’t think they were in single ownership when the regulations were adopted. Ms. Partilo didn’t feel the concern for more children and families was justified. She would “prefer animals to children and families.” The area is designated as conservation area. Ms. Hammond submitted photos of wildlife and identified 84 different species of birds. She felt the wildlife has diminished because of other development, and once they’re gone, they’re gone. Ms. Greco felt the project is counter to 11 vision and goals statement in the Comprehensive Plan and counter to the City Council’s statement regarding reducing carbon footprint. This will use massive amounts of fossil fuel as there is no public transportation in the area. Mr. Seff asked Mr. Miller why he recused himself. Mr. Miller said he did not. He turned the Chair over to Mr. Cota. Mr. Seff asked about Mr. Miller’s comments regarding the value of people’s homes. Mr. Miller said that was related to Goal #1 in the Comprehensive Plan DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 PAGE 9 regarding affordable housing. Mr. Kochman asked Mr. Seff to stop interrogating Mr. Miller. Mr. Cota asked Mr. Seff to summarize his letter. Mr. Seff said he had assumed this hearing would not go forward because of pending appeals to the Supreme Court. He felt the Board doesn’t have the right to go forward because Judge Walsh said they shouldn’t go forward with preliminary plat or the master plan. That is now being appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Board denies the appellant, the appellant will appeal and say the Board had no authority to act. If the Board approves the plan, Mr. Seff said his clients will appeal under the same grounds. He felt the developer is wasting his own money as well has Mr. Seff’s clients’ money. Mr. Kochman said the Board’s view is that the Judge’s language is not binding on this Board. He agreed with the risk to the developer, but that is the developer’s call. Mr. Seff said he agrees with Mr. Kochman that there should be a new application because of material changes. He also believes the LDRs give map 7 authority of law. Mr. Kochman said he would like to get an opinion regarding “material change” from the City Attorney. Mr. Miller moved to continue MP‐18‐01 and SD‐18‐29 to 4 June 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5‐0. Mr. Miller resumed the Chair. 10. Other Business: There was no other business transacted. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:18 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk ____________________________, Date Page 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Rules of Procedure Section I: Authority. The Development Review Board of the City of South Burlington hereby adopts the following rules of procedure (hereinafter referred to as these Rules) in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §§§ 4461(a), 4464 and 4468 and 1 V.S.A. §§§ 312(e), (f), and (h).. Section II: Policy. These Rules are adopted to ensure consistent and fair treatment of applicants and, interested persons, and other participants, orderly and efficient development review and public proceedings, and compliance with state and federal law. These Rules shall also ensure that no board member will gain a personal or financial advantage from his or her work for the board, and so that the public trust in municipal government will be preserved. Section III: Definitions. A. Words, terms and phrases specifically defined in the City of South Burlington Conflict of Interest and Ethics Policy for Elected and Appointed Officials, as revised from time to time, shall have the same meaning in these Rules unless another meaning is clearly indicated. B. "Board" means the Development Review Board. C. "Board member" means a regular or alternate member of the Development Review Board. D. “Deliberative session" means a private session of the boardBoard to weigh, examine, and discuss the reasons for and against an act or decision, from which the public is excluded. There A deliberative session does not require prior public notice or the taking of minutes and shall be nonot include the taking of evidence or submission of testimony, nor need a deliberative session be publicly noticed. By motion and majority vote, the boardthe arguments of parties. The Board may enter deliberative session during a hearing to consider a matter before it. E. "Executive session" means a session of a public body from which the public is excluded, pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 313. Such privateThe Board may hold an executive session may only be held for oneafter motion and affirmative vote of a majority during the reasonscourse of an open meeting and only to consider the matters permitted by the statute, and noState law. The Board may not take binding action may be taken in executive session. F. "Public deliberations" means the weighing, examining, and discussing, in a public proceeding, the reasons for and against an act or decision, but expressly excludes the taking of evidence and the arguments of parties. Page 2 Section IV: Regular Officers. The Development Review Board shall consist of seven (7) regular members. As soon as is practical following the annual City Council appointments, or as needed at other times throughout the year as needed, the Development Review Board shall hold an organizational meeting and elect, by affirmative vote of a majority vote,, elect a Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk. A. The Chair shall preside at all meetings, hearings, and deliberations, decide all points of order or procedure, and appoint Board members to any committee of the boardBoard. The Chair may administer oaths and may request the attendance of witnesses and the production of material germane to any issue under consideration. B. The Vice Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair whenever the Chair is absent, or at the Chair's request. The Clerk shall assume such duties whenever the Chair and the Vice Chair are absent, or at their request. C. It shall be the duty of all Board members to review the minutes and other official records of Development Review Board meetings and actions, and correct and ratify these when appropriate and necessary. D. The Clerk shall take minutes of all meetings, unless delegated to staff. Section V: Regular and Special Meetings. RegularThe schedule for regular meetings to conduct the business of the Board shall be held at a time and place to be determined by the Development Review Board shall be held in the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesdays of the monthat their annual reorganizational meeting, or as warranted. The regular meeting schedule shall be posted and available to the public. The Chair may cancel meetings at any time. A. Special meetings may be called by the Chair, provided at least 24 hours -notice is given to each boardBoard member and the time and place of each special meeting is publicly announced at least 24 hours before the meeting. B. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the entire boardBoard. C. Members Board members may attend and participate by telephone as long as the absent member can hear everything that is occurring at the in a meeting and everyoneby electronic or other available means without being physically present at the meeting can hearlocation as long as such Board members can hear the conduct of the meeting and be heard by persons attending the boardmeeting. 1. Each Board member who attends a meeting by electronic or other means shall identify him or herself when the meeting is convened. Page 3 2. If a member. is participating by electronic or other means, any vote of the Board that is not unanimous shall be taken by roll call. D. All meetings shall be open to the public unless the board, by majority vote,Board has entered aeither deliberative or executive session. The board may only hold an executive session pursuant to the reasons permitted by 1 V.S.A. § 313, and only after a majority vote to enter executive session. E. There shall be an agenda for each meeting, with time allotted forenumerating each item or group of items to be considered. The Chair shall determine the content of the agenda. F. All business shall be conducted in the same order as it appears on the agenda, except that by consent of a majority of the boardBoard, the Chair may alter the order of items to be considered and/or the time allotted to the agenda items to be considered. G. The Chair shall rule on all questions of order or procedure and shall enforce these rulesRules pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 312(h). H. Notice for hearings on the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the bylaw and other regulatory tools shall be pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4444, as amended. Section VI: Role of Advisory Committees. From time to time, the Board may establishadopt guidelines or procedures describing the process and amend, by appropriate resolution, a policystructure for committee reviewadvisory committees in support of land development applications.the Development Review Board’s work. Section VII: Public Hearings and Order of Business. Public hearings shall be conducted as quasi-judicial proceedings pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 310(5)(B). Hearings. Notice of public hearings shall be publicly noticedgiven in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §§§ 4464(a)(l), (2), as amended. The Chair shall conduct the hearing in the following manner: A. Open the hearing by reading the warning of the hearing. B. Review the order of events, remind all present that the proceeding will be conducted in an orderly manner, and make copies of these Rules available. C. Request disclosure of conflicts of interest, including any ex parte communications. D. Review the definition of interested persons in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). The Chair may direct attendees to a written description of interested persons, which will be available in the meeting room. E. Explain that, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a), only an interested person who has participated Page 4 in this proceeding may take an appeal of any decision issued inon this proceedingmatter. F. Ask all who believe they meet the definition of interested person to identify themselves and to provide contact information. The boardBoard shall only make determinations as to party status only in proceedings for appeals of administrative officer decisions. As these Rules do not differentiate between persons with interested person status and those without, anyone seeking to participate in a proceeding may do so, subject to these Rules and those established by the Chair. Members of the public who are not interested persons may offer comment on an application, after recognition by the Chair. The Chair shallmay, at the beginning of a hearing, limit such public comment to three (3) minutes a specific amount of time per speaker, unless by consent of a majority of the board, the board sets a different time limit. The boardBoard shall apply consistent time limits to alleach recognized to speakspeaker. G. Direct the applicant or his/her representative and all interested persons to step forward and take the following oath: I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God (or, under the pains and penalties of perjury). H. Accept written information presented to the board. IH. Invite the applicant or applicant's representative to present such application or proposal. In appeals of administrative officer decisions, invite the administrative officer to explain the decision, the basis therefor, and any other relevant information. JI. Invite boardBoard members to ask questions of the applicant or applicant's representative., or, in an appeal, the administrative officer. J. Accept written information presented to the Board. K. Invite interested persons and members of the public to present their information or arguments regarding the application or proposal. L. Invite the applicant or applicant's representative or, in an appeal, the administrative officer, to respond to information presented by others. M. Invite more questions or comments from Board members of the board. N. Invite more questions from interested persons and members of the public. O. Allow final comments or questions from the applicant or his/herapplicant’s representative or, in an appeal, the administrative officer, and/or from Board members of the board.. P. Upon motion and affirmative vote of a majority approval, the Chair shall either adjourn the hearing to a date and time certain, or closeend the proceedingsproceeding by stating that this is the final public hearing on the matter. is closed. The Board may also take the action to adjourn the hearing to a date and time certain at any time during the process outlines above, and may break for a deliberative session at any time. Page 5 Section VIII: Site Visits. Site visits shall be open to the public; however, no testimony, but shall be taken and nonot include the taking of evidence, the arguments of parties or any other ex parte communication shall occurcommunications. Site visits shall be held pursuant to the following conditions: A. If, prior to a hearing, the Chair determines that a site visit will be necessary, the site visit shall be scheduled immediately prior to ameet public hearing. Such site visits shall be publicly noticed in accordance withnotice requirements of 24 V.S.A. §§§ 4464(a)(l), (2). B. If necessary, the boardBoard may recess a hearing to conduct a site visit at a property which is the subject of an application before the boardBoard. C. If necessary, the boardBoard may adjourn a hearing to a date and time certain to conduct a site visit at a property which is the subject of an application before the boardBoard. D. The minutes of the proceeding shall reflect that the Board held a site visit was held, who was presentattended the site visit, and the nature and duration of the site visit. Section IX: Service List. The staffStaff shall create a list of all individuals who participated. in a hearing. The list shall include all those who participated orallyoffered, through oral or written testimony, evidence, comment and those who participated in writing./or a statement of concern related to the matter that is the subject of the hearing. All decisions of the boardBoard shall be mailed to those on the list. The list shall include: A. The names of those who participated in the proceedings. B. The nature and content of each such person’s participation by those who participated. C. The mailing address of each of these persons. Section X: Decisions. Members of the board Board members who have not heard all testimony and reviewed all evidence submitted for a particular application or proposalmatter shall not participate in that proceeding. or the decision on that matter. Absent boardBoard members may participate if they have reviewed the audiotapeminutes of the proceedingsmeetings over which the hearing extended, and any evidence submitted. The following rules shall apply to voting on decisions: A. A. The Board need not adopt a written decision at or during an open meeting. Decisions will be made available for public inspection and copying. A.B. Motions shall be made in the affirmative. Page 6 B. C. The Chair has the same voting rights as all Board members and canmay make motions. C. D. A motion and a second shall be required for a motion to have the floor. D. All members E. Each Board member who may participate in a decision and is present arefor the vote is expected to vote unless they haves/he has recused themselvesher or himself. E. F. Abstentions are strongly discouraged and shall not count towards either the affirmative vote of a majority or the negative vote of the minority. F. G. For a motion to pass, it must receive the concurrence of a majority of the entire boardBoard, regardless of how many Board members are present. See 1 V.S.A. § 172; 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a). G. H. The boardBoard shall issue a decision within 45 days of the finalclose of the public hearing on a matter. Section XI: Removal. Upon affirmative vote of a majority vote, the boardBoard may request that the legislative body remove a boardBoard member from the Development Review Board. Board members may be removed for cause by the legislative body upon written charges and after public hearing. 24 V.S.A. § 4460(c). Section XII: Amendments. These rulesRules may be amended at any regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority vote, provided that each Development Review Board member has been presented with a written copy of the proposed amendment(s) at least 24 hours before the meeting at which the vote is taken. Adopted by the Development Review Board on the _____ day of March________________, 2019. _____________________________________________ William Miller, Chair, Development Review Board First adopted August 7, 2012; amended March 529, 2019. Page 1 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Rules of Procedure Section I: Authority. The Development Review Board of the City of South Burlington hereby adopts the following rules of procedure (hereinafter referred to as these Rules) in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §§ 4461, 4464 and 4468 and 1 V.S.A. § 312. Section II: Policy. These Rules are adopted to ensure consistent and fair treatment of applicants, interested persons, and other participants, orderly and efficient development review and public proceedings, and compliance with state and federal law. These Rules shall also ensure that no board member will gain a personal or financial advantage from his or her work for the board, and so that the public trust in municipal government will be preserved. Section III: Definitions. A. Words, terms and phrases specifically defined in the City of South Burlington Conflict of Interest and Ethics Policy for Elected and Appointed Officials, as revised from time to time, shall have the same meaning in these Rules unless another meaning is clearly indicated. B. "Board" means the Development Review Board. C. "Board member" means a regular or alternate member of the Development Review Board. D. “Deliberative session" means a private session of the Board to weigh, examine, and discuss the reasons for and against an act or decision, from which the public is excluded. A deliberative session does not require prior public notice or the taking of minutes and shall not include the taking of evidence or the arguments of parties. The Board may enter deliberative session during a hearing to consider a matter before it. E. "Executive session" means a session of a public body from which the public is excluded, pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 313. The Board may hold an executive session only after motion and affirmative vote of a majority during the course of an open meeting and only to consider the matters permitted by State law. The Board may not take binding action in executive session. F. "Public deliberations" means the weighing, examining, and discussing, in a public proceeding, the reasons for and against an act or decision, but expressly excludes the taking of evidence and the arguments of parties. Section IV: Regular Officers. Page 2 The Development Review Board shall consist of seven (7) regular members. As soon as is practical following the annual City Council appointments, or as needed at other times throughout the year, the Board shall hold an organizational meeting and, by affirmative vote of a majority, elect a Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk. A. The Chair shall preside at all meetings, hearings, and deliberations, decide all points of order or procedure, and appoint Board members to any committee of the Board. The Chair may administer oaths and may request the attendance of witnesses and the production of material germane to any issue under consideration. B. The Vice Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair whenever the Chair is absent, or at the Chair's request. The Clerk shall assume such duties whenever the Chair and the Vice Chair are absent, or at their request. C. It shall be the duty of all Board members to review the minutes and other official records of Board meetings and actions, and correct and ratify these when appropriate and necessary. D. The Clerk shall take minutes of all meetings, unless delegated to staff. Section V: Regular and Special Meetings. The schedule for regular meetings to conduct the business of the Board shall be held at a time and place to be determined by the Development Review Board at their annual reorganizational meeting, or as warranted. The regular meeting schedule shall be posted and available to the public. The Chair may cancel meetings at any time. A. Special meetings may be called by the Chair, provided at least 24 hours-notice is given to each Board member and the time and place of each special meeting is publicly announced at least 24 hours before the meeting. B. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the entire Board. C. Board members may attend and participate in a meeting by electronic or other available means without being physically present at the meeting location as long as such Board members can hear the conduct of the meeting and be heard by persons attending the meeting. 1. Each Board member who attends a meeting by electronic or other means shall identify him or herself when the meeting is convened. 2. If a member is participating by electronic or other means, any vote of the Board that is not unanimous shall be taken by roll call. D. All meetings shall be open to the public unless the Board has entered either deliberative or executive session. E. There shall be an agenda for each meeting, enumerating each item or group of items to be considered. The Chair shall determine the content of the agenda. Page 3 F. All business shall be conducted in the same order as it appears on the agenda, except that by consent of a majority of the Board, the Chair may alter the order of and/or the time allotted to the agenda items to be considered. G. The Chair shall rule on all questions of order or procedure and shall enforce these Rules pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 312(h). Section VI: Role of Advisory Committees. From time to time, the Board may adopt guidelines or procedures describing the process and structure for advisory committees in support of the Development Review Board’s work. Section VII: Public Hearings and Order of Business. Public hearings shall be conducted as quasi-judicial proceedings. Notice of public hearings shall be given in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a), as amended. The Chair shall conduct the hearing in the following manner: A. Open the hearing by reading the warning of the hearing. B. Review the order of events, remind all present that the proceeding will be conducted in an orderly manner, and make copies of these Rules available. C. Request disclosure of conflicts of interest, including any ex parte communications. D. Review the definition of interested persons in 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). The Chair may direct attendees to a written description of interested persons, which will be available in the meeting room. E. Explain that, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a), only an interested person who has participated in this proceeding may take an appeal of any decision issued on this matter. F. Ask all who believe they meet the definition of interested person to identify themselves and to provide contact information. The Board shall make determinations as to party status only in proceedings for appeals of administrative officer decisions. As these Rules do not differentiate between persons with interested person status and those without, anyone seeking to participate in a proceeding may do so, subject to these Rules and those established by the Chair. Members of the public who are not interested persons may offer comment on an application, after recognition by the Chair. The Chair may, at the beginning of a hearing, limit such public comment to a specific amount of time per speaker, The Board shall apply consistent time limits to each recognized speaker. G. Direct the applicant or his/her representative and all interested persons to step forward and take the following oath: I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God (or, under the pains and penalties of perjury). Page 4 H. Invite the applicant or applicant's representative to present such application or proposal. In appeals of administrative officer decisions, invite the administrative officer to explain the decision, the basis therefor, and any other relevant information. I. Invite Board members to ask questions of the applicant or applicant's representative, or, in an appeal, the administrative officer. J. Accept written information presented to the Board. K. Invite interested persons and members of the public to present their information or arguments regarding the application or proposal. L. Invite the applicant or applicant's representative or, in an appeal, the administrative officer, to respond to information presented by others. M. Invite more questions or comments from Board members. N. Invite more questions from interested persons and members of the public. O. Allow final comments or questions from the applicant or applicant’s representative or, in an appeal, the administrative officer, and/or from Board members. P. Upon motion and affirmative vote of a majority, the Chair shall either adjourn the hearing to a date and time certain, or end the proceeding by stating that the hearing on the matter is closed. The Board may also take the action to adjourn the hearing to a date and time certain at any time during the process outlines above, and may break for a deliberative session at any time. Section VIII: Site Visits. Site visits shall be open to the public, but shall not include the taking of evidence, the arguments of parties or any other ex parte communications. Site visits shall be held pursuant to the following conditions: A. If, prior to a hearing, the Chair determines that a site visit will be necessary, the site visit shall meet public notice requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a). B. If necessary, the Board may recess a hearing to conduct a site visit at a property which is the subject of an application before the Board. C. If necessary, the Board may adjourn a hearing to a date and time certain to conduct a site visit at a property which is the subject of an application before the Board. D. The minutes of the proceeding shall reflect that the Board held a site visit, who attended the site visit, and the nature and duration of the site visit. Section IX: Service List. Page 5 Staff shall create a list of all individuals who participated in a hearing. The list shall include all those who offered, through oral or written testimony, evidence, comment and/or a statement of concern related to the matter that is the subject of the hearing. All decisions of the Board shall be mailed to those on the list. The list shall include: A. The names of those who participated in the proceedings. B. The nature and content of each such person’s participation. C. The mailing address of each of these persons. Section X: Decisions. Board members who have not heard all testimony and reviewed all evidence submitted for a particular matter shall not participate in that proceeding or the decision on that matter. Absent Board members may participate if they have reviewed the minutes of the meetings over which the hearing extended, and any evidence submitted. The following rules shall apply to voting on decisions: A. The Board need not adopt a written decision at or during an open meeting. Decisions will be made available for public inspection and copying. B. Motions shall be made in the affirmative. C. The Chair has the same voting rights as all Board members and may make motions. D. A motion and a second shall be required for a motion to have the floor. E. Each Board member who may participate in a decision and is present for the vote is expected to vote unless s/he has recused her or himself. F. Abstentions are strongly discouraged and shall not count towards either the affirmative vote of a majority or the negative vote of the minority. G. For a motion to pass, it must receive the concurrence of a majority of the entire Board, regardless of how many Board members are present. See 1 V.S.A. § 172; 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a). H. The Board shall issue a decision within 45 days of the close of the public hearing on a matter. Section XI: Removal. Upon affirmative vote of a majority, the Board may request that the legislative body remove a Board member from the Development Review Board. Board members may be removed for cause by the legislative body upon written charges and after public hearing. 24 V.S.A. § 4460(c). Section XII: Amendments. Page 6 These Rules may be amended at any regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority, provided that each Development Review Board member has been presented with a written copy of the proposed amendment(s) at least 24 hours before the meeting at which the vote is taken. Adopted by the Development Review Board on the _____ day of ________________, 2019. _____________________________________________ William Miller, Chair, Development Review Board First adopted August 7, 2012; amended March 29, 2019.