HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10_2019-05-07 DRB Minutes Draft
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.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 MAY 2019
PAGE 2
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
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 MAY 2019
PAGE 3
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.”
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 MAY 2019
PAGE 4
Mr. Miller said he would 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.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 MAY 2019
PAGE 5
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.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 MAY 2019
PAGE 6
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.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 MAY 2019
PAGE 7
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 Juen.
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.
_____________________________________,Clerk
____________________________, Date