HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 12A_SD-19-16_0 Market St_Snyder Braverman_Sk_SC #SD‐19‐16
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐16_0 Market St_Snyder Braverman_Sketch_2019‐
06‐04.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: June 29, 2019
Plans received: May 13, 2019
0 Market Street
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐16
Meeting date: July 2, continued from June 4, 2019
Owner
South Burlington City Center, LLC
P.O. Box 2204
South Burlington, VT 05407
Applicant
Snyder Braverman Development Co., LLC
4076 Shelburne Rd, Suite 6
Shelburne, VT 05482
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0450‐00002
Form Based Code Transect Zone 5, Transect Zone 4
21.74 acres
Engineer
Latitudes Land Surveying
1 Mill Street, Suite 169
Burlington, VT
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Continued sketch plan application #SD‐19‐16 of Snyder Braverman Development Properties, LLC to
subdivide an existing 21.74 acre lot into five lots of 0.42 acres (Lot M2), 1.89 acres (Lot M1), 1.35 acres
(Garden Street), 5.86 acres (Lot N) and 12.22 acres (Lot L), for the purpose of constructing a project
#SD‐19‐16
2
south of Garden Streeton on Lots M1 and M2 which will be reviewed under separate site plan
application, 0 Market Street.
CONTEXT
At the June 4, 2019 hearing, the applicant requested the Board continue the meeting. The Board continued
the meeting to July 2, 2019 without taking any testimony. Since no discussion occurred, Staff has provided
the same information for the Board as was provided at the June 4 hearing date. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into five lots in preparation for development
on two lots (Lots M1 and M2) near the center of the existing parcel and creation of a public right of way
bisecting the existing parcel into a north half and a south half. The owner plans to further subdivide the
larger remaining lots in the future. The development of the subdivided 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.
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 Lots M1 and M2 via a driveway on the east side of Lot M2 which will be
shared with the future development to the east of Lot M2. Curb cuts on Garden Street in the T4 are
limited to a minimum 400‐ft spacing on the proposed right of way. The centerline of the access drive
appears to be located approximately 450 feet from the Market Street right of way. With this location,
Staff notes the applicant will not be able to propose an additional curb cut on the south side of Garden
Street unless it qualifies as a street. Staff considers that without an overall plan, it is not possible to
evaluate whether this proposed access will present a problem for future development of the remaining
parcel.
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss the curb cut standards with the Applicant.
B) OFFICIAL MAP
The Proposed City right of way for Garden Street is shown on the official map. Staff has no concerns with
this project’s compliance with the official map. Staff notes there are other roads within the proposed lot
shown on the official map. Pursuant to 24 VSA 4421, Official Map, planned public facilities must be
accommodated in a proposed development.
#SD‐19‐16
3
In a recent decision, #MS‐19‐02, the Administrative Officer denied an application for stormwater facilities
to be constructed on the western segment of Lot L. The reason for the denial is that pursuant to 24 VSA
4421 the applicant failed to accommodate planned public facilities. That action has triggered the City
Council’s obligation to consider whether to acquire a planned roadway segment. That decision is pending.
For the purposes of this Sketch Plan application, staff considers that the proposed subdivision does not at
this time appear to preclude the future development of other planned streets within the parcel and
therefore considers it not necessary for the Board to require dedication of the other streets at this stage.
Staff recommends, however, that the Board revisit this subject at the Preliminary/Final Plat stage as the
City Council’s determination and other planned facilities reviewed in application #MS‐19‐02 may have
relevance to the Board at that time.
2. Staff recommends the Board include a condition in the final subdivision approval that requires
subdivision and identification of street type at the time of subdivision of Lot N, north of Garden Street.
C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
Subdivision standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, traffic,
visual compatibility with the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan, and public infrastructure.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the
findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City
staff or consultants.
The applicant has not provided any information about the planned use of Lots M1 and M2 therefore it is
not possible to evaluate whether the proposed subdivision will result in unreasonable congestion of
adjacent roads.
3. Acknowledging that site plan review of the buildings themselves will be conducted administratively,
Staff recommends that in order to evaluate compliance with Subdivision Criterion #3, the Board discuss
with the applicant what the anticipated use of the lots will be.
Roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
The applicant has proposed a 64‐foot ROW for the future Garden Street. The approved Garden Street
cross section includes two drive lanes, two parking lanes, street trees, sidewalk on each side of the street,
stormwater treatment and a separated bike path. This application proposes to discontinue the existing
dead end of Garden Street between Healthy Living Market and Trader Joe’s. The roadway alignment
appears to jog near the transition point, with parking being transitioned out approximately 100 ft from
the edge of the property.
4. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe the proposed alignment at the transition
point, and discuss the configuration of the on‐street parking.
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.
#SD‐19‐16
4
D) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
Staff notes it appears the applicant is proposing one building to span two lots. Since the last discussion of
this topic, Staff has researched whether this is allowable and has not identified any barriers to allowing
one building to cross two lots, though Staff notes the lot will be considered one lot for taxation purposes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner