HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SP-20-20_64 Aiken St_South Village_Lot 4AStaff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐20‐20_64 Aiken St_South Village_Lot 4A_2020‐05‐19.doc
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 13,2020
Plans received: March 31, 2020
64 Aiken Street
Site Plan Application #SP‐20‐020
Meeting Date: May 19, 2020
Owner
South Village Communities, LLC
PO Box 2286
South Burlington, VT 05407
Engineer
CEA
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0007‐00064
SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential
Location Map
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP‐20‐020 of South Village Communities, LLC to construct a twelve‐unit
three story multifamily building with underground parking on an existing 0.53 acre lot (Lot 4A),
64 Aiken Street.
PROJECT HISTORY
The applicant previously received approval SP‐11‐41 to construct a substantially similar building
on this lot. That approval expired. The master plan approval for this project, MP‐05‐02 and
subsequent amendments, does not establish a set of applicable standards for this project,
therefore the current LDR, with amendments effective November 29, 2019, applies to this
project. However the current LDR is not substantially different from the LDR in existence when
MP‐05‐02 was approved. The master plan does establish a set of dimensional standards
applicable to multifamily homes:
‐ Multi‐family maximum building coverage of 50%
‐ Multi‐family maximum lot coverage of 65%
‐ Multi‐family front yard setback of 10’
‐ Multi‐family rear yard setback of 5’
The applicant is concurrently applying for site plan approval #SP‐20‐021 for a similar building at
96 Aiken Street, and incidental grading on adjacent Lot 1 under MS‐20‐03. These staff
comments incorporate discussion of issues applicable to all three applications, while staff
comments for those applications focus only on issues specific to their respective lot.
CONTEXT
The applicant has recently applied for and received approval under MS‐20‐02 for an affordability
plan to construct 26 affordable units throughout the South Village development. None of those
affordable units are proposed to be located in the buildings at 64 or 96 Aiken Street nor is
anything in this application inconsistent with the requirements of MS‐20‐02.
This lot is presently undeveloped. Subdivision is not proposed.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner
have reviewed the plans submitted on March 31, 2020 and offer the following comments.
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
SEQ‐NR amended by MP‐05‐02 Required Proposed
@ Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 23,087 sf
Max. Building Coverage 50 % 36.3 %
X Max. Overall Coverage 65 % 72 %
Min. Front Setback 10 ft. 10 ft.
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
Min. Side Setback 20 ft. 30 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 5 ft. 24 ft
X Max. Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. 43 ft.
Max. Stories 4 3
Max. Stories below roofline 3 3
X Max. Stories facing street 2 3
@ approved as part of MP‐05‐02
X Non‐compliant,
For coverage, see note 1.
For height and stories, see 9.06A below.
1. The applicant has indicated they would like to provide an overall coverage of 72%. The
master plan approval increased the allowable lot coverage for multifamily buildings from
35% to 65%. The Board may choose to grant a further waiver of overall coverage to 72% in
this case if the overall approved coverage of 13.9% (from MP‐05‐02) and the SEQ‐NR
coverage of 35% allowed in the LDR is not exceeded. Staff recommends the Board grant
this waiver if the applicant demonstrates that the other coverage limits are not exceed.
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts. The following
standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:
A. Height. See Article 3.07.
3.07C Where a structure has been approved as part of a master plan prior to January
9, 2012 with a height greater than that permitted in these Regulations, such
approved maximum height shall remain in effect.
Staff considers this project contemplated two three‐story multifamily buildings on Aiken
Street at the master plan stage of review, therefore the proposed height and number of
stories are allowed per this exemption.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize
opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining
parcels
Open space areas are located throughout the development. Staff considers this application
does not affect overall compliance with this criterion.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent
with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned
development at the average densities provided in this bylaw.
No changes to approved building lots are proposed. Staff considers this application does
not affect overall compliance with this criterion.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing
management shall be established by the applicant.
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
No changes to approved open spaces or their management are proposed. Staff considers
this application does not affect overall compliance with this criterion.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and
after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or
dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making
this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project
will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the provided plans on April 28, 2020 and offers the
following comments pertaining to erosion control.
1. On the EPSC Plan, the Stabilized Construction Entrance appears to be at the side of
the property for trucks entering the site, not leaving. Additionally, the note reads
that the contractor can install a stabilized construction entrance “or sweep Aiken
Street daily”. It is requested that the applicant correct these notes in the ESPC Plan
C3.0 to require a Stabilized Construction Entrance at any point that construction
vehicles will be leaving the site.
2. The applicant is requested to include a note regarding the erosion matting that
includes “only woven and interlinked products are approved for use in temporary
RECP applications.” As per Vermont DEC regulations.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the
City Stormwater Section. Staff considers these comments can be incorporated as
conditions of approval.
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland,
stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is
aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other
than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail
or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged.
No natural features are adjacent to this site. Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged
through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited
to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer
areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and
infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such
as but not limited to community‐supported agriculture.
No changes to agricultural uses are proposed. Staff considers this application does not
affect overall compliance with this criterion.
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development
Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific
development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the
location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not
limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City
requirement, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation,
and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
3. Since this project was required under the master plan approval to obtain individual site
plan approval, Staff assumes no water allocation was obtained for this particular
building as part of Phase I approvals. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocations as a condition of approval.
approvals issues more than 10 years ago are no longer valid.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and
lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of
such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
The applicant is proposing to extend the sidewalk along the project’s side of Aiken
Street along the subject property.
Stormwater is proposed to be treated off‐site consistent with the approved master plan.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner
that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a
specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been
approved by the City Council.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that
adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation
including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water
flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 4/22/2020 and offers the following comments.
For FMO its access and water. Hydrant on the same side of the street as the two twelve‐
plexs, set up properly 1 hydrant and serve both FDCs. Not sure our turning template
will make the curves to access the west side of the bldgs.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the fire
chief prior to closing the meeting.
D. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management
strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to
create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and
emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the
Development Review Board 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.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such
services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and
maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent
streets and neighborhoods shall apply.
Lots and street layout South Village were approved as part of the Master Plan and
subsequent Phase I Final Plat. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with these
criteria are proposed.
9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards
The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated
in this Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
No changes affecting street, block or lot patterns are proposed.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local)
are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through
movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
No changes are proposed.
(2) Sidewalks.
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an
additional minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating
the sidewalk from the street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.
Staff considers these criteria met.
(3) – (6) Pertain to roadway design and are not applicable
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street.
Primary entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street.
Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special
design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐
five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the
south.
The applicant has provided building elevations. The building features a prominent
single entry consistent with large apartment buildings. Units have porches fully
enclosed by railings facing the street. The applicant has not attempted to
demonstrate compliance with the translucence criterion.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to calculate how much translucent
windows and surfaces are oriented to the south so that the Board may evaluate
compliance with this criterion.
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and
variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified,
but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front
porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to
the street are encouraged.
These two buildings are proposed to be mirror images. As noted above, they differ
from the multifamily buildings constructed elsewhere in South Village by the number
of doors. They also are located closer to the street than other multifamily buildings.
Balconies are provided.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider this criterion met.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the
street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from
the back of sidewalk.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the
front setbacks.
The main building is set back approximately 20 feet from the back of sidewalk,
while balconies are set back approximately 13 feet. Staff considers this criterion
met.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that
faces a front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance
must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single
or two‐family dwelling.
(a) – (c) These criteria are not applicable to multifamily homes.
(d) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod,
colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and
developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within
neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical
units.
Staff considers the number of units and location of these buildings supportive of
this criterion.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive
Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the
stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
These types of buildings on Aiken Street were contemplated in the approved master plan.
Staff considers compliance with this criterion unchanged.
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site,
from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian
movement, and adequate parking areas.
Planting is discussed under 14.07D. 27 parking spaces are proposed while 21 are
required. Staff considers accommodations for pedestrian movement to be adequate.
The City Planner reviewed the plans on May 4, 2020 and noted that the design of these
buildings differs from other multifamily buildings in south Village. Instead of one entry
per unit, they use a single entry. They note this style doesn’t seem to be as in keeping
with the South Village aesthetic as the other multifamily buildings.
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider this criterion met.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building
facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the
purposes of this subsection.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the
height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or
anticipated adjoining buildings.
Height is discussed above under SEQ standard 9.06A.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of
common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture,
form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create
attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles.
See 14.06B(1) above.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and
to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the
proposed structures.
The applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the front of the space between the
two proposed buildings to facilitate the entrance to the subsurface garage. The
applicant has called out 42” safety fencing for the top of this retaining wall but Staff
has not been able to locate a related detail.
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a detail for this fence to
allow this criterion to be evaluated.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for
provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to
reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for
emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area.
The property uses a shared alley to access the building. Staff considers no reservation of
land necessary.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service
connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall
be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
All utilities are proposed to be underground.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide screening for the large
existing transformer located to the rear of the building as viewed from the recreation
path on Lot 1.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the
enclosure(s).
A dumpster is proposed to be located between the two buildings and is proposed to be
screened and located approximately 8 feet lower than the existing road. Staff considers
this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping
and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The
total cost of the is estimated at $2,335,500 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping
budget is $30,855 as calculated below.
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
Minimum
Landscaping Budget
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $18,355
Minimum Landscaping $ $30,855
Proposed Landscaping $24,724
The City Arborist indicated on April 28, 2020 in an email to staff that there are no
comments on the proposed plantings.
10. Staff considers the Board must require the applicant to provide the minimum amount of
required landscaping
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize
site disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic
functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces
and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is
reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards
contained within Article 12.
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
As mentioned above, the City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on April 28, 2020
and offers the following comments.
1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as
stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC).
2. As the project proposes to create more than one‐half acre of impervious surface,
the project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs.
3. According to the 2017 VSMM, grass channels are not identified as an acceptable
practice for meeting WQTS. Are the treatment ponds fully constructed at this
time? Are they constructed to the 2017 standards? The applicant is requested to
provide further clarification regarding the previously permitted treatment
practices. Is the grass channel installed? Please provide an updated Hydrology
Plan.
4. It is requested that the Board include a condition requiring the regular
maintenance of all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
5. The applicant is asked to provide clarification on the elevation of the Recreation
Path at the location of the discharge pipe for CB#1 (invert 362.2’). Will the path
be impacted by the discharge of the pipe? Based on limited contour information
and elevations given on C2.0, it appears that it will flood the path.
6. The applicant is requested to provide further detail regarding the outlet of any
possible parking garage drainage/ sumps and roof drainage.
7. Has the applicant completed a downstream analysis for the 25‐year storm event
in accordance with §12.03.E(3) of the City’s Land Development Regulations?
Please provide details with the application.
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City
Stormwater Section prior to closing the hearing.
2. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards
for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
12. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant why the curb cut on Lot 4A does
not appear to align with the proposed driveway.
13. Curb radii vary from 20 feet on the north to 26 feet on the south side of the south driveway.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to reduce curb radius to 20‐feet at all
four locations.
Staff considers the other dimensional standards of 15.12 to be met.
OTHER
Lighting
The applicant has submitted photometric drawing showing compliance with LDR Appendix A but
has not submitted lighting cut sheets. Pursuant to Section 13.07(A) of the Land Development
Regulations, all exterior lighting must be shielded and downcast to prevent light from spilling
onto adjacent properties and rights‐of‐way.
Staff Comments
#SP‐20‐020
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
Bicycle Parking
The applicant has provided 4 short term bicycle parking spaces and 12 long‐term spaces in
compliance with the requirements of 13.14. Staff considers this criterion met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address
the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner