HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04_SD-20-37_105 Swift St_Ninety Nine Swift St_PP FP
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐20‐37 105 Swift Street Preliminary and Final Plat Application
DATE: December 1, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
Ninety Nine Swift Street Associates, LLC has submitted preliminary and final plat application #SD‐20‐37 to
create a planned unit development of two lots at 99 Swift Street and 105 Swift Street and construct a three
story, 6,800 sf, 20‐unit mixed rate residential building, and associated site improvements on the lot at 105 Swift
Street, 105 Swift Street.
The Board reviewed the application on November 17, 2020 and continued the hearing to allow Staff research
and Board deliberation on several outstanding issues. These topics are enumerated below.
Access
The applicant is proposing to add a shared curb cut at 99 Swift Street for the purpose of accessing both 99 Swift
Street and 105 Swift Street, and to convert the existing access from the Farrell Park driveway to ingress only.
The applicant represented that the Fire Chief expressed a desire to retain the existing access from the shared
driveway with Farrell Park. The applicant’s traffic study concluded that the existing access is located in the
“operational area” of the Swift Street/Farrell St intersection and that such an access creates adverse impacts on
the capacity and safety of the adjacent street. Staff notes for the 11/17 hearing recommended that if the
applicant does retain the Farrell Park curb cut as ingress only, the geometry should be narrowed to reduce the
instances of individuals using it to exit the site. Staff considers that “one way” signage and pavement markings
would be more effective if combined with a physical reduction in the drive width or radius. The applicant
testified that the entire geometry was needed for fire apparatus access.
Staff had a conversation with the Fire Chief on 11/19, who indicated there could be two ways of
retaining/achieving fire access.
If the existing curb cut from the Farrell Park entry is retained, then the current width would need to be
maintained. Mountable curbing, installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, however, to give visual
cues as outlined above.
Alternatively, the Fire Chief indicated fire access could be retained/achieved entirely from the new
Swift Street driveway, so long as parking areas allow for sufficient turning geometry. In this instance,
the Fire Chief indicated that he would be comfortable with the existing curb cut onto the Farrell Park
entry being closed entirely.
In subsequent discussions, Staff confirmed that the Director of Public Works and Recreation and Parks Director
would support the removal of the access via the Farrell Park entrance.
The Director of Public Works confirmed that he would be amenable to taking over maintenance of the entire
Farrell Park access drive, the first 100‐ft of which is currently the responsibility of the applicant according to the
#SD‐20‐35
2
original 1989 site plan approval, and supports the improved circulation of the Swift/Farrell Street intersection
resulting from moving the properties’ access to the east.
The Recreation and Parks Director indicated that removing the curb cut would better define Farrell Park access
at this entry, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists, as the drive is a shared vehicular access and recreation
path segment.
1. Staff recommends the Board require this access to be physically removed as part of this Planned Unit
Development. Staff considers this a viable option and a significant improvement to Farrell Park. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plans to show this alternative and/or invoke
technical review of such a condition prior to closing the hearing. Staff considers such an alternative should
involve the retention of a small apron for turning which extends to their property line, establishing a
continuous tangent on the City property, and stabilizing the resulting green space in a manner consistent
with lawn areas as defined in the project plans.
Landscaping
On November 17, a number of issues pertaining to landscaping were discussed.
In general, the landscaping budget at the time of application did not meet the minimum requirement. LDR
13.06 provides the following relevant information pertaining to required landscaping.
13.06A Purpose. The City of South Burlington recognizes the importance of trees, vegetation, and
well‐planned green spaces in bringing nature into the city and using these as a resource in promoting
the health, safety, and welfare of city residents through improved drainage, water supply recharge,
flood control, air quality, sun control, shade, and visual relief. Landscaping and screening shall be
required for all uses subject to site plan and planned unit development review. Street tree planting
shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision or planned unit development. In evaluating
landscaping, screening, and street tree plan requirements, the Development Review Board shall
promote the retention of existing trees while encouraging the use of recommended plant species.
13.06G Landscaping Standards
(2) Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan.
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree
planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced… The landscaping budget shall be
prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer.
The required minimum landscaping budget for the project is $31,380 based on an estimated building cost of
$2,388,000. With modifications presented on 11/17, the applicant is currently proposing the following
landscaping elements.
Trees $13,625
Shrubs $12,390
Perennials $5,490
6’ high wooden
privacy fence
$6,800
In the last year, the Board acknowledged that for already‐developed and ‐landscaped sites where additional
building square footage requiring minimum landscaping is proposed, it can be difficult to find locations for the
#SD‐20‐35
3
required minimum landscaping if it is required to be provided in trees and shrubs. In those cases, the Board
interpreted 13.06G(3) above to allow other improvements to meet the required minimum landscaping budget.
Accordingly, the Board has approved a range of site elements including sculptures, decorative pavers, benches,
decorative grasses and perennials. Staff supports this interpretation where it does not diminish the purpose of
13.06A to create well landscaped sites. As noted on 11/17, Staff recommends the Board limit the amount of
perennials and grasses which are allowed to meet the required minimum landscaping budget. Since the
Board’s recent interpretation of 13.06G(3), some plans including perennials and grasses have been constructed,
and Staff has found that perennials and grasses are difficult to track as required under 13.06H.
Staff does not support the inclusion of a 6‐foot high wooden privacy fence as contributing to the minimum
required landscaping budget. Without considering the value of perennials or fence, the applicant’s landscaping
plan is deficient by $5,365. Staff considers if the existing trees to be preserved are taken into consideration,
the proposed landscaping plan would result in a well landscaped site.
In both 13.06A and 13.06G, the Board is directed to preserve existing vegetation. The LDRs go so far as to say
that the Board may grant credit for existing trees. There is an 18‐inch oak tree (identified at sketch plan as a
22‐inch oak tree) located near the northwest corner of the property. At sketch, the applicant designed the
sidewalk to avoid direct impacts to this tree, and the City arborist commented that the sidewalk was within the
root zone. Also at sketch, the Director of Public Works asked why the sidewalk was jogged around the tree,
indicating that a jogged sidewalk made plowing more difficult. The applicant presented with this application a
design which removed the oak tree. On November 17, the Board asked for more information on the City’s
recommendation. Staff coordinated with both the arborist and Director of Public Works who indicated that the
tree should be saved. The City arborist offers the following additional recommendations.
Due to the proximity of the sidewalk to the tree, I’m concerned about both compaction and
severing/wounding of the main order roots which could predispose the tree to root decay, decline and
loss of stability. In general, tree protection zones are set up so that construction activities are excluded
from an area of 1 foot for every inch of tree diameter i.e. 22 ft for a 22 inch diameter tree. I don’t have
all the specs for using the geo grid but my sense is that you would have to install the grid and build up
the base rather than excavate it. It’s possible that you might be able to do some limited excavation
utilizing an air spade to avoid root damage and backfill with structural soil.
Staff considers that since additional precautions must be taken within 18‐22 feet (depending on size) of the oak
in order to preserve it, the Board may wish to grant credit for the additional cost of those construction
techniques, and has asked the applicant to provide an estimate of the additional cost. Though the entire cost
of preserving the tree may not be appropriate for inclusion, Staff recommends the Board take this cost into
consideration when determining whether the required minimum landscaping value is provided.
On 11/17, the Board recommended the applicant provide an estimate of the cost of proposed decorative
hardscape measures as those elements may be allowed towards meeting the required minimums.
2. Staff recommends the Board determine what of the above discussed elements they will allow to be
considered as contributing to the required minimum landscaping value. Once that determination is made,
Staff recommends the Board compute the proposed allowable landscaping costs, incorporating information
to be supplied by the applicant, to determine if the required minimum landscaping is provided.
As discussed on 11/17, the applicant is proposing to provide plantings on the eastern side of the site to support
wildlife connectivity between Farrell Park and Eastwoods, and has include a note on their landscaping plan
indicating that the understory in this area will be allowed to regenerate. Staff recommends the Board include a
condition requiring that a line be added to the plans indicating the limit of the wildlife connectivity area and
that the understory in this area be allowed to regenerate.
#SD‐20‐35
4
The City Arborist offers the following additional comments on the revised landscaping plan.
I noticed that both Tilia cordata and Syringa reticulata are both listed as clump in the size column of the
Plant Schedule. Both of these are usually single stem. Other than that it looks OK.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plant schedule to require these plants to be
installed at 2.5‐3” diameter as required for shade trees, and if necessary, also update the schedule of values.
Stormwater
On 11/17, there were three significant outstanding issues pertaining to the design of the stormwater
management system:
First, the applicant had not demonstrated that the system could handle the 1‐inch water quality
stormwater as required by the VSMM.
Second, the applicant had not demonstrated consideration for the upcoming requirements of the
3‐9050 permit, the first phase of which goes into effect December 1, 2020. As a property with an
expired permit, the 3‐9050 may apply.
Third, it appeared that the filtration system (which requires groundwater to be below the bottom of
the system to function) was proposed to be located below the groundwater table.
Staff from Planning and Zoning and the City Stormwater Section have worked with the applicant to address
these issues, and as of this writing (11/23), the applicant has addressed the first issue. The applicant has
proposed an underdrain to address groundwater, but Staff has outstanding concerns about the computations
and design.
3. Staff considers there are two potential approaches to addressing the outstanding issue related to
groundwater. The Board could (a) require the applicant to conclusively determine soil and groundwater
conditions prior to closing the hearing, or (b) close the hearing and issue a decision with the following
conditions.
“The applicant must either demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Stormwater Section prior to
issuance of a zoning permit that the stormwater treatment system can function as designed through
the provision of site‐specific soils and groundwater data, or apply for zoning permits for the project in
two phases. In the phased approach, the applicant may obtain a zoning permit for the site work,
including construction of the stormwater system, but may not obtain a zoning permit for the building
until they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Stormwater Section that the stormwater
management system will function as designed through the provision of site‐specific soils and
groundwater data. If significant alterations to the stormwater system, such as changing the type, are
required, a site plan amendment will be required prior to proceeding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Development Review Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner