The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 08_SD-21-25_255 Kennedy Dr_Lots 10 11 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: #SD-21-25 255 Kennedy Drive Lots 10 & 11 – Final Plat Application DATE: February 2, 2022 Development Review Board meeting The Board held a hearing on this application on November 16, 2021 and January 4, 2022. Staff has prepared a draft decision, but there are number of topics for which Staff does not believe the Board has arrived at a final conclusion. The draft decision includes those topics as red numbered items, similar to staff comments. The Board should affirm they have the information they need to reach a conclusion on these and any other items members feel to be outstanding prior to closing the hearing. The Board has up to 45 days after a hearing is closed to issue a decision. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, P.E. Development Review Planner #SD-21-25 1 1 of 27 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING O’BRIEN FARM ROAD, LLC 255 KENNEDY DRIVE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-25 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-21-25 of Green Mountain Development Group, Inc for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sf of office space. The phase consists of two (2) four story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 10 and 11 with a total of 94 dwelling units, of which up to 79 are proposed inclusionary units, and two city streets, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 16, 2021, January 4, 2022, and February 2, 2022. Tom Getz, Carolyn Orben, Andrew Gill and Evan Langfeldt represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above-mentioned public hearings and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: WORKING DOCUMENT KEY RED = THINGS THAT THE BOARD DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON [UNNUMBERED RED ITEMS WILL BE RESOLVED BY ADDRESSING NUMBERED RED ITEMS] FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The project consists of final plat application #SD-21-25 of Green Mountain Development Group, Inc for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sf of office space. The phase consists of two (2) four story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 10 and 11 with a total of 94 dwelling units, of which up to 79 are proposed inclusionary units, and two city streets, 255 Kennedy Drive. 2. The project is located in the Residential 12 Zoning District, the R1 PRD, and the Transit Overlay District. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is O’Brien Farm Road, LLC 4. The application was received on October 15, 2021. 5. The Project received master plan approval in 2016 (#MP-16-03). The multi-family/mixed use portion of the project received preliminary plat approval #SD-20-16 which included 392 units in six buildings, of which 49 units +/-5% were required to be inclusionary, and 3,500 sf of commercial space. The Board later approved preliminary plat #SD-21-13 to allow the final plat submission for the project approved in #SD-20-16 to be submitted in phases. 6. The prior phase of #MP-16-03 approved 118 units in single family and two-family homes (#SD- 17-17). 7. The plans submitted consist of: Sheet No: Plan Description: Prepared By: Last Revised Date: C-1 Overall Site Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C2 Site Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C2A Signage Pavement Markings Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 #SD-21-25 2 2 of 27 C3 Site Plan Krebs & Lansing 01/04/2022 C4, C5 Site Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C6 Gravel Wetlands Plans Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C7 Watershed Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C8 Soil Restoration Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C9 Stormwater Maintenance Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 C10 Lot Cross Sections Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 D-1 & D-2 Civil Details Krebs & Lansing 09/24/2021 D-3, D-4, & D-5 Civil Water Details Krebs & Lansing 09/24/2021 D-6 Civil Sanitary Details Krebs & Lansing 9/24/2021 D-7, D-8, & D-9 Civil Storm Details Krebs & Lansing 09/24/2021 D-10 & D- 11 EPSC Details Krebs & Lansing 09/24/2021 D-12 Site Electric Details Krebs & Lansing 09/24/2021 EPSC1, EPSC2, & EPSC3 Pre Construction Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 EPSC4- EPSC7 Construction Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 EPSC8 Stabilization Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 L100 Streetscape Plan Wagner Hodgson 01/02/2022 L101 Streetscape Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2021 L102 Landscape Plan Wagner Hodgson 01/02/2022 L200 Landscape Details Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2021 L201 Planting Details Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2021 K1-1 Interim Kennedy Dr. Plan & Section Lamoureux & Dickinson 12/08/2021 K2 Traffic Signal Plan Lamoureux & Dickinson 11/22/2021 K3 Cantilever Pole Section Lamoureux & Dickinson 11/22/2021 K4 Cantilever Pole Details Lamoureux & Dickinson 08/24/2021 K5 Traffic Signal Specs Lamoureux & Dickinson 08/24/2021 K6 Traffic Control Stationary Sign Lamoureux & Dickinson 08/24/2021 K7 Traffic Control Lane Closures Lamoureux & Dickinson 08/24/2021 K8 Traffic Control Plan Pedestrian Lamoureux & Dickinson 08/24/2021 PH-1 Phasing Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/20/2021 PL-1 Final Plat Krebs & Lansing 09/24/2021 PL-2 Easement Plan Krebs & Lansing 10/12/2021 SL-1 Exterior Lighting Point Calculation Apex Lighting Solutions 12/27/2021 SL-1B Lighting Plan Apex Lighting Solutions 09/16/2021 Parking Lot Light Pole Cut Sheet Lyte poles 12/07/2021 Street Light Fixture Spec Sheet signify 12/07/2021 A-2.1 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.1 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.2 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 #SD-21-25 3 3 of 27 A-2.2 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.3 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.3 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.4 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.4 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.5 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.5 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.6 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-2.6 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-3.1 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-3.1 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-3.2 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-3.2 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-4.1 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-4.1 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-5.1 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-5.1 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-5.2 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-5.2 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-6.0 Lot 10 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 A-6.0 Lot 11 Hillside Lofts G4 Design Studios 12/09/2021 CONTEXT #SD-20-16 preliminarily approved the following buildings. Lot # # of Units Commercial SF Max Height (# of habitable stories) 10 44 0 55’ (4) 11 44 0 56’ (4) 12 48 (inclusionary) 0 62’ (4) 13 118 3,500 58’ (4) 14 33 0 52’ (3) 15 103 0 57’ (4) It also included the following condition pertaining to phasing: The applicant must obtain a zoning permit for the building containing the inclusionary units no later than the fourth building, but may obtain a zoning permit for the fifth building while the inclusionary building is under construction. The applicant must receive a certificate of occupancy for the building containing the inclusionary units prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the sixth and final building. This application proposes to modify the number of units on Lots 10 and 11 to 47 each, and for up to 79 of the units of the total 94 proposed to be inclusionary. The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, and Residential 1-PRD Zoning Districts. The project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts Zone 1 and Zone 3 as well as the Transit Overlay District. The portion of the property that is the subject of this application includes a small area in the R1-PRD zoning district though the majority is in the Residential 12 district. At preliminary plat, the Board found the #SD-21-25 4 4 of 27 requirements of the R12 zoning district may be applied to the involved area within the R1-PRD zoning district as allowed under 3.03C Split Lots. Therefore this decision only provides analysis of the project under the R12 zoning district standards. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS R12 District Required Proposed, Lot 10 Proposed Lot 11  Min. Lot Size, Multifamily 6,000 sf/unit N/A, overall density approved in master plan  Max. Building Coverage1 35% 24.6% 19.5%  Max. Overall Coverage1 50% 67.7% 61.3% @ Min. Front Setback 6 ft 12 ft 12 ft  Min. Side Setback 10 ft 79 ft 95 ft  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft N/A N/A # Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 55 ft 56 ft 1. building and overall coverage are reviewed on a PUD-wide basis as approved in master plan. See additional notes below under “Lot Coverage.”  Standard met @ The Board approved waiver of the front setback from 20-ft waiver to 6-ft as part of #MP-16-03. # The Board preliminarily approved a waiver to allow the proposed heights in #SD-20-16, based on the provision of high quality, varied and complimentary architecture for all buildings and landscaping. This finding has become slightly more difficult to implement given the Board’s subsequent approval of a phased final plat. As more phases are approved, the definition of “varied and complementary” will necessarily narrow. If the applicant’s final proposals remain consistent with the elevations provided at preliminary plat, subsequent phases will continue to be eligible for the preliminarily approved height waivers. The Board approves the heights as proposed on Lots 10 and 11. Lot Size The applicant has noted in their cover memo that they are proposing to reconfigure the previously approved property boundaries. The applicant confirmed that this refers to the same reconfiguration proposed at preliminary plat, and merely represents the finalization of the proposed (and preliminarily approved) property line adjustment. All lots are proposed to be above the minimum lot size for the zoning district. Lot Coverage The master plan approved maximum overall coverage of 50%, and a maximum building coverage of 35%. 15.02A(4)(b) prohibits the site coverage in each zoning district from exceeding the maximum allowable in that zoning district. Coverages for the involved zoning districts are as follows. District Max Lot Coverage Provided Lot Coverage Max Building Coverage Provided Building Coverage R12 60% 45.0% 40% 21.0% C1-LR 70% 62.8% 40% 35.7% R1-PRD 25% 12.1% 15% 10.7% This phase involves only lands within the R12 zoning district and lands for which the Board has allowed the standards of the R12 to apply under 3.03C Split Lots. The applicant has indicated that lot coverage in #SD-21-25 5 5 of 27 the R12 is proposed to be 35.5%, which is the same value presented at preliminary plat. Staff considers this criterion met. Setbacks The master plan approved a front setback waiver to 6 feet for building greater than or equal to five stories and 20 feet for buildings less than five stories. The buildings on Lots 10 and 11 will have four habitable stories, and one level of partially subsurface parking. The definition of “story” defines a parking level as a story if the level above is an average of 4-feet above average preconstruction grade or the parking level is exposed more than 12 feet at any point. Based on calculations provided by the applicant, both proposed buildings are considered to have five stories. Phasing The applicant indicated that due to the intention for the majority of the units to be inclusionary, and the inherent uncertainty in funding sources for inclusionary units, they are requesting that Lots 10 and 11 be approved as separate phases without a required order. Preliminary plat amendment #SD-21-13 found that the applicant could construct each lot as a separate phase, though the first final plat application (this one) was required to include the final design of both roadways. Further, the Board reserved the right to permit the applicant to construct the roadways concurrently with the first lot developed on each. The Board approves the applicant’s request to permit Lots 10 and 11 by separate zoning permits in either order. The zoning permit for Lot 11 would include all roads shown on the project plans and the zoning permit for Lot 10 would exclude the portion of O’Brien Farm Road north of the intersection of Two Brothers Drive. The Board finds the applicant must provide an exhibit showing the proposed phasing overlaid on Sheet C-2 Site Plan and an exhibit showing the proposed phasing overlaid on the landscaping plans in order to specifically identify which project elements are proposed to be included in each phase at a scale appropriate for certificate of occupancy inspection use. B) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY ZONING At the preliminary plat level, the Board prepared findings on the characteristics of the proposed inclusionary housing, but deferred findings on how the required percentages are attained to final plat. This is because the applicant indicated that they were uncertain about the total proposed number of units. Under 18.01, 15% of approved rental dwelling units subject to this application must be inclusionary. The applicant is then allotted one additional market rate dwelling unit for each required inclusionary rental unit as an offset. The Board at preliminary plat found that the applicant must propose and commit to a specific number of units at final plat, which number may differ from preliminarily approved unit count of 392 units and 47 inclusionary units by no more than 5%. Further discussion of the proposed increase in inclusionary units is immediately below. (2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be: (a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article. The applicant is proposing to construct units on site. (b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development. #SD-21-25 6 6 of 27 (i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a single building or multiple buildings. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to commit to a specific number of inclusionary units with this final plat application. They expressed concern that such a commitment would lock in the preliminary plat approved in #SD-20-16 to a specific number, while the provision of inclusionary units is tied to availability of funding sources which may ultimately prove unavailable. They also objected to being tied to a minimum and maximum number of inclusionary units by expressing concern that the inclusionary units may not be included in these buildings at all and may in fact be provided on a different lot. The applicant, Green Mountain Development Corp, is under contract to purchase Lots 10 and 11 of the O’Brien Hillside development. The applicant for the preliminary plat was O’Brien Brothers (or related LLC), the then and current owner of the underlying lands. In preliminary plat approval #SD-20-16, the Board included the requirement that the applicant must propose and commit to a specific number of units at final plat, which number may differ from preliminarily approved unit count of 392 units and 47 inclusionary units by no more than 5%. As noted previously, the applicant later amended #SD-20-16 to allow phased final plat approval. This condition was not modified, but is made more difficult to implement by the phasing of the final plat. Both of the applicant’s concerns are unfounded. This application is for final plat approval for the buildings on Lots 10 and 11, not for the entire project approved in preliminary plat #SD-20-16. The Board finds that they are reviewing a specific application, and are not obligated to plan for every possible contingency. It is apparent based on the amount of resources the applicant has committed that they believe the present application has a reasonable chance of success in obtaining funding. If this project does not obtain funding as inclusionary housing, it will go to a different development partner and would likely change in several respects, since Green Mountain Development Corp owns the design plans presented herein. It was clearly important to the Board at the preliminary plat level of review that the building(s) including the required inclusionary units consist of a mixture of market rate and inclusionary units, though they stopped short of requiring it as a condition of approval. The Board relied upon the above standard in making that determination. 1. Since the applicant would not proceed with this application as proposed should it not be funded as inclusionary housing, Staff recommends the Board find that the proposed buildings shall contain no fewer than 47 total inclusionary units, and that each building must contain at least ten affordable units and five market-rate units. This configuration will ensure that the buildings contain a mixture of affordability and prevent them from being readily distinguishable from the market rate buildings, thus being physically integrated into in the project area. The Board finds if the applicant constructs more than 47 inclusionary units, they may request approval for a commensurate number of market rate “bonus units” in the remaining phases preliminarily approved in #SD-20-16, but will be required at such time that they demonstrate the project can support them. Factors in the future decision to allow an increase in total units may include traffic, adequacy of open spaces, and adequacy of parking. #SD-21-25 7 7 of 27 (ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural design details quality of those of the market rate units in the development. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units. At preliminary plat, the Board found this criterion preliminarily met. This finding was incumbent on the final appearance of the building or buildings containing the inclusionary units being indistinguishable from the buildings containing solely market rate units. At preliminary plat, the applicant anticipated submitting final plat applications for all six multifamily buildings simultaneously. Now that the applications are being submitted separately, the Board is entitled to rely on consistency between the proposed appearance of the buildings on Lots 10 and 11 with the preliminarily proposed appearance of the remaining multi-family buildings as the way to evaluate compliance with this and other “consistency” criterion. The applicant’s initial submission represented buildings with the same architecture as one another, entry towers at all six buildings, and parking garages along at least one street facing façade for each building. During the preliminary plat hearings, the applicant provided supplemental testimony and exhibits to respond to Board feedback on this and the criteria of 14.06A and 14.06B. This testimony indicated the applicant’s approach to creating an attractive and activated street presence for each building by creating an engaging street presence. This was proposed to be done through modifications to the buildings and surrounding streetscape, to include the following. • a “theme and variation” approach to the entry towers, with similar exterior architecture but differing interior treatments visible through the tower windows. • slatted ventilation and decorative inserts to screen street-level garage openings • an entrance into street-level common space near the center of the garage where it faces on a street • landscape architectural elements including seating, information kiosks • vegetation to include trees, grasses and planters • complementary entrances at the main four-way intersection to include short-term bicycle parking, flush granite curbing, seat walls, raised planting beds, bench seating, and landscaping • interior common spaces • walkways, including suspended decks and boardwalks along Kennedy Drive • Where parking garages make up the street-level façade, the applicant has proposed a small common room, approximately the size of 1.5 parking spaces, with street-level entry, on each façade. The Board found that if the presented improvements were integrated into the design, the buildings would be complementary throughout and that proposed structures will respond to the terrain and provide a sufficient street presence. The applicant’s updated proposal changed the entry tower into residential units from the preliminarily proposed stair tower. This design choice of the applicant has inhibited them from adhering to the architecture and “theme and variation” presented at preliminary plat. #SD-21-25 8 8 of 27 The Board, however, continues to find the proposed architecture consistent with the remainder of the multifamily buildings under the updated proposal. The Board relied upon the following elements in making this determination. • prominent entry towers • slatted ventilation and decorative inserts at the garage level • varied windows • entrance into street level near center of buildings • balconies visible from the street • depth and height variation within each building • high quality materials including brick, metal, and fiber cement The applicant must modify their architectural plans to specifically call out the brick cladding as brick. (iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; Provision of the CBES certificate will demonstrate compliance with this criterion. The CBES certificate must be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building. The Board finds this criterion continues to be met. (iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units. With the amended preliminary plat to add phases (#SD-21-13), the Board found the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the minimum habitable area listed in this criterion without allowing a reduction for smaller market rate units. The applicant has provided a floor plan showing that these minimum unit sizes have been provided. The Board finds this criterion met. (v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units developed as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing, and architectural style. At the time Phase 1 of Hillside, consisting of single family and duplex homes, was approved, there was no requirement for inclusionary units. The Board finds this criterion met. (vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units. See discussion above pertaining to exterior appearance. The Board finds this criterion met. (vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units #SD-21-25 9 9 of 27 permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit. With the amended preliminary plat to add phases (#SD-21-13), the Board found the applicant to be required to demonstrate that this criterion is met at the time of final plat application for each building. Since the each of the currently proposed buildings must contain both inclusionary and market rate units, and each building contains a mix of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units, the Board finds this criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion at the time of zoning permit for the first building and at the time of zoning permit for each subsequent building. Ultimately, compliance with this criterion is at the applicant’s risk. If the applicant later has difficulty matching the bedroom count average established by these buildings, no waiver shall be granted. The applicant would have the option of adding more multi-bedroom inclusionary units in another building to bring the average up should they so choose. (viii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner. The applicant is not proposing to use this provision. (c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints, approve a plan allowing non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units. At preliminary plat, the applicant proposed to construct all inclusionary units on Lot 12. The Board found the applicant must obtain a zoning permit for the building containing the inclusionary units no later than the fourth principal building, the applicant may obtain a zoning permit for the fifth principal building while the inclusionary building is under construction, and the applicant must receive a certificate of occupancy for the building containing the inclusionary units prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the sixth principal building. The Board also found that this condition would be reevaluated if the applicant modifies their proposal to construct all the required inclusionary units in the building on Lot 12. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the buildings containing inclusionary units first and second, the Board finds no modification to this finding is required. The finding shall remain in force in the event the applicant postpones construction of the currently proposed buildings. C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The applicant has received preliminary water allocation for all six (6) phase 2 buildings, and has received preliminary wastewater allocation for the buildings on Lots 10 and 11. #SD-21-25 10 10 of 27 The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on October 27, 2021 and offers the following comments. The SBWD has reviewed the revised plans for the above referenced project and finds the proposed water lines to the multi family buildings on lots 10 and 11 acceptable. The SBWD reminds the engineer and developer that all fire hydrants must be installed with a spring- loaded hydrant flag approved by the Department, and a 4” Storz fire hydrant pumper nozzle connection. In addition, all gate valve boxes located in a paved or poured area must have one non-adjustable paving riser of a height ranging from one and one-half inches (1-1/2”) to six-inches (6”) as needed to be brought to final grade. All cub boxes located in roadways or sidewalks shall be placed inside a gate valve box top section with cover and brought to final grade with one non- adjustable paving riser per above. The Board finds the comments of the South Burlington Water Department to be incorporated as a condition of approval. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized 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 DRB 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 applicant provided erosion and sediment control plans. The project will be subject to a construction permit. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on 11/8/2021, including the erosion and sediment control plan and indicated previously-provided comments had been addressed. (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 Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must provide an updated traffic study evaluating the design of the proposed intersection of Two Brothers Drive and Kenney Drive. The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans with Planning and Zoning Staff on 10/29/2021. The following blue text are comments from that review, followed by Board findings on each matter. • The updated traffic impact study has changed the land use code used for the two-family homes in Phase 1 of Hillside compared to the previously submitted version of the study. The applicant should explain why the change was made. The applicant has provided a “TIA Trip Clarification Memo” which explains that the available land use codes have changed since the previous version of the study (based on ITE Trip Generation 9th edition) and the present (ITE Trip Generation 11th edition). The applicant is now estimating the Hillside development, the subject of master plan #MP-16-01, generates 270 PM peak hour trips. The original approval estimated 428 trips. The largest reduction came from removal of nearly 50,000 sf of commercial/office space, but there are also reductions in the trips generated by the residential elements of the project, despite an increase in the number of single family and multifamily homes. The Board finds that the applicant has sufficiently addressed and explained these changes in the referenced “TIA Trip Clarification Memo and approves of the selected Land Use Codes from the 11th Edition. #SD-21-25 11 11 of 27 • There should be a crosswalk and pedestrian beacon on the uphill side of the driveways at Lots 14 and 15 on Two Brothers Drive. The exact location should be evaluated by a site design professional and reviewed prior to closing the hearing. The applicant has provided a crosswalk. Based on review of the revised configuration by the Director of Public Works, the Board finds the applicant shall relocate the proposed crosswalk and pedestrian beacon east of the beginning of the entrance radius for the Lot 13/15 driveway to reduce conflicts and pedestrian crossing distance. • The driveway out of Lot 12 is lower than the adjacent O’Brien Farm Road and may have sight distance issues given the proposed streetscape. The applicant should revisit. 2. The applicant indicated on January 4 that they addressed this comment with the plans submitted that day, but no changes to the landscaping plan have been made in the vicinity of Lot 12 driveway. This issue remains a concern. The landscaping plans show a tree (AR) to the immediate right of the driveway as well as numerous lower level landscaping (HH, HR, HN, RR). A driver exiting Lot 12 onto O’Brien Farm Road could reasonably have their sight distance impaired by both the slope and proposed landscaping. The applicant does not appear to have addressed this comment. Landscaping adjacent to this entrance is proposed to have a mature height of 4 – 6 ft. Staff continues to recommend the Board require the applicant to modify their proposed landscaping plan to address sight distances prior to closing the hearing. The proposed intersection improvements at Two Brothers Drive and Kennedy Drive are part of the proposed roadway construction for the currently proposed phase of the project. The applicant is not proposing to install the traffic signal on Kennedy Drive as part of this project because it is not yet warranted (does not meet specific tests) until more homes are constructed. However, the applicant is proposing to construct a recreation path connecting to the existing recreation path on Kennedy Drive. The Board finds the applicant must install the crosswalk on Kennedy Drive at the time the signal is installed, not before or after. The applicant has provided a full set of plans for the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Two Brothers Drive and Kennedy Drive. The Board finds that operational functions of the traffic signal are subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a zoning permit that includes installation of the signal. Additional comments on the proposed roadways are provided under PUD criterion 8 and 9 below. (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. Wetland impacts were approved as part of the master plan. No changes to the approved impacts are proposed. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. Visual compatibility of the proposed development is further discussed in conjunction with Site Plan Review Standards 14.06B and 14.06C. The Board finds the project consistent with the planned development patterns specified in the Comprehensive Plan and in the purpose of the R-12 zoning #SD-21-25 12 12 of 27 district. This finding applies to the overall layout and scale of development; building and site appearance is discussed in detail elsewhere in this decision. (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington. The location and area of permanent open spaces was approved at the master plan level but the design of open space was not. At the sketch plan meeting on this phase, the Board had a robust discussion of the programming of on-site open spaces to be included in this area, asking that the applicant provide small useable open spaces for each building. The applicant at preliminary plat provided landscaping sketches showing a proposed open space for each lot consisting of a paved patio area with seating, gas grill and fire pit. Other non-participatory open spaces in the project area include two stormwater management features near Kennedy Drive. The applicants detailed plan for these areas on Lots 10 and 11 is consistent with the concepts submitted at preliminary plat. There is an area proposed north of the building on Lot 11 along O’Brien Farm Road that is labeled “Pocket Park.” This area is accessed via the sidewalk on O’Brien Farm Road and via the parking garage on Lot 11, is proposed to be paved with concrete pavers, and has three benches. The applicant intends for this to be the designated smoking area for the project. 3. The Board provided feedback that the pocket park on Lot 17 needed to be enhanced to make it more appealing and accessible to residents. The applicant has increased the landscaping around the park and added a direct sidewalk connection from the building, but has not enhanced the space itself in any way. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require modifications to make the space more attractive and useable. Examples of elements that may make the area more useable include a covered table, and arranging the seating in a semi-circle or two semi-circles. Staff considers such elements to be more valuable to the project than increased landscaping. This comment was included in the Jan 4 packet but the Board did not discuss. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be 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. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 10/26/2021 and had no substantial comments. If changes are needed based on more detailed building inspector review, the zoning administrative officer will make a determination of whether it is a field change or requires an amendment. The Board finds this criterion met. (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. See criterion 9 below for infrastructure comments. See criterion 11 below for comments related to stormwater. The Board deferred findings on lighting and utility lines to final plat. #SD-21-25 13 13 of 27 4. The proposed lighting plan omits sufficient information to determine if the proposed street fixtures meet height limitations of 30-ft and the required quality of materials. Lighting in the building areas is proposed to be pole-mounted 13 ft fixtures. Allowable lighting levels are met in the building areas. (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. 15.12 pertains to roadway geometry, cross section, and sidewalks. Unless modifications are approved by the Board in consultation with the Director of Public Works, City standards require at least a 5-foot grass strip between the roadway and the sidewalk (LDR 15.12M(2)), which serves as a location for street trees as well as removed snow. Standard recreation path width is 10-ft and standard sidewalk width is 5-feet. The Board at preliminary plat provided detailed findings on this criterion, requiring multimodal connectivity between O’Brien Farm Road and Kennedy Drive along Two Brothers Drive, and along O’Brien Farm Road, including connectivity for 392 units proposed in this phase of the development, the units constructed in Phase I of the project (the “Hillside” area), residents of the developments outside of the O’Brien project area on Kennedy Drive between Eldridge Street and Kimball Ave, and the future proposal for 415 residential units and up to 1,285,000 sf of commercial space on either side of Old Farm Road. These users would access points west through this development and via Kennedy Drive. The applicant has testified that they believe the City standards result in a suburban neighborhood feel, which is inconsistent with the urban design they are trying to achieve and which the Comprehensive Plan supports. The Board concurred with the applicant’s assertion and approach and therefore at preliminary plat, found that the applicant must revise the streetscape design to propose a roadway cross section and provide supporting testimony demonstrating that the proposal provides a safe urban environment accommodating all users. Such design must balance the following goals. a) an appropriately urban setting, including an activated street b) transition from recreation path and detached homes c) non-vehicular connectivity through the project area, including for people who live between Two Brothers Drive and Eldridge Street and people who live on the far side of Kennedy Drive, and those who may live in the future phase of the O’Brien development. d) slow speeds e) roadway maintenance The Board found that the modifications should take place within the approved rights-of-way. Bike & Ped Committee provided a letter of support on 11/10/2021. The applicant has provided a memo, prepared by Wall Consultant Group and dated August 31, 2021, describing design considerations, alternatives, and recommended elements of the proposed design, many of which were incorporated into the plans. As noted above, the Director of Public Works reviewed the plans with Planning and Zoning Staff on 10/29/2021. The following are additional comments from that review. #SD-21-25 14 14 of 27 • The “Transportation Infrastructure Review” prepared by Wall Consultant Group recommends ramps from the recreation path to the road to allow more confident cyclists to access the low volume and slow speed street when adjacent to the multifamily homes. Staff supports this recommendation. 5. The applicant provided a supplemental memorandum from Wall Consulting Group, dated December 7, 2021, concluding that ramps from the recreation path would be unsafe. Planning and Zoning Staff has reviewed the August 31 memo, the December 7 memo, and consulted with other City Staff. Based on the high number of driveway crossings on the recreation path outside of the immediate project area, and the opportunities for experienced cyclists to exit the recreation path on those driveways before entering the project area, Staff concurs with the design as presented. • The applicant should be required to provide a distinct sign and pavement marking plan to allow more complete evaluation of the proposal The Director of Public Works provided the following updated comments on the provided Signage and Pavement Marking Plan. 1. Provide a lane assignment sign for northbound traffic on Two Brothers Drive approaching the signal at Kennedy Drive. It should be placed roughly 100’ prior to the pavement markings, or where the applicant feels the signs would be fit amongst the adjacent infrastructure (trees, street lights, etc.) 2. The new RRFB crosswalk on Two Brothers connecting Lots 12 & 15 needs advance crosswalk signage as well as signage at the crossing itself. 3. Where on-street parking is not available per each street’s design, No Parking signs shall be provided, albeit sparingly. The Board finds these comments shall be addressed prior to recording the final plat, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. • The applicant should remove perennials from around the street trees and replace with hardscape, as the City does not have the ability to maintain perennial plantings in residential districts. See discussion under 14.07D below. • The applicant should provide details for how the integral color will be created at the colored concrete sections, subject to review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to installation. The applicant provided a specification which the Director of Public Works considers acceptable. The Board finds this comment to have been addressed. • No detail is provided on the Silva Cells demonstrating whether adequate soil area will be provided. The Board finds the applicant must provide a detail, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, prior to recording. • The applicant’s landscaping details provide a concrete foundation for the proposed granite curb. Why is this proposed? In what other projects has it been shown to be necessary or successful? This comment has been addressed. Granite curb details are shown on sheet L200. #SD-21-25 15 15 of 27 • “STOP” controlled intersections should be provided with a line but not the “STOP” legend The Director of Public Works revised their comment to indicate that the applicant may include the “STOP” legend on private driveways. The plans have been updated to reflect this revision. The Director of Public Works indicated via email on 1/3/2022 the following five (5) comments have been addressed in follow up calls/emails with the applicant. The Board finds the applicant must incorporate related revisions into their plans, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, prior to recording. • For the sections including brick pavers, there should be a geotextile fabric between the asphalt and concrete setting bed. • Pavers should be oriented so their long access is parallel to traffic • Where there is a flush junction of concrete and pavers, provide an expansion joint with appropriate treatment • Concrete mix shall be anti-spalling • Crosswalks shall not be striped at driveway crossings (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. (11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. The Project triggers the Stormwater Management Standards of Section 12.03. As noted above, the City Stormwater Section reviewed the project on 11/8/2021 and had no comments. The Board finds this criterion met. D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General 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. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. 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. See discussion under 14.06C(1) and (2) below. (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. #SD-21-25 16 16 of 27 (b) – (c) Not applicable (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. The applicant is proposing 53 spaces on Lot 10, 56 spaces on Lot 11, and 34 new on-street parking spaces. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must meet minimum parking requirements as each building is proposed. Parking minimum are addressed in 13.01. 0.75 spaces are required per dwelling unit for studio and one-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for units with two bedrooms and above. In addition, 0.75 spaces are required for every 4 units, as long as no more than one parking spaces is reserved per dwelling unit. The purpose of the additional 0.75 spaces is to accommodate guest parking. Based on a provided table of dwelling units, the applicant is proposing 70 studio and one bedroom units 52.5 parking spaces required 24 two bedroom units 36 parking spaces required Guest parking for 94 units 17.4 spaces required Total required spaces 106 spaces The applicant has provided 143 parking spaces, which is more than the required minimum. The Board finds that no more than one parking space may be reserved per unit. (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. Requested height waivers are addressed under dimensional standards above. See discussion of compatibility under 14.06C(1) and (2) below. 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. At preliminary plat, the Board found this criterion met because all buildings were proposed to be of the same architectural style. As noted above pertaining to the architectural design of inclusionary units, the Board is entitled to rely on the drawings of the buildings submitted at preliminary plat for evaluation of this criterion. The applicant has now proposed for the buildings on Lots 10 and 11 to be different architecturally from the other buildings. Given the reduced setbacks and the strong street presence of all buildings in this phase of the master plan, a configuration supported by the Board, buffering and screening is not available to create transitions between buildings. Though generally it is possible to create adjoining buildings of different styles, to date the applicant has placed a strong emphasis on consistency between buildings to create a strong neighborhood feel. Ultimately, the Board finds the materials and architectural characteristics of the proposed buildings are sufficiently similar to that proposed on the remaining lots considered in #SD-20-16 and finds this criterion met. (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 #SD-21-25 17 17 of 27 structures. The Board finds, in conjunction with the findings on 14.06A and 14.06B above, that the proposed detailing at street level and the proposed landscaping and hardscape elements surrounding the proposed buildings results in this criterion being met. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must demonstrate at final plat that the design of the building and landscaping on Lot 10 provides an appropriate transition from the single family and duplex area to the southwest to the multifamily area, and that the street level garage presents a harmonious relationship with the residential character of the neighborhood. The Board finds this requirement to be satisfied by provision of a sidewalk and screening hedge south of the proposed driveway. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: 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 Board found at preliminary plat that there should be a shared curb cut between Lots 11 and 16 (now Lots 11 and 18). Lot 18 is now proposed for stormwater treatment as part of the adjacent O’Brien “Eastview” development. Staff considers shared access to remain important for maintenance of the stormwater treatment system. Based on direction of the Board, the applicant modified Sheet C3 Site Plan to provide a curb break in the O’Brien Farm Road driveway for Lot 11 of minimum width to allow a maintenance vehicle. The Board finds the applicant must incorporate this modification into the other sheets prior to recording. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. Utility connections are proposed to be underground throughout this phase. The Board finds this criterion met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, 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). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. At preliminary plat, for Lots 10 and 11, access to solid waste disposal was either through the garage doors, which do not include dedicated pedestrian facilities, or via a sidewalk from the entry tower to the far corner of the building. The Board required the applicant to improve pedestrian access to the solid waste disposal area at the next stage of review. The applicant has provided a pedestrian route through the parking garage to the waste disposal areas. The Board finds this criterion met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. #SD-21-25 18 18 of 27 At preliminary plat, the Board identified the following objectives of the landscaping plan • Landscaping within the developed areas should celebrate the urban environment rather than attempt to screen it. Spaces should be designed to be useable rather than decorative. The Board finds this has been addressed by providing a mix of grass and planted areas. • A densely planted buffer between the street and the buildings would detract from a neighborhood feel and the Board finds the applicant must use landscaping to complement and enhance architecture and layout, rather than to screen or hide. The Board finds this to have been addressed. • There should be a balance between landscaped areas and shaded open areas to allow for small opportunities for outdoor enjoyment. Where not otherwise necessary, the Board finds the applicant should expand useable open space by providing strategically placed shade trees in lieu of dense hedges. Necessity may occur in the case of specific regulatory requirements or restricted access areas like transformers or vaults, or to create a small buffer between open spaces and private residences. Review of specifically required landscaping is provided below. The Board finds this to have been addressed. The applicant estimates building cost to be approximately $15,000,000, resulting in a required minimum landscaping value of approximately $157,500. The applicant has proposed the following elements that they wish to use as credit towards the required minimum budget. Item Cost Concrete Pavers, Lots 10 & 11 Streetscape and Lot 11 Pocket Park $54,521.50 for Streetscape $14,775.20 for Pocket Park Tree Plantings $43,035.00 Shrub Plantings $45,031.00 Perennial and Decorative Grass Plantings $17,033.00 Benches $6,600 in public spaces $4,950 in pocket park Total $185,945.70 provided including pocket park ($157,500 required) Some credit may be granted for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of the landscaping section (13.06) are not reduced. Objectives include: • 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 • a mix of large canopy tree species, • screening between dissimilar uses, • landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote infiltration • screening of parking areas and utility features • creation of attractive parking areas with emphasis on the privacy and comfort of adjoining properties #SD-21-25 19 19 of 27 The Board finds the applicant meets the minimum required landscaping budget. Separately from the required minimum landscaping budget for Lots 10 and 11, the applicant has requested the Board allow the cost of the proposed street trees, street hardscape features, and street landscaping be applied towards minimum landscaping budgets required for development of other lots. The applicant notes that the elements of the project within the ROW enhance the appearance of the lots. The City cannot accept responsibility for plantings in the right of way other than street trees. The applicant has proposed to maintain plantings in the ROW. Based on past experience, Staff is concerned that, in the future, residents will appeal to City Council for maintenance of the ROW landscaping, despite the intention that it be maintained by the applicant. In addition, separate maintenance by the applicant could create inconsistent standards within the City. Staff, including the Director of Public Works and Deputy City Manager, recommended the Board require the applicant to pay a pro-rata share of the City’s right of way landscaping contract. Staff recommended the Board require a contract between the City and the applicant be established prior to the City taking ownership of the roadways. 6. The applicant objected to the proposed maintenance framework. Given the Board’s rejection of the proposed framework, Staff proposes instead that the applicant be allowed to place landscaping within the ROW but that the Board not allow credit for planting within the ROW, that the applicant assume responsibility for maintain the landscaping, and that the applicant be required to prepare and execute an agreement with the City that the ROW landscaping will be removed by the City at the expense of the applicant should the applicant fail to maintain it in a vigorous growing condition. The applicant estimates the value of the proposed non-street tree planting in the ROW to be $20,798. The applicant is requesting credit for the remaining streetscape elements as follows. Concrete Paving $21,072 Colored concrete paving on sidewalks/rec path $30,660 Brick crosswalk $44,121 Flush granite curb $11,650 The above elements are not typically required for streets. However, the applicant has proposed these elements in support of their objective of creating a pedestrian oriented development, which the Board supported in exchange for reduced setbacks and increased height. 7. On Jan 4, the Board determined they would allow credit for the incremental cost over standard features (asphalt paving, standard concrete, crosswalk striping, and concrete curb). The applicant indicated they would provide this information, but that has not been done. 8. The Board determined they would allow credit for the proposed Silva Cells to support tree health. There are four trees supported by Silva Cells. The proposed cost of Silva Cells to support these four trees is $54,995. Staff recommends the Board confirm that it is their intention to allow credit for $54,995 in landscaping value to support four trees. Staff notes that this represents nearly $4.75 million in building cost. For reference the applicant estimates the cost of each of the presently proposed buildings to be $7.5 million. Specific comments on parking lot landscaping and screening requirements are discussed immediately below. Section 13.06B of the Land Development Regulations addresses landscaping of parking areas as follows. (1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to #SD-21-25 20 20 of 27 allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas. Lot 10: The Board noted at preliminary plat that though the surface parking is proposed to be located in an allowable area, this criterion is particularly important for the portion of the lot fronting on Two Brothers Drive. The parking lot is located approximately eight (8) feet below the adjoining roadway. The applicant should take the change in elevation into consideration when considering plans for this buffer. The Board finds the proposed elevation change from Two Brothers drive generally meets this criterion, except at the driveway entrances where landscaping is necessarily limited for sight distance purposes. Lot 11: The Board deferred review of this criterion to final plat. The Board finds this criterion met. (2) In parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must to meet this criterion for each parking lot rather than overall. Two parking lots are proposed, each containing more than 28 parking spaces. The applicant has provided an exhibit for each of Lots 10 and 11 demonstrating this criterion is met. (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. The Board finds this criterion met. (4) Landscaping Requirements (a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant. The Board finds this criterion met. (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. Lot 10 contains 29 surface parking spaces, requiring six shade trees. This criterion has been met. Lot 11 contains 32 surface parking spaces, requiring seven shade trees. This criterion has been met. (b) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball. This criterion has been met. #SD-21-25 21 21 of 27 (d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the parking lot and the site. A mix of species is proposed and species are grouped. The Board finds this criterion met. (e) N/A The City Arborist provided the following additional comments on the landscaping plan on 11/1/2021. • Discourage the planting of perennials/shrubs in the city ROW unless there are plans to contract out maintenance. The city does not have the staff/funding to maintain these plantings The Board finds the applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of plantings other than street trees within the ROW. Further detail is provided above. • Several areas on the plans that are designated as “Snow Storage” show trees planted in locations that will restrict access, most likely resulting in damage to the trees Snow storage is discussed above and has been modified to address the comment of the City Arborist. • Sheet L200 references the use of Silva Cells for the Red Oaks that are to be planted in the sidewalk but I couldn’t find a detailed specification. Deep Root( the manufacturer of Silva Cells) recommends a soil volume of 1000 cubic feet to support the growth of large maturing trees such as Red Oak The applicant has provided a silva cell layout drawing, which indicates there will be at least 1,000 cf for each tree. (5) Planting Islands (a) Curbed planting islands shall be designed and arranged to define major circulation aisles, entrances and exits, provide vegetative focal points, provide shade and canopy, and break up large expanses of asphalt pavement. All islands shall be planted with trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Plant materials judged to be inappropriate by the Development Review Board will not be approved. (b) Curbs of such islands shall be constructed of concrete or stone and shall be designed to facilitate surface drainage and prevent vehicles from overlapping sidewalks and damaging the plants. Sections of drop curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection and management infrastructure. (c) Islands are strongly encouraged to be graded and planted to serve as collection and treatment areas for stormwater management. It is recommended that sections of drop curb no greater than five feet in length be installed to allow stormwater to flow off the paved parking lot and onto the island for treatment. At the DRB’s discretion, curbless parking areas and planting islands may be allowed where these are specifically designed for stormwater management. However, ends and corners of such areas must be protected with curbing to prevent cars from driving over or parking on planted areas. The Board finds these criteria to be met. (6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters. #SD-21-25 22 22 of 27 The areas adjacent to the entrances of both lots are designated as snow storage, which could prevent clear lines of sight into the roadway. The applicant has configured snow storage areas to be set back behind the property line, allowing approximately 10-ft of clear distance before the sidewalk in most cases. The Board finds snow may not be stored in the ROW adjacent to the driveways on Lots 10 and 11. E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The applicant’s requested waivers, beyond those which were issued at the master plan level, are discussed elsewhere in this document. 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. Stormwater management is addressed above under PUD standard 11. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. See discussion under PUD criterion 9 above. E) OTHER Bicycle Parking At preliminary plat, the Board found this criterion should be evaluated on a lot by lot basis. Minimum required bicycle spaces are as follows. Lot # of Units SF Commercial Required short term spaces Required Long Term Spaces Required Clothes Lockers 10 47 0 5 47 0 11 47 0 5 47 0 Short Term Bicycle Parking The applicant has proposed a group of five bicycle racks near the entrance to each building. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must demonstrate that the racks support two bicycles each in accordance with the standards of 13.14B(2), and meet the minimum spacing and location requirements of 13.14B(2) and Appendix G, including distribution around principal entrances, at final plat. The Board finds the applicant meets the requirements for short term bicycle parking. #SD-21-25 23 23 of 27 Long Term Bike Storage The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must provide details on these storage areas as part of the Final Plat, including demonstration of how the required minimum numbers will be provided. The provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages, and has proposed the “mini mum” rack, from Vermont Manufacturing Systems. Specified spacing is 16”; the applicant is proposing approximately 17” spacing. The Board finds the applicant meets the requirements for long term bicycle parking. Traffic Overlay District The project is located with the traffic overlay district Zone 3. The master plan has a total area of 39.16 acres (39.76 acres pending approval of MP-20-01) and therefore has a traffic budget of 1762 (or 1789) vehicle trips per PM peak hour. The project’s TIS estimates full build of the project will generate 428 trips, revised to 282 trips based on the 2/5/2020 traffic memo. The Board finds this criterion met. Energy Standards All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. Signage The applicant may not show signage on their plans or renderings. The Board finds the applicant must remove all signage, sign locations, sign callouts from all plans. Sureties Sureties are addressed in 15.15 of the LDR. The applicant is required to provide surety (bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit) for three elements of the proposed project: 1. public facilities and improvements 2. street trees 3. site landscaping Surety for public facilities is required to be maintained until work is complete and for two to three years thereafter. Street tree and site landscaping sureties are required to be maintained until three years after the work is complete. The amount of the public facility surety shall be the full cost of the facilities; street trees are a public facility. Under the current LDRs, the amount of site landscaping surety shall be $10,000 plus 50% of the amount over $10,000. At the time the master plan and Phase I final plat (#SD-17-17) was approved, the then-effective LDRs required a landscaping surety to be 100% of the required minimum landscaping value. With the zoning permit enacting final plat approval #SD-17-17, the applicant requested approval for a complicated phasing framework which resulted in the establishment of 38 separate bonds, representing nine infrastructure phases, eight street tree phases, and 21 site landscaping phases. The applicant proposed this framework because they thought having a larger number of smaller bonds would be easier to manage. The Zoning Administrator approved this request. Since that time, the applicant and Staff have found the approved bonding framework difficult to administer. #SD-21-25 24 24 of 27 The original master plan and final plat approval omit detailed discussion of sureties. The complicated surety framework currently in place is entirely a construct of the applicant. The applicant is proposing a new framework which proposes to provide one public infrastructure letter of credit and one letter of credit for street trees and site landscaping. The value of the letters of credit is proposed to vary depending on what elements of the project are within the required time period (commencing with a zoning permit for the work and expiring two to three years after completion). The applicant is proposing that this framework be applied retroactively to the phases already bonded for. It also appears the applicant is proposing this framework apply to the lots for which final plat applications have not yet been submitted. The applicant is also requesting that the new surety requirements ($10,000 plus 50% of the amount over $10,000) retroactively apply to the previous sureties, reducing the total amount of the sureties. The Board finds, under the “Stowe Club Highlands” test, applicants may request a new finding on a determination that was already made if the circumstances surrounding that finding have changed. Such a request is subject to a warned public hearing. Ultimately, the Board finds the applicant’s request is largely a matter of administration; the Board’s responsibility is to establish the amount of surety to be provided, not how it is broken out. However, the Board finds it is within their authority to make a determination on the applicant’s request to apply the reduced site landscaping bond calculation to older sureties. This has some challenges. For example, the applicant obtained a zoning permit more than three years ago for a phase but has not installed every required tree in that phase because some are associated with homes not yet constructed. Under their proposed framework, they would have to establish a snapshot of what has been planted, calculate the surety of those plantings based on the reduced formula above, and request that amount be released in three years. However, if the applicant is willing to undertake this exercise for every previously-approved phase, the Board finds it is not prohibited by the LDR and approves the applicant’s request to reduce the amount of site landscaping bonds for previous phases. DECISION Motion by __, seconded by __, to approve preliminary plat application #SD-21-25 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. a. Provide an exhibit showing the proposed phasing overlaid on Sheet C-2 Site Plan and an exhibit showing the proposed phasing overlaid on the landscaping plans in order to specifically identify which project elements are proposed to be included in each phase at a scale appropriate for certificate of occupancy inspection use. b. Modify the architectural plans to specifically call out the brick cladding as brick. c. Remove all signage, sign locations, sign callouts from all plans. d. Provide a lane assignment sign for northbound traffic on Two Brothers Drive approaching the signal at Kennedy Drive. It should be placed roughly 100’ prior to the pavement #SD-21-25 25 25 of 27 markings, or where the applicant feels the signs would be fit amongst the adjacent infrastructure (trees, street lights, etc.) e. The new RRFB crosswalk on Two Brothers connecting Lots 12 & 15 needs advance crosswalk signage as well as signage at the crossing itself. f. Where on-street parking is not available per each street’s design, No Parking signs shall be provided, albeit sparingly. g. Provide a detail, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, of the Silva Cell installation h. Incorporate revisions related to the following five (5) comments, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works i. For the sections including brick pavers, there should be a geotextile fabric between the asphalt and concrete setting bed. ii. Pavers should be oriented so their long access is parallel to traffic iii. Where there is a flush junction of concrete and pavers, provide an expansion joint with appropriate treatment iv. Concrete mix shall be anti-spalling v. Crosswalks shall not be striped at driveway crossings i. Incorporate the curb break in the O’Brien Farm Road driveway for Lot 11 to allow maintenance access to Lot 18 into all relevant plan sheets j. Relocate the proposed mid-block crosswalk and pedestrian beacon on Two Brothers Drive east of the beginning of the entrance radius for the Lot 13/15 driveway to reduce conflicts and pedestrian crossing distance. 4. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans as amended must be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the mylar. 5. The final plat plan (Sheets PL1) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 6. A digital file consisting of an ArcGIS or AutoCAD formatted file of the proposed subdivision, including property lines, easements, and rights of way, either georeferenced or shown in relation to four easily identifiable fixed points such as manholes, utility poles or hydrants, must be provided to the Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plan. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 7. The mylar must be recorded prior to zoning permit issuance. 8. The zoning permits for each phase must be obtained within six (6) months of approval with the option for requesting a one (1) year extension. 9. The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 10. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building or start of utility or roadway construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public roads, private easements, utilities, sewer, water, pedestrian path, etc) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. #SD-21-25 26 26 of 27 11. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for either Lot 10 or Lot 11, the applicant must provide a computation of the cost of the approved plantings are on each lot. 12. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for either Lot 10 or Lot 11, the applicant must post a landscaping bond or surety for the proportionate amount of $105,099 in plantings in accordance with the methodology in LDR 15.15B. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 13. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall post a $85,880 landscape bond or surety for the street trees in accordance with the methodology in LDR 15.15B, which shall remain in full effect for three (3) years. 14. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall post a bond or surety which covers the cost of said improvements plus 15% contingency. The amount of the surety must be approved by the Director of Public Works. 15. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit for the building containing the inclusionary units no later than the fourth principal building, the applicant may obtain a zoning permit for the fifth principal building while the inclusionary building is under construction, and the applicant must receive a certificate of occupancy for the building containing the inclusionary units prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the sixth principal building. 16. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for installation of the signal operational functions of the traffic signal are subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. All fire hydrants must be installed with a spring- loaded hydrant flag approved by the Department, and a 4” Storz fire hydrant pumper nozzle connection. 18. All gate valve boxes located in a paved or poured area must have one non-adjustable paving riser of a height ranging from one and one-half inches (1-1/2”) to six-inches (6”) as needed to be brought to final grade. All curb boxes located in roadways or sidewalks shall be placed inside a gate valve box top section with cover and brought to final grade with one non-adjustable paving riser per above. 19. No more than one parking space may be reserved per unit. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of plantings other than street trees within the ROW and shall record an agreement with the City of South Burlington as described herein. [to be modified as necessary based on Board discussion] 21. Snow may not be stored in the ROW adjacent to the driveways on Lots 10 and 11. 22. The proposed buildings shall contain no fewer than 47 total inclusionary units, and each building must contain at least ten affordable units and five market-rate units. [to be modified as necessary based on Board discussion] Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jim Langan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of _-_-_. #SD-21-25 27 27 of 27 Signed this ____ day of February, 2022, by _____________________________________ Dawn Philibert, 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.