HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-21-19 - Supplemental - 0600 Spear Street#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
1
1 of 13
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-19_600 Spear St_600 Spear FJT_PP_2022-04-
05.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 25, 2022
Plans received: March 18, 2022
600 Spear Street
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-21-19
Meeting date: April 5, 2022
Owner/Applicant
600 Spear FJT, LLC
c/o Frank Von Turkovich
1 National Life Drive
Montpelier, VT 05604
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1640-00600
Residential 4 Zoning District
8.63 acres
Engineer
TCE
478 Blair Park Road
Williston, VT 05495
Location Map
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
2
2 of 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD-21-19 of 600 Spear FJT, LLC for a planned unit development on an
existing 8.63 acre lot developed with 7,000 sf storage building and single family home. The planned unit
development consists of one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four-family buildings, a 1.24
acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a
duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The most recent approval for the property was in 1983, which refers to a single family home and a
construction business and prohibits automobile repair and sales.
The 2006 UVM Master Plan refers to the parcel north of this property as the Miller Research Complex,
and the parcel south of this property as the Deslauriers 1963 and 1980 Tracts, and envisions continued
agricultural uses for these locations for the present time. These parcels are located in the Institutional &
Agricultural zoning districts.
The sketch plan was reviewed on October 20, 2020. The Board held hearings on this application on July
20 and December 7, 2021. At the July 20 hearing, the applicant presented significant modifications to
the layout as a sketch-level concept. The Board provided feedback on the revised design and continued
the hearing to allow the applicant to respond to that feedback and prepare a full revised preliminary
plat application package. This report represents a full review of the revised package.
The project is subject to the 12/28/2020 Land Development Regulations since a complete preliminary
plat application was submitted prior to the warning date for the current regulations.
CONTEXT
The property is located in the Residential 4 Zoning District and includes lands within the Interstate
Highway Overlay district. The property has an inherent density of 34 dwelling units, with the potential
for an affordable housing density bonus of 4 to 9 units (allowing a total of 42 to 51 units) if the
affordable units are income restricted to families earning no more than 80% AMI. At this time the
applicant has not chosen to include affordable units.
The applicant obtained City Council approval for an exemption from interim zoning with IZ-20-02.
The revised plans submitted on 3/18/2022 are consistent with the plans reviewed by the Board on
December 7, 2021 with additional detail, particularly on stormwater and landscaping, with modifications of
the western parking area to better comply with the LDR.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on 3/18/2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
3
3 of 13
The applicant has not provided an update lot coverage computation for the reconfigured lots. The project
will consist of three lots: the lot containing the existing commercial building to remain, the lot proposed to
be dedicated to the City as a public right-of-way, and the eastern lot proposed for 24 homes in six buildings.
The maximum lot coverage is 40% for residential use and 20% for non-residential use. Staff considers given
the large portion of the lot reserved for solar field (which are not subject to local regulations pursuant to 24
VSA 4413(b), and incidentally, only the supports would be considered as contributing to lot coverage), the
allowable lot and building coverages are likely to be met. However, the applicant must demonstrate
compliance with dimensional standards at the final plat stage of review.
The Board has previously indicated they would accept the applicant’s request for a waiver of the front
setback from 30 ft to 10 ft. The proposed roadway includes a 50-ft right of way with 28-ft of pavement (two
10-ft lanes and an 8-ft parking lane), a 5-ft sidewalk, and 1-ft of green space. Staff recommends the Board
approve the requested front setback waiver.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.6 General Review Standards
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
review standards for all site plan applications:
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 project is located in the northwest quadrant in an area identified as very low intensity principally
open land use. The objectives of the northwest quadrant as stated in the comprehensive plan include to
maintain existing affordable diverse residential neighborhoods, allow for infill development, and ensure
continued compatibility of University land uses with existing development and conservation patterns.
The zoning of this parcel is R4, while zoning of adjacent parcels is Institutional and Agricultural, accounting
for the land use policy of the comprehensive plan. The applicant, further, has proposed to cluster the
residential development within the western portion of the property adjacent to Spear Street. Staff
considers this criterion continues to be met.
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.
The applicant has provided elevations for the proposed buildings, which are all proposed to look
the same. The buildings generally have a strong relationship to one another and to the street,
with some exceptions discussed under 14.07F below. Pedestrian movement is discussed under
PUD criterion 8 and 9 below. Plantings are discussed below under Site Plan Review Criterion
14.07D.
For 32 one-bedroom homes, 30 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 75
parking spaces. Staff considers parking to be adequate.
(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-21-19
Staff Comments
4
4 of 13
The applicants proposed parking configuration requires the east-west driveways to be
considered private streets. Aside from on-street parking, parking is to the rear or sides of
buildings. Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
The subject property is generally level and surrounded by lands not currently zoned for
development. The building architecture is of a neighborhood scale. Staff considers this criterion
continues to be met.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
Staff worked closely with the applicant to address these criteria prior to the December 7
meeting. On December 7, the Board’s feedback indicated that they considered these criteria
met for the proposed homes. The Board did have questions about how the homes will relate
to the steel building to be retained. The applicant has proposed to screen the porches with
shrubs but has not proposed any other significant screening. While screening is not necessary
for a harmonious relationship, the Board has continued to ask the applicant to provide more
detail as to how these criteria will be met for the steel building.
1. Staff recommends the Board determine whether they will allow the project to proceed to
final plat without demonstration that these criteria are met for the steel building.
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.
At the previous meetings, the Board indicated the north-south roadway and sidewalks must be extended
to the northern and southern property boundary as part of the final plat application. This is planned to be
a future public roadway and as such must to be accompanied by a draft irrevocable offer of dedication
(IROD) at the final plat stage of review.
2. Further, the IROD must be clear of any impediments. For the southern property boundary, this affects
a proposed electrical transformer. For the northern property boundary, this affects the proposed
stormwater management system. For the east-west segment of the proposed roadway, this also
affects the proposed stormwater management system. Staff considers that removing the stormwater
system from the ROW in the east-west segment of roadway may require redesign of non-incidental
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
5
5 of 13
project elements and recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that the project is
still viable as designed prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing.
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.
Wire served utilities are proposed to be underground. The proposed electrical transformer is not screened.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to screen the transformer as required under 13.06 as part
of the application for final plat.
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 (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
3. There is a dumpster area which is proposed to be screened. The applicant previously testified that waste
disposal for the residential units will be via toters, which do not require screening. Staff recommends the
Board ask the applicant to address how collection vehicles will access the toters given the proposed
sidewalk and parking configuration adjacent to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening
shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape
requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
The applicant previously estimated the building cost to be $3,763,000. Since only the configuration and
not the construction of buildings has changed, Staff anticipates the building cost has remained generally
the same. The required minimum landscape value would therefore be $45,130.
The applicant has provided $78,972 in trees and shrubs, $86,202 in perennials, and a large quantity of
plantings in the stormwater treatment areas. Staff notes that street trees are not considered as
contributing to the required minimum landscaping cost and should be removed from the computation for
the final plat application. Otherwise, required minimum landscaping costs appear to be met.
4. Staff does, however, recommend the Board ask the applicant to confirm the above building cost
remains in the correct ballpark.
Several additional landscaping standards apply to this property, as follows.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
All off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be
curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers
as approved by the Development Review Board.
(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 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
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
6
6 of 13
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.
This criterion is only partially addressed. However, the applicant has placed great
emphasis on creating a courtyard configuration consistent with current land
development regulations, with transitions between private but visually accessible
space (a deck, stoop or porch), semi-private space (plantings, yard area that would be
used predominantly by a unit’s residents), and common space (the civic space). This
configuration has not resulted in much space for perimeter plantings. The applicant
has located deciduous trees along both northern and southern parking areas at the
exterior of the lot. Staff considers that if the Board were to require the applicant to
improve compliance with this criterion, it should be by requiring additional plantings
to screen the northern parking lot west of the planned public street, both from the
adjacent parcel to the north and from the existing home to the west.
(2) In all 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.
This criterion is not applicable; all proposed parking areas contain 28 or fewer parking
spaces.
(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.
5. It does not appear either of the northern parking areas are curbed. While Staff
considers it acceptable to omit curbing for drive aisles, both the landscaping area
adjacent to the parking stalls in the north west parking area and the sidewalk adjacent
to the parking stalls in the north east parking area should be protected from motor
vehicles. Staff recommends the Board require curbing in these locations.
(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 City Arborist reviewed the July 2021 submission of the applicant and provided
comments on diversity of species. Staff considers this comment to have been addressed
and will provide the final plans to the City arborist for review when they are submitted.
(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.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
7
7 of 13
This criterion is not met for either of the two southern parking areas. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to revise their plans to meet this criterion.
(c) 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 is 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.
Snow storage does not appear to be shown on the plans. Staff considers snow storage can
be addressed at the final plat stage of review.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse,
recycling, and compost collection (excluding on-site composting) areas, and utility
improvements such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be
effectively screened.
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
(3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to
protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the
site. The landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the
Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of
persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall
be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development
Review Board, may be substituted for the required planting.
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development
Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively,
decreasing or increasing the requirements.
Screening of transformers is discussed under 14.07B above. Screening of parking areas is
discussed under 13.06B above.
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.
No modification of standards beyond the front setback waiver discussed above has been requested.
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
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
8
8 of 13
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.
The project is proposing a distributed stormwater management system consisting of seven treatment
areas. This represents a significant consolidation of stormwater treatment when compared to the plans
reviewed in June. The City Stormwater section reviewed the revised plans on 3/25/2022 and offers the
following comments.
1. On Sheet C5-01, if silt fence is being proposed as the primary sediment control practice, it should
follow the Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control,
most recently updated in February of 2020. Part 5, Silt Fence notes that the maximum drainage
area for overland flow to a silt fence shall not exceed ¼ acre per 100 feet of fence. Silt fence
should also be depicted with j-hooks at the end to capture sediment.
2. It is assumed that basements are not being proposed and there are no footing drains for
buildings.
3. The Snow Storage callout is generic and utilizes a “typical” notation. The applicant should revise
the plans to show all snow storage locations.
4. Confirm if the drainage areas for the stormwater treatment practices are correct. As shown, the
drainage areas do not cover the entire stormwater treatment practice. Please update to show
actual full drainage area – “permitted” vs. “non-permitted” impervious can be shown with
hatching within the drainage area as necessary.
5. The contours on the site are very flat and susceptible to puddling. Consider including spot point
elevations at breaks between drainage areas to ensure accurate drainage areas and positive
drainage.
6. The very south-east corner of pavement within the project: Provide spot point elevation to
ensure that runoff flows to CB or treatment practice and not offsite. Include curbing as needed.
7. In general, confirm there are no utility conflicts. In particular, the crossing of the storm drain,
gravity sewer and sewer forcemain adjacent to SMH 2.
8. Sheet C8-401: Top of Mulch Elevations and Underdrain Elevations appear to be incorrect, as they
differ from the plan sheets by approximately 90 feet in elevation.
9. Sheet C8-401: Bioretention Area Detail:
a. What size stone is being proposed within the 12” thick stone layer?
b. Was a peastone layer considered in-lieu of the filter fabric between the bioretention soil and
stone?
c. For the biorentetion soil testing, are you requiring the Morgan Method or the Modified
Morgan Method?
10. Sheet C8-402: This sheet includes details for a Rain Guardian and Filterra system. Are these
systems being proposed for this project?
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
9
9 of 13
11. LA1-01: There are a number of tree planting proposed right on or adjacent to utilities including:
a. 1 ‘NS’ on the inlet pipe to Stormwater Treatment Area 2.
b. 2 ‘UA’ and 2 ‘AF’ on the gas line running north-south on the east side of the proposed road,
c. A ‘NS’ and a ‘GT’ on the forcemain, as it leaves the pump station and before the first bend.
d. It is understood that the site is very tight, but there are some large trees with trunks
proposed within 5’-6’ feet of the buildings.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Stormwater
Sections as part of the final plat application.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Relevant criteria of 15.12 are as follows.
15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation
A. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation
of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial,
collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make
possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when
later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and
drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other
conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified.
In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more
than one dwelling unit.
6. As noted above, Staff continues to recommend the Board require the north south streets to be
extended to the property line, including the sidewalk, which is a required street cross sectional
element.
D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways.
(3) Private roadways allowed. The DRB may at its discretion approve a roadway or roadways
within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more of the following situations applies:
(d) The proposed roadway has only one (1) point of access on another existing or proposed
public roadway, and serves nine (9) or fewer dwelling units in any combination of single-family,
duplex or multi-family dwellings.
(f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the
South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon
prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by
the City of South Burlington Fire Chief.
32 total homes are proposed to share a single access point onto Spear Street. The proposed public road
is connected to adjacent parcels to allow future interconnection, but as noted above, the adjacent
parcels are not proposed for development at this time. 15.12J limits the number of dwelling units
served by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street to fifty
(50) unless there are additional connections to other streets, subject to review and approval of the
Development Review Board.
Each private road serves eight homes. Staff considers these criteria met.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
10
10 of 13
E. Standards for Construction of Roadways
(1) All streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant.
(2) All public roadways shall be built to the specifications in Table 15-1,Figure 15-1, and the
Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 unless specifically authorized otherwise
by the DRB in its final approval of the subdivision or PUD.
Local roads are required to have a 50-ft ROW with a minimum pavement width of 28-ft including
parking. This criterion is met.
7. The required 5-ft of green space between the street and the sidewalk has not been provided. Though
Staff appreciates the layout proposed by the applicant for its larger green belt on one side of the street,
green space is necessary for snow storage and must be provided on both sides. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to modify the roadway cross section to include 5-ft of green space between
the road and sidewalk on both sides as part of the final plat application.
(3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this section with the
exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be a minimum width of twenty-six (26)
feet with parking and twenty (20) feet without parking.
The private roads are more like single-loaded parking lots than roads. Single loaded parking lots
must have a 20-ft drive aisle, which has been provided. Staff considers this criterion met.
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 South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on 7/7/2021 and offered
comments which were included in the July staff report. The plans have changed but the comments
of the SBWD are still applicable. Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to address
the comments of the SBWD as part of the final plat application.
Staff considers the applicant should be required to demonstrate preliminary water and wastewater
allocation as part of the final plat application.
(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 project will disturb more than one acre of land and therefore will be required to obtain a state
General Permit for construction. Staff recommends the Board review this criterion in more detail at
final plat.
(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.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
11
11 of 13
The project is proposed to generate 25 vehicle trips per PM peak hour. 15.12F requires the project
not result in level of service below “D” at the adjacent major roadway, and at the nearest signalized
intersections. The Board determined in July that no detailed traffic study was necessary for this
project.
The applicant is proposing a crosswalk on Spear Street at the entrance to the project connecting to
the existing recreation path. The City Council decision granting interim zoning exception (IZ-20-02)
found that the applicant must include a Repeating Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), or other
infrastructure designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle crossing from the subject parcel to the
Spear Street recreation path in its application to the Development Review Board. A RRFB has been
provided. The Board determined in July that the applicant must work with the Director of Public
Works to determine the appropriate location for the RRFB.
It is unclear what surface treatment is proposed for the internal rec paths and sidewalks. Staff
continues to recommend the Board require the rec path segments to be asphalt and the sidewalks
concrete.
(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.
The project is proposed to impact two areas of Class III wetlands and buffers. In July, the Board indicated
they had no issues with the proposed wetland impacts.
(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.
Visual compatibility and compatibility with the comprehensive plan are addressed in accordance with
14.06A above.
(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.
The applicant is proposing an interior commons area. The eastern portion of the property contains a
large area of wetland which will be retained. The eastern portion contains a trail behind the proposed
easternmost buildings. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
The Fire Chief did not provide comments on this application. Staff recommends the Board revisit
this criterion at final plat.
(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.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
12
12 of 13
(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.
Most of the elements of these criteria are discussed elsewhere in this document. The Director of Public
Works reviewed the revised plans submitted on March 18 and offered the following supplemental
comments on March 24.
• Provide a detail for the RRFB’s at the Spear street crossing so that DPW can confirm that the
proposed equipment is compatible with other equipment installed in the City. This work will
require a ROW permit from DPW.
• The crosswalk at Spear Street shall be illuminated by a street light. Provide fixture details along
with photometrics for this ped crossing.
• Stormwater treatment areas (including grading) shall be removed from any proposed future City
ROW.
• The City shall be offered an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the proposed new city street. The
City may not choose to exercise this Offer until such time that the street connects to future public
streets. As presently constituted just within this development, the streets serve more as an
internal drive than a city street that exists for the good of the general public.
• Based on the plans submitted, it appears as if the applicant’s intent is for the wastewater pump
station and force main to remain private. If this infrastructure is to be considered for future
public ownership the pump station location will need to be revised to facilitate future
connections and maintenance. The force main is currently proposed to run through a solar field,
which would be problematic if repairs are necessary. The wastewater force main discharge point
is proposed on the east side of the interstate at the end of the City’s ROW for Oakwood Drive.
Has the applicant coordinated with the State of Vermont regarding the proposed location of the
force main? This proposed manhole on Oakwood Drive is the point at which the City would
assume responsibility for this infrastructure. In order to install this manhole the applicant will
need to obtain a ROW permit from the DPW.
• Evaluate the proposed location of the gravity sewer system. Can it be situated to facilitate future
connections within the proposed new City street?
• Evaluate the layout of the stormwater drainage system that is proposed. Are sufficient storm
drains provided to collect and convey stormwater runoff from the proposed City street? A storm
drains is located in the middle of an intersection in vehicle tire tracks instead of placed along the
curb. There are potentially conflicts with UG lines. Insufficient drainage and excessive puddling
would be a reason that the City does not accept this road in the future.
• The sidewalks running north – south along the proposed “new city street” shall be extended to
the northerly property lines
• The water line running north-south along the proposed “new city street” shall be extended to the
northerly property line.
• All pavement markings on sections of street proposed to be public shall meet the VTrans spec for
durable markings, Section 646.07, of the VTrans 2018 Standards.
• Provide civil details.
• Have the applicant confirm the material and width of all proposed sidewalk/path. It appears that
the sidewalks in the proposed new City street are of varying size.
Except as otherwise noted herein, Staff considers the comments of the Director of Public Works can be
addressed at the final plat stage of review.
Proposed lighting fixtures for the public street are not consistent with City standards. Staff recommends
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
13
13 of 13
the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to coordinate public street lighting with the
Department of Public Works prior to application for final plat. Other lighting fixtures and illumination
levels appear to meet the requirements of the LDR. Staff will review the proposed lighting plan in more
detail at the final plat stage of review.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review standards
above.
(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.
See discussion above under Site Plan Review standard pertaining to Low Impact Development.
D) OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
One short-term space is required for every 10 units, or 4 spaces. These spaces must be located near
building entrances. In July, the applicant indicated they intend to provide two long-term bicycle parking
spaces per unit, which exceeds the minimum required long term bicycle parking by 32 spaces. The
applicant may apply excess long-term bicycle parking towards up to 50% of the minimum required short
term bicycle parking. Therefore the applicant must provide two short-term bicycle parking spaces. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to provide more specific information demonstrating how
both short and long term bicycle storage requirements are met as part of the final plat application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner