Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-04 - Supplemental - 0119 Tilley DriveSD-21-24 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-22-04_119 Tilley Dr_UVMMC_2022-04-05.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 25, 2022 Application received: February 8, 2022 119 Tilley Drive - UVMMC Sketch Plan Application #SD-22-04 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022 Owner Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, VT 05401 Applicant UVM Medical Center c/o Dave Keelty 199 Main Street, Suite 150 Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcels 1718-00047.B Industrial & Open Space Zoning District, Transit Overlay District, Traffic Overlay District, Env. Hazard-potential wetlands Parcel size: 13.53 acres Contact Gail Henderson-King White + Burke 40 College Street, Suite 100 Burlington, VT 05401 Location Map SD-21-24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-22-04 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one and a half story 84,000 sf medical office with associated parking, equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive. PERMIT HISTORY Historically, the subject property is known as “Lot 6.” Lot 6 was created as part of the PUD which created the 1-acre lot currently occupied by the Red Barn Deli. That PUD also created Lot 7, which was later merged back into Lot 6 in SD-10-04, creating the Lot 6 as it stands today. The current LDR does not allow for a PUD of this type, therefore this application must be considered as a site plan despite it historically being part of a PUD, though under draft regulations being soon considered by City Council, the project may choose to be an elective PUD. The Tilley Drive area is also subject to an additional PUD of Lots 1 – 5, which includes all lots east of Lot 6 and north of Tilley Drive. Lot 6 and the adjacent Lot 2 to the east are under common ownership. This project proposes discharge of stormwater via a piped outfall on Lot 2. The official map includes two planned roadways in the Tilley Drive area, one extending north from Tilley Drive to the O’Brien property to the north and one extending east from the existing cul-de-sac on Tilley Drive to Community Drive. The DRB recently reviewed projects that addressed each of these connections, the north connection with the O’Brien Eastview approval (preliminary plat #SD-20-40) and the east connection with the OnLogic approval (final plat #SD-21-26 & site plan #SP-21-046). Both of those projects accommodated the planned roadway connections as required in the LDR1. The O’Brien Eastview approval is discussed further in this report. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following comments. NOTE: As this is a Sketch Plan review, only criteria relevant for review at this stage are addressed. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. A) MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS 15.B.02(A) Required Approval. Master plan review and approval by the DRB is required prior to preliminary subdivision review under Article 15.A, or site plan review under Article 14, as applicable, for: (5) The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract or parcel of land where there exists clear potential for future growth and development beyond that presented in an application, as necessary to establish physical and functional connections between areas of proposed and potential future development. This is a new requirement under the LDR adopted February 7, 2022. The applicants plan includes about 1 Further notes on the planned north-south roadway: The City is working with the State Department of Environmental Conservation, including the wetlands division, on connectivity from Tilley Drive towards Kimball Avenue and Williston. The DEC has indicated they intend to closely review impacts of each official map connection. Presumably, official map connections would be permitted one at a time when sufficient need is demonstrated through a traffic study. SD-21-24 2/3 of the total development area of the site. Staff considers that future development potential of the property exists, and therefore a master plan may be required to establish connections between areas of proposed and potential future development. 1. If the applicant wishes to conserve the remainder of the site as permanent open space, Staff considers a master plan may not be required, otherwise a master plan should be required. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant. If the Board determines a master plan is required, Staff considers this sketch plan may be allowed as the sketch plan for the master plan. Prior to concluding the sketch plan meeting, the plan should be revised to demonstrate how the proposed development will interface with the area reserved for potential future development. In the case of a master plan, the applicant may combine the application for site plan review with the application for master plan review. B) ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The applicant has proposed a single point of access on the western boundary of the site, via a shared driveway with the Red Barn Deli. Staff considers there are a number of reasons supporting the project being redesigned with the access to the east of the property. Both the existing Matri Health Care to the east and the existing Red Barn Deli to the west were designed with shared driveways to accommodate future growth on Tilley Drive. Applicable standards include the environmental protection standards of Article 12 and standards pertaining to access to abutting properties. Environmental Protection Standards The property includes a large area of Class III wetland. The applicant has not provided information on the size of the wetland, but Staff assumes it is larger than 5,000 sf and therefore wetland protection standards of 12.05 apply. Staff notes additional information, including field delineation and wetland report, is required at the next stage of review. Development in a Class III wetland and associated 50-ft buffer is generally prohibited and is required to be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. The following activities are permissible. (a) Restricted Infrastructure encroachment (b) Temporary impacts (c) Underground Utilities Restricted infrastructure encroachment is defined in 12.02. It may include private driveways if they are designed to minimize disturbance of the natural resources. If the applicant wishes to apply for restricted infrastructure encroachment, they must demonstrate it meets one of the following criteria. (1) Is necessary to repair impacts from a Federally declared disaster, mitigate the future impacts of hazards, and/or necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; (2) Is for a functionally dependent purpose or use; (3) Is a part of an Environmental Restoration Project; (4) Is on the Official Map; (5) Is for purposes of crossing a natural resource area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the area; or (6) For purposes of providing safe access in accordance with City roadway and connectivity standards to an approved use. Restricted infrastructure encroachment for street and driveway crossings not on the official map may be allowed only upon determination by the Board that all the following standards are met. SD-21-24 (a) There is no feasible alternative for providing safe access to the developable portion of the property; (b) Alternative accesses through adjacent properties have been considered and, where fewer or no constraints exist, property owners have been contacted to discuss locating the street or driveway on the adjacent property; (c) The requirements of the applicable restriction will cause unnecessary or extraordinary economic hardship; (d) The area served by the encroachment represents more than thirty (30) percent of the total developable land on the parcel; (e) The encroachment represents the least possible impact to the specific resource (e.g., location with least adverse impact, designed to minimize disturbance of the resource). (f) Roadway paved surfaces shall be no wider than necessary for the intended functional road classification for the roadway and in no case shall the roadway paved surfaces be wider than 24 feet; (g) Roads that bifurcate a wetland or wetland buffer shall propose appropriate mitigation, such as reduction or elimination of curbing and installation of cross culverts, to enable wildlife passage. These standards are intended to represent a high bar for wetland and wetland buffer encroachment. In addition to the provisions for Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, 12.06F(1)(d) allows an applicant to request modification of wetland standards for development in a Class III wetland exceeding 5,000 square feet in area and associated buffer within all zoning districts. The Development Review Board may grant a modification from the wetland standards only if a modification application meets all of the following standards: (a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed development; (b) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the planned character of the area, as defined by the purpose statement of the zoning district within which the project is located, or on public health and safety; (c) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the property to adequately treat stormwater from the site; and, (d) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation. Staff considers that a reasonable alternative to access the rear portion of the site exists on the adjoining lots to the east, including an existing driveway with a 60-ft easement to the benefit of Lot 2 (as noted above, under common ownership with the subject property) and a planned street on the official map, therefore the project may not be eligible for either a restricted infrastructure encroachment or a modification of standards. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant locating the site access to the east in order to eliminate natural resource impacts. If the Board ultimately permits a driveway impact to the wetland and wetland buffer, the encroachment must represent the least possible impact. The applicant has both a driveway and a drop-off area in the wetland and buffer. 3. Staff considers discussion of minimizing these impacts is necessary if the Board entertains permitting a restricted infrastructure encroachment. 4. The Board should direct the applicant to provide a wetland delineation on Lot 2 in the location of the planned future roadway in order to determine if any part of the future roadway must be accommodated on the subject property (again, in common ownership with Lot 2) or if it may be permitted on Lot 2. Provision of roadways on the official map is a requirement of LDR 15.A.11C and SD-21-24 15.A.14B. Whether the lands are developed or conserved, sufficient space for the future roadway must be retained if the future roadway cannot be accommodated on Lot 2. Access to Abutting Properties 14.07G states the following 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. 13.02F states that the intent of the City is to minimize traffic and pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such driveways off public roadways. It goes on to require all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots to provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. The property is located immediately south of the O’Brien Eastview development (preliminary plat approval #SD-20-40), in which the Board required two roadway connections to the south, labeled A and B on the below markup of the O’Brien Eastview plan. The Board should direct the applicant, in their site plan and master plan if required, to provide connections to both locations A and B, as follows. The roadway originating at location A is intended to cross east to connect to the north-south roadway on the official map. As the Board may recall, this was the alternative accepted by the Board in SD-20-40 to provide a connection between the residential and commercial sections of O’Brien Eastview in order to accommodate steep slopes. SD-21-24 5. The Board should direct the applicant to provide a 50 or 60-ft ROW on the subject property (dimension to be determined based on development plan for the northern portion of the parcel) from the O’Brien roadway to the planned north south roadway in a location that is viable given the topography. If master plan is required, it should include the roadway connection. The north-south connection originating at Location B and extending across Lot 2 to Tilley Drive is approved for a recreation path as part of the O’Brien Eastview project and is on the official map as a planned road connection. 6. Staff recommends the Board should direct the applicant to provide a driveway connection from the site to the north-south official map roadway. Staff notes that if the site were accessed via the east, this objective would be addressed. Traffic Safety & Trip Generation 7. Further pursuant to access and circulation, Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what the general traffic patterns will be for the site. The applicant has provided a loading dock. Does the applicant’s proposed site configuration minimize conflicts between passenger vehicles, larger vehicles, and pedestrians? Medical office is a generally high trip-generating use. However, the applicant’s intention to use this site as a surgical center may result in a different traffic pattern. Using a standard medical clinic calculation from ITE 10th edition, the project would generate 174 trips. 8. Since this is a large number of new trips, and since the applicant may instead opt to use site-specific studies to estimate trip generation, Staff recommends the Board invoke third-party technical review of the applicant’s traffic study, including traffic safety, at this time to enable it to be fully reviewed prior to the site plan hearing. C) SETBACKS AND BUFFERS Both 3.06 and 14.06B contain provisions requiring buffering of adjoining properties, as follows. 3.06I. Setback and Buffer Strip Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries. (1) Setback to residential zoning districts. Any new, reconstructed, or expanded principal building located wholly or primarily in a non-residential zoning district shall retain a setback of not less than sixty-five (65) feet from all adjacent residential zoning districts, unless applicable lots are part of a Master Plan or Planned Unit Development. (2) Buffer strip. A buffer strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot setback in subsection (a) shall be installed and landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. 14.06B. 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. The Planning Commission has approved an amendment that encourages the Board to consider privacy of SD-21-24 adjoining properties in their review of 14.06B. The property adjoins the R1-PRD zoning district to the north and west. The Board may permit uses within the setback and buffer defined in 3.06J if the buffering and screening provides equivalent buffering to the required setback and buffer. The applicant had, during discussion with Staff, indicated that they may be interested in including a looping recreational path along the west side of the property. 9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what a setback and buffer containing a recreational path might look like were it designed in a way to meet the applicable regulations. D) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, USES AND EQUIPMENT The applicant is proposing a number of pieces of large equipment, including chillers, an “oxygen farm” and a generator. The applicant has provided sample photos of each of these pieces of equipment. A number of sections of the LDR are potentially applicable. Generally, the standards of 13.08 (Outdoor Storage), 13.04 (Landscaping) and 13.12 (Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures) require screening and require utilities and equipment to be at least 5-ft from adjacent property lines. LDR 3.10, pertaining to accessory structures and uses, requires them to be located to the side or rear of a structure. Since the official map requires a roadway on the adjacent lots to the east, Staff recommends the Board consider the eastern property line a front for the purpose of accessory structure placement and require any accessory structures to be to set back behind the eastern face of the building. 10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what placement and screening would be considered adequate for the proposed equipment. E) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Dimensional requirements appear to be met. A portion of the lot is in the Traffic Overlay district. However, this project would not be subject to the traffic overlay district regulations because the lot does not have access in the traffic overlay zone. Transit Overlay and Connection to Street The project is located in the Transit Overlay District. Medical office is only allowed in this district if it is connected by a public sidewalk or recreation path to a public roadway identified as a transit route on the Transit Overlay District Map in a direct (ie generally shortest distance from the use to the roadway) manner. Tilley Drive is a transit route therefore the project must be directly connected to Tilley Drive by a sidewalk or recreation path. There is no direct statement requiring that an entry face the street in the present LDRs in this zoning district. However, Staff considers a street facing entry would support demonstration that the following related standards are met when taken together. • 14.06A(1): Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 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 Planning Commission has held a public hearing on amendments to the LDR to better define this standard. The draft language includes improving and enhancing pedestrian connections and walkability, and establish a street facing orientation. • 14.06A(2): Parking: 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-21-24 • 14.06C(2): Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area….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. • 10.04A: It is the purpose of the Transit Overlay District to provide for a safe, compact, and efficient land use pattern that supports regular fixed-route transit service, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Certain land uses may be permitted only within the Transit Overlay District, or be permitted outside the District subject to conditions. Other incentives or requirements that complement a multi-modal environment may also be established. 11. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to include a front or corner-facing entry, as the existing standards support this configuration, standards likely to be in effect at the time of application will state this more strongly, and the site configuration supports this layout. F) OTHER – ADA The applicant requested confirmation from the Board that they will permit handicapped accessible parking to be located to the front of the building. LDR 14.06B(2)(b)(i) permits the Board to approve the minimum parking necessary between a public street and one or more buildings if the parking area is necessary to the meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the provided front parking represents the minimum necessary. G) OTHER – ENERGY STANDARDS Staff draws the applicant’s attention to the requirement that all new commercial buildings meet the Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES) Stretch Code AND the standards of Appendix CA – Solar Ready Zone – of the CBES pursuant to Section 3.18 of the LDR. This can be addressed at the site plan stage of review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner