HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-019 CU-22-03 - Supplemental - 0055 Green Mountain Drive (2)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-22-019_CU-22-03_55 Green Mtn Drive_VT
Commons_SC_2022-05-17.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 11, 2022
Plans received: April 5, 2022
55 Green Mountain Drive
Site Plan Application #SP-22-019 and #CU-22-03
Meeting date: June 7, 2022
Owner/Applicant
Vermont Commons School
75 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer/Architect
Wiemann Lamphere
525 Hercules Drive #2
Colchester, VT 05446
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0720-00055
Commercial 2 Zoning District, Transit Overlay District
Location Map
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Site plan application #SP-22-019 and conditional use application #CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons
School to amend a previously approved plan for a general office building. The amendment consists of
converting to educational facility as a use and minor site modifications, 55 Green Mountain Drive.
CONTEXT
This project was scheduled to be reviewed on May 17, but was continued without being discussed due to
time constraints. Staff has worked with the applicant to address some of the issues identified in the
previously provided staff report. Those updates are incorporated herein.
This project is subject to Site Plan Review Standards. The purpose of the project is to expand the existing
approved educational use at 75 Green Mountain Drive to 55 Green Mountain Drive. The property most
recently received site plan approval in SP-01-39 by the DRB as a general office building. The 2001 approval
was to add 19 parking spaces. Educational use requires conditional review approval by the DRB.
Physical changes proposed outside the building consist of modifications to pedestrian circulation on the
subject property. The pedestrian circulation improvements are also proposed to extend on the property
at 65 Green Mountain Drive and 55 Green Mountain Drive. These improvements are being reviewed as
administrative site plans.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Planning Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 4/5/2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered comments for
the Board’s attention are indicated in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Commercial 2 Zoning District Required Proposed
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 120,919 sf
Max. Building Coverage 40% 13.9%
Max. Overall Coverage 70% 18.1%
Max Front Setback Coverage 30% 20.6%
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. No change
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. No change
Building Height (pitched roof) 40 ft. No change
Meets requirement
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
3
(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.
No changes to structures are proposed. The applicant is proposing to remove one existing crab
apple tree. Landscaping is discussed further below. The purpose of the site improvements is to
improve the safety of pedestrian movement. The use is changing from general office to
educational. Neither has a minimum required number of parking spaces. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building
facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of
this subsection.
Staff considers that no changes that will reduce compliance with this criterion are
proposed.
(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.
No changes to the building are proposed.
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.
No changes to structures are proposed.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
The wetland advisory layer indicates a potential wetland on the south side of the site, well
outside the project area within the existing wooded area. This criterion is not applicable.
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the
placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space,
stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these
Land Development Regulations.
These standards are contained in Article 13 and are discussed below.
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
4
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and
circulation standards of Section 15.A.14.
Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this
application. The applicable section of 15.A.14 follows.
15.A.14 (D) Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized
intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of
service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully
developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through
movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service of “D” or better at full
buildout.
In addition to this criterion, conditional use criterion require demonstration that the
proposed educational use will have no undue adverse effect on traffic on roads and
highways in the vicinity.
The applicant stated in their cover letter that they do not intend to expand the school at this
time and there will be no additional traffic due to the conversion of 55 Green Mountain
Drive to an educational use. As the Board is aware, a change in use is not for a specific
tenant but remains allowable if either the tenant changes or operation of the current tenant
changes. The application is for an additional 12,000 sf of educational use, which is
supported by architectural plans showing a gymnasium, classrooms, and office space. The
property will not be subject additional local permitting if the applicant later decides to
reallocate interior spaces within the umbrella of educational use or add additional students.
Since June 7, the applicant has provided information to Staff explaining that they are
required annually to report the number of students.
Every year the school is required by statute to report our student numbers by grade to the
Agency of Education; we also are required for continuing accreditation to provide the same
numbers, as well as faculty and staff, each year to the New England Association of Schools
and Colleges (NEASC). It would be quite easy to provide these on an ongoing basis to South
Burlington for the purposes of the ease of monitoring and then requesting discussion with us,
should the enrollment situation change such that it exceeded the current approved use
numbers for the two buildings. We regularly are in touch with other SB entities--at least
annually with some--(Fire, EMS, Police Dept., SB School District) about our current
enrollment, safety plans, student learning needs for Title II and IV funding, and other
matters. Long story short: we'd be happy as a condition of approval to include SB Planning
and Zoning as a recipient of our annual report/s on enrollment.
1. While Staff appreciates the applicant’s willingness to perform annual reporting, there is no
mechanism in place for annual review of number of students. Based on a rough analysis
using square footage, Staff estimates the previously-approved office use generated 21 trips
and the educational use may generate between 55 and 108 trips. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to provide a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to determine the
previously approved and potential trip generation based on square footage. If the number of
potential trips is found to increase, the TIA should evaluate whether it will reduce the level of
service (LOS) or otherwise have an adverse impact on the nearest signalized intersections,
those of Green Mountain Drive at Shelburne Road and IDX Drive at Shelburne Road, as
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
5
specified in LDR 15.A.14D. If no adverse impacts are found, the project will be subject to a
traffic impact fee per new trip but otherwise will be unaffected.
2. The applicant submitted a package of supplemental information regarding traffic which was
received by Staff on 6/1/2022. Staff had insufficient time to review the supplemental
information prior to packet publication on that same date. Staff anticipates having an
update at the time of the hearing.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved]
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban
Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall
adhere to the standards contained therein.
No changes to the building form are proposed.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section
8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.15(D) in all other zoning districts,
shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture
(trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and
Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit
requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these
Regulations.
Though the existing streetscape of Green Mountain Drive does not comply with City standards,
since there is no extension/expansion of the structure, Staff considers this criterion to be not
applicable.
F. 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.
Access between properties will be reviewed under separate administrative site plan for 65
Green Mountain Drive.
G. 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.A.18,
Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met.
No changes to existing utilities are proposed.
H. 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.
The existing dumpster complies with this criterion.
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
6
C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
For existing buildings, the applicant is only required to comply with short term bicycle parking
requirements. Educational uses require 1 space for each 20 students of planned capacity. The
applicant’s website indicates 108 students are enrolled for 2021. In response to staff comments for the
May 17 DRB meeting, the applicant indicated their intention to install bicycle racks only at 75 Green
Mountain Drive because that is where student lockers are located. At this time the applicant has simply
made a statement; the plans have not yet been updated to reflect the required bike rack.
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to apply this criterion to each individual site (keeping in
mind no additional local permitting would be required if the applicant later converts 55 Green
Mountain Drive to classroom space) or whether to apply this criterion to 55 Green Mountain Drive
and 75 Green Mountain Drive taken together. The provided plans do not show any existing bicycle
racks at 55 Green Mountain Drive. The approved plans for 75 Green Mountain Drive indicate one
inverted-U bicycle rack, providing space for two bicycles, though the applicant’s statement indicates
that the actual existing rack is of a different not allowable type.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
13.04I Landscape Maintenance. Maintenance and responsibility. All planting shown on an approved
site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition throughout the
duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants at the beginning of the
next immediately following growing season. Trees with a caliper of less than 5” may be replaced on an
inch-by-inch basis with trees of the same genus of at least 2” caliper each. No permit shall be required
for such replacements provided they conform to the approved site plan. Replacement of trees with a
caliper of greater than 5” shall require an amendment to the site plan.
The most recently approved site plan for the property that pertains to the affected portion of the site
approved four (4) Bradford pear trees and eight (8) creeping juniper bushes between the parking area
and the property line. If the landscaping had been allowed to mature as required, the previously
approved vegetation would be well established at this time. There is no evidence of the property having
obtained a permit to modify the approved landscaping.
The provided site plan indicates the presence of two unidentified trees, four locust trees, two cedar
trees and one crab (presumably crab apple) tree between the parking area and the street. The applicant
is proposing to remove the crab apple tree. It is indicated as having a 3-inch caliper.
4. Staff considers the Board may do one of the following.
• Allow the existing landscaping to be considered an acceptable substitution for the previously
required landscaping as an after-the-fact approval, including the proposed removal of the crab
apple tree. If the Board selects this approach, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to identify the unidentified trees on the plan to allow future enforcement of this criterion.
• Require the applicant to demonstrate the existing landscaping has at least the same value as the
previously-approved landscaping, based on the present costs of the existing and previously
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
7
approved landscaping. If the existing landscaping does not meet or exceed the previously
required landscaping value, require the applicant to provide supplemental landscaping to make
up the deficit.
• Require the applicant to comply with the previously approved landscaping plan.
The applicant indicated via email on 5/17 that they would be willing to planting of a replacement for the
tree to be removed. Staff considers this does not change the recommendation for the Board to consider
the above three options. Staff considers the site to be adequately landscaped and supports the first option.
D) CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS
14.10E. General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed
conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The
proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following:
These criteria pertain only to the change in use, and not to the proposed site improvements.
(1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
Staff considers the proposed change in use will not result in an undue adverse effect on the capacity of
existing or planned community facilities.
(2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district
within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan.
IDX Drive and Green Mountain Drive have a large variety of uses, including the large office at 40 IDX Drive,
automobile related uses, wholesale, research and development, multifamily residential, and other
educational uses. Staff considers the proposed change from office to educational use generally consistent
with the character of the area.
(3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Staff considers this criterion will be met when the comments above pertaining to traffic is addressed.
(4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.
Staff considers this criterion will be met when the issues identified herein are addressed.
(5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
Staff considers the proposed change in use will not result in an undue adverse effect on utilization of
renewable energy resources.
F. Expiration of Conditional Use Permits. A conditional use permit shall be deemed to authorize
only one (1) specific conditional use on a subject property and shall expire if the conditional use shall
cease for more than six (6) months for any reason, unless an umbrella approval has been granted.
Only one specific conditional use, educational facility, is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
#SP-22-019 & #CU-22-03
8
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner