Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-05 - Decision - 0255 Kennedy Drive#SD-22-05 1 1 of 22 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING O’BRIEN FARM ROAD, LLC 255 KENNEDY DRIVE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-22-05 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-22-05 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non residential space as allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two (2) five story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 sf of commercial space, and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on March 15, 2022, May 4, and June 21, 2022. Evan Langfeldt, Scott Homsted, Roger Dickinson, Andrew Gill, Jeff Hodgson, Carolyn Orben, and Tim Smith 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The project consists of final plat application #SD-22-05 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non residential space as allowed in the zoning district. The phase consists of two (2) five story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 sf of commercial space, and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy Drive. 2. The project is located in the Residential 12 Zoning District, the C1-LR zoning district, the traffic overlay district 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 February 3, 2022. 5. The Project received master plan approval in 2016 (#MP-16-03), later amended by #MP- 20-01 to add 0.6 acres to the master plan area. 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 first phase of #SD-20-16 has been approved by the Board as application #SD-21-25. #SD-21-25 contains conditions modifying the inclusionary housing framework approved in #SD-20-16. 7. The plans submitted consist of: Sheet No: Plan Description: Prepared By: Last Revised Date: C1.1 Overall Open Space Plan Krebs & Lansing 05/03/2022 C1 Overall Site Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C2 Site Plan Krebs & Lansing 04/15/2022 C3.1 Lot 13 Utility Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C3.2 Lot 13 Grading Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 #SD-22-05 2 2 of 22 C3 Lot 13 Materials Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C4.1 Lot 15 Utility Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C4.2 Lot 15 Grading Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C4 Lot 15 Materials Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C5 Watershed Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 C6 Soils Restoration Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 D1 Civil Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D2 Civil Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D3 Civil & Water Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D4 Civil & Water Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D5 Civil & Water Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D6 Civil & Sanitary Details Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 D7 Civil & Storm Details Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 D8 Erosion Control & Sediment Control Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D9 Erosion Control & Sediment Control Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 D10 Site Electric Details Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 EPSC1 Preconstruction Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 EPSC2 Preconstruction Plan Krebs & Lansing 12/01/2021 EPSC3 Construction Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 EPSC4 Construction Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 EPSC5 Construction Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 EPSC6 Stabilization Plan Krebs & Lansing 06/01/2022 L100 Landscape Plan Lots 13 & 15 Wagner Hodgson 06/03/2022 L100.1 Overall Landscape Plan Wagner Hodgson 06/03/2022 L101 Landscape Plan Lots 13 & 15 Wagner Hodgson 06/03/2022 L102 Rooftop Amenity Deck Conceptual Site Plan Wagner Hodgson 04/15/2022 L200 Amenity Deck Details Wagner Hodgson 04/15/2022 L201 Landscape Details – Buildings 13 & 15 Wagner Hodgson 12/07/2021 A-0-00 Cover Sheet BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-01 Basement Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-02 Level 1 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-03 Level 2 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-04 Level 3 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-05 Level 4 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-06 Roof Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-21 Basement Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-22 Level 1 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-23 Level 2 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-24 Level 3 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-25 Level 4 Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-1-26 Roof Plan BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-2-01 Elevations BSB Design 04/11/2022 A-2-02 Elevations BSB Design 11/23/2021 #SD-22-05 3 3 of 22 A-2-03 Elevations BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-2-21 Elevations BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-2-22 Elevations BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-2-23 Elevations BSB Design 04/11/2022 A-5-01 Studio & A Unit Plans BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-5-02 B & C Unit Plans BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-5-03 D Unit Plans BSB Design 11/23/2021 A-TE-1-01 Trash Collection BSB Design 11/23/2021 8. #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) 9. This application includes 251 homes in a mix of studio, one, and two bedroom units. This represents an increase of 30 homes over what was preliminarily approved in #SD-20-16. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS R12 District Required Proposed, Lot 13 Proposed Lot 15 — Min. Lot Size, Multifamily, R12 6,000 sf/unit N/A, overall density approved in master plan — Max. Building Coverage1 35% Unknown Unknown — Max. Overall Coverage1 50% Unknown Unknown C1-LR District — Min. Lot Size, Multifamily 3,500 sf/unit N/A, overall density approved in master plan — Max. Building Coverage1 40% 0% Unknown Max. Overall Coverage1 70% Unknown Unknown Both R12 & C1-LR @Min. Front Setback2 6 ft 5.6 ft 66 ft @Min. Side Setback3 10 ft 16 ft 6.5 ft — Min. Rear Setback 30 ft N/A N/A Height (flat roof)4 35 ft. 58.3 ft 57.1 ft — Standard met @ Waiver Requested 1. Building and overall coverage are reviewed on a PUD-wide basis as approved in master plan. However, lot coverage must be met on a zoning district by zoning district basis, pursuant to 15.02B. See additional notes below under “Lot Coverage.” 2. The Board approved waiver of the front setback from 20-ft to 6-ft as part of #MP-16-03. #SD-22-05 4 4 of 22 The applicant is requesting further reduction of the front setback on O’Brien Farm Road to 5.6 ft. The Board finds the further reduction in front setback for Lot 13 to be supportive of the intended dense neighborhood feel, particularly given the board’s approval of a 60-ft ROW with an 8 – 10 ft sidewalk and rec path in this area, and grants the requested waiver. 3. The applicant is proposing to locate the building on Lot 15 less than 10-ft from the north side property line. The applicant is also proposing a sidewalk on the far side of the property line in this area (addressed in concurrent site plan and conditional use application #SD-22-008 and #CU-22-01). Lot 17 is predominantly within the C1-R12 zoning district, which allows building heights up to five stories. The Board grants the requested side setback waiver for Lot 15 and finds there must be at least 20-ft of separation between the building on Lot 15 and adjoining buildings, including buildings on Lot 17. 4. The Board preliminarily approved a waiver to allow a height of 58 ft on Lot 13 and a height of 57 ft on Lot 15 in #SD-20-16, based on the provision of high quality, varied and complimentary architecture for all buildings and landscaping. As more phases are approved, the definition of “varied and complementary” will necessarily narrow. The applicant is proposing to exceed the heights preliminarily approved by the Board as indicated in the table above. Based on the provided architecture of the buildings, the Board approves the heights as proposed. 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. The applicant has provided the following table of coverages which includes the portions of preliminary plat #SD-20-16 approved in #SD-21-25 and proposed in this application. District Max Lot Coverage Provided Lot Coverage Max Building Coverage Provided Building Coverage R12 60% 36.6% 40% 12.5% C1-LR 70% 66.1% 40% 28.4% R1-PRD 25% 13.9% 15% 13.9% The Board finds this criterion met. Phasing Preliminary plat amendment #SD-21-13 found that the applicant could construct each lot as a separate phase, though the first final plat application (#SD-21-25) 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. Since the zoning permit associated with #SD-21-25 has not yet been issued, no zoning permit has been issued for the roadways required to access lots 13 and 15. The Board finds the roadways proposed in #SD-21-25 must be issued a zoning permit no later than concurrently with the zoning permit for Lots 13 and 15. The applicant makes no proposal for phasing of the development proposed in this #SD-22-05 5 5 of 22 application. The applicant has included in their 6/7 submission a cover letter asking the Board for an extended timeline in which to construct the project. In particular, they are requesting that the Board extend the timeline to obtain a zoning permit for each of Lots 13 and 15 to be required before May 2025, or approximately three years. LDR 17.04 provides the following information pertaining to expiration of approvals. 17.04B. Expiration of Approvals. All site plan, conditional use, variances, design review, and miscellaneous application approvals shall expire six (6) months from the date of their approval by the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer, unless: (a) A zoning permit is issued for the project; (b) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has granted a longer period for a multi-phase development or for other projects that may reasonably require a longer period before commencement of the permitted project; or, (c) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has approved a request for extension of the approval. The Board or Administrative Officer may approve one (1) extension to an applicant of an approval if reapplication takes place before the approval has expired and if the Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Board or Administrative Officer may specify a period of time of up to one (1) year for the extension. Preliminary plat amendment #SD-21-13 was to add phasing to the multifamily phase of the Hillside master plan area. It included a timeline that the applicant must obtain final plat for all the multifamily buildings, but did not include extension of the time between final plat and zoning permit for individual buildings. 17.04B(b) permits the Board to extend the timeline for projects that may reasonably require a longer period before commencement. Given that these two buildings will be co-permitted and represent 251 units, the Board consider finds the applicant must obtain a zoning permit within 24 months of the date of this decision, with the option for a one-year extension as allowed in LDR 17.04. B) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY ZONING Preliminary plat decision #SD-20-16 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. Under 18.01, 15% of approved rental dwelling units subject to this application must be inclusionary. This is calculated across the area of SD-20-16. This present application proposes 124 units on Lot 13 and 127 units on Lot 15, requiring 38 inclusionary units. Final plat approval #SD-21-25 approves up to 84 units of inclusionary housing in the buildings on Lots 10 and 11. It requires the applicant to designate from the affordable units on Lots 10 and 11 which units will meet the inclusionary requirements for the other lots (here, Lots 13 and 15) #SD-22-05 6 6 of 22 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the fourth building among the six from SD-20-16. If the certificate of occupancy for the buildings on Lots 10 and 11 are issued prior to the buildings in this application, the Board finds the applicant must designate the inclusionary units on Lots 10 and 11 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for these 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 and water allocation for these buildings. The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on March 2, 2022 and offers the following comments. 1. The current site plans for these two buildings meet with the SBWD’s satisfaction. 2. Water line installation shall be in compliance with the CWD Specifications. 3. A Final Application for Water Allocation for each building must be provided to the Department to be approved. During this process the water connection fee, water allocation fee, and large meter fee for each building will be determined, that must be paid prior to the SBWD providing a meter. 4. The SBWD shall be notified no less than 7 days in advance of water line or appurtenance work. The Board finds the applicant must address the comments of the South Burlington Water Department. (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 state construction permit. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans dated December 1, 2021 on March 4, 2022, including the erosion and sediment control plan and offered the following comments. 1. The applicant may want to consider revising the landscaping plan to allow better access to the forebay, including greater spacing between the adjacent street trees and fewer plantings on the slope of the forebay nearest to the road. 2. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The Board finds the applicant shall take the first comment under advisement, and comply with the second comment as a condition of approval. (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 #SD-22-05 7 7 of 22 technical review by City staff or consultants. The master plan found that traffic impacts should be evaluated for each phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact memo prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson dated August 30, 2021. It does not take into consideration the Boards findings on #SD-21-25 related to this criterion, specifically pertaining to the crosswalk at the Lot 13/15 driveway. The traffic study concludes that the traffic signal at Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Drive is not yet warranted, and recommends a RRFB be installed on Kennedy Drive until such time as the traffic signal is warranted. The Board finds Kennedy Drive is not an appropriate roadway for a RRFB. The Board provided findings pertaining to the Kennedy Drive crosswalk in #SD-21-25. The Director of Public Works reviewed the remaining aspects of the plans pertaining to this and PUD criterion 8 and 9 on March 4, 2022 and offers the following comments. • I recommend that the DRB invoke a technical review of the traffic impacts, proposed driveway locations, and proposed pedestrian crossings. The technical reviewer should look at all aspects related to intersection design and safety, but specifically: o Review the location of the proposed driveway access on O’brien Farm Road. Ensure that it will have required sight distances considering the future intersection. Also confirm that it will be placed an appropriate distance away from any future intersection with Old Farm Road. o Review the layout of the two proposed driveway accesses on Two Brothers Drive. Confirm that they have required site distance and are located an appropriate distance from intersections. o It was my understanding that a pedestrian crossing would be provided on Two Brother Drive. Provide review of the location selected by the applicant once provided. o Determine the need for a signalized intersection at Two Brothers Drive and Kennedy Drive. It was my understanding that a new signal would be installed at this location. • If the project hasn’t already obtained a wastewater allocation from the City it will need to do so. • Revise the typical catch basin / storm manhole / sanitary manhole details as follows: At the frame installation on the top of the structure we do not want asphalt on top of concrete. This thin layer of asphalt would break away and can’t be maintained in place. The frame should be mortared or secured in place with mastic to the top of the structure. Compacted plant mix should be placed above that, with 5 inches of pavement (base and top course) on top of that. The Board finds the applicant must address the comment pertaining to storm and sanitary structures prior to issuance of the zoning permit. On March 15, the Board invoked third party technical review of the traffic analysis and turn lane configuration. BFJ Planning performed this review. Their comments are summarized as follows. • Trip Generation: BFJ agrees with the applicant’s calculation of trip generation, and highlights that AM peak hour trips for all of Hillside increase by 34 VTE/hour (14.5% increase) based on the applicants November 2021 trip generation memo. The TIS was originally prepared in August 2021 and was not updated to reflect the November trip generation adjustment. #SD-22-05 8 8 of 22 • Lane Configuration of Two Brothers Drive: BFJ considers the lane configuration relative to the Lot 13 & 15 driveways to provide adequate queuing distance when the intersection is signalized. • Signal Warrant Analysis: The signal is warranted when the trips on Two Brothers Drive exceeds 100 vph. The projected AM peak traffic volume in the August 2021 TIS is 115 vph, which would be increased by incorporating the trip generation from the November 2021 memo. On May 4, the applicant and Board discussed the proposed traffic signal at Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Drive. The applicant indicated the signal is warranted when construction of Lots 10, 11, 13 & 15 is complete. Since all four lots will not be completed at the same time, the applicant suggested they install the signal with the infrastructure work and monitor the traffic, activating the signal at such time as it becomes warranted. There were questions of whether it would be appropriate to activate a signal before it is warranted. Staff requested feedback from BFJ on the applicant’s proposal. BFJ’s comments are provided below. The applicant should go ahead and install the signal on a flashing basis with the pedestrian call opportunity for a walk and red light signal. Based on the signal warrant analysis the signal seems to be warranted when roughly 85% of all units (total development, combined) are occupied. That could become the threshold occupancy to activate the full signal. 85% is determined based on the 100 volume threshold on the minor road approach (Two Brothers, AM Peak) divided by the volume of 116 projected in Table 6. The Board finds the signal shall be activated when 85% of the units approved for Lots 10, 11, 13 & 15 reach occupancy. The number of units on each lot are as follows. Lot 10 47 Lot 11 47 Lot 13 124 Lot 15 127 85% of the total units would be 294 units, meaning the signal would be activated at occupancy of either the third or fourth building. The Board finds the signal must be activated at occupancy of the building containing the 294th unit in Hillside Phase 2, or if warranted sooner and demonstrated by a traffic study, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. (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 preliminarily found the project consistent with the planned development patterns specified in the Comprehensive Plan and in the purpose #SD-22-05 9 9 of 22 of the R-12 zoning district. This preliminary finding applies to the overall layout and scale of development; building and site appearance is discussed in detail elsewhere in these comments. (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, which the Board relied upon in approving the preliminary plat. The Board included the relevant finding that the applicant must complete the design of on-site open spaces. Other non-participatory open spaces in the project area include two stormwater management features near Kennedy Drive. There are four open spaces on lots 13 & 15. These include a paved patio with space for a food truck adjacent to Lot 15, a café terrace area on the corner of Two Brothers Drive and Kenney Drive, a seating area adjacent Lot 15 along Kennedy Drive, and the roof deck on Lot 13. The Board finds 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. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions. The Fire Chief provided comments at preliminary plat, and the Board finds modifications to the plans do not significantly alter what the Fire Chief would have reviewed. If changes are needed based on more detailed building inspector review, the zoning administrative officer will determine 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. (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. Roadways were evaluated as part of #SD-21-25. See criterion 11 below for comments related to stormwater. The Board deferred findings on lighting and utility lines to final plat. #SD-22-05 10 10 of 22 On the side of the building on Lot 15 facing Kennedy Drive, there is a concrete walkway which transitions into an asphalt sidewalk. The grading plans shows a gap at the end of the concrete section. The Board finds the applicant must correct this grading without changing the configuration of the walkway or sidewalk. The findings of the preliminary plat pertaining to lighting are as follows. The applicant is proposing 20-ft high metal light poles in the parking areas, and light fixtures consistent with City standards on the roadways. They have provided a photometric drawing indicating an average of 1.06 foot-candles, but have included the areas of the stormwater treatment practices, in which no lights are proposed and which are shielded from the lighted areas by the proposed buildings, in their calculation. The Board finds that the applicant must submit at the next stage of review an updated photometric plan, omitting areas outside of the multifamily development parcels, and outside the stormwater areas within the multifamily development parcels, from the calculation of average illumination. The updated plan must also provide a smaller grid spacing to allow evaluation of spillover beyond property lines. The applicant has provided a revised lighting plan indicating an average of 1.20 foot-candles in the parking areas and 0.75 foot-candles in the roadway. Maximum illumination in parking areas is 3.2 foot- candles, and on the roads is 4.1 foot-candles. The applicant also indicates maximum illumination level is overall is 4.8 foot-candles. LDR A.9 limits maximum illumination at ground level to 3 foot-candles. The Board finds the proposed illumination levels to be acceptable given the maximum illumination is only in the immediate proximity of fixtures. LDR A.10 limits indirect illumination at ground level to 0.3 foot-candles. This limit is typically applied to the property line. The photometric demonstrates this criterion is met except for property lines shared with Lot 17, reviewed concurrently under SP-22-008 & CU-22-01. The applicant has provided a written statement that building mounted lights are adjacent and above doorways and will be less than 30-ft above average grade. The criteria is “Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet;” average grade does not come into play. The Board finds the applicant must locate building mounted lights within 5-ft of the top of doorways in order to prevent the effect being that of a flood light. Building mounted fixtures with upward facing lighting are prohibited. Utility lines are proposed to be underground. Utility cabinets are located within the development lots (as opposed to within the ROW). Screening of utility cabinets is considered under site plan review standards pertaining to landscaping. (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. Comments of the City Stormwater Section are provided above. The Board finds this criterion met. #SD-22-05 11 11 of 22 D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.6 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. (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 98 spaces beneath the building on Lot 13, 71 spaces beneath the building on Lot 15, and 95 surface parking spaces. Off-site spaces are not addressed in this application, of which there are 51. 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: 198 studio and one bedroom units + 53 two bedroom units + Guest parking for 251 units = 275 Total required spaces The applicant has provided 264 on-site parking spaces (262 on-site spaces once the non complying spaces are removed), which is less than the required minimum. The Board therefore #SD-22-05 12 12 of 22 finds this application to be contingent on the concurrent site plan and conditional use application for parking on Lot 17. (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. (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. 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 attractive transitions using adjoining buildings of different styles, the applicant has placed a strong emphasis on consistency between buildings to create a strong neighborhood feel. At preliminary plat, the Board found this criterion met because all buildings were proposed to be of the same architectural style. The Board finds they have the right to rely on consistency with preliminary plat for affirmative findings on these criteria. In addition, with the recent approval of the buildings on lots 10 & 11, which are proposed to contain many or all of the inclusionary units in this area, designs complimentary to the approved plan for those lots is a requirement of inclusionary zoning. Preliminary findings pertaining to the compliance of each lot with this criterion and the criteria of 14.06A and 14.06B follows. All Lots 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 #SD-22-05 13 13 of 22 • landscape architectural elements including seating, information kiosks • vegetation to include trees, grasses and planters • complimentary 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 preliminary plat placed special emphasis on providing a visual or functional transition along the façade of the building facing Two Brothers Drive where the grade drops away from the entry tower to the leasing office in the opposite corner. The specific finding is as follows. The southwest elevation along Two Brothers Drive consists of an entry tower at the west corner, and then grade drops away to the leasing office. The space in between consists of openings into the parking garage. The building is located more than 20 feet from the back of sidewalk along this blank wall. The Board finds that the applicant should place particular emphasis on providing a visual or functional transition along this façade. This finding left open whether the “particular emphasis” should be architectural or landscaping. The applicant has provided a row of shrubs in this area. The Board finds the established requirements for a visual or functional transition to be met. On March 15 and May 4, the Board reviewed the proposed architecture of the two buildings. Particular emphasis was on creating the architectural interest approved at preliminary plat and on creating a complimentary appearance with the buildings approved on Lots 10 and 11. On May 4, the applicant presented that they added headers to the windows and decorative panels along the blank parking garage walls. The Board finds these criterion now met, and finds that the facades not shown on elevation sheets A-2.01 and A-2.23, both dated 4/11/2022 and submitted on 5/4/2022, shall be similarly updated to reflect window headers and garage panels (where applicable). 14.7 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 no additional land was required for provision of access to abutting properties on Lots 13 and 15. The Board finds this criterion met. 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. #SD-22-05 14 14 of 22 Utility connections are proposed to be underground. 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 13 and 15, solid waste disposal was proposed to be in an accessory structure shared with an as-yet undetermined use, potentially to include mail or bicycle storage. The Board found the applicant must improve pedestrian access to the accessory structure. The applicant has modified the proposal to provide for only solid waste disposal in this location. The solid waste disposal is no longer proposed to be a structure but is proposed to be a screened enclosure. Pedestrian access is provided. The Board finds this criterion met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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. Where units are adjacent to the street, a densely planted buffer is proposed. Otherwise a combination of trees, shrubs and plantings is provided. 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 $47,825,950, resulting in a required minimum landscaping value of $485,759.50. The finding of #SD-21-25 pertaining to landscaping credit for streetscape elements reads as follows. The Board finds the applicant may in the future be allowed credit for the remaining streetscape elements towards the required minimum landscaping budget on Lots 12 – 15 as follows, so long as the objectives of the landscaping standards are otherwise met. Concrete Paving $15,804 #SD-22-05 15 15 of 22 Colored concrete paving on sidewalks/rec path $19,272 Brick crosswalk $40,110 Flush granite curb $11,650 Silva Cells for tree planting $54,995 Total $141,831 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 supports in exchange for reduced setbacks and increased height. These values include only the incremental cost over standard features (asphalt paving, standard concrete, crosswalk striping, and concrete curb). The applicant has provided a landscaping budget. The total non-plant budget includes, in addition to colored concrete and concrete pavers, a single $2,500 tree grate, 12 bollards totaling $9,936, and 14 bike racks totaling $3,864. The Board finds bike racks to be excluded since they are a required site element and it is the Board’s strong precedent to exclude them except where they provide additional interest through a decorative appearance. The Board also excludes bollards for the same reason. The Board supports inclusion of the tree grate because it is located in an on-site open space and supports the landscaping standards. With the above adjustments, the applicant’s updated landscaping budget is as follows. Colored Concrete & Concrete Pavers* $69,515 Iron Tree Grate $2,500 Trees & Shrubs $262,015.50 Perennials & Grasses $39,909.50 Total $373,940 Deficit $111,819.50 *this number is the incremental cost over standard concrete The Board finds the site to be adequately landscaped and allows the deficit to be made up using the streetscape elements approved in #SD-21-25. The applicant therefore has $30,011.50 remaining in available streetscape budget which may be applied to future projects within the PUD if the landscaping standards are otherwise met. 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 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. The Board found at preliminary plat that compliance with this criterion would be evaluated at final plat for Lots 13 & 15. #SD-22-05 16 16 of 22 Taking into consideration only the portions of the parking lots which are not screened from the public way and adjacent properties by buildings, 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. The applicant has provided an exhibit in which they aggregate all the parking on Lots 13, 15 and 17 for the purpose of meeting this requirement. Since the parking on Lot 17 proposed as part of concurrent application #SP- 22-008 & #CU-2201 is integral to approval of the buildings on Lots 13 & 15, the Board allows the applicant to aggregate the parking on Lots 13 and 15 with the parking on Lot 17 for the purpose of compliance with this criterion, and finds this criterion 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. 13.06B(4)(b) requires one shade tree for every five parking spaces. Such trees are required to be placed evenly throughout the parking lot. Since this application depends on the parking on Lot 17 for meeting the minimum parking requirements, the Board finds it appropriate to consider this criterion on an overall parking lot basis rather than parcel by parcel. Taken on an overall basis, 39 shade trees are provided supporting 144 surface parking spaces. 29 trees are required. (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 has been met. (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. #SD-22-05 17 17 of 22 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 3/1/2022. • Recommend against planting shrubs in city ROW (particularly Rugosa Rose which becomes a litter catcher). City doesn’t have staffing to maintain shrub beds • Need to specify adequate, uncompacted soils support root development of Honeylocust planted in patio (structural soils or soil cells) • Specify parking lot bump outs be filled with planting soil to depth of at least 2 ft. to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth The Board in its final plat findings for SD-21-25 allowed perennial plantings in the city ROW, which the Applicant is required to maintain. The Board finds the applicant must address the remaining comments of the City Arborist as conditions of approval. (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. Planting islands are curbed. Stormwater treatment in planting islands is not provided. Planting is provided. The Board finds these criteria 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 is provided. The Board finds this criterion met. 13.6 Screening or Buffering (1) All off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, #SD-22-05 18 18 of 22 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. The proposed utility cabinet on Lot 13 is screened on three sides by grasses. Since the applicant is proposing grasses, which are easily cut without destroying the plant, the Board finds the applicant must modify the plantings to screen the utility cabinet on all four sides. The Board finds the parking areas which are not screened by buildings are screened by landscaping or by topography. 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. #SD-22-05 19 19 of 22 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 13.14 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 13 124 1,219 14 126 1 15 127 0 13 127 0 Short Term Bicycle Parking 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 applicant has proposed a group of six bicycle racks near the corner of Two Brothers Drive and O’Brien Farm Road, providing parking for twelve bicycles. Five racks, providing parking for ten bicycles, are located on Lot 13 between the two buildings. Three racks, providing parking for six bicycles, are located on the Kennedy Drive side of the building on Lot 15. Though the required minimum is not provided on Lot 15, given the location of the group of racks between the two buildings, the Board finds short term bicycle parking to be adequate and finds short term bicycle parking requirements to be met. Long Term Bike Storage The provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages. There are lockers in a bike room on Lot 13, which will be rentable for residents. The Board finds the applicant must make the rental lockers known and available to tenants of the commercial space On Lot 13, there are two indoor bike parking areas, one for 47 bikes and one for 62 bikes, totaling 109 bikes. On Lot 15, there are three indoor bike parking areas, providing for 128 bikes, plus an additional 8 spaces for e-bike storage. There are a total of 245 long term bicycle parking spaces provided; 252 are required. The Board finds the applicant must revise the plan to meet the required minimum long-term bike parking without reducing interior common space availability. Traffic Overlay District The project is located with the traffic overlay district Zone 3. The master plan has a total area of 39.76 acres and therefore has a traffic budget of 1789 vehicle trips per PM peak hour. The project’s TIS estimates full build of the project will generate 280 trips. The Board finds this criterion met. Energy Standards #SD-22-05 20 20 of 22 All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. DECISION Motion by Mark Behr, seconded by Dan Albrecht, to approve final plat application #SD-22-05 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. Prior to recording the mylar, the plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. a. specify adequate, uncompacted soils to support root development of Honeylocust planted in patio (structural soils or soil cells) b. Specify parking lot bump outs be filled with planting soil to depth of at least 2 ft. to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth c. Modify the plantings to provide screening of the utility cabinet on Lot 13 on all four sides d. revise the plans to meet the required minimum long-term bike parking without reducing interior common space availability. e. the facades not shown on elevation sheets A-2.01 and A-2.23, both dated 4/11/2022 and submitted on 5/4/2022, shall be similarly updated to reflect window headers and garage panels (where applicable). f. Update the grading on the side of the building on Lot 15 facing Kennedy Drive to not have a gap without changing the configuration of the walkway or the sidewalk. 4. The following additional waivers of the Land Development Regulations are granted a. O’Brien Farm Road front yard setback on Lot 13 from 6 ft to 5.6 ft b. North side yard setback on Lot 15 from 10 ft to 6.5 ft. Buildings on adjacent lots must be no nearer than 20 ft from the building on Lot 15. c. Height on Lot 13 may be 58.3 ft. Height on lot 15 may be 57.1 ft. 5. 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. 6. The overall site plan (Sheets C-2) 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. 7. The mylar must be recorded prior to zoning permit issuance. 8. The roadways proposed in #SD-21-25 must be issued a zoning permit no later than concurrently with the zoning permit for Lots 13 and 15. 9. The zoning permit must be obtained within twenty four (24) months of this decision with the option for requesting a one (1) year extension as allowed in LDR 17.04. #SD-22-05 21 21 of 22 10. The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 11. The applicant must address the comment of the Director of Public Works pertaining to storm and sanitary structures prior to issuance of the zoning permit. 12. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must post a landscaping bond or surety for the $155,962.50 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. The applicant has $30,011.50 remaining in available streetscape budget which may be applied to future projects within the PUD if the landscaping standards are otherwise met. 14. No more than one parking space may be reserved per unit. 15. If the buildings on Lots 10 and 11 are constructed prior to the buildings in this application, the applicant must designate the inclusionary units on Lots 10 and 11 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for these buildings. 16. The applicant must address the comments of the South Burlington Water Department. 17. The applicant must regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 18. The traffic signal must be activated at occupancy of the building containing the 294th unit in Hillside Phase 2, or if warranted sooner and demonstrated by a traffic study, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. 19. Building mounted lights must be located within 5-ft of the top of doorways in order to prevent the effect being that of a flood light. Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Stern Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. Signed this ____ day of July, 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 180 Market Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See #SD-22-05 22 22 of 22 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.