HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-032 - Supplemental - 0119 Tilley DriveSP-22-032
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-22-032_119 Tilley Dr_UVMMC_2022-08-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 27, 2022
Application received: July 12, 2022
119 Tilley Drive - UVMMC
Sketch Plan Application #SP-22-032
Meeting Date: August 2, 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
SP-22-032
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP-22-032 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one and a half story 84,006 sf
medical office and outpatient facility with associated parking, equipment and stormwater treatment on
an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
Sketch plan for this property was reviewed by the Board on 4/5 and 5/4/2022.
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 application is eligible
to be considered under site plan review standards.
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 on Lot 2 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, final
plat application #SD-22-10) 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 LDR. The O’Brien Eastview application 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. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
(1) 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:
(4) 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.
At sketch, the applicant indicated they have no intention to further develop the site beyond that
presented in this application. The Board determined master plan is not required if the applicant were to
in some way restrict the remaining lands from development.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose a mechanism for restricting the
remaining lands from future growth at least for the 10-year period that would be represented by a
master plan. Staff recommends any such mechanism leaves open that the lands may be altered for
non-growth development such as parks or transportation infrastructure.
SP-22-032
(2) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The lot is currently undeveloped.
IO Zoning District Required Proposed
√ Min. Lot Size, non-residential use 3 acres 13.5 acres
√Max. Building Height Flat Roof 40 ft. 23.44 ft.
√Max. Building Coverage 30% 10.01%
√Max. Overall Coverage 50% 34.6%
√ Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% 7.9%
√Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 52 ft.
√Min. Side Setback 35 ft. 132 ft.
√Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. >> 50 ft.
Staff notes the I/O zoning district limits lot coverage to 50%. This staff report includes required
connections to adjacent properties, which will change the proposed lot coverage.
(3) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. 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.
Adequacy of planting is discussed under 13.04.
2. In terms of internal pedestrian movement, the applicant has provided non-standard striping for both
pedestrian crossings and no parking areas. Taken in conjunction with other unusual markings on the
plan, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a pavement striping and signage
plan to allow review of these elements of the plan.
3. The sidewalk from the road is proposed to cross behind four ADA parking spaces. Staff recommends
the Board direct the applicant to route the pedestrian pathway to the front of these spaces rather than
behind them.
The DRB shall consider the following:
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping
along the street.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the
street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s
existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
The building is proposed to be located approximately 52-ft from the front property line. It
includes a sidewalk connection to Tilley Drive along the proposed driveway. The street-facing
façade (south façade) is proposed to consist of storefront windows on the west end and a
combination of brick and metal panels on the center and east end. There are no street-facing
entrances. It appears the windows are proposed to be spandrel (opaque); the architectural
elevations show the bases of chairs visible from outside the building but the windows themselves
appear opaque. There is a prominent entrance on the western side of the building with a large
SP-22-032
canopy for patient drop-off. The western facade includes a raised tower over the entrance, which,
on the street-facing façade, simply has the appearance of a parapet for the full length of the
building.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they believe this building is oriented
to the street, including information on the transparency of proposed glazing. Staff considers
opaque or tinted glazing, combined with the absence of a street-facing entrance, may not result
in this criterion being met.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
This criterion is related to criterion 14.07G: Access to Abutting Properties. The project is located
within the Mountain View business park, which includes an existing recreation path along the
north side of Tilley Drive connecting VT 116 to Community Drive. The Board is concurrently
reviewing the O’Brien Eastview development project which directly abuts the subject property.
At sketch, the Board discussed with the applicant the planned connections from the O’Brien
Eastview property. Since that time, the O’Brien Eastview development has evolved somewhat
and is now proposing a realigned recreation path that ends at the northern boundary of the
subject property. At sketch, the applicant indicated a willingness to accommodate connections
from the Eastview property.
5. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to require the applicant to revise their plans to
complete the recreation path connection from Eastview to Tilley Drive or only to require the
applicant to provide an easement to the benefit of O’Brien and the City of South Burlington to
complete the connection.
In addition to the planned recreation path from Eastview, there is also a proposed roadway, “Barn
Road”, that ends at the northern boundary of the subject property and is intended to connect to
the planned north south roadway on Lot 2. As a reminder, the Board approved Barn Road as an
alternative to a direct connection to planned north-south roadway within the Eastview
Development due to topography on the Eastview property.
The applicant must therefore provide an easement for the future connection of Barn Road to the
north-south roadway on Tilley Drive Lot 2. This is required under different criteria discussed
herein, but Staff mentions it here because the design of a recreation path and the location of the
easement are inextricably linked. The design of the recreation path should accommodate the
future connection to Barn Road.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
The building is proposed to have a flat roof. It appears as though roof top equipment is
clustered towards the center of the roof. LDR 3.18C requires new commercial buildings to meet
the Solar-Ready Zone standards of the commercial Building Energy Standards.
6. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration that this criterion is met.
(2) Parking:
SP-22-032
(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) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board
shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
(ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home;
(iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow
for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street
The property has two existing fronts, Tilley Drive and Old Farm Road, and a future front on the north-
south roadway on Lot 2. The parking is generally to the side or rear of Tilley Drive and the future
street except for ADA-compliant parking. The parking is to the front of the building on Old Farm Road.
The Old Farm Road frontage is approximately 145 feet long. A portion of this frontage is encumbered
by a utility easement. A portion is encumbered by the required 65-ft buffer to residential properties.
Subtracting out these two encumbrances, there is approximately 15-ft of frontage remaining in which
the applicant could locate a building.
7. Since this would not result in a viable building, Staff recommends the Board approve the parking
between the building and Old Farm Road under condition (iii) above. In doing so, Staff recommends
the Board require demonstrating that through landscaping and grading that the parking is completely
screened from view of Old Farm Road.
(c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the side of
buildings shall not exceed the width of building(s), Civic Spaces, and Site Amenities along any street
frontage. This may be calculated separately or cumulatively for corner lots. Parking approved
pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection.
Staff estimates that parking and drive aisles along Tilley Drive and the planned future north-south
roadway together total approximately 550 linear feet of frontage. The building also totals
approximately 550 linear feet along the two fronts. Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of
each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings.
Heights are not indicated on the provided elevations. Staff estimates the height of the building to be
around 22-ft. Other buildings in the office park are generally two stories or above, with one other one-
story building. The eastern portion of the building will be two stories, while the western portion will be
one story plus a parapet.
B. 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.
Aside from the comments pertaining to height and glazing transparency above, Staff considers
this criterion met.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
SP-22-032
The applicant is proposing to building the building into the existing slope. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
(a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of
development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations,
position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached
building types.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural
features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular
architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties,
including side and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
Staff notes that the property abuts residential areas to the west and to the north. The
proposed building, however, is located 180’ from the nearest residential property and, as
discussed above, has a maximum height of 22’. See below for discussion of landscaping.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
(1) Sites are required to include a specific minimum area for appropriate Site Amenities. This
section does not apply to projects within the City Center FBC District (which are governed by Section
8.08).
(2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities:
(a) Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF.
(b) Additions or expansions exceeding 5,000 SF for existing non-residential structures.
(c) Any residential development, including conversion of non-residential structures to
residential use.
The proposed facility exceeds 5,000 s.f. in size and therefore these standards apply.
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross
floor area.
The proposed 84,006 s.f. building requires a minimum of 5,040 s.f. of Site Amenity. The applicant has
selected site amenity type “courtyard.” The characteristics of a courtyard are as follows (from LDR
11B).
• 5,000 to 20,000 sf
• Physically defined by surrounding buildings on three to four sides
• One seating space for each 500 sf of courtyard area, with a minimum of 10 seating spaces
• If paved, with substantial planted areas or planters of trees and greenery. If grassed,
articulated at perimeter with lush greenery.
• Sunlight to sitting areas for most of the day
The applicant has proposed an area to the south (front) of the building as a courtyard. They have not
provided an illustration demonstrating what area they are proposing to count as a courtyard, but Staff
assumes the area labeled “patio” is the area the area proposed as a courtyard.
SP-22-032
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to define the perimeter of the area they are
proposing as a site amenity to allow evaluation of compliance of the entire area with the requirements
of LDR 11B.
The applicant has indicated they intend to meet the standard requiring the courtyard be surrounded
on three to four sides by providing a stone wall on one side. Staff considers this does not meet the
requirement for a building on three to four sides.
As the Board can see from the applicant’s proposal, the area required for a site amenity is small, and
therefore there are a number of other areas and other site amenity types which may be considered
by the applicant. It appears that a substantially similar design / location could be designed as a
“pocket plaza.” Alternatively, or in addition, other potential areas on the property include the
undeveloped space to the rear (north) of the property, the patio located near the loading docks, and
the large grass area between the building and the parking, which is partially proposed to include steep
slopes but partially proposed to be relatively flat. Staff recommends the applicant consider the needs
of both visitors and employees of the facility. Where might employees wish to eat lunch, for example?
A snippet may be an option for such use.
9. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to revisit this requirement and provide a different
proposal.
10. The applicant is proposing to provide seating in the form of bistro tables and chairs. Staff considers,
for any site amenity type, the Board should require more permanent seating, and require the applicant
to provide cut sheets or details of the proposed seating prior to closing the hearing.
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 property contains a Class III wetland greater than 5,000 sf and a Class III wetland less than 5,000 sf.
The smaller wetland is not regulated by the City. The larger wetland has a 50-ft buffer. 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.
SP-22-032
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.
(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. Staff
considers that the large gap between the two gravel wetlands which could be used as an alternative
entrance which would make use of an existing easement and would not impact a wetland or wetland
buffer precludes the Board from allowing the proposed wetland encroachment as a Restricted
Infrastructure 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. In order to request modification, the
applicant must request modification in writing and demonstrate compliance with the modification
standards (a) through (d), as follows.
(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.
At sketch the applicant stated that the proposed wetland impacts are for “the actual needed and required
access to the site.” The applicant has made this request in writing and has provided a wetland delineation
report describing the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation. The
proposed area of impacts are:
Direct Wetland Impacts 1,745 sf
Wetland Buffer Impacts 14,900 sf
The functions and values identified in the wetland report include minimal values as water storage, surface
and groundwater protection, open space and aesthetics, and erosional control.
At sketch, the Board directed the applicant to modify the site driveway to minimize impacts. Of particular
SP-22-032
note was the applicant’s choice to access the building from the west, near the impacted wetlands, and
the proposal for two parallel driveways. The revised access continues to be on the west has a 20-ft or
greater landscape area located between the main driveway and the drop-off area.
11. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider the impacts to be minimized. Staff
considers the least impact would result in accessing the site from the east, and lower impacts if the
western driveway is retained could result from removing the landscaped area and directing both
through-traffic and drop-off traffic along the building.
The applicant has included “precast segmented retaining wall” between the driveway and the unimpacted
portion of the wetland. There are no grades indicating the height of this retaining wall. The retaining wall
is indicated to be fitted with a concrete curb and a guard rail.
12. Staff considers the presence of a retaining wall and guard rail may have an undue adverse effect on
the character of the area, and recommends the Board require the applicant demonstrate that they will
use materials which will have an overall agricultural character to be in fitting with the industrial open
space character of the area.
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.
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 sections of 15.A.14 follow.
15.A.14(A) Purpose and Intent. It is the intent of the City to establish and maintain an integrated,
interconnected transportation system that efficiently and safely serves all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders and people with disabilities. Accordingly, the
applicant must demonstrate that the proposed street network serving the subdivision is consistent
with City objectives to:
• Maximize network accessibility and connectivity for all transportation modes and users;
• Minimize vehicle miles traveled;
• Provide adequate emergency vehicle access, and minimize emergency response times;
• Limit direct access onto arterial and collector streets, as necessary to preserve and enhance
functional capacity;
• Create interconnected, walkable pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly residential neighborhoods
and mixed use development;
• Provide for multiple, direct routes and connections between residential neighborhoods,
schools, parks, employment, shopping and other activity centers or destinations;
• Incorporate or provide direct pedestrian connections to existing and planned public transit
routes for any subdivision and development located within the Transit Overlay District; and
to
• Accommodate on-street parking where appropriate or required.
Staff calls the Board’s attention to the purpose statements pertaining to minimizing vehicle miles,
interconnectivity, and provision of direct connections.
15.A.14(B) Street Layout. The arrangement of streets serving the subdivision must incorporate and
extend the network of existing and planned arterial, collector and local streets in the vicinity,
including existing and planned streets serving adjoining subdivisions, and as shown on the City’s
Official Map.
SP-22-032
(4) Street Connections. The street network must maximize connectivity and provide for the
future extension of streets of equivalent functional class and other connecting rights-of-way
or easements through adjoining properties upon future subdivision, development or redevelopment. Street rights-of-way must extend to adjoining property lines to allow for
future street, sidewalk, recreation path and utility connections. Accordingly:
(a) Right-of-way connections to properties adjoining the subdivision must be provided
along property boundaries at regular intervals, spaced according to functional class,
street type and, where applicable, required block lengths unless modified or waived by
the DRB under 15.01(C).
(b) In making its determination to waive or modify a street right-of-way requirement, the
Board shall consider substitution of a recreation path, sidewalk, or trail right-of-way
prior to determination that a full waiver of a right-of-way is warranted.
(c) The DRB shall require that applicant construct a connecting street or recreation path to
the property line; or to contribute a proportionate share of the cost to complete
construction, in addition to any required impact fees. Where a street or recreation path
is identified in the Impact Fee Ordinance, construction of planned improvements may
receive credit pursuant to the Ordinance.
(d) For phased development, the DRB may approve a street or other right-of-way shown on
the subdivision plat and, as a condition of subdivision approval, require that the right-
of-way be clearly marked on the ground with one or more signs that indicate its
existence and future use; and that construction must occur before any further
subdivision or development may be allowed.
(e) The DRB may require temporary turnarounds at subdivision boundaries, designed to
City specifications as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. The applicant must
then show on the subdivision plat the right-of-way area to be returned to adjacent
property owners when street and sidewalk extensions to abutting properties are
constructed.
The O’Brien Eastview development, under concurrent review as final plat SD-22-10, is proposing a
road connection (“Barn Road”) and a recreation path connection to the subject property.
13. Staff considers the applicant must modify their plans to include the design of the roadway connection
between Barn Road and the future official map roadway, and provide a ROW to the City. Staff
recommends the Board determine whether to require the applicant to provide a surety for the cost of
this connection. Staff considers this easement may substitute for the recommended conservation plan
described under Master Plan above depending on the degree to which it encumbers the property.
Staff further recommends the plans include the planned recreation path connecting O’Brien
Eastview to Tilley Drive, as discussed above.
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.
The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) dated May 27, 2022. They estimate a PM
peak hour trip generation of 110 trips and a total of 769 trips per day. However, they conclude
these values using a reduction based on the provision of Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures. The City’s impact fee ordinance provides a methodology for impact fee credit for
TDM measures, but there is not a methodology for reduction in trips for the purpose of road
SP-22-032
network analysis. They also estimate trips based on site-specific data and not on ITE approved
values.
14. Because of this, and a number of other adjustments included in the TIA, Staff strongly recommends
the Board invoke technical review of the provided study.
15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is
arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian circulation standards
under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone
Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and, for
state highways, VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of
application. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the
location and arrangement of streets, must be designed to:
(1)-(6) not applicable
(7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians,
including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high-
accident locations.
There is a safety review included in the applicant’s TIS. Staff recommends the Board request
review of this element as part of the traffic technical review.
(8) Align access point with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access
points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and functionally feasible.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(9) Minimize vehicular access point (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots along
pedestrian oriented street frontage; and provide, where feasible, shared vehicular access to
frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side streets, service lanes, shared
driveways, or rear cross connections between adjoining parcels.
Staff notes this criterion will be met when 15.A.14(B)(4) above is met.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Tilley Drive meets the applicable street type requirements. Staff does note there is what appears to be
a public bench in the street right of way adjacent to the development lot. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to coordinate with DPW on whether to retain or remove this bench during
construction for its protection.
G. 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
SP-22-032
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
15. As discussed at Sketch, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide for connection of
the property to the north-south roadway on the official map. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to show how this connection is feasible. Staff then recommends the Board consider whether
to require the applicant to provide a surety for this connection to be made in the future or whether to
require the applicant construct a driveway to the property line at this time.
H. 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.
Wire-served utilities are shown to be underground from the emergency generator to the building.
However it is not indicated how non-emergency power will be served. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to modify the plans to show non-emergency power from the source to the
building.
16. As of packet publication, the Director of Public Works had not yet had an opportunity to review the
plans. Staff anticipates having an update at the time of the hearing.
Staff recommends the Board address the comments of the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of
a zoning permit.
The South Burlington Water Department Director reviewed the plans on July 21, 2022 and offers the
following comments.
Site specific comments can be found on plan sheets.
1. Plans must include a note stating “All water lines and appurtenances shall be installed in
accordance with the Champlain Water District Specifications and Details for the Installation of
Water Lines and Appurtenances, current edition.”
2. Record Drawings prepared by a VT licensed Professional Engineer shall be provided to the South
Burlington Water Department in pdf. and Auto-CAD format. Drawings shall include ties to all
gate valves and curb stops to sub-meter accuracy.
3. Attach the domestic line gate valve to the fire sprinkler line tee and gate valve. Sheet C-1.5
4. Install two 45-degree bends on domestic water line prior to entering building. Sheet C-1.5
5. Install hydrant isolation valve on upstream side of 45-degree bend. Remove hydrant gate valve
that is shown near hydrant. Sheet C-1.7
6. New fire hydrant to include 4” Storz connection and spring- loaded hydrant flag.
7. Fire hydrant shall be considered private since it will be on a fire sprinkler line dedicated to this
facility.
17. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the SBWD Director
prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Plan comments are on file in the Planning and Zoning Department
and can be shared with the applicant.
I. 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.
18. The applicant is proposing two “Yard Compactors.” Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to provide more information about the screening and enclosure of these items.
SP-22-032
(4) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
In addition to the issues identified herein, Staff noted a number of miscellaneous items on the provided
plans which are not identified.
1. There are two lines surrounding the landscape island between the drop off area and the
main drive aisle. What is the surface treatment at the perimeter of the pavement and what
do the two lines represent?
2. There are several small elements on sheet C-1.7 indicated as a grey box with the letter “B”
in it. What are these elements? They may require screening if they are located above
grade.
3. What is the purpose of the line around the five parking spaces near the northwest corner of
the building on Sheet C-1.7?
4. The property owner is incorrect on Sheet C-1.7
5. The impervious areas are indicated with a variety of hatch patterns. What is the meaning of
the different hatching patterns?
6. The detail sheets indicate a “chain link fence dumpster enclosure.” Where is this proposed?
19. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide clarity on these items
before closing the hearing.
13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading
F. Access management Requirements. It is the intent of the City 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.
All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant,
office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to
other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the
adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide
an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or
easement should be located where vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
The applicant is sharing a driveway with the property to the west.
There is a future city street located between the subject property and the commercial lot to the
east. As discussed above, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a viable
connection to the future city street.
Also as noted above, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to connect to the recreation
path to the north, and to provide a feasible design and easement for the connection to Barn Road.
G. Design requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting and Landscaping
(1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-2 and
Figure 13-1, Section 13.04, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07,
Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited.
Dimensional requirements are met.
Parking lot landscaping and lighting are further discussed below.
(2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and
existing traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
SP-22-032
The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage
and prevent back-ups onto the public street.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/27/2022 and indicated there were no comments related
to the Board’s authority.
(4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be
separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation,
including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The
pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular traffic
on sidewalks and recreation paths.
20. The applicant has provided for pedestrian circulation but has provided non-standard crosswalk
striping. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plans to reflect standard
crosswalk striping, and, and the request of the Department of Public Works, generally
recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a pavement marking and signage plan to
allow a more thorough review of these elements of the plan.
(5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.03
(6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to
recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged
in the design of any off-street parking or loading area.
Stormwater management is discussed under 13.05 below.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
The applicant has provided two bicycle racks, providing parking for four bicycles.
Required Bike Parking Required
Short Term (1 per 5k sf retail,
restaurant, and all other uses,
minimum 4)
17
Long Term (50% of short term) 9
Changing Facility and Unisex
Showers
1
Clothes Lockers 3
21. The applicant has provided 14 inverted-U type bicycle racks near the main entrance, providing parking
for 28 bicycles. Short term requirements are met. It is not apparent whether long term or shower
requirements are met. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide updated
architectural drawings clearly demonstrating how these requirements are met.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 7/24/2022 and indicated the plan includes too many maples as
maples are an overplanted species, but otherwise had no concerns.
SP-22-032
22. Staff recommends the applicant address the landscaping deficiencies in the plan indicated below by
adding plants other than maples. The applicant, if they choose, may redistribute the maples and
intersperse other plantings in the already planted areas, or remove some maples from the plans and
substituting other species.
B. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street
parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and landscaped
with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as approved by the
Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow
stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection, treatment and
management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the
proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area
and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties.
(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.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in
parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of
the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking.
23. It is not clear whether this criterion is met. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide a computation demonstrating compliance with this criterion prior to closing the hearing.
(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 13.04(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.
Curbing is provided. Staff considers 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.
Staff considers 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.
24. 270 parking spaces are provided, requiring 54 shade trees. Staff considers there are 34 trees which
constitute parking lot shade trees, and recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an
exhibit demonstrating this criterion is met.
(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.
SP-22-032
This criterion is 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.
25. As noted above and based on recommendations of the City arborist, Staff recommends the Board
reduce the reliance on maples on the plan.
(e) Within the City Center FBC District, landscaping required within this section shall not
count towards meeting minimum landscape budget requirements as detailed in Section
13.04(G).
This criterion is not applicable.
(7) 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. Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land
shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two
adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s
appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a
residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible from a
public street.
26. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to make a presentation on how they are complying with
this criterion, including screening from proposed site lighting, to all adjoining residential properties,
including the O’Brien Eastview development to the north.
D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses. In the case of non-residential and multi-
family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and collector
streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good
appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration
are encouraged. The Development Review Board shall require the applicant to meet the provisions of
sections 13.04(F) and (G).
27. Very limited landscaping is proposed in the front yard. It appears the applicant has attempted to avoid
plantings within the front setback. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to improve
compliance with this criterion.
G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements,
some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as
long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are cumulative; for example, a
landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of three percent of the first
$250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next $250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over $500,000. The landscaping budget shall
be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer.
The required minimum landscaping budget is $511,480.17 for an estimated project cost of $50,698,017.
The applicant has requested credit for the following landscaping elements
Trees & Shrubs $288,684.50
Perennials & Grasses $65,222.00
SP-22-032
Patio Terraces $56,255.00
“Landscape Planting Materials” $216,607.00
Total $46,070
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify what the difference is between the cost of
plants and the cost of “landscaping planting materials.” The applicant may not have credit for things like
soil amendments, but may take credit for the installed cost of plantings.
28. Since the applicant has not met criterion 13.04D Front Yards, and compliance with 13.04C Screening
and Buffering has some deficiencies, Staff recommends the Board require them to meet those criteria
before allowing credit for perennials, grasses and patio terraces. Further Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to provide a more detailed breakdown of what constitutes Patio Terraces” before
determining which elements they will allow as contributing to the required minimum landscaping cost.
13.05 Stormwater Management
Stormwater standards apply when one-half acre or more of impervious surface exists or is proposed to
exist, and where 5,000 sf of impervious is created or reconstructed. The project will be subject to State
stormwater management standards. The City Stormwater Director reviewed the project on 7/25/2022
and offers the following comments.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “UVM Health Network Outpatient Surgery Center” site
plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, dated 6/17/22. We would like to offer the
following comments:
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
2. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater
than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and construction permit
from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits
before starting construction.
3. Please indicate where maintenance access for the gravel wetlands will be located. Both
forebays are located relatively close to the GMP easement. Confirm if the necessary type of
equipment to conduct maintenance in the forebay, such as an excavator and dump truck, are
provided adequate access without any conflicts with the overhead power.
4. The outlet pipe from Gravel Wetland 1 is shown with an invert at 362.50’. Being a 24” pipe,
that puts the top of pipe at 364.50’. The finished grade in this location is 365.0’, meaning
there is only 6” of cover at most. The plans should be revised to provide greater cover over
this outlet pipe.
a. Soil materials should also be specified for the berm along the eastern side of the
gravel wetland to ensure there is no seepage through the berm.
b. Include anti-seep collars on the outlet pipes from the gravel wetlands.
5. Silt fence is only effective for its contributing drainage area if space every 100’, or less
depending on slope. The EPSC plans should be revised to show proper spacing of silt fence.
As depicted, it shows spacing of over 500’ in some locations, which would likely result in the
silt fence being overwhelmed during a rain event.
6. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
29. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address these comments prior to closing the
hearing.
SP-22-032
13.07 Exterior Lighting
Lighting requirements are summarized as follows.
(1) Fixtures must be downcast and shielded
(2) Illumination must be evenly distributed
(3) Fixtures must be placed to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance
(4) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural
material, with a decorative surface or finish
(5) Poles & building mounted fixtures may be no higher than 30-ft
(6) Poles must be located in safe locations
Specific requirements for maximum illumination levels are included in Appendix A and are limited to 3
foot candles average at ground level. The applicant has provided a photometric drawing indicating this
criterion is met.
The applicant has included sign illumination on their plans. Staff notes sign illumination is subject to
separate ordinance and must be removed from the plans.
The applicant has highlighted the specifications of each light fixture provided, but the highlighting is
opaque and prevents reading the specifications, therefore compliance with the physical standards
cannot be evaluated. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide revised legible
lighting cut sheets.
30. Illumination levels are particularly high on the ramp between the parking area and the building, over
75 footcandles, though illumination levels drop to less than 1 footcandle between fixtures.
Illumination levels are also particularly high around the proposed chiller, greater than 16 footcandles,
though levels drop off quickly. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the lighting
in these areas to provide more uniform and lower peak illumination levels to prevent lighting from
becoming a nuisance.
13.08 Outdoor Storage and Display
A. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and
equipment shall be subject to the following provisions:
(1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed
only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan,
conditional use and/or PUD application.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with
commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may comprise
an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present opportunities for theft,
or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of residentially-zoned parcels.
This criterion applies to equipment. The applicant has proposed an emergency generator enclosed by a
12-ft high fence, two chillers, and an “oxygen storage area” enclosed by a 6-ft high fence. At sketch the
applicant indicated that this equipment would be very tall. No details or information on the scale of these
elements has been provided.
SP-22-032
31. Staff considers it important that the Board review the details of these elements in order to determine
if additional screening is required, and recommends the Board require dimensions and
plans/elevations of the proposed equipment.
32. The applicant has indicated on the plans a “future fuel cell area” immediately south of the proposed
oxygen storage area. Staff considers the Board may only approve this plan if details and
plans/elevations of the fuel cell are provided, otherwise the applicant should be required to remove
this note from the plans and may later apply for site plan approval if so desired.
13.11 Fences
There are a number of prohibited materials for fences. No fence details except for the dumpster enclosure
fence noted above have been provided. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide
details of the fence for the “oxygen storage area.” The generator fencing is discussed immediately below.
B. Specific Requirements
(5) A fence over eight (8) feet in height shall require approval by the Development Review Board as a
conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review.
(6) A fence over eight (8) feet in height shall be considered a structure subject to normal setback
requirements for the zoning district, unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Board
as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review.
The applicant has proposed a 12-foot high “screening fence with gate” around the emergency generator.
No specifications or details of this fence have been provided. Conditional use standards are as follows.
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:
(1) 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.
(3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
(4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.
(5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
33. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate what this fence will be in order to
determine if it has an undue adverse effect on the generally agrarian character of this industrial open
space zoning district. Staff considers chain link fencing would not be consistent with this standard.
3.18 Energy Standards
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.18: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. This now includes provision of a solar-ready roof.
34. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the roof will comply with the standard. If
the applicant demonstrates satisfactory compliance with this requirement, Staff considers
demonstration of it on the plans can be a condition of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
SP-22-032
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner