HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-23-05 - Supplemental - 0760 Shelburne Road (42) #SD-23-05
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-23-05_760 Shelburne Road_Bourne_PPFP_SC_2023-04-04.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 15, 2023
Application received: February 9, 2023
760 Shelburne Road – Gary Bourne
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-23-05
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
Owner
Gary J. Bourne & 764 Shelburne Road, LLC
414 West Grove
Middleboro, MA 02346
Applicant
Gary Bourne
414 West Grove
Middleboro, MA 02346
Property Information
Tax Parcels 1540-00760, 1540-00764, 1700-00031
Commercial 1-R15 Zoning District, Traffic Overlay District, Transit
Overlay District, Urban Design-Secondary Node Overlay District
Parcel size: 1.43 acres
Engineer
TCE
478 Blair Park Road
Williston, VT 05495
Location Map
#SD-23-05
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD-23-05 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit
Development by re-subdividing three existing lots into three new lots of 0.18 acres (Lot 1), 0.14 acres
(Lot 2), and 1.06 acres (Lot 3), and constructing a 3,350 sf financial institution on Lot 1, a 6,480 sf 2-story
mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2, and a 3-story 27-unit multifamily building on Lot 3,
760 Shelburne Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
This project consists of three existing lots currently developed with a restaurant, a convenience store and
service station, and an auto & motorcycle service and repair use. Currently all three uses are vacant. The
applicant has received zoning permits ZP-23-042, ZP-23-043, and ZP-22-044 to demolish the buildings on
the three lots. Otherwise, none of the three properties has received any approvals more recently than
2012.
Sketch plan application #SD-22-11 was reviewed by the Board on August 2, 2022. Important items
discussed on that date included the appearance of the buildings, the need for three individual lots, and
connections to adjacent lots.
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.
This project can only meet the regulations if it applies for approval as a General Planned Unit
Development. General PUDs are subject to the requirements of 15.C.04 and 15.C.07, as well as site plan
review standards, general provisions, and supplemental regulations as applicable.
Because of the relatively complex nature of the proposal as a three-building project on a small lot and
the applicant’s choice to combine preliminary and final plat, Staff anticipates the applicant will require
multiple meetings to fully address the review criteria of the LDR.
The Board began review of this application on March 7, 2023, and continued the hearing to March 21 for
the purpose of reviewing the remainder of the staff report. The hearing on March 21 was postponed to
April 4. Staff has retained the previously provided staff report from March 7 & 21 and provided minor
updates where new information is available for the Board’s consideration. For many numbered items, no
update is available or provided.
A) SUMMARY OF THE BOARD’S AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR MODIFY STANDARDS
The applicant has requested a modification or waiver for each dimensional standard of the LDR. As a
preamble to discussion of the applicant’s requested modifications and waivers, Staff has summarized
the ability of the Board to waive or modify standards.
Article 15.C describes the authority of the Board in granting PUD approval:
#SD-23-05
3
15.C.01A. Authority
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, and to
approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD).
(2) The DRB also has the authority to modify the Land Development Regulations in association with
PUD review, subject to the standards and conditions for Planned Unit Development, as specified
by PUD type under this Article, in support of more efficient, compact, walkable, and well-
planned forms of residential neighborhood, mixed use, and infill development, and the
permanent conservation of resource lands and other open space.
(a) In addition to modifications or waivers intended to accommodate site constraints under
Section 15.A.01 of the subdivision regulations, this may include modifications of underlying
zoning and subdivision regulations pertaining to blocks, building lots, building types,
allowed densities of development, and the type and mix of allowed uses.
(b) This may also include DRB review and approval of alternative forms of compliance with
applicable PUD standards under Section 15.C.04.
Staff calls the Board’s attention to the underlined section (2) above, which describes the purpose for why
the LDR provides the authority for standards to be modified in a PUD. Within the General PUD in
particular, which provides more latitude in determining the extent of any modifications than in other PUD
types, Staff considers it particularly important that the design be more efficient, compact, walkable, and
well-planned than the project would be if it were to fully comply with the dimensional standards.
The specific parameters of the modifications enabled in a General PUD are contained within 15.C.07G.
15.C.07(G). General PUD Dimensional Standards.
(1) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district
dimensional standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall apply unless
modified, reduced, or waived by the DRB under (2) below.
(a) The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in order
to modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site Plan application
requirements using 14.05(G), Subdivision requirements using 15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay
District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or (K).
(b) The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3).
(c) Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived in underlying zoning
districts identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below, except as noted in
15.C.07(C)(2)(b) above. The standards of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply.
(d) The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3).
(2) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the
DRB may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as necessary
to:
(a) Accommodate reductions in the available area associated with infill or
redevelopment, that result in insufficient acreage to meet applicable dimensional
standards; or
#SD-23-05
4
(b) Allow for more creative and efficient subdivision and site layout and design that
advances the purposes of the underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly in response to existing site limitations that cannot be
eliminated; or
(c) Ensure that the pattern and form of proposed development is compatible with
existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area determined under 15.C.07(F)
and to Transition Zone standards in 15.C.04(E); or
(d) Allow for greater energy efficiency, use of alternative energy, green building design,
or otherwise furthering of the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change
dated August 7, 2017.
(3) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the
Planning Area under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G).
Within a General PUD, 15.C.07A describes limitations on the Board’s authority to modify standards:
15.C.07A. Authority and Limitations.
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, to
approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), as further described in Section 15.C.01.
(2) Limitations on DRB authority under 14.04(A)(3)(b) apply.
(3) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary:
(a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized
via use of Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning.
(b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as
applicable.
(c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each
zoning district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of
Transferrable Development Rights.
(d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within
that Article.
Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized within that
Section.
15.C.04(C) provides additional information pertaining to modification of standards via a separate tool,
alternative compliance:
15.C.04(C)(3) Alternative Compliance. One or more PUD dimensional and design standards under
this Article may be modified at applicant request for an alternative form of compliance, subject to
separate DRB review and approval, to provide the flexibility necessary to address unique site
conditions or constraints; to enable compatibility with existing or planned development in the
vicinity; or to allow for exceptional and innovative design. Note that alternative compliance does
not constitute an exemption from a PUD standard. Allowed modifications include proposed
functional or design alternatives that may be considered in place of a specific requirement under
this Article, only if the intent of the requirement is met or exceeded. In approving a request for
alternative compliance, the DRB must find that the proposed alternative:
#SD-23-05
5
(a) Conforms to the intent, description, and defining characteristics of the selected PUD type(s);
(b) Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified;
(c) Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design, and
quality to that required under the standard to be modified; and
(d) Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the vicinity
of the planned development (e.g., regarding walkability, traffic, parking, drainage).
The DRB in approving an alternative form of compliance may attach conditions as necessary to
ensure compliance, or to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from a proposed alternative.
This option is separate from the authority granted for standards of the underlying zoning district to be
modified in a PUD; it has greater applicability (to include design standards in addition to dimensional
standards) and established as an opportunity to demonstrate how a different standard can better meet
the intent of the Regulations. Staff calls the Board’s attention to the underlined section (c) above, which
describes additional requirements for the Board to modify a standard. Modified standards must result in
development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design, and quality to that required
under the standard to be modified. The Board may require additional conditions to mitigate adverse
impacts resulting from a proposed alternative.
In summary, under the current LDR, the Board must only grant a modification for cause, and the
modification must result in better compliance with the objectives of the LDR.
B) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
5.01A Commercial 1 – C1 Zoning District Purpose.
A Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of higher-intensity
residential, retail, office, and vertically mixed uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact
central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area,
including clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted.
Warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted.
Urban design supporting a transition for these areas from a suburban environment to compact centers
is encouraged.
15.C.07B General PUD Description, Purpose, and Characteristics.
A General PUD is a type of planned development that allows for relief from the strict dimensional
standards for individual lots in order to encourage innovation in design and layout and efficient use of
land consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Defining characteristics of a General PUD include well-
planned, -sited, and -designed development projects that:
• Conform to the goals in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and South Burlington
City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017.
• Support and enable affordable housing development.
• Contribute to the City’s economic vitality, in response to changing markets and consumer
demand, by providing needed housing, goods, services, and employment opportunities.
• Redevelop underperforming properties and commercial strips (retrofits), contaminated sites
(brownfields), and large expanses of parking (gray fields) into more compact forms of
walkable, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development.
• Extend or re-establish existing street, sidewalk, and recreation path connections.
#SD-23-05
6
• Incorporate a density of development that supports walkable residential, mixed use, and
transit-oriented development, compatible in design with the surrounding area.
• Improve the physical appearance, walkability, and amount of civic and green space within
existing residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, and commercial strip development.
• Introduce missing or complementary uses, facilities, services, amenities, or civic space
intended to serve the immediate and surrounding area.
• Foster context-sensitive transitions among and between neighborhoods, commercial areas,
mixed use areas, civic spaces, and natural resource areas.
Staff has included these purpose statements for the underlying district and the General PUD as they
inform the Board’s objectives in evaluating this proposed Planned Unit Development.
Dimensional Requirements
Commercial 1-R15
Zoning District
Required Proposed
Lot 1
Proposed
Lot 2
Proposed
Lot 3
Proposed
Overall
@ Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq.
ft.
8,054 sq. ft. 6,287 sq. ft. 46,359 sq.
ft.
60,700 sq.
ft
@ Max. Building
Coverage
40 % 41.6% 51.5% 22.9% 28.4%
@ Max. Overall
Coverage
70 % 63.2% 77.6% 76.1% 73.8%
@ Min. Front
Setback, Urban
Design Overlay
20 ft. 10 ft. 13 ft. 73 ft. N/A
@ Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 7.4 ft. 9.9 ft. 10.7 ft N/A
@ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 10 ft. N/A N/A
@ Max. Front
Setback Coverage,
Shelburne Road
30% 48.4% 35.6% 45.5% 40.3%
@ Max. Front
Setback Coverage,
Swift St
30% 21.8% N/A 65.8% 53.1%
@ Max. Height 5 stories
max,
Appearance
of 2 stories
min
1 story 2 stories 3 stories N/A
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Modification or Waiver Requested
Lot Size
The applicant has requested modification of minimum lot size from 40,000 sf to less than 6,300 sf. This is
to allow the creation of three buildings, two of which are proposed to be under 6,000 sf, on what would
otherwise be required to be developed as a single lot with a single principal structure. While Staff does
not have concerns about the reduction in lot size specifically, Staff recommends the Board hold the project
to the standard of creating a relatively large cohesive site rather than three distinct sites, and take the
district lot size into consideration when reviewing the height modification request below.
#SD-23-05
7
Height
As indicated at sketch, buildings within the Urban Design Overlay secondary node are required to have
the appearance of at least two stories. All three buildings are located within the urban design overlay,
and therefore must have the appearance of at least two stories. The applicant has provided a one-story
building on Lot 1, the building most proximate to the intersection of Shelburne Road & Swift Street, which
does not meet the requirement. The applicant has not addressed this deficiency in their cover letter but
has previously referred to the exception in 10.05D(3) which states “buildings with a GFA of less than 6,000
SF may be one story.” Staff assumes the applicant wishes to make the case that this exception applies.
Staff reminds the Board that the minimum lot size in the zoning district, and indeed in all of the Urban
Design Overlay, is 40,000 sf. It can therefore be inferred that this exception is to accommodate existing
small lots. It is not intended as a loophole that would allow projects to avoid the required height minimum
by requesting modification of the minimum lot size. If the applicant were not requesting a modification
to reduce the minimum lot size by approximately 80% of the required minimum lot size, a larger building
would be necessary to make economic sense, for which no exception to the required appearance of two
stories exists.
Staff further points to the purpose statements for the General PUD and notes that the applicant has
elected to apply as a PUD principally in order to enable the construction of three separate buildings on
separate lots that are each below the minimum lot size.
Staff has reviewed standard “Chase Bank” installations around the country and it appears no effort has
been made to create a two story appearance; the building has the exact same roofline as their standard
model, with the only façade difference being a slight modification to provide required minimum glazing.
1. Original Comment: Staff recommends the Board clearly and unequivocally direct the applicant to amend
the plans to provide the appearance of two stories for the building on Lot 1. If the applicant is unwilling
to provide such amendment, Staff considers the Board may wish to enter into deliberative session prior to
review of the remaining staff comments to determine how to proceed.
Update for 3/21/23: The Board directed the applicant to provide the appearance of two stories for at least
one of the “segments” of the proposed building on Lot 1. The applicant has agreed to do so but has
requested the Board complete review of the remaining applicable criteria prior to revising the plans. Staff
considers no further discussion to be required at this time.
Other Modifications: Staff recommends the Board consider the remaining modification requests in total
as well as individually.
Building Coverage
The applicant has requested a waiver of maximum building coverage for two lots, though taken together,
the building coverage for the PUD would be below the building coverage for the district. Staff has no
concerns with this request given the overall site layout appears to be consistent with the feedback
provided by the Board at sketch.
Lot Coverage
The applicant has proposed to increase lot coverage above the maximum allowable in the zoning district
through the use of additional on-site open/civic space in 10.05E. This is analyzed under Urban Design
Overlay below.
Front Setback and Front Setback Coverage on Shelburne Road
The applicant has proposed reduced front setbacks and increased setback coverage compared to the
standards of the zoning district. Because the property is located within the urban design overlay (UDO),
#SD-23-05
8
front setbacks are 20-ft instead of the standard 30-ft for the C1-R15 zoning district, though the applicant
is proposing front setbacks as small as 10 feet. In addition, the non-building front setback coverage is
proposed to exceed the allowable of 30% by as much as double, though it is unclear whether this was
computed correctly based on visual examination of the plans. Non-building coverage within the required
front setbacks consists largely of walkways and retaining walls.
Though it is the intention of the UDO to create a strong street presence, Shelburne Road is an important
regional connector and is unlikely to ever become the type of pedestrian-centric streetscape such as is
contemplated for City Center with front setbacks from zero to 12 feet. In this location there is also a
possibility of the Shelburne Road sidewalk being converted to a recreation path, or the number of drive
lanes being increased, which would be prevented if the requested setback were granted. Finally, Staff
notes it appears the site layout requires at least six steps between Shelburne Road and the proposed
buildings on Lots 1 and 2, and retaining walls at least 2 feet high. Staff recommends the Board consider
this proposed change in grade as a factor in determining whether to grant the requested front setback
modification for Lots 1 and 2. The Board may choose to ask the applicant for a rendering of the proposed
site from Shelburne Road, taking the retaining walls and building facades into consideration.
2. Original Comment: Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant how the proposed modification results
in better compliance with the LDR, specifically how it results in a project that is equivalent or demonstrably
superior in function, design, and quality to that required under the standard to be modified or more
efficient, compact, walkable, and well-planned than the project would be if it were to fully comply with the
dimensional standards. If the applicant does not make a sufficient case, Staff recommends the board
require the applicant to comply with the required 20-ft front setback for the reasons described in the above
two paragraphs.
Update for 3/21/23: The Board felt the reduced front setback would result in a project which better meets
the applicable standards and indicated their intention to approve the requested reduction for the currently
proposed configuration. Staff considers no further discussion to be necessary.
Side and Rear Setbacks
The applicant has proposed Lots 1 and 2 to have side setbacks slightly less than the required minimum
of 10 ft, and Lot 2 to have a rear setback significantly less than the required minimum of 30 ft. Staff
considers the side and rear setback modifications to be relatively unimportant since the property lines
are relatively arbitrary and are not located to coincide with a site feature.
10.05 Urban Design Overlay District (UDO)
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of
simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic
pride in the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Urban Design Overlay District aids in fulfilling the City’s vision to enable infill
and conversion development, encourage pedestrian movement, serve local and regional shopping and
employment needs, and make use of existing public transportation. The City intends for the applicable
areas to provide safe and inviting access to adjacent neighborhoods.
The Urban Design Overlay District is located exclusively along Shelburne and Williston Roads.
C. Boundaries & Applicability.
(1) Nodes. These regulations recognize that some areas of a corridor serve or will serve as important
connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is desired and, where noted,
#SD-23-05
9
required and permitted. Site design and buildings within designated nodes shall provide a
welcoming and safe street presence for all users. Nodes are listed as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’, and
are mapped and regulated accordingly.
The project is located within a secondary node.
D. Standards. Except where noted herein, the dimensional standards, use, and other standards of
the underlying Zoning District shall still apply.
(1) Entries. Buildings on subject properties must have at least one entry facing the primary road
in the corridor. Any such entry shall:
All three buildings are proposed to have an entry facing the street.
(a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations.
An operable entrance is defined as one which is useable and open to the tenants / owners
for entry and exit. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring entrances be
operated in a manner consistent with this definition.
(b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. Front entries shall be a focal point of the front
façade and shall be an easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include
accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticos, overhangs,
recesses/projections, decorative front doors and side lights, or emphasis through varied
color or special materials. This requirement does not preclude additional principal entry
doors.
Staff considers this criterion met for all three buildings.
(c) Shall have a direct, separate walkway to the primary road. This walkway shall be at
least eight (8) feet in width and may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a
pedestrian-oriented access.
3. This criterion is not met on Lot 3 for the multi-family building. The primary road for this
building is Swift Street and only a 5-ft sidewalk has been provided. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to modify the plans to meet this criterion.
(2) Glazing. Windows are key to the overall design of a building and the relationship between
its exterior and interior.
(a) For all properties in the Urban Overlay District, a minimum of 75% of glazing shall be
transparent.
4. Original Comment: No statement has been made as to whether glazing is proposed to be
transparent. For the financial institution proposed on Lot 1, this criterion will apply to the second
story glazing as well once added. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify how
much glazing will be transparent. If it is less than 100%, Staff recommends the Board include a
condition requiring demonstration of glazing transparency prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
Update for 3/21/2023: The applicant has provided updated plans that indicate this criterion will
be met for the buildings on Lots 2 and 3. No demonstration of how this criterion is met has been
provided. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration of how this criterion will be met for
the buildings on Lots 2 and 3 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for construction. In addition,
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to clarify how much glazing will be transparent
for the building on Lot 1.
#SD-23-05
10
(b) In non-residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7 vertical feet.
5. Original Comment: It does not appear this criterion is met for the proposed multi-use
building on Lot 2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plans
to meet this criterion.
Update for 3/21/2023: The applicant has provided revised plans meeting this criterion.
Staff considers no further discussion to be necessary.
(c) For residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 5 vertical feet.
6. Original Comment: It does not appear this criterion is met for the proposed multi-family
building on Lot 3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plans
to meet this criterion.
Update for 3/21/2023: The applicant has provided revised plans meeting this criterion.
Staff considers no further discussion to be necessary.
(3) Dimensional Standards
Height Minimum
(Maximums per
underlying zoning
district)
Glazing Features Setback
from ROW
Designated
Primary
Node
2 stories
First stories: minimum of 60%
glazing across the width of the
building facade on primary street;
40% minimum glazing across width
of the façade facing the secondary
street.
Must have
significant
architectural
feature at corner
of corner building.
Minimum
20 feet
Designated
Secondary
Node
Appearance of two
stories. Buildings
with a GFA of less
than 6,000 SF may
be one story.
First stories shall have a minimum
of 60% glazing across the width of
the building facade on primary
street; 40% minimum glazing across
width of the façade facing the
secondary street.
Must have
significant
architectural
feature at corner
of corner building.
Minimum
20 feet
All other
properties
No height
minimums
First stories shall have a minimum
of 40% glazing across the width of
the building facade
Minimum
20 feet
This property, and the street facing facades of all three buildings, are located within a secondary node.
Height and setbacks are discussed above.
7. Original Comment: It appears the buildings on Lots 2 and 3 may not meet the minimum glazing width
on the primary façade. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide computations
demonstrating these criteria are met for all three buildings.
Update for 3/21/2023: The applicant has provided revised plans meeting this criterion. Staff considers
no further discussion to be necessary.
(4) Building Stories, Heights, and Rooftop Apparatus.
#SD-23-05
11
(a) Minimum stories of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District are defined as
per Article 2- Definitions and Section 8.06(F)(1) of these Regulations.
(b) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within
the Urban Design Overlay District.
8. Original Comment: Rooftop elements are not shown on the provided building elevations. Staff
recommends the Board confirm that rooftop elements are not proposed. Rooftop elements
include but are not limited to elevator shafts, architectural features, or rooftop mechanical
equipment.
Update for 4/4/2023: The applicant has provided revised plans indicating that the buildings are
proposed to have rooftop mechanical equipment. The applicant has testified that the equipment
shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject
structures and screened with materials that are consistent with the materials of the building. Staff
recommends the Board require demonstration of how this criterion will be met prior to issuance
of a zoning permit for construction.
(5) Landscaping. Projects within the Urban Design Overlay District shall meet minimum
landscaping requirements as per Section 13.04 of these Regulations. Projects are also subject to the
following supplemental standards:
(a) Landscaping which is required elsewhere in these Regulations to serve as a buffer
between properties shall not count towards the minimum landscaping budget.
This criterion refers to lots that are adjacent to residential zoning districts and is not applicable.
(b) For lots with buildings which are set back 50 or more feet from the front lot line, at least
50% of the required landscaping shall be installed between the front building line and the front
lot line.
This criterion applies to the building on Lot 3. It does not appear this criterion has been met. Staff
recommends the Board discuss what it means to meet this criterion for a lot within a PUD. The
area between the building and the street is proposed to include a driveway, a drop-off area, an
entry plaza, and a drive-through ATM. Staff considers the proposed lot configuration will make
this criterion difficult to meet.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plan to meet this criterion.
E. Allowance for Increase Lot Coverage via supplemental On-Site Open/Civic Space or Transferable
Development Rights. For parcels with land underlying the Urban Design Overlay District, the maximum
lot coverage may be increased by up to ten (10) percentage points using one of the two methods
described below. Such allowance shall apply only to the subject lot with land underlying the Urban
Design Overlay District and not any adjacent lots and must be approved in conjunction with a site plan
or Planned Unit Development for the subject lot.
Example: For a lot in a zoning district where the maximum lot coverage as identified in
Appendix C is 70%, the maximum lot coverage for said lot may be increased to 80%.
The applicant is proposing a total lot coverage within the PUD of 73.8%, 3.8% over the maximum
allowable. They are proposing to add additional on-site open/civic space using this allowance.
(1) On-Site Open/Civic Space Option. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards as part of any proposal to increase lot coverage under this subsection:
#SD-23-05
12
(a) For each additional increment of lot coverage, an area on the site equal to thirty (30)
percent of said increment shall be designated on the site plan for the subject parcel as one or
more Snippets/Parklets and/or Pocket/Mini-Parks as enumerated in Article 11.B;
The additional lot coverage is equal to 2,307 sq. ft. Therefore, the applicant must provide 692
additional sq. ft. of open space in a snippet/parklet or pocket/mini-park than is otherwise required
in 14.06C.
(b) The selected Open/Civic Space type(s) must comply with all requirements and guidelines
for the applicable type in Article 11.B;
(c) All elements of the applicable Open/Civic Space type shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
(d) Where elements of such Open/Civic Space type are pre-existing, they may be used to
qualify under this section; and,
(e) Impervious areas within an approved Open/Civic Space shall not be considered lot
coverage for the purposes of these Regulations.
The applicant is proposing to create additional space in the snippet/parklet open space type,
evaluated below under 14.06C.
Phasing
The applicant has not proposed any phasing. Unless a phasing plan is proposed and approved, all three
lots must obtain a zoning permit concurrently, and the entire development program must be complete
prior to occupancy of any of the proposed buildings.
Residential Density and 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning
Within the C1-R15, the base residential density is 2,900 sf per unit, or 20.9 units for the three lots totaling
60,700 sf. For developments involving 12 rental units or more, 15% of all units must be Inclusionary Units.
For each Inclusionary Rental Unit, the applicant is entitled to one additional market rate unit above the
base density. For a development of 20 units, 3 units are required to be inclusionary, and the associated
offsets allow construction of 3 additional market rate units, for a total of 23 total units. The applicant may
also provide additional inclusionary units in order to achieve a total density of 1.5 times the base density,
or 31 units, with one bonus market rate units granted for each inclusionary unit provided.
18.01B. Applicability
(2) Covered Development.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply in
the locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability – Zoning Districts and Locations) to any
development, notwithstanding any phasing of the development, that will result in the creation of
twelve (12) or more total dwelling units through subdivision, Planned Unit Development, new
construction, or the conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to
residential use.
The proposed project will result in 30 new dwelling units. The project is therefore subject to the
Inclusionary Zoning minimum requirements.
#SD-23-05
13
C. Inclusionary Units
(1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered
for rent. Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered
for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative
ownership, shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon request for the Certificate of
Occupancy the applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be Inclusionary Rental Units or
Inclusionary Ownership Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm that the offered rents or
sales prices meet these requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition:
The applicant is proposing to construct 30 rental units consisting of 1 one-bedroom unit and 29 two-
bedroom units.
As noted above, the base residential density for the C1-R15 zoning district allows for the construction
of 20 units, given the acreage of the property in question. Of those 20 units, 15% must be inclusionary
rental units, so 3 inclusionary rental units are required. The applicant therefore is permitted to
construct 17 market-rate and 3 inclusionary rental units as per this section. Offsets and bonus
provisions are discussed below.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Section
18.01(E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction).
The units are proposed to be provided in the building containing 27 units.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and
outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
All 5 inclusionary units will be built as part of the same phase and in the same building
as 21 market rate units. Three market rate units will be built in a separate building.
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior
amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of
inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom
units, 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more
bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is
less than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then
the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average
(mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units.
The applicant has proposed the following unit mix.
15 Two Bedroom Market Rate Units 997 sf
7 Two Bedroom Market Rate Units 992 sf
2 Two Bedroom Market Rate Unit 966 sf
5 Two Bedroom Inclusionary Units 907 sf
1 One Bedroom Market Rate Unit 820 sf
Minimum habitable area has been provided.
#SD-23-05
14
Market rate units have two bathrooms and an in-unit washer/dryer, while inclusionary
units have one bathroom and no washer/dryer. There is a laundry room within the
building.
(vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no
fewer than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects
involving 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to
the Administrative Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate
shall account for the differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date
and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the Administrative Officer has not issued
a zoning permit.
This criterion is met.
F. Offset for Fulfillment of Inclusionary Unit Requirements
(2) To offset an applicant’s fulfillment of this Section’s inclusionary unit requirement is an allotment
of one additional dwelling unit for each required Inclusionary Rental Unit that is constructed.
As per 18.01.C(1) above, the applicant is allowed to construct 20 units (17 market rate and 3
inclusionary). However, 18.01.F(2) allows one additional dwelling unit for each required
inclusionary rental unit constructed. Since the applicant is proposing to construct 3 inclusionary
units, they may build 3 additional market rate units as an offset for fulfilling the requirements of
18.01.C(1), for a total of 23 units (20 market rate and 3 inclusionary).
G. Density Bonuses for Exceeding Inclusionary Housing Requirements
(2) When an applicant voluntarily includes, in the base zoning density unit-maximum for the
development, more than the number of inclusionary units required under Section 18.01(C)(1),
then upon the applicant’s request, the development shall receive, in addition to the offset units,
a density bonus. The density bonus shall be one dwelling unit for each voluntary Inclusionary
Rental Unit and two dwelling units for each voluntary Inclusionary Ownership Unit, up to a
maximum density of 50% more than the base maximum density permitted in the zoning district.
As per 18.01.F(2) above, the applicant is allowed to construct 23 units (20 market rate and 3
inclusionary). In addition, 18.01.G(2) allows a bonus of one additional dwelling unit for each
voluntary inclusionary rental unit provided, up to a maximum density of 50% more than the base
density. The base density for this property, given the acreage, is 20.9 units. 50% more than this
base density is 31.05 units (rounded to 31). The applicant is therefore allowed to construct up to
8 bonus units given the maximum density identified in 18.01.G(2). Example (4) from this section
clarifies how those bonus units are earned:
Example (4): In a 40-unit rental housing development on a 10-acre plot in a R4 district, the
developer is required to build six (6) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of six
(6) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 46 dwelling units. In order
to receive approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 14
additional units in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer
includes an additional fourteen (14) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum
(40) for which the developer receives 14 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 60
units, 20 of which are inclusionary (33% of the units) and 40 of which are market rate (67% of the
units).
#SD-23-05
15
This example is a nearly perfect reflection of the situation at hand, in which the applicant is
proposing to construct a rental housing development that is exactly half the size of the theoretical
development cited in this example.
A development of 30 units, as proposed by the applicant, is 7 units over the maximum of 23 units
allowed by 18.01.C and 18.01.F. The applicant can receive approval to construct 7 additional units
as market-rate units if they voluntarily include 7 inclusionary rental units in the base density of
the project. This would result in revising the base 20 units to include 10 market rate, 7 voluntary
inclusionary, and 3 required inclusionary. The applicant would then receive 3 offset market-rate
units and 7 density bonus market-rate units, bringing the total number of units to 30 (20 market
rate, or 67% of the units, and 10 inclusionary, or 33% of the units).
10. Update for 4/4/2023: The applicant had initially proposed the construction of 6 inclusionary rental
units, and previous versions of these Staff Comments were prepared accordingly. Upon preliminary
review of these standards, which indicated that the minimum number of required inclusionary
rental units would be 5, the applicant revised their proposal to only include 5 inclusionary rental
units. However, it appears that the minimum number of required inclusionary units for this 30-
unit development is 10.
As such, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to come into compliance with the
standards of Article 18 via any combination of the following compliance options: increasing the
number of inclusionary rental units proposed to 10, decreasing the total number of units proposed
to 25, or purchasing Transferrable Development Rights to increase density independently of the
standards of this Article 18.01.
I. Administration and Compliance
(1) Application Requirements. In addition to other submission requirements applicable to proposed
projects specified within this bylaw, applications under this section shall include the following
information:
a) A site or subdivision plan that identifies the number, locations, types, and sizes of inclusionary
units in relation to market rate units;
This information is summarized above.
b) Documentation supporting the allocation of inclusionary and market rate units, including
inclusionary unit set aside calculations;
This information is summarized above.
c) A description of each unit’s type, floor area, number of bedrooms, estimated housing costs, and
other data necessary to determine unit affordability;
The applicant has indicated that the maximum monthly rent will be limited to one twelfth of 30%
of the targeted HUD Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to two unit bedrooms. Staff notes
the total housing cost must be limited to this amount, meaning that rent must either be all-
inclusive of utility costs, or must be less than the amount described by the applicant.
d) A list of proposed options, if any, to be incorporated in the plan, as provided for under
Subsection (E) (Developer Options) of this Article;
No alternative compliance options are proposed to be used.
e) Documentation regarding household income eligibility;
#SD-23-05
16
11. Staff appreciates that this cannot fully be provided prior to occupancy due to VHFA income limits
being updated annually, but recommends the Board require the applicant to provide written
testimony on the current required cost of inclusionary units and income limits prior to closing the
hearing in order to establish an expectation and address this criterion.
f) Information regarding the long-term management of inclusionary units, including the
responsible party or parties, as required to ensure continued affordability;
12. This information has not been provided. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide this information prior to closing the hearing.
g) Draft legal documents required under this section to ensure continued affordability;
13. This information has not been provided. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide this information prior to closing the hearing.
h) Construction timeline for both inclusionary and market rate units; and
14. No phasing is provided, therefore Staff considers the applicant must complete the entire project
as shown on the plans prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building.
i) Other information as requested by the Administrative Officer to determine project compliance
with inclusionary zoning requirements.
Staff considers no additional information beyond that described above to be required to
determine project compliance with inclusionary zoning requirements.
C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
15.C.03 Planned Unit Development Review
All PUDs are subject to master plan review unless the DRB waives the requirement. The Board may waive
this requirement for a PUD of less than four acres to be developed in a single phase of no more than three
years.
The Board discussed this at the sketch plan stage of review. Staff recommends the Board include a
specific finding that master plan is waived for this application.
15.C.04 PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types
A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD must conform to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of application. Conformance with the plan in this context
means that the proposed PUD must:
(1) Advance any clearly stated plan policies and objectives specific to the type and location of
the proposed development;
The property is located in the southwest quadrant as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Policies
and objectives specific to this location include safe and inviting access to Shelburne Road from
Adjacent Neighborhoods and promotion of higher density mixed use development along Shelburne
Road. Objective 54 of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan states: “Promote higher-density, mixed use
development and redevelopment along Shelburne Road and foster effective transitions to adjacent
residential areas." Staff considers this specific objective to be met.
Access is discussed below under site plan review standards. Density is discussed above under
#SD-23-05
17
dimensional standards.
(2) Incorporate preferred settlement patterns, including future land uses, densities and
intensities of development referenced in the land use plan, as implemented through planned unit
development provisions specific to each PUD type.
Planned land use is medium to higher intensity mixed use development.
(3) Incorporate, as applicable, planned facilities, services and infrastructure identified in the
utilities and facilities plan, as implemented under the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and Official Map.
Planned facilities include the existing recreation path along Swift Street. Compatibility with that
recreation path is discussed below.
B. Conformance with the Master Plan. Each phase of a PUD developed in one or more phases must
conform to the PUD Master Plan, as approved or amended by the DRB under Article 15.B, including the
approved development plan, phasing schedule, buildout budget, management plan, and any associated
development agreements or conditions of master plan approval.
As discussed above, Staff considers the Board should formally conclude master plan to be not required.
C. Compliance with Regulations.
This standard is excerpted under Board Authority above as 15.C.04(C). Staff reminds the Board that in
order to grant modification of a standard, the Board must find the development is equivalent or
demonstrably superior in function, design, and quality to that required under the standard to be modified.
D. Development Density.
(1) Intent. A Planned Unit Development is intended to accommodate within a designated
Development Area typically higher effective densities of development than the underlying zoning
district may allow, as necessary to accommodate:
(a) The clustering of development to conserve resources identified for protection;
(b) A more efficient and cost-effective use of land, facilities, services, and infrastructure;
(c) Densities that support a walkable, pedestrian-oriented pattern of development; or
(d) Transit-supportive densities of development along existing and planned transit routes.
Staff considers this criteria to be largely designed to apply to larger PUDs and not applicable here.
(2) Within a PUD, the overall density and intensity of development shall be determined based
on the total Buildable Area included within designated Development Areas, as shown on the PUD
Master Plan; and land use allocations, PUD density and dimensional standards, and allowed
building types and standards as specified by PUD type.
Buildable area, land use allocations, and building types are not relevant concepts for General PUD
types. Dimensional standards are discussed above.
(3) Buildable Area. As there are no identified natural resource constraints and no proposed
public rights-of-way on the property, the buildable area is equal to the total land area.
(4) Land Use Allocations. Not applicable.
(5) Minimum (Base) Density.
(6) Nonresidential Base Density.
#SD-23-05
18
(7) Maximum Development Density.
Minimum and maximum density are not applicable concepts for General PUD types; requirements of
the underlying districts apply.
E. Transition Zone. A PUD may also incorporate one or more transition zones along PUD or
property boundaries, as indicated on the PUD Master Plan and delineated on preliminary and final
subdivision plans, to include the minimum land area necessary to either extend and integrate
compatible, complementary forms of planned development, or to separate and buffer conflicting,
incompatible forms of planned development, in relation to existing and planned development in the
vicinity of the PUD.
The applicant has provided the required context analysis which should be used to evaluate compliance
with this criterion. This is three pages long and is included in the packet for the Board.
(a) The “Transition Area” for purposes of analysis, must at minimum incorporate the prevalent
pattern of development directly adjacent to and within the vicinity of the PUD, including the
relative layout, type and density of existing and planned development (e.g., street, block and
lot configurations, building placement and height); existing and planned transportation and
infrastructure connections; traffic patterns; public facilities and services; and civic space,
resource land and other designated open space areas located within one-quarter to one-half
mile of PUD boundaries, depending on the development context.
The applicant describes the prevalent development pattern by quadrant, with the residential
neighborhoods to the south east having ¼ to 1/3 acre lots with 25 – 30 ft setbacks, Swift Street having
lots in the 0.5 to 1.5 acre range with 20 – 30 ft setbacks, and the commercial lots on Shelburne Road
being varied in size with generally larger setbacks of 80 ft or greater.
Building heights in the project vicinity vary from single story to two story, with some newer buildings
on Swift Street from three to four stories tall.
(b) Acceptable design techniques and modifications applied within a Transition Zone, subject to
DRB review and approval, include but may not be limited to:
(i) Avoiding incompatible land uses along PUD boundaries, for example by ensuring
that similar, or compatible, complementary uses are located on facing blocks or lots, and
incompatible uses abut rear lot lines or are otherwise separated by buffers or open space.
(ii) Using existing natural features, such as changes in topography, waterways, or tree
stands to visually screen or functionally separate different forms and intensities of
development.
(iii) Modifying street and block dimensions and standards as necessary to connect with
or to extend adjoining street, block, and path networks.
(iv) Using streets and streetscape elements to visually define transitions and to
functionally integrate or separate different forms and intensities of development.
(v) Matching the relative density or intensity of adjoining development along PUD
boundaries by adjusting or averaging lot dimensions (frontage, depth); building orientation and
spacing (front, side setbacks); or building height (step downs, upper floor step backs) within the
transition zone.
#SD-23-05
19
(vi) Introducing and designing civic or other open space areas (e.g., greenbelts, parks,
greens, squares, or plazas) to visually define transition areas, and to functionally integrate or
separate different forms and intensities of development.
(vii) Incorporating greenbelts or vegetative buffers and screening of sufficient width and
density to visually and functionally separate incompatible forms and intensities of development.
Staff considers the scale of the proposed development to largely compliment the adjoining area, and
considers no reservation of land for transitions to be necessary. Discussion of required cross-lot
connections is included under LDR 13.02F below.
F. Allowed Uses. Allowed uses within a PUD, unless otherwise expressly allowed or prohibited by
PUD type, include any use listed in Appendix C as a permitted or conditional use in the underlying zoning
district(s) that can be accommodated within, or in association with, designated land use allocations and
allowed building types.
The proposed uses are allowed.
(1) Conditional uses allowed within the underlying zoning district shall be considered permitted
uses within a PUD. Separate conditional use review and approval shall not be required.
Not applicable.
(2) Given the emphasis on compact, walkable forms of residential and mixed use development
within a PUD, auto-oriented uses, building types, and facilities, including uses that require expansive
onsite parking, are generally precluded from locating within a PUD, unless specifically designed to
emphasize a pedestrian scale and orientation of development fronting on and accessed from the
adjacent street, for example by locating shared parking facilities to the rear of the building, as
accessed from a side street. New drive-through facilities are prohibited from locating within a PUD.
Shared parking is provided, and as discussed above under Urban Design Overlay, the project broadly
emphasizes a pedestrian scale and orientation. However, the project does include a drive through
facility. A drive through facility is defined as follows.
Drive-through. An establishment or structure which by design, physical facilities, service, or by
packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, goods, or be
entertained while remaining in their vehicles. A drive through shall include all components
thereof, including any outdoor menu boards, order windows or service windows.
15. Original Comment: Staff considers the proposed drive-through ATM to be prohibited. However, a
walk-up ATM would be permitted. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
reconfigure the site to remove the drive-through, though they may modify the site to include an
ATM that clearly cannot be accessed from a vehicle.
Update for 3/21/2023: The Board on 3/7 clearly and unequivocally indicated that the proposed
ATM is a drive-through and therefore prohibited. The applicant has agreed to remove the drive-
through but has requested the Board complete review of the remaining applicable criteria prior to
revising the plans. Staff considers no further discussion to be required at this time.
G. PUD Dimensional Standards. PUD dimensional standards, where applicable by PUD type, define
a range of block, lot, and building height dimensions which are intended to provide, within defined
parameters, some flexibility in the overall pattern of development specific to each type. Where PUD
standards vary from associated building type standards, the upper and lower PUD dimensional limits
(maximum and minimum) limits shall apply.
#SD-23-05
20
Dimensional standards for a General PUD are those of the underlying zoning district. As described above,
within a General PUD, the Board may modify dimensional standards as necessary to ensure the proposed
development is compatible with the Development Context and to better advance the purposes of the
underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
H. Street, Building, and Civic Space Types. Not applicable in General PUDs.
I. Solar Siting Preferences. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate renewable energy facilities,
and in particular roof- or ground-mounted solar energy facilities that are compatible with PUD layout
and design, as specified by PUD type. Any areas reserved for ground mounted solar installations serving
the development must be indicated on the PUD Master Plan and depicted on preliminary and final
subdivision plans.
Renewable energy standards are described in LDR 3.18 and include the requirement for solar-ready roof
design in accordance with the Vermont Residential Building Energy Standards (RBES) and Vermont
Commercial Energy Standards (CBES).
3.18C(1)New commercial buildings subject to this Section for which a complete application is
submitted following the date these Regulations become effective, shall be required to meet the
standards of Appendix CA: – Solar-Ready Zone of the Commercial Building Energy Standards as
prepared and revised by the Vermont Public Service Department.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate how the standards of Appendix CA
will be met prior to closing the hearing. This information is typically provided by the project architect.
J. PUD Design Standards. A proposed PUD must also incorporate and comply with design
standards specific to that PUD type, except as allowed in association with a form of Alternate
Compliance approved by the DRB under 15.C.04(C).
General PUD standards are discussed immediately below.
15.C.07 General PUD
G. General PUD Dimensional Standards.
General PUD dimensional standards are the underlying subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and
applicable overlay district standards. This section of the LDR pertains to the DRB’s authority for
modification of zoning district standards, and is excerpted at the beginning of this document
under DRB authority.
H. Development Density.
(1) Development Density regulations and definitions included in Section 15.C.04(D) shall
apply to General PUDs.
(2) Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development
density in the underlying zoning district, except as follows.
(a) Density can be re-allocated within the PUD area within single zoning districts;
(b) Additional density may be achieved through either or both Inclusionary Zoning and
application of Transferrable Development Rights where specifically authorized by and as
regulated by Section 18.01 or Article 19.
Compliance with allowable density has already been discussed under 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning
above.
#SD-23-05
21
I. General PUD Design Standards
(1) Design Standards, Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing
Site Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for
variations from applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development
context within the Planning Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section
15C.09(G)(4).
Staff considers no additional discussion of this criterion to be necessary.
(2) Streets. Not applicable
(3) Parking. Parking design and building location requirements applicable in all underlying
zones and districts apply to General PUDs, including all requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2).
Parking design and location is discussed under 14.06A(2) below.
(4) Buildings. Buildings and associated building lots within a General PUD must be
compatible with the development context in the Planning Area as described under Section
15.C.07(F) and (G).
Buildings, and their compatibility with the context analysis, are discussed under 14.06B below.
(5) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible
with the existing or planned development context. General PUDs must comply with applicable
Civic Space and/or Site Amenity requirements in Subdivision (Section 15.A.16(B)(4)) and Site
Plan (Section 14.06(4)).
Civic spaces are discussed under 14.06C below.
(a) Section 15.A.16(C)(4) requirement for minimum 10% of the total buildable area
to be civic space lots apply to General PUDs only for PUDs that involve subdivision of land
resulting in three (3) or more lots, not including the resulting lots that only contain civic
space(s).
15.A.16(C)(4) only applies to lots over two acres in size. This criterion is not applicable.
(b) In a General PUD, Civic Spaces required under Subdivision Regulations (Section
15.A.16(C)(4)) and under Site Plan Regulations (Section 14.06(4)) can be satisfied by a
combination of Civic Spaces, Site Amenities, or a combination, applied across the PUD area.
(6) Housing Mix. In a General PUD with more than four (4) residential dwelling units, a mix
of two or more dwelling unit types (as allowed within the applicable zoning district) must be
provided as described by Section 15.A.17. Types of dwelling units are differentiated by either
housing type under Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more than four (4)
dwelling units, by number of bedrooms per unit.
15.A.17 is as follows.
15.A.17A. Mix of Dwelling Unit Types and Architectural Features. A mix of dwelling unit
types (i.e. cottage, single family, two-family, small multi-family, townhouse, etc. etc.) and
mix of architectural features and styles must be provided within neighborhoods and
developments. These must be mixed within blocks, along the street and within
neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical unit types. An
applicant for a subdivision shall submit a plan demonstrating how this mix will be achieved
for the Development Review Board’s consideration at the preliminary plat stage. Where a
Planned Unit Development approved under Article 15C establishes standards for a mix of
#SD-23-05
22
dwelling unit or building types, those standards shall supersede these herein.
17. The applicant has proposed 30 units, of which 29 are proposed to be two-bedroom and one is
proposed to be one-bedroom. While the applicant has technically provided a mix, Staff
recommends the Board require improved compliance with this criterion in exchange for the
multiple requested modifications described herein by providing a greater assortment of unit
types.
D) SITE PLAN REVIEW
14.06 General Review Standards
Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, the following general criteria and standards
shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They
are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to
exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South
Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style
or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review
Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the
following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design.
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. The DRB shall consider the following:
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping
along the street.
Staff notes that the setbacks along Shelburne Road are inconsistent with adjoining properties and
inconsistent with planned development patterns (i.e., the 20-ft zoning district setback). Staff’s
recommendations regarding front setbacks are under dimensional standards above.
(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.
Staff considers the building orientation and placement to be consistent with the planned pattern of
development.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
As discussed above under 15.C.04 PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types, Staff considers the
scale of the proposed development to largely compliment the adjoining area.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
18. Staff considers that pedestrian access could be improved to the multi-family building both from Swift
Street as discussed above under Urban Design Overlay standards as well as from Shelburne Road. Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to modify the plans to provide a more direct pedestrian
route from Shelburne Road to the multi-family building.
#SD-23-05
23
(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.
Buildings are proposed to have flat roofs, and must comply with Appendix CA of the Commercial
Energy Code pertaining to solar ready roofs. Staff considers this requirement adequately addresses
this consideration.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(b) Not applicable
(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 considers this criterion met.
(d) Not applicable
(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.
Height is discussed above under dimensional standards. Staff considers that the proposed building scale
is compatible with planned development, but a single large building would also be compatible.
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.
(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.
(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.
No streets are proposed. As described by the applicant, there is a mix of building types,
though buildings are generally oriented to the street, a pattern of development continued by
this proposed development. Staff considers this consideration to be addressed.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features
that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style.
If the same architectural style as is proposed for Lots 1 or 2 were proposed for a single building
on the whole PUD, for instance, Staff would consider it to be incompatible, but Staff considers
the proposed buildings to have an appropriate level of architectural detail for their scale and
to be consistent with the neighborhood.
#SD-23-05
24
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side
and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
19. Original Comment: Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they would like to see an
improvement to the appearance of the east side of the multi-family building in consideration
for future redevelopment of the adjoining site. Staff considers that façade to be devoid of
architectural interest and insufficient room to be provided to provide significant screening.
Update for 4/4/2023: The applicant has provided a revised east elevation dated 3/6/2023
that includes building bump outs and step backs as well as varied siding materials. Staff
considers this to have added interest to the side of the building and recommends the Board
consider whether this criterion is now met, keeping in mind there is insufficient room to
provide significant screening.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross
floor area.
(b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as:
(i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit;
(ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or
(iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit.
The required site amenity is calculated as follows.
6,590 sf non-residential x 6% = 396 sf
27 units x 60 sf / unit = 1,620 sf
3 units x 100 sf / unit = 300 sf
In addition, the proposed 2,307 sf lot coverage beyond the maximum allowable 70% requires an
additional 692 sf of site amenity.
Total required site amenity = 3,008 sf
The applicant has proposed for the site amenities to be shared through the PUD. Site amenities are
proposed to be along the west façade of the multifamily building (1,840 sf) between the building and
the parking lot, along the north of the multifamily building (670 sf) and between the buildings on Lots 1
and 2 (890 sf). The latter site amenity is split between two lots. Site amenities are highlighted on the
below screen shot, and total 3,400 sf.
#SD-23-05
25
20. Staff recommends the Board confirm they are comfortable with the site amenity locations with respect to
the amenities being considered on an overall PUD basis and with one amenity being split between two
parcels.
The site amenities are proposed to be of the type “snippet/parklet.” This type is a small sitting area
clearly intended to provide a welcoming respite between or adjacent to buildings. It must be between
600 and 4,000 sf, directly adjacent to the public right of way or sidewalk or an operable building entry.
Seating must be the main focus of the space, be present year-round, and be composed of high quality
materials. Fixed seating is required. Landscaping is also a primary component of the space, and must be
carefully landscaped in a higher proportion than larger spaces. Landscaping should not interfere with
seating, but instead complement it. Spaces should appear warm and inviting and permanent rather
than temporary.
Staff considers the criteria met for all three spaces. With respect to the northern space, Staff considers
the space itself to not meet the landscaping requirement, but that it is nested within a heavily
landscaped area.
21. Compliance of this northern space with site amenity requirements should be reevaluated after the
applicant modifies the plan to provide the required 8-ft pedestrian walkway to Swift Street.
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.
None of the resources identified in Article 12 exist on the site.
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.
#SD-23-05
26
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.
At sketch, the Board discussed site layout as it pertains to access to the proposed underground parking
lot, as well as circulation overall. The applicant presented two site configurations, neither of which are
what ultimately was submitted for preliminary and final plat. The Board’s feedback at sketch
emphasized that the project should not create an attractive cut-through between Shelburne Road and
Swift Street. Staff considers the proposed configuration supports this objective by visually screening the
connection from view of Shelburne Road. Staff also supports the location of the Swift Street driveway
on the far east of the site.
Staff notes the proposed Swift Street sidewalk is mis-aligned with the existing sidewalk on Swift Street
and recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the design to align the sidewalk.
The Director of Public Works and Director of Capital Projects reviewed the provided plans on 2/22/2023
and offers the following comments.
1. The Swift Street ROW is owned by the City of South Burlington. The applicant is reminded that
they will need to obtain a ROW permit from the department of public works before completing
any work in this ROW.
2. The Shelburne Road ROW is owned by the State of Vermont. The applicant is reminded that they
will need to obtain a section 1111 permit from VTrans before completing any work in this ROW.
22. Original Comment: In fact, the Board cannot approve a plan for this property without a letter of intent
from VTrans. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit this information prior to
closing the hearing.
Update for 4/4/2023: The applicant has provided a copy of their correspondence with VTrans
demonstrating that VTrans approves of the project concept, although they no longer issue formal
letters of intent. As such, Staff considers no further discussion to be necessary.
3. I am concerned about the ATM queue backing up into Swift Street. What information is available
related to the likelihood of this happening? What measures are being put in place to prevent
this?
As noted above, drive-throughs are prohibited in PUDs therefore this comment will become
irrelevant. Even if an ATM were approved in the proposed location, it has available queue
length for four cars, which Staff considers sufficient.
4. Please confirm that the City will have an easement for the sidewalk located on the north side of
the property adjacent to the Swift St ROW.
5. Crosswalk striping and truncated domes are not necessary across private drives. The sidewalk
should continue through the driveway and maintain it’s elevation. The grade of the new drive
should be modified, as necessary, to meet the grade of the sidewalk.
6. Please provide more information on the crosswalk signal pole. It’s location appears to be in the
middle of the sidewalk and it may need to get moved.
7. The DRB should include a condition that all EPSC measures be maintained and any soil tracked
off site must be collected (swept up) at the end of each work day.
8. I may have missed it, but has a snow storage area been defined?
#SD-23-05
27
9. The radii on the driveway entrances are very large. Can it be confirmed that they need to be this
wide or if entrances and radii can be tightened?
10. Where truncated domes are needed (particularly crossing Swift St), please ensure that they are
large enough and placed according to PROWAG standards (See sections R305.1.4 and 305.2)
23. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address comments 4 through 10 prior to closing
the hearing.
This criterion also references 15.A.15. 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 (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 provided traffic study concludes that the project reduces pm peak hour trips compared to
existing by 4, from 124 trips to 120 trips. The allowable trip generation for the subject property, in
the traffic overlay district zone 1 is limited to 15 trips per 40,000 sf, or the previously approved trip
generation as long as the proposed project does not exceed the trips generated by the previous
approval. For this 60,700 sq ft PUD, the allowable trip generation is limited to 22 trips if the
previously approved trip generation is exceeded.
The Deputy Director of Capital Project reviewed the Traffic Impact Assessment on 2/22/2023 and
offers the following comments.
1. The background traffic growth factor was calculated to be -5.2% between 2016 and 2029 (page
2). It doesn’t seem reasonable that traffic would decrease more than 5% in the 13-year time
frame). I did not calculate that growth rate when looking at the RedBook values and instead got
a much smaller decrease (~2% decrease). If a conservative growth rate of 0% was used, what
would the resulting LOS at the intersection be in the build conditions?
a. I’m not necessarily concerned about the LOS, but would want to see a more conservative
approach.
2. Were pedestrian calls on the intersection considered? I don’t see a pedestrian phase in the
Synchro outputs. Even if the number of calls is small, it would be good practice to always include
pedestrians in the analysis as ped volumes increase Citywide.
3. Please show the 95th percentile queues on all approaches during AM and PM Peak
24. Original Comment: Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the
Deputy Director of Capital Projects prior to closing the hearing and to evaluate the impacts on the
proposed trip generation, particularly in reference to the existing number of trips. If the project is not
reducing trips, it will be required to provide mitigation for the proposed number of trips beyond the
base allowance of 22 trips.
Update for 4/4/2023: The applicant has testified that the existing PM peak hour VTEs is 124, and the
proposed PM peak hour VTEs is 120. As such, Staff considers that the project is reducing trips and is
therefore not required to provide mitigation. Staff continues to recommend the Board require the
applicant to address the comments of the Deputy Director of Capital Projects prior to closing the
hearing.
#SD-23-05
28
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.
Staff considers the provided lot configuration to be generally safe, though they call the Board’s
attention to the parking spaces located within approximately 18 feet of the Shelburne Road
sidewalk. There is insufficient space for a typical car entering the site to maneuver in or out of
these spaces without being in the sidewalk.
25. Staff recommends the Board consider requiring the applicant to remove one parking space, which
would allow a typical vehicle to fit between the parking spaces and the sidewalk.
(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.
Though the applicant has not proposed to align the Swift Street curb cut, Staff considers the
proposed configuration to be better than an aligned one due to the queue length on Swift Street
and 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.
In addition to this criterion, 13.02F requires cross-lot connections between all commercial lots:
“All commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway
connection to any adjacent commercial lot.” At sketch, the Board directed the applicant to
provide cross-lot connections as required, but to design the connections so that they only
encourage connections between lots and do not encourage cut-through traffic. The applicant
has provided a cross-lot connection to the south, but not to the east. It appears the design of
the property, with the multifamily building along the entire east property line, would preclude a
viable cross lot connection to the east. Staff considers this criterion 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.
Urban design overlay standards are discussed above.
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 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade
adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards
#SD-23-05
29
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.
Staff considers no improvements to be necessary to Shelburne Road, a state highway. As noted above,
Swift Street has an existing recreation path that ends near the eastern property line.
26. Original Comment: Staff has discussed with the Deputy Director of Capital Projects and recommends the
Board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide a recreation path along Swift Street instead of
a sidewalk for consistency with the existing Swift Street cross section. This change should be reflected on
the plans provided to VTrans in association with the required Section 1111 permit.
Updated for 4/4/2023: The applicant has provided a copy of correspondence with the Deputy Director of
Capital Projects indicating that the Deputy Director approves of the applicant’s concept to provide a
recreation path along Swift Street. Staff continues to recommend that the Board require the applicant
modify the plans to provide a recreation path along Swift Street, and that this change should be reflected
on the plans provided to VTrans in association with the required Section 1111 permit.
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
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
Cross lot connections have been discussed above.
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.
27. The City of South Burlington Water District reviewed the proposed plans on 2/22/2023 and provided
extensive comments which are included in the packet for the applicant. Because of the extent of these
comments, Staff recommends the Board require them to be addressed (except for ongoing conditions
related to operation of the properties) prior to closing the hearing.
Shelburne Road is served by overhead power. The applicant has not shown electrical connections
on the plans. The applicant has provided the following testimony regarding electrical connections:
“GMP has not confirmed if transformers will be required or, if they are required, where they would
be located. This information will be added to the plan once it is confirmed. Screening will be provided
if/as needed for transformers to comply with the LDRs.”
28. Original Comment: Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plans to show a
concept of how electrical power will be provided to each building, to a sufficient level of detail such
that modifications required by GMP can be considered a field change. Without showing any
connections at all, a site plan amendment may be needed to provide power to the buildings.
Update for 4/4/2023: The utility plan shows the potential electrical connection to each building and
includes a transformer north of the building on Lot 1. Staff considers no further discussion to be
required.
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).
#SD-23-05
30
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.
Dumpsters are proposed to be enclosed in a stone veneer wall with a decorative steel gate. Staff
considers this criterion met.
E) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading
The applicant is proposing 63 parking spaces. Parking is regulated under 13.02. For the proposed mix of
uses, 45 parking spaces are required, as follows.
29 two-bedroom units x 1.5 spaces per unit = 43.5 spaces
1 one-bedroom unit x 0.75 spaces per unit = 0.75 spaces
29. Staff has assumed that residential parking spaces are not reserved, therefore no additional guest spaces
are required. Staff recommends the Board confirm residential spaces are not reserved.
The applicant has proposed to reserve 11 spaces for the financial institution. 13.02L pertains to
reservation of non-residential parking spaces for single tenants or users.
13.02L. Reserved Parking Spaces. Reservation of non-residential parking spaces for single
tenants or users is strongly discouraged. Reserved parking, and associated signage, shall be
permitted only under the following circumstances:
(1) To meet or exceed Federal ADA requirements
(2) To provide a limited number of courtesy spaces for users (examples: 15-minute only, pick & drop
off, seniors, expectant mothers)
(3) To provide for electric vehicles, carpool spaces, car-share spaces, or other similar purposes
(4) To provide a minimal number of spaces for a small commercial business where other residential
or non-residential uses would otherwise dominate parking areas
(5) Where the Development Review Board finds that other demonstrated unique circumstances
exist that would require a limited number of reserved spaces. In such an instance, the Board
shall permit only the minimum number necessary to address the unique circumstances.
30. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the reserved spaces from the plans. If
the applicant successfully demonstrates that reserved parking is allowed under (1) through (5) above,
Staff considers the Board may wish to evaluate whether parking is adequate for the proposed uses.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
The bicycle requirements are as follows.
Building Short Term Bike
Parking
Long Term Bike
Storage
Clothes Lockers
Lot 1 (3,350 sf Financial Institution) 4 2 1
Lot 2 (3,200 sf retail, 3 residential units) 4 2 1
Lot 3 (27 residential units) 4 27 N/A
In terms of short term bike parking, the applicant has proposed four bike racks near the west entrance
to the multi-family building and one near the east entrance to the building on Lot 2. The applicant has
#SD-23-05
31
indicated in their cover memo that there is a bike rack near the building on Lot 1 but it is not shown on
the plans. Each of the provided bike racks provides parking for two bicycles. Staff recommends the
Board direct the applicant to provide a bike rack near a principal entrance to the building on Lot 1.
In terms of long term bike parking, it does not appear the applicant has provided any in the building on
Lot 1. Two spaces are provided in the building on Lot 2, and a bike storage room is provided in the
parking garage underneath the building on Lot 3. Long-term bike parking does not need to be indoors; it
is possible to provide it in a secured covered location such as a storage shed or bike locker.
31. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide long-term bike parking on Lot 1 or
demonstrate that sufficient long-term bike parking on one of the other lots will be both available and
accessible to the tenants of the building on Lot 1.
Staff also recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate the long
term bike parking in the parking garage meet the lockable and secure requirements of 13.03 as a
condition of approval prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
13.04G requires minimum landscaping based on the value of new structures. Staff recommends the
Board consider landscaping value on an overall PUD basis. The applicant estimates the building cost to
be $11,600,000, requiring $123,500 in new trees and shrubs. As the Board is aware, there are a number
of landscaping standards pertaining to landscaping of parking lots, including the requirement for one
shade tree per five parking spaces, 10% of parking areas consisting of interior landscaping islands,
curbing to protect parking lot landscaping, and a minimum shade tree size of 2.5 inches. Additional
landscaping standards not specific to parking lots require screening or buffering between dissimilar
sites, of parking areas, of outdoor storage, and of utility cabinets. Front yards along collector streets are
required to be landscaped, and a mix of large canopy tree species is required throughout.
B. Landscaping of Parking Areas.
(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 the parking area to be largely screened from view of the public right of way by the
proposed buildings.
(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.
32. Original Comment: 36 parking spaces are provided in the surface lot. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to demonstrate that 10% interior parking lot landscape islands are provided.
Based on approximate measurement, it appears the project is close to, if not meeting, this criterion.
Update for 4/4/2023: The applicant has testified that the interior parking area is 22,027 square feet
in size and therefore requires 2,203 square feet of the parking areas to be landscape islands. The
#SD-23-05
32
applicant has provided 3,602 square feet of landscape islands, exceeding the minimum requirement.
As such, Staff considers this criterion to be met and no further discussion to be necessary.
(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.
This criterion is met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 2/23/2023 and offers the following comments.
1. Species selection is good overall, however, utilizing Rhododendron on a southern
exposure along the edge of a parking lot will most likely result in winter damage.
2. A large area of this site is paved which will yield soils that are compacted and of
insufficient quality to adequately support plant growth. Soil remediation either through
decompaction and amendment or replacement with loam planting soil will be needed to support
plant growth in these areas.
3. LS is shown on the plan but is not listed in the Plant Schedule
33. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Arborist
prior to closing the hearing. Comment #2 should be addressed by providing a detail and/or
specification for soil remediation.
(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.
36 parking spaces are provided, requiring 8 shade trees. More than 9 shade trees are
provided. Staff considers this criterion 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.
34. Some of the provided shade trees, in particular river birch, are specified in terms of height and
not caliper. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to specify that the shade trees
have a caliper of 2 ½ inches, even though the nursery may specify them differently.
(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.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
#SD-23-05
33
Snow storage is not shown and is discussed above.
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 City Stormwater Section has
reviewed the plans and provided the following comments on 3/2/2023.
1. The stormwater design appears to be incomplete. A stormwater maintenance plan has been
omitted and EPSC controls are insufficient for a hotspot site.
2. How is pretreatment being provided for non-rooftop runoff? I don’t see it called out on the plans
for DA 7 Bio, DA 3 Bio, or any of the Filterras.
3. The rim elevation for Outlet Structure 3 (Da 7 Bio) is called out as 216.75. Is this supposed to be
206.75?
4. Please provide a detailed maintenance plan for all BMPs and stormwater conveyance
5. EPSC plan: How will runoff be kept from exiting the site at the stabilized construction entrances
along Shelburne Road?
6. Please provide detail on how the EPSC plan will adapt in conjunction with the demolition
phasing. Will the entirety of Phase I be stabilized while demolition is taking place in Phase II? Will
the stormwater system in the Phase I area be installed while Phase II demolition is taking place?
If so, how will you ensure runoff from Phase II is contained?
7. Please provide detail on how contaminated runoff from Phase I will be contained and prevented
from leaving the site
8. The catch basin they are proposing to tie into is VTRANS-owned, rather than municipal as they
asserted in their stormwater narrative.
35. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration that the comments of the stormwater section
have been addressed prior to closing the hearing.
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; and,
(6) Poles must be located in safe locations.
Specific requirements for maximum illumination levels are included in Appendix A and are limited to 3
footcandles average at ground level and 0.3 footcandles at the property line. The applicant has
provided a photometric drawing. Slightly greater than 0.3 footcandles is provided at the northern
#SD-23-05
34
property line, but given the presence of a recreation path in this location, Staff considers the Board may
allow the proposed lighting as a modification.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to adjust the lighting on the southern side of the
property to reduce excess spillover to 0.3 footcandles maximum.
36. Illumination levels on the east side of the building on Lot 1 and at the proposed ATM are as high as 20 foot-
candles. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to reduce the illumination levels in these
locations to a more reasonable level, on the order of 8 to 10 footcandles.
37. Original Comment: Lighting cut sheets have not been provided for all the proposed fixtures. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to provide cut sheets for all proposed fixtures, including
bollard lighting, for review prior to closing the hearing.
Update as of 4/4/2023: The applicant has provided cut sheets for all proposed lighting fixtures. Staff
considers this criterion met and no further discussion to be necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
If the applicant indicates a viable path forward for the building on Lot 1 having the appearance of two
stories, Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner