HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-01 - Supplemental - 0870 Williston Road (12)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-24-01_0 Catamount Drive_UVM_SK_2024-02-06.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 24, 2024
Application received: December 21, 2023
0 Catamount Drive/870 Williston Road
MASTER PLAN SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-24-01
Meeting date: February 6, 2024
Owner 1/Applicant (0 Catamount Drive)
University of Vermont & State Agricultural College
31 Spear Street; Marsh Hall Suite 10
Burlington, VT 05401
Owner 2 (870 Williston Road)
AAM Catamount Woods, LLC
78 Blanchard Road, Suite 100
Burlington, MA 01803
Property Information
Tax Parcel IDs: 1810-00870.L
87.56 acres
Commercial 1-Residential 12 Zoning District
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers
164 Main Street, Suite 201
Colchester, VT 05446
Location Map
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan sketch plan application #SD-24-01 of University of Vermont & State Agricultural
College to establish a master plan for an existing 87.6 acre lot developed with a parking lot,
supporting driveways, and a helipad. The master plan consists of 275 units of housing in two five-
story buildings over two phases, and associated site improvements on 5.7 acres, 0 Catamount
Drive.
PROJECT CONTEXT
As described by the applicant, the project consists of constructing two residential buildings for use
by University of Vermont students. Concurrently with this project, the applicant intends to submit
a form based code application for development of a parking garage and hotel addition on the
adjacent Doubletree Hotel lot. These applications will be closely related and the development on
the adjacent lot will be an important component of the Development Context Analysis required to
be submitted at the next stage of master plan review.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, herein
after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant on December 21,
2023 and offer the following comments.
A) 15.B Master Plan Review
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process
C. Combined Review.
Master plan review is required prior to or in association with preliminary subdivision review,
or site plan review if no subdivision of land is proposed. The DRB may simultaneously review
the Master Plan with any area proposed for preliminary subdivision or site plan review, but
must issue separate findings of fact, and any conditions of approval, specific to each type of
review.
1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe their proposed phasing
(including geography and timing) and whether they plan to seek concurrent approval for all
or part of the project at the same time as the master plan approval. The applicant is
reminded that they can obtain full final plat approval and still phase construction within a
final plat area if that is a configuration that works best for them.
15.B.04 Master Plan Components
An application for master plan requires a specific set of submission requirements that have the
effect of describing the project and how it relates to the surrounding area, both in terms of natural
features and development. Specific requirements include the following, which will need to be
submitted at the next stage of review.
B. Project Description
This submission requirement includes the overall vision for and scope of the proposed
development, as well as any requested modifications or waivers. The applicant in their cover
letter for this sketch plan application indicated they will be seeking waivers for minimum
required parking and front setbacks. These elements are discussed below.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
3
G. Buildout Analysis and Budget
This submission requirement provides totals of coverage, unit count, affordable units, civic
spaces, trip generation, and water/wastewater demand for the entire master plan and for each
phase. The buildout budget needs to fit within the allowable calculations for each subject area
and sets the stage for future subsequent reviews within the master plan area.
While the Buildout Budget is largely focused on statistics pertaining to the number of units,
given the unusual makeup of the planned residents (1 adult per bedroom), Staff recommends
the applicant also consider in their analysis the anticipated number of residents to get a
relative scale of the project.
H. Design Standards
The master plan must propose standards for a number of project features, including the
following.
• Natural resource protection
• Typical street cross sections by Street Type
• Typical Civic Space types
• Building heights and setbacks
• Overall landscaping and lighting plan
Staff recommends the Board discuss the following aspects of the design with the applicant.
Natural Resource Protection. The project parcel includes large areas of natural resources
protected by the LDRs, including wetlands, river corridors, very steep slopes, and habitat
blocks. All of these features exist in proximity to the proposed development area. It appears
the project is proposing to avoid impacts to these areas except for proposed stormwater
treatment within an area of river corridor. The proposed river corridor impacts will be
prohibited unless the applicant can demonstrate that the river corridor is incorrect, in
accordance with the procedure described in LDR 12.07F(4).
2. Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to determine at what stage of review
it would be appropriate to demonstrate that the proposed stormwater treatment may be
allowed. Staff considers that this should occur before the first phase that depends on the
proposed stormwater treatment system.
Street cross section. Since buildings must front on streets, the project requires upgrading the
existing site drive from a driveway to a street. 15.14C(3) requires the street to be offered to the
City as a public street since it will provide future extension to an adjoining unaffiliated property
or another existing, proposed, or planned public street. The street may, however, remain
private.
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the proposed street
configuration, including the lane, greenbelt, pedestrian accommodation widths as well as
streetscape features including edge treatment, landscaping, and other features, and
provide feedback on whether the proposed design is heading in the right direction at this
stage of review. Staff notes the street must meet one of the approved street types in LDR
11.A.
J. Management Plan
The applicant must include at the next stage of review a proposed management structure
responsible for project development, and, following project completion, long term ownership
and management.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
4
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the project team in order to
determine if an entity other than the University of Vermont need be included in the
required management plan.
15.B.05 Review Standards
A. Findings
The purpose of the required master plan findings is to establish sufficient detail to provide the
framework and standards for future development under the plan. The Board must establish a
Buildout Budget, design standards, a phasing plan, and a management plan at the master plan
stage of review This application consists of a sketch of a master plan, the purpose of which is
to get a broad understanding of the project and to have sufficient information to classify the
next stage(s) of review.
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment
B. Subsequent Regulatory Review
The master plan approval both requires the Board establish and gives the applicant the
opportunity to request process waivers for subsequent applications filed under the master
plan.
Phases of the proposed project which are described in greater detail and are reviewed
comprehensively by the Board at the Master Plan level can be permitted with a simple site plan
review. Phases of the proposed project which are still relatively in flux at the Master Plan level
will need to be heard by the Board again, as preliminary subdivision applications, before they
can be permitted.
By right, sketch plan review is not required for any application for preliminary subdivision or
site plan review that complies with the approved Master Plan, and associated conditions of
approval. The DRB may also waive preliminary subdivision or site plan review for specified
phases, or specify changes which may be reviewed administratively. These process waivers
are one of the main benefits of a Master Plan afforded an applicant.
With the Master Plan submission, the applicant should propose what levels of review they are
seeking for subsequent phases. In order of lowest to highest level of detail required at master
plan, potential levels of review are:
• Preliminary and final plat
• DRB Site plan
• Administrative Site plan
• Zoning permit.
5. The applicant has not requested any process waivers as part of this sketch plan application.
Staff recommends the Board afford the applicant the opportunity to bring up potential
process waivers and provide feedback on the viability of such a request.
C. Effect
For the master plan approval, the Board must make specific findings as to which components of
the Master Plan are vested, based on the type, level, and detail of information provided in the
Master Plan, and the amount of time the plan is intended to remain in effect. The Board may
approve components or elements of the Master Plan as applicable to all subsequent
applications; or determine those components or elements of the Master Plan that are vested, or
not vested, for the duration of the plan.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
5
6. This has historically been a challenging concept to convey to applicants. However, when
done well, it can significantly simplify subsequent reviews. Staff recommends the Board
discuss with the applicant for which components or elements of the project they intend to
ask approval at the master plan level.
B) Subdivision Standards
The project involves subdivision of land in that it creates a lease line between the development
area on the south of the site and the portion of the lot that is largely encumbered by habitat block
to the north.
15.A.11 General Standards
A(3) Buildable Area
The allowed number of dwelling units within a subdivision is calculated based on Buildable area
of the parcel. The buildable area is defined as the total land area of the subdivision minus the area
occupied by Hazards, Level 1 resources, existing and planned rights of way, and transmission lines
and corridors. The total parcel size reported by the applicant is 87.56 acres. The applicant is
proposing 275 units. As noted above, a large portion of the subject property is encumbered by
protected natural resources. The applicant has calculated buildable area to be 57.7 acres, but it
appears the applicant has incorrectly included habitat block and river corridor as buildable area.
7. Staff estimates, based on provided plan sheet DP-1.0, there are only approximately 11
buildable acres, which would allow construction of only approximately 130 units without
consideration for affordable housing bonus units or transferred development rights or
creation of a conservation PUD, discussed below under 15.C Planned Unit Development
Review. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will achieve
the desired density.
C(2) Multiple Districts
For subdivision of land located in more than one zoning district, the standards specific to the
portion of land within each district shall apply. The applicant has not shown zoning district
boundaries on their submitted plans, but it appears the project encompasses lands in both the T4
and the C1-R12 zoning districts in the proximity of Williston Road. This section permits the Board
to extend zoning district standards up to 50-ft in either direction beyond the district boundary line
as necessary to avoid a subdivision or building lot split by a zoning district boundary, but it
appears 50-ft is insufficient to accommodate the applicant’s proposed development. If the building
is split between zoning districts, Staff considers it will be required to meet the standards of the T4.
If the building is entirely within the C1-R12, it may be possible to consider the circulation within the
T4 as an allowed use within that district.
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to show the zoning district boundaries
on the plans showing proposed development, and discuss the implications thereof.
15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards
D. Resource Protection Areas
Subdivision boundaries must be located to avoid, or, where deemed necessary by the DRB, to
minimize the subdivision and physical fragmentation of natural resources. Sheet DP-1 shows the
involved natural resource areas. The applicant has largely avoided natural resource impacts as
described above. Staff notes that when the applicant applies for final plat review of the proposed
subdivision and PUD, they will be required to demonstrate they have met the details of resource
protection.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
6
15.A.14 Street Network
B. Street Layout
The arrangement of streets serving the subdivision must incorporate and extend the network of
existing and planned arterial, collector and local streets in the vicinity, including existing and
planned streets serving adjoining subdivisions, and as shown on the City’s Official Map.
Streets must be extended to other connecting rights-of-way or easements through adjoining
properties.
C. Street Design
All streets, including both public and private streets, must be designed and constructed by the
applicant or developer to City specifications, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the DRB
under final subdivision approval.
(3) Public Streets. The DRB shall require a street to be offered for dedication to the City as a public
street in accordance with the following:
(a) The proposed street will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining unaffiliated
property or to another existing, proposed, or planned public street.
(6) All streets must be designed and constructed with sidewalks, greenbelts, bike facilities,
medians, travel lanes and on-street parking as specified for each street type, unless an
acceptable alternative is approved by the DRB under Subsection (7) below. The street type
standard applicable to a proposed street or section of roadway shall be determined by the
Development Review Board, in consultation with the Public Works and Planning & Zoning
Departments, based on supporting documentation and the following criteria:
(a) Any street type listed for a specific section of roadway, as shown on the Official Map or
the Official Zoning Map, shall be the applicable street type for purposes of these
regulations.
(b) The street type must be listed as an eligible or allowed street type as specified by Zoning
District, Transect Zone Building Envelope Standard, or PUD type.
(c) The proposed street must conform to the stated intent of an applicable street type and
intended uses and activities listed for that type.
(d) The street type must be consistent with planned, proposed or anticipated connections to
or extensions of existing streets.
(e) The street type must be consistent with the specified design speed and design vehicle and
accommodate projected traffic volumes at buildout.
(f) The street type, including associated facilities, must accommodate all anticipated users,
including motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders.
(g) The street type must conform to Comprehensive Plan policies, and any long range studies,
capital plans, and other related city planning and policy documents specific to the street,
the location, and the planned pattern of development in the vicinity of the subdivision.
The applicant is proposing to create a new public street where the existing driveway west of the
Doubletree exists. The proposed right-of-way is 50-ft wide. There exists the ability for the Board to
modify required street standards, but there is a rigorous set of seven standards that must be met in
order to do so.
Staff of the Department of Public Works offer the following comments relevant to the proposed
street.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
7
• In a future submission, please provide cross sections for all roads.
• In a future submission the applicant should assess the condition of Catamount Drive and
make recommendations for maintenance/upgrade/improvement.
• Why are they proposing a 50’ ROW when it is 60’ near the Doubletree? 60’ would avoid
easements for the path.
Staff recommends the applicant to incorporate the comments of the Department of Public Works
and work with Staff as necessary prior to the next submission to arrive at a proposed road type.
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Recreation Paths
This section pertains to bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation throughout a subdivision.
Staff of the Department of Public Works offer the following comments relevant to this section.
• The greenbelt between the road and the path should be at least 7’ wide for the trees to stay
healthy and avoid root damage to the path. Since the new path connects to the existing
path on a curve, this should be easy to make a smooth transition to a wider green belt.
• Since they’re repaving in the drop off area on the back of the Doubletree, is this an
opportunity to reconfigure this area? It’s kind of a free for all and this seems like a good
chance to improve it.
• Can the sidewalk along the driveway be brought back from the road? Ideally at least 5’, 7’ if
they want trees. This would make it much more comfortable for users.
• The sidewalks off the courtyard areas shouldn’t be going into the road unless there’s
another sidewalk or path to connect to. They go through the fence anyway so I’m not sure
of their purpose.
• I realize it’s early on in the planning but based on other UVM buildings, they’ll likely need
more bike racks (ideally these will be sheltered indoors when we get the next phase’s
application).
Staff notes that they have been working with the applicant to address some of these comments,
while others have not yet been discussed. Staff recommends the applicant incorporate the
comments of the Department of Public Works into their plans prior to the next submission.
9. Further, due to the importance of this project’s location relative to connectivity between
different existing and proposed shared use path connectors, Staff recommends the Board
refer the project to the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee for review. If the Board
agrees, Staff recommends the Board determine the timing they will require relative to the
other pending stages of review (master plan, preliminary plat, or final plat).
15.A.18 Infrastructure, Utilities and Services
This section pertains to capacity of community facilities, water and wastewater, fire protection,
stormwater, utilities, street lighting, and renewable energy services. The following comments
pertaining to these standards have been provided by various City department heads.
Department of Public Works
• Does this plan limit our ability to treat stormwater as specified in Flow Restoration Plans
approved by Vermont DEC?
• In a future submission, please be sure to provide information on the wastewater collection
system on the project site and leading to the connection point on Williston Road.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
8
• Will the fire lane be limited access? Will it have a stop sign at the intersection with the main
driveway?
• On the road, they’re calling out new subbase and asphalt, so we’ll just want to make sure
we spec out the right thicknesses. They’re showing 24’ feet which is more than enough
width.
Fire Department
• The “fire lane” is a dead end with no turn around at the end or does it connect back into a
parking lot?
• What is the hydrant/water flow capacity in the area.
• What is the weight capacity of the bridge on Catamount Dr.?
• What is the impact on traffic with the UVM-MC parking area to the NE?
• Are these building conjoined or separate structures?
• All structures shall be fully fire protected.
As above, Staff recommends the applicant incorporate the comments of the City Directors into their
plans as part of the next submission.
C) 15.C Planned Unit Development Review
15.C.02 Applicability
There are three PUD types available in South Burlington. In the case of a property in this zoning
district that is greater than 4 acres, a PUD is optional. Allowed options include the General PUD,
and, because at least 50% of the area of the property is encumbered by Hazards, Level 1 Resources,
and/or Level 2 resources, the Conservation PUD.
15.C.04C. Compliance with Regulations
(2)(a) Official Map.
The City’s official map includes an existing recreation path on the subject property. The path
must, and is proposed to, continue to exist.
(3) Alternative Compliance
Site plan standards and subdivision standards permit the Board to modify most dimensional
standards, but standards that are not dimensional may only be modified by Alternative
Compliance. Alternative compliance is permitted “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.”
The applicant has indicated in their cover memorandum that at this sketch plan stage of review
they know that they intend to request modification of the minimum required parking and
minimum required front setback. Staff also notes it appears the applicant will be seeking a
side setback waiver. Since parking is not a dimensional standard, Staff considers the applicant
must seek approval as a PUD.
• Parking Minimum: 1 space per unit required (275 units and 94 parking spaces
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
9
proposed)
• Front Setback: 30 ft required (7 ft proposed)
• Side Setback: 10 ft required (3 ft proposed)
10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they intend to pursue a
Conservation or General PUD. Specifics of each type are discussed below, which Staff
recommends the Applicant and Board review before the hearing in order to inform this and
the subsequent discussion.
In order to approve a modified standard, the Board must find, based on the applicant’s
provided materials, that the proposed alternative:
(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.
11. Staff recommends the Board begin the discussion of how reduced parking and reduced
front setback achieves the above criteria, specifically letters (c) and (d) as they pertain to
parking.
Within all potentially applicable PUD types, the following apply.
Development Context
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed PUD is compatible with the Planning Area, as
determined from a detailed analysis of a provided “Development Context,” which includes details
of the allowed development in the project area, the predominant pattern of development in terms
of geometry (lot sizes, height, setbacks), streetscapes, and building styles.
12. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide an initial description of the
proposed form of the development and how it has been designed to complement the
development context.
Civic Spaces and Site Amenities.
10% of the total buildable area must be allocated as civic spaces for all conservation PUDs and for
general PUDs consisting of three or more lots. Civic spaces are separate from site amenities.
However 14.06C(4) permits the DRB to reduce the site amenity requirement up to 50% when a civic
space is provided on site or directly accessible
13. Civic Spaces must meet one of the qualifying types in Article 11. Staff recommends the
Board ask the applicant to describe how the proposed civic spaces relate to the
development context.
15.C.05 Conservation Development
If the applicant considers they will pursue a Conservation PUD, the Board should review this
section.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
10
A. Description.
A Conservation PUD (CON PUD) is a type of planned development intended to permanently
conserve natural resource and other open space areas identified by the City for protection in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and supplemental open space plans and resource
inventories; while also allowing for compatible, clustered forms of land subdivision and
development on a portion of the tract or parcel to be conserved. The primary objective of this
PUD type is to conserve large or contiguous tracts of open space in one or more designated
“Conservation Areas” while allowing for the transfer of development density from these areas to
a designated “Development Area,” delineated to exclude adjacent Conservation Areas, as shown
on the PUD Master Plan.
C. Applicability
A conservation PUD would be allowed for this project because of criterion 3(b): In any other
underlying zoning district that allows for Planned Unit Development, for any tract or parcel of two
(2) or more acres in which a minimum of 50% of the total tract or parcel area consists of Hazards
and/or Level I Resources identified for protection under Article 12.
E. Conservation PUD Sub-Zones
The conservation area must comprise 70% of the total lot and must contain all hazards and level 1
resources as defined in Article 12. The remaining lands to make up the 70% minimum must
prioritize conservation of other resources, buffers, woodlands, scenic areas, significant natural
communities, and historic sites.
The Conservation Area must be conserved as permanently protected Open Space through a
conservation easement or dedication to the City or to a nonprofit conservation organization.
Within the remaining Development Area, the applicant must provide a concentrated, clustered
form of development compatible with the density of development allowed within the underlying
zoning district, but which may incorporate density transferred from the conservation area. The
total number of units permitted is calculated as follows.
Assigned Housing Units = (Total Tract Area – Hazards Area) x Zoning District Base Density (DU/A)
In the case of this project, hazards include only floodplain and river corridor. Development as a
Conservation PUD would permit the applicant to construct the desired number of housing units
without requiring the use of bonus housing for provision of inclusionary housing or Transfer
Development Rights.
There is also a minimum density, which is equal to four units per acre in the Development Area.
Other standards of the Development Area are generally similar to that of the underlying zoning
district, with the following exceptions.
(e) Building Types.
(iii) Principal buildings and building entrances must be oriented to and accessed from the
street, an adjoining courtyard, or civic space. Secondary entrances may open onto side
or rear garages or parking areas. The placement of garages and parking areas within
the Development Area, if not specified otherwise specified by zoning district or
associated PUD type, must meet applicable standards under Section 13.17 and 9.10 as
applicable.
(f) Housing Mix. A mix of two or more housing types and styles must be provided as allowed
within the applicable zoning district pursuant to Section 15.A.17, as required for affordable
housing, or as specified for an associated PUD Type, for any residential or mixed-use
development that includes four (4) or more residential building lots. Within these
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
11
developments, the Development Area must include an integrated mix of housing types
and styles within neighborhoods, blocks, and along street frontage, rather than
segregating or compartmentalizing housing types by block or street.
14. If the applicant is inclined to pursue a conservation PUD, Staff recommends the Board
enter into a preliminary discussion of how buildings will meet the orientation
requirements, and the required housing mix.
15.C.07 General PUD
If the applicant considers they will pursue a General PUD, the Board should review this section.
A. Authority
Within a General PUD, the Board is prohibited from modifying the following standards
a) Density restrictions
b) Requirements of Transit Overlay District
c) Lot and building coverage maximums across the PUD as a whole
d) Environmental Protection Standards
e) Parking and building location requirements
I. General PUD Design Standards
(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.
If the applicant is inclined to pursue a general PUD, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant
to describe their proposed mix of bedrooms and provide feedback on whether the Board will find
this mix to be acceptable.
D) Inclusionary Zoning
15. 18.01B(3) exempts project that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive
residential use and occupancy of its students from inclusionary housing requirements.
Given the proposed partnership arrangement for development of this housing, Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to confirm this exemption applies.
E) Other
Staff considers there are a handful of other subject areas which will have high importance for this
project in future stages of review. Subject areas that have already been identified include
stormwater management, bicycle parking and storage, commercial building energy standards.
The applicant has not yet submitted any information pertaining to these subject areas at this
sketch plan stage of review, though they have begun discussion of these subjects with Staff. Staff
simply calls these areas to the Board’s attention as matters for future consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
#SD-24-01 UVM Master Sketch Plan
12
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner