HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-23-01 - Supplemental - 1185 1195 Shelburne Road (9)Applicant response to Staff Comments from Sketch Plan:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan sketch plan applica�on #SD-23-04 of John Larkin, Inc., to establish a master plan for an
approximately 39 acre exis�ng PUD consis�ng of 270 residen�al units in eight mul�-family buildings, a
20,000 sf movie theater, a 22,500 restaurant/medical office building, and a 3,500 sf restaurant with
drive through. The master plan includes six phases and consists of adding 28,660 sf commercial space, a
93 room hotel, and 183 homes in 3 mixed use buildings, 111 homes in two mul�-family buildings, 6
homes two-family buildings, and open space for passive recrea�on, 1185 and 1195 Shelburne Road.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planners Marty Gilles and Marla Keene, herein a�er referred to as Staff, have
reviewed the plans submited by the applicant on January 25, 2023 and offer the following comments:
Overview
15.A.05 Pre-Application Sketch Plan Review
The applicant’s leter from December 14, 2022, provides details of their proposal. This applica�on is for
a Master Plan sketch plan, as required under 15.B.2(A)(2) & 15.B.2(A)(3). As pursuant to 15.B.3(A), an
applicant must submit a Sketch Plan for review and follow the procedures and submital requirements
of Sec�on 15.A.05. The applicant must then file an applica�on for master plan approval within six (6)
months of the final DRB sketch plan review mee�ng. That Master Plan must generally conform to the
layout shown on this Sketch Plan, and incorporate recommenda�ons made by the DRB as part of this
sketch plan review process.
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment
In its approval of a Master Plan, the Board shall specify the level of review and review processes
required for subsequent applica�ons filed under the Master Plan. Generally speaking, 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 permited with a simple site plan review. Phases of the proposed project
which are s�ll rela�vely in flux at the Master Plan level will need to be heard by the Board again, as
preliminary subdivision applica�ons, before they can be permited.
One goal of the Master Plan sketch plan is to iden�fy phases of the proposed project that may need
extra aten�on in order to get to a point where the Board and applicant feel comfortable with the level
of detail included in the final Master Plan approval. In this way, the Board and the applicant can work
together towards the most efficient permi�ng path for each phase of the proposed project.
(C) Effect. Once a Master Plan has been approved, all subsequent land subdivision and
development must conform to the Master Plan as approved.
As noted above, the subsequent land development must conform to the approved Master Plan.
As such, it is in the best interest of the Board and the applicant to approve a Master Plan with an
appropriate level of detail so as to avoid boxing in or otherwise restric�ng phases of the
development that are not yet finalized, while also allowing for rela�vely expedited approval of
shovel-ready phases of the development. Part of the Master Plan sketch plan process includes
iden�fying which of the proposed phases the applicant is ready to finalize and ensuring that the
DRB generally supports the design of that development in an effort to concentrate efforts during
the final Master Plan approval process on more ambiguous elements of the proposed
development.
(D) Duration.
(2) The Master Plan shall remain in effect as approved until the development allowed by the
plan has been completed, the plan expires, or the plan is amended or superseded.
(3) Applicant shall submit a complete preliminary or final subdivision or site plan application
(as applicable) for at least one phase of the project within two (2) years of the date of
Master Plan approval. Concurrent review with Master Plan shall be deemed to have
satisfied this requirement. Failure to submit a complete application within two (2) years of
the date of approval shall result in expiration of the Master Plan.
The Master Plan is a binding agreement that provides a framework for the development of
the en�re site. As such, it is in the best interest of the applicant and the Board to avoid
enshrining any poten�ally objec�onable or modifiable details in the final Master Plan
approval. All subsequent phases of development must be built as per the approved Master
Plan – if the applicant would like to deviate from this approved Master Plan, their only
recourse is to come back to this process and amend or supersede the Master Plan. For this
reason, it is important that the applicant not lock themselves into any plans that they may not
be able to commit to. On the other hand, the applicant has to get approval for at least one
phase of the project with two years of the final Master Plan approval, so the plans should be
specific enough to facilitate the applica�on for approval of the subject phase(s).
(E) Amendment.
(1) Minor Amendment. An approved Master Plan may be amended concurrently with the
application for preliminary or final subdivision or site plan review, without sketch plan
review, if the proposed amendment represents a material change that does not deviate
significantly from the Master Plan as approved, including the approved development plan and phasing schedule, and does not alter the overall buildout budget. This may include the
reallocation of budgeted development parameters between development phases.
(2) Substantial Amendment. Full Master Plan review and approval under (C), including sketch
plan review and required pre-application meetings, will be required for any development
representing a substantial change that deviates from the approved Master Plan in one or
more of the following respects:
(a) Proposed development that incorporates land or properties that were not included
in the master plan as approved;
(b) Proposed development that significantly alters the development plan as approved,
including a change in the overall pattern of development (e.g., streets, blocks,
connectivity), the location and extent of permanent open space, designated
development areas and civic spaces, or the allocation of development densities and land
uses; or
(c) Proposed changes that significantly alter the parameters and associated impacts of
development at buildout as set forth in the approved buildout budget, including an
increase in total site coverage, an increase in PM peak hour trip ends, and other
parameters that require additional infrastructure, facilities, or services.
As detailed above, some components of the Master Plan that are unchangeable without
going through the Master Plan amendment process include: the development of
addi�onal land not approved as part of the final Master Plan, a significantly altered plan
for the development of the land approved through the final Master Plan, and significantly
altered impacts of the development approved through the final Master Plan. In this
Master Plan sketch plan, the Board and the applicant should par�cularly consider the land
proposed to be developed, the patern and visual impact of that development, and the
intensity of the uses included in that development. These features of the Master Plan will
be finalized once the Master Plan receives its final approval – as such, the sketch plan
process provides the Board a valuable opportunity to preview the applicant's proposal
and provide ini�al feedback on these broader criteria before moving to a more detailed
review in the final Master Plan.
15.B.04 Master Plan Components
(A) Submission Requirements. In addition to submission requirements under Appendix E, a Master
Plan submitted for review under this Article must include each of the following listed components and
information, to be presented in narrative, graphic, and tabular form, unless waived by the DRB as not
applicable to a particular subdivision or development.
Staff has reviewed the materials submited along with this sketch plan applica�on and included an
overview of those materials under the appropriate headers below. The materials submited as part of
this sketch plan applica�on do not necessarily cons�tute sufficient informa�on for final Master Plan
review, but give a general sense of the direc�on of the project. As such, Staff’s comments below are
intended to simply serve as a discussion of the informa�on submited to date.
(B) Project Description.
The applicant provided a narra�ve that describes the vision and scope of this project:
“Our objective is to promote a compact, walkable form of higher density, commercial and residential
mixed-use development, centered on a major street intersection, that is functionally integrated with
adjoining residential neighborhoods. Our development design embraces grid street and lot layout with a
strong pedestrian east-west axis. Our layout also includes leaving 3.72 acres of natural open space for
the residents of development.”
The applicant is also seeking two waivers. The first requested waiver is a front setback waiver to allow
Phase 2 to be constructed with the same rela�onship to Shelburne Road as the adjacent Phase 1.
1. Staff considers that the Board may require a more detailed explanation in order to make a
determination on whether to grant this request.
Applicant response: We would likely be requesting front yard setback waivers for all buildings to achieve
a more compact neighborhood that would have a lively streetscape.
The applicant is also seeking a landscaping waiver, which they summarize here:
“Landscape formula – we would like to discuss the possibility of putting the funds from South
Burlington’s required percentage of construction cost landscape budget into something beyond plant
material. We would like to use this for other landscape items that would result in a greater public return.
For example, we could add amenities to the open space area or build a pedestrian footbridge with access
to the neighboring housing development.”
2. Staff considers that the Board may further discuss the options briefly proposed above with the
applicant and the considerations that would need to be met in order to grant such a waiver
request.
Applicant response: While we would first try to achieve compliance through plant material, we may just
not have sufficient site to achieve this. For the first building that was constructed we had to propose
plant material on another part of the site (the southwestern portion of the site around the stormwater
pond.) It would be very helpful if the portion of the required budget not able to be satisfied through
plant material for each phase could be used towards items such as civic and open space features
including the community garden (raised beds, garden shed etc..), dog park (fencing, agility features,
waste dispensers, benches etc..), multi-use path and creative stormwater practices that would be
integrated into the open space (such as rain gardens). It would be helpful to get the board’s direction on
this prior to beginning the first Phase.
(C) Context Report.
The applicant provided a narra�ve describing the rela�onship between the proposed development and
surrounding infrastructure and City services:
“Our Masterplan includes an existing bus stop on Shelburne Rd (Installed as part of Phase 1), a VTRANS
approved right turn from Slip Rd. onto Shelburne rd., and a complete internal pedestrian sidewalk
network with connections to Shelburne Road and Fayette Rd. The project will include the creation of a
recreation path from Fayette Rd. to the community open space, and beyond to the southern property
line.”
Staff notes the lack of bicycle infrastructure in the area and the width of Fayete Road, which eventually
connects (via the Hannaford parking lot and Queen City Park Road) to the Burlington Greenway, and
further notes the poten�al benefit of a protected bike lane along Fayete Road. Staff also notes the lack
of exis�ng and proposed pedestrian crosswalks across Fayete Road.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss what they consider may address pedestrian and
cyclist needs in this PUD, and how the applicant may address north-south connectivity within the PUD.
Applicant response: A multi-use path is proposed down the western side of Reel Road. In addition, since
the last submission we have added a multi-use path down the south / western side of Fayette. We have
shown potential crosswalk locations along Fayette road.
(D) Existing Conditions Report.
The applicant notes the exis�ng developed uses on the property: Olde Orchard Park, Larkin Terrace, a
movie theater, a restaurant/medical office building, and a McDonalds restaurant with drive through
services. Staff notes the exis�ng condi�ons to the west of the PUD include an opera�onal railroad,
offering both freight and passenger service, and a 100-acre private estate. The submited plans show the
proposed open space running downhill, east to west, towards this railroad and private estate.
Staff recommends the applicant discuss the impacts of these existing conditions, with a specific focus on
how these adjacent uses will be delineated or incorporated into the function of the proposed PUD.
Applicant response: We do not see any impacts of these existing conditions and will work to further
buffer the railroad from the open spaces proposed.
(E) Development Plan.
The applicant iden�fied the exis�ng natural resources to remain: “Our open space includes a high
ecological value natural area with an existing pond. Existing large conifers remain. These unprogrammed
spaces will be open to the community”. Staff notes that there is an exis�ng private road running through
the en�rety of the proposed open space.
Staff recommends that the Board discuss with the applicant the impact of Inn Road on the function and
safety of the proposed open space.
Applicant response: The required access drive to the property west of the railroad tracks will only serve
two single family residences (yet to be developed) and is not seen as a safety issue. The majority of this
property will be accessed via Holmes Road. We have also added a pedestrian link from Olde Orchard
neighborhood to this drive in order to further link Old Orchard to the overall project and amenities.
The applicant has also iden�fied the primary development area in this PUD, which includes a small
street grid suppor�ng the area targeted for the densest development. This area will include an
interconnected underground parking complex to accommodate the an�cipated vehicle storage needs, a
linear park amenity to provide some east-west connec�on in the development, and the aforemen�oned
open space. Staff notes that two phases of the project are somewhat removed from this primary
development area – phase 4, the micro-apartment complex; and phase 5, the three duplexes – and
considers the level of access these phases will have to the site ameni�es proposed for this PUD.
6. Staff recommends that the Board discuss with the applicant the integration of phase 4 and phase 5
into the development as a whole, with a focus on connectivity and cohesivity.
Applicant response: We would like to formalize the parallel parking that is currently allowed (but not
striped) along Fayette Road. We are also proposing a multi-use path along the south/west side of
Fayette and new lighting to match what was begun with the first building. A crosswalk is proposed to
better connect pedestrians across Fayette.
(F) Summary Statistics
The applicant provides a brief overview of these sta�s�cs, no�ng that the proposed development will
create 28,600 sf of mixed commercial uses, a 93-room hotel, and 207 units of mul�family housing. The
development of the proposed addi�onal stages for this project will bring the en�re PUD to 477 units of
residen�al housing, which is roughly 108 units below the allowable maximum. Of the 207 housing units
proposed, at least 15 percent of the units available for rent must be Inclusionary Rental Units and at
least 10 percent of the units offered for sale must be Inclusionary Ownership Units. The applicant has
indicated that they intend to meet all applicable regula�ons of Ar�cle 18.01.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss plans to meet these regulations, with special
focus on the regulations that require Inclusionary Rental units to be physically integrated into the project
layout, have a mean Habitable Area no less than 90% of the mean Habitable Area of the market rate
units, and be constructed & made available concurrently with market rate units.
Applicant response: The applicant will meet or exceed any inclusionary rental units in each Phase. This
will be addressed in more detail when each Phase is designed.
(G) Buildout Analysis and Budget.
The applicant must iden�fy the maximum PM peak hour trip genera�on and wastewater system
demand atributed to the proposed development, the square footage of the required civic space/site
amenity features, and the number of required inclusionary units in the final Master Plan. At this sketch
plan stage Staff recommends the Board focus on the civic space element of this submission
requirement. Based on the described program, Staff es�mates the master plan will require at least
29,580 square feet of civic spaces.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss how they will meet this requirement and how it
will be phased so that no less than the required minimum for each development phase is provided.
Applicant response: We have adjusted the proposed phasing and have identified the proposed civic
spaces in more detail.
(H) Design Standards.
This sec�on is intended to integrate exis�ng and new forms of development, and to ensure coordinated
and cohesive phased development. Submission materials for the sec�on include items such as building
eleva�ons, site ligh�ng plans, and landscaping plans. In the interest of good PUD design, the applicant
must include general plans for an aesthe�cally pleasing built environment, efficient sight ligh�ng, and a
cohesive, complementary landscaping plan. The specifics of these plans may change on a phase-byphase
basis, but the overall plans must be submited for review as part of the final Master Plan.
(I) Phasing Plan
The applicant is currently proposing a seven-phased development plan, of which the first phase has
already been completed, leaving six phases to be constructed. Master Plan standards s�pulate that
“Each proposed phase of development should account for at least 20 percent of the total project area or
expected buildout in units/square feet; incorporate one or more distinct areas identified for coordinated
development and management; and the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support that phase of
development.” As such, the standards suggest that the project may not be completed in any more than
five addi�onal phases and perhaps even fewer than that. Staff notes that it is not necessary to consider
each individual building a phase; these standards are intended to establish �melines for the
development of the infrastructure that supports the project and the ameni�es that enhance the project.
For example, this project includes the development of public and private roads, dedicated open space,
and site ameni�es.
Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss the phasing plan as it pertains to the development of
the site infrastructure and site amenities.
Applicant response: We have adjusted the proposed phasing (reducing the number) and included both
civic space and infrastructure for each Phase.
(J) Management Plan
As part of the final Master Plan, the applicant must provide a narra�ve descrip�on of the proposed
management structure responsible for project development, to include all principals or en��es with
direct control over and responsibility for the financing, permi�ng, construc�on, and comple�on of
development under the Master Plan; and, following project comple�on, for long-term ownership,
management, opera�on, and maintenance of capital and community assets. Addi�onally, this
management plan must clearly iden�fy any streets, infrastructure, facili�es, civic or other open spaces
proposed for public dedica�on under each phase of development. The applicant is proposing to extend
the 60’-wide right of way for Reel Road, which is to become public, and associated infrastructure down
towards the southern property line.
The Director of Public Works reviewed these plans on 2/15/2023 and offered the following comments:
• Is the intent for Reel Road to become a public street? If so, the road would need to be
constructed to meet public works standards. This would likely require reconstruction of the
existing driveway/road (subsurface and surface). The road would also need to be constructed to
the property line (to accommodate a future connection from the south) and include an approved
turn around for large vehicles (e.g. plow trucks).
Applicant response: The existing portion of reel Road has been constructed to Public Works Standards
as will the new portions all the way to the southern property line.
• Shelburne Road is owned by the State of Vermont and the applicant should check with VTrans
regarding the proposed Slip Road.
Applicant response: We have already obtained the permit for the slip Road from VTrans.
• A future submission would need to show plans for stormwater treatment. It is not clear at sketch
level.
Applicant response: We have added conceptual stormwater areas to the master plan.
15.B.05 Review Standards
(A) Findings. For Master Plan approval, the DRB must find that:
(1) The Master Plan includes all the components required under 15.B.04 above, in sufficient detail to
provide the framework and standards for future development under the plan, unless specifically
waived by the DRB as not applicable to the proposed subdivision or development;
Barring any waivers granted by the DRB, all components outlined above must be submited in full
detail as part of the final Master Plan approval.
(2) The overall type, pattern, and density of development, and allocation of land uses, are consistent
with these Regulations and other City regulations in effect at the time of application, including
relevant subdivision, zoning district or planned unit development standards;
The applicable Zoning Districts include C1-R15 and C-2. The project area includes six parcels that total
roughly 39 acres, all but 7,500 square feet of which is zoned as C1-R15. The maximum density in the
C1-R15 zoning district is one residen�al unit per every 2,900 square feet, meaning that this PUD has
a maximum residen�al density of 585 units. The maximum building coverage is 40% for the en�re
PUD, and the maximum total impervious coverage is 70%. The applicant has not provided calcula�ons
for these zoning standards, but the number of proposed units is well below the number of allowable
units. This project also requires the development of a site amenity or site ameni�es propor�onal to
the size of the project, including 6% of non-residen�al building gross floor area and 60 square feet per
residen�al unit. Considering just the 28,600 square feet of commercial space and the 207 residen�al
units (no square footage was provided for the hotel), the applicant will have to provide a site
amenity/civic space that is at least 29,580 square feet in size.
Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the applicant intends to meet this
requirement, noting the established types of civic space and site amenity defined in Article 11.B.
Applicant response: We have increased the number of dwelling units – see application text.
(3) The proposed Development Plan demonstrates the efficient, coordinated, and integrated
development and use of land which:
(a) Considers existing topography and physical site constraints;
(b) Avoids or minimizes and mitigates the impacts of future development on environmental
resources identified for protection, as enumerated in Article 12, and as incorporated into
the overall design;
The submited exis�ng condi�ons sketch plan iden�fies the two wetlands on the property and
their associated buffers, and a river corridor. None of the phases appear to be constructed in
these natural resource areas, but the proposed pedestrian bridge connec�ng the Old Orchard
development with the rest of this PUD would likely have to encroach upon either the river
corridor or the wetland buffer, if not both. Staff recommends the applicant coordinate with
the City Stormwater Sec�on prior to the final Master Plan submission to determine if any flow
restora�on projects are planned for this area.
(c) Defines an overall pattern of development, including proposed streets and blocks, that
is consistent with the zoning district or proposed type of planned unit development;
The applicant is crea�ng a grid-based urban form in an area that sits on a major thoroughfare
in a commercial zoning district. Staff considers that, although the nearby development does
not share this same form, the proposed patern of development is consistent with the goals
of the PUD and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
(d) Maintains street, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, and contiguous or accessible
open space with the adjoining neighborhood, and within and between each phase of
development;
The applicant is proposing a network of walking paths and sidewalks that will connect all
phases of the project to one another and to the major through-streets in the area (Fayete
Road and Shelburne Road). The applicant has already installed a bus stop on the west side of
Shelburne Road, and one exists on the east side of the road, as well, for north-bound transit
riders. The applicant briefly suggested the construc�on of a pedestrian footbridge to link the
Old Orchard Park development (part of this PUD) to the proposed open space area. As
discussed earlier in these staff comments, the traffic levels and width of Fayete Road make
it a prime loca�on for a bike lane, especially given its proximity to the Burlington Greenway.
Staff recommends that the Board discuss connectivity options with the applicant, including the
connections shown on the site plan and other potential connections, including the pedestrian
footbridge, bike lanes on Fayette Road, and to Lakeview Commons to the south.
Applicant response: We are no longer proposing the footbridge over the wetland area due to expense
and likely difficulty permitting it. We instead have provided a pedestrian connection from Olde Orchard
to Inn Road that avoids any wetlands or setbacks and can be built in Phase Three.
(e) Avoids, or minimizes and mitigates the adverse impacts of development on adjacent
properties and uses, through the designation of transition areas or buffer areas along the
project perimeter; and
(f) Includes adequate standards specific to each type and phase of development, to include
guidance for the functional and aesthetic integration of development with the surrounding
neighborhood, and provisions for buffering or screening incompatible land uses.
Staff notes that all proposed use and exis�ng uses appear to be rela�vely compa�ble.
12. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the extent to which this project will
require screening between uses and whether the phases will be appropriately integrated into
the neighborhood area.
Applicant response: We don’t anticipate the need for screening between uses.
(4) The Buildout Budget sets reasonable development parameters for the entire project, and as
allocated for each phase of development, for reference in subsequent regulatory reviews, as
necessary to identify and limit the cumulative and overall impacts of project development on City
infrastructure, facilities and services.
The applicant will need to provide further informa�on on the overall budget and budget per phase to
the Board as part of the final Master Plan, and will need to submit materials calcula�ng the impact of
the development on City infrastructure.
(5) Proposed design standards and related guidance are sufficiently detailed to prescribe and direct
coordinated development, consistent with the Master Plan and regulations in effect at the time of
master plan approval, for the duration of the plan.
The applicant must provide a detailed design standard proposal at final Master Plan approval. The
applicant and Board will need to work together to refine and adopt design standards for the various
phases of this development that can be adopted as part of the final Master Plan and therea�er serve
to direct and prescribe the development of this project.
(6) The Phasing Plan and Schedule:
(a) are consistent with the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program; (b) ensure that all phases of development will occur in an orderly fashion; and that
(c) infrastructure and facility improvements necessary to support each phase of
development will be provided concurrently with such development, as may be further ensured
through subsequent or separate regulatory review processes and development agreements.
As part of the final Master Plan, the applicant will need to iden�fy all infrastructure
improvements that will be necessary as part of this project, and with which phase those
improvements will be made. The applicant will also need to demonstrate at final Master Plan
approval that the scope of the proposed phases is appropriate, as per 15.B.04.I above.
(7) The Management Plan:
(a) defines a management structure for the duration of the Master Plan that supports longterm
project viability through project buildout;
(b) identifies those principals or entities responsible for securing necessary municipal
permits and approvals for development under the Master Plan; and
(c) clearly identifies proposed ownership and responsibilities for the long-term
management, maintenance and operation of capital and community assets, including any
proposed dedications of land, facilities and infrastructure to the City.
The applicant will need to provide further informa�on on the management plan for this project
in the final Master Plan.
15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards
C. Resource Identification. Site features or resources to be incorporated in subdivision layout and
design, as shown to scale on sketch and master plans, must be field verified and delineated on the
ground by the applicant as specified in Article 12 of these Regulations for each resource, and as
indicated
on preliminary and final subdivision plans and plats.
The applicant notes the presence of two wetlands and their associated buffer in addi�on to a river
corridor on the plans included with this sketch plan submital. As noted in 15.A.o5.B(3)(b) above, the
poten�al pedestrian footbridge may impact one or both of the natural resources on this site. It appears
the wetland delinea�on is more than 5 years old and therefore will need to be updated before the
master plan applica�on.
At minimum the DRB may require, as a condition of subdivision approval, that a listed historical site,
structure or landscape feature present on the parcel to be subdivided must be inventoried, assessed
and documented, before any site development, or any structural relocation, removal or demolition.
15.A.14 Street Network
C. Street Design.
As streets within a Master Plan & Planned Unit Development, the Board has the authority to require the
design & construc�on of proposed streets to City Standards, to require the upgrade or improvement of
exis�ng streets that serve the project, or to require streets to be private.
13. Staff recommends that the Board and applicant discuss the functional objectives of each street in
order to finalized design standards applicable to this project and establish a typical street cross section.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.
Respec�ully submited,
________________________________
Marty Gilles, Development Review Planner I
P: (802) 878-0375 | email@krebsandlansing.com Date 1/23/23
Marla Keene
City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Larkin Terrace PUD Master Sketch Plan Resubmission