HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-23-01 - Supplemental - 1185 1195 Shelburne Road (11)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MP-23-01_1185 1195 Shelburne Rd_John Larkin
Inc_MP_2024-01-17
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 10, 2024
Application received: October 3, 2023
1195 SHELBURNE ROAD
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-23-01
Meeting date: January 17, 2024
Owners/Applicants
John Larkin, Inc & 1185 LLC
410 Shelburne Road
Burlington, VT 05401
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing
164 Main Street
Colchester, VT 05446
Property Information
Tax Parcels 0675-0000A_L, 0675-00010, 0675-00010_L, 1540-01125_C, 1540-01185_C, 1540-01195_R
Commercial 1 – Residential 15, Commercial 2
Wetland Advisory Layer, Traffic Overlay District, Transit Overlay District
Approximately 39.2 acres
Location Map
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Continued master plan application #MP-23-01 of John Larkin, Inc., to establish a master plan for an
approximately 40-acre existing PUD consisting of 270 residential units in eight multi-family buildings, a
20,000 sf movie theater, a 22,500 sf restaurant/medical office building, and a 3,500 sf restaurant with
drive through. The master plan includes four phases and consists of adding approximately 92,105 sf of
commercial space including a 110-room hotel, approximately 281 homes in multifamily and mixed use
buildings, 6 homes in two-family buildings, approximately 5 acres of programmed and passive open
spaces, and extending a city street, 1185 Shelburne Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The applicant previously submitted a sketch plan review application (#SD-23-14) which the Board
discussed at regularly scheduled DRB meetings on November 7, 2023, and November 21, 2023.
This Master Plan application was deemed to be complete on October 3, 2023, and was originally scheduled
to be heard at the October 17, 2023, DRB meeting. However, it had to be continued to a date after the
preceding sketch plan review had been completed. As such, the Board continued this application to
November 21, 2023, and then again to January 17, 2024.
CONTEXT
This Master Plan application is the third time the Board has reviewed this proposed development - the
applicant has submitted two Sketch Plans for review, the more recent of which the Board discussed with
the applicant on November 7, 2023, and November 21, 2023. The Board’s feedback during those two
November sketch plan reviews included a review of the entire project but featured a special emphasis
on the relationship between this project and the proposed development on the 105-acre Allenwood Inn
estate parcel to the west Farrell project.
This Master Plan application generally conforms to the layout shown in the most recently reviewed
sketch plan and has incorporated feedback provided by the DRB during the sketch plan review process.
The following report includes a review of the entirety of the submitted Master Plan and notes those
items which have been changed since the most recent sketch plan review.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planners Marty Gilles and Marla Keene, herein after referred to as ‘Staff’, have
reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant on October 3, 2023, and updated on December 21, 2023,
and offer the following comments. Numbered items for Board review are in red.
A) OVERVIEW
The project is located in the Commercial 1 – Residential 15 (C1-R15) Zoning District, Traffic Overlay, Transit
Overlay, Urban Design Overlay and Wetland Advisory Overlay Districts. The project area consists of an
existing 40-acre PUD that includes seven existing development lots and two existing parcels that serve as
public rights-of-way (Fayette Road and Reel Road). The proposed master plan will apply to the entirety of
the existing PUD, and these staff comments are applicable to that entire area.
The applicant has proposed to construct the master plan in four phases:
Phase 1 (shown in red on the submitted phasing plan) which includes a 110-room hotel and
restaurant in one building, 80 apartment units in another building, a 20,000-sf dog park, the
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
3
extension of Reel Road, and the construction of two private streets that will provide connection
between the proposed buildings and nearby public streets Fayette Road & Shelburne Road.
Phase 2 (shown in orange on the submitted phasing plan) which includes 48 apartment units and
a restaurant in one building, 52 apartment units in another building, a 12,000-sf pocket park,
completion of the neighborhood park (for a total of 167,400 sf of public amenity space - including
Phase 1’s dog park - featuring walking paths, scenic overlooks, and unprogrammed green space),
and streetscape improvements along the south/west side of Fayette Road south of the Olde
Orchard Park driveway.
Phase 3 (shown in green on the submitted phasing plan) which includes 24 apartment units in one
building, 30 apartment units in another building, and a 19,000 sf pocket park featuring a 1,500 sf
playground.
Phase 4 (shown in blue on the submitted phasing plan) which includes 47 “micro-units” in one
building, four duplexes, and the completion of streetscape improvements along Fayette Road
(including the west side of the road north of the Olde Orchard Park Driveway and the entire
north/east side of the road).
B) ZONING DISTRICT TABLE
C1-R15 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
√ Min. Lot Size 1 40,000 sf 38.98 acres Unknown
√ Max. Building Height 5 stories (up to 76 ft) 4 stories Not identified
√ Max. Building Coverage 40% 7.6% 13.9%
√ Max. Overall Coverage 70% 26.8% 39.9%
@ Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Not provided Not identified
@ Min. Front Setback 30 ft Not provided Not identified
@ Min. Side Setback 10 ft Not provided Not identified
√ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft Not provided 30 feet
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested. See discussion under Article 15.B.04(B) below.
1 The LDRs require that buildings be on their own lots, so some amount of subdivision will be required
to accommodate the duplexes proposed in Phase 4 and the creation of any other lots that may be
necessary as part of this proposed development. The applicant has not submitted a conceptual
subdivision plan so it is unclear how the lots for the proposed duplexes or any other part of the
proposed development will be subdivided, but Staff considers that the applicant may benefit from a
waiver of minimum lot size. The issue of required subdivision is discussed in greater detail in Section
15.B.06.B below.
C) MASTER PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process
The following procedures apply to any subdivision or development project for which master plan
review is requested or required:
A. Pre-Application Sketch Plan Review.
An applicant must submit a Sketch Plan for review and follow the procedures and submittal
requirements of Section 15.A.05. If master plan review is requested or required, the applicant
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
4
must then file an application for master plan approval within six (6) months of the final DRB
sketch plan review meeting. The Master Plan must generally conform to the layout shown on
the Sketch Plan, and incorporate recommendations made by the DRB.
As noted in both the ‘Permit History’ and ‘Context’ sections above, the applicant submitted a
sketch plan that was reviewed in November of 2023. The submitted Master Plan application
generally conforms with the layout shown in the most recently reviewed Sketch Plan and
successfully incorporates multiple recommendations of the DRB, including detailed plans
showing the proposed developments to the Neighborhood Park and a comprehensive summary
of the existing and proposed vehicle parking spaces & their proximity to the buildings & uses
they serve.
B. Master Plan Application.
The applicant must submit a Master Plan that includes the components described under (D)
below; and specific submission requirements as listed in Appendix E, Submission
Requirements. The applicant must meet with Planning and Zoning Department Staff to review
application requirements, relevant codes and standards, and proposed phasing schedules,
prior to submitting a formal application.
The applicant has met these requirements, including the submission of all required materials
and the scheduling of several pre-application meetings.
C. Combined Review
Master plan review is required prior to or in association with preliminary subdivision review
under Section 15.A.06, or site plan review under Article 14 if no subdivision of land is
proposed.
The applicant may combine master plan with preliminary plat or site plan review for either the
whole master plan area or for a phase of the proposed development. The applicant has
indicated that it is not their intention to request the Master Plan application be reviewed in
association with a subdivision or site plan application. As such, the entirety of this proposed
development will be in front of the Board again for further review during the subsequent
applications necessary to enact the various phases.
D. Neighborhood Meeting.
The applicant for master plan review must conduct at least one (1) neighborhood meeting in
the neighborhood in which the project is located, the costs of which are to be borne by the
applicant. The purpose of this meeting is to present the pending proposal, provide an
opportunity for public questions and comments, and to allow the applicant to identify and
address potential neighborhood concerns in advance of the formal hearing process.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in the first floor lobby of the building addressed
1185 Shelburne Road at 7:00 pm on Thursday, October 5, 2023. This meeting met all applicable
criteria regarding notice, location, and accessibility.
E. Public Hearing.
Following the submission of a complete application, the Administrative Officer must schedule
and the DRB must hold a warned public hearing on the master plan application, as required
under 24 V.S.A. §§ 4463 and 4464 and Section 17.08(F) of these Regulations.
The required public hearing for this Master Plan application was scheduled and warned for the
DRB meeting on October 17, 2023. At that meeting, this application was continued to November
21, 2023. At the 11/21/23 meeting, this application was continued to January 17, 2024.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
5
15.B.05 Review Standards
Staff has located these review standards at the beginning of this report to frame the Board’s review of
the project. However, the review standards are informed by the required submission components,
therefore Staff has largely reserved discussion of compliance with required standards to the portion of
this document pertaining to the submission components.
(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;
Staff has provided a detailed review of submission requirements below in order to support this
finding that all required application materials are provided. Staff has flagged the few areas where
this standard does not appear to be met with a red comment.
1. Staff recommends the Board review those comments and, if the Board concurs that the submitted
application material is either incomplete or incorrect, require the applicant to modify their
submission as indicated so that the submission can be considered a portion of the approved plan for
the project.
(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;
Staff considers this criterion met as discussed in Section 15.B.04 below.
(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 submitted existing conditions sketch plan identifies five separate wetlands on the
property – three are Class II and have an associated 50-foot buffer, and two are Class III and
have no associated buffer - and a River Corridor. The applicant is not proposing any impact to
these Natural Resource areas. These Natural Resource areas are discussed in greater detail in
Section 15.B.04.B below. At sketch, Staff recommended the applicant coordinate with the City
Stormwater Section prior to the final Master Plan submission to determine if any flow
restoration projects are planned for this area.
2. Staff recommends the Board to confirm with the applicant whether any such projects are
proposed.
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;
Staff considers these criteria have been demonstrated to be met through the submitted
materials reviewed below. The applicant is creating a grid-based urban form in an area that
sits on a major thoroughfare in a commercial zoning district. Staff considers that, although
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
6
the nearby development does not share this same form, the proposed pattern 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;
Staff’s analysis of connectivity, and specifically recreation path connectivity, are included
below under the review of required submission material, under Section 15.B.04.E.
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
Staff considers this criterion met. Transition and buffer areas are discussed below under
Section 15.B.04.E.
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 existing uses appear to be relatively compatible and
well-integrated and therefore considers this criterion met.
(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.
In review of the Buildout Budget and the Summary Statistics, Staff flagged a handful of items for the
Board’s specific consideration. Each of those items is explained in further detail and flagged with a
red comment in the body of the report to follow.
(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.
In review of the Design Standards, Staff flagged a few items for the Board’s specific consideration.
Each of those items is explained in further detail and flagged with a red comment in the body of the
report to follow.
(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.
Staff considers these criteria met as discussed under Section 15.B.04.I(2).
(7) The Management Plan:
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
7
(a) defines a management structure for the duration of the Master Plan that supports long-
term 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.
Staff considers these criteria met as discussed under 15.04.J.
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment
A. Decision. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the public hearing on the Master Plan, the
DRB must issue its written findings of fact and decision to approve, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the Master Plan.
B. Subsequent Regulatory Review. In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level
of review and review processes required for subsequent applications filed under the Master Plan,
provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations and the following:
(1) 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.
(2) The DRB may waive preliminary subdivision or site plan review for specified phases or portions of a
project.
(3) The DRB may in its decision specify allowed modifications or changes under the Master Plan which
require only administrative review and approval by the Administrative Officer.
The applicant has not included a conceptual subdivision plan as part of this Master Plan application –
however, the applicant must subdivide this property in order to extend Reel Road and situate the
duplexes of Phase 4 on their own lots. As such, the applicant is required to include a conceptual
subdivision plan as part of this Master Plan application. Assuming receipt of an acceptable conceptual
subdivision plan prior to the closure of this Master Plan hearing, Staff considers that the Board may
waive preliminary plat review for various phases of the proposed development, thereby allowing the
applicant to proceed directly to final plat, since the requirement to submit a sketch plan is
automatically waived by virtue of having gone through the Master Plan application process.
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit a conceptual subdivision plan prior to the
close of this hearing.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to waive preliminary plat review for one or all phases of
this proposed development.
After the issuance of a decision on this application, the subsequent regulatory review will include
DRB review of preliminary and/or final plat applications for each Phase of development, and DRB
review of Site Plan applications to construct the various features within those Phases.
5. Staff recommends the Board waive preliminary and final plat for projects not involving subdivision of
land and instead allow site plan review for the implementation of the described phases, with the
caveat that sketch plan and preliminary plat shall be required should a subsequent application be
inconsistent with the findings of this master plan approval, including substantial deviation from the
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
8
approved plans. If the applicant’s subdivision or Site Plan applications differ substantially from the
plans submitted as part of this Master Plan application, the applicant may have to formally amend
this Master Plan prior to approval of those substantially different applications.
The applicant may request to proceed directly to zoning permit approval for certain minor items
that may be useful prior to the approval of Site Plan application, such as EV chargers or
modifications to existing stormwater treatment infrastructure.
6. Staff considers that the applicant has not made a request to proceed directly to zoning permit for
any portion of the proposed development. Staff recommends that the Board and applicant discuss
this process waiver and whether the applicant would like to request such a process waiver from the
Board.
(C) Effect. Once a Master Plan has been approved, all subsequent land subdivision and
development must conform to the Master Plan as approved.
(1) The Development Review Board in issuing a decision shall 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.
Staff recommends the following aspects of the master plan be vested. Staff intends the term
“vested” to mean that subsequent phases of review will use the LDR applicable at the time the
Master Plan application was submitted (in this case, the LDR adopted May 15, 2023) for the
identified elements for the duration of the master plan approval.
Phase geometry (which areas are part of which phase), as may be modified by the
Board’s review of the project.
Phase timing, as may be modified by the Board’s review of the project.
Open space areas & civic space areas.
Natural resource impacts.
Proposed street layout.
Proposed recreation path, sidewalk, and transit route layout, as may be modified by
the Board’s review of the project. Additional connecting elements to individual
phases may be required.
Building locations and footprints, as may be modified by the Board’s review of the
project, particularly with respect to renewable energy generation standards.
Max peak hour trip generation, pending calculation of total estimated traffic
generation for all uses (both existing and proposed) for the entire subject PUD.
Staff is not presently recommending vesting of building heights because specific building heights
have not been proposed.
7. Staff recommends the Board revisit this section for concurrence after reviewing the remainder of
this staff report, identifying any further aspects of the master plan that should be vested.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
9
(2) Master Plan approval is binding upon the applicant, the owner(s), their agents, and successors
in interest.
(3) Once the Master Plan is approved, the applicant may apply for other permits and approvals
referenced in the conditions of Master Plan approval, as required prior to the start of
construction.
(4) Unless the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of Master Plan approval and these
Regulations, the Master Plan as approved shall not be modified, revoked, or otherwise impaired
by any action of the City without the consent of the applicant. For purposes of subsequent
regulatory reviews under the Master Plan, for the duration of the plan the regulations in effect
at the time of Master Plan approval shall apply to vested elements under Subsection(C)(1). For
vested elements, Regulations enacted following master plan approval shall apply only as
necessary to address public health and safety or, at the request of the applicant, to incorporate
types or forms of development allowed under more recently adopted regulations, in conjunction
with an application to amend the Master Plan.
(D) Duration. The duration of the Master Plan, as specified in the conditions of DRB approval, shall
be determined by the DRB in consultation with the Planning Director and City Engineer.
(1) The Master Plan should be approved for a specified period of time, not to exceed six (6) years, for
which the impacts of proposed development can clearly be ascertained from the quality and detail
of the information provided; which allows sufficient time for project planning, financing, permitting,
and development, including required regulatory reviews; and which accommodates full project
buildout in relation to the timing of planned infrastructure and facility improvements.
Staff notes this timeframe will start with issuance of a decision on this application.
(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.
Staff considers that subdivision of land will be required for the extension of Reel Road, which is
proposed in Phase 1. As such, the applicant will need to submit a complete application within two
years of issuance of a decision on this application. Staff considers that the final plat application will
have to be for the entirety of Phase 1, but subsequent Site Plan approvals can either be for all or
part of the construction included in that phase.
(4) The duration of an approved Master Plan may be extended by the DRB for cause, if the request and
reasons for the extension are submitted in writing prior to the Master Plan expiration date;
however, in no event shall the duration of an approved Master Plan exceed ten (10) years in total,
to include all authorized extensions or amendments.
As noted above, the Master Plan is only valid for a maximum of six years – as such, the proposed
development included within this Master Plan application must be completable within a six-year
timeframe. If the work takes longer than six years to finish, the applicant may ask for an extension of
up to four years for this Master Plan approval (for a total effective length of ten years). However, it is
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
10
important to clarify that this Master Plan is a six-year plan that can be extended if the applicant is
unable to complete the work within six years due to factors such as changes in market conditions or
construction delays. The DRB cannot approve phases or individual buildings that are scheduled to be
constructed more than six years after the issuance of a decision on this application. Those phases
and/or buildings would need to be applied for under a separate Master Plan application as the DRB
does not have the authority to vest a project scheduled to start in 2031 under the 2024 LDRs. If and
when the applicant realizes they will need an extension of this Master Plan approval, they can apply
for one, and the Board can approve it under this criterion.
(5) An expired Master Plan may be extended, renewed, or amended only on submission as a new
Master Plan, subject to full DRB review under 15.B.03 and the Land Development Regulations in
effect at the time of application.
(6) A complete application for a Master Plan may be submitted at any time subject to the rules in effect
at the time of submission.
(7) Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. 4463, any site plan or subdivision plat, and associated conditions of site plan,
subdivision, or Planned Unit Development approval that are recorded in city land records under an
approved Master Plan, shall remain in effect as recorded following Master Plan expiration.
(E) Amendment.
There are specific criteria by which the applicant may amend the master plan, and whether such
application is considered a minor amendment or a substantial amendment. Unlike prior versions of the
LDR, the only quantitative metric differentiating the types of amendments is the involvement of lands
not previously included in the master plan. Staff considers the lands included in this master plan
application to be well defined. Staff considers that the Board can make a determination on whether
something is a minor or substantial amendment if and when that need arises.
15.B.04 Master Plan Components
The applicant has submitted a comprehensive application package which includes each of the required
master plan submission materials. Staff has reviewed of the submitted materials and provided an analysis
of each required element as follows.
(B) Project Description. A map, narrative, and accompanying table(s) that describe:
The overall vision for and scope of the proposed development;
The land area and properties to be included under each phase of development;
Current property ownership and contact information;
Current zoning district designations;
Staff considers the applicant’s submission to sufficiently address these four requirements and
recommends the Board review the submission materials to refresh their memories on what is
proposed. The applicant’s narrative describes the overall vision for this site as follows: “Our
objective is to promote a compact, walkable form of higher density, commercial and residential
mixed-use development proximate to the major street intersection and transportation corridor, and
infill as well as functionally integrate the existing residential neighborhoods. See the Illustrative Site
Plan and Section as well as the Site Plan enlargements L-100-103 for more detail”.
Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) type(s) under Article 15.C, as applicable;
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
11
The proposed master plan application is for a development that constitutes an
amendment to an existing General PUDFurther discussion of subsequent levels of review
are discussed under 15.B.06(B) above.
Project consistency with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations; and
Discussion of consistency with applicable regulations is addressed herein.
Any requested modifications or waivers, as allowed under the Regulations.
The applicant has requested a number of modifications or waivers, summarized as
follows. The applicant has not requested a minimum lot size waiver, though Staff
considers such a request is likely necessary depending on the necessary subdivision to
achieve the proposed plan. The relevance of a minimum lot size waiver is discussed in
greater detail under 15.B.04.H below.
Front and Side Setbacks: The applicant has requested a waiver of the 30 ft front setback
and of the 10 ft side setback to allow buildings to be located closer to the street and
existing lot lines. The applicant testified that this waiver will “facilitate dense
development and encourage pedestrian movement between businesses and allows for
interior open space”.
8. Staff considers that reduced front and side setbacks are likely appropriate in this case, and
recommends that the Board and applicant identify a distance to which each of those
minimum setbacks should be reduced.
Front Setback Coverage: The applicant has requested a of the standard that requires
the 30-foot front setback strip in front of commercial and multi-family buildings to be at
most 30% covered by sidewalks and driveways. The applicant testified that this waiver
will “allow for a continuous network of appropriately sized sidewalks to be located
between the building and street”.
9. Staff considers that increased front setback coverage is likely appropriate in this case,
and recommends that the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this
maximum coverage should be increased.
Building and Lot Coverages: The applicant has requested that individual lots within the
PUD be exempt from the building and lot coverage standards. The applicant has
requested that these standards instead be applied to the PUD as a whole, to allow for
denser development on specific lots while promoting the creation of larger contiguous
greens spaces in strategic locations throughout the PUD.
10. Staff considers that increased overall and building coverage is likely appropriate in this
case, and recommends that the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this
maximum coverage should be increased for individual lots within the PUD.
Landscape Budget: The applicant has requested that items other than vegetation be
counted towards the minimum landscape budget required by the construction of the
proposed buildings in this PUD. Staff considers that the DRB already has the authority to
review landscape budgets and approve allocation of required landscaping dollars to items
that are not plants, like hardscape features. As such, Staff considers that this request is
not a waiver request, per se, but rather a notice to the Board that the impending PUD
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
12
preliminary and final plat applications will include discussions about the appropriate
allocation of the minimum required landscaping budget.
(C) Context Report. A map and accompanying narrative that describe the area proposed for
subdivision, development, or redevelopment, in relation to the existing and planned pattern and type
of development in surrounding neighborhood, and to existing and planned City facilities, services, and
infrastructure in the vicinity of the project, to include:
The purpose of establishing a context report is to allow the applicant and the Board to understand how
the project should be laid out to complement existing and proposed community resources.
Existing parcels, and existing and planned streets and blocks, recreation paths,
transit routes, buildings, land uses, parks, civic spaces, and other open spaces and
community facilities located within ¼ -mile of project boundaries;
The applicant’s submitted materials with respect to this requirement consist of two
sheets, C-3.00 and L-EX2. Sheet C-3.00 includes the existing parcels, streets, land uses and
community facilities as required. That sheet does not include the bus route that runs
north and south along Shelburne Road, but Sheet L-EX2 does show an existing covered
bus stop on the eastern edge of the subject PUD.
11. Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval that the applicant update
sheet C-3.00 to include existing and planned transit routes.
Proposed street, recreation path, transit, infrastructure, and open space
connections between existing, planned, and proposed development;
The provided plans indicate that sidewalks are proposed to be extended to the ends of
the master plan area to the south (along Reel Road) and to the north (along Fayette Road).
The applicant is also proposing a rec path connection along this same route, providing an
off-road bike path along the entire length of the subject PUD. The City is planning for two
north-south rec paths in proximity to this subject parcel, one along Shelburne Road and
one adjacent to Shelburne Road. The applicant’s proposed rec path is not in the exact
location of either proposed bike path but does serve the purpose of providing a north-
south connection that is not on the shoulder of Shelburne Road. The applicant is not
proposing a formal east-west bike path connection but is creating a neighborhood park
that will be bike-compatible and offer informal connectivity across the width of the
subject PUD. Staff considers that the applicant has successfully demonstrated all relevant
existing and proposed connectivity infrastructure.
A more detailed Development Context Analysis as required for an Infill or
Redevelopment (IRD) PUD under Article 15.C, as applicable; and
Not applicable.
A description of how concerns raised in the Neighborhood Meeting will be
addressed.
In the submitted minutes of the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 5, 2023, the
applicant included a summary of all three concerns that were brought up by members of
the public and identified in detail how those concerns will be addressed. The concerns
included access to existing dog-walking areas, retention of existing trees to the south of
the proposed hotel, and a preference that the developer not build Reel Road to the
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
13
southern edge of the proposed PUD. The applicant included solutions for the first two
concerns and noted that the third concern cannot be addressed or mitigated as the road
connectivity is a City requirement.
(D) Existing Conditions Report. A Site Conditions Map for the entire tract and accompanying
narrative, that depict and describe existing:
Topographic conditions, including elevation contours, surface waters, wetlands, and other
natural features;
Natural Resources under Article 12, or as otherwise regulated by the City;
Existing streets, blocks, and utility corridors, including existing rights-of-way; and
Existing land uses and structures, including any historic sites or structures listed or eligible
for listing on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places.
The applicant has provided plan sheets C-1.00 and C-1.01 to demonstrate these features. The
applicant has indicated that there are no historic sites or structures. There is a substantial
amount of existing surface parking that is proposed to be removed. The subject property
includes five separate wetlands on the property – three are Class II and have an associated
50-foot buffer, and two are Class III and have no associated buffer - and a River Corridor. The
applicant is not proposing any development that would impact the identified Natural
Resources on this property. There is existing grade change along the banks of the waterway
that runs through the middle of this PUD, effectively cutting Olde Orchard Park off from the
rest of the PUD – however, the applicant has proposed to link the more level southwestern
corner of Olde Orchard Park to the proposed neighborhood park via a pedestrian path. No
impacts to wetlands or wetland buffers are proposed.
(E) Development Plan. One or more maps and an accompanying narrative that depict and describe
the overall pattern, type, and density of development proposed for the entire project, and for each
phase of development, to include:
While not explicitly addressed by any standard within this section, Staff considers that a discussion of the
proposed vehicle drop-off area on the west side of Building 3 is best located in this section of review
criteria which pertain to the pattern and type of development throughout the proposed development.
The Board may recall that Staff had flagged the orientation of Building 3 and its impact on the streetscape
on Reel Road during the sketch plan review on November 7, 2023. Staff’s primary concern at that time
was that the building had more frontage on the proposed private street with a placeholder name of Larkin
Terrace than it did on Reel Road, which is otherwise proposed to be activated with commercial and
residential uses along with a park that will attract both residents of this neighborhood ad other
neighborhoods. During the sketch plan meeting on November 7, 2023, the Board gave the applicant the
guidance that the proposed orientation of the buildings was acceptable. As such, Staff has refined their
critique of Building 3 to be less about the orientation of the building and more about the presence of the
vehicle drop-off. The proposed drop-off consumes approximately 8,000 square feet of land in the middle
of the ‘Larkin Terrace’ area, and the primary use of that space is for temporary vehicle storage. The LDRs
prohibit parking areas from being located in front of buildings – although it is probably true that a vehicle
roundabout that serves as a drop-off/pick-up/valet area does not count as a parking area and is therefore
not a violation of the LDRs, one could make the argument that the presence of this impervious, car-
oriented, pedestrian-exclusive feature located prominently in front of the building runs afoul of the intent
of the restriction on parking areas in front of buildings. Staff considers that the rest of this development
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
14
is exceedingly thoughtful and modern and represents the kind of development that the City of South
Burlington is excited to permit – Staff therefore considers that the inclusion of the vehicle drop-off area
is somewhat random and ill-fitting with the overall pattern of this proposed development.
12. Staff recommends that the Board and applicant discuss the intent and scale of the proposed vehicle drop-
off and whether its presence is in keeping with the intent of the LDRs and the rest of this master plan
proposal.
Natural resource areas identified for protection, consistent with adopted Environmental
Protection Standards under Article 12;
The applicant has identified five separate wetlands on the property – three are Class II and have
an associated 50-foot buffer, and two are Class III and have no associated buffer. The applicant
has also identified a 100-foot-wide River Corridor that runs through the center of the subject
property. The applicant has not identified any Steep Slopes or Very Steep Slopes on this property.
There is no impact proposed to any of the aforementioned Natural Resource areas or their
associated buffers.
13. Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss the definitions and protections for Steep Slopes
and Very Steep Slopes, and determine whether the subject PUD contains any such slopes which
may need to be identified in the submission materials for this application.
Any designated Conservation Area or other open space areas,
Conservation areas are not applicable in general PUDs. Boundaries of open spaces for each phase
are shown on Sheet L-EX3.
Any land area to be set aside for renewable energy production;
No land area has been reserved for renewable energy production.
The proposed street and block grid within and connecting each phase of development, including
the location of major streets by Street Type, and any existing rights-of-way, easements or
intersections identified for relocation;
The applicant is not proposing to relocate or remove any existing roadways. The applicant is
proposing to extend the existing public street Reel Road south to the property line and is
proposing to construct two private streets to help with vehicular circulation on the site. Those
private streets have been given placeholder names of Slip Road and Larkin Terrace. The private
street with the placeholder name of Slip Road will connect Reel Road to Shelburne Road,
bypassing Fayette Road, and ending in a right-turn-only exit onto Shelburne Road, allowing vehicle
traffic to egress south.
14. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to obtain street name
approval prior to final plat approval of the first PUD phase.
Proposed recreation paths, transit routes, infrastructure, and utility corridors between and
serving each phase of development;
The applicant has proposed a network of sidewalks and has proposed a recreation path that will
run from the north property line to the south property line without crossing any public or private
streets. The applicant has not provided a recreation path running east-west. At sketch, the Board
and applicant had discussed the possibility of creating a pedestrian and cyclist connection from
the subject parcel to the parcel to the west using the existing private railroad crossing at Inn Road.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
15
The Board had been generally receptive of this idea, but the Director of the Department of Public
Works expressed hesitation at the idea of the City owning and maintaining another railroad
crossing when an existing public crossing exists at Holmes Road, just over a quarter of a mile to
the south. As part of that conversation, the applicant had mentioned that the existing wetland
buffers and river corridor overlays precluded them from adding additional impervious surface
along a portion of the theoretical eastern transition area, so any pedestrian or cyclist connection
to the eastern property line would have to be on the existing paved width of the private Inn Road.
As such, it appears that a separate, protected rec path connecting the subject PUD to the
proposed development to the east is not viable due to the private railroad crossing at its
theoretical west terminus and the wetland protection standards that limit the creation of new
impervious surface throughout the parcel designated as the neighborhood park. However, Staff
considers that the existing Inn Road will be closed to the public and can therefore serve as an
informal bike path potentially connecting users to points east of the railroad crossing.
15. Staff recommends the Board discuss the viability of an informal east-west bike and pedestrian
connection between the subject PUD and the proposed development to the west.
The applicant has an existing bus stop on the subject property that provides access to the
southbound bus along Route 7. There is no way to access the north-bound bus from this parcel
other than to cross Route 7 on foot.
One or more designated Development Areas, to include land use allocation areas by proposed
use type(s), at minimum to include any designated residential areas, nonresidential areas,
mixed use areas, civic space areas, and the location of principal or shared parking areas serving
the development.
Development areas are a characteristic of Conservation and Traditional Neighborhood
Development PUD types and are not applicable to this application.
Any proposed transition areas along the project perimeter, in which proposed development will
either be integrated with or buffered from adjoining properties and development;
The applicant is proposing to build Reel Road to the southern lot line but is unable to make a
connection to the existing parking area on the adjacent lot to the south, so Reel Road will remain
a stub for the time being. Connections to the north and east already exist, although the applicant
is proposing to improve those connections for pedestrians and cyclists.
Existing buildings to be incorporated in proposed development or redevelopment; and
The applicant is proposing to retain and incorporate all existing principal structures in the subject
PUD. The development will have three primary development areas that include existing buildings
– the existing retail plaza, the proposed ‘Larkin Terrace’ mixed-use area, including the existing
building addressed 1185 Shelburne Road, and the existing Olde Orchard Park residential area. The
proposed development will be designed and located to complement the existing buildings in these
three areas.
Public and private transportation, infrastructure, and utility improvements necessary to
accommodate each phase of development, and the entire project at buildout, to include any
land, facilities, or improvements proposed for public dedication, consistent with the City’s
adopted Official Map.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
16
The applicant has not yet submitted a traffic study. The applicant is proposing to provide traffic
studies on a phase-by-phase basis and add/upgrade crosswalks, speed bumps, traffic lights, and
other pedestrian and motorist safety improvements as necessary, as a result of the traffic studies
submitted prior to the approval of the subsequent applications for each of the proposed Phases.
See further comments on the applicant’s proposal for traffic study below.
16. The applicant has not indicated whether any of the phases of the proposed development will
require a new electrical substation or any other utility improvements. Staff considers that, if
found to be necessary, these utility improvements could represent a somewhat substantial
impact to the development of this PUD and recommends the Board discuss with the applicant
what kinds of aboveground infrastructure may be required to support this development.
(F) Summary Statistics. The following project statistics or metrics, presented in an easy to reference
tabular format, must be provided for the entire tract or project area, and for each phase of development,
unless waived by the DRB as not relevant or applicable to a particular project:
Total tract or parcel area, and the area associated with each phase of development, in acres
and square feet; for protection under Article 12, and by resource type (Hazard, Level I, Level II);
and the area, in acres, of any designated Conservation Area(s) or lots, as shown on the Master
Plan;
The applicant has provided this information in tabular format on a sheet entitled ‘Summary
Statistics’, dated 12/21/2023.
Total area, in acres, included in existing and planned street rights-of-way; the number and
length in feet of proposed streets by Street Type, and the number of street intersections, as
shown on the Master Plan.
The applicant has provided this information in tabular format on a sheet entitled ‘Summary
Statistics’, dated 12/21/2023.
Total number of existing and planned blocks; and the block perimeter and average block length
for each block, in feet, as shown on the Master Plan.
The applicant has provided this information in tabular format on a sheet entitled ‘Summary
Statistics’, dated 12/21/2023. The applicant has identified that there are three existing blocks in
the subject PUD and no blocks are proposed.
Staff considers that, while the beginnings of blocks may exist in the subject PUD, the full &
complete blocks will not be complete until Reel Road and the adjoining private streets are
constructed. The land between Reel Road and Shelburne Road will be divided into blocks by
private streets which do not exist yet – as such, Staff considers that the construction of those
private streets will create blocks, and that those newly created blocks will need to comply with all
applicable standards, including those of 15.A.16.B, which include the following standards:
Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, or as approved by the DRB under 15.A.01(B);
in order to ensure and maintain a pedestrian-oriented scale of development within residential and
mixed use subdivisions:
(a) The block perimeter must not exceed 2,000 feet
(b) The minimum block length allowed is 200 feet; and
(c) The average block length (for all block sides or faces) must not exceed 500 feet.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
17
17. Staff recommends that the Board and applicant discuss whether the proposed development
involves the creation of any blocks and, if there are blocks proposed to be created, whether the
proposed blocks appear to meet these standards.
Total Buildable Area, in acres and square feet, as allocated by land use or building type, within
each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan, to exclude existing
and planned street rights-of-way, but to include existing and proposed civic space lots and
parking lots.
Buildable area is land within the limits of the proposed development which is not otherwise
restricted from development by the presence of natural resources, rights of way, and transmission
main corridors. The applicant has provided this information in tabular format on a sheet entitled
‘Summary Statistics’, dated 12/21/2023. The applicant appears to have included ‘Neighborhood
Park’ in the non-buildable area row; Staff considers that this is not technically correct as the park
is still being “developed” even if it is not proposed to have any principal structures constructed
on it at this time.
18. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct this item in the Summary Statistics
table.
Number of proposed dwelling units by housing or building type within each designated
Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan;
Although there are at least three somewhat distinct development areas within the subject PUD,
there is only one formal ‘Development Area’, encompassing the entirety of this General PUD. The
applicant is proposing to add 289 housing units across the four phases of construction. The
breakdown of these units is provided in tabular format on a sheet entitled ‘Summary Statistics’,
dated 12/21/2023, and discussed in further detail under 15.B.04.G below.
Total gross floor area by use or building type for nonresidential and mixed use development
within each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan; and
The applicant has identified that the subject PUD presently includes 86,500 sf of non-residential
and mixed use development, and that 52,400 additional sf are proposed as part of Phase 2, for a
total of 138,900 total sf GFA of non-residential and mixed use development.
Other statistics or data required by the DRB as necessary to determine conformance with
relevant standards under these Regulations.
Staff has noted additional requests for information in various red comments throughout this
report.
(G) Buildout Analysis and Budget. Based on the statistics provided under (F) above, the applicant
must also provide an analysis for each of the following based on total forecasted demand at buildout,
and as allocated for each phase of development, for use in determining the project’s total “Buildout
Budget”:
Minimum and maximum acreage allocations by land use or building type, as percentages of the
Buildable Area within designated Development Areas;
Land use and building type allocations are a feature of General and Traditional Neighborhood
PUDs but not the General PUD.
Gross and net (or effective) development densities by land use or building type;
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
18
The applicant is proposing a total of 559 homes in this proposed development. The gross density
of that proposal, counting the entirety of the subject 40.9-acre parcel, is 13.667 homes/acre. Once
the Environmental Hazards, Natural Resources, and Public Rights-of-Way are excluded from that
parcel, though, the total buildable area is only 28.9 acres. Putting 559 homes on 28.9 acres results
in an effective density of 19.342 homes/acre, which exceeds the maximum density of the C1-R15
Zoning District. However, the applicant has indicated that they will increase the maximum density
of this subject PUD via the use of Transferable Development Rights or the Inclusionary Density
Bonus, as described in Articles 19 and 18, respectively, of the LDRs. As such, Staff considers this
increase beyond maximum allowable density not to be an issue at this stage of review.
Minimum number or percentage of affordable housing units required within residential and
mixed-use development areas, as applicable pursuant to Article 18;
The applicant has indicated that they intend to meet the standards of Article 18 by reserving 15%
of all rental units and 10% of all for-sale units constructed for tenants and owners who meet the
criteria outlined in Article 18. Staff notes additional information on the proposed inclusionary
units will be required at the preliminary plat stage of review for the first phase of the Planned Unit
Development.
Minimum percentage, and area in square feet, of required civic space(s) within designated
Development Areas;
Civic Spaces are slightly different from Site Amenities. Civic Spaces are required for any new
subdivision of land, which is proposed as part of this application. The Civic Space and Site
Amenities are shown conceptually on Sheet L-EX3, and the applicant has identified which site
amenities will be constructed with which phase. The applicant has calculated that a total of
125,888 square feet of civic space is required for this development, and is proposing to provide
167,400 sf of Civic Space in addition to 63,000 sf of Site Amenity space.
Maximum peak hour trip generation rates, by use type;
As noted above, the applicant has not yet submitted a traffic study. The applicant’s Buildout
Budget estimates the additional trip generation created by all four phases of the proposed
development and identifies the total additional generated trips to be 424 PM Peak Hour VTEs.
However, the applicant did not provide a calculation for the existing vehicle trip generation. The
total trip generation for the full PUD once this development is complete would be 424 VTEs + the
number of VTEs being presently generated. Without that figure, the applicant cannot provide an
accurate estimate of the maximum peak hour trip generation for this proposed development, nor
can they provide an analysis of traffic impacts on adjacent intersections and roadways.
19. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide this information prior to closing the
hearing.
Maximum water supply and wastewater system demand, by use type;
The applicant has submitted an estimated maximum water demand.
20. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to estimate a maximum wastewater system
demand or clarify that the estimated water and wastewater demands are identical.
Maximum total impervious surface (percentage, total square footage), and volume of
stormwater runoff per designated Development Area; and
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
19
The applicant has provided the required information on the submitted application form. The total
proposed impervious coverage for the entire subject PUD is 39.9%.
21. Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval in this decision that stormwater
treatment be evaluated on a phase-by-phase basis.
The City Stormwater Department reviewed the provided plans on October 2, 2023, and offered
the following comment.
Larkin Terrace is subject to State stormwater permit 4835-9050.1, which includes treatment
requirements for properties with more than three acres of impervious surface. The City is
currently working with an engineer to develop plans for a variety of stormwater treatment
practices across the site to meet the State’s redevelopment standard. The applicant will need
to coordinate with the City moving forward to ensure that the projects are not in conflict with
one another.
Staff considers this to be a comment that can be addressed on a phase-by-phase basis. However,
Staff considers that the facilities and infrastructure required to treat the stormwater for the
proposed 230,000 sf of additional impervious surface may have an impact on the design and form
of this PUD if not already accounted for in the proposed site layouts.
22. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the level of analysis the applicant
has performed to determine the area reserved for stormwater treatment is sufficient and whether
a more detailed estimate should be required to be performed prior to closing this hearing.
Other measures or parameters required by the DRB as necessary to identify and limit the
forecasted impacts of development on municipal facilities, infrastructure and services, and
properties and uses within the vicinity of the project.
Staff, in their review of this application, have not identified additional necessary buildout analysis
or budget information.
(H) Design Standards. The application must include proposed standards, specifications,
illustrations, best management practices, or other forms of guidance for the following, consistent
with City regulations in effect at the time of Master Plan approval, as applicable to all subsequent
development under the Master Plan:
Protections for natural resources defined and regulated under Article 12, consistent with the
standards and accepted mitigation measures of Article 12.
No natural resource impacts are proposed as part of this Master Plan. The applicant will provide
erosion control and other natural resource protection measures at the Site Plan review level, on
a phase-by-phase basis.
The mix or allocation of land uses, as specified for each phase of development;
The applicant has provided this information in their submitted Build-out Budget. The applicant
intends to meet the minimum Site Amenity requirement; otherwise, there are no minimum land
use allocations applicable to this General PUD.
Typical street cross-sections by Street Type, as referenced under Article 11.A;
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
20
The applicant has provided a sheet entitled ‘Illustrative Street Sections’. This sheet appears to be
largely unchanged from the sheet submitted for November’s sketch plan review.
Typical Civic Space and other proposed open space types, as referenced under Article 11.B;
The applicant is proposing several Site Amenities, which are proposed to be distributed
throughout the development, and a Neighborhood Park to meet the Civic Space requirement. The
proposed open spaces are best shown on Sheet L-EX3, entitled ‘Civic and Amenity Space’. The
applicant has also submitted a sheet entitled ‘Larkin Terrace Allenwood Park Concept’, which
shows the proposed neighborhood park in greater detail than what was shown at the sketch plan
level of review. Staff considers that this illustrative concept should serve to address concerns that
the park space may not be adequate or of a high quality.
23. Staff recommends that the Board and applicant discuss which, if any, of the features included in
this illustrative concept should be required to be included in the application to construct the park.
Typical block and building lot dimensions and configurations, consistent with applicable
subdivision and zoning district regulations, or PUD type, and for designated transition areas as
necessary to complement or match the adjoining pattern of development;
As noted previously, the applicant has identified in their Summary Statistics table that no new
blocks are proposed to be created.
24. Staff considers that, if the Board finds that new blocks are indeed being created, that the Board
require the applicant dimensions of those blocks and demonstrate their consistency with all
applicable subdivision standards, as outlined in 15.B.04.F above.
The minimum lot size in this Zoning District is 40,000 square feet. The applicant is not presently
proposing any new building lots that are smaller than that. Staff considers that all proposed
building lots are of an acceptable configuration and orientation; however, Staff considers that the
applicant may end up proposing building lots for the duplexes included in Phase 4 that are below
the minimum lot size for this district. As mentioned above under 15.B.04.B, Staff considers that
the applicant may want to seek a waiver for minimum lot size at this time.
25. Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss whether a minimum lot size waiver is
appropriate for this project, and – if the applicant elects to request such a waiver – to what size
should the minimum lot size be reduced.
Typical building types, as applicable and referenced under Article 11.C, including proposed
housing types, and building elevations;
The applicant has identified which buildings will be multi-story and multi-use and which
buildings will be multi-story but residential only. The applicant has submitted a sheet entitled
‘Master Plan Architectural Character’ that provides a sense of what some of the proposed multi-
story, multi-use buildings will look like. The applicant has also testified that the new proposed
buildings in the Olde Orchard complex will be of that same scale and look as the existing
buildings in that part of the subject PUD. The applicant has not yet provided information as to
the look or scale of the proposed duplexes in Phase 4. The applicant has also not proposed
specific elevations for any of the buildings, although none are proposed to be taller than the 5-
story maximum presently allowed in the C1-R15 Zoning District.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
21
Building height and setback standards as applicable by zoning district, PUD or building type;
and for designated transition areas, as necessary to complement or match the adjoining
pattern and form of development;
The applicant has not requested a waiver of building heights. The LDRs presently allow a
maximum of 5 stories in height in the C1-R15 Zoning District. First stories can be a maximum of
20 feet in height, and subsequent stories can be a maximum of 14 feet in height each – as such,
the maximum height for a 5-story building is 76 feet. The applicant has requested a waiver from
side setback, front setback, and front setback coverage requirements. That waiver request was
discussed in detail under 15.B.04(B) above. The applicant and Staff consider that the proposed
building setbacks will complement existing setbacks to create an urban form, as described in the
applicant’s project description.
However, Staff notes that the applicant has not proposed specific heights for any of the
proposed buildings. Staff considers that the LDRs are presently in the process of being updated,
with a particular focus on the dimensional standards of the various Zoning District and Zoning
District configurations. As such, it is possible that future versions of the LDRs will allow for
building heights in the subject Zoning District that exceed five stories. Staff also considers that
the goals of this development are best served by buildings of a certain height – all of the street
parking and setback reductions in the world won’t make the subject PUD feel urban if the
applicant were to do something like only build 1-story buildings. As such, Staff considers that it
may be important to establish the maximum and minimum building heights in this Master Plan.
26. Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss reasonable limitations to building heights as
informed by the preceding paragraphs.
Parking standards and specifications for off-site, on-street, and on-site parking, including any
charging stations needed to serve proposed development, consistent with City parking
standards under Section 13.01, Article 14, and by Street Type;
Parking has been designed to meet City standards, with the exception of the head-in parking
proposed on the eastern portion of the proposed private street with the placeholder name of
Slip Road and on the southern portions of the proposed private street with the placeholder
name of Larkin Terrace. The applicant has proposed a total of 559 residential units in this
development, which, based on the presently proposed bedroom counts of those units, require a
minimum of 745 parking spaces as per the LDR. However, the recent State legislation referred to
as Act 47 (or the HOME Act) prohibits municipalities from requiring more than 1 parking space
per unit. The LDR presently requires 1.5 parking spaces for 2+ bedroom units, a standard which
is non-compliant with Act 47 and therefore superseded by Act 47. Staff considers that, once the
Act 47 standards are applied, the minimum required parking for this development is reduced to
550 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed a total of 1,164 parking spaces to accommodate
both the City’s required minimum parking requirements for residential uses and the parking
needs estimated for the existing and proposed commercial uses. The applicant has not indicated
how many of those parking spaces will be equipped with EV charging capabilities. The City does
not presently regulate EV charging but the State CBES does require EV charging capacity at all
new commercial and multi-family development. As such, the construction of buildings subject to
CBES will have to include a minimum number of EV charging spaces. Details of the applicant’s
proposed parking plan can be found on submitted sheets L-EX5A and L-EX5B.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
22
Staff notes that there are eighteen parking spaces proposed at the east end of the private street
with the placeholder name of Slip Road with no location for a motorist to turn their vehicle
around should they want to remain within the subject PUD or exit the PUD to the north. As
such, if a motorist were to drive down the private street with the placeholder name of Slip Road
in search of a parking spot and not find one, they would have no recourse except to exit the PUD
and turn south onto Shelburne Road.
27. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this situation with the applicant and identify whether it
is an issue that needs to be addressed prior to the closure of this Master Plan hearing, prior to
approval of a preliminary or final plat for that phase of construction, or not at all.
Setbacks, buffering, screening, or other mitigation measures necessary to separate
incompatible land uses, particularly within designated transition areas;
Staff considers the project to be generally compatible with adjacent land uses.
Overall lighting plan, including typical fixtures, consistent with relevant lighting requirements
under Section 13.07 and Appendix D;
The applicant has proposed both “pedestrian fixtures” and “roadway fixtures” to be used as part
of the proposed overall lighting plan. Both fixtures will include a light source 15 feet above grade
that is downcast and shielded, and the “roadway fixtures” will have to meet City standards if
installed along a public street. The applicant has not yet provided specific photometric plans for
any of the phases that show the illumination levels at ground level. The applicant has also not
proposed any building-mounted lighting in this overall lighting plan. Staff considers that the
proposed overall lighting plan appears to be acceptable and recommends that the Board require
the applicant to provide more detailed photometric plans that demonstrate full compliance with
all applicable LDRs prior to approval of a Site Plan.
Landscaping and screening specifications, consistent with relevant landscaping standards under
Section 13.04;
The applicant has not proposed any particular site landscaping beyond that required by the LDR.
The applicant is proposing to install street trees as part of their required upgrade of the existing
and proposed public streets, and shade trees as part of their development of off-street parking
areas. The applicant will not be awarded any landscaping credit for the installation of street trees
since they are required to be installed. The minimum landscaping budget can only be achieved via
the provision of voluntary landscaping features that enhance the site beyond the minimum site
improvements required by other sections of the LDRs.
As noted previously in this report, the applicant has requested a waiver to allow the application
of the minimum required landscaping budget for each proposed new structure to landscaping
features other than trees and bushes. Technically speaking, this request does not require a waiver.
The Board has the authority to allow the application of the minimum landscaping budget to
aesthetic features other than trees and shrubs. Historically, the Board has approved features like
benches, fountains, sculptures, gazebos, and the like. The Board has also approved the usage of
landscaping funds to upgrade approved basic features, like using decorative pavers instead of
poured concrete for a pathway. The Board is free to make those same judgements in subsequent
applications to allow the application of landscaping funds towards non-living landscaping
features. The applicant should note, however, that the Board was not particularly receptive at
sketch plan review to the idea of using landscaping funds to pay for basic components of required
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
23
Site Amenities/Civic Spaces – for example, the Board had indicated that they would not support
the usage of landscaping funds for the purchase and installation of fencing or dog waste bag
dispensers for the proposed dog park.
Specifications for the siting and design of new buildings, and the retrofit of existing buildings,
as necessary to meet applicable energy standards under Section 3.18, and to incorporate
renewable energy installations; and
The applicant has not provided any specifications for the siting or design of the proposed new
buildings that demonstrate how they will meet energy standards. As a reminder, as per Article
3.19.B, all new commercial and multi-family buildings of at least four stories in height to which
the CBES is applicable are now required to install rooftop solar or provide equivalent renewable
energy generation elsewhere on site. Staff considers that this requirement may have an impact
on the views/sightlines from the upper stories and rooftops of the existing and proposed buildings
throughout the portion of the PUD referred to a ‘Larkin Terrace’.
28. Staff recommends that the Board discuss with the applicant the impact of this requirement on the
proposed development as it pertains to building siting and design.
Any additional architectural or design guidance for each type or phase of development, and for
proposed transition areas, that is intended to integrate existing and new forms of development,
and to ensure coordinated and cohesive phased development.
As noted above, the applicant submitted a sheet entitled ‘Master Plan Architectural Character’
that provides a sense of what some of the proposed multi-story, multi-use buildings will look
like. The Board has not requested – and the applicant has not provided – any additional
architectural or design guidance for the development as a whole. The applicant will be required
to provide elevations as part of all subsequent applications for various phases of development.
The Board will have the opportunity to review the proposed building designs at that time and
evaluate whether the proposed buildings achieve “a desirable transition from structure to
structure”, as required of all site plans by Article 14.06.A(1).
(I) Phasing Plan. The application must include a narrative or table and map that clearly identify,
describe and depict each phase of development, including properties included, designated development
areas by use type, major streets, supporting infrastructure and facility improvements, civic spaces, and
other public amenities to be provided prior to or in association with each phase; and a schedule for the
timing and sequence of development over the period covered by the Master Plan, consistent with the
City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program and Official Map.
The applicant has provided a map (Sheet L-EX1) that shows the geographic limit of each phase. It can be
assumed that all elements within a geographic limit are intended to be included in that phase.
In terms of timing, the applicant has indicated they plan to construct the phases at the following times.
Phase 1 (shown in red) – 2025 to 2028. The applicant has indicated that the hotel, identified on the map
as ‘Building 2’, will likely be the next building constructed on the subject PUD. Staff notes that, at sketch,
the applicant had shown the entire Neighborhood Park as part of Phase 1 but the phasing plan submitted
with this application shows only the dog park as part of Phase 1, with the rest of the Neighborhood Park
deferred to Phase 2. Staff also notes that, at sketch, the applicant had proposed a playground in the
location of the proposed dog park. The dog park has increased in size and the applicant has relocated the
playground to the lawn space in Olde Orchard Park, which is slated to be constructed in Phase 3.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
24
29. Staff recommends that the Board discuss with the applicant these changes in location and timing of Civic
Space & Site Amenities as compared to the plans submitted at the most recent sketch plan review.
Phase 2 (orange) – 2027 – 2030. This phase includes the completion of the entire neighborhood park, a
separate pocket park, and streetscape improvements only on the south/west side of Fayette Road
between Olde Orchard Park and the proposed private street with the placeholder name of Larkin Terrace.
Staff considers that the entire length of Fayette Road presently has sidewalks on both sides and is of a
considerable width which theoretically allows drivers to safely pass any cyclists riding in the road. As such,
the proposed streetscape improvement, including the addition of lights and a widened rec path on the
west side of Fayette Road, are not strictly necessary to allow for safe pedestrian and cyclist access to the
northern property line of this subject PUD. However, given that this phase includes 100 units, plus the 80
units constructed in Phase 1 and the 270 units that exist today, one could make an argument that the
improvement of the entirety of Fayette Road would be most useful at this stage, if not sooner.
30. Staff recommends that the Board discuss timing of the completion of the streetscape improvements along
Fayette Road with the applicant.
Phase 3 (green) – 2028 to 2030. This phase is limited to the improvements in the Olde Orchard Park area.
Phase 4 (blue) – 2029 to 2031. This phase includes the micro-units, the duplexes, and the bulk of the
Fayette Road streetscape improvements. It is worth noting that, while the warned project description is
for three duplexes, the most recent plans indicate the plans are to build four duplexes in this phase. As
noted above, Staff considers that the streetscape improvements proposed in this phase may be better
situated in a prior phase. Staff further considers that, without the streetscape work being included in this
phase, Phase 4 may not meet the minimum percentage of full build-out, as it would likely be less than
20% of the total project area. In that case, Staff considers that the micro-units and duplexes may be better
off being included in Phase 3.
31. Staff recommends that, if the Board has indicated that the Fayette Road streetscape improvements should
be moved out of the fourth phase, the Board and applicant discuss the possibility of eliminating the fourth
phase altogether or consolidating Phases 3 & 4.
The master plan may only be approved for 6 years, with one possible future extension, allowing the
applicant up to 10 years to complete this 6-year project. After the end of 6 years or the end of the
extension period, this Master Plan will expire. Any and all subsequent development will be subject to rules
in effect at the time of re-application. Staff considers that this Master Plan includes a lot of construction
work, which may or may not be achievable within a six-year window.
32. Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss construction timelines with specific focus on how likely
it is that the entirety of the development proposed in this Master Plan could be completed within six years.
If certain items are outside the scope of what is possible within a six-year window, Staff considers they
should still be shown in the master plan as they represent the development program for the area, but that
the Board need not focus on details of those items at this time.
(1) An applicant for a Conservation PUD may elect to not provide a schedule, timing, and sequence of
development for phases beyond the first phase by labelling them as Reserved. In rendering its
decision in such an instance, the Board shall clearly indicate that an amendment to the Master Plan,
enumerating the schedule, timing, and sequence of development shall be required in order for
Reserved phases to proceed to the next stage of review.
Not applicable.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
25
(2) 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.
The four currently proposed phases all account for at least 20 percent of the total project area, and
appear to Staff to meet the intent of this standard of requiring balanced, thoughtful construction
phases. Staff therefore considers that both the letter and intent of this standard is met, pending the
outcome of the previous discussion of the ordering & scope of Phases 3 & 4.
(3) Any temporary or interim structures or uses (e.g., buildings, parking, construction, or staging areas)
intended for conversion or redevelopment in a subsequent phase should also be identified in the
phasing plan.
The applicant has not yet provided plans that show the construction or placement of any temporary
structures or uses on the site.
33. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide phase-by-phase construction plans that
identify any required construction areas or temporary parking for site users, and submit those prior to
the closure of this hearing.
(J) Management Plan. A narrative description of the proposed management structure responsible
for project development, to include all principals or entities with direct control over and responsibility
for the financing, permitting, construction, and completion of development under the Master Plan; and,
following project completion, for long-term ownership, management, operation, and maintenance of
capital and community assets.
The applicant has indicated that Joe Larkin, on behalf of Larkin Family Partnership, is responsible for
permitting, construction, and completion of all phases of this Master Plan. Management of the individual
properties will be handled by an Association formed pursuant to VSA 27A.
The management plan must also clearly identify any streets, infrastructure, facilities, civic or other open
spaces proposed for public dedication under each phase of development, consistent with the City’s
adopted Official Map and Capital Improvement Plan, for consideration under subsequent DRB reviews
and conditions of approval or under development agreements to be approved by the City Council.
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).
Shelburne Road is owned by the State of Vermont and the applicant should check with VTrans
regarding the proposed Slip Road.
A future submission would need to show plans for stormwater treatment. It is not clear at sketch
level.
#MP-23-01 Larkin Master Plan
Staff Comments
26
The management plan does not clearly indicate what infrastructure (including streets, facilities, parks,
etc.) are proposed for public dedication, or at what time those items would be proposed for public
dedication.
34. Staff recommends that Board require the applicant to revise the submitted management plan to include
this information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Marty Gilles, Development Review Planner I