The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMP-23-01 - Supplemental - 1185 1195 Shelburne Road (12) 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner I SUBJECT: #MP-23-01; 1185 Shelburne Road DATE: February 6, 2024 Development Review Board meeting 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. COMMENTS The Board began review of this application on January 17, 2024. The Board continued the hearing to February 6 to complete its review of the Staff Report, as the Board has not yet reviewed Staff Comments 28 through 34. Staff has included updates in this memo that address issues raised at the January 17th meeting. All updates included in this memo are flagged with a bolded header identifying which comment from the January 17th staff report the update is in reference to. 1. Staff recommends the Board begin the continued hearing by reviewing the items in this memo before reviewing the remainder of the January 17th staff report. Regarding Comments #3 & #4: At the January 17th meeting, members of the Board indicated that they were not comfortable with waiving the preliminary plat application requirement for any proposed subdivision of land required as part of this Master Plan. The applicant had indicated that they were not proposing to subdivide the Master Plan area any further, but Staff had noted that the LDRs require all principal buildings to be on their own lots and had suggested that this requirement may necessitate further subdivision of land to accommodate a few of the proposed development phases. The applicant has provided Sheet SK-1.00, demonstrating proposed property lines for the Master Plan area. Staff notes that all proposed lots appear to exceed the minimum lot size in this Zoning District of 40,000 square feet (0.918 acres) – as such, no minimum lot size waiver appears to be necessary at the Master Plan level. Staff also considers nearly all of the proposed lots to all be of an appropriate shape and orientation, but notes that the proposed lot that will contain Building #4 (the micro-units) has a bend at the southern end of the eastern lot line, which appears to conflict with subdivision standard 15.A.16.C(9) requiring lots to be generally rectangular with side lot lines that are perpendicular to the street. 2 2. Staff recommends the Board review the conceptual subdivision plan, identify whether the lot line identified above meets the standard of 15.A.16.C(9), and either confirm or amend its previous indication that preliminary plat will not be waived for proposed subdivision of land. Regarding Comment #8: At the January 17th meeting, the applicant had requested that the Board waive internal side setbacks all the way down to 0 feet, with the intention of securing approval to construct all features of the proposed pocket park between Building 3 & Building 7 as planned while still complying with all setback requirements. Staff researched whether the Board had the authority to waive the side setback for principal or accessory structures down to 0 feet and found nothing in the LDRs that prohibited the granting of this waiver. However, in the research process, Staff discovered that the Master Plan process does not include the option to waive dimensional standards, including side setback standards and the other setback and coverage standards discussed at the 1/17 hearing. Staff considers the Board may provide feedback on the requested waivers but that they may not go farther at this stage of review – any waivers will have to be granted as part of subsequent subdivision or site plan applications. As such, Staff considers that the Board and applicant may discuss the details of this side setback request, even though it cannot be granted until a later stage of review, if both parties feel that would be beneficial at this time. For the purposes of informing that discussion, Staff considers that the LDRs already exempt “ramps for the disabled” from setback requirements, and already allow allows the setback for “retaining walls” to be waived down to 0 feet in conjunction with a Conditional Use application. Regarding Comment #13: At the January 17th meeting, the Board had requested that the applicant identify all “Very Steep Slopes” on the property, as required by the LDRs. The applicant has provided updated versions of both Sheet C- 2.00 and Sheet C-2.01 identifying the portions of the Master Plan area impacted by the presence of Very Steep Slopes. Notably, Sheet C-2.01 shows that the presence of the Very Steep Slopes (classified by the LDRs as an Environmental Hazard) reduces the developable area of the Master Plan area by 1.9 acres, decreasing the allowable base density of the entire PUD from 471 units to 442 units. Staff considers that this change does not impact the approvability of the proposed Master Plan, as the applicant’s previous housing unit estimate far exceeded the allowable base density– the applicant was intending and still intends to make up that difference through the provision of inclusionary units and/or the application of TDRs to the proposed development. Regarding Comments #17 & #24: At the January 17th meeting, the Board had requested that the applicant provide calculations demonstrating that the existing/proposed blocks meet City standards regarding size and dimensions. The applicant included those calculations on Sheet SK-1.00 and successfully demonstrated that the block formed by Reel Road, Slip Road, Shelburne Road, and Fayette Road meets all such standards. Regarding Comments #18 & #19: The applicant also has updated the Summary Statistics table to classify the proposed ‘Neighborhood Park’ as ‘Buildable Area’, and has updated the Buildout Budget to identify the cumulative number of PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends for the entire Master Plan at full build-out. Regarding Comment #26: Finally, the Board and applicant had discussed appropriate minimum and maximum building height requirements for this project. The applicant had proposed that all new buildings in Phase 1 and 2 of the development be between 44 and 76 feet – the Board had reacted favorably to that proposal but had 3 requested the height & elevations of the existing building on the corner of Shelburne Road and Fayette Road prior to closing the hearing. In response to that request, the applicant provided Sheet A202, which identifies the elevations of the existing 4-story building as being just under 44’6” from pre-construction grade to the top of the roof deck, and just more than 62’8” from pre-construction grade to the top of the tower roof. The applicant also provided a sheet entitled ‘Building Height Master Plan Section’ – this sheet shows approximate elevations for the various buildings proposed in Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development and demonstrates the relationship that the proposed buildings will have with the existing building, taking into account the grade change on the site as it runs from east to west. 3. Given this information, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they find the applicant’s proposal to constitute an appropriate range of building heights for Phases 1 & 2 of this project and include that range of heights as part of this Master Plan approval. 4. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the anticipated heights for the remaining phases of the development and consider whether a range be included in the master plan approval for those phases. Staff emphasizes that it may not be desirable to permit future phases to consist entirely of one- story buildings. 5. Finally, Staff recommends the Board and applicant review the list of items that are proposed to be vested as part of this Master Plan approval. That list is located on page 8 of the January 17th Staff Report, under Section 15.B.06.C(1), associated with Staff Comment #7. Staff recommends the Board and applicant engage in a conversation about specifically which elements of the existing LDRs are being vested as part of this Master Plan approval, and discuss the impact of that vesting on the form and design of the propsoed development. The applicant may request that certain items be added to or removed from that list at this time, and the Board may discuss those requests amongst themselves and with the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein and in the accompanying Staff Report.