Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-23-01 - Decision - 1185 1195 Shelburne Road#MP-23-01 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING JOHN LARKIN, INC. & 1185, LLC 1185 SHELBURNE ROAD MASTER PLAN #MP-23-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 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. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 17, 2024; February 6, 2024; and March 19, 2024. The applicant was represented by Joe Larkin, Ella Braco, Jeff Hodgson, and Greg Dixson. Board member Stephanie Wyman was recused from this application and did not participate in this decision. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. John Larkin, Inc. & 1185, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, seeks approval 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. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are John Larkin, Inc. & 1185, LLC. 3. The application was received on October 3, 2023. 4. The sketch plan was reviewed on November 7, 2023, and November 21, 2023. 5. The submitted materials consist of the following plans and supplemental information: Sheet No. Description Prepared By Last Revised Date SK-1.00 Schematic Property Lines for Proposed Master Plan Krebs & Lansing 1/24/2024 n/a Building Height/Master Plan Section Enlargement Wagner Hodgson 1/24/2024 n/a Master Plan Illustrative Street Sections Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 n/a Dog Park and Passive Recreation Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 n/a Master Plan Illustration Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 #MP-23-01 2 C-1.00 Existing Conditions Plan Krebs & Lansing 9/29/2023 C-1.01 Existing Topography Plan Krebs & Lansing 9/29/2023 C-2.00 Buildable Area Plan Krebs & Lansing 1/23/2024 C-2.01 Density Plan Krebs & Lansing 1/23/2024 C-3.00 Context Plan Krebs & Lansing 9/29/2023 C-4.00 Stormwater & Erosion Control Details Krebs & Lansing 9/29/2023 C-5.00 Schematic Construction Planning Krebs & Lansing 2/16/2024 A202 Exterior Elevations Rabideau Architects 8/11/2027 L-100 Key Plan Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-101 Site Plan Enlargement – The Terrace Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-102 Site Plan Enlargement – Olde Orchard Park Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-103 Site Plan Enlargement – Town Homes Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-200 Grading Key Plan Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-201 Grading Plan Enlargement – The Terrace Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-202 Grading Plan Enlargement – Olde Orchard Park Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-203 Grading Plan Enlargement – Town Homes Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-EX1 Phasing (Proposed Build-Out) Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-EX2 Bike and Pedestrian Connectivity Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-EX3 Civic and Amenity Space Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-EX4 Lighting Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-EX5A Parking Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 L-EX5B Parking Enlargement – The Terrace Wagner Hodgson 12/21/2023 N/A Architectural Character Wagner Hodgson undated N/A Management Plan 02.19.2024 Joe Larkin undated N/A Buildout Analysis & Budget Unspecified 01/24/2024 N/A Summary Statistics Unspecified 01/24/2024 6. The project is located in the Commercial 1 – Residential 15 (C1-R15) Zoning District, the Traffic Overlay District, Transit Overlay District, Urban Design Overlay District and Wetland Advisory Overlay District. 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, so this Finding is applicable to that entire area. 7. 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 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, #MP-23-01 3 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). ZONING DISTRICT TABLE A) C1-R15 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed √ Min. Lot Size 1 40,000 sf 38.98 acres 40,075 sf minimum √ 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 minimum proposed lot size within the Master Plan area is 40,075 square feet. All lots within the 38.98-acre Master Plan area (including all existing lots) exceed the minimum lot size. 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 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. The applicant has previously submitted two Master Plan sketch applications, the first of which was reviewed on February 22, 2023, and the second of which was reviewed on November 7, 2023, and November 21, 2023. The Board’s feedback during the two November sketch plan reviews included a special emphasis on the relationship between this project and the proposed development on the 105-acre Allenwood Inn estate parcel to the west of the subject property. #MP-23-01 4 The submitted Master Plan application 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 l and 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 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, and was reviewed then and in subsequent adjourned sessions as described above. The hearing was closed on March 19, 2024. #MP-23-01 5 15.B.05 Review Standards These review standards are located at the beginning of this decision in an attempt to most effectively frame a review of the project. However, the review standards are informed by the required submission components, so the Board 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; The Board has included a detailed review of submission requirements below in order to support this finding that all required application materials are provided. (2) The overall type, pattern, and density of development, and allocation of land uses, are consistent with these Regulations and other City regulations in effect at the time of application, including relevant subdivision, zoning district or planned unit development standards; The Board finds 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, one is Class III and greater than 5,000 sf and therefore has an associated 50-foot buffer, and one is Class III and smaller than 5,000 sf and therefore has 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. The applicant confirmed with the City Stormwater Section that no flow restoration projects that would impact the applicant’s proposed stormwater treatment infrastructure or development plan are planned for this area. c. Defines an overall pattern of development, including proposed streets and blocks, that is consistent with the zoning district or proposed type of planned unit development; The Board finds 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. The Board finds that, although 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; #MP-23-01 6 The Board’s analysis of connectivity, and specifically recreation path connectivity, is 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 The Board finds 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. The Board notes that all proposed use and existing uses appear to be relatively compatible and well-integrated and therefore finds 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, the Board identified a handful of items that required specific consideration. Each of those items is explained in further detail 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, the Board identified a handful of items that required specific consideration. Each of those items is explained in further detail 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. The Board finds these criteria met as discussed under Section 15.B.04.I(2). (7) The Management Plan: (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. #MP-23-01 7 The Board finds 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. After the issuance of a decision on this application, the subsequent regulatory review will include DRB review of preliminary and final plat applications for each Phase of the PUD. The requirement to submit a sketch plan for future plat applications that are consistent with this Master Plan is automatically waived by virtue of having gone through the Master Plan application process. In order to ensure that all phases of development are subject to the PUD standards found within Article 15, the Board finds that each phase shall be subject to preliminary and final PUD review. The applicant at their discretion may choose to combine preliminary and final plat. The Board also finds that master plan review and approval shall be required for substantial amendment as defined in 15.B.06(E)(2). The applicant did not request a process waiver for administrative review, either site plan or zoning permit. As such, no such waiver is granted. (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. The following aspects of the master plan are vested. The term “vested” means 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. Any proposal to significantly alter the vested elements shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended, and the LDR pertaining to the amended element at the time of amendment shall apply. #MP-23-01 8 • Phase geometry (which areas are part of which phase) – the applicant has proposed four Phases, each of which is at least 20% of the geographical area of the Master Plan area. The Board finds the proposed Phase geometry acceptable – in particular, the Board finds that delaying the streetscape improvements along the north end of Fayette Road until after all construction along the north end of Fayette Road was complete to be permissible. Any proposal to significantly alter the approved Phase geometry shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Phase timing – the applicant has proposed four Phases, the first of which is proposed to start in 2025 and last until 2028, and the last of which is proposed to start in 2029 and last until 2031. The applicant has proposed phases to overlap in time and has successfully demonstrated how that overlapping construction will be managed in the submitted Schematic Construction Planning map and narrative. Any proposal to significantly alter the approved Phase timing shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Open space areas & civic space areas – the applicant has proposed a 3.84 acre neighborhood park (including a 20,000 sf dog park) as the required Civic Space for this development and has demonstrated that the neighborhood park can make use of its natural slope and existing water features by incorporating overlooks and strategically- placed seating areas throughout. Any proposal to significantly modify the proposed neighborhood park concept shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. The applicant has also identified a handful of Site Amenity spaces that will serve the various proposed residential and commercial structures – those Site Amenity spaces are not vested as part of this Master Plan and will be reviewed on a site plan-by-site plan basis. The applicant has requested that the Board provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site Amenity area on certain proposed lots, if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing Civic Space or public park as per Article 14.06.C(4). The Board acknowledges this provision of credit is an option and is open to considering such credit on a site plan-by-site plan basis. • Natural resource impacts – the applicant is proposing to comply with all existing regulations that govern development impacts to natural resources, including preserving all Class III & Class II wetlands and their associated 50-foot buffers where applicable, all Very Steep Slopes, and the existing River Corridor. There are no floodplains, habitat blocks, habitat connectors, or other Environmental Hazards or Natural Resources identified on this property beyond those identified above. The applicant shall be allowed to execute the proposed Master Plan with respect to impacts on Environmental Hazards and Natural Resources. If the Land Development Regulations change in such a way during the time in which this Master Plan is in effect that the proposed development plan is found to have an impact on Environmental Hazards and/or Natural Resources, the applicant shall be permitted to continue executing the proposed Master Plan as approved as part of this application. However, any proposal to impact Natural Resources or Environmental Hazards in a way that does not conform with this proposed Master Plan shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Proposed street layout – the applicant has proposed the construction of one segment of public street (Reel Road) and a network of private streets in Phases 1 & 2. Any #MP-23-01 9 proposal to significantly modify the proposed street layout shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Proposed recreation path, sidewalk, and transit route layout – in addition to the sidewalks required throughout the project, the applicant has provided a 10-foot-wide recreation path running the entire length of the Master Plan area along the west side of Fayette and Reel Roads, an informal connection linking Phases 1 & 2 with the adjacent parcel to the west via Inn Road, a 10-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of Fayette Road between Reel Road and Shelburne Road, and a pathway accessible to pedestrians and cyclists connecting Phase 3 (Olde Orchard Park area) with Inn Road in the proposed neighborhood park. Any proposal to significantly modify the proposed recreation path, sidewalk, and transit route layout shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Building locations and footprints – the applicant shall be allowed to locate and orient the buildings in all four Phases as shown in this Master Plan approval. Any proposal to re-locate or re-orient the building footprints in a way that impacts compliance with the LDRs shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Max peak hour trip generation – the applicant shall be allowed to generate up to 424 additional PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends as part of this Master Plan, for a total trip generation for the entire 40-acre Master Plan area of 973 PM Peak Hour VTEs. A total trip generation that significantly exceeds this maximum trip generation shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. • Building heights in Phases 1 & 2 – all buildings constructed in the lots included in Phases 1 & 2 of the Master Plan shall be between 44 and 76 feet tall. Building heights for Phases 1 & 2 that fall outside of this range shall not be permitted unless this Master Plan approval is amended. (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. #MP-23-01 10 (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. This timeframe will start with the 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. The Board finds that the subdivision of land will be required for the extension of Reel Road, which is proposed in Phase 1, and to ensure that all proposed principal structures are located on their own lots. The applicant submitted a conceptual subdivision plan (Sheet SK-1.00), which demonstrated that all proposed lots will be of at least 40,000 sf in size and of a regular shape and orientation, thereby meeting the minimum lot size standards for this Zoning District and the applicable subdivision standards. The Board finds that the applicant shall modify Sheet SK-1.00 to make the southern side lot line for the lot containing ‘Proposed Building-4’ perpendicular to the public ROW. The applicant must submit a complete application for the first phase, consisting of either a preliminary plat or a site plan as applicable, within two years of issuance of a decision on this application. 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. If and when the applicant realizes they will need an extension of this Master Plan approval, they can apply for one. The Board intends to approve extensions due to changes in market conditions or construction delays, and may approve extensions due to other factors. (4) 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. (5) A complete application for a Master Plan may be submitted at any time subject to the rules in effect at the time of submission. (6) 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. The only quantitative metric #MP-23-01 11 differentiating the types of amendments is the involvement of lands not previously included in the master plan. The Board finds the lands included in this master plan application to be well defined, and retains the authority to make a determination on whether a proposed amended to this Master Plan shall be classified as either ‘minor’ or ‘substantial’. 15.B.04 Master Plan Components The applicant has submitted a comprehensive application package which includes each of the required master plan submission materials. The Board has reviewed and analyzed each required submission component below. (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; The Board finds the applicant’s submission to sufficiently address these four requirements. 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; The proposed master plan application is for a development that constitutes an amendment to an existing General PUD. Further 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. 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”. The applicant has not identified what they are requesting these setbacks to be waived to. There is a maximum allowable waiver, even within a PUD, so these setbacks cannot be waived all the way down to 0 feet. Front Setback Coverage: The applicant has requested a modification 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 to permit 90% coverage. The applicant testified that this waiver will “allow for a continuous network of appropriately sized sidewalks to be located between the building and street”. #MP-23-01 12 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. The Board finds that the Master Plan process does not give the Board the authority to waive dimensional standards at this stage of review. As such, the Board finds that none of the above requested waivers are granted at this time; however, the Board affirms its intention to approve all such waivers if the subsequent applications are consistent with the representations made at this master plan stage of review. 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. The Board 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, the Board finds that this request is not a waiver request, per se, but rather a notice to the Board that the impending PUD preliminary and final plat applications will include discussions about the appropriate allocation of the minimum required landscaping budget. 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 is not inclined to permit the use of landscaping funds to pay for basic components of required 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. (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 initial submitted materials with respect to this requirement consisted of two sheets, C-3.00 and L-EX2. Sheet C-3.00 included the existing parcels, streets, land uses and community facilities as required, and was updated to include the bus route that runs north and south along Shelburne Road. Sheet L-EX2 includes the existing covered bus stop on the eastern edge of the subject PUD. • 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). #MP-23-01 13 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. The Board finds 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 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 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 #MP-23-01 14 phase of development, to include: While not explicitly addressed by any standard within this section, the Board finds that discussion of the conceptual 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 and applicant had initially discussed the orientation of Building 3 and its impact on the streetscape on Reel Road during the sketch plan review on November 7, 2023. During that meeting, the Board gave the applicant the guidance that the proposed orientation of the buildings was acceptable. The Board also finds that the conceptual 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 LDR standard prohibiting parking to the front of buildings, provided it does not substantially differ in form or function from that shown on the master plans. The applicant testified that the vehicle drop-off area is not a critical component of the master plan and may be revised or eliminated at a later stage of the development review process. With respect to this Master Plan review standard governing the overall pattern of development, the Board finds that the proposed development pattern, including the conceptual vehicle drop-off area, is approvable. • Natural resource areas identified for protection, consistent with adopted Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12; There is no impact proposed to any of the aforementioned Natural Resource areas or their associated buffers. • 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 southern 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. The Board finds the applicant must 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 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. Due to a variety of constraints that negatively impact the viability of that east-west condition, the Board finds that the existing Inn Road shall be closed to public motor vehicle traffic to better serve as an informal bike path potentially connecting users to points east of the railroad crossing. #MP-23-01 15 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. 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 discussion of the applicant’s proposal for traffic study below. (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 1/24/2024. #MP-23-01 16 • 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 1/24/2024. • 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 1/24/2024. The applicant has identified that there are three existing blocks in the subject PUD and no additional blocks are proposed. The Board finds that, while the beginnings of blocks may currently exist in the area of the subject PUD, the partial blocks will be completed by development of the PUD, including the extension of Reel Road and the adjoining private streets. The land between Reel Road and Shelburne Road will be divided into blocks by private streets which do not exist yet – as such, the Board finds that the construction of those private streets will create blocks, and that those newly created blocks must 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. The applicant has demonstrated via submission of Sheet SK-1.00 that these standards are all met. As such, the Board finds the proposed blocks meet the above Master Plan review standard. • 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 1/24/2024. • 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 1/24/2024, and discussed in further detail under 15.B.04.G below. #MP-23-01 17 • 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. The Board included requests for additional information throughout the Master Plan review process; all such requests have been satisfied by the applicant at this time. (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; 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, 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. 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, the Board finds that this increase beyond maximum allowable density is not 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. The Board finds that information demonstrating compliance with all relevant standards of Article 18.01 will be required at the first stage of review for each phase of this Master Plan. • 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 #MP-23-01 18 167,400 sf of Civic Space. As noted under 15.B.06(C)(1) above, the Board finds that the proposed Civic Space configuration is vested as part of this Master Plan approval but finds that the proposed Site Amenity spaces are not vested and must instead be approved on a phase-by- phase or site plan-by-site plan basis. • 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, bringing the total vehicle trip generation for the entire PUD at full build-out will be 973 PM Peak Hour VTEs. • Maximum water supply and wastewater system demand, by use type; The applicant has submitted an estimated maximum water demand and has testified 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 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%. 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. The Board finds that this comment can be addressed on a phase-by-phase basis, and finds that proposed stormwater treatment shall be evaluated on a phase-by-phase basis. • 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. The Board, in its review of this application, has 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. #MP-23-01 19 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; The applicant has provided a sheet entitled ‘Illustrative Street Sections’. • 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. As noted in 15.B.06(C)(1) above, the Board vests the proposed neighborhood park concept and finds that this illustrative concept successfully demonstrates how the park will make use of its natural slope and existing water features by incorporating overlooks and strategically placed seating areas throughout. • 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. The Board’s analysis of this claim and the relevant block dimensional standards can be found under Article 15.B.04(F) above. • 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. As noted in 15.B.06(C)(1) above, the Board finds that the building height for the buildings in Phases 1 & 2 shall be between 44 and 76 feet in height. The applicant has also testified that the new proposed buildings in the Olde Orchard complex will be of that same scale and style 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 and has also not yet proposed specific elevations for any proposed buildings. No buildings are proposed to be taller than the 5-story maximum presently allowed in the C1-R15 Zoning District. • 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; #MP-23-01 20 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 had 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 Board concur that the proposed building setbacks will complement existing setbacks to create an urban form, as described in the applicant’s project description – however, those proposed setbacks require a waiver of dimensional standards, which cannot be granted at the Master Plan stage of review. As noted in the preceding paragraph and in 15.B.06(C)(1) above, the vested building height for all principal structures in Phases 1 & 2 is between 44 and 76 feet in height. • 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 on-street head-in parking, which is 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, and therefore superseded by Act 47. 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 developments. 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. In response to concerns voiced earlier in the review process, the applicant has testified that there is a hatched turn-around area provided at the very eastern end of the private street with the placeholder name of Slip Road where a motorist could turn their vehicle around. Using this turn-around, if a motorist were to drive east down that street in search of a parking spot and not find one, they would be able to execute a K-turn and drive west back towards Reel Road. • Setbacks, buffering, screening, or other mitigation measures necessary to separate incompatible land uses, particularly within designated transition areas; The Board finds 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; #MP-23-01 21 The applicant has proposed both “pedestrian fixtures” and “roadway fixtures” to be used as part of the proposed overall lighting plan. Both fixtures are proposed to include a light source 15 feet above grade that is downcast and shielded. 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. The Board finds that the proposed overall lighting plan appears to be acceptable but finds that the applicant shall provide 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 an intention to meet all standards of the LDR. The landscaping requirements for this project are discussed in further detail under 15.B.04(B) above. 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. • 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 per Article 3.19.B of the Land Development Regulations effective when this application was submitted (adopted June 5, 2023), all new commercial and multi-family buildings of at least four stories in height to which the CBES are applicable are now required to install a rooftop solar photovoltaic system or provide equivalent renewable energy generation elsewhere on site. The Board acknowledges 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 as ‘Larkin Terrace’. • 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 #MP-23-01 22 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. The Board finds all elements within a geographic limit shall 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. The Board noted that, at sketch, the applicant had shown the entire Neighborhood Park as part of Phase 1 but the updated 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. The Board finds that this change is acceptable. 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. The Board finds 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. The applicant testified that they would prefer to delay these streetscape improvements until the end of the project to avoid having to rip up or otherwise impact those very improvements in the process of constructing Phase 4. The Board finds that the applicant’s proposed timing of streetscape improvements is acceptable. 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. 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. As noted under 15.B.06(D)(4) above, the 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. (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. (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. #MP-23-01 23 The four currently proposed phases all account for at least 20 percent of the total project area, and the Board finds that the proposed phases meet the intent of this standard of requiring balanced, thoughtful construction phases. The Board finds that both the letter and intent of this standard is met. (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 updated the submission materials to include Sheet C-5.00, entitled “Schematic Construction Planning”, which includes both visual and narrative representations of the proposed construction phasing plan, including temporary and interim structures. (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. The applicant updated the submitted management plan on 2/19/2024 and identified that only Reel Road and the associated water lines are proposed for City dedication – no other infrastructure is presently proposed to become public. The Board finds that the applicant must demonstrate that the entirety of Reel Road will be constructed to meet Public Works standards (including an approved turn-around and potential re-construction of the existing surface and subsurface) as part of the final plat application for Phase 1. #MP-23-01 24 DECISION Motion by Frank Kochman, seconded by Charles Johnston, to approve master plan application #MP-23- 01 subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans and submission materials must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer prior to approval of the next zoning permit under this master plan. a. Sheet SK-1.00 shall be updated to make the southern side lot line for the lot containing ‘Proposed Building-4’ perpendicular to the public ROW. b. The Management Plan shall be updated to replace the current penultimate sentence of the plan with the following: “All water and sewer lines within the Public ROW shall be offered for dedication to the City; all water and sewer lines outside the Public ROW shall not be offered for dedication to the City”. 4. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans and submission narrative as amended must be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the mylar. 5. The following waivers are granted which shall apply to all subsequent levels of review: a. Excess landscaping expenditure from an individual phase may be allowed as credit towards future phases of the master plan, so long as other required landscaping standards are met. 6. The following elements of the master plan are applicable to all subsequent applications and do not require additional review, provided changes are not proposed. a. Phase geometry b. Phase timing c. Open space areas & civic space areas d. Natural resource impacts e. Proposed street layout f. Proposed recreation path, sidewalk, and transit route layout g. Building locations and footprints h. Maximum peak hour trip generation i. Building heights in Phases 1 & 2 7. The master plan is approved for six (6) years from the effective date of this decision. The applicant may apply for an extension for cause. 8. The Board specifically withholds determination on what shall constitute a minor or substantial amendment until the need arises, notwithstanding such determination shall be consistent with those metrics identified herein. #MP-23-01 25 9. The applicant must obtain street name approval prior to final plat approval of the first PUD phase. 10. The existing Inn Road shall be closed to public motor vehicle traffic to better serve as an informal bike path. 11. The proposed Civic Space configuration is vested as part of this Master Plan approval – however, the proposed Site Amenity spaces are not vested and must instead be approved on a phase-by-phase or site plan-by-site plan basis. 12. The applicant must provide information demonstrating compliance with all relevant standards of Article 18.01 (Inclusionary Zoning) at the first stage of review for each phase of this Master Plan. 13. The applicant must submit a complete application for the first phase, consisting of either a preliminary plat or a site plan as applicable, within two years of issuance of a decision on this application. 14. The applicant must provide a satisfactory traffic study as part of the preliminary plat application for the first PUD phase, and shall subsequently update that traffic study as part of the preliminary plat application for all subsequent phases. 15. Detailed review of the water distribution and wastewater collection systems be undertaken on a phase-by-phase basis. 16. Stormwater treatment shall be evaluated on a phase-by-phase basis. 17. The applicant shall provide detailed photometric plans that demonstrate full compliance with all applicable LDRs prior to final plat approval of each phase. 18. The applicant must demonstrate that the entirety of Reel Road will be constructed to meet Public Works standards (including an approved turn-around and potential re-construction of the existing surface and subsurface) as part of the preliminary plat application for Phase 1. 19. All elements within a geographic limit are to be included in that phase. 20. There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non-organic fertilizers, within the wetlands or associated buffers. 21. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. 22. Any changes to the preliminary plat or other subsequent level of review that deviate from this master plan in a manner described in Section 15.B.06(E)(2) shall also require amending the master plan. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Moscatelli Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Charles Johnston Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of 6 - 0 - 0. #MP-23-01 26 Signed this ____ day of April, 2024, by _____________________________________ Dawn Philibert, Chair PLEASE NOTE: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail with the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal also must be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802- 951-1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.