HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-24-30 - Supplemental - 0039 Bowdoin StreetCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-24-30_39 Bowdoin Street_vet hospital_SC_2024-09-
04
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 28, 2024
Plans received: July 18, 2024
39 Bowdoin Street
Site Plan Application #SP-24-30
Meeting date: September 4, 2024
Owner
Northeast Territories
20 South Crest Drive
Burlington, VT 05401
Applicant
Meadowlands Animal Hospital
2386 Airport Road
Berlin, VT 05641
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID: 0257-00039 3.4 acres
Industrial & Open Space Zoning District, Hinesburg
Road North View Protection District, Airport
Approach Cones
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers
164 Main Street, Suite 201
Colchester, VT 05446
Location Map
#SP-24-30
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Site plan application #SP-24-30 of Meadowlands Animal Hospital to construct a single story 8,946
sf veterinary hospital and associated site improvements, 39 Bowdoin Street.
CONTEXT
The Board reviewed a sketch plan for construction of an animal hospital at 10 Mansfield View Lane
on November 7th and 21st, 2023. Although the applicant’s LLC name has changed from that project
to this project, it appears that the proposed animal hospital would be owned & operated by that
same ownership group. The proposed animal hospital at 39 Bowdoin Street is in place of the
proposed animal hospital at 10 Mansfield View Lane, as that project has since been abandoned,
and the sketch plan approval has expired.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planners Marty Gillies and Marla Keene (“Planning Staff”) have reviewed the
plans submitted on July 18, 2024 and offer the following comments. Numbered comments for the
Board’s attention are indicated in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The lot is currently undeveloped.
IO Zoning District Required Proposed
Min. Lot Size, non-residential use 3 acres 3.4 acres
Max. Building Height, Flat Roof 40’ 18’ 5”
Max. Building Coverage 30% 5.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 50% 13.3%
Max. Front Setback Coverage, Bowdoin Street 30% 7.4%
Max. Front Setback Coverage, Meadowland
Drive
30% 10.0%
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 31.2 ft. 1
Min. Side Setback 35 ft. 40 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. N/A
1. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the minimum front setback from 50 feet to 31.2 feet.
This waiver request is discussed in further detail under 14.06.A(1)(a) below.
13.06 Airport Approach Cones
All applications for development within the Airport Approach Cones, as shown on the Overlay
Districts Map, involving new or expanded buildings or structures shall provide documentation that
either a Notice to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is not required, or an application for a
Determination of No Hazard has been submitted to the FAA. Where an application for
Determination of No Hazard has been submitted, no zoning permit for construction shall be issued
without demonstration of receipt of an issued Determination.
The property is located entirely within an airport approach cone. The applicant has submitted an
application for a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Staff considers this criterion met.
10.02G Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone
#SP-24-30
3
(1) No part of any structure within the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone shall exceed
an elevation of 393.5 feet above mean sea level plus 5.8 feet for each 1000 feet that said part of
said structure is horizontally distant from the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone Base
Line shown on the above referenced Scenic View Protection Overlay District Map.
Based on the applicant’s testimony that the building is 18 ft in height, and the proposed grade
of 348 ft, Staff estimates that the peak elevation of the mostly flat roof is 366 ft. Since this is
below the elevation of the baseline, 10.02G(1) is met.
(2) Landscaping and other vegetation located within the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection
Zone shall be maintained so that it does not exceed an elevation of 393.5 feet above mean sea
level plus 5.8 feet for each 1000 feet that said landscaping or vegetation is horizontally distant
from the Hinesburg Road - North View Protection Zone Base Line shown on the above
referenced Scenic View Protection Overlay District Map.
The nearest trees are located approximately 2,500 ft from the baseline, which results in a
maximum allowable tree height of 408 ft. These trees are proposed to be planted at an
elevation of 344 feet above sea level, with a maximum height of 40 – 60 ft, resulting in a
theoretical maximum elevation of 404 feet above mean sea level. Staff considers this criterion
met.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas. The DRB shall consider the following:
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping
along the street.
The applicant is proposing a front setback waiver to reduce the front building setback along
Bowdoin Street to 32.7 feet and along Meadowlands Drive to 31.2 feet. The applicant is
requesting this waiver in order to shift the proposed building away from the identified Class
II wetland and associated buffer that is present on the site. There are existing street trees in
the public right-of-way along both Bowdoin Street and Meadowland Drive. The applicant is
proposing to remove one street tree to build the driveway access and install two street trees
– one on each side of the proposed driveway access – for a net gain of one street tree.
1. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed front setback waiver, subject to potential
modifications of the parking lot discussed under 14.06B below
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to
the street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the
site’s existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
The four existing buildings on Bowdoin Street are all square to the street, with their front
facades parallel to the street right-of-way. All four buildings also have front setbacks of at
least 75 feet, which is 40 feet more than the front setback proposed for the veterinary
hospital.
#SP-24-30
4
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss the proposed building placement & orientation as it
relates to the above standard, and determine whether the proposed placement & orientation
can be described as ‘consistent’ with the ‘prevalent pattern’.
The applicant is not proposing any significant grading, and the topography of the subject
property does not substantially differ from the topography of the adjacent properties – as
such, Staff considers that the proposed building configuration relates to the site topography
& grade in a way that is consistent with the other properties along Bowdoin Street.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale
between existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
The proposed building has a maximum height of 18.5 feet, and a footprint of approximately
9,000 square feet. The existing buildings along Bowdoin Street all are of a relatively similar
height to the proposed veterinary hospital, but have footprints of between 20,000 and 30,000
sf and are therefore twice to three times as large as the proposed veterinary hospital.
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss the proposed building scale as it relates to the above
standard, and determine whether the proposed contrast in scale can be described as ‘abrupt’
and therefore require minimization and mitigation.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and
walkability within the area proposed for development.
The applicant is already served by an asphalt rec path along both the south and east property
lines – the applicant is not proposing to impact that pedestrian connection and is proposing
to provide a network of walkways connecting the various site entrances to the existing rec
paths.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent
possible within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
The proposed roof is flat and the applicant has identified potential solar-ready roof areas.
As discussed under 3.18 below, the applicant will be required to provide more specific
plans demonstrating the solar layout prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building
facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
The applicant is not proposing any parking in front of the building.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and
one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met.
The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
Not applicable – as noted above, the applicant is not proposing parking in front of the
building.
(c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the
side of buildings shall not exceed the width of building(s), Civic Spaces, and Site Amenities
along any street frontage. This may be calculated separately or cumulatively for corner lots.
Parking approved pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection.
The width of the proposed building measured from west to east as it faces Meadowland
Drive, is approximately 89’. The width of the proposed building measured from north to
#SP-24-30
5
south as it faces Bowdoin St is approximately 168’, for a cumulative building width of 257’.
The Site Amenity is not identified on the plan. The width of the proposed parking lot located
to the west side of the proposed building is approximately 130’. While Staff notes the parking
area width is no wider than the cumulative width of the building along both frontages, Staff
considers the parking area has the appearance of being out of compliance with this criterion
because of its location relative to Meadowland Drive and the nature of Bowdoin St as a low
volume side street. Staff recommends the Board consider requiring modifications to this
parking area as mitigation for the requested reduction in front setback.
4. Staff recommends the Board consider requiring the applicant to meet the standard front
setback (50’) for the proposed parking lot, either by removing two parking spaces or by
relocating the front two parking spaces to the rear of the lot.
(d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front
of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic.
Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of
the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the
Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of
the Interstate.
Not applicable – the subject property is not a through lot.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height
and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
The compatibility of the proposed development with the existing adjoining buildings is discussed in
14.06.A(1)(b) and (c) above.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of
common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or
detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive
transitions between buildings of different architectural styles.
The proposed veterinary hospital will be of a relatively similar architectural style as the
adjoining building to the north – as such, Staff considers no particular transition to be
required to screen or buffer the proposed structure.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
(3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
(a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of
development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations,
position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached
building types.
Staff considers the proposed veterinary hospital represents an extension of the
overall pattern of development, as both the proposed and existing buildings are
relatively large & relatively short buildings on relatively large lots.
#SP-24-30
6
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural
features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular
architectural style.
The applicant has provided elevations of the proposed building. The building is
proposed to be clad in metal panels. The adjacent sites in Meadowland Business
Park have a similar architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties,
including side and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
Staff considers the proposed site design does not constitute any impacts or
intrusions to the privacy of the adjoining properties.
Given the above, Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
(1) Sites are required to include a specific minimum area for appropriate Site Amenities.
This section does not apply to projects within the City Center FBC District (which are governed
by Section 8.08).
(2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities:
(a) Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF.
(b) Additions or expansions exceeding 5,000 SF for existing non-residential structures.
(c) Any residential development, including conversion of non-residential structures to
residential use.
The proposed facility exceeds 5,000 sf in size and therefore these standards apply.
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building
gross floor area.
The proposed 8,946 sf building requires a minimum of 534 sf of Site Amenity space. The
submitted materials do not identify any site amenities. However, there appear to be at least
two areas that could potentially qualify as the required Site Amenity depending on which
amenity type the applicant selects.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to identify the location and type of the
proposed Site Amenity. Once identified, Staff recommends the Board review whether all
required components of the selected amenity type are met so that a determination on this
criterion can be made.
(b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as:
(i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit;
(ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or
(iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit.
The proposed development does not include any residential development.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
#SP-24-30
7
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards
shall apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
The property contains a wetland, wetland buffer, and river corridor. The river corridor is
contained entirely within the wetland and wetland buffer. The applicant is proposing to
avoid permanent impacts to the wetland buffer.
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the
placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open
space, stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design
pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
These standards are contained in Article 13 and are discussed below.
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and
circulation standards of Section 15.A.14.
Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this
application. The applicable sections of 15.A.14 follow.
15.A.14 (D) Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest
signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an
overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated
impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of
service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service
of “D” or better at full buildout.
As part of a previous application for development at the subject property, the applicant
had provided a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) evaluating the potential impact on
adjoining street. This is not standard practice, and traffic studies are not typically
required to be submitted for projects of this scale.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant for the background of the traffic study
that was submitted as part of Site Plan application SP-22-20.
Staff further recommends that the Board clarify to the applicant that the LDRs require
that PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends estimated using the ITE database use the ‘fitted
curve’ where available, as opposed to the ‘average rate’. In this case, the proposed use
generates 36 trips as per the fitted curve, so traffic impact fees will be based on this
figure.
15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street
network is arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian
circulation standards under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under
Article 14, Transect Zone Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit
Development under Article 15.C; and, for state highways, VTrans Access Management
Program Guidelines in effect at the time of application. Unless otherwise specified
under these regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangement of
streets, must be designed to:
(1)-(6) not applicable
#SP-24-30
8
(7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians, including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and
accommodations for high-accident locations.
(8) Align access point with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate
existing access points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically
and functionally feasible.
Staff considers the pedestrian access to be adequate, and supports the proposed
driveway widths.
(9) Minimize vehicular access point (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building
lots along pedestrian oriented street frontage; and provide, where feasible, shared
vehicular access to frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side
streets, service lanes, shared driveways, or rear cross connections between
adjoining parcels.
The street network in this location is such that Bowdoin Street cannot be extended
much further due to the location of the interstate, and Meadowland Drive cannot be
extended much further due to the location of Muddy Brook and its associated
wetland complex. Because of the wetland to the west, no connection to the west
may occur. The northern property is occupied by the Department of Homeland
Security, and as such no cross lot connection to the north is recommended. The
applicant has provided a draft access easement deed to make a connection to this
lot, should it ever become feasible. Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved]
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the
Urban Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form
standards shall adhere to the standards contained therein.
Not applicable.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an
existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b)
Section 8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.15(D) in all other
zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related
street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable
Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the
requirements of these Regulations.
Staff considers Bowdoin Street and Meadowland Drive to be Industrial Access Roads,
which require a 10-ft wide recreation path and street trees. There are existing street trees
on both street frontages. There is an existing 8-ft rec path on the side of Meadowlands
Drive facing the subject property, and an existing 5-ft asphalt rec path on the side of
Bowdoin Street facing the subject property. Given the nature of the street and its limited
potential for expansion, Staff considers the existing facility to be sufficient and no
streetscape improvements to be required. However, as noted in the comments provided by
the Director of the Department of Public Works, there may be advantages to upgrading the
existing rec path facilities as part of this application. Staff recommends the Board discuss
that item under 10.07.G below. Staff considers this criterion met.
#SP-24-30
9
F. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for
provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to
reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for
emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area.
As discussed under 15.A.14.E(9) above, Staff considers no reservation of land to be
necessary.
G. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service
connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities
regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to
have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of
Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met.
Wire-served utilities are proposed to be underground.
The Director of the Department of Public Works reviewed these plans on 8/12/2024 and
offered the following comments.
1. The applicant will need to obtain wastewater and drinking water allocations and
connection permits for the proposed project.
2. Any work in an existing or proposed City ROW or easement must be constructed in
accordance with the South Burlington Public Works Standards and Specifications.
3. Is the applicant also proposing to sawcut and restore existing pavement for the
shared use path?
4. Lastly, I'd like to discuss the existing shared use path and asphalt sidewalk in this
area. Portions of this infrastructure were not built per the approved plans in the
original subdivision. They are also aging and in poor condition in some locations.
The roads in this area are still private, though we are working with the original
developer to accept them. I'd like to discuss opportunities to replace and improve
those sections of SUP / sidewalk that are adjacent to this project. With an animal
hospital proposed, and as a result many more dog walkers in the area, I think this
might be a worthwhile discussion.
6. Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss whether coordination with the Director
of Public Works shall be required prior to a potentially continued hearing.
The South Burlington Water Department Director reviewed the plans on 8/13/2024 and
offered the following comments.
1. Confirm diameter of existing water line crossing Meadowland Drive prior to new
water line construction.
2. Install two 45-degree bends on end of existing water line. Install new 8” gate valve
on downstream side of second 45-degree bend with Forest Adapter.
3. Refer to CWD Specifications for the installation of approved plastic pipe.
4. Recommend installing a pressure reducer after the water meter and before the
backflow device due to location of water service downstream, from the fire hydrant.
Property will be subject to significant pressure fluctuations when hydrant is used.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the
SBWD Director prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
H. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible,
#SP-24-30
10
secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not
escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public
(ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
The proposed dumpster location is to be screened, but Staff considers insufficient
information about the screening is provided to confirm whether this criterion is met. The
material is called out as “screen board or other material as per owners request.”
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to describe their specific proposal to
comply with this criterion prior to closing the hearing, which will then be incorporated as a
condition of approval.
C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading
F. Access management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and
pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the
number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such
driveways off public roadways. All applicants must make an effort to reduce these
impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential,
agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a
driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does
not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so
in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement
should be located where vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
As discussed above, Staff considers cross-lot connections to not be viable. However, in the
case of a site plan, the Board only has the authority to waive dimensional requirements.
The applicant has proposed a 25-ft wide access easement to the property to the north in
accordance with this requirement and has provided a draft easement document. However,
the location of this easement is not reflected on the submitted plans.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the submitted plan set to
include the location of this easement as a condition of approval.
G. Design requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting and Landscaping
(1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-
2 and Figure 13-1, Section 13.04, Landscaping , Screening, and Street Trees, and
Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or
otherwise physically delimited.
Dimensional requirements are met.
Parking lot landscaping and lighting are further discussed below.
(2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with
entering and existing traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between
vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas
shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public
street.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 8/22/2024 and had no comments.
#SP-24-30
11
(4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall
be separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian
circulation, including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its
approaches. The pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize
adverse effects of vehicular traffic on sidewalks and recreation paths.
The subject property includes two existing rec paths along the east and south
property lines. The applicant is proposing to construct a sidewalk network linking
the existing rec paths, proposed parking lot, and proposed building entrances. The
applicant is also proposing a gravel walking path to the southeast of the proposed
building. As such, Staff considers appropriate pedestrian accommodations have
been provided.
(5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.03
(6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not
limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking
spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area.
Stormwater management is discussed under 13.05 below.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
The applicant has provided four ‘inverted-U’ style bicycle racks, providing a total of eight short-
term bike parking spaces. The four racks will be divided between the primary customer entrance
and the staff entrance to the building in proximity to two of the building entrances. The applicant
has also provided two wall-mounted bike racks inside the building, easily accessible from the staff
entry to the proposed building. Staff considers these criteria met.
Required Bike Parking Required
Short Term (1 per 5k sf,
minimum 4)
4
Long Term (50% of short
term)
2
Clothes Lockers 1
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 8/7/2024 and offered the following comment.
Tree and Shrub Planting Details should be included.
10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the requested details for City Arborist
review prior to closing the hearing.
B. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street
parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and
landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as approved
by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to
allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection,
treatment and management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the
adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and
attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties.
(1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to
#SP-24-30
12
allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the
parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade
and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance
purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave
visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
The proposed parking area is proposed to be curbed except for on the northeast side. The
perimeter plantings are mostly proposed along the southeast and southwest sides of the
parking area.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces
and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of
the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other
plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking.
The applicant’s provided plan sheet identifies that approximately 11.5% of the interior of the
parking lot is landscaped islands. Two of those five islands include plantings.
11. Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss whether the five identified islands can
include additional plantings to better meet the above criterion.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically
designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per
13.04(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet
on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large
islands are encouraged.
There is no curbing protecting the proposed red maple at the northern-most part of the parking
lot.
12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to meet the curbing requirement along the
northern-most edge of the parking area.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff
or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed
evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed
a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
28 parking spaces are provided, requiring 6 shade trees. 5 shade trees are provided.
13. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an additional shade tree to
meet this requirement.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches
when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
Staff considers this criterion to be met.
#SP-24-30
13
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the
species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of
the parking lot and the site.
Staff considers this criterion to be inapplicable.
(e) Within the City Center FBC District, landscaping required within this section shall
not count towards meeting minimum landscape budget requirements as detailed in
Section 13.04(G).
This criterion is not applicable.
(7) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential
for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
Snow storage areas are shown on plan sheet C-2 (Exhibit 04). Staff considers the above
criterion to be met.
C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing,
land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that
a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a
property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement
or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-
family use abuts a residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is
adjacent to or visible from a public street.
Staff considers the project to be similar to adjacent uses and therefore no screening to be required.
D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses. In the case of non-residential and
multi-family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and
collector streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and
maintained in good appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and
promote stormwater infiltration are encouraged. The Development Review Board shall require
the applicant to meet the provisions of sections 13.04(F) and (G).
The applicant is proposing a minimum amount of landscaping in the two front yards – however,
Staff considers that this amount of landscaping is suitable.
G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are
cumulative; for example, a landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure
of three percent of the first $250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the
next $250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over
$500,000. The landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional
landscape designer.
The submitted estimated project cost is $4,337,500.00, which has an associated minimum
landscape budget of $50,875.00 The applicant has proposed $62,146.37 of landscaping features,
identified below.
Plants $ 47,063.00
Base Courses $ 2,272.20
Soil Stabilization $ 291.55
Grading $ 1,530.47
#SP-24-30
14
Concrete Finishing – Exposed Aggregate Walk $ 4,118.00
Exterior Specialties – Exterior Bench $ 5,875.05
Exterior Specialties – Adirondack Chairs $ 589.00
Exterior Specialties – Bird Houses $ 407.10
Total $ 62,146.37
The applicant has requested the value of all these elements be applied towards the minimum
required landscaping cost.
14. Staff recommends that the Board confirm the most recent overall project cost estimate, excluding
all equipment & machinery costs; discuss which of the landscaping elements other than “plants”
are an acceptable use of the landscaping budget funds; and direct the applicant to revise all
components of the proposed landscaping budget that are found to be unacceptable.
13.05 Stormwater Management
Stormwater standards apply when one-half acre or more of impervious surface exists or is
proposed to exist, and where 5,000 sf of impervious is created or reconstructed. The City
Stormwater Section reviewed the proposed plans on 8/23/2024 and offers the following comments.
1. The planting plan shows a gravel path that is not included on other plans. How much
impervious is this adding and how is this area to be captured and sent to the proposed
treatment practice? It is also shown going over the swale to the east of the proposed
building, which will likely cause the path to erode as it will be subjected to channelized
flow from the swale.
2. Please update the EPSC plan to show the updated stormwater infrastructure layout,
including the two catch basins and one yard drain near the entrance of the parking lot.
These structures will need inlet protection during construction.
3. The EPSC plan does not show the actual limits of construction. The catch basin circled
below on Meadowland Dr is being constructed as part of this project and thus will require
EPSC measures to prevent spread of sediment on Meadowland Dr.
4. Materials used for construction shall conform to the South Burlington Public Works
Standards and Specifications, dated April 18, 2024.
15. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City
Stormwater Section prior to closing the hearing.
13.07 Exterior Lighting
Lighting requirements are summarized as follows.
(1) Fixtures must be downcast and shielded
(2) Illumination must be evenly distributed
(3) Fixtures must be placed to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance
(4) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar
structural material, with a decorative surface or finish
(5) Poles & building mounted fixtures may be no higher than 30-ft
(6) Poles must be located in safe locations
Specific requirements for maximum illumination levels are included in Appendix A and are limited
to 3 foot candles average at ground level. The applicant has provided a photometric drawing
indicating this criterion is met. The proposed lighting plan does include some spill-over onto
#SP-24-30
15
Meadowland Drive, however, this occurs at a location where an existing shared use path crosses
the driveway and additional illumination is desirable. Staff considers this amount of indirect glare
to be inconsequential and considers these criteria met.
13.11 Fences
The applicant is proposing to fence two ‘pet relief areas’ in front of the building on the Bowdoin
Street side. The applicant has not provided details for the style or height of these proposed fences.
16. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to provide details for the proposed fence to
demonstrate compliance with fence criteria prior to closing the hearing.
13.12 Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures
Staff considers that proposed transformer will be effectively screened from the street and all
abutting properties.
3.18 Energy Standards
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.18: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. This now includes installation of a rooftop
solar photovoltaic system.
The proposed building is also subject to the renewable heating/water heating ordinance and is
required to provide plans that demonstrate how the building and the water supply will be heated
without the use of a fossil-fuel-based system.
The applicant is aware of both of these requirements and will provide more specific plans
identifying how compliance with these criteria will be achieved prior to issuance of a Zoning
Permit. The applicant has identified a solar-ready zone as part of this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified
herein and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner