HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-24-32 - Supplemental - 0095 Swift Street#SP-24-32
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-24-32_95 Swift Street_City of SB_SC_2024-09-17
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 11, 2024
Plans received: August 1, 2024
95 SWIFT STREET – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-24-32
Meeting date: September 17, 2024
Owner/Applicant
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Plan Preparer
City of South Burlington
104 Landfill Rd
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax ID 1700-00095
Park & Recreation Zoning District, Wetland Advisory
Overlay District, 500 Year Flood Zone B2 Overlay
District, 500 Year Flood Zone B1 Overlay District,
River Corridor Overlay District, Habitat Block Overlay
District
Location Map
PROJECT DESRIPTION
Site plan application #SP-24-32 of the City of South Burlington to amend an existing plan for a
park. The amendment consists of expanding the dog park and reconfiguring the parking lot, and
related site improvements, 95 Swift St.
SP-24-26
2
CONTEXT
The applicant is proposing to make improvements to the dog park area of the parcel at 95 Swift
Street, also know as Farrell Park. There is an existing dog park which is periodically closed due to
muddy conditions. This application proposes to expand and re-grade the park. It also proposes
improvements to the existing shared use path, parking area, and driveway, which are irregularly
shaped and undifferentiated. The applicant proposes to complete the work by Fall 2025.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner,
hereafter referred to as ‘Staff’, have reviewed the plans submitted on August 1, 2024 and offer the
following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The subject property is in the Parks & Recreation Zoning District (PR). Park is a permitted use.
Park & Recreation Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size (non-residential) None 21.87 acres No change
Max. Building Coverage 15 % 0% No change
Max. Overall Coverage 25 % 7.4% 6.9%
Min. Front Setback 40 ft. n/a n/a
Min. Side Setback 15 ft. n/a n/a
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. n/a n/a
Max Height, flat roof 35 ft. n/a n/a
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
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:
The applicant is proposing to improve an existing use. Tree planting both within the dog park
and demarcating the edge of the parking lot and vehicular and pedestrian circulation is proposed
to be improved.
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along
the street.
No buildings are proposed. The applicant is proposing a row of street trees within a green
strip between the rec path and the vehicular way.
(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.
No buildings are proposed.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
SP-24-26
3
The proposed development is flush with the ground, therefore Staff considers there to be no
“scale” to the proposed development.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
Staff considers the project to specifically achieve this objective, realigning to the rec path to
be distinct from the vehicular way for approximately 200-ft.
(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.
No buildings are proposed.
(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.
(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.
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation
There is no building for the parking to be located to the rear of side of. The principal use
of the lot is for public recreation. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
No buildings are proposed.
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.
No buildings are proposed.
(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.
No buildings are proposed.
(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.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features
that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side
and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
Not applicable.
C. Site Amenity Requirement.
SP-24-26
4
(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.
This project does not meet any of these three criteria; as such, there is no Site Amenity
requirement associated with this project.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
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 project is proposing to impact Class III wetland and their buffers. Article 12 standards are
reviewed below.
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 those that are applicable are discussed below.
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and
circulation standards of Section 15.A.14.
15.A.14 pertains to street design. While the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the access
drive and parking area, this does not constitute a street and therefore these standards are not
applicable. Design of shared use paths is governed by the Department of Public Works
Specifications, which mandate 10-ft width. There is no specified separation from the travel way.
The applicant is proposing a 10-ft wide grass strip planted with oak trees. Staff considers this
criterion met.
D. [Reserved for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)]
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.
No buildings are proposed.
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 3.11(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.
SP-24-26
5
No structures are proposed therefore Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
G. 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.
No modifications to access to abutting properties is proposed. Staff considers this criterion to
be not applicable.
H. 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.
No wire served utilities are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable.
I. Disposal of Wastes.
All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any
recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, 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 (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum)
shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
No solid waste facilities are proposed.
C) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
12.01 General Protection Standards, Classifications and Review Procedures
B. Classification. For the purposes of these Regulations, resources are grouped into Hazards,
Level I and Level II Resources.
The applicant is proposing impacts to Class II wetland buffers in the form of grading (max change
1.0 ft) and removal and installation of fencing. Class II wetland buffers are considered a Hazard.
Development within Class II wetland buffers is generally prohibited, except as described below.
The applicant has not proposed which permitting pathway they are using to seek approval for
the proposed wetland buffer impacts. Staff considers the most appropriate pathway to seek
approval to be through 12.06F Modifications, and has provided an analysis below. Some types
of development are permitted to seek approval as Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, but
Staff does not consider that to be applicable in this case.
C. Applicability of Standards.
All development must comply with the provisions of this Article, unless otherwise exempted,
in order to prevent undue adverse effects on ecological resources, water quality and working
lands, unless explicitly waived or amended in this section. The following development is
exempt from review under this Section:
(1) Construction of fences
The applicant is proposing primarily to remove fence within the wetland buffer while adding
approximately two feet of new fence within the wetland buffer. This is exempt from review
under natural resource protection standards.
SP-24-26
6
12.06 Wetland Protection Standards
D. Standards for Wetlands Protection.
(1) Class I and Class II Wetlands. Development is generally prohibited within Class I
wetlands, Class II wetlands, and their associated buffers. All lands within a Class I wetlands,
Class II wetlands, and their associated buffers, shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally
vegetated condition. However, an applicant may seek approval for a Restricted Infrastructure
Encroachment under this section or to modify this standard per the regulations in Section
12.06(F).
(2) Class III Wetlands Not applicable.
(3) Landscaping and Fencing. Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the outside
perimeter of the wetlands buffer to clearly identify and protect wetlands buffer. The DRB
may waive this requirement, if petitioned by the applicant, if there is existing forest and/or
landscaping along the border of wetland buffer or other clear, existing demarcation. The
design and installation of any such landscaping or fencing must accommodate wildlife
passage.
There is pre-existing fencing demarcating the perimeter of the existing wetland buffer impacts.
No changes to the horizontal extent of impacts is proposed.
(4) Pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures and impervious surfaces.
(a) Gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures, and impervious surfaces located within
a wetlands buffer that were legally in existence as of the effective date of these
regulations shall be considered non-conforming development. Non-conforming
development within a wetlands buffer may not be expanded.
This area is developed as lawn. No horizontal expansion is proposed.
(5) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment may be
allowed within Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands, and their associated buffers, without
a waiver or modification provided that the applicant demonstrates the project’s
compliance with Section 12.02 and the following supplemental standards:
No restricted infrastructure encroachment is proposed.
E. Exemptions.
The following activities are not required to meet the standards in this section and do not require a local
permit:
(1) Maintenance of Pre-Existing Gardens, Landscaped Areas/Lawns, Structures and Impervious
Surfaces. Maintenance of pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures and
impervious surfaces located within a wetlands buffer, and that were legally in existence as of the
effective date of these regulations, does not require a permit.
Staff does not consider the proposed impacts to fall under the heading of maintenance, but provides
this criterion as background for the Board.
F. Modifications.
(1) Types of Development. An applicant may request a modification, in writing, from the rules of
this section for any development in the following areas only:
(a) Development in a Class II wetland and associated buffer within the Form-Based Code
Zoning Districts. Not applicable
SP-24-26
7
(b) Re-development of pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, public infrastructure,
structures, and impervious surfaces within a Class II wetland buffer in any zoning district
if;
Staff considers the applicant’s proposed grading to fall within this set of criteria.
(i) The resulting total area of lands within the wetland buffer that will be in a naturally
vegetated condition is increased;
This criterion does not appear to be met. The applicant has not proposed to expand the
tree area, and in fact, while the proposed conditions plan does not specifically call out
vegetation removal, there is an area of regrading shown within the existing tree line
therefore it can be assumed that vegetation removal is proposed to take place.
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they will address this
criterion. The Board may wish to evaluate whether they will permit improvement in
the quality of the natural vegetation to meet this criterion if the applicant makes such a
proposal.
(ii) The applicant submits an evidence-based professional opinion by a wetland scientist
that the re-development will have a net positive effect on the health and functioning of
the wetland; and
The applicant has provided a letter from the State Wetland Ecologist indicating that the
proposed grading qualifies as an allowed use (ie does not require a state wetland
permit). This letter does not meet this criterion, and in fact, no statement has been made
that the re-development will have a net positive effect on the health or function of the
wetland.
2. Based on a review of correspondence with the State Wetland Ecologist, Staff considers
it may not be possible to meet this criterion unless the applicant proposes
improvements to the wetland. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to
describe how they will meet this criterion.
(iii) The project results in no increase in total impervious surface within the Class II wetland
buffer.
A slight reduction in impervious of approximately 120 sf is proposed. This criterion is
met.
(c) Installation of low-impact development stormwater practices consistent with wetland
functions and plantings with a Class II or Class III wetland buffer.
Not applicable.
(d) Development in a Class III wetland exceeding 5,000 square feet in area and associated
buffer within all zoning districts.
Not applicable.
(2) Modification Review Process. Modification requests shall be reviewed as follows:
(a) In the City Center Form Based Code District, the Administrative Officer shall have the
authority to review and approve all modification applications as part of an administrative
Site Plan application.
(b) In all other zoning districts, the Development Review Board shall have the authority to
review and approve all modification requests.
This application is being reviewed by the DRB as required.
SP-24-26
8
(3) Modification Standards. The Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer, as
applicable, may grant a modification from the rules of this Section only if a modification
application meets all the following standards:
(a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed
development;
Based on a review of the provided correspondence with the State Wetland Ecologist, Staff
considers this criterion to be met.
(b) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the planned character
of the area, as defined by the purpose statement of the zoning district within which the
project is located, or on public health and safety;
Staff considers this criterion to be met.
(c) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the
property to adequately treat stormwater from the site; and,
Staff considers this criterion to be met.
(d) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon specific wetland
functions and values identified in the field delineation.
3. The applicant has not provided a field delineation report therefore compliance with this
criterion cannot be evaluated. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to enumerate
the specific functions and values of the wetland and state why they believe this criterion to be
met for each of the functions and values.
D) OTHER APPLICABLE CRITERIA
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
B. Landscaping of Parking Areas.
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
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.
As discussed above, as a public recreation use, the parking is permitted to be to the front
of the use. Trees are proposed.
(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
SP-24-26
9
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.
Not applicable.
(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.
The purpose of this criterion is protection of parking lot vegetation and protection of
pedestrians. There is a 10-ft wide green strip between the parking and the shared use path.
The standard width is 5-ft.
4. The applicant has proposed 6” asphalt curb between the gravel parking and the vegetated
strip. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how this is a long-term
viable option. If something is on the approved site plan, it must be maintained in good
condition otherwise the property is considered to be in violation.
(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.
(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.
Criterion (b) is met with the proposal of six oak trees for eight parking spaces. Staff considers
with the limited number of trees proposed that there is not a need for a variety of species.
The City Arborist reviewed the provided plans on September 5 and offers the following
comments.
• I would suggest changing the species to Swamp White Oak, Quercus bicolor
‘Beacon’. This is a native, columnar oak cultivar that is hardier than English Oak
• Need to specify that the soil in the tree planting strip will have to be mechanically loosened
to a depth of 2-2.5 feet and amended to alleviate compaction and provide soil adequate
to support tree growth
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the City
Arborist as conditions of approval.
(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.
This criterion is met.
(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.
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 required to be shown on a plan. The applicant has provided separate
SP-24-26
10
snow storage map. Staff considers this criterion met.
13.05 Stormwater Management
B. Applicability.
(1) These regulations will apply to all development within the City of South Burlington
where one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist
on an applicant’s lot or parcel.
(2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or
substantial reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then
the application is exempt from requirements in this Section 13.05.
This project does not propose to construct or redevelop more than 5,000 sf of impervious
surface and is therefore not subject to the stormwater requirements of the LDRs.
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
showing peak illumination levels at 2.5 footcandles and below and a fixture height of 15 ft. Staff
considers these criteria met.
13.13 Signs
Signs are subject to separate ordinance and must be removed from the plans and permitted
separately, even if it is only the relocation of an existing sign. Staff recommends the Board include
a condition of approval requiring removal of the existing and proposed sign from the plans.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner