HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SP-19-02_435 Dorset St_Champlain Housing Trust_SC#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
1
1 of 9
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐02_435 Dorset St_Champlain Housing Trust_2019‐
03‐05.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 1, 2019
Plans received: February 5, 2019
435 Dorset Street
Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐02
Meeting date: March 5, 2019
Owner/Applicant
Champlain Housing Trust
88 King Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Landscape Architect
T.J. Boyle and Associates
310 College Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0570‐00435
Residential 7 District
14.8 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP‐19‐02 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previously approved site plan for
a 104 unit multi‐building residential complex. The amendment is for approval to revise the landscape
plan by removing trees, 435 Dorset Street.
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
2
2 of 9
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is within the Residential 7 district. The existing multi‐building residential complex was
approved in 1977. Documents available from the original approval show there was discussion around
preserving large clusters of existing trees. Staff has concluded based on available documentation that
the majority of existing trees were in place prior to construction of the buildings.
In 2007, the Zoning Administrative Officer issued a notice of violation to the then‐owner of the property
for clearing of trees and placement of fill without a zoning permit. The notice of violation was appealed.
For reasons outlined in the decision on the appeal, the DRB determined that the approved landscaping
plan was the vegetation which existed on the property prior to the 2007 tree removal. The DRB upheld
the Zoning Administrative Officers notice of violation, and the owner then filed an application for
amended site plan. The amended site plan required trees to be replaced, and established a new
approved landscaping plan, which was used as the base map for this application.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) has reviewed the plans submitted on 2/5/2019 and
offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The Applicant has described in their cover letter the reasons for requesting the DRB allow the trees to
be removed. Staff considers the cover letter speaks for itself and has included it in the packet for the
Board.
PUBLIC NOTICES
While acknowledging the abutter list and mailing abutter notices are wholly the responsibility of the
applicant, Staff has noted based on the provided plans and the abutter list that the applicant may have missed
notification to Oakwood Homeowners Association and Goyette‐Wehrlin, both abutters to the northwest
corner of the property.
Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether these abutters were missed and if they were,
Staff considers the Board should determine whether to proceed with reviewing the application. If the Board
continues to proceed should continue the hearing instead of closing it to allow abutters to be provided with
7‐day notice of the continued hearing.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The Applicant is not requesting any modifications to the site layout that affect compliance with zoning
district or dimensional requirements.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
3
3 of 9
for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is located within the Central District in the Plan. Objectives of the Central District are as
follows.
Objective 41. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic and people‐oriented City Center with a strong
identity and “sense of place” that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of
residential and non‐residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining
neighborhoods.
Objective 42. Establish vibrant streetscapes, civic spaces, public art and public facilities in the
Central District and City Center.
Objective 43. Reserve and establish open space areas for public enjoyment, natural resource
conservation, and stormwater management, including a greenbelt along Potash Brook.
Objective 44. Complete master planning for City Center to create opportunities for low impact
stormwater management that incorporates sustainable design and green infrastructure.
Objective 45. Conserve and protect existing nearby residential areas.
Objective 46. Minimize overall demand for parking in the Central District through design,
regulations, and investments that foster pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use and provide
efficient, aesthetically pleasing shared parking options.
Objective 47. Promote interconnectivity and integration of public facilities including schools and
school facilities open to the public with surrounding neighborhoods, to include safe routes for
children and neighborhood residents to walk and bicycle to school, a public library, recreation
services, and other city services.
1. Staff recommends the Board consider these objectives in making their determination on this
application.
B. 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.
No changes to the structures are proposed.
2. Staff recommends the Board consider the adequacy of planting to remain when making a
determination on this application.
(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.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
(ii) – (vii) N/A
No changes to the existing parking are proposed.
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
4
4 of 9
C. 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.
(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.
Staff notes that this property, the property across the street (Tuttle middle school) and property to the
north (Town Square Apartments) all have similar‐scaled trees, and that the trees function as a unifying
feature between these different styles and also mark a boundary between the heart of City Center (the
FBC district) and this part of the City.
3. Staff recommends the Board consider these criteria in making their determination on this
application.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. 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 changes to access to abutting properties are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. 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 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
No new utility connections are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met.
C. 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 (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
The existing waste disposal locations will continue to be used. Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening
shall be required for all uses subject to site plan review. In evaluating landscaping, screening and street tree
plan requirements, the Development Review Board shall promote the retention of existing trees while
encouraging the use of recommended plant species.
The applicant has provided the City with a plan showing existing vegetation and the sizes which existed
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
5
5 of 9
in 2008. This plan was prepared in response to the aforementioned zoning violation, appeal of the
zoning violation, and subsequent appeal to the State environmental court. With the exception of a
small area of vegetation planted along the northern property boundary, based on available
documentation Staff believes that the existing trees were retained from prior to development of the
project (see attached 1977 correspondence between the County Forester, the Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Zoning Administrative Officer).
The DRB, in making it’s 2008 decision on the appeal of the notice of violation for tree clearing relied on
what has become LDR 13.06(I). In 2008, the pertinent regulation stated:
Landscape Maintenance: Maintenance and responsibility. All plantings shown on an
approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition
throughout the duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new
plants at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season.
This section has since been amended to add the following:
Trees with a caliper of less than 5” may be replaced on an inch‐by‐inch basis with trees of the
same genus of at least 2” caliper each. No permit shall be required for such replacements
provided they conform to the approved site plan. Replacement of trees with a caliper of
greater than 5” shall require an amendment to the site plan.
In addition to the above standard, there are several other sections of Article 13 which speak to
landscaping screening and buffering, landscaping along front yards, and landscaping around parking
areas. Landscaping screening and buffering is required between dissimilar uses, and front yard of multi‐
family uses are required to be sufficiently landscaped and maintained in good appearance. There are
required to be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan, and the applicant is
required to comply with any Tree Ordinance in effect. The City Tree Ordinance pertains only to trees in
the public realm or trees in the private realm affecting the public realm thus staff considers it not
applicable.
4. Staff considers that by removing the trees, the applicant would not be maintaining them in a
“vigorous growing condition” and thus the proposed tree removal would not meet the standard
of 13.06(I). Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what measures are
necessary to maintain a vigorous growing condition,” potentially to include selective thinning
and limbing.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5)
feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
5. Staff considers the limitations of the site do not preclude compliance with the site plan standards
therefore the Development Review Board should not modify the standards. That is not to say the
Board should not interpret the standards referenced in 14.7D immediately above to allow some
tree maintenance or removal to support the overall landscaping health.
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
6
6 of 9
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
It does not appear the property contains any active LID practices. The presence of a robust vegetative
canopy may have some positive impact on stormwater management. However, Staff considers the
proposed project does not affect compliance with this criterion.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
standards for all PUDs.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
No change to water or wastewater demand is proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has not provided any proposed erosion prevention and sediment control plan.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to maintain compliance with the erosion
control standards of Article 16.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
The access will remain unchanged for the property. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on
the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural
Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
7
7 of 9
It appears there may be wetlands on the northwest corner of the property. However Staff
considers that the proposed tree clearing is outside the wetland buffer and therefore the
provisions of Article 12 are not applicable.
The Natural Resources Committee has provided a comment letter recommending the applicant
be required to consider tree maintenance to a larger degree instead of tree removal. The letter
from the Natural Resources Committee is included in the packet for the Board.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in
the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in
which it is located.
The purpose of the zoning district is stated as follows.
A Residential 7 District is hereby formed to encourage high‐density residential use. The
district is located in areas that are near shopping areas, schools, and public
transportation facilities and that are served by roads capable of carrying high traffic
volumes. Offices and specified other commercial uses may be permitted within the
district in locations that have direct access to arterial and collector streets and that
will not adversely affect residential properties.
Comprehensive plan objectives are described in criterion 14.06A above. Staff considers visual
compatibility is thoroughly addressed by other applicable criteria and has no further concerns
specific to this criterion.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The location of open space areas is not affected by the proposed project. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular
access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,
and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
Staff considers this criterion is not affected by the proposed project.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Staff considers the proposed landscaping changes don’t affect the extension of infrastructure to
adjoining properties.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
8
8 of 9
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
No changes to public infrastructure are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review
standard 14.06A above.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and
integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to
generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and
groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.
From the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
(https://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/cwi/green‐infrastructure/gsi/evaptrans):
Trees protect water and soil resources by reducing the amount of runoff and pollutant
loading through evapotranspiration, interception and infiltration.
Staff considers that based on the greater surface area of vegetative matter available for
evapotranspiration and interception, it is likely that tree cover has some incremental
improvement over grass cover, but Staff has not identified any studies which specifically
quantify the impact of tree cover vs. well maintained vegetated areas on runoff1.
OTHER
Bicycle Parking
The minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for the property is 11 spaces based on 104 residential
units. Section 13.14B(1)(b) allows existing bicycle racks to be counted towards the minimum
requirements if they meet certain standards. At the time of the first site plan application, the applicant
must provide at least 50% of the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces.
Staff believes there are no existing bicycle racks that meet the standard.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant where they wish to place their minimum
of 6 (50% of 11) bicycle parking spaces, and include this requirement as a condition of approval.
Staff notes the racks must meet the minimum spacing and siting standards of LDR Section
1 One study concluded that in urban locations with vegetated cover greater than 25%, the
improvement in evapotranspiration improves slightly with increase in cover, but in locations
with cover less than 25%, a small change in cover has a high impact on evapotranspiration. The
study did not take into consideration grass vs. tree cover. Grimmond, Christine & Oke, T. (1999).
Evapotranspiration rates in urban areas. IAHS‐AISH Publication. 259.
#SP‐19‐02
Staff Comments
9
9 of 9
13.14B(2), and the applicant will be required to place the remainder of the required bicycle
parking spaces as part of their next site plan approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner