FINDINGS OF FACT

On the 10th day of October  2018 the Colchester Development Review Board partially approved the preliminary plat application of Severance Family Holdings and HI LLC for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on a 63 acre consisting of: 1) Lot #1 to be 4.53 acres to be developed with 62 units of congregate housing 2) Lot #2 to be 1.55 acres to be developed with 46 units of congregate housing; 3) Lot #3 to be a 3.11 acres parcel to be developed with a 17,300 sq. ft. general office building; 4) Lot #4 to be a 2.65 acre parcel developed with six multi-family dwellings; 5) Lot #5 to be a 3.32 acre parcel to be developed with 59 multi-family dwellings; 6) Lot #6 to be a 9.84 acre parcel to be developed with 36 multi-family dwellings; 7) Lot #7 to be a 6.22 acre parcel developed with 19 multi-family dwellings; 8) Lot #8 to be a 2.21 acre parcel to be developed with 49 multi-family dwellings; 9) Lot #9 to be .65 acres to be developed with a 4,230 sq. ft. large daycare facility; 10) Lot #10 to be a 4.05 acre parcel to be developed with 69 multi-family dwellings; 11) Lot #11 to be a 1.66 acre parcel to be developed with 35 multi-family units in two buildings; 12) Lot#12 to be 13.56 acres to be a community recreation area; 13) Lot #13 to be .20 acres to be developed with a bus stop located on Roosevelt  Highway and Severance Road; 14) Lot #14 to be 1.5 acres to be developed with 35 multi-family units; and 15) Lot #15 1.95 acres to be developed with 59 multi-family units located at 0 Roosevelt Highway, tax map 8, parcel 38-2.  

1.         DISCUSSION

This project consists of a preliminary plat plan application of Severance Family Holdings and HI LLC for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on a 63 acre consisting of: 1) Lot #1 to be 4.53 acres to be developed with 62 units of congregate housing 2) Lot #2 to be 1.55 acres to be developed with 46 units of congregate housing; 3) Lot #3 to be a 3.11 acres parcel to be developed with a 17,300 sq. ft. general office building; 4) Lot #4 to be a 2.65 acre parcel developed with six multi-family dwellings; 5) Lot #5 to be a 3.32 acre parcel to be developed with 59 multi-family dwellings; 6) Lot #6 to be a 9.84 acre parcel to be developed with 36 multi-family dwellings; 7) Lot #7 to be a 6.22 acre parcel developed with 19 multi-family dwellings; 8) Lot #8 to be a 2.21 acre parcel to be developed with 49 multi-family dwellings; 9) Lot #9 to be .65 acres to be developed with a 4,230 sq. ft. large daycare facility; 10) Lot #10 to be a 4.05 acre parcel to be developed with 69 multi-family dwellings; 11) Lot #11 to be a 1.66 acre parcel to be developed with 35 multi-family units in two buildings; 12) Lot#12 to be 13.56 acres to be a community recreation area; 13) Lot #13 to be .20 acres to be developed with a bus stop located on Roosevelt  Highway and Severance Road; 14) Lot #14 to be 1.5 acres to be developed with 35 multi-family units; and 15) Lot #15 1.95 acres to be developed with 59 multi-family units located at 0 Roosevelt Highway, tax map 8, parcel 38-2.  

The property is located within the Designated Growth Center at Severance Corners.  The property is located within the General Development Three District and is bounded on the west by Roosevelt Highway and single-family residences, on the north by an agricultural operation, on the east by vacant agricultural land and lands of the State of Vermont, and on the south by Severance Road.  The Water Protection Overlay District is present on the parcel.

The preliminary plat application was for consideration under Sections 4.03, 9.05B,C,D,I,Q,R,S & T, and 9.07C and D of the Development Regulations only at this time.  An additional preliminary plat application shall be required to address the remaining sections of 9.05 and 9.07 of the Development Regulations within 12 months. It should be noted that there two proposed private drives that serve lots six and ten.  These drives should be categorized as C Streets.  The designation for form based code streets should occur regardless of public or private designations with the exception of parking areas.

The applicant requested a recess from September 12^th and has revised the submittal to obtain approval for the overall project through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process providing details on infrastructure, lots, and potential uses.  Individual buildings will be submitted for review at a later time through the site plan and final plat amendment process.  The PUD will govern the overall development including such things as lot size modifications, internal setback waivers, or other PUD modifications.  The applicant provided some building information to evaluate how potential future site plans may or may not meet the requirements of Section 4.03 of the Regulations.

As of the date of issuance of the Findings of Fact and Order the following person(s) have obtained interested party status:

            1.  Gene Button, 2497 Roosevelt Highway, Colchester, Vermont 05446

The following is an excerpt from the minutes of October 10, 2018

Paul Simon, Development Manager for the Housing Initiative, Kevin Riseck, architect with Centerline Architects, and Mark Severance with Severance Family Holdings were present on behalf of the preliminary plat application.

The presentation included, but was not limited to, the following:

·       The property is located within the Designated Growth Center at Severance Corners.  The property is located within the GD3 District.

• Applicant shared history of Severance family ownership.
• Goal is to provide affordable housing with the “Building Homes Together” program.
• The site will consist of tiny townhouses, townhomes, condos, apartments, and senior ADA-accessible housing (475 units total).
• Other facilities include office space, daycare facility, and a community room for social, recreational, and educational activities.

·       Form based zoning should be implemented in this area although land constraints prevent traditional FBC design.

·       The project consists of both B and C Streets with A Street along Roosevelt Highway.

·       Two proposed private drives will serve lots six and ten and should be categorized as C Streets.

·       Individual buildings will be submitted for review at a later time through the site plan and final plat amendment process.

·       The applicant provided some building information to evaluate how potential future site plans may or may not meet the requirements.

·       Proposed buildings on B Streets will meet side and rear setbacks but not front, frontage build out, or stories for building form.

·       A network of sidewalks and pedestrian facilities with exercise stations, public art, community gardens and more are shown to serve the project.

·       The proposed project exceeds 50 units and will be required to have an active recreational amenity. Active and passive recreational amenities are provided.

·       Applicant has met with the Army Corp of Engineers to design a less impactful plan on the wetlands.

·       Phase 1 office, phase 2 and 11 senior housing, phase 3 and 9 town homes, phase 4 workforce housing (49 units), phase 5 and 6 are townhouses and condos, phase 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 are multifamily housing, phase 10 is a daycare building.

·       The longest building will be 250’ long and 2 multifamily buildings will be 246’ in length.

·       As the project proceeds, applicants will continue to address green infrastructure.

• Applicant has met with the State to possibly merge the bus shelter with the State right of way, but merger is looking unlikely.

·       Currently, Route 2/7 is labelled as an A Street. Applicants would like to work with the Planning Commission to label the Street as a B or C Street.

·       Applicants have expressed concern with not being able to be able to meet the 0-18’ setback on lots.

·       Applicant is seeking approval of lot sizes as a PUD.

·       The architecture is a modernized colonial style while using efficient design.

The Board reviewed the preliminary plat application. 

Z. Bludevich appreciated the passion of the project. M. Palmer asked about price points for the affordable housing. P. Simon stated that if 20% of the housing is $250,000 or less, the plan will not require Act 250 approval. The applicants are hoping to provide 40% affordable housing.

Gene Button, 2497 Roosevelt Highway, discussed concern about the north property line and residents crossing over onto his property.  P. Simon responded that the plan will include a fence behind the multi-family houses closes to the property line to prevent that.  

A motion was made by Z. Bludevich and seconded by A. MacDonald to close the public hearing.  The motion passed with a vote of 4 - 0.

In deliberative session, a motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by Z. Bludevich to approve the partial preliminary plat with conditions.   The motion passed with a vote of 4 - 0.

II.        FINDINGS OF FACT

The Development Review Board has found that the project will not have any adverse effects as defined by the criteria listed in the Town of Colchester Development Regulations.

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

Section 4.03A Purpose of General Development Three GD3: The purpose of the district is to facilitate a development pattern and interconnected street network within the Severance Corners Form Base District that is modeled on traditional New England downtowns.  The district shall be characterized by higher-density, mixed use, multi-story buildings that can accommodate retail, office, commercial, light industrial, civic and residential uses.  The proposed project has a higher density mixed use base however details of proposed buildings have not been submitted to evaluate if buildings will be set close to the sidewalk with entrances, storefronts and windows facing the street. The Board found the application meets this criterion.

Section 4.03B Municipal Plan: The proposed project is within the Severance Corners Growth Center neighborhood as detailed in the 2014 Town Plan.  The GD3 Zoning for this area is stated as promoting dense, mixed use village type development.  The first policy of this neighborhood is that form based zoning should be implemented in the growth center to create higher densities and additional commercial development.  The project increases densities and introduces commercial development to the project site as currently configured.  The Board found the application complies with this criterion.

Section 4.03C Allowed Uses: It is unclear if the project is meeting this requirement.  The applicant has provided street types for evaluation of uses permitted on ground floors versus upper floors.  Multi-family on the first floor of B streets will require conditional use.  It is recommended that a conditional use application occur with the final plat application.  All other uses are permitted.  The applicant should note the requirement in Section 4.03 Table 5B that the total frontage for B Streets within a development shall not be more than 50% multifamily in use on the ground floor.  The subsequent preliminary plat application should provide a calculation for the total B Street length within the project and the frontage of buildings on B Streets that will have residential on the first floor.  It was noted that institutional care facilities are not residential for this purpose.  The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 4.03D Establishment of Street Types: The project consists of both B and C Streets with A Street along Roosevelt Highway (although depicted as a C Street). The Board found the application meets this criterion.

Section 4.03E Classification of Streets: Not more than 50% of the total length of new streets shall be classified as C Streets.  The applicant proposed both B and C Streets with frontages along Roosevelt Highway remaining A Street (even though the plan depicts as a C Street). It should be noted that commercial is not allowed along C Streets.  No more than 50% of the total length of street will be C Street. The plan shall be revised to show Roosevelt Highway as A Street.  The Board found the application complies with modifications with this criterion.

Section 4.03F Block Standards: No block on an A or B Street shall exceed total perimeter length of 1,600 feet.  Any block site on an A or B Street longer than 400 feet shall be broken up by a right of way allowing at minimum trough pedestrian connections. No lots exceed 1,600 linear feet.  The largest buildings appear to be approximately 200 feet long.  As projects move through site plan, if a building approaches 400 feet in length, it should be broken up by pedestrian connections at a minimum. The Board found the application complies with this criterion.

Section 4.03G Development Standards: The development standards are set forth in a series of tables (2 - 6).  The applicant  provided a synopsis of how the project is anticipated to comply with these regulations as well as renderings of the buildings.  The project can be only generally reviewed for conformance at this time.  As individual buildings are proposed and site plan applications submitted, building elevations should be submitted to evaluate conformance with this section of the regulations.  Parking cannot be reviewed at this time and is best done at the time of site plan application and review.  Parking review requires detailed landscaping plans and green infrastructure to address stormwater.  These details are also not provided at this time.  The applicant has provided information on building placement that allows for some review of compliance with Tables 2, 3, and 4 at this time. 

Table 2 provides for building placement on A Streets.  The project’s frontage on Roosevelt counts as an A Street.  The Conformance Comparison Analysis provided by the applicant does not list conformance with A Street requirements.  Lots 2, 3, 4, and 13 all front on an A Street.  Lot 4 does not conform as it is multi-family dwellings that are not permissible on the ground floor of an A Street.  This lot is out of place with the adjacent commercial uses and the placement between an office lot and a stormwater pond.  Lot 13 appears to be solely created for a bus shelter.  The applicant should consider merging this area with the State’s right of way and eliminating the lot.  Lot 2 may also be able to meet the dimensional requirements for A Street including frontage.  Lot 3 does not meet any of the requirements of Table 2 A Streets. Lot widths and depths may be changed per the PUD requirements.  Lot coverage does not exceed 90% for these lots.  Frontage build out is not met for the A Streets.  Building height requirements cannot be evaluated as the ground floor and upper floor ceiling and facade heights are not provided for the buildings on Lots 3 and 4 specifically.

Table 3 provides for building placement on B Streets.  The applicant stated that the proposed buildings will meet side and rear setbacks but not front, frontage build out, or stories for building form.  The setback range for B Streets is 0 to 18 feet.  The entrance drive between Lots 2 and 3 is problematic for the buildings fronting on it as both exceed setbacks in this area.  Lots 4, 8, 11, 15 do not comply. Lots 1, 5, 9, and 14 comply.  Lots 2 and 3 comply as they face the internal B Street and not the entrance B Street.  Lot 10 complies with the B Street standard if the private drive is designated as a C Street.  None of the lots meet frontage requirements.  It appears that the buildings on Lots 1,2, 5, 11, 14, 15 appear to comply with the height requirements.  Lot 8 appears to exceed the height requirements and lots 3, 4, and 9 may not meet the minimum height requirements.   Building height requirements cannot be evaluated as the ground floor and upper floor ceiling and facade heights are not provided. Lot coverage does not exceed 85% for these lots.

Table 4 provides for building placement for C Streets. The applicant stated that the proposed buildings will meet side and rear setbacks.  There should be three C Streets serving Lots 6, 7, and 10. The buildings on these lots meet side and rear setbacks but not front setbacks or frontage.  The building on Lot 6 is too high although the buildings on Lots 7 and ten meet height requirements.  Lot coverage does not exceed 85% for these lots.

The proposed buildings must meet the requirements of this section.  While the PUD standards allow for the reduction of internal setbacks, the applicant has not stated that this is an issue.  The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.01General Purpose: The project shall conform to other applicable bylaws such as Articles Four, Seven, Ten, Twelve, Fourteen, and Eighteen of the Colchester Code of Ordinances. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.02 Subdivision Approval Required:  Prior to recording the plat, final plat approval shall be granted for the proposed subdivision / planned unit development. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.03 Approval of Subdivisions: The applicant may submit a site plan for concurrent review with the final plat for any portion of the project or the project in its entirety.  A site plan application, if submitted, shall meet all of the requirements of Article Eight of the Development Regulations. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.04 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure: Several technical review committee meetings have been held to review the project. The project application includes a plat. The applicant  paid the base fee for the project and is before the Selectboard for a request on the per unit and acre fee. A sketch plan was reviewed by the Development Review Board on November 8, 2017. At sketch, it was requested that the applicant provide information on wetland delineation, contours, steep slopes, streams and any associated buffers.  An existing conditions plan is required to be provided per this section of the regulations and positive findings cannot be made under this criterion at this time.  As the applicant is requesting a partial preliminary on select criteria, the requirements of 9.04E(2)(e) through (z) are not fully provided at this time.  The applicant was advised that an escrow or similar surety will be required for public and landscaping improvements prior to construction.  This surety requirement may be phased per any requested phasing of the project. For any property or easements to be provided to the Town, a Certificate of Title will be required.  All improvements are required to be designed and installed in compliance with Chapters 7 and 14 of the Colchester Code of Ordinances. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.05A Required Improvement List: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05B Suitability of Land: The project is an amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development within the Designated Growth Center of Colchester.  While the land is suitable for the project, the applicant shall provide information on the existing natural features of the project site at preliminary including wetland delineation, contours, steep slopes, streams and any associated buffers. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.05C Lot Layout:  The GD3 District has requirements for lot width and depth: For B Streets between 20 and 150 feet in width and 80 ft. min depth and for C Streets between 30 and 120 ft. in width and 80 ft. min depth.  The applicant may seek modifications to these requirements under Section 9.07D herein if the applicant demonstrates the project meets the purpose of the planned unit development.  The purpose of the planned unit development is to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land as a single entity for a variety of uses with development designed in such a manner as to promote most appropriate use of land, to preserve and maintain agricultural and forestry lands, to facilitate the adequate and economical provisions of streets and utilities, to encourage efficient construction, and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the open lands of the Town. The project comprehensively plans for the project site with a variety of uses. The applicant shall specifically ask the DRB to modify lot layout for the specific lots need prior to the cumulative preliminary plat. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.05D Building Envelopes: The applicant provided building envelopes on the plans as well as building footprints.  Side and rear setbacks are being met however front yard setbacks appear to exceed maximums as provided in Section 4.03D.  The building envelopes shall be revised prior to the second preliminary plat review to show the max and min lines for front yard setbacks as well as frontage buildout. Proposed front yards shall be clearly marked on the plans.

The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.05E Monuments and Lot Corner Markers: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05F Energy Conservation:  Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05G Water Supply: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05H Sewage Disposal: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05I Site Preservation and Landscaping: The applicant did not provide the acreage to be disturbed of the of the 63.4 acre site.  The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan at the second preliminary review noting values and the estimated cost of construction to be evaluated under this criterion. The applicant shall also note if the proposed parking islands will be depressed so as to treat stormwater as required by 10.01C(1)(b).  Existing landscaping to be retained shall be noted on the plans as well as areas that will need to be restored so as to allow for infiltration per Section 10.04 of the Zoning Regulations.  The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.05J Streets:  Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05K Pedestrian Access:   Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05L Utilities: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05M Traffic: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05N Storm Drainage & Erosion Control:   Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05O Excavation & Grading: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05P Outdoor Lighting:  Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.05Q Municipal Facilities & Recreation Areas: The applicant  provided for a network of sidewalks and pedestrian facilities to serve the project.  Active and passive recreational amenities are also provided.  The final plat application should provide easements or irrevocable offers of dedication for all proposed public pedestrian facilities and provide for an owners association or similar association for the upkeep and maintenance of the proposed private recreational amenities and any privately owned trails and paths.  The Board found the application complies with this criterion.

Section 9.05R Governmental Services:  The applicant shall submit the project to the Colchester School District Superintendent’s Office for review and comment on student population projections prior to final plat submittal.  The Colchester Building Inspector consulted with the two fire departments that service Colchester and states that there is insufficient information to assess conformance with Sections 4-38, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, and 7-11 of the Colchester Code of Ordinances.  Hydrants and water supply are not shown on the plans.  Building details are needed for evaluation as to compliance sprinkler, access box, fire department connection, alarm, locator lights, standpipes, evacuation plans, and elevator requirements.  Without specific site plan information on buildings (building height) the following are the worst case scenarios for fire access:

• Building 1 does not look like there is a 20 foot setback from the building for the fire lane on south side and no access on the east side of the building.
• Building 2 appears to be ok for access
• Building 3 appears to be ok for access.
• Buildings 4 are ok for access
• Buildings 5 has no rear access and the appear to be about 250 Ft long
• Building 6 has no rear access
• Buildings 7 are ok for access
• Building 8 appears to be ok for access
• Building 9 is ok for access
• Buildings 10 are ok for access
• Buildings 11 have no rear access

There is insufficient information to be able to evaluate for compliance with this criteria at this time.  At the second preliminary water supply information will be evaluated.  At site plan submittals, individual buildings will be reviewed for compliance with the regulations in effect at that time. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.05S Aesthetics:  The development shall not have an undue adverse effect on scenic or natural beauty of the area and aesthetics.  The proposed project does not include elevations or landscaping at this time.  Upon site plan review of each building, conformance with this criterion should be evaluated.  The overall project should not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. The Board found the project complies with this criterion.

Section 9.05T Town Plan: The proposed project is within the Severance Corners Growth Center neighborhood as detailed in the 2014 Town Plan.  The GD3 Zoning for this area is stated as promoting dense, mixed use village type development.  The first policy of this neighborhood is that form based zoning should be implemented in the growth center to create higher densities and additional commercial development.  The project increases densities and introduces commercial development to the project site as currently configured.  The applicant shall provide a more refined phasing plan with the second preliminary plat noting time horizons for the different segments with the entire project not exceeding 10 years in duration cumulatively. The Board found the project complies with this criterion.

Section 9.05U Owners Association: Not reviewed at this time.

Section 9.07C General Standards:  The project is a planned unit development on a project site that exceeds 1.5 acres in size.  The project has a unified treatment of the preservation of streams, steep slopes, and wetlands present on the site.  While not required, the project provides for the preservation of open space, natural resource, and habitat lands by the protection of wetlands, streams, and associate buffers.  As the project is within the GD3 District, planned unit development buffers and open space designations are not required.  Full details of the individual lots with landscaping, parking, heights of buildings have not been provided for review at this time. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.07D(1)  Specific Standards:   A PUD buffer is not required for the project as it is located in the GD3 District.  While the applicant may request a lot coverage increase of up to an additional 20%, the applicant is meeting the GD3 District requirement of no more than 85% lot coverage for all proposed lots.  The second preliminary plat submittal should provide a lot by lot breakdown for lot coverage.

The GD3 District has requirements for lot width and depth: For B Streets between 20 and 150 feet in width and 80 ft. min depth and for C Streets between 30 and 120 ft. in width and 80 ft. min depth.  The applicant may seek modifications to these requirements if the applicant demonstrates the project meets the purpose of the planned unit development.  The purpose of the planned unit development is to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land as a single entity for a variety of uses with development designed in such a manner as to promote most appropriate use of land, to preserve and maintain agricultural and forestry lands, to facilitate the adequate ad economical provisions of streets and utilities, to encourage efficient construction, and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the open lands of the Town. The project comprehensively plans for the project site with a variety of uses.

This section of the regulations allows for internal front yard setbacks to be reduced if the DRB determines such waivers will improve pedestrian circulation.  Internal setbacks can only be reduced if the project is over three acres and elevations of the proposed buildings provided that demonstrate the project’s ability to blend with or improve the character of the area.  The project is over three acres but elevations of the buildings have not been provided only blurred renderings.  It does not appear that the applicant wishes to decrease front yard setbacks but rather increase the setbacks.  The proposed buildings must meet the requirements of Section 4.03G with the exception of lot size.  PUD Standards allow for the amendment of lot size but not frontage or increased setbacks.  While the PUD standards allow for the reduction of internal setbacks, the applicant did not formally request any reductions. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.07D(2)  PUD Buffer Requirements: The project is located within the GD3 District and buffers are not required in this district. The Board found the project complies with this criterion.

Section 9.07D(3) Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements: The GD3 District has requirements for lot width and depth: For B Streets between 20 and 150 feet in width and 80 ft. min depth and for C Streets between 30 and 120 ft. in width and 80 ft. min depth.  The applicant may seek modifications to these requirements if the applicant demonstrates the project meets the purpose of the planned unit development.  The purpose of the planned unit development is to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land as a single entity for a variety of uses with development designed in such a manner as to promote most appropriate use of land, to preserve and maintain agricultural and forestry lands, to facilitate the adequate and economical provisions of streets and utilities, to encourage efficient construction, and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the open lands of the Town. The project comprehensively plans for the project site with a variety of uses. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.07D(4) Open Space: Per Section 9.07D(4)(a) designated open space is not required in the GD3 District.  As the property is completely within the GD3 District open space is not required.  The Board found the project complies with this criterion.

Section 9.07D(5) Recreation Areas: The proposed project exceeds 50 units and shall be required to have an active recreational amenity.  An active recreational amenity shall be a structured recreation opportunity that involves facilities such as courts, fields, playground, or other structures for organized sports such as but not limited to soccer, baseball, lacrosse, basketball, pickle ball, tennis, or volleyball fields / courts.  Playground areas, exercise stations, a basketball court, and pickle ball courts are planned according to the application however only the courts are located on the plan (Lot 12).  The remaining amenities shall be depicted on the second preliminary plat and details provided on the amenities to provide findings under this criteria.  All amenities shall be privately owned and maintained.  The final plat application shall detail an owners association or similar arrangement for the ongoing care and maintenance of these facilities.  The Board found the project complies with this criterion.

Section 9.01D (6) Varied Types of Dwellings: The applicant  provided renderings and typicals of the proposed buildings.  Staff stated concern that the typicals for the condos, townhouses, and smaller homes may be replicated without substantial changes to structures, textures, and color.  The applicant shall provide information on how variation will be assured for positive findings under this criterion. The Board found there is deficient information to provide findings under this criterion.

Section 9.01D(7): Congregate Housing Density Bonuses:  As the project is within the GD3 District that does not have a density limit, this requirement is not applicable. 

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

TOWN OF COLCHESTER

COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN

STATE OF VERMONT

ORDER

Based upon the aforesaid Findings of Fact, the Colchester Development Review Board hereby

partially approves the preliminary plat application of Severance Family Holdings and HI LLC for a mixed-use Planned Unit Development on a 63 acre consisting of: 1) Lot #1 to be 4.53 acres to be developed with 62 units of congregate housing 2) Lot #2 to be 1.55 acres to be developed with 46 units of congregate housing; 3) Lot #3 to be a 3.11 acres parcel to be developed with a 17,300 sq. ft. general office building; 4) Lot #4 to be a 2.65 acre parcel developed with six multi-family dwellings; 5) Lot #5 to be a 3.32 acre parcel to be developed with 59 multi-family dwellings; 6) Lot #6 to be a 9.84 acre parcel to be developed with 36 multi-family dwellings; 7) Lot #7 to be a 6.22 acre parcel developed with 19 multi-family dwellings; 8) Lot #8 to be a 2.21 acre parcel to be developed with 49 multi-family dwellings; 9) Lot #9 to be .65 acres to be developed with a 4,230 sq. ft. large daycare facility; 10) Lot #10 to be a 4.05 acre parcel to be developed with 69 multi-family dwellings; 11) Lot #11 to be a 1.66 acre parcel to be developed with 35 multi-family units in two buildings; 12) Lot#12 to be 13.56 acres to be a community recreation area; 13) Lot #13 to be .20 acres to be developed with a bus stop located on Roosevelt  Highway and Severance Road; 14) Lot #14 to be 1.5 acres to be developed with 35 multi-family units; and 15) Lot #15 1.95 acres to be developed with 59 multi-family units.  Property is identified in Book 575, Page 466 of the Colchester Land Records.  Property is located at 0 Roosevelt Highway, tax map 8, parcel 38-2.  

The approval is per a one (1) page plan titled “Severance Park Overall Site Plan” prepared by The Housing Initiative dated September 20, 2018 with the following conditions:

1.     All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect.

2.     This partial preliminary plat approval only for Sections 4.03, 9.05Q,S & T of the Development Regulations at this time

3.     The applicant shall provide the following as part of the 2^nd submission for Preliminary:

a.      The drives that serve lots six and ten to be categorized as C Streets.

b.     Building information to evaluate how potential future site plans may or may not meet the requirements of Section 4.03 of the Regulations.

c.      Building information to evaluate if buildings will be set close to the sidewalk with entrances, storefronts and windows facing the street.

d.     Roosevelt Highway shall be labeled as an A Street.

e.      Provide information addressing Section 4.03 Table 5B that the total frontage for B Streets within a development shall not be more than 50% multifamily in use on the ground floor.  Provide a calculation for the total B Street length within the project and the frontage of buildings on B Streets that will have residential on the first floor.

f.      Provide ground floor and upper floor ceiling and façade heights.

g.     Building shall meet Section 4.03G of the Development Standards or request PUD reductions to modify lot layout for specific lots prior to the cumulative preliminary plant. .

h.     An existing conditions plan is required to be provided depicting existing natural features of the project site including wetland delineation, contours, steep slopes, streams and any associated buffers.

i.       The building envelopes be revised to show the max and min lines for front yard setbacks as well as frontage buildout.  Proposed front yards clearly marked on plans.

j.       The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan at preliminary noting values and the estimated cost of construction to be evaluated under this criterion. The applicant shall also note if the proposed parking islands will be depressed so as to treat stormwater as required by 10.01C(1)(b).  Existing landscaping to be retained should be noted on the plans as well as areas that will need to be restored so as to allow for infiltration per Section 10.04 of the Zoning Regulations.

k.     Water supply information will be evaluated. 

l.       Provide a more refined phasing plan noting time horizons for the different segments with the entire project not exceeding 10 years in duration cumulatively.

m.    Provide a lot by lot breakdown for lot coverage.

n.     Provide information on variations of the typicals for the condos, townhouses, and smaller homes.

o.     All recreation amenities depicted on the plan and details provided

p.     Information to assess conformance with Sections 4-38, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, and 7-11 of the Colchester Code of Ordinances.

q.     Specific site plan information on buildings(building height) to evaluation fire access.

4.     Multi-family on the first floor of B streets will require conditional use.  A conditional use application shall occur with the final plat application for any instances of this.

5.     Commercial is not allowed on C Streets.  No more that 50% of the total length of street will be C Street.

IV.       APPEAL RIGHTS

The owner of the project property and interested persons have a right to appeal this decision, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued, to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471 and V.R.E.C.P. in writing to the Vermont Environmental Court, 32 Cherry Street, 2^nd Floor, Suite 303 Burlington, VT 05401 and a copy to Colchester Development Review Board at 781 Blakely Road, Colchester, Vermont  05446.  The fee is $295.00 made payable to Vermont Environmental Court.  If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.  You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality).  This also applies to any interested person(s) who may have had a right to appeal.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD