Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/17/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 APRIL 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 April 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, M. Behr (by phone), F. Kochman, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; L. Getz, J. Baird, Z. Libizzi, W. Gerns, J. Longfello, S. & S. Baker, R. Peck, P. Kelley, G. Rabideau, J. Glassberg, L. Lackey, J. Olesky, A. Dubroff, C. Pawlowski 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Members were invited to attend the Planning & Zoning forum in Rutland where agenda items include saving energy, lessons learned from the Environmental Court, the Vermont Clean Water Act, and effective zoning enforcement. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-18-05 of Seventy Eight Bartlett Bay Road, LLC, to replace an existing deck and make minor modifications thereto, 78 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Reed, owner of the property, explained that the deck was put in in 1978. A year ago, they noticed some shifting, and a contractor felt it was unsafe. Because it is attached to a retaining wall, they got an engineer to prepare plans to replace the deck. The current deck is on 2 levels; the replacement will be on one level and an additional portion will be added 1‐1/2 feet closer to the house so a stairway can be put in to make it easier for Mr. Reed’s wife to access. The applicant was OK with staff’s condition that all existing landscaping be preserved. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close CU-18-05. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Design Review Application #DR-18-05 of Zach Librizzi to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP) for one freestanding and two wall-mounted signs in white and three shades of blue, 55 San Remo Drive: Mr. Librizzi said he has purchased and is renovating the building for an orthodontist practice which they hope to move into in June. The 2 wall signs will face Dorset Street and San Remo Drive. There would be one free-standing sign as well. Mr. Librizzi showed photos of the existing conditions and of the concept for the proposed conditions. Ms. Keene noted that an administrative approval has been granted for the building modification. No issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close DR-18-05. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Design Review Application #DR-18-04 of VASTA to amend a previously approved Master Signage (MSP). The amendment consists of changing the allowable sign colors to red, white, grey and blue, 358 Dorset Street: Ms. Keene noted the applicant has asked for a continuance to 1 May. Mr. Cota moved to continue DR-18-04 to 1 May 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-11 of Pines Housing LP to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 184 unit congregate housing facility and 2) a 104 unit extended stay hotel in two buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 2,300 sq. ft. building addition for the purpose of expanding the administrative office space for the congregate care facility, 7 Aspen Drive: Mr. Miller recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota served as chair during Mr. Miller’s recusal. Mr. Olesky said the addition will be single story and will accommodate more office space to administer this use and other operations owned by the applicant. The property is part of a larger PUD under two different entities. There will be a boundary line adjustment because of encroachment onto common ground. Ms. Keene noted that from South Burlington’s perspective, the boundary line is not required because it is a footprint lot. Mr. Cota noted the need for wetland permits. Mr. Olesky said they are going through that process now. Mr. Cota asked which option they would choose for bike parking. Mr. Olesky said they have not yet made that decision. Mr. Kochman asked how many feet this structure will be from the footprint line. Mr. Olesky said a minimum of 2 feet from any building façade. Mr. Kochman asked who owns the new building and the common land. Mr. Olesky said the building will be owned by Pines LP and the common land by Pines LP and Pines 4. All perimeter land is shared by both owners. Mr. Kochman said in his opinion the footprint line is illegal. Mr. Kochman asked about parking. Ms. Keene said staff feels no additional parking is required by the LDRs. Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant would move the line out 3 more feel so they are at least 5 feet from the boundary line. Mr. Olesky said they had no problem with that. Ms. Pawlowski, a Pines resident asked if there will be HVAC equipment on the room of the addition. Ms. Getz said there will not. Ms. Pawlowski said there are parking problems now. She also asked how they will get construction equipment to that location and noted there is a community garden in that area. Ms. Olesky said they may temporarily remove the garden. Ms. Getz said they may also have to move a few signs. Ms. Pawlowski noted the presence of a large piece of drainage in the ground when you come around the corner of the building. She didn’t know how large construction equipment will fit there. There is also a large drop-off of the land. Mr. Kochman asked that the applicant provide an overlay at preliminary plat showing clearly how the property and parking will be accessed during construction. Mr. Olesky said they can do that. Mr. Kochman noted this building will serve this and other facilities. He asked if it were just considered an “office building” would it require parking. Mr. Belair said it would require 3-1/2 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. Ms. Smith asked about added staffing. Ms. Getz anticipated at least 2 additional staff at first. Mr. Kochman felt they need at least 8 more parking spaces for the office use. Ms. Getz said the lot is often empty. Ms. Pawlowski said that 2 mornings a week when there are conferences the lot is full and residents who leave cannot find parking when they return. Another resident said people are parking on the street side, interfering with traffic. She added that on mornings when there are conferences, there is no parking available for the person who comes to help her. Ms. Longfellow, a neighbor, asked about drainage and noted they have just solved some drainage issues. Mr. Olesky said they will have to address drainage to comply with city, state and federal guidelines. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller rejoined the Board. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-10 of Burlington International Airport & BTV Hotel, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 105-room hotel on the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Rabideau reviewed the history of identification of on-site lodging for out-of-town customers who have early morning fights. This application will provide a 5-story, 105 room hotel with a lobby and other amenities. After evaluating several locations, they determined this site had the best relationship to the parking garage. The application does ask for an extension of the height limit and some setbacks. Basically, this will be a rectangular building utilizing the same access road as the airport road. There will be a porte corchere at one end with continuing direct access to the garage or the option to get back onto Airport Drive. There will be circulation for pedestrians from the hotel to the Airport entrance at an identified crosswalk. There will also be an indoor sky-bridge. Mr. Rabideau identified the location for trash (the same facility as the rest of the Airport). The plan is to develop the fire lane as more than a “back alley,” possibly using interesting pavers and landscaping.  There will also be a patio at the ground level and one on the top floor which will allow patrons to view the airfield. One major issue is identifying how this use is and “accessory use” to the Airport. Mr. Rabideau addressed this as follows: a. It responds to a need identified by the Airport. b. Hotel amenities (including food) will be available to all Airport passengers c. It is located on the main Airport property d. It is dependent on parking in the Airport garage It is anticipated that the average stay will be one night, including use by flight crews. Mr. Rabideau said it is their belief that there is adequate parking consisting of 2300 garage spaces and 400 surface spaces. On the average, those spaces are 50-60% occupied with as high as 80% seasonal highs. Mr. Behr noted that at times he has had to drive around for a while in order to find parking. He asked if there will be spaces identified for hotel use. Mr. Rabideau said the intent is to keep them together. Mr. Behr asked about employee parking. An Airport representative said they anticipate 30 employees, 15-20 at any given time. Mr. Rabideau added that some customers will be coming by bus and taxi services. Mr. Kochman expressed skepticism about the parking estimates. Mr. Lackey said they will provide statistics. Mr. Miller asked if the rental cars would be moved out of the garage. Mr. Lackey said they would remain at the north end. Mr. Miller stressed the need for parking data at preliminary plat. Mr. Behr asked about the restaurant. Mr. Rabideau said it will be open for 3 meals a day to all Airport customers. Mr. Rabideau then showed a rendering of the building which will be designed as three distinct part. It will be of masonry, brick and limestone, with some composite siding. There will be no vinyl siding. It is intended to be a very attractive building, totally non-combustible. Mr. Sullivan asked about a fitness center. Mr. Rabideau said they haven’t settled on a hotel chain as yet, and some have different amenity packages. Mr. Rabideau noted the front yard setback on Airport Drive is 50 feet. One corner of the building encroaches that. It could be adjusted, but Mr. Rabideau said they are asking for flexibility. Members felt this was acceptable as it allowed the building to line up with the garage. With regard to the height waiver, Ms. Keene said this can be compensated for by additional setbacks or by going the PUD route. Mr. Rabideau said they have chosen the PUD option. Members were OK with this choice. Mr. Kochman asked about a possible roof garden amenity. Mr. Rabideau said there is already one on the garage, so it is not part of the sketch plan. They will, however, provide infrastructure for solar panels. Mr. Rabideau noted they will be plugging into the rec path in front for use by the neighborhood and that they will look at how the interface between the sidewalk and rec path will work. Mr. Belair noted that trees and shrubs that are being removed will have to be replaced if they are part of an existing plan requirement. Staff can help with that. Mr. Rabideau said they will be doing an overall traffic analysis. No other issues were raised. 10. Policy for Committee Review of Development Review Applications: Ms. Keene said there is some confusion on the part of committees regarding reviewing of applications. The idea is for the DRB to indicate what they want from a committee and for the committee to provide a statement of the goals they would have for that application. The committee could appoint a liaison to come to a DRB meeting. Mr. Kochman said he would like the second “bullet” eliminated and the last “bullet” softened. He felt it was ill-advised for individuals to speak on behalf of a committee when, in fact, they don’t. He also did not want it to appear that a committee was acting as a second DRB. Other members agreed. Mr. Kochman then moved that the Board accept the policy for Committee Review of Development Review Applications with the proposed amendments. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Minutes of 3 April 2018: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 3 April as presented. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on May 1, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  CU‐18‐05_78 Bartlett Bay Rd_Seventy Eight Bartlett Bay  Road LLC_2018‐04‐17.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: April 13, 2018  Application received:  March 13, 2018  78 Bartlett Bay Road  Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐05  Meeting date: April 17, 2018  Applicant  Seventy Eight Bartlett Bay Road, LLC  c/o Richard Reed  78 Bartlett Bay Road  South Burlington, VT 05403  Owners  Seventy Eight Bartlett Bay Road, LLC  c/o Richard Reed  78 Bartlett Bay Road  South Burlington, VT 05403  Engineer  Civil Engineering Associates  10 Mansfield View Lane  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel ID  0130‐00078  Lakeshore Neighborhood District           CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_18-05_78 Bartlett Bay Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Conditional use application #CU‐18‐05 of Seventy Eight Bartlett Bay Road, LLC to replace an existing deck  and make minor modifications thereto, 78 Bartlett Bay Road.    CONTEXT    The Project is located within the Lakeshore Neighborhood.  The applicant is proposing to replace the  existing deck, expand the existing deck footprint by approximately 40 square feet, and add an additional  set of steps off the deck. The entire project is within 150 horizontal feet of the high water elevation of  Lake Champlain, 102 feet above mean sea level datum.    This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, Section  12.01C Surface Water Buffer Standards, Section 12.01D pre‐existing structures along Lake Champlain, and  Section 14.10 conditional uses.    COMMENTS    Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene have reviewed the plans  submitted on March 13, 2018 and offer the following comments.  Numbered items for the Board’s  attention are in red.    Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements:     LN Zoning District Required Existing Proposed   Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF  13,380 SF  13,380 SF   Max. Building Coverage 20 %  19.2%  19.2%   Max. Overall Coverage 40 %  32.1%  32.5%  @ Min. Front Setback  20 ft.  17.7 ft.  17.7 ft.  @ Min. Side Setback  10 ft.  7.7 ft.  7.7 ft.   Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  >30 ft.  >30 ft.  @ Waterfront Setback  150 ft.  37 ft. 1  No change      √  Zoning Compliance        @  Existing nonconforming  1. Measured to nearest point of steps.     Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards    C.   Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”)    (1)   Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows:   …….   (e)   All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water  elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two  (102) feet above mean sea level datum.  This applicable area includes nearly all of the property.  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_18-05_78 Bartlett Bay Road (2)   General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of  heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater  runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake  Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in  Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined  above shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and  landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted.  The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows:  (a)   The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural  events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is  permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below.   The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees.  Staff considers this criterion met.  (b)   Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed  during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn  grass, and shall not be mowed more than one (1) time per calendar year after establishment.  (c)   The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective  date of these regulations.     The applicant is not proposing any new lawn areas.  Staff considers these criteria met.   (d)   Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located  within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that:   (i)  There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property.  (ii)  Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or  stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff  entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt.    Snow storage is not required for residential uses.     (3)   Expansion of pre‐existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre‐existing  structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in  accordance with the standards for non‐complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these  Regulations.  Compliance with Section D is discussed below.    (4)      New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment  of  new  land  development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the  following  as  conditional  uses  within  stream  buffers,  subject  to  the  standards  and  conditions  enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD  review without a separate conditional use review.    (a)   Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that  any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer.    Not applicable    (b)   Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_18-05_78 Bartlett Bay Road directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on  the same property and where the DRB finds that:  (i)   There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the  stream buffer; and   (ii)  The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings,  protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures.    Erosion control is discussed under Section D below.    (c)  Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public  health, safety and welfare.    Not applicable    (d)   Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities.    Not applicable    (e)   Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the  surface water.    Not applicable    (f)   Stormwater  treatment  facilities  meeting  the  Vermont  Agency  of  Natural  Resources  stormwater  treatment  standards,  and  routine maintenance  thereof,  including  necessary  clearing  of  vegetation  and  dredging.  Evidence  of  a  complete  application  to  the  VANR  for  coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion  for encroachment into a stream buffer.    Not applicable    (g)   Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access  to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved  use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or  access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water.    There is no changed proposed to the preexisting access drive, and no feasible alternative exists.   Staff considers this criterion met.    (h)   Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary  to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing  or extending utility services.    There is no change proposed to the preexisting utility service locations, and no feasible alternative  exists. Staff considers this criterion met.    (i)   Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways)  appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_18-05_78 Bartlett Bay Road (j)   Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking  and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.    (k)   Hydro‐electric power generation    Criteria (i)‐(k) are not applicable.    Section 12.01(D) Pre‐Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park    Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the  high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre‐existing structures on  these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the  underlying zoning district and the following standards are met:    a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24,  2000.     The existing structure was constructed prior to 1978.  Staff considers this criterion met.    b) The  expanded  or  reconstructed  structure  does  not  extend  any  closer, measured in terms of  horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest  point of the existing structure.     The proposed new deck and stairs are no closer to the lake than the closest portion of the existing  structure.  Staff considers this criterion met.    c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than  fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000.     The total footprint of the expanded structure is proposed to be increased by 55 sq. feet, or 1.3% on  an overall site basis.  Staff considers this criterion met.    d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that  will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water.    The applicant has provided erosion control measures on the provided Proposed Conditions Site Plan  which was prepared by a licensed professional engineer. The notes provided on the provided Erosion  Control Details & Specifications plan sheet meet the minimum requirements of Article 16.  Staff  considers this criterion met.    e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground  cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and  vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream.     The proposed deck expansion is taking place between the existing deck and the home.  Staff considers  the impact to the lake will be minimal and that no supplemental landscaping is necessary.      1. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that the applicant must preserve all existing  landscaping shown on the Proposed Conditions Site Plan.      CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_18-05_78 Bartlett Bay Road CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA    Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (Pre‐existing  structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park), the proposed structure shall be reviewed  as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E):    14.10(E)  General  Review  Standards. The  Development  Review  Board  shall  review  the  proposed  conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The  proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following:    (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.    This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met.    (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within  which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan.     Staff  considers  that  the  proposed  project  consistent  with  the  stated  purpose  of  the  Lakeshore  Neighborhood  District,  which  is  “to  encourage  residential  use  at  densities  and  setbacks  that  are  compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett  Bay Road and Homes Road.”  Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers  this criterion met.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    Staff considers this criterion met.  See below for a discussion of compliance with general surface water  protection standards.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met.      RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,      ___________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  #DR‐18‐05  1    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    ZACH LIBRIZZI – 55 SAN REMO DRIVE  MASTER SIGNAGE PERMIT #DR‐18‐05  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Design review application #DR‐18‐05 of Zach Librizzi to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP) for  one freestanding and two wall mounted signs in white and three shades of blue, 55 San Remo Drive.    The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 17, 2018. The applicant was represented  by Zach Librizzi.    Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development  Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:      FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The applicant, Zach Librizzi, seeks to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP).     2. The permit includes one freestanding and two wall mounted signs in white and three shades of blue.  3. The subject property had a master sign permit (#DR‐11‐01) when it was part of a multi‐building lot  located at 358 Dorset Street and 55 San Remo Drive.      4.  The owners of record of the subject property are BL Properties, LLC.    5. The application was received on March 22, 2018.  6. The applicant submitted two renderings of the proposed signage which consists of two wall signs  and one (1) free‐standing sign with the words “associates in Orthodontics Librizzi, Blasius, & Librizzi”  and a logo.  The wall signs are proposed to be located above the recently approved building  entrance, one facing west towards Dorset Street and one facing south towards the east‐west  segment of San Remo Drive. The free‐standing sign is proposed to use the same sign supports as the  existing free‐standing sign and will be oriented so that it can be read from the north‐south segment  of San Remo Drive.  7. The property lies within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District.  SIGN ORDINANCE    Section 6: Dorset Street/City Center Sign District of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance reads in part  that the Development Review Board must consider the following standards:     (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with  the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall  #DR‐18‐05  2    promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and  proportions.     (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces  and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high  aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation.     (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with  buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors  is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes.     (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high‐quality materials  complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related.     The proposed sign plan promotes consistency through the use of three complimentary shades of blue  and white.  The proposed free‐standing sign will be constructed of a weather resistant flat panel and will  be supported by the existing pressure treated posts and metal roofing.  The sign is pedestrian scale.  The  Board finds these criteria have been met.    Section 8(d) reads in part that the board must consider the following:    (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of  parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces,  sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color  illustrations thereof.     (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating  a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and  installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of  the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District.     (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic  elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually.    (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual  signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that  is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer.      The proposed sign plan proposes one free‐standing sign and two wall mounted signs.  All three signs use  the same colors, typeface, logo and overall layout.  The wall mounted signs are roughly 1.5 times wider  than the freestanding signs, and are roughly the same height.  The Board finds these criteria have been  met.    Section 9(h) addresses standards specifically for free‐standing signs within the Dorset Street/City  Center Sign District:  (h) Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. Free‐standing signs along Dorset Street are to be located in  a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right of Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge  #DR‐18‐05  3    of the Right of Way toward the building face. In those instances where dimensions do not provide for  a two (2) foot setback from the Right of Way before a sign support post can be located, it is permitted  to erect a centered single pole mounted sign of which the road side edge of the sign is directly outside  the R.O.W. line. Free‐standing signs in the Dorset Street/City Center District may not exceed thirty‐two  (32) square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than twelve (12) feet, measured from the  average finished grade at the base of the sign to the highest point of any part of the sign structure.     The freestanding sign is not located along Dorset Street therefore the first part of this standard is not  applicable.  The freestanding sign is proposed to be 32 square feet and 7’2” high.  The Board considers  this criterion met.   Section 21(e) pertains to lighting:  (e) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, internally illuminated signs shall utilize opaque  backgrounds and translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, so as to insure that the lettering, logos  and/or graphics are illuminated rather than the background.  Translucent backgrounds utilizing dark  colors may be used with white, clear or other light translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, provided  the Design Review Committee determines that the effect will be consistent with the intent of this  provision.  The applicant has indicated that the freestanding sign will not have lighting.  The wall mounted signs will  be lit by two white gooseneck light fixture above them.  The Board finds this criterion met.     DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve sign design review application #DR‐18‐05 of Zach Librizzi  subject to the following conditions:    1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full  effect.    2. The sign colors permitted are white and three shades of blue.      3. The applicant must obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific  standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to  any changes to signs on the property.    4. Any change to the approved plan require approval by the South Burlington Development Review  Board or the Administrative Officer.     5. Pursuant  to  Section  20  of  the  Sign  Ordinance,  all  signs  must  be  of  substantial  and  sturdy  construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe,  and orderly appearance.      #DR‐18‐05  4      Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Frank Kochman       Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not present  Bill Miller    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Brian Sullivan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Jennifer Smith    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  John Wilking    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present    Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _.    Signed this ____ day of April, 2018 by        _____________________________________  Bill Miller, Chair    Please note:  An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this  decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental  Division.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South  Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403.  See  V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A).  Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐828‐1660 or  http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing  requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.    The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state  permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.    6$15(02'5,9(6287+ %85/,1*72197)5217(175<&21&(37'5$:,1*6$662&,$7(6,1257+2'217,&6352326('(;,67,1*&21',7,216 556’6”8”4’0”8’0”9”9”The free standing sign structure already exists from the past owner and it will be refaced with our new sign. Supporting structures (pressure treated posts) and roofing (metal) will be painted white. The measurements of the free standing sign are above and the surface area of the sign is 32 sq. ft. The sign will be a weather resistant and flat panel with a white background and the logo will have three shades of blue and two fonts. The structure is 18 inches from the side walk. The sign will not have lighting. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   DR‐18‐04 358 Dorset Street Master Sign Permit    DATE:    April 17, 2018   Development Review Board meeting      VASTA has submitted design review application #DR‐18‐04 to amend a previously approved Master Signage  Permit (MSP).  Staff has prepared this memorandum to highlight certain relevant issues.        It has come to Staff’s attention that the applicant wishes to include wall signs in their MSP.      1. The applicant has not yet provided sufficient information to allow for review of the proposed wall signs.   Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that they wish to include wall signs in their MSP  and if so, recommends the Board not close the hearing until sufficient information is provided.      The applicant has provided information sufficient to review the proposed freestanding sign, and Staff has  summarized the outstanding issues pertaining to the freestanding sign below.        Section 20:  General Sign Requirements    (m) Off‐premise signage shall not be permitted.      At the time of submission, the applicant was unsure whether the sign ordinance permitted the  inclusion of signage for Associates in Orthodontics on the proposed master sign.  Associates in Orthodontics is  located at 55 San Remo Drive.  The property that is currently 55 San Remo Drive used to be part of 358 Dorset  Street, therefore at one point in time a shared sign would have been allowed.  However because it is now a  separate property a shared sign is not allowed.  The applicant understands this and has verbally represented  that they would like to expand the currently proposed VASTA sign to use the entire existing sign kiosk.  Staff has  included this modification to the provided plans as a condition of approval.    2. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that given that off‐premise signage is not  permitted, they still wish to expand the VASTA sign to use the entire existing sign kiosk.    Section 21:  Lighting    As a design review application, the Board has the authority to review all parts of the applicant’s proposed  signage, including those elements described in the Ordinance that are typically reviewed administratively.  The  applicant is proposing to re‐use existing ground mounted flood lighting.      #DR‐18‐04  2 (h) Except as provided in (g) above, fixtures shall not include bare bulbs, and fixtures shall not make  bare bulbs or other direct light sources visible to persons viewing a sign.    Standard (g) pertains to lights which are integrated into the sign and is not applicable.    3. Staff recommends the Board review the applicants proposed lighting and include a condition that the  lighting be limited to the sign and not illuminate the adjacent sidewalk.  Staff has included this condition  in the draft decision in support of this recommendation.     RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues herein.      Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 358 PO Box 161, Montgomery Center, VT 802.734-3060 justin@jddesignllc.com REF# KIOSK FR0NT & BACK San Remo Facing Kiosk: FEEL BETTER. MOVE BETTER. PERFORM BETTER. Dorset Facing Kiosk: 358 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Committees    FROM:   Development Review Board    SUBJECT:   DRAFT Policy for Committee Review of Development Review Applications    DATE:    April ##, 2018    From time to time, the Development Review Board (DRB) may request that applicants for Development Review  permits meet with the City’s committees.  This memorandum provides a clarifying procedure for committee  input into DRB applications.  The standards and operating procedures below are designed in order to facilitate  an efficient and transparent process for the applicant, advisory body, and Development Review Board (DRB).    Authority:  Vermont State Statute delegates authority for decision making in cases of land use development to the  Development Review Board (DRB) (24 V.S.A. § 4460).  24 V.S.A. § 4433 and 24 V.S.A. § 4464 also establish the  role for advisory committees, and provides direction as to the process and scope of review for such  committees.     The Development Review Board is the only body with regulatory authority over the application.     Determining Committee Review:  The applicant shall first submit a complete application to the Planning & Zoning Department.   Review by one or more authorized committees may take place under the following three circumstances:   1. The applicant seeks committee review;  2. Staff recommends to the applicant that the application would benefit from early committee review; or,  3. The DRB seeks additional insight from an advisory committee.     Process/Expectations of Committee:    When an applicant is referred to an advisory committee, the purpose is for the Committee to provide input to  the DRB on the layout, design, or other regulatory component of the proposed development project.  If the  applicant or the Board seeks advisory review:     The Development Review Planner will reach out to the Committee’s staff person to place an item on  the committee’s next agenda, and confirm that the applicant is able to attend the meeting.  The  Development Review Planner will provide relevant materials for the Committee’s review, including if  necessary a description of the specific elements of the Project the DRB desires feedback on.    Should the committee not have a regular meeting before the expected DRB hearing date, the  Development Review Planner will notify the Committee liaison of the DRB’s interest in committee  feedback and invite committee members to attend the next hearing.  2  Any advisory committee review of the proposal shall be during a public meeting and subject to the  open meeting law.   The advisory committee must review the same plans that were submitted under the application to the  DRB. If the applicant wishes for the advisory committee to review additional concepts, those must be  submitted to the DRB as part of the application and will become part of the official and public record.    Timing of committee review may depend on the scale and scope of the project.     The Committee shall meet the DRB’s timeline for review. Since applications are often placed on hold  until committees have reviewed, the committee should provide the summary memorandum to the  Development Review Planner for dissemination to the DRB as soon as feasible after meeting with the  applicant.  The DRB typically meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month.  Summary  memorandum are due to the DRB no later than the Thursday morning before the expected date of the  DRB review of the subject application.   The advisory committee shall review the proposal pursuant to the standards in the existing Land  Development Regulations.  Planning staff will assist in sharing the regulatory context.  The advisory  committee is encouraged to formulate and vote on a motion regarding the proposal.   During the meeting, the applicant and the committee will discuss the Project.  The committee should then  prepare a brief memorandum to the DRB summarizing their recommendations.  In addition to the committee’s  specific recommendations, the memorandum should describe the intent and objectives of the committee in  making those recommendations.  Development projects evolve over time, and compliance issues,  recommendations of technical staff, or other committees’ recommendations may necessitate changes to the  project.  The purpose of including objectives is to allow the DRB to continue to consider the committee’s  recommendations in a way that is efficient for everyone.    The DRB recommends that the committee appoint a DRB liaison who can be available to attend DRB hearings  relevant to reviewed projects.  This liaison should be authorized to speak on behalf of the committee only so  far as to represent whether the committee’s objectives are being taken into account when project changes are  made.  This will further serve to streamline the committee review process and ensure their advisory role is  executed successfully.  In addition, if a permanent DRB liaison is appointed, the Development Review Planner  will provide a draft agenda to the liaison at least 7 days prior to each hearing.      Adopted by the Development Review Board this ___ day of ___________, 2018.      ________________________  Bill Miller, Chair  Development Review Board                      3   24 V.S.A. § 4464 (d) Role of advisory commissions in development review. An advisory commission that has been established through section 4433 or chapter 118 of this title and that has been granted authority under the bylaws, by ordinance, or by resolution of the legislative body to advise the appropriate municipal panel or panels, applicants, and interested parties should perform the advisory function in the following manner: (1) The administrative officer shall provide a copy or copies of applications subject to review by the advisory commission and all supporting information to the advisory commission upon determination that the application is complete. (2) The advisory commission may review the application and prepare recommendations on each of the review standards within the commission's purview for consideration by the appropriate municipal panel at the public hearing on the application. The commission or individual members of the commission may meet with the applicant, interested parties, or both, conduct site visits, and perform other fact-finding that will enable the preparation of recommendations. (3) Meetings by the advisory commission on the application shall comply with the open meeting law, 1 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 2, and the requirements of the commission's rules of procedure, but shall not be conducted as public hearings before a quasijudicial body.       DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD               3 APRIL 2018    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 April    2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman     ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; D. Sherman,  S. McClellan, J. Olin, C. Gance, T. Kerr, I. McDonald, L. Vera, J. & J. Grossman, B. Bouchard, S.  Crowley, D. Gurtman, T. & K. Easton, P. Gale, D. Ro, M. Janswold, N. Hellen, D. Goodman, L.  Smith, B. MacDonald, C. Farrell, A. Settel     1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐04 of Charles Farrell to add a 427 sq. ft. addition  to the second floor of an existing 2‐story house, adding a covered front porch,  extending rear deck, and lowering the grade of the south lawn, 65 Central Avenue:    Mr. Farrell said there will be no increase in the impervious area.  The have updated the design  to include a “cut‐out” to achieve the 3‐foot setback.  They are looking for a waiver for the 5‐ foot setback.    Mr. Farrell indicated the new roof over a basement entrance which had to be constructed over  the winter as a safety concern.  It does not impact the setback.    Staff had questioned whether there is enough potential to impact sunlight to warrant a shadow  analysis.  Mr. Farrell indicated where the neighbors live.  He did an impact study on 2 days.  He       DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 APRIL 2018  PAGE 2    showed photos of the existing shading on 21 December and shading with proposed conditions.   He did the same study on 21 March.  The addition will not shade the solar panels on the  neighbor’s roof and will have no impact on their property.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Kochman moved to close CU‐18‐04.  Mr. Cota seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    6. Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐03 of Anthony Settel to alter the pre‐existing  structure by raising the roof height of an existing 2‐storyhouse, adding a covered front  porch, extending rear deck, and lowering the grade of the south lawn, 65 Central  Avenue:    Mr. Settel said there is presently a 15’x12’ deck which will be extended to 27’ across the whole  house.  They also will add a covered front porch (18’x4’) on the northeast corner of the house  (outside the existing footprint), raise the roof to 25’, add a bathroom, lower the grade of the  front lawn and add a retaining wall.  They want to reduce the impervious space as they have  too many parking spaces (Mr. Settel indicated where they will eliminate parking spaces).  They  will do nothing closer to the Lake.    Staff asked that the removed parking area be seeded.  Mr. Settel said that is now shown on the  plan.    Staff asked that no trees that have been cut down be stored on the property.  Mr. Settel said  they do not plan to cut down any trees, just a few bushes.  These will be trucked away.    Mr. Gurtman of the Prudential Committee of Fire District #1, an abutter, said they are just here  to participate in the process.    Ms. Vera, an abutter by virtue of the Fire District property, expressed concern with the  teardown of an historic house.  She was concerned with the impact of a “wall of dark wood.”   She felt the view between the building and the garage will be impacted.      Ms. Jolis a resident on the street said she didn’t feel there is an “historic side” to the  neighborhood.  She described it as “unique” and “funky” and said she welcomes anyone who  becomes part of the community.        DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 APRIL 2018  PAGE 3    Mr. Grace was concerned with grading where the land will be lowered as his home would be  affected if the land becomes destabilized.  Mr. Settel said Civil Engineering Associates created a  plan to address erosion issues.  A company has also been engaged to do borings.  Those  findings will be shared with neighbors.  If lowering the grade creates an issue, it will not be  done.  Mr. Kochman questioned whether the Board should wait for the results of that study.   Mr. Belair said if the retaining wall is eliminated, the applicant doesn’t have to come back to the  DRB.  Ms. Keene added that this issue falls under the State’s prerogative.     Ms. Vera summarized a letter from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting, expressing  that neighbor’s concern with “loss of sense of place.”    Mr. Crowley noted this house is on the site of a hotel that burned down years ago. The  neighborhood has changed a lot in recent years and looks different than in the past.  There is  more glass facing the Lake.  He described it as an “ever‐changing neighborhood.”    Mr. Cota moved to close CU‐18‐03.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    7. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD‐18‐06 of Milot Larkin  Partnership, LLP, to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential  units, a 60‐unit multi‐family building with 17,976 sq. ft. commercial space, a 20,000 sq.  ft. movie theater building (1000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office, a  3,500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive‐through services, and a bank with drive‐through  service.  The amendment consists of constructing a four‐story, 47‐unit residential  building, 115 Fayette Road:    Mr. Roy noted they were asked to address 2 specific issues at the last hearing:    a. Street lights in the parking lot will be 15 ‘ to match those on the adjacent  properties.  They will add one additional parking lot light.  The lights on the  street will be to city standard (15’).   b. They have modified the entry drive to address staff’s concerns.  There will be  a 24‐foot entrance drive to the parking lot and a separate “entrance only”  access to the underground parking directly opposite the entrance road to the  theater.  The exit from the parking structure will be on the other side.  Mr.  Roy showed where they will be more pervious (currently paved). They wish  to keep the curb on the west side because it is existing.  Ms. Keene noted the  driveway to the movie theater is a future planned street.      DEV ELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 APRIL 2018  PAGE 4    Members expressed no issues with the new plan.    Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐18‐06.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    8. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to construct a two‐ story, 55,000 sq. ft. medical office building with 275 parking spaces on 15.07 acres, 194  Tilley Drive:    Mr. Bouchard noted this is lot #5 of the Mountain View subdivision.  The building is being  proposed for the Medical Center.  It will be LEED certified, with rooftop solar and electric  vehicle parking stations and charging stations.  There will be no impact of wetlands or wetland  buffers.    With regard to open space concerns expressed by staff, Mr. Bouchard said they flipped the  building so now 2 buildings face each other with a connecting walkway between them and  connection to the bike path.  They will consult with the tenant as to a location for amenities  such as picnic tables.  Mr. Bouchard showed a potential site to the southeast of the building.    Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the massive parking area.  It was noted that the Board  can grant a 25% parking waiver.  Mr. Bouchard said the tenant wants the full parking potential  as this is an extensive use.  Other similar buildings utilize all of their parking.  Mr. Bouchard said  the issue is that parking has to be to the rear which creates the massive look.  He felt  landscaping will help.      Ms. Smith asked about stormwater.  Mr. Bouchard said there are currently 2 ponds on the site  (he indicating the location on an overhead photo).  Ideally, they will not have to add additional  infiltration areas, but this will be up to the State to determine.  They are also looking at  recirculation of rainwater as part of the LEED certification.    Mr. Bouchard gave members elevation drawings.  He noted that unlike the other buildings, this  building will have operable windows.  There will also be a sizeable porte couchere in front of  the building.    Mr. Wilking felt the DRB should have the ability to override the requirement for parking in the  rear of the building.  This would be a better looking building if it could mirror the existing  building.  Members considered the possibility of moving some parking to one side of the  building to help break up the massive look.    Mr. Bouchard said they will look at that possibility.      DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 APRIL 2018  PAGE 5    Mr. Bouchard noted the State may require a fence to delineate the wetland buffers.    No other issues were raised.    9. Minutes of 6 March and 20 March:    The spelling of Mr. Cota’s name was corrected on p.2 of the 20 March minutes.    Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 6 March and 20 March as presented and amended.   Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    10. Other Business:    Mr. Kochman noted the Board is not bound by Counsel’s recommendations.    Mr. Wilking recognized the service of City Councilor Pat Nowak who passed away over the  weekend.      As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:30 p.m.    These minutes were approved by the Board on ____________.