Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/15/2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on 15 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair, B. Miller, M. Behr, (arrived late), D. Parsons, J. Smith Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Marshall, E. Herman, L. Michaels, E. Farrell, F. Kochman, M. Young, J. Carroll, T. Dodge, T. DiPietro, R. Marvin, J. Booth, S. Homsted, R. Davy, A. Gill, N. Beck, M. Couture 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt advised that he had spoken with the City Council last week regarding filling the empty seats on the Board and also about changes to the LDRs and what they will mean. 2. Continued Conditional Use application #CU-14-02 of Hillview Design Collaborative, LLC, to: 1) demolish the single family dwelling at 3 Cedar Court, 2) construct a 1,201 sq. dft. addition to the existing 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 88 Central Avenue, 3) create a 431 sq. ft. accessory residential unit in the expanded home, and 4) merge the two lots at 88 Central Avenue & 3 Cedar Court: Mr. Beck noted that they are building an addition to the house and incorporating the second floor of 3 Cedar Court house into the Central Ave. house. The bottom floor of 3 Cedar Court will still be a rental unit. Mr. Barritt noted the main issue had been parking. Mr. Beck said it will continue as it always had with the tenants parking elsewhere. The applicant showed a footprint of the existing and planned situations. Buildings will line up with the street in front. Mr. Beck noted they will have less lot coverage under this plan. Mr. Barritt noted receipt of letters from the Fire District Prudential Committee and from neighbor Jill Entis both expressing no objection to the plan. Mr. Belair noted the plan meets the setbacks from Potash Brook. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-05 of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 26,866 sq. ft. addition, 35 Thompson Street: Mr. Marshall noted that the plans are very similar to what was presented at Sketch Plan review. The project is in the Meadowland Business Park and consists of repositioning the front of the existing building to be more inviting. Mr. Marshall noted there had been a question of whether a height waiver would be needed. They have shrunk the building vertically to avoid the need for a waiver, but if a 6 inch waiver does become necessary, they will return to the Board. Ms. Hermann noted that there are a number of added skylights recommended by Efficiency Vermont. Mr. Marshall added that they will also replace existing lights with LEDs. Mr. Gruneveld, owner of the building, said it would be very ineffective to do solar at this point. They may consider it at a later date. Ms. Herman showed a rendering of the proposed building. There were no issues raised by the Board. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-06 of F & M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell identified the building as the Bacon Street Lofts. Landscaping was approved but was planted in a slightly different space. The plan is to cut off the west end of the berm and add it to lot #1 to provide a small dog park for residents. Three benches will be along the pathway on lot #10. As a consequence of this, the community garden space shrinks in size. Mr. Farrell noted there is not a lot of interest among tenants in the garden space; there is more interest in the dog park. Pets will not be allowed unattended in the pet area. Mr. Farrell was OK with having the City Arborist look at the area. (Mr. Behr arrived at this point of the meeting) Mr. Kochman said he opposes the application as the berm was a “negotiated” item. He specifically objects to changing a boundary line that he negotiated. He added that he and Mr. Farrell have met and are close to resolving their differences. Mr. Carroll, representing the owner of the adjacent lot, said the owners would like to review the site plan to be sure everything that should be there is there. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-14-05 of Kingdom Ventures, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-building and mixed-use complex. The amendment consists of converting 2,750 sq. ft. of child care facility use to a tavern/night club use, 7 Fayette Road: Mr. Carroll said this is part of a large PUD. He showed the surrounding businesses. The PUD has extensive underground and rear parking. They plan to put an attractive facade door near the parking. The Fire Chief has said he is OK with this. They will “advertise” the underground parking spaces (which require walking upstairs to access the businesses). There is also a rear outdoor staircase for use of vendors. Mr. Carroll also noted there is a logic to reversing the flow of traffic in the parking garage. Mr. Dodge said the tavern is more of a pub with arcade games, etc. Their target market is 25-55 year old. Peak hours of operation are 6-9 pm., a little later on weekends. They plan to feature local brews. Mr. Carroll noted they would also like to do the same kind of traffic circulation modification for the Chinese restaurant. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-02 of the City of So. Burlington for after-the-fact approval for a project described as the rehabilitation of existing stormwater infrastructure to conform to the State of Vermont’s “best fix” standards, Hayes Avenue: Mr. DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent, this project was previous approved in 2011 and was constructed. They failed to get a zoning permit. The absence of a CO has caused issues for residents. He showed the location of the project and noted that the same situation applies to the next two applications on the agenda. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-03 of the City of So. Burlington for after-the-fact approval to alter the existing grades by constructing three stormwater ponds and the rehabilitation of an existing pond, Ridgewood Drive & 911 Dorset Street: Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-04 of the City of So. Burlington for after-the-fact approval for stormwater improvements consisting of: 1) stream bank stabilization, 2) flood plain restoration, 3) constructing a new stormwater pond in the Butler Farms neighborhood, and 4) reconstructing two stormwater ponds in the Oak Creek neighborhood, Moss Glen Lane & Butler Drive: Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Design Review Application #DR-14-01 of Venue Nightclub to alter the design of an existing building used as a nightclub. The building design alteration consists of replacing a window with a fire door, 5 Market Street: Mr. Couture showed a picture of what is proposed. The alteration faces the back of the Blue Mall and is being done at the request of the Fire Marshall. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-08 of Hergenrother Industries for a planned unit development to: 1) subdivide a 34.5 acre lot into two lots of 1.4 acres and 33.1 acres, and 2) construct a 25,000-27,000 sq. ft. general office building on the 1.4 acre lot, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Homsted said the applicant will be consolidating all of its companies into this building. There will be 3 floors with the realty brokerage on the first floor, the development unit on the second floor and the foundation/things done for the community on the third floor. He distributed building elevation to the Board. The building is intended to be an “expression of the business’ creative side.” It will have significant use of glass with vertical glass on both sides of the entrance leading to a 2-story atrium inside. The building will address the street with a door that opens into the atrium. There is also an exterior terrace. There will be an exterior connection to pedestrian/bikeways. A reinforced gypsum product will be used for the exterior with corrugated metal paneling for a very modern look. Mr. Homsted said the building will be placed close to Kennedy Drive. He showed the location of a potential city street between this building and the adjacent O’Brien project. The Kennedy Drive curb cut was chosen to align with other streets. Parking has been minimized based on the company’s need. The building is located on sandy soils, and they anticipate doing all stormwater control on-site. Some treatment will be provided at the parking islands. Sewer and water will also serve future connections. Mr. Barritt expressed concern with the small traffic island in the entranceway. The applicant felt this could be eliminated. Mr. Homsted noted that the Public Works director supports the right turn in and out. Mr. Behr said this is very compact site, and the applicant should plan for what would happen if they were not longer the building’s occupants. He added that the Board can’t approve more than a 25% parking waiver. Mr. Homsted noted that concurrent with this project is s project of the O’Brien’s. They may want to do a dense residential/commercial development which will allow some large areas to be preserved. Mr. Michaels, representing the O’Briens, said they have put a lot of effort into this. They consider this project to be an “entree” to the O’Brien project. They do not yet want to give their project a “public airing,” but he showed some elements of it (location of parks, housing, commercial/possible small retail space). Mr. Behr said that makes the current application more palatable, and he is more comfortable with it. He wanted to see more details and felt the applicant is “pushing the envelope” now. The applicant asked if getting close to the 25% parking waiver is OK or should they look to future shared parking with the adjacent project. Mr. Miller said that seeing something of an overall plan would give him more comfort with the 25% waiver. Other members agreed. They suggested another sketch plan review showing how this might fit into the surrounding concept. They also agreed there were a lot of “positives” to the plan. Mr. Miller moved to continue the sketch plan application to 6 May 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-07 of O’Brien Brothers Agency, Inc., for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing single family dwelling, 2) constructing a three unit multi-family dwelling, and 3) constructing a four unit multi-family dwelling, 636 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Michaels presented elevations and renderings of the proposed dwellings with plantings (including existing trees). There will be a kind of “courtyard” between the two buildings. Mr. Michaels also showed the location of a 20-foot easement for a pedestrian/bike path. Mr. Belair noted there is a condition that this easement be shown on the plan. Mr. Michaels said they will talk with the neighbor about a possible stockade fence. Mr. Gill added that they will add a vinyl fence to match the existing fence at the dumpster location. There will also be a red cedar stockade fence back further and vinyl fencing between patios. Mr. Gill advised the Public Works Director agrees that the access works with the addition of a STOP sign. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously 12. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-01 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 12) the subdivision of a 29.329 acre parcel developed with one single family dwelling into two lots of 5.3 acres and 24.09 acres and 2) developing the 5.3 acre parcel with nine single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that staff recommends continuing this application to 6 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue SD-14-01 to 6 May 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sketch plan application #SD-14-13 of Halverson Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft., 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of razing the 275 set restaurant building and constructing 9,200 sq. ft. retail & restaurant building, 1 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that staff recommends continuing this application to 6 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue SD-14-13 to 6 May 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Sketch plan application #SD-14-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 5-story, 63 unit multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has requested a continuance to 20 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue SD-14-09 to 20 May 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Minutes of 18 March 2014: It was noted that in the middle of page 2, the concern was with the cul‐de‐sac’s proximity to Dorset Street. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 18 March 2014 as amended. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Clerk May 20, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Development Review Board\Staff Comments\2014\ CU_14_02_3CedarCourt_HillviewDesignCollaborative DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 11 2014 Application received: January 31, 2014 AGENDA ITEM #2 3 Cedar Court/88 Central Avenue Conditional Use Application #CU-14-02 Meeting date: April 15, 2014 Applicants/Owners Antonia Stacy Jolles & Nina Rachel Beck, Trustees Antonia Stacy Jolles & Nina Rachel Beck Revocable Trust 88 Central Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel IDs 0330-00088 (88 Central), and 0310-00003 (3 Cedar Court) Queen City Park (QCP) District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-14-02 of Hillview Design Collaborative, LLP to: 1) demolish the single family dwelling at 3 Cedar Court, 2) construct a 1,201 sq. ft. addition to the existing 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 88 Central Avenue, 3) create a 431 sq. ft. accessory residential unit in the expanded home, and 4) merge the two (2) lots at 88 Central Avenue & 3 Cedar Court. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP have reviewed the plans submitted on January 31, 2014, and offer the following comments. This application includes two existing homes on two adjoining but individual lots. The application proposes to remove one existing home, expand the remaining home, and create a one-bedroom accessory apartment within that expanded home. The two lots would be merged. Total building coverage decreases from 1501 sq ft to 1477 sq ft, and total lot coverage decreases from 1968 sq ft to 1930 sq ft. Being a corner lot, the combined property has two front yards and two side yards. The existing home to remain at 88 Central Avenue has a front yard setback of less than five feet, but is not changing in any way and will remain ‘as is’. The side yard setback on the southerly side is at least five feet (except for existing steps) and thus conforms. The side yard setback on the easterly side is at least 8 feet deep, and thus conforms. The front yard setback along Cedar Court is the only one that requires a waiver, as the LDRs require a ten foot setback here. The existing home to remain sits as close as 5.1 feet to the property line, although removing the steps that are less than two feet from the line will improve upon existing conditions. The other home to be removed sits as close as 5.3 feet from the property line, although the front wall of the expansion will be longer, and will be 5.2 feet from the line (and another set of steps sitting less than one foot from the boundary will be removed). The Board is authorized to grant a waiver to within 5 feet of the front property line, so the proposed addition is at least theoretically permissible. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Queen City Park zoning district (which itself also requires review under Section 3.11, nonconformities), Section 3.10 accessory residential units, Section 3.06(J), setback waiver, Section 13, parking, and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: QCP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 7500 S.F. 2858 sq. ft. 2858 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage 40% 53% 52% Max. Overall Coverage 60% 69% 67% Min. Front Setback - addition* 10 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.2 ft. Min. Side Setback - addition** 5 ft. 1.1 ft. and 1.5 ft. 5.8 ft. and 8.0 ft. Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A.  Max. Building Height 25 ft. 22 ft. 22 ft.  Zoning compliance CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc  A slight improvement is being made in building coverage and total coverage. Total lot size remains the same. * Front setbacks of existing house of 4.4 feet and 5.1 feet are not changing; house being removed is set back 5.3 feet today, and the replacement addition would be set back at least 5.2 feet. A waiver is required. ** The 5.6 feet side yard setback for the existing house conforms and remains. Side yard setbacks for the replacement addition are 5.8 feet and 8.0 feet, and thus conform, where the existing home to be removed does not. 4.08 QUEEN CITY PARK DISTRICT QCP F. Nonconforming Structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Any nonconforming structure may be altered provided such work does not: (a) Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for nonresidential properties of the fair market value as determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the Administrative Officer; or (b) Involve an increase to the structure's height or footprint, or otherwise involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. (2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's height, footprint or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. (3) The Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed alteration or expansion will not adversely affect: (a) Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The building addition will essentially replace a single family dwelling which is located in the same vicinity as the addition, therefore this criteria will be met as the before and after impact on views will be similar or not worse. (b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and The building addition will essentially replace a single family dwelling which is located in the same vicinity as the addition, therefore this criteria will be met as the before and after impact on sunlight will be similar or not worse. (c) Adequate on-site parking. The two (2) properties currently have a total of two (2) parking spaces and will have the same two (2) spaces after development, therefore no adverse effect is created. 1. See discussion below regarding parking. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc G. Additional Standards. (1) Development, construction, and alterations within the QCP District within one hundred (100) linear feet of the center line of Potash Brook shall be subject to the requirements of the Potash Brook Overlay District. (2) Multi-family dwellings shall be subject to site plan review, as per Article 14, and shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per structure. The distance of this lot to Potash Brook is approximately 240 feet +/-. This is not a multi family dwelling. 3.10 E. Accessory Residential Units. One (1) accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary single-family dwelling or within an existing, permitted accessory structure shall be a permitted single family use, in accordance with the following criteria: (1) Floor space of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total habitable area of the single-family dwelling unit. According to the application, there is 2900 sq. ft. of total habitable area, and the accessory residential unit will be 427 sq. ft., or 15% of the total habitable area. This is well under the 30% limit. (2) The principal dwelling shall be owner-occupied. No information provided; sworn testimony should be sought on this matter. (3) The accessory dwelling unit shall be an efficiency or one-bedroom unit. The proposed accessory residential unit is a one-bedroom unit. (4) Adequate wastewater capacity is available to service the accessory unit, as demonstrated by issuance of a Wastewater Allocation or on-site wastewater permit pursuant to the South Burlington Ordinance Regulating the use of Public and Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems. This should be satisfied, especially given the removal of an existing single family home and its replacement with an accessory residential unit. There is no net change in the number of bedrooms (currently there is a two 2-bedroom homes; as proposed there will be a 3-bedroom home and a 1- bedroom accessory residential unit). (5) Two (2) additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot, either in a garage or in a driveway, and not in any areas required to meet coverage limitations, or any front yard area other than a driveway, required by these Regulations. There is an internal conflict within the LDRs. This section requires two parking spaces for the accessory dwelling, yet Table 13-1: Parking Requirements, Residential Uses, requires only one parking space for an accessory residential unit. The more restrictive requirement applies, but is not satisfied, as no additional parking spaces are proposed. Applicant requests that the two (2) additional parking spaces required for the accessory residential unit be located in the community’s common parking area. Applicant states that one of the existing homes already uses the neighborhood common parking area. Approving that continued use in this legal forum may be reasonable, but also raises possible CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc ramifications. How far away is that common parking area, and is it practical for an occupant to actually use? Who owns that common parking area, and is permission required of that party or those parties to continue that use? Even absent any concerns over that today, what happens when other landowners propose to also count that common parking for their private needs? As you will see below, Section 13.01(D) (1) allows the DRB to consider approving such off site parking, but there are both practical and legal complications with doing so. Following that section of the bylaw is a suggested, alternate approach. D. Off-Site Parking. (1) Required parking and loading spaces shall normally be provided upon the same lot as the use or structure to which they are accessory. However, there may be occasions where off-site parking is beneficial, whether off-site parking is combined with parking requirements for other uses or parcels, or just for one particular use. Parking could be provided off-site in combination with parking for other uses that are the same (e.g. several retail establishments could combine parking) or that are different. If the uses are the same, the parking requirement shall be determined by adding the parking space needs as per Tables 13-1 through 13-6. If the uses are different, a shared parking calculation shall be undertaken as per Section 13.01(E). A cleaner approach would be to acknowledge and accept going forward the nonconforming conditions that exist today (only two (2) on-site parking spaces serving these two separate homes exist at present, and two on-site parking spaces serving the newly-expanded home and accessory residential unit would exist upon approval). Although there is a change in physical form of the building, there is a lessening of land use density, changing from two separate, primary residential dwelling units to one primary residential dwelling unit with one accessory residential unit. For the record, there is now a letter in the file, written and emailed on April 4, 2014, stating: To Whom It May Concern, The Prudential Committee of Queen City Park has reviewed Stacy Jolles and Nina Beck building project at 3 Cedar Court and understand it will not add any new parking spaces to that property. We have agreed to continued (sic) to let residents of that property use our overflow lot as they have done for the last fifty years. Bill Orleans President, QCP Prudential Committee Although it remains unknown how many parking spaces are available in that common lot, there is now clear permission to use them by the owners, if the DRB finds this appropriate and approvable. The applicant provided information on the distance from the subject property to the common paring area which is 486 feet. 2. The Board should discuss the off-site parking for the accessory residential unit and weather it meets the LDRs. (6) If occupancy of the unit is to be restricted in the deed of the single-family home to a disabled person, no additional off-street parking is required. No such restriction is proposed. A zoning permit shall be required for each accessory residential unit. Required. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc Conditional Use Review by the Development Review Board pursuant to Article 14, Section 14.10 shall be required if the establishment of the accessory residential unit involves the construction of a new accessory structure, an increase in the height or floor area of the existing single-family dwelling or existing accessory structure, or an increase in the dimensions of the off-street parking areas (i.e. garages and driveway areas) presently existing on the site. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area’s historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. There are currently two separate homes; as proposed there will be one principal home and one accessory residential unit within one structure. This proposed use conforms with the purposes of the district. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. There is no reason to believe that this will adversely affect the capacity of municipal services. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. High density residential is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Density is not increased. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that this will adversely affect traffic in the vicinity. Density is not increased. (d) Bylaws in effect. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc Except where the DRB has discretionary authority noted above, the property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The survey and more detailed site plans and accompanying information provide most of what is needed by the Board in this case. The required setback waiver is addressed above and below. Parking is addressed above. Absent a site visit or other information, questions may remain about possible adverse effects upon views or solar access for adjoining properties. The Board should carefully consider testimony from any neighbors as to any impact associated with this criteria. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. Addressed in (d) above. SETBACK WAIVER Section 3.06 (J) (1), (3) & (4) of the SBLDR states that: (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet. The side yard setback requirement is being met by the new addition and being a corner lot, there is no rear yard. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (c) adequate on-site parking; and (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. The front yard setback for the proposed addition does not meet the normal ten (10) foot setback requirement, but does meet the minimum five (5) foot requirement of this section. The front wall of the addition, while longer than that of the house to be removed, is consistent in location with that existing front wall, and with the front wall of the main house to be retained. Parking has been addressed; views and solar access are noted above; and no evidence has yet been submitted suggesting that this application poses a safety problem. (4) Processing of a Request. Any request under subsections (1) - (3) above to expand an existing structure, or place a new structure, to within less than ten (10) feet of any property line shall include the submission of survey data prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the location of affected property lines, existing and/or proposed structures, and any other information deemed necessary by the Administrative Officer. A survey prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC, dated 3/19/2014 and stamped by a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING f:\users\planning & zoning\development review board\staff comments\2014\cu_14_02_88centralavenue_hillviewdesigncollaborative.doc Vermont-registered land surveyor, has been submitted in order to clarify the issues described above, and to satisfy this requirement. LOT MERGER Although not technically an issue to which any regulatory standards apply under the LDRs, it is wise to advise the applicant that appropriate legal documents (amended deeds, lot merger agreement, etc) must still be created and recorded in the land records in order to effectuate the actual merger of these two separate lots. Any approval of this application should require that proof of recording be provided to the Administrative Officer at an appropriate time in the sequence of permit proceedings. RECOMMENDATION Provided that the Board finds the issues described above to be satisfied under the LDRs, and if no new information comes to light suggesting adverse impacts upon adjoining properties, then the case may be closed. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer From:ray To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:Packet Info Date:Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:09:05 AM Cathy, Could you also add this email to the 4/15 packet, thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Nina and Stacy [mailto:wingtao@myfairpoint.net] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:07 AM To: ray Subject: Fwd: letter Hi Ray, I am forwarding this letter from one of our neighbors. I hope that it is helpful. Nina Beck -----Forwarded message from Jill Entis <jillentis@gmail.com> ----- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:08:10 -0400 From: Jill Entis <jillentis@gmail.com> Reply-To: Jill Entis <jillentis@gmail.com> Subject: letter To: "wingtao@myfairpoint.net"<wingtao@myfairpoint.net> 3/31/2014 To Whom It May Concern, My property at 5 Cedar Court directly abuts the property at 3 Cedar Court. I'm writing to say that I've been shown the development plans for this property and that I have no objection to the project. The new construction will neither increase the height nor the breadth of the current structure, which has been less than aesthetically pleasing for many years. In short, I support the plan as it currently stands. Sincerely, Jill Entis 5 Cedar Court So. Burlington, VT. 05403 From:ray To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:Packet Info - Parking at 3 Cedar Court Date:Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:20:19 AM Cathy, Could you please place this email in the 4/15 packet in pdf format? Thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Antonia Jolles [mailto:wingtao@myfairpoint.net] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 11:03 AM To: ray Cc: Mark Bromley; Ben Bush Subject: Fwd: Parking at 3 Cedar Court Hi Ray, Below you can see the email response from the Fire District Prudential Committee about the parking for 3 Cedar Court. I hope this will suffice for the DRB. Please let me know. Stacy Jolles Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:waorleans <waorleans@ppdbrochure.com> Date:April 4, 2014, 10:23:49 AM EDT To:wingtao@myfairpoint.net Subject: Re: Parking April 4, 2014 To Whom It May Concern, The Prudential Committee of Queen City Park has reviewed Stacy Jolles and Nina Beck building project at 3 Cedar Court and understand it will not add any new parking spaces to that property. We have agreed to continued to let residents of that property use our overflow lot as they have done for the last fifty years. Bill Orleans President, QCP Prudential Committee 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com AGENDA #3 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP RE: #SD-14-05, Greenfield Capital, LLC/Logic Supply MTG DATE: April 15, 2014 As you will see in your packet, a draft decision has been prepared for the preliminary and final plan application of Greenfield Capital, LLC to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 26,866 sq. ft. addition, 35 Thompson St. By way of information, the original application was received on January 30, 2014. The application was subsequently amended, and a new hearing notice provided, in order to accommodate changes made to the project after that original application was submitted. The proposed addition is now 1046 sq. ft. larger in gross square feet than it was before, although the building footprint itself is now 60 sq. ft. smaller than before; and the building would be two feet taller to accommodate new skylights not contemplated before (although applicant now states that the two foot height waiver previously suggested is no longer needed, and the building remains within the 35’ height limit). Other changes include moving the bicycle rack to the west side of the building, and reducing the amount of impervious surface area on the south terrace. The draft decision reflects all of this updated information. Thank you. SHEET TITLEA-901DESCRIPTIONCOPYRIGHT:Elizabeth Herrmann,Architect, P.C.2014reproduction not permittedDATEteamwork://server.local/40K 1 logic supply 01_10_14 [server.local-eh]35 Thompson St.,South BurlingtonLOGICSUPPLY3D EXTERIORVIEWS01/06/14 PRELIMINARYAPPROACH FROM MEADOWLAND DR.BIRDEYE VIEW AT PROPOSED CURB CUT SHEET TITLEA-201DESCRIPTIONCOPYRIGHT:Elizabeth Herrmann,Architect, P.C.2014reproduction not permittedDATEteamwork://server.local/40K 1 logic supply 01_10_14 [server.local-eh]35 Thompson St.,South BurlingtonLOGICSUPPLYELEVATIONS01/06/14 PRELIMINARYNORTHPRELIMINARYDRAWINGS:NOT FORCONSTRUCTION1122334455666.26.27788994.44.45.65.66.36.36.76.7EXISTINGNEW213212211210127A128A204126B107214217216215-6'-6"-1 FOUNDATION±0"1 1st FLOOR+13'2 2nd FLOOR+27'3 ROOFAABBCCDDEEXXB.2B.2A.4A.4A.5A.5A.6A.6NEWEXISTINGNEW NEW BEYOND109-6'-6"-1 FOUNDATION±0"1 1st FLOOR+13'2 2nd FLOOR+27'3 ROOFEEDDCCBBAAB.2B.2XXA.6A.6A.5A.5A.4A.4NEW201209208207104202121129FINISHED FLR.=342.7'AVERAGE EXISTING GRADEAROUND ADDITIONPERIMETER=340.135'-0"-6'-6"-1 FOUNDATION±0"1 1st FLOOR+13'2 2nd FLOOR+27'3 ROOF9988776.26.26655443322116.76.76.36.35.65.64.44.4NEWEXISTING110221222224101102220103223219218-6'-6"-1 FOUNDATION±0"1 1st FLOOR+13'2 2nd FLOOR+27'3 ROOFSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3NORTH ELEVATION0 4' 8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4EAST ELEVATION0 4' 8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION04' 8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION0 4' 8'16' DSMDSMGAC1" = 20'12132C1.0NOV., 2013EXISTINGCONDITIONSSITE PLAN DSMDSMSAL1" = 20'12132C2.0NOV., 2013PROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLAN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONINGG GREENFIELD CAPITAL LLC – 35 THOMPSON STREET PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-05 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary and final plan application of Greenfield Capital, LLC to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq ft light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 26,866 sq ft addition, 35 Thompson Street. 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. Greenfield Capital, LLC filed site plan application #SD-14-05 to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq ft light manufacturing facility, for the purpose of constructing a 26,866 sq ft addition, located at 35 Thompson Street. 2. The subject property is located in the Industrial - Open Space Zoning District. 3. The applicant submitted a seventeen-page set of plans, the cover sheet for which is entitled, “Logic Supply Inc. Phase II Expansion 35 Thompson Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Existing Conditions Site Plan”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated Nov. 2013. 4. The DRB held a public hearing on April 15, 2014 and the applicant was represented by David Marshall. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements IO Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 3 acres 3.22 acres 3.22 acres  Max. Density N/A N/A N/A  Max. Building Coverage 30% 5.4% 14.9 %  Max. Overall Coverage 50% 23.3% 49.9 %  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 120’ Thompson St., 100’ Meadowland Dr. 50’+  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. 165’ 140’  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. Corner lot – N/A 50’  Max. Building Height 35 ft. 34 ft. 35 ft. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal  Front Yard Coverage 30% 11.5% 8.2%, 8.5%*  zoning compliance N/A no residential units proposed *8.2% on Thompson Street, 8.5% on Meadowland Drive SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public water system shall be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at acceptable pressure. Water will be provided by the existing 8” main from Meadowland Drive which presently serves the building and fire hydrant. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The project will be served by the existing 6” PVC service line connected to the gravity sewer main on Thompson Street. The applicant must obtain a final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. With that condition, the Board finds this criterion satisfied. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control in Section 16.03 of the LDRs. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the LDRs. With that condition, the Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant seeks a second curb cut serving the property, to be located on Meadowland Drive. Along with proposed architectural improvements to the building, the purpose is to create an enhanced approach to the building for clients and visitors. This additional curb cut had been prohibited in a prior permit proceeding, when Meadowland Drive was contemplated to become a through road to South Brownell Road in Williston. For various reasons, including those cited in the applicant’s engineer’s narrative (provided at sketch), the likelihood of this existing dead end street becoming a through road is rather slim. While one must be cautious when considering ‘undoing’ a former permit condition or prohibition such as this that was CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal important in a prior approval, it makes sense to consider it when the underlying need, reason, or premise no longer exists. Given the circumstances here, in this case, the Board finds this a reasonable request, and finds this criterion satisfied. Comments from the Department of Public Works: From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:10 PM To: ray Subject: Logic Supply Ray, A couple of quick comments on the recent Logic Supply plans. 1. All excavation and restoration work within the Meadowland Drive ROW is subject to a DPW-issued ROW Excavation permit. 2. The sidewalk through the new Meadowland Drive driveway shall be 8” thick on a 12” gravel subbase. Commercial drives are subject to heavier live loads and need to be constructed to a higher standard. In response to a sidewalk issue raised by the Director of Public Works in #2 above, the applicant responded that “our plans were to reconstruct the section of the path with a deeper pavement section typical of a roadway and then transition the material thickness on either side to blend back into the existing conditions”. The Director responded in an email dated 3/25/14 that this proposal was acceptable. The applicant shall adhere to the DPW Director’s recommendations and requirements. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The site plan does not identify any wetlands, streams, nor wildlife habitat. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. According to Section 6.04(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Industrial-Open Space IO District is established to provide suitable locations for high-quality, large-lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to major arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high-quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City while providing CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal suitable locations for employment and business growth. The location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the IO District. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The plan proposes greenspace along the westerly and northerly boundaries adjacent to similar greenspace on the adjacent properties. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The Fire Chief has indicated that he has no comments. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The subdivision plans for the entire Meadowland Business Park show details on street utilities, lighting, and stormwater management. These have been approved by the City Engineer, so they are acceptable for the proposed project. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The subdivision plans for the entire Meadowland Business Park show details on street utilities, lighting, and stormwater management. These have been approved by the City Engineer, so they are acceptable for the proposed project. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the proposed development of this property conforms to the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, finds this criterion satisfied. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The applicant acknowledges that this proposal effectively takes the property to the 50% maximum overall site coverage permitted in this IO zoning district, and proposes a stormwater management plan that is sized accordingly. It is noted for the record that maximum site coverage has been reached under the present LDRs. The application indicates that possible future, yet additional building expansion has been considered in this proposed site design. In that future circumstance, under present LDRs, any further building expansion must be accommodated within that 50% coverage limit, which could only occur by building upward, or outward onto present or proposed parking areas). Further, and according to the applicant, the State stormwater permit also limits lot coverage to 50%. Section 13.01(G) (5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. A bicycle rack is depicted on the plan, now on the west side of the building. The Board finds these criteria satisfied. Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. All of the new parking is located to the side of the building. No additional parking proposed in the front yard. A total of 99 parking spaces are to be provided including four (4) handicapped spaces; 99 spaces are required. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The applicant submitted building elevations of the existing building and the addition. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. An access easement linking the property to the west is shown on the plan, in case the Board finds it necessary in the future to connect the two properties. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). A screened dumpster is shown on the plan. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Landscaping and Screening Requirements Several trees located within or the new, proposed driveway would either have to be removed, moved, or have significant protection provided during construction. It is likely that most of the spruces can stay; and at least one of the oaks will have to be moved or replaced in order to survive construction and subsequent snowplowing and site maintenance. A landscape plan and schedule, with costs, has been submitted and is analyzed below. The total building cost is estimated at $2,000,000. Required landscaping expenditures are: First $250,000 of construction cost @ 3% = $7,500 Next $250,000 of construction cost @ 2% = $5,000 Balance of $1.5M construction cost @ 1% = 15,000 TOTAL MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING COST = $27,500 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING COST = $27,510 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal An email from the City Arborist dated February 27, 2014, states that “the revisions on these plans addresses my concerns”. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that will minimize the potential for run-off. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan. The applicant provided calculations to indicate that 10.2% of the interior of the parking lot will be green space. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. View Protection Zone/Height This property is located within the Airport Approach Cone and the Hinesburg Road-North Scenic View Protection Overlay District, and is thus subject to Section 10.03(H) of the LDRs. Specifically, no part of any structure within the zone shall exceed an elevation of 393.5 feet above mean sea level, plus 5.8 feet for each 1000 feet that said part of said structure is horizontally distant from the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone Base Line shown on the Scenic View Protection Overlay District Map. Applicant states that the proposed building height for Logic Supply will comply with the 35-foot maximum. No height waiver is needed. In regards to the Hinesburg Road-North Scenic View Protection Overlay District requirements, applicant states in a memo dated March 25, 2014 that, “the maximum building height is governed by the base elevation of 393.5 plus 5.8 feet per 1000 feet of distance from the base line. By inspection, the maximum height of the proposed Logic Supply building addition (374.9) is less than the base line elevation for this view protection zone. Therefore, there are no compliance issues. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Traffic The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis dated 1/9/14 prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson addressing the impacts of the expansion. The report concludes that “based on results of the above analyses, that this Project will not create adverse traffic congestion or unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and intersections”. The ITE trip generation manual estimates that this expansion will generate 19.61 additional PM peak hour trip ends. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. LIGHTING Exterior lighting details were submitted including a point by point lighting plan indicating compliance with the exterior lighting standards. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-14-05 of Greenfield Capital, LLC subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall post a $27,500 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 4. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the building addition will generate 19.61 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the building addition. 7. The applicant shall obtain a final wastewater allocation before any zoning permit may be issued for the project. 8. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control in Section 16.03 of the LDRs. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the LDRs. 9. If and when the Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer approves development of the adjacent property to the west and requires that property to connect, via an access drive, to the 35 Thompson Street property, then the owner of the 35 Thompson Street property shall grant a reciprocal access easement to the owner of the property to the west. 10. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations and requirements of the City’s DPW Director, Fire Chief, Engineer, and Stormwater Utility Superintendent. 11. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 12. All exterior lighting shall be provided via shielded, downcast fixtures. 13. The final plat plan (sheet C2.0) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 14. Any change to the final plat plan shall be approved by the Development Review Board. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_05_ThompsonSt_LogicSupply_prelimfinal Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_06_F+MDevelopment_25BaconSt_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 11, 2014 Plans received: February 10, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-06 O’DELL PARKWAY PUD Agenda # 4 Meeting Date: April 15, 2014 Applicant F&M Development Corporation LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Owners O’Dell Parkway PUD Association, Inc. c/o PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim_subdivisionLot1.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-06 of F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight (8) buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four (4) foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Lee Krohn, AICP, Planner Temporary Assistant, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on February 10, 2104 and offer the following comments: Some of the modifications proposed by the applicant have already been made-, i.e. the elimination of most of the community garden area and replacement with trees. This community garden amenity was cited as especially important to the Board at the time it was proposed. The applicant has not been able to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the Bacon Street Lofts building because of this modification without approval. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: No new construction is proposed here, so there should be no change to any of the overall dimensional requirements in this PUD as previously approved. The boundary line adjustment between lots 1 and 10 may alter various setbacks, or coverage or greenspace percentages previously calculated, for these individual lots. All the lots within this PUD are substandard and were approved as a whole with a Notice of Conditions recorded which indicates that for the purposes of the Land Development Regulations, all lots are to be treated as one (1) lot. If this project is approved, a new Notice of Conditions would have to be recorded. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim_subdivisionLot1.doc Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Other than the site-related details described herein, there are likely no changes that would alter any prior decision that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). All the above criteria are being met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No changes are proposed to driveways, parking, structures, or other significant aspects of the overall PUD. Other than the lot line adjustment described above, the proposed site changes include: a. Remove a 4’ tall fence on lot #10 that was required in prior approvals. It is stated that landscaping in that vicinity that was once small has now grown to sufficient size to provide the intended screening, and itself may be damaging the fence. Applicant believes the proper solution is to remove the fence, apparently now invisible, and allow the vegetation to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\f&m\prelim_subdivisionLot1.doc continue providing screening. Further, and if applicant is accurate in his representation that the landscaping is now overcrowded, it may be worth considering whether some of this vegetation should be thinned out so that it may continue to grow, thrive, and serve its intended purposes. A site visit by the City Arborist would likely provide a helpful perspective here. b. Reduce in size the community garden area on lot #1, which applicant states has not been used by the residents. The 2009 approved plan for this area (see packet for partial plan labeled Exhibit 1) showed a community garden area with 11 raised planting beds. The applicant is proposing to reduce the area of the garden to now accommodate four (4) smaller raised beds and to designate the remaining area as a “dog park”. Is there reasonable solar access to this area, and is there a water source within reasonable proximity for this community garden? If not, either may be a factor in the lack of use to date… but even if yes, lack of use to date does not necessarily predict the future. Perhaps the garden area will still be large enough for productive use; at some point, having reserved these areas on such high density residential lands will be seen as quite forward-looking. The Board should carefully consider any testimony from residents on this matter. 1. The Board should discuss the appropriateness of reducing the size of the community garden area and using this area for a “dog park”. c. Modify landscape plantings on lots 1 and 10. There are several plans in the application, most of which are marked up with comments: there is an overall planting plan; a landscape plan; a northeast overall planting plan; and both "as built" and "proposed" landscaping plans, both with the same preparation date of 6/28/2013, yet stamped received on 2/03/2013. Applicant should be asked to clarify which is the operative plan, and just what he proposes to remove, replace, or plant, and for what purposes. d. Install three benches on lot #10; seems helpful and innocuous. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through preliminary and final review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Eric Farrell, F&M Development SP-14-05 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING KINGDOM VENTURES, LLC – 7 FAYETTE ROAD SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-14-05 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-14-05 of Kingdom Ventures, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-building and mixed-use complex. The amendment consists of converting 2,750 sq. ft. of child care facility use to a tavern/night club use, 7 Fayette Road. The Development Review Board held a hearing on April 15, 2014 to consider this application. The applicant was represented by Jim Carroll. 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. Kingdom Ventures, LLC filed site plan application #SP-14-05 to amend a previously approved site plan for a multi-building and mixed-use complex. The amendment consists of converting 2,750 sq. ft. of child care facility use to a tavern/night club use use (“internet café” per the application) with up to 80 seats, a bar, and a variety of arcade- style games, located at 7 Fayette Road. 2. The application was received on February 10, 2014. 3. The subject property is located in the Commercial-1/Auto and Commercial-1/Residential -15 zoning districts. 4. The applicant submitted a one-page plan entitled, “C.H. Partners, Inc. 7 Fayette Road PUD South Burlington, VT”, prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 3/31/14. 5. The DRB held a public hearing on April 15, 2014. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements No changes to building dimensions are proposed. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Pursuant to Sections 14.06 and 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations, the following review standards shall apply to site plan applications: (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objectives set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. SP-14-05 2 A tavern/nightclub is a permitted use in this zoning district. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (b) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes proposed; this criterion will continue to be met. Subsection 13.01(E). Shared Parking on a Single Lot. (1) As a matter of public policy, the City of South Burlington finds that the coordination of off-street parking between adjoining non-residential sites is desirable (1) to allow for traffic circulation between sites rather than having all traffic entering and exiting the existing road system to proceed from site to site, (2) to allow for improved pedestrian circulation, and (3) to reduce the overall amount of paved surface on a site. This coordination can take various forms, from a simple paved connection to a more elaborate plan to provide both a connection and shared parking arrangements. Such connection and shared parking are not to be considered a parking waiver, but an agreement between the landowners and the City of South Burlington to effect an overall circulation and parking plan. (2) Where the Development Review Board determines that a proposed development consisting of two (2) or more uses will generate different hourly, daily and/or seasonal parking demands due to the varied hours of operation of each use and different peaking characteristics, the Development Review Board may approve a site plan or PUD utilizing shared parking on the site that is the subject of the application, or on another site (see Shared Parking, Section 13.01(E) above). The Development Review Board may, at its discretion, allow for a reduced number of shared parking spaces to be provided, on or off site, provided that: (a) The applicant shall provide the Development Review Board with a site plan and a complete and accurate description of the proposed uses and floor areas devoted to such uses. All uses participating in the shared parking plan must be located within a convenient walking distance to the shared parking facility, which generally shall be defined as one-quarter (1/4) mile. (b) A shared parking analysis shall be presented calculating the parking demand for each individual use by time period and, where applicable, by season, in the form of a matrix. The various time periods shall depend on the uses being analyzed. These periods typically include a weekday morning, weekday lunch time, weekday afternoon, weekday evening, Saturday midday and Saturday evening. If the uses experience significant seasonal variations the analysis should be done for the peak season and possibly for different seasons (summer, winter, special events, etc.) For each use, the matrix should indicate the individual peak demand corresponding to the parking requirement as indicated in Tables 13-1 through 13- 6, then the expected demand for each time period being analyzed in terms of a percentage of the peak demand and the number of parking spaces required for SP-14-05 3 that use at that particular time period. For instance, if there is a 50,000 SF office component in a mixed-use project, the peak demand for that component is 175 spaces (3.5 times 50), and during the weekday am period that component will have a presence of 100%, i.e. 175 spaces, during lunch time the presence would be 90%, i.e. 158 spaces, during the weekday afternoon the presence would be 97%, i.e. 170 spaces, and during the evening hours the presence would be 20%, i.e. 35 spaces. The same analysis needs to be done for the other uses that are part of the sharing arrangement. To calculate the total number of spaces required with the sharing arrangement the numbers of spaces required for each use need to be added for each time period, and the largest number determines the requirement. This analysis should be undertaken by a professional planner or engineer, and can be based on the “Shared Parking” publication by the Urban Land Institute or on “Shared Parking Planning Guidelines”, an informational report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In some cases the applicant may have to undertake specific surveys of individual uses to determine the percentage present at various time periods. If the parking demand of a new use is to be shared with an existing use the applicant should undertake an occupancy survey of the existing parking facility. (c) The parking spaces that are part of a shared parking plan cannot be reserved for individual users or destinations, unless those reserved spaces are excluded from the calculation. (d) The Development Review Board may order the property owner to construct the future parking spaces if, at the Administrative Officer’s recommendation, the DRB determines a need for additional spaces to be constructed. For example, a change in the use(s) or the ownership of the parcel may be enough to require the installation of the parking spaces. In the event that the owner fails to install the additional parking spaces within one hundred twenty (120) days of being so ordered the City Attorney shall take appropriate action in a court of competent jurisdiction to restrain the use of said premises. When this subsection is utilized, the site plan shall contain a statement, signed by the applicant in such a form as shall be approved by the City Attorney, consenting to the provisions contained herein. In addition, the property owner shall be required to submit a covenant, for filing in the City Clerk’s office, in such a form as shall be approved by the City Attorney, indicating consent to the provisions of this subsection. (e) The approval of such shared parking shall be automatically terminated upon the termination of the operation of any of the involved uses. The applicant has submitted a shared parking analysis prepared by Lamoreux & Dickinson dated December 23, 2013. Their analysis, inclusive of all existing uses and the use proposed herein, indicate a peak parking demand of 632 spaces. This is an increase of 20 spaces from the previous 612 space peak parking demand calculated when the analysis was last updated in 2013. SP-14-05 4 A field check by Lamoreux & Dickinson identified 490 available spaces. This is the same as in the recent 2013 case, but slightly lower than the 493 spaces (with a waiver of 118 spaces or 19.3%) approved by the DRB in 2009 (cf. #SP-09-61). [Note that the March 1, 2013 analysis incorrectly states this approved number as 492]. As before, the analysis notes that peak activity for the nine (9) uses on the property will occur at different times, with the peak demand for 632 parking spaces occurring during the winter, weekday, 8:00 – 10:00 P.M. time period. The applicant seeks approval of a 22.5% off-street parking waiver (142 spaces) as permitted under Section 13.01 N. (2) of the LDRs which states that “(w)here the Development Review Board determines that a proposed land use or structure is adequately served by existing or proposed parking facilities, the Development Review Board may waive the off-street parking space requirements stipulated in Tables 13-1 through 13-6, by no more than twenty-five percent (25%).” The Board has reviewed the site plan and finds that the proposed waiver of 142 parking spaces will not have a material effect on the availability of parking for the nine (9) uses. Section 13.01 of the Land Development Regulations requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities be provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. A bike rack shall be installed as shown on the plan . The Board finds these criteria satisfied. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. No changes are proposed to the parking lot. The Board finds this criterion satisfied/grandfathered. (d) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. No exterior changes are proposed to the buildings. This criterion will continue to be met. (e) Newly installed utility service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes are proposed. This criterion will continue to be met. (f) The combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings or different architectural styles shall be encouraged. No changes are proposed. This criterion will continue to be met. SP-14-05 5 (g) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No changes are proposed. This criterion will continue to be met. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board does not find reserving land necessary. This criterion will continue to be met. (b) Electric, telephone, and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. No new utility services are proposed. This criterion will continue to be met. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure, and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Several screened dumpsters are shown on the plans. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (d) Landscaping and screening requirements No new landscaping is proposed. The Board finds this criterion satisfied/grandfathered. OTHER STANDARDS: Section 13.06((B) Snow Storage. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B), snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that will minimize the potential for run-off. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Section 13.07(A) Lighting. Pursuant to Section 13.07(A), all exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcasting to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. No changes to lighting are proposed. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. No additional wastewater allocation is needed from the City for this change of use as evidenced by a letter dated 4/9/14 from Andy Rowe of Lamoureux & Dickinson. SP-14-05 6 DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve site plan application #SP-14-05 of Kingdom Ventures, LLC subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The Board approves a parking waiver of 142 parking spaces or 22.5% from the 632 spaces required under the shared parking analysis for a total of 490 spaces provided. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Administrative Officer prior to any occupancy or use of the structure or use approved herein. 6. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Tilt Classis Arcade & Ale House The Route 7 corridor in South Burlington is booming. Recent investments by local, regional, and national brands such as Lowes, Hannaford, Panera Bread, NE Federal Credit Union, Buffalo Wild Wings, Chipotle, Fives Guys, and the renovations to the Palace 9 Movie Theater, are all testament to the economic vitality and prosperity of South Burlington. According to VTRANS the traffic on Rt. 7 in South Burlington approach’s 30,000 vehicles per day and within walking distance to our purposed location there are 200+ residential condos. The Opportunities for local and transient populations to enjoy a quality classic arcade with locally sourced, simple, reasonably priced food and drink in a welcoming casual environment is not, however, represented. This document will describe such a place in Tilt. Concept: Tilt will be a classic arcade & alehouse opening at 3pm Monday–Friday and from 12pm on Saturday & Sunday with a full service bar and a small bites gastro pub style menu. The arcade will carry cabinet games like Pac Man, Galaga, Donkey Kong, and Centipede, mixed in will be a variety of pinball machines from retro to new and modern. It will offer approximately 10 high- top tables for dining and up to a 30-seat full service bar featuring 18-24 draft lines serving small batch artisan beers, in addition to wine & spirits from both local and global sources. The menu will offer made-from-scratch quality small plate pub fare that will be primarily sourced by local farms. Location: Tilt will be located at 7 Fayette, South Burlington, VT 05403. The nearly 2700 SF space is in the north end of the Concentra building just behind one of the busiest McDonalds in the state adjacent to Rt. 7. The initial lease proposal is for ten years at $13/SF with $3 triple nets, which will be updated every 3 years to reflect taxes, insurance and common area maintenance. Customers: Tilt’s primary target market will be the diverse local population of the South Burlington residents, numbering just over 18,000 according to the 2012 census. Secondarily, we will serve the regional commuters and tourists that travel VT Rt. 7 offering them respite with a welcoming and comfortable place to enjoy locally sourced food, a well crafted beverage, and a classic game or two. Finally, we will attract the “niche gaming” populations of Vermont & New England, who are very willing and have the financial means to travel & play certain games that might only be available in limited markets. Management: The Pub will be owned by an investment group who will own all shares of stock in Tilt, LLC, a Vermont Benefit Corporation. The Operating Partner Thom Dodge will manage the day-to-day operation of Tilt. He is a knowledgeable bar & restaurant professional with over 20 years in the industry. In the last 18 months Thom designed the food & beverage menu, kitchen layout, and guest service policies at the Hinesburgh Public House, which opened to rave reviews at the end of 2012. Thom will earn options to purchase stock equal to corporate profits that repay investment over a five-year period. Financing: The building owners CH Partners will bring the building up to commercial standards. This will include exterior renovations, restriping the parking lot , adding handicap spaces in accordance with Federal & State regulations, modernizing & enhancing security from the underground garage to main entrance, and improve the green space and landscaping surrounding the property. Restaurant fit up and start up costs will total $275,000 to be raised in the following fashion: The Investment Group will finance the entire fit up. $275,000 5% for 60 months Competition: South Burlington’s restaurant & bar options do not currently include a classic arcade, bar, and ale house that serves from a relaxed and welcoming environment for the prevailing demographic of South Burlington, Burlington, Shelburne, and Charlotte, which is a median age of late 30’s with household incomes in excess of $65,000. The majority of the food & bar establishments on the Rt. 7 corridor are comprised of nationally owned chains, with only a few exceptions. • Lake View Bar & Grill. A full service restaurant & bar right on RT 7 in an old Victorian house built in the 1800’s. Their clientele is primarily comprised of an older demographic in the 40-60 range. Both their food & drink menus run with higher price points with entrees in the $17-$25 range and cocktails from $8-$12. • Franny O’s is a long standing bar serving a limited menu and features two pool tables, dartboards, and karaoke. It is located in a hard to see, difficult to find location off Queen City Park Rd. • Zachary’s Pizza. In South Burlington located on Williston Rd should be mentioned as it does carry an arcade. They do serve beer & wine but are considered a family themed restaurant with a strong focus on children. Their arcade is referred to as the family center. Revenue Projections First year revenue projections for Tilt are conservative. • We project that in year on we will reach just over $800,000 in revenue • We are projecting that Tilt will be a PM driven business but we will be open on Sat-Sun at noon for all ages service and are planning to cross promote with the Palace 9 Theater. • We project an average guest spending $25 for food, beverage, and games in year one and think we can add a dollar to that average in year two. • Year one overall average guest count projected at 90 for both AM & PM hours 7 day per week • Year two overall average guest count projected at 110 for both AM & PM hours 7 days per week. Cost Projections While our revenue projections are low, our cost projections are intentionally high. • In order to assure the highest level of guest service and establish ourselves as guest driven business we will overstaff for the first six months and, as a result, have a labor cost a full 2% higher than average labor costs of 28% for a business our size • Similarly, we are projecting food and beverage costs in the first year to be higher than easily obtainable averages. A well managed restaurant will have food costs of 30% and bar costs closer to 25%. We are projected overall costs of 36% as we learn how to best manage the menu, the cost of maintaining the games and put controls in place. • While controlling the “prime costs” of labor and ingredients will determine the success of Tilt we have also conservatively estimated utilities without knowing how the building will heat or which equipment we will have in the kitchen. Marketing Marketing for Tilt will begin with social media, we will establish Facebook & Twitter accounts and create buzz in the gaming and local communities long before we even open. The most important marketing effort we can launch will be to meet and exceed the expectations of our guests with unique games, exceptional food & beverage, and genuine service in a comfortable and welcoming & comfortable atmosphere. Word of mouth will be our great ally. We will continually market to three market segments. • The residents of South Burlington will know that this is “their” place. We will offer a full calendar of events to engage the local customers. We will continually promote our “local first” perspective with our menu and highlight the farmer’s, brewers, baker’s, and spirit maker’s who contribute to the success of our business. Social media and website marketing platforms will drive this point and our proactive involvement in town activities will bring it home with sponsorships and support of local events. • We view the commuter traffic on Rt. 7 that sometimes crawls past Tilt on weekday evenings as an opportunity to sell ourselves as a respite from the day-to-day routine of life. We will offer gaming and food specials regularly to keep up interest • Additionally, we will target the surrounding towns of Burlington, Shelburne, and Williston through free weeklies and social media promoting of a unique night on the town. Risks: Statistics on new business failure are as various as they are numerous. However, it cannot be denied that a majority of all business start-ups fail in the first few years. This is especially true of small businesses with less than 50 employees. Vermont tax revenues show that both the state and South Burlington off premise dining are holding steady. Additionally, national sit-down dining & bar trends have recently shown a healthy increase as measured against fast food/take out restaurants. However, The Great Recession has hurt consumer confidence and discretionary purchases, such as dining out, may decline in the future. The restaurant will occupy a space in a building that has been vacant for over a year and is somewhat hidden behind the Citizen Bank on Rt. 7. Additionally there may be cost overruns with the fit up bringing such a space back into play. #MS-14-02 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON HAYES AVENUE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-02 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS-14-02 of the City of South Burlington for after-the-fact approval for a project described as the rehabilitation of existing stormwater infrastructure to conform to the State of Vermont’s “best fix” standards, Hayes Avenue. The Board held a public hearing on this application on April 15, 2014. Tom DiPietro represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City of South Burlington seeks miscellaneous after-the-fact approval for a project described as the rehabilitation of existing stormwater infrastructure to conform to the State of Vermont’s “best fix” standards, Hayes Avenue. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are the City of South Burlington, Foxcroft Townhouse Association, Kinsington Court Homeowners Association, and Cardinal Woods Clusters 1, 2, 3, & 4. 3. The subject property is located in the R7 Zoning District. 4. The application submitted a seven-page set of plans entitled “City of South Burlington, Hayes Avenue Stormwater Improvements“, prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated 1/30/2013. 5. This project was previously reviewed and approved in 2006, and already exists upon the ground. However, a zoning permit was not procured within six months of that prior approval, so that prior approval expired. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. #MS-14-02 2 Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a set of plans illustrating the work as previously approved and as already constructed. These plans are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The project is already completed. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The project is already completed. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The project is already completed. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development was the existing grade. DECISION Motion by _________________________, seconded by _________________________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-02 of the City of South Burlington, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full effect. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #MS-14-02 3 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the stormwater improvements. 5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:18:20 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:18:37 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:18:53 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 2:04:05 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:19:31 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:19:48 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:20:03 PM, Jeff16G Y:\12052-SOUTH BURLINGTON\AE-12052--HAYES AVE-RECORD.dwg, 12/6/2013 1:20:18 PM, Jeff16G #MS-14-03 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RIDGEWOOD DRIVE & 911 DORSET STREET MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS-14-03 of the City of South Burlington for after-the-fact approval to alter the existing grades by constructing three (3) stormwater ponds and the rehabilitation of an existing pond, Ridgewood Drive and 911 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 15, 2014. Tom DiPietro represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and associated 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 is seeking miscellaneous after-the-fact approval to alter the existing grades by constructing three (3) stormwater ponds and the rehabilitation of an existing pond, Ridgewood Drive and 911 Dorset Street. 2. This work was previously approved in application #MS-06-06, and has already been constructed, but that prior approval had expired as no zoning permit had been procured for the project. 3. The owners of record are the Ridgewood & Indian Creek Homeowner’s Associations. 4. The subject properties are located in Residential 2 (R2) Zoning District. 5. A one-page plan was submitted entitled, “Ridgewood/Indian Creek Condominiums South Burlington Vermont As-Built Plan”, prepared by Llewellyn-Howley, Inc., dated 9/30/2010. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site #MS-14-03 - 2 - plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted an as-built plan, illustrating the project as previously approved and as already constructed. This plan is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The project has already been completed. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The project has already been completed. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The project has already been completed. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development was the existing grade. DECISION Motion by ______________________, seconded by _________________________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-03 of City of South Burlington, subject to the following conditions. 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. #MS-14-03 - 3 - 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of the newly constructed stormwater ponds. 5. Any change to the plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. RidgewoodEstatesIndianCreekCondominiumsPermittingEngineering20 Kimball Ave Ste. 202NConsulting ServicesF (802) 658-2882Vermont 05403http://www.lhinc.netT (802) 658-2100South Burlington1. This As-Built Plan is provided for the use of the South BurlingtonStormwater Utility (SBSU). It should not be used for future design orconstruction.2. Buildings, roadway locations and topographic information on this sheetobtained from aerial orthophotography.3. Supplemental topographic data provided by Button Professional LandSurveyors (2006) using an assumed datum. The 2006 survey was apartial survey for specific data points, which did not include the entireexisting stormwater facilities serving Ridgewood/Indian Creek.4. Data from the 2006 Button Topographic survey was rotated 14 degreesand moved x=1,455,325 and y=698,223.5 to align with the aerialorthophotography used in this drawing.5. Supplemental topographic survey data for as-built access roads, grassedswales and catch basins/sewers obtained by Button Professional LandSurveyors in 2010. All other locations of catch basins/sewers not includedin the 2010 surveys are approximate.6. Elevations used in this As-Built Plan are based on the 2006 assumeddatum. There are 2 benchmarks with elevation and location informationprovided in notes 7 and 8.7. Benchmark #1 is located in Indian Creek near Basin #2. It is the top nut ofa hydrant with an assumed elevation of 495.84.8. Benchmark #2 is located in Ridgewood's Bedford Green. It is the top nutof a hydrant with an assumed elevation of 538.31.9. As-Built elevations shown for Basins #1 and #2 utilized elevation datacollected by SBSU on May 28, 2010. For Basin #1 SBSU used anassumed an elevation of 100.00 for the existing adjacent sanitary pumpstation hatch cover as a datum. The 2006 survey recorded an elevation of490.15 for this cover. The elevations provided in Note #10 are from theSBSU elevation data that has been adjusted to the 2006 assumed datumelevations. Elevations collected by SBSU for Basin #2 utilized the 2006assumed datum for Benchmark #1.10. For Basin #1, the elevations of the inverts of the outlet pipe and the 2-inchorifice on the outlet structure, and the average elevation of the pondbottom are 482.62+. The outlet structure's rim/grate elevation is 484.52+.11. For Basin #2, the elevations of the inverts of the outlet pipe and the 2-inchorifice on the outlet structure are 486.64+. The average elevation of thepond bottom is 486.68+. The elevations of the plugged 2-inch orifice andthe invert of the inlet pipes in the northeast area of the basin are 487.01+.The outlet structure's rim/grate elevation is 489.75+.12. The Ridgewood Pond was originally built during the construction of theRidgewood Estates. The 2010 modification to the outlet structure includedthe addition of a 3-inch orifice at elevation 509.10. The horizontal openingof the existing 36-inch RCP outlet pipe is at elevation 510.55. A 42-inchmetal hood and grate were placed over the 36-inch RCP and secured inplace over the RCP with metal rods approximately 0.4 feet above thehorizontal opening at the top of the existing 36-inch RCP. The elevationsof the orifice, horizontal opening and top of hood were obtained in the2010 survey and adjusted to match the 2006 assumed datum fromBenchmark #1.13. Stormwater runoff treatment facilities shall be accessed by private 12-footwide gravel access roadways located within 20-foot access easements tothe City of South Burlington.14. Rim and invert elevations for catch basins from 2010 survey adjusted tothe 2006 assumed datum. Elevations listed for CB1 through CB6 werecalculated using the elevation data for the existing sanitary pump stationhatch cover. Elevations recorded for CB7 and CB8 were adjusted to the2006 assumed datum using the elevation data for Bench Mark #2.15. Only a portion of the existing sanitary sewer system is shown.Sanitary Pump Station CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON MOSS GLEN LANE & BUTLER DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-04 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS-14-04 of the City of South Burlington for after-the-fact approval for stormwater improvements consisting of: 1) stream bank stabilization, 2) flood plain restoration, 3) constructing a new stormwater pond in the Butler Farms neighborhood, and 4) reconstructing two (2) stormwater ponds in the Oak Creek neighborhood, Moss Glen Lane & Butler Drive. The Board held a public hearing on this application on April 15, 2014. Tom DiPietro represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City of South Burlington seeks miscellaneous after-the-fact approval for stormwater improvements consisting of: 1) stream bank stabilization, 2) flood plain restoration, 3) constructing a new stormwater pond in the Butler Farms neighborhood, and 4) reconstructing two (2) stormwater ponds in the Oak Creek neighborhood, Moss Glen Lane & Butler Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property are the City of South Burlington, Robert & Jane Miler, and Rachel & Steve Sermeth. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District & the Neighborhood Residential Sub-district. 4. This project was previously reviewed and approved in application #MS-11-03, and has already been built. However, a zoning permit had not been procured timely, so the prior approval expired. 5. The plans submitted consist of a 23 page set of plans, the cover sheet entitled “City of South Burlington, Vermont US EPA Stormwater Demonstration Grant… “, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc, dated March 2012. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. #MS-14-04 2 Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a set of plans illustrating the work as previously approved and as already constructed. These plans are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The project is already completed. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The project is already completed. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The project is already completed. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development was the existing grade. DECISION Motion by _________________________, seconded by _________________________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-04 of the City of South Burlington, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full effect. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #MS-14-04 3 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the stormwater improvements. 5. Any change to the plans shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. SDSDSD>SDNDO NOT REVISEMARCH 2012V:\1951\active\195110725\Construction\Record Drawings\Sheet Files\10725c-100.dwg, C-100, 9/10/2012 2:32:43 PM, tduguay, DWG To PDF.pc3 DR-14-01 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DESIGN REVIEW #DR-14-01 VENUE NIGHTCLUB – 5 MARKET STREET FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Applicant Venue Nightclub seeks to alter the design of an existing building used as a nightclub, by replacing a window with a fire door, 5 Market Street. The Development Review Board held a hearing on April 15, 2014 to consider this application. The applicant was represented by Mike Couture. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing, and the plans and supporting materials in the application file, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant requests design review approval to modify the rear façade of an existing commercial building by replacing a window with a double wide steel fire door. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Poon Trust, LLC. 3. The application was received and deemed complete on February 24, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. 5. The plans and photos submitted illustrate the existing building and proposed changes. The subject property falls within Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11.01(D) (1) (b) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the addition to or alteration of the exterior wall of a building or structure by tearing down or removing any portion thereof, or by filling in, sealing, boarding up, closing or enclosing any portion of any existing window, door, space, porch, etc shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB). #DR-14-01 2 C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. A brief description of the location and proposed design character of {each} this district is provided below: (1) Design District 1 - This area is generally located on both sides of Market Street and extends south to San Remo Drive. This area is planned to be the core area of the City Center, with the highest density and greatest mix of uses. It is the intent of this area is to be the main “downtown” for South Burlington, and therefore, should uphold the highest quality of design. Building materials should consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or stone) and the buildings themselves should relate directly to the public street. They should be placed up front on the property line and the main entrance should face the street rather than parking lots. In addition, a pedestrian promenade shall be provided along Market Street in order to promote pedestrian activity and provide cover from inclement weather. Design plans for properties within Design District 1 shall comply with the following design criteria, as outlined in Section 11.01(F) of the Land Development Regulations: F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. The proposed replacement of a window with a fire door is on the rear wall of the building, and not visible from a public street. In addition, a fire door is a specific, safety-related building element manufactured and installed in a building code- compliant manner. Other than location (already noted above) and exterior paint color, there is little flexibility from a design perspective. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: Design District 1. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry shall predominate. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), and architectural concrete. Glass may predominate if used in combination with brick or stone. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include vinyl siding, metal skin, synthetic stucco and laminated wood (e.g., T- 111). #DR-14-01 3 The proposed replacement of a window with a fire door is on the rear wall of the building, and not visible from a public street. In addition, a fire door is a specific, safety- related building element manufactured and installed in a building code-compliant manner. Other than location (already noted above) and exterior paint color, there is little flexibility from a design perspective. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. The proposed replacement of a window with a fire door is on the rear wall of the building, and not visible from a public street. In addition, a fire door is a specific, safety- related building element manufactured and installed in a building code-compliant manner. Other than location (already noted above) and exterior paint color, there is little flexibility from a design perspective. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. The placement of this fire door has been required, reviewed, and approved by the Fire Marshal. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. Not applicable. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. #DR-14-01 4 There are no changes proposed to the roof or roofline. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. The building already exists. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. There are no additional rooftop devices proposed. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. As the building is not new, it would not be feasible to apply this criterion. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. Not applicable. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. #DR-14-01 5 DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve design review application #DR-14-01 of Venue Nightclub subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the new door. 5. Any change to this design plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. From:ray To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:Packet InfoDate:Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:43:23 PM Cathy, Can you place this email in the 4/15 packet in pdf format? Thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: gmcc2002 [mailto:gmcc2002@aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 10:38 AM To: ray Subject: Fwd: Hi Ray, Here are photos of where the new doors would exist..This is a pic of the right side of the building witch is facing the back of the blue mall..The door would be installed in the last window to the back of the building..I will be making copies and bringing them in for you today.. Mike-----Original Message----- From: 8023103261 <8023103261@pm.sprint.com> To: gmcc2002 <gmcc2002@aol.com>Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 10:19 am Sent from my mobile. Enjoy. _____________________________________________________________ 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Planner Temporary Assistant Lee Krohn, AICP RE: Agenda #10, Application #SD-14-08 DATE: April 11, 2014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-08 of Hergenrother Industries for a planned unit development to: 1) subdivide a 34.5 acre lot into two (2) lots of 1.4 acres & 33.1 acres, and 2) construct a 25,000 – 27,000 sq. ft. general office building on the 1.4 acre lot, 255 Kennedy Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assistant Lee Krohn, AICP, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on February 13, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: R-12 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 S.F. 1,502,820 sq. ft. 60,984 sq. ft.  Building Coverage 40% 0% 12.5%  Overall Coverage 60% 0% 60%  Front Yard Coverage 30% 0.1% 39.6%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 0 ft. 10? ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 0 ft. 50+’, 150+’ ft.  Max. Building Height 35 ft. 0 ft. 40’.5 ft.  Zoning compliance  Requires a height waiver, setback waivers on two (2) sides, and a front yard coverage waiver This 34.5 acre parcel on Kennedy Drive is an undeveloped, at least partially wooded lot with a mature stand of pines along the road. It lies in the midst of both high density condominium developments and professional office parks such that located on Timber Lane. Both land uses are permitted in this zoning district, and a key element of review is whether an office use as proposed might adversely affect residential properties. The sketch plan for this project shows much of the new building and internal access drive located within required setback areas. The site plan is otherwise fairly typical for the intended use; placing the building along Kennedy Drive hides most of the parking out back. Unless there are environmental constraints or other existing or proposed development surrounding the proposed 1.4 acre lot, it begs the question of why the applicant would not subdivide out a larger lot, which would then allow more of the setbacks to be satisfied, even presuming the building remains toward the front of the lot. It would allow more room for landscaping/greenspace/stormwater management; and importantly, site coverage would not start out at the absolute maximum (precluding, or certainly complicating, opportunities for any future expansion). Staff also notes that the ‘access drive’ for this application will actually be a new public street serving much more future development on the rest of the land. This makes this initial application important in determining the proper design, location, and geometry of this new access drive/roadway, so that it is designed and built to accommodate both present and future needs. The sketch plan also shows a combination shed/trash enclosure, cooling tower, and stormwater infiltration area; any subsequent preliminary/final submittals must also include the usual required details such as tree planting/landscaping plan and budget, utility cabinets, exterior lights, bike rack, snow storage areas, fire hydrant, and the like… 4.05 RESIDENTIAL 12 - R12 The project is located in the Residential 12 Zoning District, which was created to encourage high-density residential use. It is located in areas near shopping areas, schools, and public transportation facilities, and is served by roads capable of carrying high traffic volumes. Offices and other commercial uses may be permitted in locations with direct access to arterial and collector streets and that will not adversely affect residential properties. It is always an interesting and potentially challenging land use issue in mixed-use districts, and when there is a statement or standard to avoid adverse effects upon residential properties. Here, of course, that must include both existing and potential future residential uses. As noted, there are a number of residential condominium developments in this area; and of course this O’Brien property itself still has significant development potential for residential use. To some, the mere existence of another building or use (even more homes) is an adverse effect; to others, an office building would be as benign a commercial use as possible. Typical adverse effects raised in land use cases include aesthetic issues/blocking views, stormwater runoff, loss of open space or habitat, wetlands concerns, noise, smells, traffic, and the like. Offices are permitted here as PUDs, but these standards relate more to physical and dimensional issues than functional concerns that more typically give rise to perceived or real adverse impacts. As noted elsewhere, traffic can be reviewed in this traffic overlay zone, but this proposal itself appears well under any legal thresholds of concern. Interestingly, even a single family home must go through PUD review. It is typically through conditional use review (not available here under the LDRs) where the commonly raised concerns about adverse effects are raised, and may be reviewed. So while “adverse effects” upon residential properties are to be avoided, it is not clear in the LDRs just what types of effects are intended to be considered here, and when such effects would be considered adverse. The site has direct access to Kennedy Drive which is classified as an arterial street. It is not a divided highway in the vicinity of this proposed project. 1. The Board should consider whether the project will adversely affect residential properties. See discussion of the proposed roadway, below. There are a number of PUD-related standards that must be addressed in any subsequent submittals for preliminary and final plat review. As noted above, a key issue to address here is the new access drive/public road serving the entire property. The entrance drive from Kennedy Drive serving the proposed building is proposed to be extended to serve the full build out of the 31 acre parcel. The curb cut location was chosen with this in mind. The applicant will be submitting a narrative on this issue for the meeting. 2. The Board should discuss this future City street location, design, and geometry to determine if these are all appropriate to serve both proposed and future needs. Some PUD standards simply must be met; others are more subjective and will require more in depth analysis and review in preliminary and final plat review. The clear purpose of sketch plan review is to offer clarity and guidance to an applicant as to the likely approvability of a proposed project, and to identify any stumbling blocks and/or improvements needed at this preliminary stage of project design. All of these PUD standards should be addressed by the applicant, at least in general terms, if the Board is to be able to offer helpful guidance. As also noted below, the application materials are for this site only, and offer no neighborhood context by which to consider these issues. Absent that information, it is difficult to assess various standards in the LDRs (‘visual compatibility with planned development patterns in the area’, ‘contiguous open spaces’, ‘compatibility with adjacent properties of roads, paths, stormwater facilities, landscaping, sidewalks, utility lines, and lighting’, and how these are all ‘consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and purposes of the zoning district’). SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS In a manner similar to the PUD standards, there are a host of issues to be covered in any subsequent submittals for preliminary and final plat review. That said, and for purposes of sketch plan review, it is difficult to ascertain how and whether these site plan standards are met, as the narrative and plan submitted are for this site alone, without benefit of any information or images that would provide context by which to consider these issues. Generally speaking, the site appears “tight”. There is a lot of pavement, with little area around it on three sides by which to landscape or buffer the site, or provide stormwater drainage or snow storage. Although it may not be required under the LDRs, it would be helpful to know at least generally what else might be considered for the larger O’Brien parcel, even if just to help ensure that basic infrastructure such as the access drive (as noted above) and new water/sewer/stormwater lines are being located appropriately for this and future uses; and whether other, possible future interconnections between properties for purposes of shared parking, snow storage/stormwater, pedestrian walkways/recreation paths, and the like are possible, or at least considered, in this first project. Staff recommends that the Board seek as much information as the applicant is willing to provide for these essential purposes. Proposed parking is more than 20 spaces short per the LDRs; at a required ratio of 3.5 spaces/1000 sq ft of gross floor area, a 27,000 sq ft building should have 95 parking spaces; only 71 are proposed. As with other issues, the applicant should explain and justify the proposed waiver of slightly more than 25% of required parking (25% is the maximum waiver permitted in the LDRs). There may be good reasons to grant a parking waiver, but a rationale should be provided (other than that the site is already at the maximum of 60% site coverage). 3. The Board should discuss and consider whether a parking waiver is warranted; if so, how much of a waiver (up to 25% of required parking may be waived under the LDRs); and based on what rationale. TRAFFIC General offices are permitted within this residential district subject to the PUD bylaws noted above, and also to the traffic overlay district generally, and specifically for traffic overlay zone 3, below. 10.02 Traffic Overlay District The property lies within zone 3 of the Traffic Overlay District. As such, the “base” maximum PM peak hour trip ends that this lot may generate is 68.85. Up to 79.18 maximum PM peak hour trip ends may be generated by this lot if the access in and out via a right turn only configuration, which is being proposed. These calculations are as follows: Lot size: 60,984 sq. ft. 60,984 divided by 40,000 sq ft = 1.53 1.53 x 45 max trips/40,000 sq ft of land area = 68.85 max peak hour trips 68.85 x 1.15 (15% increase for right turn only design) = 79.18 According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, a general office building is projected to generate an average P.M. peak hour traffic volume of 1.49 trips/1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. This proposed building is 27,000 gross square feet in size. According to ITE, it would generate 40.23 vehicle trips at the peak hour; this is well under the traffic budget for this 1.4 acre property, even without the 15% “add on” described above. Therefore, this proposed project meets this test, and review may proceed under the other applicable sections of the LDRs; the rest of the traffic overlay section of the LDR, describing possible adjustments to traffic calculations or budgets, need not apply. While this may be more detail on traffic than you might normally seek at sketch plan stage, it seemed prudent to include it here to resolve this fundamental issue, so we know whether the project may even proceed through the review process in its present, proposed size and type. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. The Board should seek as much information as the applicant and owner are able and willing to provide regarding prospective, future plans for the rest of the property, in order to help inform the conversation about key issues described above, including but not limited to the access drive/public road and potential for adverse effects upon residential properties. As per usual practice, review and comment will be needed from other City Departments (DPW, Stormwater, Fire, Sewer…) at appropriate stages of the review process. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Scott Homsted, Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONINGG O’BRIEN BROTHERS AGENCY, LLC – 636 HINESBURG ROAD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-07 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-07 of O’Brien Brothers Agency, Inc. for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing single family dwelling, 2) constructing a three (3) unit multi-family dwelling, and 3) constructing a four (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 636 Hinesburg Road. Note: The applicant indicated to the Board via a phone conversation on September 25, 2013 that the existing dwelling is actually a duplex. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 15, 2014. Andrew Gill represented the applicant. 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. O’Brien Brothers Agency, Inc applied for preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-07 for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing single family dwelling, 2) constructing a three (3) unit multi-family dwelling, and 3) constructing a four (4) unit multi- family dwelling, 636 Hinesburg Road. 2. The application was received on February 10, 2014. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 12 Zoning District. 4. The applicant submitted a ten-page set of plans, the cover sheet of which is entitled, “Site Plan Rye Parcel O’Brien Brothers, LLC Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont”, dated January 5, 2014. 5. The Board grants the applicant’s request for a waiver of 27 ft. to reduce the setback to 30 ft. from the 57 ft. required along Hinesburg Road, as being consistent with current planning theory, and as expressed through the City’s recent discussions of form based code. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R-12 Zoning District Required Proposed  Max. Residential Density 12 units per acre x 0.63 acres = 7 units A 4 unit and a 3 unit multi-family dwelling  Max. Building Coverage 40% 17.5%  Max. Overall Coverage 60% 52.4% * Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Rd.) 57 ft. 30 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft.  Max Building Height 35 ft. < 35 ft.  Zoning compliance * Waiver requested SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public water system shall be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at acceptable pressure. If the applicant adheres to all recommendations and requirements of the City of South Burlington Water Department, then the Board finds this criterion satisfied. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. If the applicant adheres to all recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, then the Board finds this criterion satisfied. The applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc Access to the subject lot is proposed via a driveway connecting to Wellesley Grove Road, a private road. The Wellesley Grove residential complex consists of 24 multi-family dwelling units and is served by a driveway off from Hinesburg Road. This proposal will add seven (7) additional units for a total of 31 multi- family units being served by the existing driveway. Section 15.12 (D) (3) of the LDRs lists the situations where private roadways are allowed. The current development exceeds the limit of nine (9) dwelling units and as a pre-existing condition may remain. The Board considered at sketch plan review whether the addition of seven (7) additional units would require the Wellesley Grove driveway to be upgraded to a public street. The Board determined that a new public street was not necessary, and therefore, the Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no unique natural features on the site. There are no impact resources identified in the Open Space Strategy. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Building elevations and illustrations have been submitted. The Board finds these architectural designs visually compatible, and therefore, finds this criterion satisfied. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. There are no significant open spaces on adjoining parcels. There are no nearby stream buffer areas. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The SBFD Chief provided the following comments to the Board via email on 9/27/13: We have reviewed the sketch plans for this proposed development. We have the following concerns and/or recommendations. 1. Commercial structures and multifamily units will need fire protection plan review from the South Burlington Fire Marshal’s office to review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes. 2. Sprinklers, fire alarms, and standpipes per the VFBSC. 3. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. 4. Provide 24 hour per day off-site (central station) monitoring of all fire alarm and protection systems. 5. Provide emergency key boxes, location to be specified by SBFD. 6. No gas or charcoal grills on outside porches. As this project progresses we will need to see more elaborate plans to include building size, height, and elevations. At this point, the project looks pretty straight forward. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The project will connect to existing water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure and will not impact the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The applicant is willing to provide a 20 foot wide recreation path easement along the property’s frontage. This easement is not depicted on the plans, so the Board will require the plans to be revised to show this easement. The City’s Stormwater Utility (SWU) Superintendent provided the following comments to the Board on September 18th: I reviewed the plans for the proposed Rye Property project located at 636 Hinesburg Road, dated July 31, 2013 with no revisions, and prepared Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. I would like to offer the following review comments: 1. The applicant should consider including stormwater treatment and control for runoff generated from the proposed impervious surfaces. The Deputy Director of Public Works reviewed the plans for stormwater treatment and indicated to staff in an email dated 4/4/14 that the plans were acceptable. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. If the applicant adheres to the City Engineer’s recommendations and requirements, then the Board finds this criterion satisfied. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. With that condition, the Board finds this criterion satisfied. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the proposed development of this property conforms with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc 16 spaces are required and provided and two (2) handicap spaces are being provided while only one (1) is required. Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The project proposes to locate parking behind the buildings to screen the parking from Hinesburg Road which is a public road. An existing cedar hedgerow on the eastern side of the property provides screening as well. A white fence along the northern edge of the property is proposed to remain in place (with some of it removed to accommodate the new access driveway) and would provide some screening from Wellesley Grove Road, a private road. Section 13.01(G) (5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. A bike rack is being provided. The Board finds these criteria satisfied. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The applicant has provided building elevations seeking to demonstrate that the buildings will be compatible in size, scale, and height to the existing townhouses in the area. They will be less than 35’ in height. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board does not find that additional land must be reserved to provide an additional access to an adjoining property. The access drive for the project is proposed to intersect with the Wellesley Grove driveway approximately 50 feet from where the Wellesley Grove driveway intersects with Hinesburg Road. The Board considered this at sketch plan review and found this design acceptable. That said, both VTrans and the City’s DPW Director recommended that a “STOP” sign be installed where the access drive exits to Wellesley Grove Road. With that condition, the Board finds this criterion satisfied. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Already covered above. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). A 10’ x 20’ screened area is shown on the site plan to accommodate trash and recycling facilities. Applicant states that “totes” will be used, not a larger metal dumpster. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan and budget in compliance with Section 13.06 of the SBLDR as part of the preliminary plat plan application. This submittal includes estimated construction costs, and calculated minimum landscaping costs that flow from that, and which demonstrate compliance with this standard and required expenditures as shown below. Estimated building cost: $650,000 Required landscaping expenditure: $0 - $250,000: 3% = $7,500 Next $250,000: 2% = $5,000 Over $500,000: 1% = $1,500 Total required minimum landscaping expenditure = $14,000 Proposed landscaping expenditure = $14,312.20 Applicant also notes for the record that the stated landscaping expenditures do not include costs involved with saving one or more existing trees. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc The three (3) HVAC units on the easterly side of building B are not proposed to be screened. As the applicant proposes to save one or more mature, existing trees on site, great care must be taken during construction to minimize damage to these trees and their root systems. Although applicant’s Exhibit E offers some guidance in this regard, more detail and care is needed. The area(s) to be fenced off around these trees must enclose an area at least as large as is covered by the ‘drip line’ of each tree, the minimum area needed to protect each tree’s root zone. Installation of any underground utilities (electric, water, sewer…) must also avoid intruding into these fenced off protective zones. It is essential to minimize grade changes and/or soil compaction by heavy equipment around these trees. Careful, judicious pruning of these trees, along with the injection fertilization proposed, will also help these trees have a better chance of surviving the inevitable stresses suffered both during and post-construction. The applicant submitted a written description describing the procedure that will be adhered to during construction for the protection of existing trees. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. Snow storage areas are shown on the site plan. With the addition of arborvitae plantings, stockade fencing, or other suitable screening around these HVAC units, and with the additional conditions above to help protect the existing mature trees that the applicant seeks to retain, then the Board finds this criterion satisfied. Lighting Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30’ above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcast. Lighting plans and cut sheets for the proposed light fixtures are included in the materials submitted and indicate compliance with the standards. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-14-07 of O’Brien Brothers Agency, LLC subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the buildings. 5. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plan. a. The plans shall be revised to show the E-911 addresses for each building. b. The plans shall be revised to screen the three (3) HVAC units on the easterly side of building B. c. The survey plat and site plans shall be revised to depict a 20 foot wide recreation path easement along the property’s frontage. 6. The applicant shall adhere to all recommendations and requirements of the City of South Burlington Water Department, City Engineer, Director of Public Works, Stormwater Utility Superintendent, and Fire Chief. 7. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall post a $14,000 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 8. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building, the recreation path easement deed shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 9. The applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 10. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 11. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcast. 12. Prior to issuance of any zoning permit for site work or construction, a digital copy of the final project plans in pdf format shall be delivered to the Administrative Officer. 13. The final plat plans (survey plat & sheet 1) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 14. Any change to the final plat plans shall be approved by the Development Review Board. . Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_07_636HinesburgRoad_OBrien_multi_unit_prelimfinal.doc Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, 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 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. # Date CommentsScale:RevisionsPage M of 1Date:1/21/2014Drawn By: Gregg LaberGreen Mountain Electric Supply, Inc.7506 Ethan Allen HighwaySt Albans, VT 05478802-524-4300greggl@gmes.comFinal 01.21.14 Light LevelsSouth Burlington Apartmentsst stEx. 24" ADS stormstrwh4 New BuildingNew Building4 Spaces12 SpacesHDeckDeckDeckDeckSDYHDYH Hinesburg RoadEst stEx. 24" ADS stormEx. stormststrwh2rwh1rwh3stEx. fence6" mapleFuture Limit of 80' right of wayApproximate property line10' side yardsetbackExisting buildingExisting buildingStonington CircleSnow storageExisting 12" A.C. waterlineExisting 10" sanitary sewerE Existing 8" waterlineExisting sewer manholeRim 324.55Inv. in 316.2Inv. out 316.17New s e w erNew waterMH: 3.5BLEDR24MH: 3.5BLEDR24MH: 3.5BLEDR24MH: 3.5BLEDR24MH: 3.5BLEDR24MH: 6WPLED5WPLED5MH: 6WPLED5MH: 6MH: 6WPLED5MH: 6WPLED5MH: 6WPLED5MH: 6WPLED5MH: 6WPLED5StepMH: 4MH: 9RMH: 4StepStepMH: 4MH: 4StepStepMH: 4MH: 4StepStepMH: 4StepMH: 4StepMH: 4MH: 4StepMH: 9RBLEDR24MH: 3.5MH: 3.5BLEDR240.1 0.20.4 0.6 1.7 2 . 3 1 . 1 6.6 3 . 2 10.4 4.8 6.8 4 . 8 7.6 7 . 1 2 . 9 0.0 9.9 4.27.3 4.6 9.9 6 . 7 10.7 7 . 4 2 . 3 4.5 5.9 3.1 9.3 5 . 0 10.2 5 . 7 6.9 5.4 1.97.8 8.8 3.4 0.0 8 . 8 4 . 0 6.5 4 . 7 10.1 7.3 2.0 8.4 6 . 2 2 . 0 0.0 2 . 5 1 . 2 0.6 0.42.3 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 2 . 0 1 . 9 2 . 1 1 . 9 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 2.0 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.9 2 . 2 0.8 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 6 0 . 5 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 1 0 . 5 0 . 2 2.3 2 . 2 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 7 0.4 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 8 1 . 8 3 . 2 4 . 6 5 . 3 4 . 3 2 . 9 1 . 4 0 . 5 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.10.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.4 3.4 6.3 7.8 10.8 7.6 5.5 2.8 1.11.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.70.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 2.1 5.2 8.9 11.9 11.8 7.8 4.3 1.6 2.0 1 . 7 1 . 1 0 . 7 0 . 4 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 3 0 . 8 8 . 7 1 0 . 1 4 . 9 4.3 3.3 2.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18.3 4.78.3 6.3 4.2 2.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.06.8 3.7 10.5 6 . 4 3 . 2 1 . 2 0 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 1 5.8 3 . 6 11.7 8 . 1 3 . 8 7.6 5 . 3 3 . 1 10.2 8.6 4.814.6 10.6 6.8 11.2 7 . 1 10.5 11.7 11.4 9.5 5.6 2.60.3 0.8 2.0 4.2 6.3 8.4 7.7 6.2 4.0 1.7 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 1 . 0 2 . 1 3 . 3 4 . 2 4 . 1 3 . 4 1 . 4 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 5 . 7 2 . 5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.010.3 4.4 0.6 12.4 8 . 0 3 . 9 1 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8.7 5 . 1 0 . 9 2.6 5 . 5 9 . 2 1 1 . 0 1 1 . 8 1 0 . 2 6 . 2 3 . 1 1 . 2 0 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 7.2 1 . 7 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.6 5.7 7.4 7.9 6.0 4.0 1.9 0.88.0 2.50.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 2.0 2.8 3.6 3.87.2 3.4 0.6 0 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 3 11.1 5 . 0 0 . 7 1.0 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 4 9.5 5 . 5 1 . 2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.07.4 2.4 2.0 2 . 8 3 . 2 2 . 9 8.7 3 . 0 2.4 3 . 4 3 . 9 3 . 6 4.7 2 . 4 0 . 8 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.63.1 3.3 2.7 2.9 1.8 0.92.6 3.02.9 3.7 3.9 3.3 2.3 1.5 0.9 3.6 3 . 7 3 . 1 2 . 2 1 . 4 0 . 8 2.7 2 . 9 2 . 4 1 . 8 1 . 1 0 . 7 0 . 5 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 8 0 . 6 0 . 4 0 . 3 0.6 0.60.60.60.40.4 1.11.10.90.60.4 1.61.71.20.70.5 1.92.01.30.70.40.70.70.60.40.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.60.41.71.71.20.7 0.5 2.0 2.0 1.30.70.4 0.60.70.60.50.4 1.1 1.11.00.60.5 1.71.71.30.80.5 1.92.01.40.70.4 0.60.60.60.40.31.0 1.1 1.0 0.60.4 1.61.71.40.80.4 1.8 2.1 1.5 0.80.4 1.29 0.026.98 2.59 0.030.10 0.05 0.01 0.000.05 0.02 0.01 0.000.07 0.02 0.01 0.000.10 0.02 0.01 0.000.08 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.000.04 0.01 0.01 0.000.08 0.01 0.01 0.000.11 0.02 0.01 0.010.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.34 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.008.39 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.010.78 1.56 0.16 9.040.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.060.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.010.00 0.000.00 0.000.000.0 0.00.0 0.8 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.5 9.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.7 8.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 2.4 8.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 3.9 9.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 7.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 9.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 8.6 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 10.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 3.6 0.2 2.5 7.3 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 Foot Candles on NeighborsIlluminance (Fc)Average = 0.00Maximum = 0.2Minimum = 0.0Average Foot Candles of SiteIlluminance (Fc)Average = 1.73Maximum = 14.6Minimum = 0.0  HINESBURG ROAD ELEVATION - O'Brien Brothers' Rye ApartmentsJanuary 10, 20141/8" = 1' - 0" From:ray To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:1690 Shelburne Road Date:Friday, April 11, 2014 2:11:11 PM Cathy, Please place this in the packet. Thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Bob Bouchard [mailto:Bob.Bouchard@pizzagalliproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:21 PM To: ray Subject: 1690 Shelburne Road Hi Ray: Pursuant to our recent phone conversation, Pizzagalli Properties would like to request a continuance to our sketch plan review hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 for our proposed project at 1690 Shelburne Road. The conceptual site plan and elevations are going through several changes at this time. If possible, we would like to be placed on the agenda for early to mid May. Yours truly, Bob Bouchard Robert Bouchard Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 T. 802.660.6805 F.802.660.6868 bbouchard@pizzagalliproperties.com NOTICE: Our website can now be viewed at www.pizzagalliproperties.com. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 MARCH 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 March 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Burke, J. Caffrey, J. & E. Bradley, P. Sheppard, P. Brogna, T. Sheppard 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt noted there will be two vacancies on the Board at the end of the fiscal year. Interested persons can submit their names to the City Manager. 2. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-02 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development on parcel “F” of the Highlands Development subdivision consisting of: 1) seven single family dwellings, and 2) two 2-family dwellings, Dorset Street and Foulsham Hollow Road: Mr. Burke noted that all the housing on the west side is completed. This is on the east side where it abuts the 18th green of the golf course. A public road will enter off Foulsham Hollow Road. Mr. Burke showed this location and the location of two exits into Vermont National Golf Course. He noted that Foulsham Hollow Road has not yet been accepted by the city but the anticipation is that this will happen soon. The single family homes will be custom homes on individual lots. In reviewing staff notes, Mr. Burke noted that the 11 units are based on an amended Master Plan resulting from a lawsuit. He also noted that one of the duplexes requires an 8.5 foot waiver from the 50-foot setback. Mr. Burke showed an area where they would like to put in more vegetation. Regarding the cu-de-sac, Mr. Burke showed the temporary road that would have to be removed. The applicant asked for feedback on the street layout. He noted that lots 2 and 3 have less than 12,000 sq. ft., and this will also require a waiver. Mr. Burke said they feel that increasing the lot size would make the lots a less attractive shape. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 MARCH 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Burke then showed two wetland areas and the 50-foot setback area from the wetland. This allows for nice backyards. They agree that delineation of the wetland setback is needed, but they haven’t yet decided how to do this and are open to DRB preferences. Mr. Burke noted this parcel is subject to the 2003 regulations. It may be easier to get a waiver under the more current regulations. He felt that with appropriate landscaping, the waiver should be allowed. Mr. Belair read from the regulations regarding allowing development in restricted areas. This can occur if the DRB agrees that the development is consistent with the plan for the area. Mr. Burke noted that in the past, the aim was to push things as far back from Dorset Street as possible; now it is the opposite. There are no density, setback or coverage issues. The applicant will get input from the Fire and Public Works Departments. Mr. Barritt read from the legal settlement document regarding the applicant providing the missing piece of sidewalk. Mr. Burke said they will meet with Public Works regarding a “hammerhead” vs. a cul-de-sac. He noted that the cu-de-sac is shown as it was in 2005. Other designs, including one with a center island, are possible. He was not sure a hammerhead would work here. Mr. Behr said he was not opposed to the 11 units or to the proximity to Dorset St. Mr. Barritt suggested some berming to deflect road noise. He was comfortable with the setback. Members had no issues with the setback, number of units, or smaller lot size. 3. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD- 11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1)razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to May. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51 to 20 May 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 MARCH 2014, PAGE 3 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-13-36 of Elizabeth & Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road: Mr. Barritt noted the DRB had asked for a technical review on traffic. The review found that traffic counts were within the capacity of the 12.42 limit. The applicant can now proceed to preliminary and final plats. 5. Continued site plan application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association , Inc., for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five White Pine trees and replacement with six Easter White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle: Mr. Caffrey, President of the Owners Association, noted that their arborist and the city’s arborist agree on the White Cedars on a smaller footprint. There has been no negative feedback from residents. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-02 of Hillview Design Collaborative, LLP, to: 1) demolish the single family dwelling at 3 Cedar Curt, 2) construct a 1,201 sq. ft. addition to the existing 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 88 Central Avenue, 3) create a 431 sq. ft. accessory residential unit in the expanded home, and 4) merge the two lots at 88 Central Avenue & 3 Cedar Court: Mr. Belair noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-14-02 until 1 April 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 18 February 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 18 February 2014 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk __________________________________ Date