Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/19/2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 August 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; A. Davis, M. Beaudin, Design Review Committee; C. Ford, S. Menard, A. Barker, C. Stanley, J. Desautels, Ms. Frazer, J. Leinwohl, S. Vock, D. Shenk, W. Irish, B. Bolton, J. Logan, V & C Bever, J & S Menard, H. Buris, B. & L. Gerlock 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: No announcements were made. 3. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-18 and Design Review Application #DR-14-05 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC, for a planned unit development to: 1) remove an existing single family dwelling; 2) construct four three-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) establish disputed boundary line with adjoining property, 135 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Wilking recused himself during this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Shenk reviewed the changes since the last presentation including: a. The property line will shift 5 feet toward Market St. b. An increased distance to Iby Street c. The units are “jogged” so as not to be in a straight line d. One front porch got reconfigured to be like the others e. Buildings have shrunk a foot f. Increased grade along the bike path by ½ a foot g. A tree added in the corner plus trees placed for adequate screening h. Landscaping reconfigured to go along with above changes. Mr. Shenk then indicated the detail of buildings. He drew attention to the variations in second floor windows and the different number of poles on buildings. Some decks have been widened. They plan to make up some room from the back at final plat and will increase porches by a few feet to 6 or 7 feet. Mr. Shenk then showed the rear of the buildings where parking will be shrunk about a foot. Mr. Beaudin felt the aesthetics were OK, but he felt the steps should be protected from snow and freezing rain. He suggested bringing the roofline and porches out to the end of the steps and having the steps against the building. Mr. Parsons questioned how much the front entrances will be used since parking is in the rear. Mr. Beaudin said he saw the same problem in the back. Mr. Shenk said it is easy to deal with in the back. Mr. Barritt felt the plan was much better than the last time. Mr. Shenk showed the location for a fence and where it will end. He reviewed discussions with neighbors regarding fencing and/or vegetation. There is a setback waiver which is supported by staff. Members were OK with the use of cement. Mr. Belair said staff is OK with the 5-foot encroachment onto Market Street. This will have to be approved by the City Council as that 5 feet will be deeded to the applicant. Mr. Shenk then showed the area for snow storage. He acknowledged they will probably have to truck some snow away. Mr. Shenk said there have been no changes in lighting from the last review. Members of the public who live in the area expressed concern with stormwater and the continuing flooding of their basements. Mr. Belair said an engineer is addressing the applicant’s removal of water from the site. There will also be a state review and a review by the city’s Stormwater Department. Mr. Barritt stressed that the applicant is responsible only for stormwater that originates on the project site. Residents said that since Market Street went in they have water in their basements which they never had before. They were also concerned that removal of trees will add to this. Mr. Barritt noted the changes in weather patterns with far more severe storms in past years. Mr. Davis said if the applicant is not raising the grade at the wall, there shouldn’t be a problem with water from this site. Mr. Barritt said the Board will ask Mr. DiPietro to come in at final plat hearing. He stressed that the Board can’t ask the applicant to take care of water not coming from the applicant’s property. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 19 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 3 Ms. Smith then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Wilking rejoined the Board. 4. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-10 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, 3) constructing two two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Ms. Smith moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-10 until 2 September 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-14-07 of Tonaquint, Inc., for a project consisting of: 1) constructing a 1,039 sq. ft. detached accessory residential unit, and 2) allowing a new single family dwelling and the accessory residential unit to encroach into a wetland buffer, 333 Van Sicklen Road: Ms. Desautels showed a diagram of the two buildings. She also showed the existing vs. proposed plan to indicate the impact. Mr. Barritt noted that if the shed is removed, the impact is less and they are closer to compliance. The homeowner said they understand but hope to be able to keep it until they have a basement. Mr. Belair said it should be removed before the house is occupied. The applicant agreed to this. Mr. Belair directed attention to a document indicating that the owners are residing in the principal residence. Ms. Desautels noted they are awaiting final paperwork from the state environmental people. Ms. Frazer, who had previously written to the Board, said she would withdraw her letter as she has met with the project engineer. Ms. Smith moved to close the hearing on #CU-14-07. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a previously approved plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The 7. amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display and storage area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 7 October. Ms. Smith moved to continue #SP-14-25 until 7 October 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-08 of David T. Austin for the installation of erosion control measures (slope stabilization) and water oriented development (stairs to lake), 58 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Belair advised that this is a reapproval of an application from December 2011. Mr. Vock said the application has changed a bit because more erosion has occurred. He indicated where there was a wood retaining wall that has eroded away. He also showed a masonry wall in bad condition. The plan is to install a natural stone wall rather than riprap. The side of the stairway is also eroded and has to come out. They will put in a stairway coming down the side as this is easier to maintain. Mr. Vock gave members a letter regarding impact of potential flooding. The letter indicates there is no impact. No issues were raised. Ms. Smith moved to close the hearing on #CU-14-08. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-21 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a planned unit development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of after-the-fact construction of a 215 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Gate 11 aircraft boarding hallway and pedestal footing for aircraft boarding bridge equipment, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Belair noted this application includes a request to cut down trees which are too close to the airport fence at the request of TSA. The value of these trees will be determined and trees will be planted elsewhere on the Airport property. That is still to be worked out. Mr. Leinwohl said the plan is to remove the cedar trees (2 groups) which are very close the fence and pose a security issue. They will provide a replacement value for these trees. They could possibly plant some smaller trees further from the fence or add trees at the Williston Rd. end of the Airport, or a combination of both. Mr. Leinwohl also showed a picture of a huge oak near the cemetery that is also too close to the fence. Because of the age of the tree (estimated at 100 years), they will put a fence around it to save the tree. The nearby cedars will come down. Mr. Leinwohl then showed the Gate 11 construction, including the boarding bridge. Mr. Belair noted three other trees that were cut down and will have to be replaced. Mr. Leinwohl showed a rendering of what the landscaping on the corner of Williston Road will look like. They will assess sight lines to see if there is any obstruction for traffic. Mr. Belair noted that a sign that is 20 feet from a right‐of‐way doesn’t count as signage. He suggested the Airport may want to consider the sign they didn’t put in before the rules are changed. 10. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-09 and Site Plan Application #SP-14-36 of William Spalding to amend a previously approved 21,012 sq. ft., 62 unit, congregate care facility. The amendment consists of expanding the canopy entrance from 145 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft., 20 Harbor View Road: Mr. Belair noted the applicant did not pick up the placard to display for the required time. He recommended continuing the hearing until 2 September. Ms. Smith moved to continue #CU-14-09 and #SP-14-36 until 2 September 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Reorganizational: a. Election of Officers: Mr. Belair opened the floor for nominations for Chair. Mr. Miller nominated Mr. Barritt. Mr. Parsons seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Barritt was elected unanimously. Ms. Smith then nominated Mr. Miller for Vice Chair. Mr. Wilking seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Miller was elected unanimously. Mr. Miller nominated Mr. Parsons for Clerk. Ms. Smith seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Parsons was elected unanimously. a. Set date and time for regular meetings. Mr. Miller moved to keep the meeting schedule of first and third Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: Mr. Belair advised that he will not be present at the next meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. , Clerk September 2, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug _19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2014 Plans received: May 27, 2014 & 8/13/14 BLACKBAY VENTURES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD 14-18 & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-14-05 135 Hinesburg Road Agenda #3 Meeting date: August 19, 2014 Applicant/Owner Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC 226 Ridgefield Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Contact Person David Shenk PO Box 4132 Burlington, VT 05406 Property Information Tax Parcel Volume 1192, Page 45-47 CD3 and Design Review Districts 0.76 Acres CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-14-18 & design review application #DR-14-05 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC for a planned unit development to: 1) remove an existing single family dwelling, 2) construct four (4) three (3) unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) establish disputed boundary line with adjoining property, 135 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 27, 2014 and revisions submitted on August 13, 2014 and offer the following comments. The revised plans submitted show five (5) additional feet of land being obtained from the Market Street Right of Way (ROW). This additional land allows the buildings to have larger front porches to make them more usable. Staff supports the transfer of this portion of the ROW to enhance the overall project by both providing an additional buffer along the rear and the larger porches along the front. The plan should show the existing property boundary line along the ROW and the additional strip being added if approved by the City Council. Process-wise, staff is comfortable with a preliminary DRB approval, should it be issued, that shows portions of buildings within the ROW, with the condition that the City Council approve the use of this prior to obtaining any final plat approval. There is an existing house and garage on this 0.76 acre parcel located at the corner of Hinesburg Road and Market Street, in the Central District 3 (CD-3) zoning district. The application proposes to remove or demolish this existing home and replace it with four two-story, three-unit multi-family dwellings. Each unit would have a footprint of 650 sq. ft., and each building would have a primary footprint of 1,950 sq. ft. The total building footprint upon the lot, including all of the porches, is 8830 sq. ft. Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements CD3 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed √ Min. Lot Size N/A 33,228.8 ft.2 No change √ Max. Building Coverage ♦ 50% 5.6% 26.5% √ Max. Total Coverage 80% 7.7% 72.7% ** Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 9 ft. 1 ft. Market St; 41.7’ Hinesburg Rd √ Min. Side Setback (multi-family) 5 ft. 299.8 ft. 19.4 ft. √ Min. Rear Setback 5 ft. 29.9 56.4 ft. √ Max. Building Height 35 ft. ? 32 ft. √ Max. Density 25 units/acre 1.3 units/acre 15.79 units/acre √ Floor Area Ratio 0.5 ? 0.48* √ zoning compliance ♦ Building coverage is for the overall PUD. * Includes only finished area; this is consistent with the LDRs. ** Stairway entrances only 1 ft. from the ROW/property boundary, main buildings are 5’ from the boundary line. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc NOTE: Total lot area of 0.763 acres is upon merger of two smaller existing lots. 1. The table above notes a 41.7 ft setback from Hinesburg Road to match the notation on Sheet C1.1 in the revised set of plans submitted on August 13th. However, the zoning requirements table on that same sheet states a setback of 40.7 ft. This should be corrected. SECTION 8: CENTRAL DISTRICT (CD) 8.01 General Purpose of the Central District 8.02 Establishment of Sub-Districts 8.03 Prohibited Uses – All Districts 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts 8.05 Specific Sub-District Regulations 8.01 General Purpose of the Central District The Central District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of a balanced and coordinated mixture of residential, commercial, public and private uses adjacent to Dorset Street that support the city center goals and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It is designed to promote efficient use of land by concentrating mixed uses within a well-defined Central District. This will provide a pedestrian-oriented circulation network that minimizes vehicular traffic. It also encourages the traditional town center pattern of appropriately scaled buildings facing onto a well- defined and active public street. Innovative site planning and master planning are encouraged to maximize uses, shared parking, public open space and pedestrian amenities which create an aesthetically pleasing and socially active community center on and around Dorset Street. To this end, all applications involving ten (10) or more acres of land in any Central District shall require a Master Plan approval pursuant to Article 15 of these Regulations. 8.02 Establishment of Sub-Districts The Central District is divided into four (4) sub-districts - Central District 1, Central District 2, Central District 3 and Central District 4. Permitted and Conditional Uses and dimensional standards vary by sub-district as established in Sections 8.06 through 8.10 of these Regulations. The subject parcel is located in the CD 3 District. 8.03 Prohibited Uses - All Districts Proposed are multi-family dwellings, so these prohibitions do not apply. 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts A. Purpose. The general intent of the building setbacks in the Central District is to require all buildings to front on to public streets and to require that parking facilities are located in the center of the blocks to the greatest extent practicable, occupy only minimal frontage on public streets, and are thoroughly screened from view from public streets and rights-of-way. All four buildings front on and are close to Market Street (1’ setback from the property line with the expanded land). The easterly building on the corner that also faces Hinesburg Road has a porch along the full length of that building frontage, so that the building addresses the street appropriately, but with a deeper setback as befits that busier street. The Hinesburg Road frontage is appropriate. Parking is CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc located behind the buildings and within the site, as required. The proposed front setback along Market Street is in compliance with Section 8.04 (B) (1) of the LDRs. As noted above, staff is supportive. B. Location of buildings and structures. (1) All buildings and structures, with the exception of parking facilities, are required to be constructed within an allowable building envelope. The maximum depth of allowable building envelopes shall be eighty (80) feet and, in general, shall be measured from the nearest planned public street right-of-way as shown on the South Burlington Official Map. Buildings are located within the 80 foot depth measured from Market Street. This requirement is being met. (2) The Development Review Board may approve a building, a portion of which extends beyond the building envelope provided the building contains a minimum of two (2) stories and the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. This standard is met. Staff previously recommend that the buildings be separated further apart, resulting in a building not meeting the 57 ft. setback requirement from Hinesburg Road. The buildings have been moved further apart which results in the building closest to Hinesburg Road to be setback 41.7 feet which is a 15.3 ft. encroachment. Staff supports this waiver. 2. The Board should discuss this setback waiver request. The Board has previously indicated that it would support such a request. Note that staff would be supportive of further encroachment to allow an increase in the depth of the porch facing Hinesburg Road from the current 5-6 feet porch to a larger one. (3) Exemption for master planned buildings and structures. Buildings and structures whose footprint, parking, and access are subject to and reviewed in conjunction with an approved master plan in the Central District 1 shall be exempt from requirements for the maximum depth of an allowable building envelope. N/A C. Special Standards for Setbacks (1) Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet, or between zero (0) and five (5) feet if a fire wall is provided. Buildings will be 12’ – 14’ apart, and the ‘outer’ setbacks are more than that, satisfying this standard. (2) The front yard setback area along Dorset Street, Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road shall be restricted to the following uses or improvements: (a) landscaping and green space (b) access drives (c) pedestrian oriented improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, plazas, benches, and bicycle racks. (d) utility services provided they are placed underground. Appurtenant facilities such as transformers and amplifiers may be installed at ground level where such is in accordance with Section 13.18 of these Regulations (utility cabinets and structures). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc N/A D. Location of Parking Areas and Structures (1) Multi-level parking garages and decks may be constructed within an allowable building envelope, and/or outside of an allowable building envelope if located in the center of a block. (2) Surface parking may be provided within the allowable building envelope if it is located behind a building and is hidden from view from the public street. (3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within the allowable building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the public street by a building, provided: (a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the total parking required for the property, (b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope area existing on the property, (c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the amount of surface parking required, and (d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. Parking is located within the site and behind all of the buildings, with varied landscaping /screening proposed on the Hinesburg Road end. 25 spaces are provided, two per dwelling unit plus one. E. Parking Requirements (1) The parking requirements of Table 13 are required in the Central District. These standards may be met on-site or off-site if the parking facility is located within seven hundred (700) feet of the main entrance of the establishment and is approved by the Development Review Board. (2) The Development Review Board may accept a contribution to the parking trust fund to establish a municipal parking lot in lieu of parking spaces. The amount of the contribution shall be based on a per space fee set by the City Council. (3) The Development Review Board may further reduce the amount of parking required, up to a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the number of spaces required, in conjunction with an approved master plan upon a showing by the applicant that the master plan includes viable provisions for off-site employee parking and transportation and construction of mass transit stops within the master planned area sufficient to further reduce parking demand. (4) Parking lots located in the centers of blocks shall be connected with openings between lots to allow traffic flow between lots. According to Table 13-1 of the LDRs, 24 parking spaces are required where the parking spaces are to be in common with no reserved spaces; 25 spaces are provided. Other standards do not apply here. F. Density. Height, coverage, setbacks, floor area ratios (F.A.R.) and the maximum size of units will govern the density of the Central District. The F.A.R. is the ratio of building square footage to lot size. For example, a 5,000 square foot building on a 5,000 square foot lot has an F.A.R. of 1.0. A 2,500 square foot building footprint on 2 floors (5,000 square feet total) on a 5,000 square foot lot also has an F.A.R. of 1.0. A one story 2,500 square foot building on a 5,000 square foot lot has an F.A.R. of 0.5. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc According to the applicant, this project has a floor area ratio of +- 0.47, just under the 0.5 limit in this zoning district. 8.05 Specific Sub-District Regulations C. Central District 3 and 4 (1) Allowable Building Envelopes in Central District 3 and 4: Allowable building envelopes shall be in accordance with Section 8.04(B), with the exception of Dorset Street, Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road. Along Dorset Street, the envelope is measured from a point ten (10) feet west of the right-of-way line, thereby creating a minimum ten (10) foot front yard setback from Dorset Street. Along Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road, the envelope is measured from a point thirty- two (32) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way. Please see notes above. (2) Lot Coverage in Central District 3 and 4: The maximum coverage of commercial development and mixed residential/commercial development shall be forty percent (40%) for buildings and ninety percent (90%) overall (including buildings, parking, walks, plazas, garages, etc.). The maximum coverage for residential development shall be fifty percent (50%) for buildings only and eighty percent (80%) overall. Where a multi-level parking structure is to be constructed on a lot, the maximum allowable coverage for buildings shall be ninety percent (90%). Satisfied. (3) Density in Central District 3 and 4: The base maximum density of development shall not exceed an F.A.R. of 0.5. The Development Review Board may explicitly approve development up to an F.A.R. of 0.7 as a bonus for the provision of special, public-oriented amenities such as parks, courtyards, pedestrian ways, etc. The maximum residential density shall be twenty-five (25) units per acre (minimum unit size of five hundred (500) square feet). Please see notes above on this topic. Figure 8-3, Allowable Building Envelope (Typical), CD-3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc DESIGN REVIEW 11.01 City Center Design Review Overlay District CCDR A. Purpose. A City Center Design Review Overlay District (CCDR) is hereby formed in order to promote development of the proposed South Burlington City Center as an attractive and cohesive area in which the citizens of South Burlington can take pride. It is the intent of this overlay district to ensure that the design of future development is aesthetically and functionally compatible with the desired character for this area of the City, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that good design will help create and maintain a sense of place for the community, promote its self- awareness, and strengthen the business and civic elements of the community. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. 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. This project is located within Design District 3. (3) Design District 3 - This area generally includes land located on the west side of Dorset Street and also on the far eastern section of Market Street. This area is planned to be a transitional area between the higher density, more intensely developed portions of City Center and adjoining residential neighborhoods. The design of buildings in this zone should be compatible with the adjoining residential character. Therefore, building materials should include wood/vinyl, as well as brick and stone, and consist predominantly of natural, subdued colors. Also, pitched roofs are highly recommended. The Board has discussed these at previous meeting. See discussion below concerning building materials. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc 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. (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: (iii) Design District 3. Natural, indigenous materials of stone, masonry and wood shall predominate. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), architectural concrete and wood clapboard/shingles (synthetic materials such as vinyl siding may be used in place of wood provided it is of high quality and closely resembles wood clapboard/shingles). Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include metal skin and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). Architectural elevations and some design details are submitted. There is little or no stone, masonry, or wood proposed here. Synthetic siding (wood-textured fiber cement) siding is proposed. The Board has in other circumstances allowed for a certain amount of this type of material. 3. The Board should discuss the proposed construction materials especially the primary use of fiber cement. (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. Color pairings are proposed for each building that are all traditional and subdued. Color samples have been provided and will be distributed at the meeting. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc 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. See below for overall discussion of building design. (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. See below for overall discussion of building design. (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: (ii) Design District 3. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. 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. Only a small portion of roof area may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, or does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. Where portions of a roof are flat, 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. No information is provided on roof pitch, but these are not flat roofed buildings. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc Inappropriate Roof Treatment – Monotonous Appropriate Roof Treatments (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. Staff feels that this criterion is met for Hinesburg Road. See discussion below regarding effective frontage on Market Street. (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. No rooftop devices are shown. (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. No information is offered regarding energy efficiency or solar energy, although these will have to meet the state’s energy code requirements. (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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc 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. This standard appears to apply more to commercial buildings than to homes. For the July 1st meeting of the DRB, staff identified in the designs a lack of depth, design, texture, and appearance for such sizable, prominent buildings to be placed in a line right on the street. Greater depth and texture of window and building trim, along with more thoughtful and harmonious placement of windows on all ‘open’ sides of the buildings, might also help better satisfy the design standards of the LDRs. These and related concerns over design were discussed by the Board at the July 1st meeting and the applicant encouraged to submit revised plans which the applicant did on August 13, 2014. These plans are a significant improvement. Staff has identified additional recommendations as follows to make these areas fully functional: ---the front porches facing Market Street are too shallow to allow comfortable use by residents. They are 4-5 in depth. These should ideally be at least 6 ft. deep. ---staff notes that the minimum depth of the parking aisle can be 22 ft. instead of the 24 ft. proposed. If applicant reduced the depth of the aisle this would facilitate expansion of the front porches and also have the added benefit of reducing the impervious surface on the property by several hundred square feet. ---the porch on the easternmost unit could be wider as well. Staff is already comfortable with an incursion into the setback given the overall consistency of the development with the goals of the CD-3 zoning district. This fact coupled with the extensive landscaping proposed in front of the porch make a deeper porch feasible. ---given the changes contemplated in the draft Form Based Code regulations, staff encourages the applicant to work with neighbors to determine whether plant trees and shrubs along the southern edge of the property line between the fence and the property line would be desirable to the neighbors and if so, to implement them. 4. The applicant has submitted revised plans on August 13th that appear to address some of staff concerns identified for the July 1st meeting. Staff has identified other concerns as noted above. The Board should discuss these standards and the Plan in depth especially the Market Street facades and determine if they meet these standards. 11.02 Site Design for City Center Design Review District A. Landscape and plantings. Significant trees and vegetation should be preserved in its natural state insofar as practicable. Any grade changes should be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Landscape plantings and amenities shall be well designed with appropriate variations and shall be included as an integral enhancement of the site and, where needed, for screening purposes. In particular, parking areas shall be well screened by berms, plantings, or other screening methods to minimize their visual impact. Planting islands shall be used to break up larger expanses of paved parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff on June 25, 2014: • Tree and Shrub Planting Details and Specifications need to be included in plans. • Specify that parking lot islands/bumpouts must be filled with quality planting soil to a depth of 2.5 feet to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth. • Sugar Maple is not very tolerant of parking lot/street tree conditions. Recommend a different species. • Boxwood is not recommended for use bordering sidewalk on Rte. 116. Will likely incur haeavy (sic) damage from snow plowing/salting operations Yews along sidewalks will require precautions to protect against salt damage in winter The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan on August 13th. Tree planting details and specifications are now shown but not for Shrub planting. Sugar maples and boxwood have been removed from the plans and replaced with different species. 5. Due to the late submission of this revised plan, the City Arborist has not had a chance to review it prior to the August 19th meeting. The applicant should revise its plans if necessary to address the City Arborist’s recommendations on the August 13th plan. This could be done at the final plat stage. B. Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. HVAC equipment should not be pad mounted at grade. Utility connections shall be installed underground and utilities shall co-exist to the greatest extent possible. As noted, a mailbox is shown by the entrance drive, and the dumpster is at the other end of the site, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc near Hinesburg Road. No HVAC nor other utility cabinets are shown on the plans. 6. Should HVAC units be included in the development at a later stage in the development review process, the plans should clearly delineate their location and such units should be adequately screened. C. Walls, fences or other screening features: Such elements, if used, shall be employed in a skillful manner and in harmony with the architectural context of the development. Such features should be used to enhance building appearance and to strengthen visual linkages between a building and its surroundings. As noted, a 6 ft. solid-wall stockade fence will be installed along the rear of the parking lot. The dumpster will be screened of unknown materials. A retaining wall of unknown materials or dimensions is also shown at the back edge of the parking lot. D. Accessible open space. When providing open space on a site, it shall be designed to be visually and physically accessible from the public street. Open space should add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing by or overlooking the site from neighboring properties. If open space is intended for active use, it should include such elements as benches, shade trees, and refuse containers and be so designed to maximize its accessibility for all individuals, including the disabled, and encourage social interaction. The siting of open space on a lot shall also consider the potential impact of buildings, both existing and potential, on shadow casting and solar access. There is little open space on the site, but this is perhaps expected, being located in a high density land use district. The open space that does exist is at the corner of Market & Hinesburg Road, a location staff supports. E. Provide efficient and effective circulation. With respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, special attention shall be given to the location and number of access points to public streets and sidewalks, to the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, to the arrangement of parking areas and to service and loading areas, and to the location of accessible routes and ramps for the disabled. Site design shall also provide for interconnections, both vehicular and pedestrian, between adjacent properties. A single access drive serves the property. The parking lot is in a logical location, and as required in the LDRs. Direct access is provided to the street/recreation path/sidewalk from each dwelling unit. F. Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to be both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The lighting type or types shall be metal halide, compact fluorescent and/or induction lamps and shall be of a white color with a Color Rendering Index (CRI) of seventy (70) or greater recommended. Light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded to preclude glare and overall illumination levels should be evenly distributed. Downcast LED light fixtures are specified, apparently several pole-mounted lights of unknown height, and also on or within the porch overhangs. No other exterior lights are shown on any plans. It is worth considering an additional pole-mounted light near the dumpster for the safety and convenience of the residents; this should be on a motion detector, so it is not on all night long. G. Provide for nature’s events. Attention shall be accorded to design features which address the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc affects of rain, snow and ice at building entrances and on sidewalks, and to provisions for snow and ice removal from circulation areas. Porch overhangs at front and back doors are helpful in this regard. H. Make spaces secure and safe. With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces should be designed to facilitate building evacuation, and provide reasonable accessibility by fire, police or other emergency personnel and equipment. The Fire Chief/Fire Marshal will review for building code requirements. I. Streetscape improvements. An applicant for new development shall be responsible for implementing streetscape improvements (e.g., sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, etc.) within the portion of the public street ROW directly fronting the parcel of land for which development is proposed. Such streetscape improvements shall be in accord with the specifications contained in the City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines. The Fire Department will provide formal comments at Final Plat. OTHER Two bike racks are shown on the plan. This may prove sufficient for residents but the applicant may wish to reserve and identify a space for installation of a future 3rd rack. The snow storage area seems small for a parking lot of this size. The applicant will likely need to remove snow as the winter progresses. The project includes installation of a proper sub-base for a future recreational path along Market Street; this is an excellent idea that makes very good sense to do as a part of the extensive site work needed here. A concrete walkway leads from each dwelling unit to the future path, except for the unit facing Hinesburg Road, which has a walkway leading to the sidewalk on that street, as well as out back to the parking lot. Landscaping: Building construction cost is estimated at $1,742,400. Required minimum landscaping: First $250,000 x 3% = $7500. Next $250,000 x 2% = $5000. Balance of $1,242,400 x 1% = $12,424. Minimum required landscaping budget = $24,924; The initial landscaping plan estimated costs of $26,475. Costs the revised landscaping plan submitted on August 13th have not been detailed. 7. The applicant should submit updated landscaping cost estimates to reflect both any direction given by the Board at the August 19th meeting and after receipt of additional comments by the City Arborist. The Public Works department will provide formal comments at Final Plat. Finally, the application also speaks to clarifying a disputed property boundary between the adjoining landowners. The boundary shown is mutually agreeable between the two (2) parties as evidenced by the application being signed by both parties. 8. The Board should provide guidance to the applicant and recommend measures so that no further disputes over the property boundary arise between the current or future landowners. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc 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: (a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (b) 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 Director of Public Works Department will provide formal comment at Final Plat. (c) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project will be served by one curb cut on Market Street. The curb cut is located approximately 360 feet from the intersection of Market Street and Hinesburg Road. This should prevent the creation of any congestion on adjacent roads from traffic entering or leaving the project parking lot. (d) 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. No wetland, streams, wildlife habitat or unique natural features are located on the site. (e) 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. Staff feels that the design and orientation of the proposed buildings is compatible with other buildings in the District and with the overall purpose of the District to create a mix of uses coupled with a pedestrian- friendly environment. (f) 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. This criterion is being met within the constraints of the property. (g) 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 Department will provide comments at Final Plat. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc (h) 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. Staff feels that this criterion is met. The project include construction of several concrete walkways from the four proposed buildings to connect to a future multi-use path along Market Street and construction of a concrete walkway to connect to an existing sidewalk along the west side of Hinesburg Road. The project will also install the subbase for the City’s future multi-use path. Extensive landscaping along the project’s frontage with Market Street and Hinesburg Road is proposed. The project as proposed is compatible with the extension of services and infrastructure referenced in this criterion. The plan should be revised to show a 20 ft. wide recreation path easement along Hinesburg Road. 9. The Board should discuss the need for a recreation path easement along Hinesburg Road. (i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. See comments for item (h) above. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (j) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels that this criterion is met. The project establishes four appropriately scaled buildings with a pedestrian-friendly design as called for in the Central District 3. 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: (a) 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. 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 four proposed buildings align lengthwise along Market Street and the proposed parking is located behind them. However the east side of the easternmost building faces Hinesburg Road and thus is considered the front side of a building as well. While no building screens the parking lot from being viewed from Hinesburg Road or from the adjacent sidewalk, the project proposes extensive landscaping along that portion of the property which will screen the parking lot to some degree from being viewed. Note that according to the regulations in Chapter 8.04, Section D. Location of Parking Areas and Structures, paragraph (3): (3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within the allowable CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the public street by a building, provided: (a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the total parking required for the property, (b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope area existing on the property, (c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the amount of surface parking required, and (d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. The overall maximum lot coverage is 80% and the development proposes 72.7 percent. Approximately 46% of the development is covered by the parking lot and internal sidewalks. A total of 24 spaces are required based upon the number of housing units. 25 are provided although one is a Handicap Only space. 10. The Board should determine whether the provisions of Chapter 14.06 and Chapter 8.04 are met so as to allow the project to proceed as planned or whether a) additional landscaping and fencing should be required along the eastern edge of the property, b) a building should be placed along Hinesburg Road to screen the parking lot and/or c) the overall size of the parking lot should be reduced. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable to this project (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B) (2) (b) shall be exempt from this subsection. Not applicable to this project (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. Not applicable to this project (b) 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. Staff feels that this criterion is met. The proposed buildings are similar in height and scale to others in the zoning district. The proposed easternmost building is consistent with other along Hinesburg Road (c) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff feels that this criterion is met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc (d) 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. This criterion has been reviewed as part of the project’s design review. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (e) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Staff feels that this criterion is met. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington 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 of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff feels that this criterion is 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. Staff feels that this criterion is 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). A screened dumpster area is shown on the plan. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. 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. The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff on June 25, 2014: • Tree and Shrub Planting Details and Specifications need to be included in plans. • Specify that parking lot islands/bumpouts must be filled with quality planting soil to a depth of 2.5 feet to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth. • Sugar Maple is not very tolerant of parking lot/street tree conditions. Recommend a different species. • Boxwood is not recommended for use bordering sidewalk on Rte. 116. Will likely incur haeavy (sic) damage from snow plowing/salting operations CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc Yews along sidewalks will require precautions to protect against salt damage in winter The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan on August 13th. Tree planting details and specifications are now shown but not for Shrub planting. Sugar maples and boxwood have been removed from the plans and replaced with different species. 11. As noted on page 11, due to the late submission of this revised plan, the City Arborist has not had a chance to review it prior to the August 19th meeting. The applicant should revise its plans if necessary to address the City Arborist’s recommendations on the August 13th plan. Stormwater Public Works staff provided the following comments on August 1st: I reviewed the Backbay Ventures VIII, LLC, “12 Unit Housing Project”, located at 135 Hinesburg Road. The project plans were dated March 26, 2014 and last updated on April 25, 2014. I’d like to provide the following comments: 1. The project is on a 0.76 acre lot. The state of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requires that projects creating greater than 1 acre of impervious area obtain a 3-9015 stormwater permit. Projects that disturb greater than 1 acre of land are required to obtain a Construction General Permit from Vermont DEC. It does not appear that this project will be required to obtain either of these state permits. 2. In order to evaluate the proposed stormwater drainage system, the applicant must provide the following additional information: o Hydrologic modeling for the stormwater drainage system. I’d be interested in reviewing modeling results for the 1 year, 10 year and 25 year storm events. o Information related to existing soils. Two test pits are shown on sheet C1.0 . Information related to these test pits should be provided as well as the results of any infiltration testing that took place. o Elevation information for the following: - Building foundation drain and foundation drain outlet. - Subsurface infiltration system bottom elevation. - Existing groundwater elevation. 3. Provide information related to the depth of stone beneath the underground infiltration facility. 4. There is a “Drip Edge at Building w/ Underdrain” detail on sheet C2.0 and a “Drip Edge & Foundation Drain Detail” on sheet C2.1. Please clarify which will be used. The detail on sheet C2.1 shows a sand layer and impermeable liner that is not present in the detail on shet C2.0. 5. Provide elevation information for the proposed new retaining wall on the property’s southern boundary. 6. Will the proposed new retaining wall have an underdrain? 7. Provide a description of where water discharging from the subsurface infiltration systems will flow during large storm events. 8. There is an area designated for snow storage at the east end of the property. Where will snowmelt from this area flow? 9. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim_Aug_19_mtg.doc 12. The applicant should address the comments of the Public Works department. Snow Storage 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 plans although staff has concerns on whether it is large enough to accommodate snow storage given the size of the parking lot. 13. The Board should determine whether the proposed snow storage area is large enough. Landscape Budget Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(2) of the SBLDR. Building construction cost is estimated at $1,742,400. Required minimum landscaping: First $250,000 x 3% = $7500. Next $250,000 x 2% = $5000. Balance of $1,242,400 x 1% = $12,424. Minimum required landscaping budget = $24,924; The initial landscaping plan estimated costs of $26,475. Costs for the revised landscaping plan submitted on August 13th have not been detailed. 14. As noted on page 11, the applicant should submit updated landscaping cost estimates to reflect both any direction given by the Board at the August 19th meeting and after receipt of additional comments by the City Arborist. RECOMMENDATION The applicant should address the items identified above that need correction, improvement or clarification. If the Board is satisfied that sufficient information has been provided, staff would recommend closure of the preliminary plat hearing. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: David Shenk SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247MARCH 26, 2014LS1PROPOSEDLANDSCAPINGPLANPROJECTLOCATIONPlant Schedule8/13/2014Quantity Key Botanical Name Common Name SizeTrees (decidious)7 QR Quercus rubra Red Oak 2-21/2"7 CP Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood 5-6'3 CM Cornus m. 'Golden Glory' Golden Glory Dogwood 2"Trees (evergreen)4 OF obtusa Fillicoides Fernspray Falsecypress 4-5'Deciduous Shrubs8 MP Myrica pensylvanica 'Nordic' Nordic Bayberry (semi-evergreen) 18"-24"17 CH Cotoneaster horizontalis Rockspray Cotoneaster #32 HA Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' Annabelle Hydrangea 4-5'5 SJ Spirea jponica 'Neon Flash' Neon Flash Spirea #7Evergreem Shrubs7 AZ Azalea Northern Light Series 18"-24"10 BS Boxwood - Green Velvet Buxus Microphylla 18"-24"3 TBR Taxus baccata Repandens Creeping English Yew 18"-24"32 TMD Taxus media densiformis Dense Spreading Yew 18"-24"3 RRE Rhododendron roseum elegans Roseum Elegans Rhododendron 3-4'5 JPN Juniperus procumbens 'Nana' Dwarf Japanese Garden Juniper #32 PJM Rhododendron compact clone Compact P.J.M. Rhododendron 2'6 IG Ilex glabra 'Shamrock' Shamrock Inkberry #5 SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247MARCH 26, 2014C1.3PROPOSEDGRADING ANDDRAINAGEPLANPROJECTLOCATION SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247C1.2PROPOSEDUTILITYPLANMARCH 26, 2014PROJECTLOCATION ELEVATIONS&DETAILSNEW TOWNHOUSESMARKET STREET TRIPLEXESTHIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFG4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILD ELEVATIONS&DETAILSNEW TOWNHOUSESMARKET STREET TRIPLEXESTHIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFG4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILD SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247C1.1PROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLANMARCH 26, 2014PROJECTLOCATION From: Chris Snyder [mailto:csnyder@snyderhomesvt.com]   Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:08 AM  To: ray  Cc: Eric Farrell  Subject: RE: Spear Meadows    Ray,    I am requesting the South Burlington DRB continuation for the Spear Meadows proposed  neighborhood.      We will provide a $50 fee for the continuation.  I hope that we can present this neighborhood proposal  to the DRB soon.    Chris       From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com]   Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:40 AM  To: Chris Snyder  Cc: Eric Farrell  Subject: RE: Spear Meadows    Chris,    We will need a request directed to the DRB and this can be in the form of an email to me which I will  provide the DRB in their packet. A fee of $50 is required to request a continuation, so please send me an  email and drop off the $50 fee. 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: Chris Snyder [mailto:csnyder@snyderhomesvt.com]   Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:33 AM  To: ray  Cc: Eric Farrell  Subject: Spear Meadows    Ray,    I spoke with Eric about the presentation of Spear Meadows.  Based on that conversation, we are  requesting that the review by the DRB be moved to the next available date.      What do I need to provide you to move the hearing date?    Chris      CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint_Aug19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2014 Application received: 5/22/14 AGENDA ITEM #5 Tonaquint, Inc. - 333 Van Sicklen Road Conditional Use Application #CU-14-07 Meeting date: August 19, 2014 Applicants/Owners Tonaquint, Inc. Attn: Carolyn Bever 333 Van Sicklen Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel IDs Southeast Quadrant District Natural Resource Protection District Floodplain Overlay District PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-14-07 of Tonaquint, Inc. for a project consisting of: 1) constructing a 1,039 sq. ft. detached accessory residential unit, and 2) allowing a new single family dwelling and the accessory residential unit to encroach into a wetland buffer, 333 Van Sicklen Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht have reviewed the plans submitted on May 22, 2014 and August 12, and offer the following comments. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Southeast Quadrant, Natural Resource Protection Area, Floodplain Overlay District, and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Normally, this project could be reviewed solely by the Administrative Officer however, the proposed project intrudes into a Class II Wetland Buffer and also includes construction of new accessory residential unit, both of which require DRB review. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: SEQ-NRP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 24,000 sq. ft. for two dwelling units 385,070.4 sq. ft. 385,070.4 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 15% 0.6% 3.8%  Max. Overall Coverage 30% 3.7% 12.7%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. >> 20 ft. >> 20 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >> 10 ft. >> 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >> 30 ft. >> 30 ft.  Max. Building Height 25/28 ft. unknown 28 ft. main house, 15’ cottage  Zoning compliance SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – SEQ: Applicable Regulations 9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling units, subject to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards: (1) Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no more than one (1) single family dwelling unit only if: (a) The portion of the lot in any other (non-NRP) SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with these Regulations, and; (b) The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer. This criterion is met. There is no portion of the lot outside the NRP SEQ subdistrict. No structures, yards or access drives are within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint 9.13 SEQ Review and Approval Process A. Single family residences and two-family residences on a single existing lot are specifically excluded from the review provisions of Section 9.13 of this article. All other development is subject to the provisions presented below. This criterion is met. 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. (4) On corner lots, accessory structures shall not be located on the side street side between the side street and the required front setback line of structures fronting on the side street. (5) When an accessory structure is attached to a principal structure, it shall comply in all respects with the requirements of these regulations applicable to the principal structure(s). (6) Accessory structures shall comply with front yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. (7) Any structure connected to another structure by an open breezeway shall be deemed to be a separate structure. (8) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. (9) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. (10) No accessory structure shall be constructed with a cellar or below-grade story. (11) No part of any such accessory structure shall be designed or used for sleeping purposes, and no cooking facilities shall be placed or permitted in any part of such accessory structure unless such structure is a duly approved location of an accessory residential unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint Criteria (1) – (11) but excluding (8) are met. 1. With regards to (8), as currently proposed, the total square footage of all accessory structures is 1,385 s.f. for the cottage unit plus approximately 192 s.f. for the existing shed indicated on the plans. This totals 1,577 s.f. which is 56% of the 2,795 s.f. footprint of the principal structure. Staff has contacted the applicant’s engineer who has indicated they will consult with the owners about the possibility of removing the shed from the property. If this were done, the percentage would drop to 49.55% which would make the project compliant with this standard. B. Poolhouse. Any accessory structure designed as a poolhouse shall be located no farther than fifteen (15) feet from the swimming pool to which it shall be accessory. Not applicable. C. Attached Garage. A private garage may be constructed as part of a main structure, provided that when so constructed the garage walls shall be regarded as the walls of the main building in applying the applicable front, side, and rear yard requirements of this chapter. Not applicable. D. Accessory Retail Uses. Where non-residential uses are permitted in a residential district, uses such as hospitals, clubs, and multi-family buildings over fifty (50) dwelling units, such uses may conduct customary and appropriate retail activities such as gift shops, cafeterias, fitness rooms, and snack shops. Such uses shall be conducted within the principal structure. There shall be no external evidence of retail activity discernible from the outside of the structure. Access to the retail activity shall only be from within the principal structure. Not applicable. 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. This criterion is met. The unit’s floor space is 1,039 ft. The total habitable area of the single-family home is 3,744 ft. (2) The principal dwelling shall be owner-occupied. This criterion is met. The owner has indicated they will reside in the principal dwelling. This is a unique situation in that the property owner is a corporation. It must be established that at least one (1) of the owners of the corporation will reside in the principal unit. A related issue is that this corporation is not currently registered with the Secretary of State’s Office. 2. The applicant has provided a copy of a deed transferring the ownership of this property to 333 V.S. Road, L. P. The only information missing at this time is a copy of the partnership agreement to show that the principal residence will be occupied by someone who is a partner in the L.P. The Board should discuss whether it wants to continue the hearing until that information is part of the record. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint (3) The accessory dwelling unit shall be an efficiency or one-bedroom unit. This criterion is met. (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 criterion is met. The applicant’s are connecting the accessory unit to the City’s wastewater system. (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. This criterion is met. One (1) space will be in the garage and the other space will be nearby to the cottage. (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. Not applicable. (7) A zoning permit shall be required for each accessory residential unit. The applicant’s proposal, if granted, will meet this criterion. 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. 10.01 FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT While according to the application, this property lies within the Floodplain Overlay District (FP), none of the following standards should apply. The reason is that the owner filed for, and was granted, a “LOMA “(Letter of Map Amendment) in July 2008 from FEMA. The LOMA established a 100 year floodplain elevation of 322.5 ft. in the area proposed for construction. The basement floor elevation of the main house was established at 324.0 ft. and the first floor elevation of the cottage was established at 332.0 ft. Therefore, the structures themselves will be located in “Zone C”. This is a non-restricted zone that lies above and outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone (the standard regulated flood zone) and the 500-year flood hazard zone (which is not always regulated elsewhere, but which is regulated to a certain degree in the LDRs). 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide appropriate protection of the City’s wetland resources in order to protect wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, wildlife habitat, and flood control. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint of south Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Wetlands Map and Applicability of Standards. (1) All wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, whether identified on the map entitled “Wetlands Map” as set forth in Section 3.02 of these regulations or as identified through field delineation, and a buffer area fifty (50) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any such wetland, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (2) In the absence of site-specific delineations, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control as to the location of wetlands and wetland buffer areas subject to the provisions of this section. D. Submittal and Review of Field Delineation and Wetlands Report (1) For all properties for which any application for development requiring DRB review is made, and on which any wetland areas are indicated on the Wetlands Map, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit site specific field delineations indicating the location, classification, functions and values of all wetland areas (Class I, II and III) and an associated fifty (50) foot buffer area. In the absence of such site-specific delineations and information, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control. (2) Applicants are encouraged to submit a field delineation and wetlands report as early in the development review process as possible. (3) The DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant of any field delineation and wetlands report. The City’s wetlands consultant shall submit an evaluation of the field delineation and wetlands report addressing the proposed development’s consistency with the standards in (D) above, and outlining the following: (a) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources without altering the layout of the proposed project. (b) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources that involve altering the layout of the proposed project. E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The eastern edge of the proposed new single-family home and the proposed new detached accessory structure (which contains the accessory residential unit) intrude into the 50 ft. buffer for Class II wetlands and therefore paragraph (3) is operative. Several areas of the existing driveway and parking areas are also in this buffer area. The plans also indicate the presence of an existed shed in the wetland buffer. This shed may be removed by the applicant. --------Criterion (a) appears to be met. The 2008 LOMA referenced above established a 100 year floodplain elevation of 322.5 ft. The basement floor elevation of the main house is 324.0 ft. and the first floor elevation of the cottage is 332.0 ft. therefore the structures should not affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately. --------Criterion (b) is not applicable. --------It is unclear at this point if Criterion (c) is met. The applicant’s plans submitted to date do not appear to show any new mitigation measures. The applicant’s documents submitted on August 12, 2014 show that the proposed project would increase the impacts to the buffer area by 46.6 square feet, from 5582.6 SF to 5,629.2 SF. It is staff’s position that the project will meet the above criteria for wetland buffer encroachment. 3. The applicant should note that the City will only approve this project contingent upon and consistent with the issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. SECTION 14. SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW This review only applies to the proposed Accessory Residential Unit. 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 project is consistent with the planned character of the SEQ-NRP District. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. The project is consistent with the purpose of the SEQ-NRP 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, as long as CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint it is determined that City water and wastewater services can be provided. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. See 1. and 2. above. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that this will adversely affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. Except where the DRB has discretionary authority noted above, and unless prior decisions have found otherwise, the property should be in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. See 1. and 2. above. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. No known effects. OTHER Based on the site plan, it appears that further intrusion into the wetland buffer is proposed for both the new house and the new cottage, as compared with the existing home. Please note that some existing sidewalks within the wetland buffer will be removed. Erosion control details are provided, but the areas where these would be employed are not shown clearly on any plans. DPW will have to confirm whether any required isolation distances from the existing/to be abandoned well and septic system and the new water and wastewater service lines are met. It is difficult to tell from the plans how much new or temporary construction or disruption (pump station, pit staging for directional drilling, other site work and construction for the new structures) will take place within the 50’ wetland buffer. While a silt fence is shown along the northerly boundary of the new homes, it is unusual to think that as shown, one can excavate for and pour a foundation, and then do exterior construction work, in such a limited and constrained area. RECOMMENDATION The Board and the applicant should address the concerns and issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer PROPOSEDEXISTINGHOUSE + SIDEWALK ONLYBUFFER IMPACTEXISTING vs. PROPOSEDINCREASE OF 46.6 S.F.PROPOSEDEXISTINGTOTAL BUFFER IMPACT(EXCLUDING GRADING)EXISTING vs. PROPOSEDINCREASE OF 46.6 S.F.PROPOSEDTOTAL BUFFER IMPACT(INCLUDING GRADING)EXISTING vs. PROPOSEDINCREASE OF 46.6 S.F. +5582.6 S.F. = 5,629.2 S.F.PROPOSEDEXISTINGSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THESE DRAWINGSARE INTENDED FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING,COORDINATION WITH OTHER DISCIPLINES ORUTILITIES, AND/OR APPROVAL FROM THEREGULATORY AUTHORITIES. THEY ARE NOTINTENDED AS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS UNLESSNOTED AS SUCH.2. ONLY DRAWINGS SPECIFICALLY MARKED “FORCONSTRUCTION” ARE INTENDED TO BE USED INCONJUNCTION WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS,SPECIFICATIONS, OWNER/CONTRACTORAGREEMENTS AND TO BE FULLY COORDINATEDWITH OTHER DISCIPLINES, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO, THE ARCHITECT, IF APPLICABLE. THESEDRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION LAYOUT. CONTACT TCE FOR ANYCONSTRUCTION SURVEYING SERVICES OR TOOBTAIN ELECTRONIC DATA SUITABLE FORCONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.3. THESE DRAWINGS ARE SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECTAND ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. AS INSTRUMENTS OFSERVICE, THESE DRAWINGS, AND COPIES THEREOF,FURNISHED BY TCE ARE ITS EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY.CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS MAY ONLY BE MADEBY TCE. IF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS AREDISCOVERED, THEY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THEATTENTION OF TCE IMMEDIATELY.4. BY USE OF THESE DRAWINGS FORCONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, THE OWNERREPRESENTS THAT THEY HAVE REVIEWED,APPROVED, AND ACCEPTED THE DRAWINGS ANDHAVE MET WITH ALL APPLICABLEPARTIES/DISCIPLINES TO INSURE THESE PLANS AREPROPERLY COORDINATED WITH OTHER ASPECTSOF THE PROJECT. THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT,ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY BUILDINGS SHOWN,INCLUDING AN AREA MEASURED FIVE (5) FEETAROUND ANY BUILDING.5. IT IS THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THISCOPY CONTAINS THE MOST CURRENT REVISIONS.Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions 478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSBuffer ImpactsEX-0107/17/20142014039RMPJADBever Residence333 Van Sicklen RoadSouth Burlington, Vermont---- SHEDScale: Project Number: Date:Drawn By: Project Engineer: Approved By: 478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COM TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Sheet Title: Project Name: 07/17/2014 1" = 20' 2014039 RMP JAD ¬¬ Bever Residence Building Footprint Comparsion PROPOSED COTTAGE EXISTING HOUSE EX-02 PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPRINT AREAS PROPOSED HOUSE 2373 S.F. PROPOSED COTTAGE 1384 S.F. TOTAL 3757 S.F. EXISTING HOUSE 2198 S.F. WWWW VAN SICKLEN RDPAVED DRIVEMUDDY BROOKD24" HDPEi=317.7215" H DPE 15" PVC POND OUTFLOWEXISTINGPOND24" CMP24" CMP42" CMPBRIDGEi=323.536" PVC TCE CONTROLPOINTS #501ELEV.=322.17TCE CONTROLPOINTS #3ELEV.=323.41TCE CONTROLPOINTS #2ELEV.=320.99TCE CONTROLPOINTS #1ELEV.=333.51SMALL STREAMEXISTING HOUSEFFE=332.78BFE=324.29SHEDMTCTPT1-S1T1-S2T2-S1T2-S2T3-S2T3-S112" CMP i=321.11i=322.25STONEWALLUPUPUPUPUP50' WETLANDBUFFER50' WETLANDBUFFERROCK LEDGEEXISTINGWETLANDEXISTINGWETLANDBRICK-LINE D STREAM WALKWAYEXISTINGTREE (TYP.)SMHSMHPSPSTOP/BANK50' WETLANDBUFFERCBRIM=321.08i=318.31BRIDGEWETLAND BUFFERZONEBOUNDARY LINE PERSOUTH BURLINGTONTAX MAPTCE CONTROLPOINT #503ELEV.=329.05OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSMALL ELECTRICALTRANSFORMERAPAPGGG340340340338338338338338338336336336336336336334334334334334334334334332332332332332330330330330330330328328328328328326326326326326326324324324324324324324324324324322322322322322322322322322322320320320320320320320S S S FM FM SSSD20' SEWEREASEMENT4" SDR 21 PVC F O R C E M A I N MTCTCE CONTROLPOINT #504ELEV.=330.34GAS GATEVALVESDCBCBCB326 328 330 COBBLESTONE DR.C.O.SMHSMH8" PERF. PE8" PVC8" PVC FMFMFMFMHYD.12" P.E.4"8" D.I.6" PERF. PEDD15" HDPEi=330.56LOT 29LOT 28LOT 51LOT 50LOT 1LOT 27EXISTING HOUSEAND SIDEWALK TOBE DEMOLISHEDAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OFEXISTING FUNCTIONINGLEACHFIELD TO BE ABANDONED2008025256Bever Residence333 Van Sicklen RoadSouth Burlington, VermontExisting ConditionsC1-0204/24/14!" = 30'2014039NPCJADSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable. TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project. TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Field Book:Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisionsNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUTELSSTATE OF VERMONT PROFES SIONALENGINEERLI CENSEDPROJECT INFORMATION:1. OWNER OF RECORD: TONAQUIT INC.333 VAN SICKLEN ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054032. TAX PARCEL ID: 1750-003333. PHYSICAL ADDRESS 333 VAN SICKLIN RD OF PROPERTY: SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054034. PARCEL SIZE: 10± ACRES5. ZONING DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST QUADRANT (SEQ)NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA (NRP)FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT6. TCE DID NOT COMPLETE A BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE LOTLINES AND AREAS SHOWN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND AREAPPROXIMATE.7. WETLAND DELINEATION BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN APRIL 2014.THIS DETERMINATION WAS CONFIRMED BY STATE WETLANDS OFFICE IN MAY2014.LEGENDCATCH BASIN (CB)UTILITY POLESIGNTELEPHONE PEDESTAL (TP)PROPERTY LINEWETLAND LIMITFENCETREE LINESTONEWALLOVERHEAD POWERUNDERGROUND POWEROHPUPFMDWSSEWER FORCEMAINSTORM DRAINAGETOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSPAVED DRIVE OR ROADGRAVEL DRIVE OR ROADIRON PIPEWATER SUPPLY WELLTCE CONTROL POINTSTEEL REBARSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSAND SERVICES124WSURVEY NOTES:1. THE PURPOSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN IS TO DEPICTPERTINENT EXISTING CONDITIONS AS OF THE DATE OF SURVEY,04-21-2014.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON VERMONT GRID NORTH.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD88 (GEIOD 12).4. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS BASED ON VERMONT STATE PLANE (U.S.SURVEY FEET).5. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED WITH RTK GPSOBSERVATIONS FROM THE RICHMOND CORS STATION. A TRIMBLE R6RTK GPS UNIT WAS EMPLOYED FOR THESE OBSERVATIONS.6. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE BASED ON RESEARCH, UTILITY PLANSPROVIDED BY OTHERS, AND/OR SURFACE EVIDENCE ENCOUNTEREDAND WERE OBTAINED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARYSTANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CARE AND HAVE NOT BEENINDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER.ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN MAY EXIST. ENGINEER SHALL BENOTIFIED IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED. ACTUALLOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MAY VARY. DIGSAFE MUST BECONTACTED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. CALL 1-888-DIG SAFE(344-7233).7. PERIMETER BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON STRICTLY FROM TAX MAPINFORMATION ONLY, THIS PLAN DOES NOT DEPICT A FORMALBOUNDARY SURVEY.PROJECT LOCATION0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 120SEWER MANHOLE (SMH)PUMP STATION (PS)PSWETLAND SAMPLE POINTALARM PANEL (AP)GGAS LINEMTC OR TRANSFORMER (MTC)MTCVALVEOUTLET OREND SECTIONSEWER CLEANOUT (CO)WATER CURB STOPSILT FENCES:\_TCE DRAWINGS\2014\039 Fife Residence- South Burlington\2014039 - EC.dwg, 5/22/2014 2:44:33 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 From: Victoria Fraser [mailto:vkfraser@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Vicki Fraser Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:05 PM To: ray Subject: Flooding on Van Sicklen Ray - There were several things I didn’t get to mention last night, because I was interrupted. I would appreciate it if you would forward this to the Chairman of the DRB. I have lived on Van Sicklen Road for 27 years. The photographs of the flooding in March of 2011 represent a moderate flood. On a scale of 1 - 10, I would say this flood is a 4. A flood to which I would give an 8 rating would be covering my driveway, covering the road extending past my driveway to the next house, and be half way up the hubcaps of my car when driving out the flooded drive. This has happened 4 times in the years I have lived on Van Sicklen. The flood in March 2011 has not gone over my driveway. Photograph 4 shows the water still has a foot or two to go before touching the road. Significant flooding occur every 2-3 years. Some floods are moderate, some are severe. Photograph 1 shows the water coming to the base of a pine tree on the east side of the house. If that pine tree had been shown in the drawings, we would know the elevation of the moderate flood in 2011. I believe this flood is past FEMA’s 100 year mark of 322.5 feet. This is important because it indicates that the extension of the sunroom to the east, with the needed fill, which will continue to extend east, projects into an area that floods regularly, even though it is not in the 100 year flood plain. I would like to suggest that the eastward edge of the envelope extend no further than the current foundation. Thank you, Vicki Fraser From: Brian Hoar [mailto:brian@gosscars.com]   Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:09 PM  To: ray  Subject: RE: Parking Area Expansion Application    Ray,    We would like to request an extension to our DRB review meeting until the Tuesday October 7th, 2014  DRB meeting.    Thank you,    Brian Hoar  Vice President GOSS Dodge Chrysler 1485 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-658-0120 office www.GOSSCars.com   From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:00 AM To: Brian Hoar Subject: RE: Parking Area Expansion Application   Brian,    Doug dropped off the prints yesterday, could you forward me the pdf of this new plan? 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: Brian Hoar [mailto:brian@gosscars.com]   Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:56 AM  To: ray  Subject: RE: Parking Area Expansion Application    Will do, Thank you.    From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:52 AM To: Brian Hoar Subject: RE: Parking Area Expansion Application   You can email it to me in PDF format.    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: Brian Hoar [mailto:brian@gosscars.com]   Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:33 AM  To: ray  Subject: RE: Parking Area Expansion Application    Good Morning Ray,    The Application for site plan review requires one digital (PDF‐format) copy to be submitted.  Is that  something we can email to you or should it be put on a flash drive?    Thanks,    Brian Hoar  Vice President GOSS Dodge Chrysler 1485 Shelburne Rd S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-658-0120 office www.GOSSCars.com From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:57 AM To: Brian Hoar Subject: Parking Area Expansion Application   Doug,    Please submit your revised plan by Monday August 11th so staff will have time to review the plan before  the August 19th meeting. 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.     CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_14_08_58BartlettBayRd_Austin_erosion_control_and_stai rs DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2014 Application received: June 27, 2014 DAVID T. AUSTIN CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-14-08 58 Bartlett Bay Road Agenda #7 Meeting date: August 19, 2014 Owner Alexandra Wynkoop 58 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant David T. Austin 681 Beaver Creek Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Property Information Tax Parcel 0130-00058 Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION David T. Austin, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking Conditional Use approval for the installation of erosion control measures (slope stabilization) and water oriented development (stairs to lake), 58 Bartlett Bay Road. This application is being reviewed under Conditional Use criteria and Section 12.01(1) (3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Note: This is a resubmission of #MS-11-05 which was approved by the Board on December 8, 2011. The work was not completed and a one year extension was granted in June 2012 for the applicant to obtain a zoning permit by June 8, 2013. A permit was not obtained and therefore the owner and the applicant have submitted a similar proposal along with a new set of plans. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on June 27, 2014 and August 11, 2014 and have the following comments: CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 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 project is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. The proposed erosion control measures and stairs conform to the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. 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. The proposal does not adversely affect the capacity of municipal or educational facilities. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The proposal does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or the ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed measures will have no affect traffic on roads or highways in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in Effect The proposed erosion control measures and stairs shall also adhere to Section 12(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, Surface Water Protection Standards, governing water- oriented development. (a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. The applicant has proposed supplemental stabilization measures composed of stabilization fabric, stone fill, and large quarry stone, as well as soil, grass seed, and plantings. (b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. When construction is complete, the proposed boulders, rip-rap and plantings will prevent further erosion of the property. (c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. The erosion that is currently occurring is destroying the vegetation; the new erosion-control measures will eliminate further destruction of this vegetation. The aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore will be improved by the construction of a new, large quarry stone wall along the northwest edge of the property which will match an existing stone wall along the shoreline and have the added benefit of blocking sight of an existing part cement, part rock wall. (d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain, and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake. The applicant has stated that existing vegetation will be maintained outside of construction areas. Existing vegetation within the construction area will be removed, stored off-site, and replaced at the completion of construction. The applicant has proposed supplemental vegetation plantings along the top of the slope and elsewhere on the property. In addition the applicant has proposed plantings of native plants underneath some existing trees on the property which will increase water retention on site. It is staff’s position that the proposed plan meets the intent of this subsection. Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The Development Review Board in granting conditional use approval may impose conditions of the following: a) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations. b) Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards. c) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. d) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of the above conditions on the proposed project. Water-Oriented Development The applicant is also proposing to install new stone steps to access the lake front. Pursuant to Section 10.01(F) (3) (a): No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development, that would result in any increase in flood levels within the regulatory floodway during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, shall be permitted unless hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, by a licensed professional engineer, certifying that the proposed development will: a) Not result in any increase in flood levels (0.00 feet) during the occurrence of the base flood; and b) Not increase any risk to surrounding properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or flooding. 2. The engineer working on the previous application, #MS-11-05, submitted a letter addressing these criteria (attached). Staff has asked the current applicant to have their engineer submit an updated letter. Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards C. Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”) (1) Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows: ……. (e) All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum. This applicable area extends across more than half of the property. (2) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted. The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows: (a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below. (b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, and shall not be mowed more than one (1) time per calendar year after establishment. No trees are proposed to be removed. Existing vegetation that will be impacted by construction activities will be replanted. The applicant met with staff on July 29, 2014 to discuss how to make improvements to the application including measures to improve water quality. The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan on August 11, 2014 which details proposed plantings primarily on the slope towards the beach but also includes some new plantings under existing trees. It is staff’s position that the proposed plan meets the intent of this subsection. (c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date of these regulations. New lawn areas are not proposed as part of this application. (d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property. (ii) Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt. (3) Expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in accordance with the standards for non-complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these Regulations. --------------------Not applicable (4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer. --------------------Not applicable (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. The applicant submitted plans designed by a licensed professional engineer. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. --------------------Not applicable (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. --------------------Not applicable (e) Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. --------------------Not applicable (f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer. --------------------Not applicable (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. --------------------Not applicable (h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or extending utility services. --------------------Not applicable (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro-electric power generation Criteria (i)-(k) are not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Conditional Use application #CU-14-08 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer EXISTING FOUNDATION DRAINS TOBE REDIRECTED TO BASE OFSTABILIZATION. COORDINATEWITH ENGINEER. (2 TYP.)PLACE 6" MINUS SHOT ROCKSTABILIZATION AS NECESSARY IN ALLERODED AREAS. TOP ±12" TO BETOPSOILED, SEEDED AND STABILIZEDWITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING.MAINTAIN UNTIL PERMANENTVEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.NEW LARGE (4'-5') QUARRY STONERETAINING WALL* EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE INSTALLED AS DETAILED - SEE SHEET C2.0 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "LOW RISK SITE HANDBOOK FOR ERIOSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL"EXISTING VEGETATION ANDUNSTABLE MATERIAL TOBE REMOVED ON EMBANKMENTPRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF NEWMATERIAL(WALL TO BE REMOVED)EXISTING CONC. STEPS TO BE REMOVEDSITE PLAN1"=10'PROJECT BENCHMARK- TOP OF 5/8" REBARELEVATION = 115.2'(TOP PORTIONSTO BE REPAIRED)(TO BE TEMPORARILY REMOVEDFOR CONSTRUCTION.CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TOREPLACE FENCE AND REPAIRLAWN AFTER CONSTRUCTION.)NEW 4' WIDE (MIN.) STONE STEPS ANDHAND RAILING (COORDINATE FINALLOCATION WITH OWNER & ENGINEER)T.O.W. EL. 106.0±T.O.W. EL. 98.0±T.O.W. EL. 106.0±T.O.W. EL. 106.0±SECTION B-B1"=5'* ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMEDABOVE THE 98' CONTOUREXISTINGGRADE11.5 MAX.INSTALL FILTER FABRIC AGAINSTEXISTING GRADE PRIOR TOPLACEMENT OF SHOT ROCKPLACE 6" MINUS SHOT ROCKSTABILIZATION AS NECESSARYIN ALL ERODED AREAS.EXISTINGGRADEEXISTING FOUNDATION DRAINS TO BE REDIRECTED TO BASEOF STABILIZATION. COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER. (2 TYP.)NEW LARGE (4'-5') QUARRYSTONE RETAINING WALL TOP ±12" TO BE TOPSOILED, SEEDEDAND STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROLMATTING. MAINTAIN UNTIL PERMANENTVEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.NEW SDR 35 PVC FOUNDATIONDRAIN EXTENSIONS. MATCHEXISTING DIAMETER.SECTION A-A1"=5'* ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMEDABOVE THE 98' CONTOUREXISTINGGRADE11.5 MAX.INSTALL FILTER FABRIC AGAINSTEXISTING GRADE PRIOR TOPLACEMENT OF SHOT ROCKPLACE 6" MINUS SHOT ROCKSTABILIZATION AS NECESSARYIN ALL ERODED AREAS.EXISTINGGRADEEXISTING FOUNDATION DRAINS TO BE REDIRECTED TO BASEOF STABILIZATION. COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER. (2 TYP.)NEW LARGE (4'-5') QUARRYSTONE RETAINING WALL TOP ±12" TO BE TOPSOILED, SEEDEDAND STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROLMATTING. MAINTAIN UNTIL PERMANENTVEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.NEW SDR 35 PVC FOUNDATIONDRAIN EXTENSIONS. MATCHEXISTING DIAMETER.STAIRSLOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPROPOSEDSLOPESTABILIZATION58 BARTLETT BAY ROADSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTLEGEND1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises.Existing utility locations are approximate only. The Contractor shall field verify all utility conflicts. All discrepancies shall bereported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction.2. The Contractor shall repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or off the site) as a direct or indirect result of the construction.3. All grassed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established.4. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits.5. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities.6. Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as part of the contract and shall be theContractor's responsibility.7. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within Town Road R.O.W. with Town authorities.8. The Contractor shall install the electrical, cable and telephone services in accordance with the utility companiesrequirements.9. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved off-site location. All pavementcuts shall be made with a pavement saw.10. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineerfor verification before work continues on the item in question.11. Property line information is approximate and based on existing tax map information. This plan is not a boundary surveyand is not intended to be used as one.12. Project benchmark is based upon the Lake Champlain water elevation as established from the United StatesGeological Survey Gauging Station 04294500 located in Burlington, Vermont. (Datum NGVD 29) at the time of survey.GENERAL NOTESDAVID AUSTIN681 BEAVER CREEK ROADSHELBURNE, VERMONT05482COVERAGECATEGORYBUILDINGTOTALREQUIRED20%40%EXISTINGSETBACKSIDEYARDREARYARDBUILDING HEIGHTPRIMARYEXISTINGZONING REQUIREMENTS:PROPOSEDZONING DISTRICT: LAKESHORE NEIGHBORHOOD25±6.7'±47.5FRONT YARD20' ±47.1'29.4%±6.7'±47.5'±47.1'29.4%17%17%10'30'NO CHANGEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2009\09247.01\1-CADD Files-09247.01\dwg\09247-2014B.dwg, 8/11/2014 2:40:45 PM, pmead SITE PLAN1"=10'VARIGATED HOSTA AND COLUMBINE MASSINGUNDER EXISTING CRABAPPLE TREEROSA RUGOSA PLANTINGBETWEEN ELEV. 106' & 110'PHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW'PLANTING ABOVE ELEV. 110'CLETHRA 'HUMMINGBIRD'PLANTING BELOW ELEV. 106'ELIJAH BLUE FESCUEGROUPING ABOVE ELEV. 110'STEPHANANDRA GROUPING PLANTEDBETWEEN ELEV. 106' & 110'(2) PJM COMPACT RHODODENDRON +VARIGATED HOSTAS ALONG SOUTHERNPROPERTY LINEEXISTING CROWN VETCH COVER WILLBE LEFT IN ALL UNDISTURBED AREASVARIGATEDHOSTALOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPROPOSEDSLOPESTABILIZATION58 BARTLETT BAY ROADSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT1. Landscaping plan prepared by Alpine Valley Landscaping.2. Existing plantings of Rhus Aromatica 'Gro Low', Clethra Ainifolia'Hummingbird' and Stephananora Incisa 'Crispa' to be removed andstored off site until project completion. These plantings shall bereplaced in coordination with the new stone steps and hand railing.LANDSCAPING NOTESDAVID AUSTIN681 BEAVER CREEK ROADSHELBURNE, VERMONT05482P:\AutoCADD Projects\2009\09247.01\1-CADD Files-09247.01\dwg\09247-2014B.dwg, 8/11/2014 3:04:35 PM, pmead LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPROPOSEDSLOPESTABILIZATION58 BARTLETT BAY ROADSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTMaintain at least 50 feet of established vegetated buffer for constructionstormwater runoff before entering a receiving water?Limit the amount of disturbed earth to two acres or less at any one time.There shall be a maximum of 7 consecutive days of disturbed earth exposure inany location before temporary or final stabilization is implemented.The project is to disturb less than two acres of soil with an erodibility higher thanK=0.17.Limit the project soil disturbance to less than two acres with slopes greater than5%.DAVID AUSTIN681 BEAVER CREEK ROADSHELBURNE, VERMONT05482P:\AutoCADD Projects\2009\09247.01\1-CADD Files-09247.01\dwg\09247-2014B.dwg, 8/11/2014 2:40:54 PM, pmead 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 Assignment Dan Albrecht RE: Agenda #8 City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport Sketch plan application #SD-14-21 1200 Airport Drive DATE: August 14, 2014 Sketch plan application #SD-14-21 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a planned unit development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of after-the-fact construction of a 215 sq. ft. expansion of the existing gate 11 aircraft boarding hallway and pedestal footing for aircraft boarding bridge equipment, 1200 Airport Drive. The application was received on June 25, 2014 and the applicant submitted revised plans, photos and copies of email correspondence on August 11, 2014. The Gate 11 expansion was constructed on existing impervious surface. On an unrelated matter, the applicant was recently directed by the Transportation Security Administration to remove existing trees (within 5ft of the fence line) at 1130 Airport Drive and revise fencing near Eldridge Cemetery. These trees were required by plans previously approved by the City. As a result of a July 30th site visit by staff with the applicant and their representatives, the applicant is required to and has proposed to replace the trees with ones of equal or lesser value and make fence changes as part of it Gate 11 landscaping plan and revisions. Staff finds the proposal acceptable. CEDAR TREES TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE AIRPORT SECURITY FENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF HERITAGE AVIATION, 1130 AIRPORT DRIVE. CEDAR TREES TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE AIRPORT SECURITY FENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY SIDE OF HERITAGE AVIATION, 1130 AIRPORT DRIVE. OAK TREE IN ELDRIDGE CEMETERY TO BE RE-FENCED TO PROVIDE 5 FEET OF SEPARATION FROM THE AIRPORT SECURITY FENCE. AIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTNV:\1953\active\195310973\transportation\drawing\02-Locationplan.dwg, Heritage, 6/24/2014 1:48:13 PM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3To comply with a recent TSA inspection, the Airport must remove cedar treesadjacent to existing security fences at 1130 Airport Drive and also provide 5' ofseparation distance between an oak tree in Eldridge Cemetery and the Airport'ssecurity fence. Based on discussions with Ray Belair, replacement trees andfence changes will be incorporated in the Gate 11 Landscaping Plan to addressthese security issues. An updated Landscape Plan is being prepared will besubmitted prior to the August 19th DRB meeting.Jon Leinwohl, August 11, 2014 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 RE: Agenda #9, Application #CU-14-09 & #SP-14-36 DATE: August 14, 2014 Conditional use application #CU-14-09 & site plan application #SP-14-36 of William Spalding to amend a previously approved 21,012 sq. ft. 62 unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of expanding the canopy entrance from 145 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft., 20 Harbor View Road. The applicant did not pick up the placard to be displayed on the property in time to provide the required 15 day public notice. Staff therefore recommends the Board continue this application to the next meeting scheduled for September 2nd. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2014 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. Conner, M. & A. M. Donoghue, J. Park, C. Tabor, R. Jeffers, H. Loope, S. Hamilton, D. & D. Kendall, S. Clark, V. Fraser, M. Severance, C. & J. Bever, L. Williams, L. Bresee, J. Desautels, L. Ohlsson 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: No announcements were made. 3. Site Plan Application #SP-14-32 of Tom DiPietro, South Burlington Deputy Public Works Director, to amend a plan for a multi-unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three new bioretention areas, and 4) adding four new catch basis, Stonehedge Drive: Mr. DiPietro said the city has been working with the Homeowners’ Association for a number of years, and this is the final plan that they will be going to construction with. The plan also involves some road work. The project will include a large detention pond, mostly on city property, plus three bioretention areas in locations where water is already going. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. & Mrs. Donoghue expressed concern that the “N” cluster was not being included in the project. They reported massive flooding which they believe is due to the houses that were approved above them. Mrs. Donoghue said they were told they were “on their own.” Mr. DiPietro said the area was looked at, but a number of things did not make it into this project which is addressing the expired state permit. He agreed that water does come down the hill, but that is not being addressed in this project. 2 Mr. Tabor, who resides in the “L” cluster, said they have had 2 engineering firms look at their concerns. He showed on the plan where water comes from even in a small rain event. Water from rooftops and the carports also goes onto the road. He showed where he thought water should be channeled to and where a swale should be put. He said water would then go to the retention areas. Mr. Donoghue said they feel the city “led us on” and then did a “bait and switch” so they are now not included in the project. He showed pictures of the water situation. Mrs. Donoghue said once water breaches the sidewalk it’s in their basement. Mr. DiPietro said this project does not preclude the possibility of additional work in the future. Mr. Bresee asked that a minimum of trees be cut in the upper left corner where there is a small pond now. This area is on the bike path. Mr. DiPietro acknowledged that a lot of trees will come down but will be regrown in time. Ms. Clark, who is on the board of Stonehedge North Association said they are very concerned with stormwater flow, especially with recent intensity of storms. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-14-20 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a six lot subdivision. The amendment consists of resubdividing the six lots into 10 lots, 1630 Dorset Street: Ms. Smith noted that in the draft decision, items #13 and 14 should reference “#12 above.” Mr. Barritt asked that there not be any outer walls of the house or garage that are not broken up by windows. Mr. Williams said they hope to break ground in the fall. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. 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: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 19 August. 3 Mr. Miller moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51 to 19 August 2014. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner to raze an existing single family dwelling with a footprint of 2,004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3,004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Miller recused himself during this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Conner noted they had been asked to amend the landscape plan. The revised plan shows ornamental grasses above the riprap and new trees. They will also keep 2 trees that were originally shown as being removed. Ms. Loope showed the trees which will be kept and where the grasses will go. They will grow to about 3 feet in height. Members agreed this was a significant improvement. Mr. Wilking moved to close the hearing. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller rejoined the Board. 7. Design Review Application #DR-14-06 of Regency Mortgage Company for a Master Signage Permit to allow new signs, 2 San Remo Drive: Mr. Severance noted they had contacted the sign designer who said the proposed signs are made to be outdoors and to resist fading. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-06 of Carlee Cardwell & Lance Ohlsson for after- the-face approval to allow a new 7.5’x10’ entry to project three feet into the front yard setback, 34 Cortland Avenue: Mr. Ohlsson said there was a miscalculation as to where the setbacks were. Mr. Belair said this is similar to the Iby Street situation, and staff has no issues with the request. Members felt that the work looks good. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4 9. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-07 of Tonaquint, Inc., for a project consisting of: 1) constructing a 1,039 sq. ft. detached accessory residential unit, and 2) allowing a new single family dwelling and the accessory residential unit to encroach into a wetland buffer, 333 Van Sicklen Road: Ms. Desautels said they plan to install city water and sewer and add a gas line. They have applied to the state for a wetland permit for the buffer impacts. Ms. Bever said this was her parents’ home, and the cottage is being built for the parents to live in. Mr. Belair said the corporation is registered, but there is still more legal work to be done. The house has to be owner occupied, and at the moment that isn’t the case, so legal ownership will be changing to allow this to be resolved. The house will then be owner occupied. The proposed cottage is a residential accessory unit which the Board has to approve. Mr. Belair also noted that both new buildings encroach slightly into the Class 2 wetland buffer. This property has been included in a 100 year flood plain. The applicant got the flood plain map amended by FEMA because the home sites are above the flood plain. Ms. Desautels showed where the encroachment into the buffer will occur. The design intent is to minimize the impacts. Mr. Barritt asked if there was any other design that would not impact the buffer. Ms. Desautels this design minimizes the impact as much as possible. Ms. Smith asked if the shed will go or remain. Ms. Desautels said they would prefer to keep it, but it would count as an accessory structure. Ms. Fraser, an abutter, indicated that although most of her property is in Williston, there is an acre in South Burlington. She was concerned with the wetland and flood plain. She said flooding occurs a lot, and her driveway gets “major flooding.” She showed photos of this. Mr. Barritt said it appears there may now be less incursion into the buffer. Ms. Desautels said she didn’t think they would be increasing the fill in the area Ms. Fraser indicated. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to 19 August 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Site Plan Application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display and storage area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road: 5 Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked to continue the application to 19 August. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-25 to 19 August 2014. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Final Plat Application #SD-14-19 of Sterling Construction for approval of seven footprint lots, 6, 10 & 14 E. Fisher Lane, 4 & 8 W. Fisher Lane, and 139 & 143 Jefferson Road: Ms. Jeffers said they are OK with the proposed stipulations. Mr. Belair noted these are sub-standard footprint lots. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-19. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Minutes of 1 July 2014: It was noted that on line 1 of page 1, the date should read 1 July 2014. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 1 July 2014 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:55 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk ____________________________, Date