The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/18/2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 February 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, D. Parsons, J. Smith, A. Klugo, B. Miller Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Bertsch, C. Snyder, J. Frank, A. Wynkoop, K. Mackin, J. Caffrey, R. Maynes, B. Hunter, E. Farrell, J. Owens 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt advised that DRB member Michael Sirotkin has resigned from the Board as he will be replacing his late wife in the State Senate. Mr. Barritt also noted that he had participated in a meeting in Waterbury regarding marijuana legislation. 2. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-13-40 of The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 32 single family dwellings. The amendment consists of removing one single family dwelling and replacing it with four single family dwellings, 111 Upswept Lane: Mr. Snyder said this is an extension of the South Pointe neighborhood. They will remove the Unsworth house and replace it with 4 carriage houses. In addressing comments from the last hearing, Mr. Snyder directed attention to a revised plan showing how garages are set back and there are porches on all 4 houses. There is now one 50-foot house and three 40 foot houses. Mr. Snyder showed a photo of the existing neighborhood with both 40-foot and 50-foot houses intermingled. He also showed a proposed elevation with the 50-foot house integrated with the 40-foot houses. He pointed out the variety in design with changing roof lines. There will be 15 feet between the houses, the same as for most of the existing houses. Mr. Barritt asked about delineating the separation from city-owned land with a split rail fence. Mr. Snyder said it might look out of place if it didn’t continue down the row of houses. There is an existing tree line. He also noted that it is farther to the city land from these homes than from the existing houses. Mr. Belair suggested the Board have the applicant show there is a natural barrier or propose one. Mr. Snyder said they can do that and suggested the possibility of some boulders. Mr. Klugo felt the porches are great. He suggested the garages for the middle units not be next to each other. Mr. Snyder said that whatever they do, this would happen at least once. Members were OK with the placement as presented. Members were also OK with the intermingling of the 40-foot and 50-foot houses and with the different styles of the houses. Mr. Barritt noted the requirement for acceptable water pressure. Mr. Belair said this will be based on the standards of the Water Department. Mr. Klugo noted that part of lot A’s yard is taken up with the retention pond. He asked if this could possibly be moved to the back property line. Mr. Snyder said they would look at that. Mr. Frank, secretary of the homeowners’ association noted the pedestrian path from Upswept Lane to the city park. The path is 5 feet on each side of the boundary line. He assumed this would be preserved. Regarding water pressure, Mr. Frank said the problem is not easily solved. He talked with someone at the Water District who said he didn’t see any change in water pressure happening, and it would stay as low as it is. Mr. Frank added that they are not objecting to this development; they do want their presence noted at this meeting. No other issues were raised. 3. Site Plan Application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association, Inc., for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five White Pine trees and replacement with six Easter White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle: Mr. Caffrey, President of the homeowners’ association said that over the years there were issues with the pines infringing on buildings. They had an arborist look at this, and he deemed there was a lack of sunlight, and they could enhance grass growth by removing the pines. They were unaware they needed a permit to do this. Mr. Caffrey also noted there are a lot of Norwegian Pines on the property that will have to be replaced because they don’t do well in this environment. Mr. Barritt noted an alternate plan from the City Arborist. Mr. Caffrey said they are OK with the plan but are concerned with how far into the backyards the staggering will go. Mr. Belair said they will need an expert opinion on how to plant the trees. Mr. Klugo suggested increasing the caliper of the trees to provide privacy for neighbors. A resident noted that 2 of the removed trees covered up all of her windows, and there was no grass near her home. She is happy they are gone. She couldn’t sell her house because of the problem. Mr. Caffrey noted that a development on the adjacent property might remove a lot of trees that will leave a lot of spaces and erode the privacy barrier. What Stonington plans may be the only trees on that privacy line. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-13-68 until 18 March 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-13-43 of F & M Development Co, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30-unit multi-family dwelling & 3,7000 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63-unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 47-unit congregate housing facility (not yet constructed). The amendment consists of: 1) subdividing an adjacent 5.20 acre parcel developed with a television studio into two lots of 4.02 acres & 1.18 acres, 2) incorporating the 1.18 acre parcel into the existing PUD, and 3) converting the approved but not constructed 47 unit congregate housing building into a 54-unit multi-family dwelling, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive: Mr. Behr noted that he had a brief ex-parte communication with Mr. Farrell regarding the chairmanship of the DRB. No issues were raised with this. Mr. Farrell briefly reviewed the history of the project for new Board members. He noted that the land under consideration was formerly the Olympiad property. They will be changing the plan to residential units instead of congregate care as they could not work out an arrangement for the congregate care units. The proposed building will be 5 stories instead of 4 and the building will be shortened to accommodate more green space for the tenants. The building footprint will be 11,000 sq. ft. instead of the originally proposed 12,000+. They have worked out a purchase of acreage from the TV station for a pet walking and community garden area. There will also be an area for barbequing. The TV station property will still be in compliance. Mr. Farrell showed a plan for a sidewalk on the north side of Joy Drive with a path connection approved by Public Works. The plan will require a 14-1/2 foot height waiver, mainly because of the elevator shaft. Mr. Farrell showed an overhead view of the entire site and a “graphic representation” with the proposed building set in. He also showed the result of a 4-season shadow cast study. There will also have to be a waiver for a 5‐foot “sliver” on Joy Drive. Mr. Farrell showed this on the plan. Mr. Barritt questioned whether the proposed amenities will be available to the whole PUD. Mr. Farrell said they won’t because there is different ownership. They would rather settle this among themselves. He felt there is plenty of space for gardens at the other buildings as well as dog-walking areas. Mr. Behr felt the garden should serve the 2 buildings in the immediate area. Mr. Belair said staff is OK with the height computation. There is a question as to whether this is measured from the property line or from the building corners. Mr. Klugo said that in his experience, it is measure from the property line. Mr. Farrell said they would like to break ground on 1 April, if the Board is comfortable what is presented. Ms. Smith said she was uncomfortable with the building height and felt it could be “precedent setting.” Mr. Klugo felt the smaller footprint and more green space and the affordable units were an acceptable trade-off. Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Klugo cited the difference between viewing the building from beside it or from a distance. He felt the impact would depend on the architecture. Mr. Farrell said it’s important to make buildings comfortable for tenants. Mr. Behr said this is a high density area, and you either go up or out. He felt the additional floor gets some good benefits. Mr. Barritt said he understood the trade-off but wasn’t yet sure whether he can support the 5th floor. Mr. Parsons said he was OK with the plan as a taller building provides some efficiencies. A question was raised about the utility cabinet in the right-of-way. Mr. Farrell said they will do what Public Works wants. To avoid a delay, they would move it. Mr. Barritt didn’t like the driveway to allow access to the basement storage. Mr. Behr agreed. He said he would rather have the tree-line impeded. Mr. Farrell asked if a sidewalk there would be OK so people can carry things to the basement storage area. They also need access to for Green Mountain Power to the utility cabinet. Mr. Klugo suggested structured turf. Mr. Farrell said he can do that and indent a pull-off for GMP. Members were OK with that. Members questioned the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Farrell said it is 5.5-6 feet at the highest point. Nowhere is it higher than 8 feet. Mr. Behr asked about construction materials. Mr. Farrell said it will be stackable concrete blocks, the same as previously built. Mr. Belair said staff was OK with that. Mr. Miller then moved to continued #SD-13-43 to 4 March 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-13-67 of Peck Electric seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved site plan for a 6,400 sq. ft. building used for contractor or building trade facility use. The amendment consists of site modifications relating to parking, outside storage and dumpster storage, 4090 Williston Road: Mr. Bertsch showed the building, which is access from Palmer Heights. He noted that over the years, employees have changed the way they park. They have also been doing outside storage where it was not approved. The proposed plan shows parking as it now happens and material storage areas on the south side of the building. There are also 2 storage trailers at the north end of the building. The dumpster has been relocated. They are proposing a new cedar hedgerow for screening. The trailer area will be fenced for screening. Mr. Bertsch reviewed an agreement for an easement to get to one end of the buildings. This agreement is still pending. Mr. Belair said it will be a condition of approval that the agreement be submitted. He also noted the dumpster must be enclosed. Members were OK with the 6-foot high screening of the trailers. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Minutes of 17 December 2013, 7 January, 21 January, 27 January and 4 February 2014: It was noted that in the Minutes of 7 January, both Mr. Barritt and Mr. Parsons should be listed as present. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 17 December 2013, 7 January, 21, January and 4 February as written and/or amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk March 18, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 14, 2013 Plans received: November 27, 2013 SNYDER SOUTH POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD 13-40 Agenda #2 Meeting date: February 18, 2014 Applicant The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership c/o Chris Snyder 4076 Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Owners Karen, Eric, & Stephen Unsworth; Kristina Martinez; c/o Stephen Unsworth 26 Railroad Avenue Essex Junction, VT 05452 Engineer Andrew Rowe, Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 14 Morse Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 1640 01700 R Volume 34, Page 206 SEQ & BBW Districts 27.2 Acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-13-40 of The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 32 single family dwellings. The amendment consists of removing one (1) single family dwelling and replacing it with four (4) single family dwellings, 111 Upswept Lane. The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership, hereafter referred to as the applicant, seeks sketch plan approval for a four unit residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), consisting of four single family homes to replace one existing single family home owned by the Unsworth family. The overall project is on a 27.2 acre lot; lot #32, the subject of this application, is 1.21 acres in size, and is located in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) at what was previously known as 1700 Spear Street. Portions of the property also fall within the Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection District and the Dorset Park View Protection Zone D. COMMENTS This application was continued from the January 7th meeting to provide the applicant an opportunity to prepare detailed plans showing the four (4) new buildings as they relate to density as this was an issue brought up by the Board at the sketch plan meeting. 1. The Board should discuss lot layout and building plans provided by the applicant in relation to the LDRs as requested at the previous meeting. Administrative Officer Raymond Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on November 27, 2013 with additional plans submitted on February 11th and 12th. Staff offers the following comments. Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements NEED TO UPDATE FOR THIS APPLICATION WHEN DATA ARE SUBMITTED, and consolidate it with relevant elements from the more recent table below from Dorset Links SEQ Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 12,000 ft.2 1,184,832 ft.2 48,351 ft.2  Min. Frontage (single-family) 85 ft. 60 ft. 86 ft.  Min. Frontage (multi-family) 100 ft. n/a >100 ft.  Max. Building Coverage 20% 0.38% 6.8%  Max. Total Coverage 40% 2.2% 15.1%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. >20 ft. 30 ft.  Min. Side Setback (single-family) 10 ft. >10 ft. 50 ft.  Min. Side Setback (multi-family) 20 ft. n/a 30 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. 30 ft.  Max. Building Height 40 ft. <40’ <40’  Min. Floor Area 864 ft.2 >864 ft.2 >864 ft.2 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch  zoning compliance Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements SEQ-NR Zoning District Requirement/Limitation Proposed  Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF >0.31 acres  Max. Base Density 1.2 units/acre base density= 1 unit 4 units – needs 3 TDRs  Max. Density 4 units/acre TDR density= 4.84 units 4 units – needs 3 TDRs  Max. Building Coverage 15% ?  Max. Total Coverage 30% ?  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 20’  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 15’ external; 15’ between buildings  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 30 ft.  zoning compliance  Building coverage is for the overall PUD. Each lot will be subject to this criterion and will be enforced by the Administrative Officer at such a time as the applicant proposes buildings for the lots.  At 4 units per acre as proposed, the 1.21 acres would allow up to 4.84 units. Therefore, the applicant will need three transferred development rights. 2. All land development, including but not limited to expansions, sunrooms, and decks shall be limited to the building and overall coverage limitations for the district. This shall be permitted through zoning permits by the Administrative Officer. The applicant must submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for TDRs that to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Ultimately, the development rights must be purchased by the applicant as a part of any final plat approval, and all required documents and surveys of this property, and that from which the development rights were severed, must be approved by the City Attorney and then recorded in the land records SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR), subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The standards for this criterion are found below in a review of the regulations of the Southeast Quadrant. These four new units appear to be designed in a manner consistent in size, form, and layout with the rest of the previously approved and built out neighborhood. The Board previously raised the issue of density and felt that four (4) units might be too many for this lot. The applicant has submitted a “Footprint Study” plan and a “Streetscape” plan to address the Board’s concern. Also submitted are a series of photos showing some of the existing units in the development. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch 3. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The proposed subdivision of this property is in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the Southeast Quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. The Table of Uses and Dimensional Standards (Appendix C) also specifies the maximum building height for the SEQ-NR District. The maximum height for principal buildings (flat) is 25 feet, and the maximum height for principal buildings (pitched) is 28 feet. Maximum story heights also apply. The applicant indicated at the last meeting that the buildings will comply with the height requirement. 4. The maximum height of any structure shall not exceed those allowed within the Table of Uses and Dimensional Standards (Appendix C). B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels These four units adjoin City-owned open space to the north. Staff recommends that a clear delineation be provided so as to prevent intrusion of private uses onto public land. 5. The Board should discuss and advise the applicant whether the rear (north) boundary of these lots should be delineated with a split rail fence or in a similar, landscape-friendly manner so as to prevent intrusion of private uses onto public land. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable subdistrict allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The proposed development of this lot is consistent with the regulating plan as the street already exists. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch Common open space already exists as lot #36, 15.16 acres in size, from the original project approval. It includes a stormwater pond, open field, wetland area, and wooded land. 6. The common land must remain undeveloped, and available for use by all residents of the PUD. Association documents shall also include provisions for maintenance of the land. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Comments on the proposed plans shall be sought from the Director of Public Works and the City Stormwater Superintendent as a part of a complete submittal for preliminary plat review. 7. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. There do not appear to be any wetland areas on lot #32. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. See discussion under Section 9.06(B) D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. 8. According to Section 15.13 of the LDRs, the existing public water system shall be extended so CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at acceptable pressure. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system, as proposed here. 9. The applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation for each unit prior to eventual issuance of any zoning permit, if these four units are approved. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. No changes are proposed to any prior agreements and approvals. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. Comments shall be sought from the Fire Chief as a part of a complete submittal for preliminary plat review. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. As the street already exists, and the proposed footprint lots are consistent with the development pattern in the existing neighborhood, circulation on the site should be adequate. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The previously approved plans already provide for potential connections to adjacent properties, planned and unplanned, developed and undeveloped. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. Should be OK per prior project approval. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D) (4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch Should be OK per prior project approval, as shown on the plans. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. Description and Regulatory Effect. B. General Provisions (1) The Regulating Plan shall apply to new development within the SEQNRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts. (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub-district shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. Lot #32 exists today with the original house, and as approved in the original decision. No changes are proposed to the dimensions nor proportions. The proposed PUD will consists of four housing units on this lot, arranged in a fashion staff feels is consistent with the intent of this section. C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian-scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian- oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian-friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. The street already exists. Proposed footprint lots are generally consistent with the existing neighborhood, although more rectangular in shape. A sidewalk exists today across lot #32. D. Parks Design and Development See discussion under Section 9.06(B) 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. Should be OK per prior project approval. (4) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. As noted, the proposed lots have a width to depth ratio of 1:1.75 (40’ wide, 70’ deep). These do not meet the standard. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 below. The street already exists. (2) Sidewalks. (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet in width with an additional minimum five- foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street. A sidewalk exists today across the frontage of lot #32. (3) Street Trees (a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. (b) Street tree types shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. Street trees already exist along the frontage of lot #32. (4) On-street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ-VC and SEQ-VR sub-districts. The street already exists (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic. The street already exists. (5) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and light trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. These already exist in the neighborhood; no changes or additions are proposed across lot #32. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages where the vehicle entrance is parallel to the front building line of a house, the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side yard, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the main house and (ii) the front building line of the garage is no more than eight (8) feet in front of the front building line of the house. Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses. (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. House designs have been be submitted as a part of this application including a letter from the applicant dated 2/12/14 addressing the Board’s concerns. The footprint plan indicates that the homes will have the garage set back at least eight (8) feet from the front open porches. The Board should discuss whether the front open porches meet the intent of the “building line” standard. 10. The Board should discuss whether the front open porches meet the intent of the “building line” standard. Information has been submitted on the housing styles. 11. The Board should discuss this issue and provide guidance to the applicant whether or not the plan submitted is acceptable to meet the requirement that the development include a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_40_111UpsweptLn_4unitPUD_sketch mix of housing styles. LANDSCAPING- Street Trees Pursuant to Chapter 9 of the LDRs, the following applies with respect to street trees: Street Trees (a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. (b) Street tree types shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. Street trees exist today in the street right-of-way along the front of lot #32. LANDSCAPING- Bonding Bonding is required for the landscaping around the new houses. OTHER- Street Name The street is already named Upswept Lane. OTHER-Curbing Section 15.12 of the LDRs requires that all streets have curbing and curbing exists. RECOMMENDATION As noted above, there are several questions still to be answered before the Board can give clear guidance to the applicant whether to proceed with preliminary plat review. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Andrew Rowe, Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. February 12, 2014 Ray Belair Planning Office City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: South Pointe Application Ray, I am following up on The Snyder South Pointe application to build 4 homes on Upswept Lane. The Design Review Board had provided comments about the 4 homes at our previous sketch plan hearing in January. Over the last month, we have made several adjustments to the sketch plan to address the concerns, they are: 1. We have determined a path to add width variety to the homes. There are a total of (3) 40 foot wide homes along with (1) 50 foot wide home. The mix of the homes does add dimensional variety to the proposed 4 homes. Currently, the width of the existing homes vary from 40 feet to 50 feet (there are 3 homes on South Pointe Drive that are 40 feet wide). 2. The City of South Burlington zoning has changed and requires different setbacks of the garage to the road frontage. We have addressed this item and provided a site plan that reflects this change. 3. The elevations of the homes have been designed for your review. We feel that the variation of the elevations certainly addresses the concern of uniformity. These elevations do fit in with the existing home elevations, but certainly meet the new zoning requirements. We have proposed these elevations for the 4 homes, but with the understanding that customers may ask us to modify them to fit their needs and desires. I feel that we have addressed the concerns related to the home elevations, the width of the homes, along with the distance between the homes. For your review, I have also sent along photos of the existing home on the property along with photos of several homes to show how our proposed homes will fit in with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to discussing this further at the hearing on February 18th. Sincerely, Chris Snyder Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership Burlington, Vermontbsbdesign.com02.11.14E7D10905© 2014 BSB DesignThe drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon nal design considerations. i.e. applicable codes, structural and E design reuirements, unit planoor plan changes etc.South Pointe Single FamilyStreetscapelan lan lan B lan Burlington, Vermontbsbdesign.com02.11.14E7D10905© 2014 BSB DesignThe drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon nal design considerations. i.e. applicable codes, structural and E design reuirements, unit planoor plan changes etc.South Pointe Single FamilyStreetscapelan lan lan B lan CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_13_68_StoningtonCircle_trees_afterthefact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 14, 2014 Application received: December 27, 2013 Stonington Circle, after the fact tree replacement SITE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION #SP-13-68 Agenda #3 Meeting Date: February 18, 2014 Owner Stonington Circle Owners’ Association, Inc. c/o James Caffrey 41 Stonington Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Same as owner(s) Contact Person Rob Eno Property Management Associates PO Box 1201 Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax Parcel District Location Map Please note: The above aerial photo may not accurately reflect the current conditions of the lot in question. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_68_StoningtonCircle_trees_afterthefact.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association, Inc. for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five (5) White Pine trees and replacement with six (6) Eastern White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on December 27, 2013 and offer the following comments. The sole issue at hand is that the Stonington Circle Owners’ Association cut down five white pine trees of unknown height that were required as a part of a prior site plan approval, and which apparently offered screening from the adjoining Wellesley Grove development. Based on concerns raised by those neighbors, Stonington Circle now proposes to plant six (6) 8 – 10 foot tall Eastern white cedar trees to replace the Eastern white pines that were cut down without prior approval. While not excusing in any way the actions taken here, the practical reality is that white pines were probably not the best choice to begin with for screening at this location. Although they are beautiful trees, they eventually lose their lower limbs so that even in combination with the fence, they don’t necessarily provide the visual barrier desired (although perhaps the site specific topography and sight lines allowed these trees to provide desired screening). White pines are nice trees, do help to attenuate noise, and make a beautiful sound as the wind courses through the branches and needles. However, as they grow to significant height, and out in the open in a non-forested location like this, they are prone to snapping off at the top in high winds and can cause great damage to nearby structures. This simple row of white pines planted so close to these units would certainly be cause for concern among the homeowners themselves at some point in the future. For what it’s worth, and it won’t solve anything, but it would be interesting to learn why these trees were cut down to begin with. Although they will take some time to achieve the height and breadth of the pines that are no longer with us, the Eastern white cedars proposed here are likely a better choice than the pines. They may not grow as tall, but will have greater width and ‘spread’. That said, staff do question the location of trees on the proposed planting plan. These trees will be very close to the existing fence at the time of planting, and very close together (“if not touching already”, according to the landowner’s arborist’s proposal). This is not an approach that lends itself to long term health and vitality of these trees, and as you will see below in arborist Mike Fallis’ response, he agrees with these concerns and with an alternate planting plan suggested by Staff. Sometimes ‘instant gratification’ is sought in matters of screening and landscaping; in other cases, mid to long term health is a more satisfactory perspective by which to solve a problem. In other cases, adjusting a planting plan can help to satisfy both short- and long-term desires or needs. Here, five (5) trees spaced further apart might do better than six (6) trees very close together; or if there is room, even better to keep six (6), but space them in a more staggered planting arrangement rather than simply lining them up as proposed, so that each tree has more room to breathe, gain sunlight, and to grow, while still providing the desired visual and auditory screening from the adjoining property. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_68_StoningtonCircle_trees_afterthefact.doc We have attempted to contact the landowners’ representative to learn of their thoughts on this alternate approach, but he is out of town. This will be the primary element to resolve in the hearing. We note for the record that the City Arborist has reviewed the plan and finds the proposal as submitted acceptable. In response to the Staff questions and the suggested, alternate planting plan described above, landowner’s arborist Mike Fallis offers the following: Hi Lee, As for the tree planting at Stonington, I had been asked to come up with a plan to replace the lost screening between the two developments. Your points are valid, and a staggered approach would allow each individual tree to retain more foliage. From the perspective of the individual trees, this would make sense. You could extend the spacing to 8 feet on center as well as reducing the number of trees, making for fuller, more healthy, individuals. I do not know the specific restoration requirements of the DRB. I was told the pines that were removed were planted as part of the original permitting process, and the adjacent development wanted to restore the cover. This section seems like one large, somewhat unkempt wooded area that exists on both sides of the fence, therefore I wasn't overly concerned with the trees growing over the fence. There would be many options for planting in this area if we were thinking more broadly and not just for privacy alone. I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are for this area. Take care, Mike Fallis Limbwalker Tree Service In addition, Section 13.06(I) of the LDRs requires replacement of trees less than 5” caliper in size to be replaced on an “inch by inch basis” with trees of the same genus at least 2” caliper each. The challenges here are that we do not know how large the pines were before they were cut down; coniferous trees are generally measured by height, not caliper; and the proposal does not offer trees of the same genus. However, as best we know, five white pines were originally planted, and were 5’-6’ tall at time of planting; proposed here are six 8’-10’ tall white cedars. At best, we had a total of 30’ (5 trees @ 6’ tall) of trees planted originally, and now we may have 60’ (6 trees @10’ tall) of trees planted as replacements. So if we apply the purpose of the “inch by inch” basis in the LDRs (which in urban forestry, measuring by caliper inch typically applies only to deciduous trees) to the standard form of measurement for conifers (by height), then this application exceeds the minimum requirement for tree replacement. Further, although these new trees are not of the same genus, they are probably a better choice for the location and intended purpose. There is one other issue that might as well be addressed right up front, for it often percolates implicitly in the background, or may bubble up to the surface in unexpected ways: how to handle these ‘after the fact’ cases, and whether some form of punitive action should be taken to address the matter at hand, and (at least in theory) to dissuade others from doing things first and then ‘seeking forgiveness rather than permission’. This can sometimes take form in a suggestion to make an applicant do more work (i.e., CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_68_StoningtonCircle_trees_afterthefact.doc spend more), or develop less, or in cases like this one, plant larger trees to replace in kind the ones they cut down. This is certainly understandable. Yet here, while larger trees can sometimes be available, and certainly do cost much more to buy and transplant, they do not always actually solve the fundamental concern of replacing screening. Experience indicates that smaller but reasonably sized trees will often outpace the growth of larger trees after just a few years. If even available, and if there is even room to get the very large equipment on site to plant them, larger trees suffer more shock from transplanting, and take longer to recover. Presuming appropriate planting techniques and site conditions (soil/nutrients/moisture/light/spacing…), smaller trees tend to adapt more readily to new locations. They often follow a three year pattern of “sleep, creep, leap”; that is, upon the third year after transplanting, trees have often recovered and begin to grow rapidly again. As always, it’s a delicate balance of needs and desires, short and long term goals, and site specific conditions. The good news is that the Stonington Circle homeowners have offered (whether on their own or upon insistence of neighbors and/or Staff) to help resolve the problem they caused by cutting down the trees that had originally been planted. Now it’s just a question of resolving essential details of species/size/planting plan for the replacement trees, and imposing an appropriate timeframe within which these trees must be planted. Although it’s only the middle of winter right now, it’s not too late to plan for an early spring planting, and let the seasonal rains help these trees get off to a good start. Recommendation: Resolve the questions noted above regarding number of trees and planting plan, impose a reasonable timeframe for planting, and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer 50' Wetland SetbackWetland A Type III CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Staff Comments\2013\SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 14, 2014 Application received: December 11, 2013 F&M DEVELOPMENT CO. – 80 EASTWOOD DRIVE & 30 JOY DRIVE PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-13-43 Agenda # 4 Meeting Date: February 4, 2014 Owner/Applicant F&M Development Co. P.O. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0617-00080 1.25 acres C-1-R-15 Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-13-43 F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30 unit multi-family dwelling & 3,700 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63 unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 47 unit congregate housing facility (not yet constructed). The amendment consists of: 1) subdividing an adjacent 5.21 acre parcel developed with a television studio into two (2) lots of 4.03 acres & 1.18 acres, 2) incorporating the 1.18 acre parcel into the existing PUD, and 3) converting the approved but not constructed 47 unit congregate housing building into a 54 unit multi-family dwelling, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner, Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the application submitted on December 11, 2013, and offer the following comments. The changes from the prior approval include: 1) subdividing an adjacent 5.21 acre parcel developed with a television studio into two (2) lots of 4.03 acres & 1.18 acres, 2) incorporating the 1.18 acre parcel into this existing PUD, and 3) converting the approved but not constructed 47 unit congregate housing building into a 54 unit multi-family dwelling, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements C-1, R-15 Zoning District Required Proposed ◊ Residential Density 15 units per acre (131 units) 146 units  Max. Building Coverage 40% 12.4 %  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 43.75 %  Min. Front Setback (Eastwood Drive) 30 ft. 115 ft. * Min. Front Setback (Joy Drive) 30 ft. 25 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. * Max Building Height and Max. Stories 35 ft. / 4 stories 49.5 ft. / 5 stories  zoning compliance ◊ Exceeds allowance; density bonus requested *Non-compliant, waivers requested (5’ decrease in front yard setback, 14.5’ height increase). The applicant seeks a 14.5’ height waiver (35’ max height + 14.5’ waiver = 49.5’). SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public water system shall be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at acceptable pressure. Applicant had received preliminary wastewater approval with the previous project approval. The current application presents no increase in wastewater demand compared with that prior approval. 1. The applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 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 applicant has included sufficient site grading and erosion control plans as part of this application. 2. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Access to the subject lot is proposed via an existing driveway off of Eastwood Drive and an existing driveway off of Joy Drive. In addition, a service drive is proposed off from Joy Drive to serve the new building. The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no unique natural features on the site. There are no impact resources identified in the Open Space Strategy. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The proposed building is compatible with those already built in the PUD and the area and the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning District. See further discussion of the height waiver request below. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The proposal sites a community garden, picnic table and grill area and a dog park to serve the PUD’s residents along the northeast edge of the parcel. This abuts the undeveloped northwest portion of the 30 Joy Drive/WCAX property. 3. The Board should confirm that these amenities are available to all owners/occupants of the entire PUD. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and provided comments via email dated 6/7/13 to staff with the following recommendations: 1. Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Fire and Building Safety Code . 2. Automatic sprinklers and alarm system as required. 3. Fire Department Sprinkler Connection location to be specified by SBFD. 4. Fire Alarm panel and enunciator location to be specified by SBFD. 5. Provide 24 hour per day off-site (central station) monitoring of all fire alarm and protection systems. 6. Provide an emergency key box(s), location to be specified by SBFD. 7. Elevator car(s) to be sized large enough to accommodate an ambulance stretcher in the flat position. 8. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hose lines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. 9. There are access points and driveways within this plan which are not designed to provide adequate turning radii for responding fire apparatus. All such driveways and street corners shall meet a minimum of the WB 40 straight standard. The South Burlington Fire Marshall has indicated that no additional comments are needed. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The project will connect to existing water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure and will not impact the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. As a condition by the PUD’s current Final Plat Approval, the project will construct a new 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Joy Drive adjacent to the Burlington Indoor Tennis Club, Inc. property which is currently used by a large day care facility. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Staff has already noted that the City Engineer shall review the preliminary & final plat plans and provide comments prior to approval of the preliminary & final plat application. Comments from the City Engineer have not yet been received. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The proposed project and subdivision appear to conform with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Aside from the subdivision itself, conversion in type of housing, and slight increase in number of dwelling units, the project is little changed from the previous approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc The proposed subdivision between this property and the adjoining lot owned and developed by Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. (WCAX) also warrants review. The proposed subdivision would take from WCAX and give to Farrell 1.18+- acres of undeveloped land. This gives Farrell a total of 2.43+- acres of land for PUD lot #4, and leaves WCAX with 4.03 acres. While this adds to the developable density as proposed by Farrell, the applicant has also provided information confirming that the WCAX property will remain in conformance with the LDRs after the 1.18 acres are transferred. AFFORDABLE HOUSING – SECTION 13.14 A density bonus of 16 dwelling units is sought here, based on 50% of those units (rounded up to 8) being perpetually affordable. An “Affordable Housing Plan” has been submitted, which explains the density bonus calculation, as well as specific details of the size and nature of the affordable units and the income levels for which these units are intended. The DRB should require that the affordable housing covenant as approved by the City Attorney in 2011 be attached as a condition of any approval issued for this project, and be recorded in the land records before any zoning permits are issued for site work or construction. Having the City Attorney review this covenant under current needs and law would be prudent The subject property is 8.76 acres and so the maximum base density is 131 units. The applicant is proposing 147 units total or 16 additional units. This is within the 25% increase permitted via the Land Development Regulations cited above. As this increase creates an additional 16 units over the base maximum allowed, eight (8) units must meet the affordability criteria listed in Section 13.14 of the Land Development Regulations. Prior to recording of the final plat, and pursuant to Section 13.12(D) (3) (c), the applicant shall submit a plan detailing the affordable housing proposed as part of the PUD. The plan shall “include a mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney for controlling resale and re-tenanting the individual affordable housing units that ensures that the unit will remain affordable in perpetuity.” D. Criteria for Awarding Density Increase. In addition to the standards found in Article 15, Planned Unit Development and Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, the following standards shall guide the Development Review Board: (1) The density upon which a bonus may be based shall be the total acreage of the property in question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or districts. (2) Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section 13.14 shall apply only to properties of five (5) acres or more, and the maximum allowable residential density with or without such a density increase shall be four (4) dwelling units per acre. (3) Development Standards. (a) Distribution. The affordable housing units shall be physically integrated into the design of the development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc (b) Minimum Floor Area. Minimum gross floor area per affordable dwelling unit shall not be less than comparable market-rate units in the housing development. (c) Plan for Continued Affordability. Affordable housing units shall be available for sale, resale or continuing rental only to qualified below market rate households. The plan shall include a mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney for controlling resale and re-tenanting the individual affordable housing units that ensures that the unit will remain affordable in perpetuity. The City of South Burlington may as needed set a cap on resale prices such that the resale price must not exceed an appreciation on equity of a set percentage. (4) Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going administration of the affordable housing units as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this program. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures. E. Housing Types. The dwelling units may at the discretion of the Development Review Board be of varied types including one-family, two-family, or multi-family construction, and studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartment construction. The language above states that the affordable housing plan shall be presented to and reviewed by the Development Review Board for their approval. As such, this must be completed prior to final plat approval. Prior to recording of the final plat, and pursuant to Section 13.14(D) the applicant shall submit a plan detailing the 14 units of affordable housing proposed as part of the PUD. The plan shall “include a mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney for controlling resale and re-tenanting the individual affordable housing units that ensures that the unit will remain affordable in perpetuity.” The dispersion and method of financing and control shall be as prescribed in the affordable housing plan submitted by the applicant as part of the final plat application (titled The Olympiad…Affordable Housing Plan, marked as Exhibit A by staff). The plan illustrates the distribution and minimum floor area proposed. It is staff position that the proposed distribution of unit types meets and exceeds the overall mix of housing types in the building. The eight (8) affordable units are made up of the following types:  One-Bedroom – 6 (75%)  Two-Bedroom – 2 (25%) The average size of the eight (8) units is approximately 790 sf. Of the 16 allowable “bonus” units, 50% or eight (8) units are required to be perpetually “affordable”. The “affordable” units are specifically designated within the proposed building. The designated affordable housing units are as follows: 80 Eastwood Drive Unit 110 – 2-Bedroom (950 sf) Unit 205 – 1-Bedroom (750 sf) Unit 210 – 2 Bedroom (950 sf) Unit 207 – 1-Bedroom (750 sf) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc Unit 103 – 1-Bedroom (750 sf) Unit 105 – 1-Bedroom (665 sf) Unit 107 – 1-Bedroom (750 sf) Unit 203 – 1-Bedroom (750 sf) Floor plans for each building are attached for reference. The average size of the eight (8) “affordable” units is 790 sf. Affordable Rent Levels The affordable units will be rented to inhabitants whose gross annual household income does not exceed 65% of the county median income, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the total annual cost of the housing, including rent, utilities, and condominium fees (if any), is not more than 30% of the household’s gross annual income. Affordable Sale Price Levels In the event the property were converted to a condominium form of ownership and the units are sold off, then the affordable units will be sold to inhabitants whose gross annual household income does not exceed 80% of the county median income, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the total annual cost of the housing, including principal, interest, taxes and insurance, is not more than 30% of the household’s gross annual income. Administrative Oversight The property owner will contract with the Champlain Housing Trust, or a Municipal Housing Authority, if one is established by the city, to provide annual monitoring and certification of the continued compliance with the above referenced guidelines and restrictions. Affordability Covenant To guarantee the compliance and enforcement of the above referenced guidelines and restrictions, in perpetuity, the property owner will record in the land records, a HOUSING SUBSIDY COVENANT in a form and substance satisfactory to the City Attorney, and Restrictive Covenant setting for the formulas for establishing the affordable rents and sale prices. This document was approved by the City Attorney on September 7, 2011 to cover a different mix of affordable units at this site. That document will be amended to reflect the current proposal. Upon the City Attorney’s approval, the Board finds these criteria satisfied. Staff believes that the applicant’s proposal for affordable housing has met the standards listed above. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc 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. 299 parking spaces are currently approved for the PUD. This project proposes a total of 311 spaces. Mark Smith, PE (of Resource Systems Group, Inc), has provided a shared parking analysis, dated 9 Jan. 2014. 1. Parking requirements- the existing approval with a parking waiver was dependent upon a shared parking analysis. The change in use from congregate care units to residential units results in an increased demand of parking. a. According to the LDRs, 467 parking spaces would be required if each use were to be built independently on their own lot, without any sharing. A shared parking analysis provides a common sense approach as those spaces which typically would peak in demand at one time would be able to complement those uses which would peak at different times. Residential uses are very complimentary to office uses, each typically having peaks at opposite times of the day, with some overlap in mid-morning and late afternoon. As can be seen in the spreadsheet, 320 parking spaces are needed at the peak hour of 10-11 am- when the most spaces are needed by all of the involved uses. This new peak demand number will thus become the base number for required parking. b. 311 parking spaces are proposed on site. If 15 parking spaces are reserved and removed from the shared parking analysis, then 296 parking spaces are provided for sharing. This is a shortfall of 9 spaces from the peak parking demand. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a parking waiver of 9 spaces, or 2.8%. Staff is comfortable with this analysis, and feels this waiver can be supported, as the project includes a significant number of one bedroom apartments, and is located near a transit line. Applicant also references a letter from Resource Systems Group dated 2/22/11 citing smart growth principles in support of this waiver. c. Staff supports the applicant’s request that the 15 parking spaces proposed to be reserved for medical office use be signed so as to limit their reservation to business hours. Although the independent review recommends 8-5 pm, staff is comfortable with reservation from 7 am to 7pm. This still allows for ample residential parking overnight. Fifteen (15) parking spaces may be reserved for the medical office use. They should be available for shared use between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am. Signage should reflect this accordingly. All other spaces within the PUD described above, with the exceptions noted above, and those reserved for handicapped accessibility, should be shared amongst all users and visitors of the PUD. 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. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re- used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (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. (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. The Board finds that these criteria have been satisfied. Section 13.01(G) (5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. Bicycle racks appear to be shown on the plans, but these should be noted or called out on the plans to clarify and confirm. 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. Depending upon which part of the application one reviews, the applicant proposes a five-story building that will be 49.5 ft. in height; and is therefore requesting a 14.5’ waiver of the 35 ft. height limit stipulated in Appendix C, Uses and Dimensional Standards of the LDRs. See also the footnote in Table 1, Dimensional Requirements, at the beginning of this memo, regarding building height. According to subsection D of Section 3.7 Height of Structures, in the C-1-R-15 Zoning District: (b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc The applicant has submitted plans detailing the required elevations and architectural design and has indicated they will provide an aerial illustration of the proposed five-story building as well as a shadow study to the Board. 4. The Board should review compliance with this standard as a follow up to the normal discussion and guidance provided at sketch plan level; and then discuss whether to grant the 14.5 ft. height waiver. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 5. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The applicant has submitted architectural elevations as part of this application. 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. The applicant has submitted architectural elevations as part of this application. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff feels the reservation of additional land is not warranted. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 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). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc No new dumpster storage areas appear to be proposed. An existing dumpster is located approximately 420 ft. away at the end of parking lot serving the Lot 2 building. Staff believes it is appropriate to consider placement of a dumpster near the southern end of the line of new parking spaces to facilitate trash disposal of residents using the Dog Park, grill area and community gardens. The applicant should also discuss if trash or recycling bins will be located in the basement to service residents. 6. The Board should ensure that sufficient solid waste facilities are placed in appropriate locations, balancing positive aspects of convenience and usability with negative aspects of odor and early morning noise when dumpsters are emptied. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans show “non-exclusive”, shared snow storage areas for the subject properties. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. According to the applicant, the original 2011 and newer 2012 required landscaping budget is $108,500. The proposed and approved landscaping budget in 2011 was $111,265; the 2012 proposed budget was $111,425.05; the latest 2013 landscaping budget is $124,612, and as before, includes transplanting two 6” Tilia trees and perennials, and does not include credit for existing landscaping. The applicant has bonded for $108,500 with the construction of the building at 78 Eastwood Drive so the difference left to be bonded is $16,112. Presumably, this increased amount relates proportionally to increased construction costs for the new building as compared with the structure as approved before. Lighting Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30’ above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, with an average level of illumination of 0.1 foot candles. All lighting shall be shielded and downcast. The point by point lighting plan submitted complies with the lighting standards. TRAFFIC The applicant submitted an Updated Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Mark Smith of RSG, Inc. dated January 8, 2014. The study concludes as follows:  Redevelopment of the site will result in a net increase of 8 vehicle trip ends in the AM peak hour and a net decrease of 23 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour compared to the previous CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_13_43_80EastwoodDrive_prelimfinal.doc development (the health club).  The redevelopment will not significantly alter the existing operational characteristics of the studied intersections. Other 7. The new utility cabinet proposed along Joy Drive does not meet the five (5) foot setback requirement pursuant to Section 13.18 (7) of the LDRs. It is proposed to be partially within the Joy Drive street right-of-way and partially on the applicant’s property. The Public Works Dept. should comment on this utility cabinet. 8. Two (2) retaining walls are proposed. Further information about height, materials, construction methods, and other relevant details should be provided. 9. For purposes of the Land Development Regulations, the lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. RECOMMENDATION As you can see, some issues are likely resolved, and others remain, before this hearing can be closed; but forward progress can be made in this review process. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Eric Farrell, applicant TENNIS CENTER78 Eastwood Dr.(4 Story Residential)80 Eastwood Dr.Proposed 5 StoryResidentialTRCCEA1" = 60'06263BA1AUG. 27, 2013A. "Final Plat Eastwood Drive / Joy Drive PUD", last revised 9/12/2011 by Civil EngineeringAssociates, Inc. Recorded in Map Slide 557, South Burlington Land Records (SBLR).B. "Plat of Boundary Adjustment Between Gardens for All, Inc. and Olympiad Court Associates"Dated December 1994 by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Recorded in Map Slide 282, SBLR.C. "Boundary Line Adjustment - Sixty Farrell Street Associates, LLC".Dated Jan. 24, 2006, byCivil Engineering Associates, Inc.D. "Farrell Street", Sheets 2-6. Dated December 6, 1962. Recorded in Volume 197, Pages85-89 SBLR.E. "Broadcast Park". Dated December 1967 by Emerson, Abbott, Harlow & Leedy, Inc.Recorded in Volume 80, Page 83, SBLR.F. "Lots 7 & 8Broadcast Park". Dated November 21, 1968 by Emerson, Abbott, Harlow &Leedy, Inc. Recorded in Volume 80, Page 100, SBLR.1. The purpose of this plan is to depict a boundary adjustment resultingfrom the transfer of 1.18 acres from Mt. Mansfield Television Inc.(HATCHED) to be added to PUD Lot 4.2. The boundaries shown are based on our survey and on PlanReferences above. See the referenced plats for boundary details for PUDLots 1, 2 and 3. Building, walks and drives shown on northwesterly partof Lot 4 are PROPOSED, based on current engineering drawings.Building, walks and drives shown on Lot 3 are based on currentengineering drawings, and were not part of this survey.3. Bearings are referenced to Astronomic North in conformance with thePUD plats.4. The portion of Farrell Street adjacent to the subject land is a publicstreet with a 60-foot-wide right-of-way per Quitclaim Deed Volume 211,Page 237. A northerly portion of Farrell Street has been re-named"Eastwood Drive" Joy Drive is a public street with a 60-foot-wideright-of-way per South Burlington Land Records.5. Adjusted PUD Lot 4 shall be subject to a recreation path easementgranted to the CIty of South Burlington by deed of Mt. MansfieldTelevision Inc.6. Adjusted PUD Lot 4 shall be subject to a non-exclusive snow storagearea except for the portion lying northerly of the line shown hereon.7. The surveyed PUD and its proposed addition are subject to anymunicipal and/or public rights or easements of record to the existing pavedrecreation path on the south. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_13_67_4090 Williston Rd_PeckElectric_afterthefact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: Updated Feb. 14, 2014 Application received: December 10, 2013 Green Mountain Electric Supply/Peck Electric – 4090 WILLISTON ROAD SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-13-67 Agenda #5 Meeting Dates: January 21, 2014, February 18, 2014 Owner Green Mountain Electric Supply c/o Josh Laber 5452 US Route 5 Newport, VT 05855 Applicant Peck Electric c/o Jeff Peck 4090 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Person Paul O’Leary O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 1810-040901 Mixed Industrial & Commercial Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_67_4090 Williston Rd_PeckElectric_afterthefact.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-13-67 of Peck Electric seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved site plan for a 6,400 sq. ft. building used for contractor or building trade facility use. The amendment consists of site modifications relating to parking, outside storage and dumpster storage, 4090 Williston Road. Proposed site changes include: 1. New trailer storage on the north side and front of the building; 2. Revised, front yard parking layout; 3. Relocated dumpster area; 4. Bike rack and delineated snow storage area; and 5. New cedar hedgerow to help screen parking from the street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 10, 2013 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Mixed Industrial & Commercial Zoning District Required Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 99,500 SF  Max. Building Coverage 40 % 7.5 %  Max. Overall Coverage 70 % 21.3 % Max. Front Yard Coverage 30 % 4.7 Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. ~12 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 50 ft.  Max. Building Height 35 ft. <35 ft.  zoning compliance SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington LDRs establish 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. Aside from changes in surface layout as proposed, the site exists today as built and paved. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Section 14.06(B) of the LDRs allows the DRB to approve front yard parking if one or more of the following criteria are met; and then, only the minimum needed to overcome these conditions: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_67_4090 Williston Rd_PeckElectric_afterthefact.doc i. Parking is needed to meet ADA requirements; ii. Parking will serve a one- or two-family home; iii. Unique site conditions such as utility easements or unstable soils; iv. The lot has existing building(s) to be reused, and parking cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or v. The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. Most parking was located in the front yard of the site in the original plan, and remains there today in a revised layout. The 1998 site plan required and provided thirteen spaces, twelve of which were in the front yard. One space was handicap accessible. The applicant is seeking approval to add and reconfigure parking spaces and storage areas. The proposed layout would retain the twelve parking spaces in front of the building, plus one which is handicapped accessible, for a total of thirteen. In addition, the applicant has proposed to enclose an area in front of the building for trailer storage. While this enclosed area will be used for the keeping of vehicles, staff feels that if enclosed, it would be appropriate to deem this outside storage and not parking. Therefore, staff feels the application meets the parking standards of these regulations. 1. The Board should discuss the proposed front yard storage / parking area and confirm whether it agrees with the staff assessment. Section 13.01(G) (5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. A new bike rack is proposed on the south side of the building, within the area shown as “outdoor material storage”. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. No new building construction is proposed. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes to utility services or service modifications are proposed. (e) 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. The property is not in a design review district. The one relevant change is abandoning a hedgerow at the rear of the parking area that was on the 1998 plan but doesn’t exist, and planting a new cedar hedgerow to help screen front yard parking from the street. This hedgerow should be planted far enough from the parking lot to allow for snow storage. This hedgerow is estimated to cost $3,400. A planting schedule should be submitted. 2. A planting schedule should be submitted to include a budget. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_67_4090 Williston Rd_PeckElectric_afterthefact.doc (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No new structures are proposed. 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Given site specific circumstances, there appears no need to reserve land for these purposes. (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. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (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). The plans show a relocated dumpster area on the south end of the parking lot; dumpsters to be fully enclosed. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As there is no new building construction, there is no new minimum landscaping requirement. However, as noted, a new cedar hedgerow is proposed in the front yard. This should be planted far enough from the parking spaces to allow for typical snow storage. If plants of sufficient size, number, and spacing are installed, then this hedgerow will help to screen the existing/proposed front yard parking; it is also proposed in exchange for the rear yard hedgerow shown and required on the 1998 plan, but which was never planted, and does not exist today. No details are provided on size/height/spacing of proposed plants. See below for a discussion of the storage area proposed to the front of the building. The applicant has indicated that the new hedge will have a budget of $3,400. Per Section 13.06(B) of the LDRs, the plans do depict a snow storage area. Whether it minimizes the potential for run-off, or provides adequate snow storage area, should be considered. Traffic Nothing is proposed that affects traffic. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_67_4090 Williston Rd_PeckElectric_afterthefact.doc Other The standards for review under the current LDRs are below. In making its determination over any possible conditions, the Board should confirm that such conditions implement the standards of the current LDRs. 13.05 Outdoor Storage and Display A. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and equipment shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan, conditional use and/or PUD application. (2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may comprise an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present opportunities for theft, or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of residentially-zoned parcels. A six foot tall stockade fence is now shown on the revised plan, surrounding the front yard trailer storage area on three sides. If this area is to legitimately be considered as storage and not front yard parking, then these trailers must be enclosed by the fence on all four sides. The applicant has stated to staff that they are willing to revise application to have the enclosure be on all four sides. Color/material/design of this fence should be clarified, as well as height: depending upon the kind of trailers stored/parked here, is 6’ tall enough to provide the screening desired? 1. The Board should determine whether the new trailer storage enclosure meets the above criteria. 2. In order to gain access to the storage trailers on the north end of the building, the applicant now proposes a 20’ access easement over lands of adjoiner Marcelino. This is needed as there is no other way to access these trailers from the applicant’s own property. This easement must be recorded in the land records for the subject properties, and a copy of that recorded easement shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer before any Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for this project. Recommendations: If the issues above are resolved, then the Board can close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 December 2013, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: A. Klugo, Chair; T. Barritt, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, M. Sirotkin Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; R. Charlebois, B. Rabinowitz, D. Marshall, R. Jeffers 1. Other Business & Announcements: There were no announcements. 2. Design Review Application #SD-13-05 of Mike Couture to amend a Master Signage Permit, 5 Market Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant hadn’t displayed the notice placard, so the application will have to be delayed until the next meeting. Mr. Klugo moved to continue #SD-13-05 until 7 January 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 3. Sketch Plan Application #SD-13-36 of Elizabeth & Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance due to traffic issues raised in staff comments. Mr. Sirotkin moved to continue #SD-13-36 until 7 January 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 4. Conditional Use Application #CU-13-06 of Brad Rabinowitz to reconstruct & expand a single family dwelling footprint from 1376 sq. ft. to 2056 sq. ft., 17 Twin Brook Court: Mr. Rabinowitz explained that Mr. Charlebois bought the property in 1978, and the property is recorded in city records as of 1963. He showed the location of the existing camp on the property, which they will basically raze and rebuild. Mr. Rabinowitz also indicated the stream buffer. They cannot encroach further into the buffer and have to stay behind the existing buffer line. This allows them 650 feet of added building that DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 2 will not encroach. There is also a 25 foot height restriction on the property and a 150 foot setback from the Lake. The question raised involves landscaping in the stream buffer. Mr. Belair said it is up to the Board to allow changes within 150 feet of the Lake. He felt this plan adds more trees and shrubs than are already there. Members felt the applicant was doing more than he is asked to do. Mr. Klugo reminded the applicant that no further addition to the house would be allowed. Mr. Sirotkin asked if the neighbor is OK with this plan. Mr. Rabinowitz said he is OK with what they are doing. They will put up a fence in case his trees are damaged; if they are damaged, the applicant will replace them. Mr. Barritt then moved to close #CU-13-06. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-13-37 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 3-Phase, 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of: 1) relocating seven lots, and 2) re-subdividing two of those lots into three lots, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Marshall said they will convert 2 triplex units into 3 duplex lots and relocate 7 lots. He showed lot #23, which is shifted down 5 feet and others that were shifted as a result of this. There is also a slight modification of Chipman Street which Mr. Rabidoux is OK with. Mr. Marshall noted that 50% lot coverage is allowed, and this plan falls within that. No issues were raised. Mr. Barritt moved to close #SD-13-37. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-13-22 and Master Plan application #MP-13-01 of Rye Associates to subdivide an 18.01 acre parcel into 30 lots for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) four commercial buildings totaling 20,000 sq. ft., 1075 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Belair noted that staff has asked to continue this application to 21 January 2014. Mr. Barritt moved to continue #SD-13-22 and #MP-13-01 until 21 January 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 3 7. Minutes of 5 November 2013: Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Minutes of 5 November 2013 as written. Mr. Miler seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Reorganization: Mr. Klugo suggested continuing this item to the next meeting and discussing it in deliberative session. Members agreed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk _______________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 January 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: M. Behr, Chair; T. Barritt, B. Miller, J. Smith Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. & B. Noyes, M. Couture, R. Groeneveld, E. Herrmann, C. Snyder, D. Marshall, E. & J. Bradley, A. Rowe 1. Design Review Application #DR-13-05 of Mike Couture to amend a Master Signage Permit , 5 Market Street: Mr. Behr asked if the new sign will cover where the banner is, from side to side. He felt the new sign should cover all of the yellow of the existing sign. Mr. Couture said what they have done meets the size requirements. They could paint the rest of the existing sign black, if the Board will let them. They want to keep the logo, which is on their T-shirts. Mr. Belair said the recommendation is that they only have the three colors and they requested: black, white and silver. If they paint the rest of the sign black, it will look like it’s all one sign, and that would be too big. Mr. Couture said it would be about 10’x4’ if they covered the yellow. Ms. Smith asked if they could take off the yellow and still have enough support for the sign. Mr. Couture said there are brackets to hold the sign. They propose to fit in the new sign where the other one was. Mr. Behr asked if an existing non-conforming sign can be painted. Mr. Belair said all non- conforming signs should be brought into compliance. He added that it would be good to know the dimensions from yellow to yellow on the existing sign. Mr. Couture asked if the frame of the sign is considered part of the sign. Mr. Belair said he would have to check. Mr. Couture stressed the need for a sign; they have been open for three months without one. Mr. Behr said they might have to continue the application to get more information, particularly whether the frame counts as part of the sign. Mr. Belair said the Board can approve a 32 sq. ft. sign with the three colors. If the sign is over 32 sq. ft., the applicant would have to come back. The applicant asked if they could have a brick structure with a 32 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Belair said there are pages and pages of rules, and it is very complicated. Mr. Behr urged the applicant to work with Mr. Belair on this issue. Mr. Barritt then moved to close #DR-13-05. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 4-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 2 2. Continued Sketch Plan Application #Sd-13-36 of Elizabeth and Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road: Mr. Behr noted this application triggers going over the trip ends allowed on the site. He added that the traffic study done by the applicant shows they are under the traffic limit, but the Public Works Director doesn’t approve of the methodology, so the Board cannot approve it. Mr. Bradley said it is improbably that you could get a business there that generates the traffic the numbers allow as there isn’t enough parking on the site for that. He added that if they could put in a sit-down restaurant there, they could have a million dollar business, but you can’t do it. There are 3 retail businesses there, and if they could share one customer that would give them the numbers they need. Mr. Bradley added there has never been an accident on the road in front of this business; they don’t generate enough traffic for that. The apartment they are considering is very small, probably for one person. Mr. Bradley felt their survey was just as legitimate as the Public Works Director’s. He added they are different from McDonalds, and that’s a disaster. He suggested they could have a sign saying right turn out only. He would have no problem with that. Mr. Behr said the regulations don’t consider safety; they only consider numbers. He suggested the other option would be to invoke technical review by an impartial party. Mr. Bradley asked if the overlay district rules would be eliminated if the city went to form based codes. Mr. Belair noted there is a movement to eliminate traffic overlay. It is not recommended as part of form based codes. Mr. Barritt moved to invoke technical review for traffic generation analysis. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Barritt then moved to continue the application until 4 February 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 3. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-13-33 of Queen City, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 6,920 sq. ft. building which includes 2,429 sq. ft. of general office use and three dwelling units, and 2) a 6,708 sq. ft. detached building with two dwelling units. The amendment consists of adding one dwelling unit to the three unit multi-family dwelling, 428-434 Shelburne Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 3 Mr. Noyes said they are converting an office building to residential space, approximately 2500 sq. ft. on the second floor. There will be no exterior modifications. No issues were raised. Mr. Barritt moved to close the hearing. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 4. Sketch Plan Application of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 25,840 sq. ft. addition, 35 Thompson Street: Ms. Hermann noted this is an existing building at the corner of Meadowland Drive and Thompson Street. They would add the addition to the west side. They propose a curb cut on Meadowland Drive which would redirect traffic flow to the new part of the building. Ms. Hermann said the building will be more aesthetically appealing. Ms. Hermann then showed pictures and video of the existing building and approach to the building. She then showed a video with the proposed addition. She noted the new curb cut would also allow deliveries to the other side and not mix the traffic. She felt this was a safer and calmer way to move traffic around the building. Mr. Marshall noted that both Public Works and the Fire Chief like this plan. He added that the original intent was to minimize curb cuts on the major roads, but things have changed over the past 25 years. Mr. Behr asked if anything would prevent the Board from approving this plan with the curb cut. Mr. Belair said no. Mr. Behr said he didn’t see the curb cut as a major issue and felt the addition looked very good. Mr. Belair noted it doesn’t seem that Meadowland Drive will go through to Williston as was originally thought. Mr. Marshall said there is nothing in the Williston town plan to do that. Mr. Behr questioned the 2 parking spaces in the front yard. Mr. Marshall explained how that happened and said they will be removed. Mr. Belair noted that on-street parking is allowed, if needed. The Board had no major issues with the plan. 5. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-13-39 of Super Temp Realty Co., Inc., for a planned unit development to construct a 27,500 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility, 104 Bowdoin Street: Mr. Marshall said a light manufacturing company will be locating to South Burlington. He drew DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 4 attention to a high bay area in the center of the building which is taller than the 35-foot standard for the district. The Board does have the ability to approve this. Mr. Marshall noted that they submitted a photo simulation of a “before and after” for the proposed structure. The high area of the building will be green to blend in with the background. Mr. Barritt asked about the possibility of something to break up the mass of the one rectangular green shape. Mr. Belair read from the regulations as to what criteria the DRB can use to make a decision regarding additional heights. Mr. Behr said the concern is a solid wall with no break. He wasn’t sure of the Board’s authority because this is below the scenic view line. The guidance the Board has gotten is that if it doesn’t block the view, it’s OK. Mr. Behr read some comments submitted by DRB member Art Klugo regarding the impact of the massing. Mr. Behr said he agreed with those comments. Mr. Miller suggested some greenery/trellises growing up the wall. Mr. Belair said the only other issue is a fire hydrant. He noted that what was submitted is verbally OK with the Chief, but staff has nothing in writing yet. Mr. Barritt moved to continue the application until 4 February 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-13-40 of Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 32 single family dwellings. The amendment consists of removing one single family dwelling and replacing it with four single family dwellings, 111 Upswept Lane: Mr. Snyder said they were originally permitted for 32 homes. They had intended to buy the Unsworth property, which they now have done. They will replace that one home with 4 homes. Mr. Snyder noted that since the original application, the rules have changed so that garages have to be set back from the front of the house. He asked if they can follow the original rules so these houses will be similar to what is already built. Mr. Belair said these homes are not grandfathered. He did note that in the past the Board has determined where to measure the 8-foot setback from. He suggested the applicant could propose an open porch to measure from. Mr. Snyder said the envelopes they propose are deeper, which would allow for porches. He said they can come back with something that would allow flexibility to move the garages back. Mr. Behr noted that Mr. Klugo had commented that these homes seem smaller than the others. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 5 Mr. Snyder said there are 4 or 5 other 40’x60’ footprints. Mr. Belair noted that one of the “should” is for 35% of glazing to be toward the south. The applicant will need to provide information on that as well as on a mix of residential design. Mr. Snyder said they will have 2 distinct elevations. Mr. Snyder noted that will not be adding a section of sidewalk to the north side of Upswept. He also noted there is a wetland on the edge of Parkside created by roof drains. A portion of one building impacts that wetland buffer. Mr. Rowe said the wetland is caused by water from the Unsworth roof. That won’t exist when the house is gone. Mr. Snyder added they will not impact the existing stormwater permit. Mr. Rowe said they can create dry or wet swales and manage all stormwater on this property. Mr. Snyder said they will either replace or relocate street trees according to the regulations. Mr. Barritt was concerned with density. He felt 3 homes was OK, not 4. Mr. Miller felt that with 3 houses, they could have different sizes, not all small. Mr. Snyder said you don’t really notice the difference between a 40’ and a 50’ house. He added they can show the Board architecturally what the 4 units will look like. Mr. Snyder added that the city wants density in these neighborhoods, and it is allowed here. Mr. Rowe added the 15 feet between homes is consistent. Mr. Frank, a neighbor, said they want to be sure these homes are harmonious with the neighborhood. But their most serious concern is with water pressure. They have complained since 2006 about this. They did a continuous chart of water pressure from 13 to 20 December 2013. It showed an average of 25 pounds per square inch, which is very low. Mr. Belair said the applicant must show they can provide adequate utilities on the site. Mr. Frank said they were told the pressure should be 40 pounds per square inch. He didn’t want the new homes making their situation worse. Mr. Frank said another issue is handling stormwater for the existing development which is currently up in the air. They still haven’t resolved the disposition of the stormwater system that is out of the street system. The permit has been issued jointly to the city and the development and includes a project in the Town of Shelburne. The city will reluctantly have to take responsibility for that as well. Mr. Snyder said these issues are out of their hands. The new units will be part of the same homeowners association. Mr. Behr noted that Public Works will have to review and approve the project. Mr. Rowe stressed that they did not negatively impact the water pressure. It was originally at 40 pounds per square inch, but something has changed and they don’t know what. Mr. Barritt said he would like to walk the property DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 6 Mr. Barritt moved to continue the sketch plan to 18 February 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 5 March, 3 September, 19 November and 3 December 2013: Ms. Smith noted that the Minutes of 3 September were previously approved, but she should be listed as those attending. Mr. Barritt moved to approve the above Minutes as written and/or amended. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Reorganization Meeting: The floor was opened for nominations for Board Chair. Mr. Behr nominated Mr. Barritt. Ms. Smith seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Barritt was elected 4-0. Mr. Behr then nominated Mr. Miller for Vice Chair. Mr. Barritt seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Miller was elected 4-0. Mr. Behr nominated Mr. Parsons for Clerk. Mr. Barritt seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Parsons was elected 4-0. With Mr. Barritt presiding, the Board confirmed meeting dates on the first and third Tuesdays on the month at 7:00 p.m. 9. Other business: Mr. Belair noted receipt of a letter from Pizzagalli asking for a one-year extension for the building at 462 Shelburne Road. Staff has no issues with this request. Mr. Miller moved to approve a one year extension to the Pizzagalli approval for the building at 462 Shelburne Road. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 4-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 7, 2014 PAGE 7 _______________________________ Clerk _______________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 21, 2014 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 January 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; G. Rabidoux, P. Simon, D. Marshall 1. Announcements: No issues were raised. 2. Site Plan Application #SP-13-66 of Malone Properties, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 54,480 sq. ft. shopping center. The amendment consists of adding two utility cabinets, 150 & 166 Dorset Street: and 3. Design Review Application #DR-13-06 of Malone Properties to install two utility cabinets, 150 & 166 Dorset Street: Mr. Simon explained that one transformer pad will be new, one refurbished. There are doors to the utility cabinet. The cabinets will be screened with Arborvitae shrubs. Mr. Belair asked the applicant to confirm that the cabinets will not interfere with the access connection between the two properties. Mr. Simon gave that confirmation. Mr. Barritt read from an e-mail from Mr. Klugo asking if the cabinets could be relocated. The applicant replied that they cannot. There was no public comment. Mr. Miller moved to close both the Site Plan Application and the Design Review Application. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 4. Preliminary and Final Plat Application of Malone Dorset Street Properties, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) A 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing the lots into three lots, and 2) site modifications including lighting, and architectural revisions to building #1 and #2, 200 and 222 Dorset Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 21, 2014 PAGE 2 Mr. Simon explained that now that they know the tenant for building 2 (Pier I), they can make appropriate modifications to the building. He directed attention to p. 5 of the summary and outlined some of the modifications to the plan as follows: a. Existing conditions plans removed b. Sign and signage notes removed c. “Option B Retail & Restaurant” removed d. Pier I building parapet is now 28 feet; the elevation of the second floor is 13 feet (was previously 12 feet). Windows remain the same. Mr. Simon noted the re-subdivision will happen when the city takes over the right-of-way. This is important for signage applications for both buildings. Mr. Simon then showed the Pier I buildings elevations, specifically indicating the “see-through” and filmed over glass. Mr. Belair reminded the applicant that any change to the windows would have to come back to the DRB. Mr. Barritt noted comments from Mr. Klugo regarding windows on the second floor which look “sparse” to him. Other members had no issues with the windows. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-13-22 & Master Plan Application #MP-13-01 of Rye Associates to subdivide an 18.01 acre parcel into 30 lots for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) four commercial buildings totaling 20,000 sq. ft., 1075 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall noted the withdrawal of 2 requests for waivers. Mr. Parsons noted he is personally acquainted with the person whose property abuts this development. They have had no discussions about the project, and Mr. Parsons has no financial interests. The applicant had no issue with Mr. Parsons hearing the application. Mr. Belair will check on the correct application number since 2 conflicting numbers appear. Mr. Belair also noted that staff recommends preparing findings of fact and keeping the Master Plan application open until then. There was no issue with this. The Board had no issues with the Master Plan. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing on the Master Plan until 4 February 2014 with a draft decision to be prepared by staff. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 21, 2014 PAGE 3 Regarding the Preliminary Plat, Mr. Marshall noted the applicants have had a number of meetings with staff. Staff prepared a list of items “a” through “f” for discussion: a. A 23-foot setback is proposed along Hinesburg Road for commercial buildings. Staff is comfortable with that request. The original plan showed 30 feet; however, the setback has to be shown from the future right-of-way, which is 14 feet wider. Mr. Belair noted that the trend is to have buildings closer to the street. He also noted that the plan shows only buildings that are part of this preliminary plat. b. Staff is OK with a minimum of 14 parking spaces and a 4-space (25%) waiver. There will be on-street parking for Rye Circle. Mr. Rabidoux noted they know the tenant for building #1, and they are OK with this. It is a daytime use only. Mr. Marshall noted the building and parking lot will be moved north to allow for 13 parking spaces. He also noted that the requirement is 3 spaces per 1000 feet, not 3.5 as staff had indicated, which means only a one-space waiver. Mr. Belair checked the regulations and confirmed that this is the case. c. Staff is OK with a one space (7%) waiver for the cottage homes on lot #5. There is on-street parking on Edgewood. d. The 7 cottage homes on lot #7 will be revised to combine 4 units into 2 duplex buildings and 3 single family dwellings so as not to exceed the number of single family units on a private street. The applicant will consult with the Fire Chief regarding sprinklering. Mr. Marshall noted that the client didn’t like this and asked if it could be made a public street. The Public Works Director said it must then look like a public street. Therefore, they have increased the radiuses, added a sidewalk. The road is shown as 20 feet. e. The applicant will be proposing a method to assure that homes on the single family lots will comply with the residential design guidelines. There will be variety in color and style, but the applicant wants flexibility to allow buyers to choose what they want. Mr. Belair said this can be done in a variety of ways f. Plans will be revised for the next meeting to: remove the driveways to the single family lots, add a note as to the number of parking space available for the multi-family units, add more detail to the site plan for the commercial building, add a note that the garages for the cottage homes on lot #7 meet the 8-foot setback requirement from the front of the houses. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 21, 2014 PAGE 4 Mr. Marshall noted that the Recreation Department asked that the open space/park be made as large as possible, so they have added footage to it. The Rec Path Committee asked that the surface on the part of the path that heads to the best to a trampled grass area be made gravel to indicate the transition. Mr. Barritt asked about street lights. Mr. Marshall said they will be to city standard. Mr. Marshall noted that some of the street names result in an E911 conflict. These will be changed. Mr. Belair said this application should work similarly to the Master Plan. The applicant will have revised drawings far enough ahead for review, and a draft decision can be prepared for that meeting. The applicant was comfortable with this. Mr. Miller moved to continue the Site Plan Application to 4 February 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-13-67 of Peck Electric seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved site plan for a 6,400 sq. ft. building used for contractor or building trade facility use. The amendment consists of site modifications relating to parking, outside storage and dumpster storage, 4090 Williston Road: It was noted that the applicant requested a continuance to a future meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-13-67 to 18 February 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Minutes of 17 December 2013 and 7 January 2014: Minutes were not available. 8. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 21, 2014 PAGE 5 _______________________________ Clerk _______________________________ Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 27 JANUARY 2014 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a special meeting on Monday, 27 January 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr; B. Miller (by phone); D. Parsons; J. Smith; M. Sirotkin (by phone); A. Klugo (by phone) ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works 1. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-01 of City of So. Burlington Department of Public Works for after-the-fact approval to remove more than 20 cubic yards of fill to construct a stormwater pond, Twin Oaks Terrace. Mr. Rabidoux explained that the proposed project, a joint effort between the Department of Public Works and Twin Oaks association, had previously been approved by the DRB in 2009. Staff and the consultant failed to acquire a zoning permit. The project was constructed without the zoning permit. Without receipt of the zoning permit, the DRB approval lapsed. The application is back before the DRB to clean this up. The project has been inspected by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Klugo noted that the aerial photo on his computer did not appear to match the plan. Mr. Rabidoux reviewed and stated that the plan submitted to the DRB had been the original site plan; the correct plan should be the “as-builts” which show a different location for the start of the access road. He submitted a paper copy of this “as-built.” Members reviewed the “as-builts” (including a scanned copy sent to those participating by telephone. Mr. Behr asked whether the relevant regulations concerning this project had changed since the project was previously reviewed by the Board. Mr. Conner stated that there had been no changes to the regulations in that time affecting the project. No further issued were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close the public hearing on the application. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 7-0. 2. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. _______________________________ ___________________________ Clerk Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pending Applications ___________________________________________ - 1 - - Last updated – February 14, 2014 Please note that the tentative schedule is indeed tentative. Items are subject to, and frequently do, change. The tentative schedule is also not indicative of the order in which items will be placed on the agenda. FEBRUARY 18, 2014 1. Continued sketch plan application #SD-13-40 of The Snyder Pointe Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 32 single family dwellings. The amendment consists of removing one (1) single family dwelling and replacing it with four (4) single family dwellings, 111 Upswept Lane. 2. Site plan application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association, Inc. for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five (5) White Pine trees and replacement with six (6) Eastern White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle. 3. Preliminary & final plat application #SD-13-43 F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30 unit multi-family dwelling & 3,700 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63 unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 47 unit congregate housing facility (not yet constructed). The amendment consists of: 1) subdividing an adjacent 5.20 acre parcel developed with a television studio into two (2) lots of 4.02 acres & 1.18 acres, 2) incorporating the 1.18 acre parcel into the existing PUD, and 3) converting the approved but not constructed 47 unit congregate housing building into a 54 unit multi-family dwelling, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive. 4. Continued site plan application #SP-13-67 of Peck Electric seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved site plan for a 6,400 sq. ft. building used for contractor or building trade facility use. The amendment consists of site modifications relating to parking, outside storage and dumpster storage, 4090 Williston Road. 5. Deliberations: a. Preliminary plat application #SD-13-44 of South Village Communities, LLC for approval of Phase II of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase II is to consist of the following: 1) 23 single family units, 2) 13 two (2) family dwellings, 3) 1 three (3) unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) 39 multi-family dwelling units in four (4) buildings, 1840 Spear Street (closed on 2/04, deadline is 3/21). SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pending Applications ___________________________________________ - 2 - b. Continued preliminary & final plat application #SD-13-39 of Super-Temp Realty Company, Inc. for a planned unit development to construct a 27,500 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility, 104 Bowdoin Street (closed on 2/04, deadline is 3/21). c. Conditional use application #CU-13-07 of Laura J. Waters & William L. Smith to create a 400 sq. ft. accessory residential unit and construct an exterior staircase to access the new accessory unit, 50 Central Avenue (closed on 2/04, deadline is 3/21). d. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-13-22 of Rye Associates to subdivide an 18.01 acre parcel into 30 lots for development of:1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four (4) 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) four (4) commercial buildings totaling 20,000 sq. ft., 1075 Hinesburg Road (closed on 2/04, deadline is 3/21). MARCH 4, 2014 1. Sketch plan application #SD-14-01 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) the subdivision of a 29.39 acre parcel developed with one (1) single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 5.3 acres and 24.09 acres and, 2) developing the 5.3 acre parcel with nine (9) single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street. 2. Sketch plan application #SD-14-03 of Thomas & Pamela Meeker to resubdivide two (2) adjoining lots such that one lot will be reduced in area and the other lot will be increased in area, 21 & 25 Gilbert Street. 3. Sketch plan application #SD-14-04 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. 4. Conditional use application #CU-14-01 & site plan review application #SP-14-04 of Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a television studio. The amendment consists of relocating an eight (8) foot diameter microwave dish (antenna) from the roof of the building to an existing monopole tower at 65 feet in height, 30 Joy Drive. 5. Preliminary & final plant application #SD-14-05 of Greenfield Capital, LLC to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 25,840 sq. ft. addition, 35 Thompson Street. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pending Applications ___________________________________________ - 3 - MARCH 18, 2014 1. Sketch plan application #SD-14-02 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development on parcel “F” of the Highlands Development subdivision consisting of: 1) seven (7) single family dwellings, and 2) two (2) two-family dwellings, Dorset Street & Foulsham Hollow Road. 2. Continued master plan application #MP-11-03 & preliminary plat application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear St. 3. Continued sketch plan application #SD-13-36 of Elizabeth & Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one (1) dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two (2) lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road.