Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 07/01/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1 JULY 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on 1 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair, M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith Also Participating: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; A. Davis, J.-S. Chaulot, Design Review Committee; T. DiPietro, S. Dopp, D. Shenk, L. &. A. Parker, M. Moore, S. Chausse, J. Logan, S. Vock, C. Collins, S. Guild, J. Caron, B. & H. Gerlock, S. Dopp, C. Carpentier, A. Germain, A. Besaw 1. Agenda Review: additions, deletions or changes in agenda items: No changes were made to agenda items. 2. Announcements: Mr. Barritt welcomed members of the Design Review Committee who joined the DRB at the table. 3. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-06 of City of South Burlington to construct stormwater improvements consisting of installing a stormwater drainage pipe and the placement of approximately 120 cubic yards of fill over the pipe, 7 & 11 Mayfair Street: Mr. DiPietro noted there have been some drainage issues in the area, and the city is proposing new drainage down Elsom Parkway onto Mayfair Street and eventually draining into Potash Brook. They will put in more than 120 cu. yds. of fill over the pipe. The pipe will be perforated to help drain the area. Ms. Dopp said this will make the area better than what is there now. She noted there was a great deal of water in basements in 2011. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #SP-14-21 of Ralph DesLauriers II to amend a previously approved plan for two 32-unit multi-family dwellings and a 40-unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of converting the 40-unit congregate care facility to a 40-unit multi-family dwelling, 315 Quarry Hill Road: Mr. Collins said this will be an apartment building which will be unchanged from the approved plan with the exception of a “tweak” in the footprint. Mr. Belair noted there is a new landscape plan which Craig Lambert has not yet seen. Mr. Collins said they have changed the Austrian pines to white spruce at Mr. Lambert’s suggestion as the latter are hardier. Mr. Lambert also wants 2.5 ft. of landscape depth in the islands. This has been accommodated on the plan. Mr. Collins noted that slightly more parking is required for the new use, but there are a lot of bikers and walkers who work at the Medical Center living in the other building, so they don’t feel the 6 additional spaces are needed. More than half of the existing spaces are empty. Mr. Behr asked about density. Mr. Belair said with this conversion, there will be 168, and the area is approved for more than 280. Mr. Collins said the units will be a mix of one and two bedrooms. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing with the condition that final plan reflect the conditions of the arborist. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Preliminary plat application #SD-14-18 and Design Review Application #DR-14-05 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC for a planned unit development to: 1) remove an existing single family dwelling, 2) construct four three-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) establish disputed boundary line with adjoining property, 135 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Shenk said he and Mr. Logan own the property. They are co-applicants with South Burlington Realty because they share a driveway. The property is located in City Center. Mr. Shenk said they met with some of the neighbors and discussed the fence. They wanted a level fence instead of scalloped, and that’s fine. Mr. Guild said there will be 4 triplexes with 3 units each. Buildings will be 2 stories. He then showed two concepts for the buildings, one with bigger decks in front with steps coming down. The steps would be partly on city property. Mr. Shenk added they tried to make the Market Street look more like Hinesburg Road as far as detail goes. Mr. Guild then showed a representation of the backs of the buildings with the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Davis asked if there will be more plantings near the dumpster. Mr. Guild said there would. There will also be more plantings on Market St. Mr. Shenk pointed out the different colors for the buildings, with 3 color shades per building. There will be lots of dogwoods and shrubs along the front. Mr. Davis said he would like to see some “undulation” in the buildings, maybe moving alternate buildings a foot back. Mr. Belair said they could gain the space for that by reducing the width of the rear travel aisle which is wider than required. Mr. Collins said they might also vary the heights of windows. Mr. Barritt suggested a better roof over the back deck area where people will be entering and leaving the houses more than in front. Mr. Davis said he liked the false gables and felt they would look even better with a “bumpout.” Mr. Barrett noted a 17-foot encroachment waiver along Hinesburg Road. Mr. Shenk reminded that Board that at sketch they had presented a conforming project and were encouraged to move closer to the street. He added that Deputy Fire Chief Francis liked this layout. Mr. Behr said he would like to see something significant to anchor the end of the building and block parking from the street more than seasonally grasses. Mr. Shenk said they have to work out snow storage. They anticipate removing snow during large storms. Mr. Davis was comfortable with covering the revealed portion of the concrete foundation with plantings. Mr. Barritt asked about energy efficiency. Mr. Shenk said they always work with Efficiency Vermont. Mr. Behr said he loves the Market St. treatment but would like to see more done in the back. Other members agreed. Mr. Shenk said they are requesting a waiver for the required plat for the adjacent property. This would mean a full survey and there is no need for this. Mr. Belair agreed that for this purpose there is no need as the Board would be approving a property line with both parties agreeing to it. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Gerlock asked about the fence. Mr. Shenk said it would be a cedar fence on the developer’s property line, 6‐feet high. Mr. Gerlock also asked about stormwater management. Mr. Vock said the proposed system meets requirements. It will be put in simultaneously with construction. Mr. Carpentier felt they are trying to fit too much into this small property. He was concerned with water and snow backing up to the property line/fence and whether the stormwater system will handle runoff in a storm. He said there is nothing in the back area for water to soak into the ground and he was concerned they would have water in their basements. He was also concerned with the heights of the buildings and with people staring into their backyards. He suggested some cedar plantings along the fence for privacy. Mr. Parker said they have a white fence on their property that is going to stay. He also wanted a row of cedars for privacy. Mrs. Parker added that 10-foot lighting will also impact their yards and the cedars would help block that. Ms. Germain said that in the Form Based Codes Committee they discussed a “transitional buffer” area such as this where a new development abuts an existing residential neighborhood. She noted there is now a mature forest that abuts a neighborhood of small homes. She felt the building heights were acceptable but the massing of the buildings was not. She also noted this is a wet site where water goes to Iby Street when it overflows. Mr. Guild said he was fine with not having10-foot lighting. He asked the Board for their option for use of the 2 feet: more trees or move buildings back. Mr. Belair said the Board could continue the application or issue a preliminary decision and have the applicant make revisions at final plat. Mr. Behr said he wanted to continue to see what the applicant does with the 2 feet and the window “rhythm.” He suggested they work with neighbors on issues. He also asked to minimize the foundation height above the ground. Other members agreed. Mr. Miller moved to continue the application to 19 August 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-14-20 and Design Review Application #DR-14-04 of Besaw, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,000 sq. ft. retail building and a 5,200 sq. ft. building used for indoor recreation use. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate dumpster enclosure, and 2) altering the southerly facade of 358 Dorset Street, 358 Dorset Street & 55 San Remo Drive: Ms. Besaw said the dumpster was moved before they owned the property, and they had it enclosed where it was. Mr. Belair said it meets requirements. Ms. Besaw said they want to cover up the pillars in front of the building. They are keeping lighting where it is but would like a bit more in front. Ms. Besaw said they would someday like to do a brick exterior, but not this year. Mr. Davis suggested adding a base and cap to each column. Mr. Besaw stressed that they “just want it to look nice.” No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 3 June and 17 June 2014: Two minor typos were corrected. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 3 June and 17 June 2014 with the corrected typos. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: No other business was considered. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:32 p.m. Clerk July 15, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #MS-14-06 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 & 11 MAYFAIR STREET MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-06 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS-14-06 of City of South Burlington to construct stormwater improvements consisting of installing a stormwater drainage pipe and the placement of approximately 120 cubic yards of fill over the pipe, 7 & 11 Mayfair Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 1, 2014. The City’s Deputy Director of Public Works Tom DiPietro, Jr. represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and associated materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant seeks miscellaneous approval to install a stormwater drainage pipe, and place approximately 120 cubic yards of fill over the pipe, at the properties located at 7 & 11 Mayfair Street. 2. The owners of record are Myers and Brusoe & Soutiere. 3. The subject properties are located in Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 4. A seven-page set of plans was submitted entitled, “City of South Burlington, Vermont Mayfair Park Stormwater Collection System Improvements”, prepared by Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc., dated April 30, 2014. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: #MS-14-06 - 2 - (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a regarding detail plan. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The project is slated for completion by November 30, 2014. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. A note on sheet D-1.1 of the plan set includes a note regarding the rehabilitation of the site. The Board fins this acceptable. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. No bond is required. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development is the existing grade. DECISION Motion by __________, seconded by ___________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS- 14-06 of City of South Burlington, subject to the following conditions. 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #MS-14-06 - 3 - 4. Any change to the plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y –Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. PROJECTLOCATIONCITY MANAGERKEVIN DORNDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSJUSTIN RABIDOUXDEPUTY DIRECTOR OFPUBLIC WORKSTOM DIPIETROCITY COUNCILPAM MACKENZIE, CHAIRPAT NOWALK, VICE-CHAIRCHRIS SHAW, CLERKROSANNE GRECOHELEN RIEHLEAPRIL 30, 2014PREPARED BY:.125 COLLEGE STREET - 4TH FLOORBURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTMAYFAIR PARKSTORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 107852 C-1.13EXISTING SITE PLAN7107582c7107582c ~ MAYFAIR ST. ~107852 C-2.14PROPOSED STORM SEWERSTA. 0+00 TO STA. 6+007107582c7107582cPLANPROFILE2+00 3+00 4+003303303203203103105+001+000+006+00SEE D R A W I N G N O . C - 2 . 2 MATC H L I N E S T A . 6 + 0 0 SEE DRAWING NO. C-2.2MATCHLINE STA. 6+00330320PROFILENOTE: ~ WILLISTON ROAD ~~ ELSOM PARKWAY ~107852 C-2.25PROPOSED STORM SEWERSTA. 6+00 TO STA. 12+467107582c7107582cPLANPROFILE8+00 9+00 10+0033033032032031031011+007+006+0012+00SEE DRAWING NO. C-2.1MATCHLINE STA. 6+00SEE DRAWING NO. C-2.1MATCHLINE STA. 6+00NOTES:13+00 PERFORATED PIPE STORM SEWER TRENCH DETAILNOTE:OUTLET PROTECTION DETAILHDPE PERFORATION PIPE DETAILNOTES:CATCH BASIN PIPE CLEANOUT DETAIL4' 3-3/4"7107582c107852 D-1.16MISCELLANEOUS DETAILSREGRADING DETAILNOTE: #SP-14-21 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 27, 2014 Plans received: May 23, 2014 QUARRY HILL COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN #SP-14-21 Meeting date: July 1, 2014 Agenda #4 Owner Cupola Golf Course Inc. 270 Quarry Hill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Ralph Deslauriers, Jr. 270 Quarry Hill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Cliff Collins 5 Lake Street St. Albans, VT 05478 Property Information Tax Parcel 1420 00270 C R12 Districts  25.67 Acres Location Map Quarry Hill RoadSpear StreetEast TerraceInterstate 89Subject Property BURLINGTONSOUTH BURLINGTON Note: South Burlington mapped wetlands are not necessarily locally accurate and require field verification. #SP-14-21 - 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-14-21 of Ralph DesLauriers II to amend a previously approved plan for two (2) 32 unit multi-family dwellings and a 40 unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of converting the 40 unit congregate care facility to a 40 unit multi-family dwelling, 315 Quarry Hill Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht. Planner Temporary Assignment, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 23, 2104 and offer the following comments: The project consists of amending a previously approved plan for three (3) 32 unit multi- family dwellings. The amendment consists of converting the 40-unit congregate care facility to a 40-unit multi-family dwelling, and other minor, miscellaneous site plan amendments, some of which have also been reviewed or approved before. The owner of record of the subject property is Cupola Golf Course, Inc. The subject property is located in the Residential 12 Zoning District. The application was received on May 23, 2014. The plan submitted consists of a five-page set of plans. Cover sheet C-2 is entitled, “Site Plan QHC Lot #1 Quarry Hill Road So. Burlington, Vermont”, prepared by Ruggiano Engineering, Inc. and dated 07/24/13. The primary change proposed in this application is from a 40-unit congregate care facility to 40 units of market rate housing. Neither the building nor site plan change from those approved previously, except for minor elements as described below. The parking requirements in the LDRs are different for these different types of housing: 90 spaces are required for 40 units of multi-family housing, where only 58 spaces are required for 40 units of congregate care housing. Since this is a PUD on one (1) lot, all the parking is viewed together and when viewed in this manner, only a six (6) space waiver is needed. See further discussion below. A narrative letter to the Act 250 District Environmental Commission 4, dated May 19, 2014, was attached to the application, and describes the following itemized list of changes to the proposed project; presumably to bring consistency to both local and state permits: a. The parking between proposed building CC and the existing Clubhouse building has been reconfigured in order to prevent having to remove a large portion of the existing deck on the Clubhouse. The limits of said deck are depicted on the revised Landscaping Plan, Sheet L-1. #SP-14-21 - 3 - b. The proposed bike rack was relocated from the southwest corner of proposed Building CC to the northerly end of the parking on the west side of the building. c. The Building CC footprint has been shifted slightly to the south. d. The stairs to the Building CC entrance on the east side of the building have been revised (narrowed) to match the building entrance scale. e. Additional landscaping has been added at the north end of the Building CC (9 IG, 1 MA and 3 PA), west of building CC (one each of PPG, PN, and PC), just east of the Clubhouse (1 AF and 8 JS), and around the future Building B. Additional landscaping for Building B includes 10 TMT at the south edge of the parking area, 10 TMT at the northwest corner of the parking area, 10 SJ at the east end of the north wall, and a total of 11 SJ and 12 TMT around the proposed bike rack. The respective planting species information for the above trees and shrubs are listed in the Shrub List and Tree List on Sheet L-1. 1. It is noted that one change required in application #SP-13-54 has not yet been made: a change from Austrian Pine to a different tree species, as recommended by and to be approved by the City Arborist. Landscaping plan L-1 still shows Austrian Pine on the Tree List. We note that this plan is dated 12/14/10, and is older than all of the other plans submitted with this latest application. If a newer landscaping plan exists, it should be submitted for the record. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS No changes to the buildings as previously approved are proposed, other than shifting the footprint of building CC (the subject of this application) slightly to the south. All dimensional requirements will still be met as approved before. DENSITY This PUD has a maximum density of 281 residential units. The proposal to convert 40 units of congregate housing to residential units will increase the number of approved units in the project from 128 units to 168 units as congregate units are not counted towards residential density. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Vehicular access Access is provided via a curb cut off Quarry Hill Road. No change is proposed. Circulation Circulation on the site was deemed adequate before, and does not change. Parking #SP-14-21 - 4 - No changes are proposed to the parking layout, except as noted above. The parking requirement for the proposed and approved multi-family dwellings is 215 spaces and 209 spaces are being provided. This results in a six (6) space or 2.8% parking shortfall. 2. The Board should discuss this parking waiver request and determine whether adequate parking will be available. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G) (5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle parking shall be provided on the subject property. A bicycle rack is shown on the plan, behind Building CC. Landscaping Landscaping changes are described above. Staff notes that Austrian Pines remain on the landscaping plan, where a previous approval required replacement with a different species, to be approved by the City Arborist. The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff in a memo dated June 25, 2014. Good overall plan with following recommendations:  Tree Planting Detail- specify that root collar shall be planted at soil level(planting at level tree was growing in nursery often results in tree being planted too deep due to cultivation/root balling practices of the nursery)  Specify that parking lot islands be filled with planting soil to a depth of 2.5 ft. to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth  Recommend species substitution for Austrian Pine due to heavy disease pressure in recent years Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (7) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plan. The site plan does show snow storage areas. Outdoor Lighting No changes are proposed to outdoor lighting. Pursuant to Sections 14.06 and 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations, the following review standards shall apply to site plan applications: Traffic Traffic for this PUD was approved for a total of 281 units and this conversion brings the number of approved residential units to 168. #SP-14-21 - 5 - (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objects set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage development while protecting natural resources and promoting a healthy and safe environment. This application does not change any prior findings regarding the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Other than a slight shift of the footprint of Building CC, there are no changes to existing or proposed buildings, and therefore, to prior findings on this criterion. (c) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Parking is located on the front and side of the buildings. Other than minor changes as described above, no changes to parking are proposed to this existing site. No additional parking spaces are proposed. The amendments proposed do not a meet a threshold which would require the parking to be relocated from what was previously approved. As noted above, a bicycle rack is shown on the site plan. (d) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The buildings exist or were approved previously, and no changes are proposed. (e) Newly installed utility service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. There are no proposed changes to utility services. (f) The combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings or different architectural styles shall be encouraged. The buildings exist or were approved previously, and no changes are proposed. (g) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The buildings exist or were approved previously, and no changes are proposed. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: #SP-14-21 - 6 - (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The reservation of land was not found necessary before. (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. As noted above, there are no changes to utility services with this application. (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). Pursuant to Section 13.06(C) (1) of the Land Development Regulations, screened dumpster locations must be shown on the plans. The screened dumpster locations are shown on the site plan. RECOMMENDATION The Board should address and seek clarification on the numbered items noted above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Clifford Collins, Jr., P.E. Quarry Hill RoadClubhousePPGGBPAMSPPGPPGPPGPPGPPGPAPAPAGBPCPCPAGBPCPCPNPNPNPNPNPAPPGMSPAPCPPGMSGBAFMSMSAFPCCJCJCJ6 SJ8 RPJM6 SJ6 JP2 FNG6 SJ1 SB12 CAE10 JS8 RPJM10 TMT1 SB6 JP3 IG6 CAE10 TMT10SB6 SB6 TMT6 RPJM8 SB6 RPJM60 RRShrub List KeyPh 1Scientific Name Common Name SizeCornus albaCAEVar. Red Twig Dogwood3-4'AFAFAFAFAFAFGBGBGBGBPCPCPCPCPCPCPPGPPGPPGPAPAPAPAPAPNPNPNPNMSMSMSCJCJCJCJCJMSPCPCCJCJCJCJCJAFAFAFAFPCPNPNPNPNPNPNPAPAPAPAPAPAPPGPPGPPGPPGMSMSMSMSGBGB10 JP3 FNG6 BM3 RPJM6 SB6 JS6 SB3 RPJM6 BM6 SB6 CAE6 SJ10 TMT6 CAE6 TMT8 JP6 RPJM10 CAE6 CAE10 Sb16 JP6 TMT10 SB6 SJ6 SJ6 SB10 JP10 CAE8 SB6 SJ6 SJ8 SB6 CAE10 JP10 JP2 SB10 TMT10 JP40RR10 TMT6 RPJM6 RPJMPlanted Price50Juniperus ehinesis pfitzerianaJPPfitzer Juniper18-24" 39Juniperus chin sargenhiJSSqts Juniper15-18" 38Forsythia N. GoldFNGN. Gold Forsythia3-4' 45Rhododendron PJMRPJMPJM Rhododendron18-24" 65Rosa rugosaRRRugosa Rose18-24" 37Spirea bumaldaSBAnt. Waterer Spirea18-24" 37Spirea japonicaSJLittle Princess Spirea18-24" 36Taxus media tautoniTMTTaunton sp. Yew15-18" 85Total Price000000000Tree List KeyScientific Name Common Name SizeAcer Freemani 'Autumn Blaze'AFFreeman Maple2-2.5" B+BPlanted Price487Cercidiphyllum japonicaCJKatsura Tree450Malus (snowdrift)MSSnowdrift Crab412Picea glaucaPAWhite Spruce462Pyrus callerjanaPCCallery Pear437Ginko biloba "Princeton Sentry"GBMaindenhair Tree562Picea pungens glaucaPPGBlue Spruce687Pinus nigraPNAustrian Pine4372-2.5" B+B2-2.5" B+B6-8' B+B2.5-3" B+B2-2.5" B+B8-10' B+B6-8' B+BTotal $33,759Totals6 RPJM6 JS12 SBPNPNTCAPTCGBAFAFAPTCTCAPAFAFTCTCTCTCTCTCEX44334425BM 12IG 012501231240261820Buxus microphylla Green Mt. Boxwood15-18" 96 0Ilex glabra Inkberry18-24" 51 08 RPJM8 RPJM8 RPJMSHEET NO.OF SHEETS21L-1SHRUB PLANTINGNOT TO SCALE2L-112" MIN.PREPARED SOILPLANTING BASIN FILLEDWITH FIR BARK MULCHLOOSEN SOIL9" MIN.DECIDUOUS TREE2" BARK MULCHPLANTING SOIL ANDFERTILIZERGROUND LINE SAMEAS NURSERYCONSTRUCT EARTHSAUCER AROUNDPLANT (3" HEIGHT)HARDWOOD STAKESDBL STRAND WIREW/RUBBER HOSE6" BELOW TOP OFSTAKE9" MINMIN6"6" MIN12" MIN2/3 HEIGHT OF TREE6' MAXDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGNOT TO SCALE1L-1QHC LOT #1 - LANDSCAPING PLANfeetPROJECT NO........ 2004012CHECKED BY................ CRCSCALE......................... 1 = 30'DATE........................ 12/14/10DRAWN BY................ DJLSCALE: 1" = 30'30 0 30 12060ADD BIKE RACKS, SNOW STORAGE 08/30/13ADD PHASING LINES, REMOVE/ADJUST FOR PROBLEM PLANT 03/28/13REVISE TITLE BLOCK, REMOVE PHASING REFERENCE 01/04/13UPDATE PLAN, CREATE QHC#1 BLDG A CONSTRUCTION DWGS 02/14/12REVISE BASE PLAN TO MATCH SITE PLAN 01/13/11ORIGINATE DRAWING (FROM RABIDEAU DWG) 12/14/10BUILDING "A"PHASE 1BUILDING "CC"PHASE 2BUILDING "B"PHASE 3Ph 21339335001218121826160241836Ph 32655324700322400180243354Remain6042514400000000000QuanPh 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Remain6001,9504521357801,4809626481,700$9,8591,1520900468677903,9652,2208886483,060$13,52806121,600936001,17008881,1884,590$10,37200PN9 IGPAPAMS9 RPJMAF8 JS10 SJ10 TMT10 TMT10 TMT6 SJ5 SJ12 TMTTotal Price2,92201,6489242,1855622,7481,748$12,737Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Remain1,9481,8001,2361,3861,7482,2481,3742,185$13,9254871,3501,2364,1581,3111,6863,4350$13,6639742,7002,0602,3101,3111,1242,7483,059$16,286$56,611PCPPGPh 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 RemainQuanPA0EXISTING TREE, TYP.LANDSCAPING PLANQHC LOT#1QUARRY HILL ROADSO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT10 TMTPHASE O NE PHAS E THREEPHASE TWOEXISTINGPHASE ONEPHASE TWOPHASE THREEEXISTINGPHASE ONEPHASE TWOPHASE THREEEXISTINGPHAS E O N E PHASE T H R E E PHASE TWOSNOW STORAGESNO W S T O R A G ESNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGEBIKERACKBIKERACKBIKERACKC20 KIMBALL AVE, SUITE 202NSO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403PHONE - (802) 658-2100 FAX - (802) 658-2882COPYRIGHT 2013 - RUGGIANO ENGINEERING, INC. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_08_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 27, 2014 Plans received: May 27, 2014 BLACKBAY VENTURES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD 14-18 & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-14-05 Agenda #5 Meeting date: July 1, 2014 Applicant/Owner Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC 226 Ridgefield Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Contact Person David Shenk PO Box 4132 Burlington, VT 05406 Property Information Tax Parcel Volume 1192, Page 45-47 CD3 and Design Review Districts 0.76 Acres PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-14-18 & design review application #DR-14-05 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC for a planned unit development to: 1) remove an existing single family dwelling, 2) construct four (4) three (3) unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) establish disputed boundary line with adjoining property, 135 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP & Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 27, 2014 and offer the following comments. There is an existing house and garage on this 0.76 acre parcel located at the corner of Hinesburg Road and Market Street, in the Central District 3 (CD-3) zoning district. The application proposes to remove or demolish this existing home and replace it with four two-story, three-unit multi-family dwellings. Each unit would have a footprint of 650 sq. ft., and each building would have a primary footprint of 1,950 sq. ft. The total building footprint upon the lot, including all of the porches, is 8830 sq. ft. Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements CD3 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size N/A 33,228.8 ft.2 No change  Max. Building Coverage  50% 5.6% 26.5%  Max. Total Coverage 80% 7.7% 72.7% ** Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 9 ft. 1 ft. Market St; 40.7’ Hinesburg Rd  Min. Side Setback (multi-family) 5 ft. 299.8 ft. 19.4 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 5 ft. 29.9 56.4 ft.  Max. Building Height 35 ft. ? 32 ft.  Max. Density 25 units/acre 1.3 units/acre 15.79 units/acre  Floor Area Ratio 0.5 ? 0.48* CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim  zoning compliance  Building coverage is for the overall PUD. * Includes only finished area; this is consistent with the LDRs. ** Stairway entrances only 1 ft. from the ROW/property boundary, main buildings are 5’ from the boundary line. NOTE: Total lot area of 0.763 acres is upon merger of two smaller existing lots. SECTION 8: CENTRAL DISTRICT (CD) 8.01 General Purpose of the Central District 8.02 Establishment of Sub-Districts 8.03 Prohibited Uses – All Districts 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts 8.05 Specific Sub-District Regulations 8.01 General Purpose of the Central District The Central District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of a balanced and coordinated mixture of residential, commercial, public and private uses adjacent to Dorset Street that support the city center goals and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It is designed to promote efficient use of land by concentrating mixed uses within a well-defined Central District. This will provide a pedestrian-oriented circulation network that minimizes vehicular traffic. It also encourages the traditional town center pattern of appropriately scaled buildings facing onto a well- defined and active public street. Innovative site planning and master planning are encouraged to maximize uses, shared parking, public open space and pedestrian amenities which create an aesthetically pleasing and socially active community center on and around Dorset Street. To this end, all applications involving ten (10) or more acres of land in any Central District shall require a Master Plan approval pursuant to Article 15 of these Regulations. 8.02 Establishment of Sub-Districts The Central District is divided into four (4) sub-districts - Central District 1, Central District 2, Central District 3 and Central District 4. Permitted and Conditional Uses and dimensional standards vary by sub-district as established in Sections 8.06 through 8.10 of these Regulations. The subject parcel is located in the CD 3 District. 8.03 Prohibited Uses - All Districts Proposed are multi-family dwellings, so these prohibitions do not apply. 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts A. Purpose. The general intent of the building setbacks in the Central District is to require all buildings to front on to public streets and to require that parking facilities are located in the center of the blocks to the greatest extent practicable, occupy only minimal frontage on public streets, and are thoroughly screened from view from public streets and rights-of-way. All four buildings front on and are very close to Market Street (1’ setback from the property line). The CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim easterly building on the corner that also faces Hinesburg Road has a porch along the full length of that building frontage, so that the building addresses the street appropriately, but with a deeper setback as befits that busier street. The Hinesburg Road frontage is appropriate. Parking is located behind the buildings and within the site, as required. The proposed front setback along Market Street is in compliance with Section 8.04 (B) (1) of the LDRs. B. Location of buildings and structures. (1) All buildings and structures, with the exception of parking facilities, are required to be constructed within an allowable building envelope. The maximum depth of allowable building envelopes shall be eighty (80) feet and, in general, shall be measured from the nearest planned public street right-of-way as shown on the South Burlington Official Map. Buildings are located within the 80 foot depth measured from Market Street. This requirement is being met. (2) The Development Review Board may approve a building, a portion of which extends beyond the building envelope provided the building contains a minimum of two (2) stories and the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. This standard is met. Staff previously recommend that the buildings be separated further apart, resulting in a building not meeting the 57 ft. setback requirement from Hinesburg Road. The buildings have been moved further apart which results in the building closest to Hinesburg Road to be setback 40 feet which is a 17 ft. encroachment. Staff supports this waiver. 1. The Board should discuss this setback waiver request. (3) Exemption for master planned buildings and structures. Buildings and structures whose footprint, parking, and access are subject to and reviewed in conjunction with an approved master plan in the Central District 1 shall be exempt from requirements for the maximum depth of an allowable building envelope. N/A C. Special Standards for Setbacks (1) Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet, or between zero (0) and five (5) feet if a fire wall is provided. Buildings will be 12’ – 14’ apart, and the ‘outer’ setbacks are more than that, satisfying this standard. (2) The front yard setback area along Dorset Street, Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road shall be restricted to the following uses or improvements: (a) landscaping and green space (b) access drives (c) pedestrian oriented improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, plazas, benches, and bicycle racks. (d) utility services provided they are placed underground. Appurtenant facilities such as transformers and amplifiers may be installed at ground level where such is in accordance with Section 13.18 of these Regulations (utility cabinets and structures). N/A CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim D. Location of Parking Areas and Structures (1) Multi-level parking garages and decks may be constructed within an allowable building envelope, and/or outside of an allowable building envelope if located in the center of a block. (2) Surface parking may be provided within the allowable building envelope if it is located behind a building and is hidden from view from the public street. (3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within the allowable building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the public street by a building, provided: (a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the total parking required for the property, (b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope area existing on the property, (c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the amount of surface parking required, and (d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. Parking is located within the site and behind all of the buildings, with varied landscaping/screening proposed on the Hinesburg Road end. 25 spaces are provided, two per dwelling unit plus one. E. Parking Requirements (1) The parking requirements of Table 13 are required in the Central District. These standards may be met on-site or off-site if the parking facility is located within seven hundred (700) feet of the main entrance of the establishment and is approved by the Development Review Board. (2) The Development Review Board may accept a contribution to the parking trust fund to establish a municipal parking lot in lieu of parking spaces. The amount of the contribution shall be based on a per space fee set by the City Council. (3) The Development Review Board may further reduce the amount of parking required, up to a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the number of spaces required, in conjunction with an approved master plan upon a showing by the applicant that the master plan includes viable provisions for off-site employee parking and transportation and construction of mass transit stops within the master planned area sufficient to further reduce parking demand. (4) Parking lots located in the centers of blocks shall be connected with openings between lots to allow traffic flow between lots. According to Table 13-1 of the LDRs, 24 parking spaces are required where the parking spaces are to be in common with no reserved spaces; 25 spaces are provided. Other standards do not apply here. F. Density. Height, coverage, setbacks, floor area ratios (F.A.R.) and the maximum size of units will govern the density of the Central District. The F.A.R. is the ratio of building square footage to lot size. For example, a 5,000 square foot building on a 5,000 square foot lot has an F.A.R. of 1.0. A 2,500 square foot building footprint on 2 floors (5,000 square feet total) on a 5,000 square foot lot also has an F.A.R. of 1.0. A one story 2,500 square foot building on a 5,000 square foot lot has an F.A.R. of 0.5. According to the applicant, this project has a floor area ratio of +- 0.47, just under the 0.5 limit in this CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim zoning district. 8.05 Specific Sub-District Regulations C. Central District 3 and 4 (1) Allowable Building Envelopes in Central District 3 and 4: Allowable building envelopes shall be in accordance with Section 8.04(B), with the exception of Dorset Street, Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road. Along Dorset Street, the envelope is measured from a point ten (10) feet west of the right-of-way line, thereby creating a minimum ten (10) foot front yard setback from Dorset Street. Along Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road, the envelope is measured from a point thirty- two (32) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way. Please see notes above. (2) Lot Coverage in Central District 3 and 4: The maximum coverage of commercial development and mixed residential/commercial development shall be forty percent (40%) for buildings and ninety percent (90%) overall (including buildings, parking, walks, plazas, garages, etc.). The maximum coverage for residential development shall be fifty percent (50%) for buildings only and eighty percent (80%) overall. Where a multi-level parking structure is to be constructed on a lot, the maximum allowable coverage for buildings shall be ninety percent (90%). Satisfied. (3) Density in Central District 3 and 4: The base maximum density of development shall not exceed an F.A.R. of 0.5. The Development Review Board may explicitly approve development up to an F.A.R. of 0.7 as a bonus for the provision of special, public-oriented amenities such as parks, courtyards, pedestrian ways, etc. The maximum residential density shall be twenty-five (25) units per acre (minimum unit size of five hundred (500) square feet). Please see notes above on this topic. Figure 8-3, Allowable Building Envelope (Typical), CD-3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim DESIGN REVIEW 11.01 City Center Design Review Overlay District CCDR A. Purpose. A City Center Design Review Overlay District (CCDR) is hereby formed in order to promote development of the proposed South Burlington City Center as an attractive and cohesive area in which the citizens of South Burlington can take pride. It is the intent of this overlay district to ensure that the design of future development is aesthetically and functionally compatible with the desired character for this area of the City, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that good design will help create and maintain a sense of place for the community, promote its self- awareness, and strengthen the business and civic elements of the community. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. This project is located within Design District 3. (3) Design District 3 - This area generally includes land located on the west side of Dorset Street and also on the far eastern section of Market Street. This area is planned to be a transitional area between the higher density, more intensely developed portions of City Center and adjoining residential neighborhoods. The design of buildings in this zone should be compatible with the adjoining residential character. Therefore, building materials should include wood/vinyl, as well as brick and stone, and consist predominantly of natural, subdued colors. Also, pitched roofs are highly recommended. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (iii) Design District 3. Natural, indigenous materials of stone, masonry and wood shall predominate. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), architectural concrete and wood clapboard/shingles (synthetic materials such as vinyl siding may be used in place of wood provided it is of high quality and closely resembles wood clapboard/shingles). Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include metal skin and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). Architectural elevations and siding materials/colors are submitted. There are no details about doors, windows, roofing materials, porch materials/stain/paint colors, no photos of the existing property, no statements as to compatibility with adjoining residential character… There is little or no stone, masonry, or wood proposed here. Synthetic siding (wood-textured fiber cement) siding is proposed. The application states that the foundations “will be rubbed with a cementitious product to provide a textured appearance”; this should be explored further for color, depth, material, durability, and the like. Staff will bring a sample to the meeting. 2. The Board should discuss the proposed construction materials. (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim Color pairings are proposed for each building that are all traditional and subdued. There is no information as to which color is the body or trim. A different texture/material appears to be shown on the false dormers on the Market Street elevations, but no details are provided. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. See below for overall discussion of building design. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. See below for overall discussion of building design. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (ii) Design District 3. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, or does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. Where portions of a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim roof are flat, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. No information is provided on roof pitch, but these are not flat roofed buildings. Inappropriate Roof Treatment – Monotonous Appropriate Roof Treatments (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. Staff feels that this criterion is met for Hinesburg Road. See discussion below regarding effective frontage on Market Street. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. No rooftop devices are shown. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. No information is offered regarding energy efficiency or solar energy, although these will have to meet the state’s energy code requirements. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. This standard appears to apply more to commercial buildings than to homes. Staff performed an initial review and met with the applicant to discuss potential significant concerns about the proposed building design, primarily, but not solely, for the front elevations facing Market Street. While these are dressed up a bit more than the back sides of the buildings, these still lack in depth, design, texture, and appearance for such sizable, prominent buildings to be placed in a line right on the street. The only real difference between the front and back are the false dormers located over each unit. Otherwise, these are the types of flat walls and unharmonious window placements sought to be avoided in the design standards. There is no apparent depth or texture to doors, windows, eaves, or trim boards. The very small porch/entryways still look like back doors to these homes. The tiny second floor windows look ‘tacked on’, leaving larger expanses of blank siding. Perhaps the front porches along Market Street could be extended in width, understanding there is little depth between building and street with which to work. The applicant may bring alternatives to the meeting including possible use of a small portion of the street ROW. Staff held an initial meeting and is supportive in concept due to unusual, favorable circumstances here and the importance of this site as a gateway. Greater depth and texture of window and building trim, along with more thoughtful and harmonious placement of windows on all ‘open’ sides of the buildings, might also help better satisfy the design standards of the LDRs. The rear façade of the easterly end unit of building #1 appears oddly out of character, as well, with a primarily blank wall and three different windows placed in a seemingly random pattern. As proposed, these buildings do not seem to satisfy the spirit, intent, or standards of this design district. Staff has discussed these concerns with the applicant. The applicant seeks to improve compliance with this criteria and plans to bring revised plans to the meeting. 4. The Board should discuss these standards and the Plan in depth especially the Market Street facades. 11.02 Site Design for City Center Design Review District A. Landscape and plantings. Significant trees and vegetation should be preserved in its natural state insofar as practicable. Any grade changes should be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Landscape plantings and amenities shall be well designed with appropriate variations and shall be included as an integral enhancement of the site and, where needed, for screening purposes. In particular, parking areas shall be well screened by berms, plantings, or other screening methods to minimize their visual impact. Planting islands shall be used to break up larger expanses of paved parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff on June 25, 2014:  Tree and Shrub Planting Details and Specifications need to be included in plans.  Specify that parking lot islands/bumpouts must be filled with quality planting soil to a depth of 2.5 feet to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth.  Sugar Maple is not very tolerant of parking lot/street tree conditions. Recommend a different species.  Boxwood is not recommended for use bordering sidewalk on Rte. 116. Will likely incur haeavy damage from snow plowing/salting operations Yews along sidewalks will require precautions to protect against salt damage in winter No trees or vegetation will be preserved; the entire site will be cleared and redeveloped. Given the significant redevelopment proposed for this relatively small property, perhaps that’s an appropriate strategy here. It is a flat site with little grade change. The concept of using large canopy trees to help shade a parking lot is appreciated. 5. The applicant should revise its plans to address the City Arborist’s recommendations. B. Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. HVAC equipment should not be pad mounted at grade. Utility connections shall be installed underground and utilities shall co-exist to the greatest extent possible. As noted, a mailbox is shown by the entrance drive, and the dumpster is at the other end of the site, near Hinesburg Road. No HVAC nor other utility cabinets are shown on the plans. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim 6. Should HVAC units be included in the development at a later stage in the development review process, the plans should clearly delineate their location and such units should be adequately screened. C. Walls, fences or other screening features: Such elements, if used, shall be employed in a skillful manner and in harmony with the architectural context of the development. Such features should be used to enhance building appearance and to strengthen visual linkages between a building and its surroundings. As noted, a scalloped, solid-wall stockade fence will be installed along the rear of the parking lot. The dumpster will be screened of unknown materials. A retaining wall of unknown materials or dimensions is also shown at the back edge of the parking lot. D. Accessible open space. When providing open space on a site, it shall be designed to be visually and physically accessible from the public street. Open space should add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing by or overlooking the site from neighboring properties. If open space is intended for active use, it should include such elements as benches, shade trees, and refuse containers and be so designed to maximize its accessibility for all individuals, including the disabled, and encourage social interaction. The siting of open space on a lot shall also consider the potential impact of buildings, both existing and potential, on shadow casting and solar access. There is little open space on the site, but this is perhaps expected, being located in a high density land use district. E. Provide efficient and effective circulation. With respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, special attention shall be given to the location and number of access points to public streets and sidewalks, to the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, to the arrangement of parking areas and to service and loading areas, and to the location of accessible routes and ramps for the disabled. Site design shall also provide for interconnections, both vehicular and pedestrian, between adjacent properties. A single access drive serves the property. The parking lot is in a logical location, and as required in the LDRs. Direct access is provided to the street/recreation path/sidewalk from each dwelling unit. F. Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to be both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The lighting type or types shall be metal halide, compact fluorescent and/or induction lamps and shall be of a white color with a Color Rendering Index (CRI) of seventy (70) or greater recommended. Light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded to preclude glare and overall illumination levels should be evenly distributed. Downcast LED light fixtures are specified, apparently several pole-mounted lights of unknown height, and also on or within the porch overhangs. No other exterior lights are shown on any plans. It is worth considering an additional pole-mounted light near the dumpster for the safety and convenience of the residents; this should be on a motion detector, so it is not on all night long. G. Provide for nature’s events. Attention shall be accorded to design features which address the affects of rain, snow and ice at building entrances and on sidewalks, and to provisions for snow and ice removal from circulation areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim Porch overhangs at front and back doors are helpful in this regard. H. Make spaces secure and safe. With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces should be designed to facilitate building evacuation, and provide reasonable accessibility by fire, police or other emergency personnel and equipment. The Fire Chief/Fire Marshal will review for building code requirements. I. Streetscape improvements. An applicant for new development shall be responsible for implementing streetscape improvements (e.g., sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, etc.) within the portion of the public street ROW directly fronting the parcel of land for which development is proposed. Such streetscape improvements shall be in accord with the specifications contained in the City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines. The Fire Department will provide formal comments at Final Plat. OTHER Two bike racks are shown on the plan; it likely makes sense to add at least one more to serve the westerly buildings (or have four racks, one per building). The dumpster enclosure is within the front yard area of Hinesburg Road. This may be determined to be the most logical place for it, given other site constraints, but we should be sure it is well screened by both a solid wall fence and landscaping. There is only a tiny snow storage area that cannot possibly be sufficient to serve this site; snow will have to be removed on a regular basis. It appears that underground electric lines (marked UE on the utility plan, but not noted in the legend) will serve two of the buildings from a pole or utility cabinet located just off site at the southeast corner of the property. No connections are shown to the other two buildings. No information is provided whether any above ground utility cabinets are needed on site. A gas main is shown within the road right of way, but no connections to the buildings are shown; water and sewer connections are shown. Foundation drains are shown around all of the buildings; at least one drains to daylight, but where does it flow from there? A scalloped stockade fence section is shown on the site detail plan, apparently to be installed along the entire rear edge of the parking lot/driveway; will this also be installed to screen the dumpster? A mailbox is shown along the entrance drive, presumably to serve all of the dwelling units. A new retaining wall is shown on the site plan, but there are no details of depth/width/height/materials. Are these permitted on the property line? Is excavation required that necessitates construction or access easements on the neighbor’s property? 7. The applicant should address the site plan questions noted above. Stormwater is proposed to be handled via subsurface infiltration systems. It would be interesting to learn how these actually work during winter. Downcast LED light fixtures will be used; an illuminance plan is provided, but no information as to the height of any pole-mounted fixtures. The project includes installation of a proper sub-base for a future recreational path along Market Street; this is an excellent idea that makes very good sense to do as a part of the extensive site work needed here. A concrete walkway leads from each dwelling unit to the future path, except for the unit facing Hinesburg Road, which has a walkway leading to the sidewalk on that street, as well as out back to the parking lot. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim Landscaping: Building construction cost is estimated at $1,742,400. Required minimum landscaping: First $250,000 x 3% = $7500. Next $250,000 x 2% = $5000. Balance of $1,242,400 x 1% = $12,424. Minimum required landscaping budget = $24,924; proposed = $26,475. A landscaping plan has been submitted, along with a planting schedule and breakdown of costs. The Public Works department will provide formal comments at Final Plat. Finally, the application also speaks to clarifying a disputed property boundary, but no information has been submitted as to the source of this conflict, nor how it has or will be resolved with the adjoining landowner, and ultimately, with the Board. After all, neither one landowner, nor the DRB, can simply impose a property line on their own volition. These are private, civil matters which, at best, the DRB can ratify in approving a site plan. Sworn testimony from a professional surveyor licensed to practice in Vermont might be needed; even better will be written agreement on this matter between the adjoining landowners. 8. The Board should provide guidance to the applicant and recommend measures so that no further disputes over the property boundary arise between the current or future landowners. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (b) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The Director of Public Works Department will provide formal comment at Final Plat. (c) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project will be served by one curb cut on Market Street. The curb cut is located approximately 360 feet from the intersection of Market Street and Hinesburg Road. This should prevent the creation of any congestion on adjacent roads from traffic entering or leaving the project parking lot. (d) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. No wetland, streams, wildlife habitat or unique natural features are located on the site. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim (e) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Staff feels that the design and orientation of the proposed buildings is compatible with other buildings in the District and with the overall purpose of the District to create a mix of uses coupled with a pedestrian- friendly environment. (f) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. This criterion is being met within the constraints of the property. (g) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The Fire Department will provide comments at Final Plat. (h) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Staff feels that this criterion is met. The project include construction of several concrete walkways from the four proposed buildings to connect to a future multi-use path along Market Street and construction of a concrete walkway to connect to an existing sidewalk along the west side of Hinesburg Road. The project will also install the subbase for the City’s future multi-use path. Extensive landscaping along the project’s frontage with Market Street and Hinesburg Road is proposed. The project as proposed is compatible with the extension of services and infrastructure referenced in this criterion. (i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. See comments for item (h) above. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (j) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels that this criterion is met. The project establishes four appropriately scaled buildings with a pedestrian-friendly design as called for in the Central District 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The four proposed buildings align lengthwise along Market Street and the proposed parking is located behind them. However the east side of the easternmost building faces Hinesburg Road and thus is considered the front side of a building as well. While no building screens the parking lot from being viewed from Hinesburg Road or from the adjacent sidewalk, the project proposes extensive landscaping along that portion of the property which will screen the parking lot to some degree from being viewed. Note, that according to the regulations in Chapter 8.04, Section D. Location of Parking Areas and Structures, paragraph (3): (3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within the allowable building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the public street by a building, provided: (a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the total parking required for the property, (b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope area existing on the property, (c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the amount of surface parking required, and (d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. The overall maximum lot coverage is 80% and the development proposes 72.7 percent. Approximately 46% of the development is covered by the parking lot and internal sidewalks. A total of 24 spaces are required based upon the number of housing units. 25 are provided although one is a Handicap Only space. 9. The Board should determine whether the provisions of Chapter 14.06 and Chapter 8.04 are met so as to allow the project to proceed as planned or whether a) additional landscaping and fencing should be required along the eastern edge of the property, b) a building should be placed along Hinesburg Road to screen the parking lot and/or c) the overall size of the parking lot should be reduced. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable to this project (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B) (2) (b) shall be exempt from this subsection. Not applicable to this project (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. Not applicable to this project (b) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Staff feels that this criterion is met. The proposed buildings are similar in height and scale to others in the zoning district. The proposed easternmost building is consistent with other along Hinesburg Road (c) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (d) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. This criterion has been reviewed as part of the project’s design review. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (e) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Staff feels that this criterion is met. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). A screened dumpster area is shown on the plan. Staff feels that this criterion is met. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim 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. As noted above in staff comments on Chapter 11.02, the City Arborist provided the following comments to staff on June 25, 2014:  Tree and Shrub Planting Details and Specifications need to be included in plans.  Specify that parking lot islands/bumpouts must be filled with quality planting soil to a depth of 2.5 feet to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth.  Sugar Maple is not very tolerant of parking lot/street tree conditions. Recommend a different species.  Boxwood is not recommended for use bordering sidewalk on Rte. 116. Will likely incur haeavy damage from snow plowing/salting operations Yews along sidewalks will require precautions to protect against salt damage in winter. As noted on item #5 on page 11, the applicant should revise the plans to address the City Arborist’s recommendations. Snow Storage Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. Snow storage areas are shown on the plans although staff has concerns on whether it is large enough to accommodate snow storage given the size of the parking lot. 10. The Board should determine whether the proposed snow storage area is large enough. Landscape Budget Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(2) of the SBLDR. Building construction cost is estimated at $1,742,400. Required minimum landscaping: First $250,000 x 3% = $7500. Next $250,000 x 2% = $5000. Balance of $1,242,400 x 1% = $12,424. Minimum required landscaping budget = $24,924; proposed = $26,475. A landscaping plan has been submitted, along with a planting schedule and breakdown of costs. Staff feels that this criterion is met. RECOMMENDATION The applicant should address the items identified above that need correction, improvement or CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim clarification. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: David Shenk SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247MARCH 26, 2014LS1PROPOSEDLANDSCAPINGPLANPROJECTLOCATIONPlant ScheduleQuantity Key Botanical Name Common Name SizeTrees (decidious)4 AS Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 2-21/2"3 QR Quercus rubra Red Oak 2-21/2"10 CP Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood 5-6'4 CM Cornus m. 'Golden Glory' Golden Glory Dogwood 2"Trees (evergreen)2 TS Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 6'-8'Deciduous Shrubs11 MP Myrica pensylvanica 'Nordic' Nordic Bayberry (semi-evergreen) 18"-24"17 CH Cotoneaster horizontalis Rockspray Cotoneaster #32 HA Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' Annabelle Hydrangea 4-5'5 SJ Spirea jponica 'Neon Flash' Neon Flash Spirea #7Evergreem Shrubs10 AZ Azalea Northern Light Series 18"-24"36 BS Boxwood - Green Velvet Buxus Microphylla 18"-24"3 TBR Taxus baccata Repandens Creeping English Yew 18"-24"12 TMD Taxus media densiformis Dense Spreading Yew 18"-24"4 RRE Rhododendron roseum elegans Roseum Elegans Rhododendron 3-4'5 JPN Juniperus procumbens 'Nana' Dwarf Japanese Garden Juniper #34 PJM Rhododendron compact clone Compact P.J.M. Rhododendron 2'7 IG Ilex glabra 'Shamrock' Shamrock Inkberry #5 SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247MARCH 26, 2014C1.3PROPOSEDGRADING ANDDRAINAGEPLANPROJECTLOCATION SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247C1.2PROPOSEDUTILITYPLANMARCH 26, 2014PROJECTLOCATION BA1A. "1 Lot Subdivision of Property Belonging toJoanna Dubois Jenkins", last revised11/21/1978, by Palmer Company, Ltd. MapSlide 124.B. "Corporate Circle ... South Burlington RealtyCorp., Property Data", dated April 1981, byWebster-Martin, Inc. Not of Record.C. "Corporate Circle ... South Burlington RealtyCorp., Site Plan", dated September 1981, byWebster-Martin, Inc. Map Slide 154.D."Plan of Property of Harry & Carrie Barrett",dated July 5, 1946, by Hoag - Stone &Associates. Map Slide 4.E. "Edmund A. & Stella G. ChastenayProperty", dated January 1982 by W.A.Robenstien. Map Slide 119.F. "Land to be Purchased from the McKenzieEstate by the Vermada Corp.", circa 1968, byunknown. Map Book 80 Page 99.1. Purpose of this survey and plat are to:a.) retrace the existing boundaries of two parcels of land conveyedto Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC by deed of Michael A. Peters, datedOctober 25, 2013 and recorded in Volume 1192 Page 45 of theSouth Burlington Land Records; b.) to depict the combining of thosetwo parcels into one; and c.) depict a boundary agreement betweensaid Blackbay and South Burlington City Center, Inc.2. The line between Blackbay Ventures VII, LLC and SouthBurlington City Center, Inc. was shown differently on recorded plats.The new line shown is based upon an agreement between the twoparties.3. Survey was performed during January 2014 consisting of aclosed-loop traverse conducted with an electronic total stationinstrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, derived from our GPS observations onor adjacent to the site.4. Iron pipe found are labeled with inside diameters. Concretemonuments found are 4" square in cross-section. Proposedconcrete monuments shall be 4" square with aluminum disksstamped "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597".5. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent ALLutilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises.6. Hinesburg Road width described in Town of Burlington Highway& Roads Volume 1 Pages 34-35 (1822).PROJECTLOCATION THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFSTEVE GUILD DESIGN, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILDMARKET STREET TRIPLEXESNEW TOWNHOUSESELEVATIONS THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFSTEVE GUILD DESIGN, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILDMARKET STREET TRIPLEXESNEW TOWNHOUSESELEVATIONS SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247C1.1PROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLANMARCH 26, 2014PROJECTLOCATION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_14_20_and_DR_14_04_358DorsetSt_BesawLLC DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 27,2014 Plans received: May 15, 2014 BESAW, LLC SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-14-20 & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-14-04 Agenda #6 Meeting date: July 1, 2014 Applicant/Owner Besaw, LLC 22 Aster Lane Williston, VT Contact Person Annette Besaw 22 Aster Lane Williston, VT Property Information Tax Parcel Volume 984, pages 19-22 CD2 and Design Review Districts 1.02 Acres PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-14-20 & design review application #DR-14-04 of Besaw, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,000 sq. ft. retail building and a 5,200 sq. ft. building used for indoor recreation use. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate a dumpster enclosure, and 2) altering the southerly façade of 358 Dorset Street, 358 Dorset Street & 55 San Remo Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 15, 2014 and offer the following comments. There is one (1) change proposed to the site plan: Relocated dumpster enclosure (after-the-fact): this appears to simply be a reapplication of #SP- 12-43 which was already approved back in 2012, with a new dumpster enclosure at the rear of the parking lot in between the buildings, and screened with a stockade fence reused from its former location. As noted, the DRB had already approved this back in 2012, based on site plan C1.02, entitled Design Matters Parking, prepared by DeWolfe Engineering Associates, dated December 9, 2010. The design review change is: Proposed anew here is a design amendment, to cover up/wrap existing concrete and steel support pillars in front of the building with square and rectangular “azek on stucco” materials. Based on the drawings submitted, staff believes this a real improvement over the existing ‘sonotube wrap’ bare concrete and steel I-beams; certainly better befitting a visible building on a busy public street housing a design studio. The application includes photos of the existing building, and several renderings of the proposed improvements. Staff feels the addition is in full compliance with the design standards of Article 11. RECOMMENDATION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim If all issues are addressed and there is no additional information needed to make a decision, the Board should close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Paul O’Leary DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 June 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; J. Smith, A. Klugo, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; R. Schuler, J. Stewart, A. Wyncoop, S. Gregory, M. O’Brien, L. Michaels, D. Burke, N. Smith, J. Frank, M. Greco, L. Beasimer, P. Simon, C Snyder, A. Rowe, G. Rabideau, D. Marshall, B. Doucevicz 1. Announcements: No announcements were made. 2. Continued miscellaneous application #MS-14-05 of Robert Dumont Family Trust for approval to impact 1,406 sq. ft. of Class II wetland buffer zone with a driveway to serve a two-family dwelling, 37 Birch Street: The applicant indicated they have received a wetland permit from the state. Mr. Barritt asked if the duplex has been approved. Mr. Belair said it does not need Board approval. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #MS-14-05. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Design Review Application #DR-14-03 of Malone Dorset Street Properties, LLC, for after-the-fact approval to modify the building elevations, 200 Dorset Street: Mr. Simon said that minor changes happened during construction. He showed the building elevations and indicated that on the Dorset Street façade, there are now 3 large window areas as opposed to the 2 which were approved. The aluminum is also slightly different from what was approved. The dimensions are the same. On the parking lot façade, there are 7 sections instead of 6 panel areas as approved. This is due to the columns in the building. On the parking lot façade, there are 4 small window/door areas instead of the 2 approved. They still function the same way. Mr. Simon also noted that they became aware today that Healthy Living has a stack installed on the west side of the building. The applicant explained that they applied for approval to add this. They were to screen the stack. About 2 years ago, this disintegrated. When they went to put up the screen again, they were told by the Fire Department it was not allowed. Mr. Simon DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 3 JUNE 2014, PAGE 2 said they were told the screening had to be 3 feet away, and there is no room for that. They would like it approved as is. Mr. Belair said the kitchen under the stack was approved separately after the building was built. The plan showed 5 potted trees on the deck to screen it. The trees were there until recently found by the Fire Department. Mr. Belair read from the regulations regarding screening of rooftop devices and how the Board has to make a decision on this. Mr. Klugo suggested adding another piece of art work to screen the stack. Mr. Wilking noted that if the stack were painted beige, it would just about disappear. Mr. Barritt said he’d never driven by and found it to be awful. Mr. Klugo said this is a gateway to the City Center, and he didn’t think leaving it or painting it or having clapboard siding was in keeping with that location. Mr. Smith agreed. Mr. Barritt was concerned with the unusual financial burden. The applicant said the art work on the side of the building cost $10,000. Mr. Simon asked the Board to just grant the approval for the Trader Joe’s changes. Mr. Wilking moved to close #DR-14-03. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-03 & Site Plan Application #SP-14-12 of Steve Gregory to amend a previously approved plan for a 60,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant industrial building. The amendment consists of: 1) eliminating the restrictions on the hours of operation, and 2) the addition of one cremation retort, 472 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Michaels explained that they no longer own this unit, but they still oversee other units in the building. Mr. Gregory then noted they have been operating since July, 2012 and there have been no complaints about their operation. They want to add a cremation unit and eliminate the restriction on hours of operation due to the need for a “cool down period.” Mr. Barritt noted receipt of 2 letters of support from commercial neighbors. Mr. Barritt asked if they are audited by the state. Mr. Gregory said they are audited every 2 years and have passed with flying colors. Mr. Belair said the city has received no complaints, and staff has no issues with the requests. Mr. Schuler, a neighbor, said he wasn’t opposed to the expanded activities but was concerned with environmental issues regarding mercury emissions. Mr. Gregory said the numbers cited DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 3 JUNE 2014, PAGE 3 are not close to being real numbers. They do about one/fourth of the volume cited. He noted that the Allen Road crematorium does more business than they do and has no restrictions. Mr. Belair noted the LDRs don’t limit the amount of mercury levels; that is a state issue. Mr. Barritt said he would like input from the rest of the Board on this. Mr. Wilking said if he could see the figures on the number of cremations in the past years, and if that’s only one-fourth of the potential, it would make a difference on how he views the application. Mr. Gregory said his only concern with that is provided those figures for the competition to see. He did agree to furnish the state inspection report. Mr. Michaels asked if they hours of operation could be approved separately and then deal with the additional retort. Mr. Belair said that would have to be a separate application. Mr. Gregory agreed to withdraw the request for the additional retort with the ability to come back with the request at a future time. Mr. Wilking moved to close #CU-14-03 and #SP-14-12. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-14 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. Barritt noted the landscape requirement is $90,100. The applicant wants to spend $10,400 with the remainder as credit for an existing tree-line. Mr. Snyder showed the existing tree-line on the plan. Mr. Belair said the Board can give credit for existing landscaping. Mr. Snyder showed how difficult it would be to put in more landscaping due to the physical quality of the land. Mr. Barritt was concerned with screening in front. Mr. Snyder said they could up the caliper of street trees, but there wasn’t much they could do with landscaping near the units. Members were OK with the landscape request. Mr. Frank, a neighbor, said his concern is with the water pressure issue. He said has had been told by John Tymecki that these 4 homes won’t adversely affect water pressure. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-14-14. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 3 JUNE 2014, PAGE 4 6. Final Plat Application #SD-14-15 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 dwelling and 3) a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall reviewed a Fire Department issue regarding emergency access. He showed the area at issue and noted that Justin Rabideau has said he wouldn’t make the road wider. Street names are still pending. Suggestions are Summer Lane, Morgan Circle and Rye Circle. Mr. Rabideau showed how posts will provide visual separation. Mr. Klugo felt 6 feet was too high for the posts. Mr. Doucevicz suggested 3 feet, painted the same color as the houses. Members agreed to 3 feet in height, 30 feet on center, resulting in 1/3 as many as previously suggested. Mr. Marshall noted they have gone to LED lighting. Mr. Belair said they need to add bike racks for the 4-plexes and for the commercial buildings. Mr. Rabideau said they have been made aware that the landscape value has been overstated. They are asking to make adjustments on a lot-by-lot basis. He said they calculated using sale prices instead of construction costs. This is important because of the affordable housing component. Mr. Belair said if the applicant can have revised plans by Friday, the Board can have them at the same deliberative session and can have the City Arborist look them over. Mr. Klugo said he was comfortable with a $10,000 reduction. Mr. Rabideau said they will submit a revised landscaping plan with the error corrected and plantings updated. Mr. Belair was OK with this. Mr. Klugo expressed an issue with the stone facing in front of the buildings. Mr. Rabideau said the developer has a similar concern. They will come back with new elevations. An audience member asked about the cottage units. Mr. Rabideau explained this is a new concept. The units will have no garages and will use a common parking area. The audience members expressed concern that this will lower property values in the area. Mr. Rabideau said it has not been shown to do so. He added that these units are very popular with younger and older people. The units share an inner garden space. Mr. Rabideau said they are hoping to start construction this summer. They have a commitment for the commercial building and that will be among the first to be built. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 3 JUNE 2014, PAGE 5 An audience member asked if there is anything planned where this backs to Oak Creek. Mr. Rabideau said there will not be fence although individual home owners may put in fencing to protect children. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-14-15 to June 17th. 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 9:30 p.m. ___________________________________, Clerk ___________________________________, Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JUNE 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 June 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, A. Klugo, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; G. Rabideau, D. Marshall, T. Barden, S. & S. Rieley, F. & M. Mazur, V. Bolduc, D. Sanqe, M. Janswold, S. Dopp, S. Gardner, M. Metz, D. Shekerjian, S. Hamilton, C. Scott, C. Snyder, A. Rowe, S. Hainley, M. Murray, D. Burke, J. & E. Goldberg, J. & S. Jewett 1. Announcements: No announcements were made. 2. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-14-15 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) a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Rabideau said they have recalibrated the landscape budget. They have also received final comments on wastewater which they would like to add to the findings. Regarding elevations of the 4-plex, each of the 4 buildings will have its own color scheme. A transverse gable has also been introduced to break the eave line. An added small porch gives the stone more meaning and still fits in the budget goals. Mr. Marshall said they will construct a pump station. He gave members language related to that. All stormwater management for the commercial buildings will be in the southeast corner where it is drawn by topography. Mr. Klugo suggested varying the shape of each column (e.g., round, square, etc.) and perhaps different color doors on the multi-family buildings. Mr. Rabideau said they will entertain those comments if they can be turned into a condition as they would like a decision tonight. Different porches and different color doors they can do. Ms. Smith was not certain about mixing the shapes of the columns. She agreed they should be white. No other issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 JUNE 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-15. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-04 of Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) adding a handicapped ramp, and 2) adding two HVAC units, 99 Proctor Avenue; and 4. Site Plan Application #SP-14-17 of Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) adding a handicapped ramp, and 2) adding two HVAC units, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Barden said the ramp will be at the front entrance and will be ADA compliant. The HVAC pads will be on the south side of the building and on the north side of the gym. The Division for Historical Preservation is adamant that the screening around the HVAC units not be fencing. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-14-04 and #SP-14-17. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-16 of The Snyder Construction Company, LLC, for a planned unit development on two parcels totaling 13.25 acres with lot #1 developed with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1) resubdividing lot #1 to increase its size to 10.33 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #2 to 2.92 acres, and 3) developing lot #2 with a four story, 60 unit, multi-family dwelling, 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Snyder showed an aerial view of the property with the commercial building on lot #1 and the vacant adjacent lot on which the development is planned. He indicated where the new property line will be. The change is related to ownership, parking and other issues. The lot is currently open land with trees to the north. To the south and east are lands owned by the City of South Burlington. Mr. Snyder then showed the proposed building footprint on lot #2. He noted they could potentially have 92 units, and they may modify unit count and layout as they proceed. The applicant proposes to have a cross-easement for residents and commercial tenants for parking purposes in case of overflow. There will also be underground and some surface parking. Mr. Snyder noted there are currently about 50 open parking spaces on the commercial site, and there is ample space if more parking is needed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 JUNE 2014, PAGE 3 Mr. Barritt suggested a walking path around the wooded area. Mr. Snyder said they could do that but not near the parking area. Mr. Behr said he didn’t want the residential area to feel like an apartment building behind a commercial building and emphasized the need for amenities for residents. Mr. Belair said staff is suggesting this property provide a right-of-way through to the Pizzagalli property and eventually through the Green Mountain Drive as there will one day be a street to this property line. Mr. Klugo felt they didn’t have enough information for sketch plan review: no unit count, nothing to see how parking issues will be resolved, etc. Mr. Snyder said the question was how the shared parking would be perceived. He stressed they are very early on. Mr. Belair suggested a shared amenity between the two properties such as a picnic/recreation area. Ms. Smith suggested some residential parking in back by shifting the building. Mr. Snyder said they did a sketch of that and rejected it because they didn’t want residential units looking out on a parking lot on 2 sides. Mr. Barritt noted a 12-foot height waiver is being requested. Mr. Snyder said they will have a peaked roof. He added they are 3 stories above underground parking and will be below 52 feet from the average preconstruction grade. He added that there are very tall trees in the area. Mr. Barritt asked if staff can visit the property individually. Mr. Snyder had no objection. Mr. Snyder said they have agreed to provide an easement to the western property line. He showed the possibility of bringing a walkway in. They would not bring the walkway to Route 7 because of length and existing owners. Mr. Snyder noted they have to look at sewer lines, etc. Mr. Gardner said he is interested in this project because of impact on the community. He felt it was strange to put a 60-unit apartment complex behind a commercial use. He was specifically interested in the impact on intersections. Mr. Barritt noted there is bus service on Shelburne Road and the project can be well served with current infrastructure. Residential use is allowed in this location. Mr. Behr added that the area is very commercial with little residential use, and adding a residential option allows for a “live-work” mix. No other issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 JUNE 2014, page 4 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner to raze an existing single family swelling with a footprint of 2,004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3,004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Hamilton showed the existing and proposed site plans. They will remove both the house and garage and replace with a house and connecting garage with a bedroom above the garage. There will be a west-facing screened porch with open deck above and an open deck above the piece that connects the house and garage. They do not exceed the maximum allowed expansion. Mr. Barritt noted they will use the information on the site plan for calculations as there is an inconsistency. With regard to landscaping, a dead tree will be replaced with a 4-4.5 caliper red maple. Mr. Belair noted the landscaping plan should supplement the area between the house and the Lake. Mr. Hamilton noted there will be landscaping work along the shoreline as a separate application. Mr. Klugo felt it wasn’t clear which trees would be remaining. Mr. Metz, the owner, said he has no desire to remove trees. He didn’t know how many trees would have to be removed and will check with the landscape architect on this. He added that they will replace every tree they remove. Mr. Klugo also wanted to understand the lakefront plan. Mr. Metz said the bank is very stable. Mr. Belair said that to replace which is there is OK, but anything new would have to come to the Board. Mr. Belair asked if the Board would want additional plantings as a buffer. Mr. Klugo suggested the city Arborist weigh in on that. He didn’t favor adding trees in front of the west facing house, just replacing trees that are coming down. Mrs. Mazur, a neighbor, said they would like a fence put on the right property. They were also concerned with the use of the proposed generator. Mr. Metz said the generator was for emergency power. Mrs. Mazur noted it is not a good idea to put trees on the bank; they don’t do well there and will die or fall over. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 JUNE 2014, PAGE 5 Mr. Gardner was concerned that the “neighborhood is getting bigger.” He said it looks like trees on his property line are coming down and the house is moving closer to the boundary. Mr. Belair said there is a 10-foot setback from the property line, and the applicant is within that. No other issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to continue #CU-14-05 to 15 July 2014 to specifically determine what will replace the dead tree and where, a plan for trees that will be removed, and any supplemental plantings between the house and the Lake. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller rejoined the Board. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-14-18 of SDMWN Associates to amend a previously approved plan for an educational facility. The amendment consists of designating temporary vehicle storage on the property for the abutting Shearer Volkswagen use, until 15 August 2014, 2 Baldwin Avenue: Ms. Hainley said the VW dealership is under renovation and a lot of inventory needs to be relocated. They will rent some spaces in the school parking lot through 15 August 2014. She showed the location on the plan. Mr. Belair said there will have to be a gate to the surround of the dumpsters before he can issue a CO. Ms. Hainley said they will take care of that. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-14-18. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-17 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six two-family dwellings, and 2) three single family lots, 232 Autumn Hill Road: Mr. Parsons disclosed that he was asked a question at a social event; he referred the person to staff. Mr. Burke noted this is the same project that had approval in 2010 but had problems with Act 250. The approval then lapsed and they began again. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 JUNE 2014, PAGE 6 They have made a few modifications since sketch review. These include: a. Changes to the turn-around: it is now a T-turnaround which the Public Works Director prefers. The sidewalk used to stop at unit #8. There is now less impact to the wetland. b. They added an easement along the north boundary (this cannot be used until there is development of another property). c. The owner of the property across from the entrance has a private agreement with the developer. There is a question of sprinklering some duplex units on the private drive. Mr. Burke noted the state no longer requires this but Chief Brent is adamant. He also wants the single family homes sprinklered, but they are on a public road so it can’t be required. They have applied for a state wetland permit which is pending. The neighbors have asked for additional screening and Mr. Burke asked if they can put 6 6-foot Austrian pines in the wetland area in addition to the hardwoods. Mr. Behr suggested putting them on the neighbors’ property so the plan doesn’t have to be changed. Members were OK with the 12-14-foot street light height. Mr. Klugo supported not requiring sprinklering in the single family units. He was concerned with streets that go nowhere with no plan for the future. He also noted there were no elevations for units with drives on the outside. Mr. Klugo felt there should be “leveraging density” so the community doesn’t have to pay for roads. Mr. Burke said they are at the maximum density the property can support. Ms. Jewett was concerned they will have no protecting from drifting. They wanted conifers planted. Mr. Jewett added there is no room to put trees on their side of the road. Mr. Belair said if the trees are added, they will have to be very specifically placed and noted on the plan. Mr. Klugo said the board should not have to deal with this. It should be between the applicant and the neighbors. Ms. Goldberg said she was sure they can agree with the Jewett about the location of the trees. Mr. Belair said they can then come back with an amendment. Mr. Bolduc, neighbor to the south, encouraged approving the plan as presented. Mr. Scott, also a neighbor, supported the project. Ms. Murray said she hoped the street lights will be LED. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 JUNE 2014, PAGE 7 Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-17. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 20 May 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 20 May 2014 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there were no further issues to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. __________________________, Clerk __________________________, Date