Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 07/15/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 July 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. Conner, M. & A. M. Donoghue, J. Park, C. Tabor, R. Jeffers, H. Loope, S. Hamilton, D. & D. Kendall, S. Clark, V. Fraser, M. Severance, C. & J. Bever, L. Williams, L. Bresee, J. Desautels, L. Ohlsson 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: No announcements were made. 3. Site Plan Application #SP-14-32 of Tom DiPietro, South Burlington Deputy Public Works Director, to amend a plan for a multi-unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three new bioretention areas, and 4) adding four new catch basis, Stonehedge Drive: Mr. DiPietro said the city has been working with the Homeowners’ Association for a number of years, and this is the final plan that they will be going to construction with. The plan also involves some road work. The project will include a large detention pond, mostly on city property, plus three bioretention areas in locations where water is already going. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. & Mrs. Donoghue expressed concern that the “N” cluster was not being included in the project. They reported massive flooding which they believe is due to the houses that were approved above them. Mrs. Donoghue said they were told they were “on their own.” Mr. DiPietro said the area was looked at, but a number of things did not make it into this project which is addressing the expired state permit. He agreed that water does come down the hill, but that is not being addressed in this project. Mr. Tabor, who resides in the “L” cluster, said they have had 2 engineering firms look at their concerns. He showed on the plan where water comes from even in a small rain event. Water from rooftops and the carports also goes onto the road. He showed where he thought water should be channeled to and where a swale should be put. He said water would then go to the retention areas. Mr. Donoghue said they feel the city “led us on” and then did a “bait and switch” so they are now not included in the project. He showed pictures of the water situation. Mrs. Donoghue said once water breaches the sidewalk it’s in their basement. Mr. DiPietro said this project does not preclude the possibility of additional work in the future. Mr. Bresee asked that a minimum of trees be cut in the upper left corner where there is a small pond now. This area is on the bike path. Mr. DiPietro acknowledged that a lot of trees will come down but will be regrown in time. Ms. Clark, who is on the board of Stonehedge North Association said they are very concerned with stormwater flow, especially with recent intensity of storms. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-14-20 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a six lot subdivision. The amendment consists of resubdividing the six lots into 10 lots, 1630 Dorset Street: Ms. Smith noted that in the draft decision, items #13 and 14 should reference “#12 above.” Mr. Barritt asked that there not be any outer walls of the house or garage that are not broken up by windows. Mr. Williams said they hope to break ground in the fall. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 19 August. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51 to 19 August 2014. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner to raze an existing single family dwelling with a footprint of 2,004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3,004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Miller recused himself during this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Conner noted they had been asked to amend the landscape plan. The revised plan shows ornamental grasses above the riprap and new trees. They will also keep 2 trees that were originally shown as being removed. Ms. Loope showed the trees which will be kept and where the grasses will go. They will grow to about 3 feet in height. Members agreed this was a significant improvement. Mr. Wilking moved to close the hearing. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller rejoined the Board. 7. Design Review Application #DR-14-06 of Regency Mortgage Company for a Master Signage Permit to allow new signs, 2 San Remo Drive: Mr. Severance noted they had contacted the sign designer who said the proposed signs are made to be outdoors and to resist fading. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-06 of Carlee Cardwell & Lance Ohlsson for after‐the‐face approval to allow a new 7.5’x10’ entry to project three feet into the front yard setback, 34 Cortland Avenue: Mr. Ohlsson said there was a miscalculation as to where the setbacks were. Mr. Belair said this is similar to the Iby Street situation, and staff has no issues with the request. Members felt that the work looks good. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-07 of Tonaquint, Inc., for a project consisting of: 1) constructing a 1,039 sq. ft. detached accessory residential unit, and 2) allowing a new single family dwelling and the accessory residential unit to encroach into a wetland buffer, 333 Van Sicklen Road: Ms. Desautels said they plan to install city water and sewer and add a gas line. They have applied to the state for a wetland permit for the buffer impacts. Ms. Bever said this was her parents’ home, and the cottage is being built for the parents to live in. Mr. Belair said the corporation is registered, but there is still more legal work to be done. The house has to be owner occupied, and at the moment that isn’t the case, so legal ownership will be changing to allow this to be resolved. The house will then be owner occupied. The proposed cottage is a residential accessory unit which the Board has to approve. Mr. Belair also noted that both new buildings encroach slightly into the Class 2 wetland buffer. This property has been included in a 100 year flood plain. The applicant got the flood plain map amended by FEMA because the home sites are above the flood plain. Ms. Desautels showed where the encroachment into the buffer will occur. The design intent is to minimize the impacts. Mr. Barritt asked if there was any other design that would not impact the buffer. Ms. Desautels this design minimizes the impact as much as possible. Ms. Smith asked if the shed will go or remain. Ms. Desautels said they would prefer to keep it, but it would count as an accessory structure. Ms. Fraser, an abutter, indicated that although most of her property is in Williston, there is an acre in South Burlington. She was concerned with the wetland and flood plain. She said flooding occurs a lot, and her driveway gets “major flooding.” She showed photos of this. Mr. Barritt said it appears there may now be less incursion into the buffer. Ms. Desautels said she didn’t think they would be increasing the fill in the area Ms. Fraser indicated. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to 19 August 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Site Plan Application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display and storage area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked to continue the application to 19 August. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-25 to 19 August 2014. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Final Plat Application #SD-14-19 of Sterling Construction for approval of seven footprint lots, 6, 10 & 14 E. Fisher Lane, 4 & 8 W. Fisher Lane, and 139 & 143 Jefferson Road: Ms. Jeffers said they are OK with the proposed stipulations. Mr. Belair noted these are sub-standard footprint lots. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-19. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Minutes of 1 July 2014: It was noted that on line 1 of page 1, the date should read 1 July 2014. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 1 July 2014 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:55 p.m. Clerk August 18, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SP-14-32 - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON – STONEHEDGE DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-14-32 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION The City of South Burlington, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three (3) new bioretention areas, and 4) adding four (4) new catch basins, Stonehedge Drive. The Board held a public hearing on July 15, 2014. The applicant was represented by Tom DiPietro. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Administrative Officer finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three (3) new bioretention areas, and 4) adding four (4) new catch basins, Stonehedge Drive. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are: City of South Burlington, Stonehedge North Area Association & Stonehedge South Area Association. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 & PR Zoning Districts. 4. The application was received on June 20, 2014. 5. The plan submitted is entitled, “Stonehedge Stormwater Improvements South Burlington, Vermont Overall Site Plan”, prepared by DuBois & King, Inc., dated 8/30/13. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS #SP-14-32 - 2 – Standards regarding Vehicular access, Circulation, Parking, Landscaping, Outdoor Lighting and Traffic are not applicable to this project. (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objects set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 6. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage development while protecting natural resources and promoting a healthy and safe environment. The proposed project is in keeping with the recommended actions of 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. 7. This criterion will continue to be met. Additional plantings will be added in the vicinity of the detention ponds. (c) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Not applicable. (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. Not applicable. (e) Newly installed utility service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Not applicable. (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. Not applicable. (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. Not applicable. #SP-14-32 - 3 – In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. 8. The reservation of land is not necessary. (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. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. OTHER This project involves improvement of the development’s stormwater infrastructure as described above. These improvements alter the site plan thereby triggering the need for this site plan review. All criteria for site plan review will continue to be met. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Development Review Board hereby approves site plan application #SP-14-32 of the City of South Burlington subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in 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 and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #SP-14-32 - 4 – 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the stormwater treatment facilities. 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 ___-___-___ 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. Area of tree cuttingLimits of disturbance #SD-14-20 - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LARRY & LESLIE WILLIAMS – 1630 DORSET STREET FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-20 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-14-20 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a six (6) lot subdivision. The amendment consists of resubdividing the six (6) lots into 10 lots, 1630 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 15, 2014. Larry Williams represented the applicant. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant seeks final approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development as a six lot subdivision. The amendment would resubdivide the six lots into 10 lots for a total of 11 units including one existing home, 1630 Dorset Street. This proposal is a resubmission of #SD-13-29 which was previously approved by the Board on December 5, 2013. The reapproval is necessary due the final plat not having been recorded within the 180 day requirement. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Larry & Leslie Williams. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District and Village Residential Subdistrict. 4. The application was received on July ___, 2014. 5. The final approved plans consist of an 11 page set of plans, page one (1) entitled “Plan of Lands of J. Larry & Leslie Williams 1630 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT Proposed 10 Lot Subdivision Plat”, prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., and dated 1/15/13. DENSITY The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 7.97 acres, is 9 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Village Residential sub-district, are 63 units. The applicant is proposing 9 new lots with 10 new units, with one existing dwelling to remain, for a total of 11 units within the PUD. Therefore, two (2) additional development rights are needed. #SD-14-20 - 2 – The applicant submitted a document demonstrating that the required transfer of development rights for the two additional units had been consummated in 2007. This document was recorded on 12/5/2007 in Vol. 802, pages 176 & 177. ACCESS All lots will be served via a 24’ wide paved public roadway within a 50’ wide right of way. This meets the standards in Table 9-4, Street Design Criteria for Local Streets in the SEQ-VR zoning district. This road will be narrowed to 20 feet at the wetland crossing in order to minimize impacts. As shown on the plans, there will also be a hammer-head turnaround at the end of the road, located at the northern property line, to be maintained in open and usable condition until such time as the road may be connected to the north. If and when the road is extended to and through that adjoining property, then the turnaround itself and the easements for it may be extinguished and removed. This road design (width and end design) was previously approved as part of the 6-lot subdivision approved in 2007, and no changes to that previously approved design are proposed here. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFIGURATION The Board has reviewed the proposed lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The Board finds that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. In this case of competing objectives, the Board finds that the design presented achieves the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site. Lot width to length ratios are met with this proposal. DESIGN STANDARDS This subdivision is subject to the design guidelines in Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. The Board has already addressed the project’s compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant addressed the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. He submitted a “Housing Options” plan showing six different types of houses, all of which meet this requirement. TRAFFIC The 11 units proposed as part of the PUD are not estimated to generate much measureable traffic; therefore the Board finds that there is no need for any traffic studies or technical reviews. WETLANDS The subject property contains identified Class II and Class III wetlands. The building envelope as proposed on several of the lots will encroach into the 50 foot Class III buffer. Furthermore, Sadie Lane as proposed encroaches into the 50 ft. buffer of a Class II wetland located to the property to the south. #SD-14-20 - 3 – The Board finds that the proposed road, though in conflict with the buffer of the wetland to the south, is located in the most appropriate position on the lot given that it allows for the greatest contiguous areas of open space on the property and that it aligns itself with an already approved recreational path easement. Furthermore, the applicant has narrowed the width of the roadway where it crosses the wetland buffer to 20 feet, the narrowest allowable under the land development regulations. The proposed road had previously received a State Wetlands Conditional Use Determination for the roadway’s Class II wetland buffer impacts. Furthermore, the applicant’s wetland expert testified before the Natural Resources Committee with respect to a previous application that the proposed Class III buffer impacts will have no adverse impacts on the major functions of the wetlands. The Board realizes that it is difficult to balance all natural resources protection with appropriate development and infrastructure planning. In this case, the Board finds that the alignment of the road far outweighs the encroachment into the minor wetland buffer, particularly one which will not be adversely impacted by the development. As nearly every lot is impacted by a large area of wetland or wetland buffer, the Board discussed these potential encroachments. Lots 5-8 potentially have adequate room to include a home close to the roadway, and with proper delineation with fencing or landscaping may avoid the buffer completely. Lots 2-4 are smaller lots and will also have less room to avoid the 50 foot wetland buffer. The Board supports the creation of these lots with a 25 foot wetland buffer provided the plans make it clear that homes are to be close to the street, and the backyards are delineated to sufficiently prevent usage of the wetland or buffer as living or recreational space. Possibilities include a relatively dense line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. Based on all of this evidence, the Board finds the proposed wetland buffer encroachment acceptable, if additional measures of protection are instituted, including the buffer delineation and limitations on fertilizers and mowing. DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES Section 9.08 C (5) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states that “a mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types.” Although the plans show only single family homes, the Board finds general conformance with this goal, as the variety of housing types will be achieved through means other than just unit size and make-up. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Pursuant to Section 9.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: “These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control.” #SD-14-20 - 4 – SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub-district shall not exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. The Table of Uses and Dimensional Standards (Appendix C) also specifies the maximum building height for the SEQ-NR District. The maximum height for principal buildings (flat) is 25 feet, and the maximum height for principal buildings (pitched) is 28 feet. Maximum story heights also apply. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels. The Board finds this requirement met by proposing that the houses be placed close to the street, thereby leaving contiguous open space amongst lots 1 – 4 & 10 and amongst lots 5 – 9. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable subdistrict allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The Board finds this requirement is satisfied. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. Description and Regulatory Effect. The regulatory text of this Article is supplemented with illustrations, officially known as the Regulating Plan, illustrating the dimensional and design concepts. The Regulating Plan contains basic land planning and neighborhood design criteria that are intended to foster attractive and walkable neighborhood development patterns. Design criteria and guidelines set forth below are intended to address basic neighborhood design relationships related to scale, connectivity, and overall orientation that promote pedestrian friendly development as follows in Section 9.07(C). The Regulating Plan is an illustrative guide; it does not have the same force of regulation as does the text in this bylaw. However, the Development Review Board will refer to both the Regulating Plan and the text of this section in its project reviews #SD-14-20 - 5 – B. General Provisions (1) The Regulating Plan shall apply to new development within the SEQNRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts. (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub-district shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian-scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian- oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian-friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water #SD-14-20 - 6 – allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. The Board finds this requirement met as the property is currently served by an existing recreation path running east-west, and a new sidewalk will run along the east side of the new street running north- south. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. See findings above related to circulation. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. The Board finds these requirements satisfied. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D) (4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.09 SEQ-VR Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern #SD-14-20 - 7 – (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. cul-de-sacs) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). The Board finds this requirement satisfied, as the street is designed to connect to the property to the north in the event that that property is developed. (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. The Board finds this requirement satisfied, as the street is designed to connect to the property to the north in the event that that property is developed. (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. The Board finds this requirement satisfied. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR sub- district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. The Board finds this requirement met as the property is currently served by an existing recreation path running east-west, and a new sidewalk will run along the east side of the new street running north- south. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B) (3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street trees shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be #SD-14-20 - 8 – planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The Board finds this requirement satisfied, as street trees will be planted. The City Arborist’s recommendations shall be followed. (4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B) (4). No on-street parking is proposed. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. The Board finds this requirement met, as one street light of a type and style shown on sheet 5 of the original and final plan set is proposed at the intersection of Dorset Street and the new street serving this subdivision. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). A minimum of thirty five percent (35%) of translucent widows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. The Board finds these requirements satisfied as shown on the “Housing Options” plan submitted on sheet 10 of the plan set. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. The Board finds this requirement met, as all of the lots have building envelopes which allow the houses to be as close as 20 feet to the front property line in compliance with the minimum setback for the district. #SD-14-20 - 9 – (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. Rear Alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes, and townhouses. The Board finds this requirement is met, as indicated on the “Housing Options” plan submitted on sheet 10 of the plan set. (5) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. The Board finds this requirement is met, as indicated on the “Housing Options” plan submitted on sheet 10 of the plan set. DECISION Motion by _______________, seconded by _________________, to approve final plat application #SD- 14-20 of Larry & Leslie Williams subject to the following conditions: 1) All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2) This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicants, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3) If and when the proposed public street is extended and the hammerhead turnaround is abandoned, then the front yard revisions to the building envelopes on lots #4 & #5 shall revert back to the lines as shown on the 1-15-13 plans. 4) Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 5) All land development, including but not limited to expansions, sunrooms, patios, and decks, shall be limited to the building envelope shown on the plans to be reviewed and approved as part of the final plat application and applicable dimensional requirements of the district. Said structures shall be permitted through zoning permits by the Administrative Officer. Any land development on said lots extending beyond the approved building envelopes shall require an amendment to the PUD in application to the Development Review Board. 6) Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 7) The association documents related to the common land shall include provisions that indicate the useable portions of this land are to be available to all residents in the PUD. Association documents shall also include provisions for maintenance of the land. The full association documents shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the property. 8) The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 9) The applicant shall adhere to the following stipulations concerning the wetlands buffer: #SD-14-20 - 10 – a. There shall be no use of pesticides in any wetlands or wetland buffers on the subject property. b. The applicant shall identify all approved wetland buffers through either landscaping or natural fencing. c. There shall be no mowing within wetlands or wetland buffers on the property except where said buffer has been reduced by this decision. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per calendar year. 10) Based on City records, wastewater allocations have been acquired for six (6) dwelling units. Prior to issuance of any zoning permits for any additional homes beyond the first six, the applicant shall receive final wastewater allocations from the Director of Planning and Zoning for those additional units. 11) Prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall coordinate with the city’s E- 911 coordinator to determine street addresses. And submit a list of the lot and street numbers. 12) Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for the proposed public road, and utility, sewer, drainage, and water, etc.) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 13) Prior to start of the improvements described in #13 above, the applicant shall post a $19,500 landscape bond for the street trees and for the trees delineating the wetland buffer, which shall remain in effect for three (3) years. 14) Prior to start of construction of the improvements described in condition #13 above, the applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements, the amount of which must be approved by the City Engineer. 15) Street trees must be in place along the street prior to adding the final layer of the pavement. 16) Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 17) The mylars shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 18) In accordance with Section 15.14(E) (2) of the Land Development Regulations, within 14 days of the completion of the required improvements, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer “as-built” construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer. 19) The sewer pump station shall remain private. 20) The applicants shall notify all buyers in the subdivision that Sadie Lane will potentially be continued in the future as a through-road and a statement to this effect shall be placed in the covenants and a copy submitted prior to issuance of the first zoning permit. 21) The maximum height of any structure shall not exceed those allowed within the Table of Uses and Dimensional Standards (Appendix C). 22) The applicant shall adhere to the building elevations submitted or return to the Board for approval of any substantive modifications related to the Residential Design Criteria for the SEQ-VR district. #SD-14-20 - 11 – 23) The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 24) The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Fire Chief per the letter dated 9/27/13. 25) The Board approves the reduction in width of the wetland buffer from 50 feet to 25 feet. Any building constructed on these lots shall be sited such that its construction shall not result in the encroachment into the 25 foot wetland buffer. 26) Any proposed utility cabinets must be approved by the Development Review Board prior to installation. 27) Prior to issuance of any zoning permit for site work or construction, a digital copy of the final project plans in pdf format shall be delivered to the Administrative Officer. 28) The final plat plans (survey plat & sheet 1) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 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 – X – X 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. EXIST ING POND &CLASS III WETLAND DORSET STREET HOEHN IIIN/FT.B.M. ELEV. = 377.00SEWER MANHOLE RIMEXISTINGRESIDENCE#1630EXISTING CEDAR HEDGE50'WETLAND BUFFER50'WETLAND BUFFERN/FDORSET STREETASSOC., LLC50'WETLAND BUFFEREXIST INGBARN EXISTING RECREATION PATHCHITTENDENN/FCHITTENDENN/FLANDERLN/FEXIST ING 60 ' ACCESS/UT IL ITYEASEMENT TO DORSET STREETASSOC., LLC TO BE EXTINGUISHEDEXIST ING 20 ' RECREATION PATH & SAN ITARYSEWER EASEMENT. LAND TO BETRANSFERRED TO CITY IN FEE SIMPLE.WATER MAIN EASEMENT TO CITY EXTEND ING TOA LINE 10' NORTH OF INSTALLED WATER MA INEXISTING 8" WATER MAINEXISTING 3" FORCE MAIN(WILLIAMS )50'WETLAND BUFFER25'WETLANDBUFFER60'418'105'50'80'137'289'133'185'85'90'95'300' 108'289'20'80'80'81'81'80'80'80'80'80'289'186'80'80'85'301'85'177'537'20'289'289'289'186'50'WETLAND BUFFEREXISTING 6" FORCE MAIN (DORSET STREET ASSOC.)50' WETLAND BUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFERCLASS II WETLANDCLASS II WETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDEXIST INGNWL = 370.2PROPOSEDNWL = 368.0DateSht. no.ScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULDONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:SKETCH/CONCEPTPRELIMINARYFINALRECORD DRAWINGREVISIONSProj. no .SHEETS# OF1-15-2013RDBHRDBY OTHERS05153DATE BY101" = 40 'NTSTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT 1-888-DIG-SAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVAT ION.NOTES1. APPLICANT: J. LARRY & LESLIE WILLIAMS1630 DORSET STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 054032. TOTAL EXISTING LOT AREA = 347,130 SF (7.97 ACRES)3. ZONING DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST QUADRANT (SEQ), VR SUB-DISTRICT4. MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY OF 1 .2 UN ITS/ACRE RESULTS IN 9PERMITTED UNITS. TOTAL OF 10 UNITS PROPOSED (INCLUDINGEXISTING RESIDENCE) WITH TDR.5. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:MINIMUM LOT S IZE: 12,000 SF (SINGLE FAM ILY)24,000 SF (TWO FAMILY)40,000 SF (ALL OTHER USES)FRONT SETBACK: 20 'SIDE SETBACK: 10'REAR SETBACK: 30 '6. REQUESTED WAIVERS: 50' WETLAND BUFFER (LOTS 2-4) DORSET STREETMIDLANDAVE.NOWLAND FARM RD.NOWLAND FARM RD.TOWN OF SHELBURNE373PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE x xx xEXIST ING FENCEWETLAND BUFFER & MARKER TREEEXIST ING CONTOURSWETLANDEXIST ING EASMENT LINEPROPOSED EASMENT LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEBUILD ING SETBACKEXIST ING UTILITY POLEFINISH GRADE CONTOURPROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPECOMMUNITY GARDENSLABELED WETLANDS & BUFFER LIMITS10-25-13CD From: Eric Farrell [mailto:efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com]   Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 3:16 PM  To: ray  Cc: Chris Snyder  Subject: Spear Meadows    Hi Ray, Per our telephone conversation, please ask the DRB to continue our presentation from the 7/15 meeting to either 8/19 (if available) or 9/2. Meanwhile, I'll drop off a check in the amount of $50. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell  efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com     FARRELL REAL ESTATE  Mailing:  PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT  05402‐1335  Physical:  875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT  05446     P:  802‐861‐3000 x12  F:  802‐861‐3003  C:  802‐343‐7055    "Prosperity means a healthy, peaceful life with good relationships and enough resources to be able to be a blessing to others." - Joel Osteen     CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner_July_15_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 11, 2014 Application received: May 8, 2014 AGENDA ITEM #6 54 Bartlett Bay Road Conditional Use Application #CU-14-05 Meeting date: July 15, 2014 Applicant Chris Conner Conner & Buck Builders PO Box 248 Bristol, VT 05443 Owners Michael Metz and Denise Shekerjian 6 Turtle Moon Road Charlotte, VT Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel ID 0130-00054 Lakeshore Neighborhood District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued conditional use application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner to raze an existing single family dwelling with a footprint of 2,004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3,004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road. This represents a 50% increase in the footprint area, which is the maximum permissible expansion. The plans also show a variety of other site improvements. Where the existing home has a detached garage, the garage serving the new home will be attached. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht have reviewed the plans submitted on May 2, 2014 and revised on July 3, 2014, and offer the following comments. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, Section 12.01 pre-existing structures along Lake Champlain, and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: LN Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF 16,480 16,480 SF  Max. Building Coverage 20 % 13.0% 18.0% ?-a. Max. Overall Coverage 40 % 26.8% 35.9%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. >>20 ft. >> 20 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. house, 5.8 ft. garage 10 ft. on both sides  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. @ Waterfront Setback 150 ft. 27 ft. 27 ft. √ Zoning Compliance @ Existing nonconforming ?-a The site plan says existing overall lot coverage is 26.8%, the application says 14.5%, and staff will be using the information on the site plans as they are more likely to be correct. The application says 23% overall lot coverage proposed, but the property cannot already be at 26.8% coverage, expand the building footprint by 1000 sq. ft., and end up with less lot coverage than exists today, so staff will be using the information on the site plan. Section 12.01(D) Pre-Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met: a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. Testimony received at the previous hearing stated that the existing structure meets this criterion. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. The proposed new dwelling is no closer to the lake than the closest portion of the existing structure. This criterion is satisfied. c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. The proposed structure meets this criterion, as the footprint of the new home is less than 50% larger than the existing home. d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer. As long as this plan is followed and it accomplishes its intended purposes, then this criterion is satisfied. e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. In response to concerns expressed in previous staff comments and by the Board at its June 17th meeting, the applicant submitted a heavily revised landscaping plan. 1. The Board should discuss the landscaping plan and determine whether its concerns have been adequately addressed and the criteria are satisfied. See discussion below as well concerning Surface Water Protection standards. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations ()Pre-existing structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park), the proposed structure shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E): 14.10(E) General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. This criterion is satisfied. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. Staff feels that the proposed project consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner District, which is “to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Homes Road.” This criterion is satisfied. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This criterion is satisfied. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. 2. The new home intrudes no further into the water protection buffer area. The issues noted above and below on tree protection, a vegetated buffer and the planting of naturalized mix of grasses remain ripe for discussion. This criterion is not yet satisfied. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. This criterion is satisfied. Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards C. Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”) (1) Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows: ……. (e) All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum. This applicable area extends across more than half of the property. (2) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted. The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows: (a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below. Five (5) existing trees are proposed to be removed. The applicant is proposing to plant several new trees. The project as a whole is permitted pursuant to section (3) below. (b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner lawn grass, and shall not be mowed more than one (1) time per calendar year after establishment. The applicant’s revised landscaping submittal received on July 3, 2014 notes “Topsoil, seed and mulch all areas immediately following construction (see Sheet C3.1 for application rates, typical.) 3. Staff met with the applicant and his contract landscape architecture firm to discuss this standard and others related to water quality. The discussion also included reference to the guidelines contained in Vermont’s new Shoreland Protection Act although this project is not subject to the Act as the application was submitted to the City prior to July 1, 2014. The meeting focused on ways to increase the use of native plants and naturalized grasses on the property to meet the intent of section (b) above and some of the guidelines contained in the Shoreland Protection Act. The applicant’s has submitted a revised landscape plan at the after consultation with the property owner. (c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date of these regulations. New lawn areas are not proposed as part of this application. (d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property. (ii) Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt. (3) Expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in accordance with the standards for non-complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these Regulations. Yes, see discussion below. (4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review. (a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer. --------------------Not applicable (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. The applicant submitted an erosion control plan, designed by a licensed professional engineer. The Board finds that this proposal meets the requirement of subsection (b) above. This criterion is satisfied. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. --------------------Not applicable (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. --------------------Not applicable (e) Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. --------------------Not applicable (f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer. --------------------Not applicable (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. There is no feasible alternative to the proposed use of the preexisting access drive. The drive is located more than ten (10) feet from the edge of the channel of the surface water. This criterion appears to be met. (h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or extending utility services. There is no feasible alternative to the use of preexisting utility service locations. This criterion appears to be met. (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro-electric power generation Criteria (i)-(k) are not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: Seek more information and clarity on the tree protection and vegetated buffer/landscaping issues before closing the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer JLMGAC1" = 10'12138C2PROPOSEDCONDITIONS& EPSCSITE PLANMARCH 24, 2014PERMIT SET 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer and Planner Temporary Assistant Lee Krohn, AICP DATE: July 11, 2014 Cc: Mark Severance, Regional Sales Manager, Regency Mortgage Corporation Re: July 15, 2014 Agenda #7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Design Review Application #DR-14-06 2 San Remo Drive Design review application #DR-14-06 of Regency Mortgage Corporation for a Master Signage Permit to allow new signs, 2 San Remo Drive. This property lies within the Dorset Street / City Center Sign District. The relevant sections of the Sign Ordinance are cited below. SECTION 6. Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (a) Purpose. There is hereby designated and created the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, the boundaries of which are shown on a plan entitled, "Dorset Street/City Center Sign District", dated July 22, 1998, which plan is incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance as Appendices A and B. This special sign district is designated to reflect the long term goal of the City to develop Dorset Street and the City Center area as an attractive mixed-use, well-designed, integrated focal point for the City. The area is to be a primarily residential, office, retail and municipal core for South Burlington. This special sign district is also intended to promote the intended pedestrian orientation for the future of the district as well as to ensure pedestrian and traffic safety, to encourage the effectiveness and clarity of sign communication, and to maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality within the district. Two identical, but differently sized, signs are proposed: a 24 sq. ft. free-standing sign (identical double- sided) to replace the former chiropractor’s sign in the existing location and using the existing signposts; and a 2.7 sq. ft. wall-mounted sign. Both are said to be smaller than they could be under the Sign Ordinance, and are said to be made of durable materials. Shielded gooseneck light fixtures with LED lamps are proposed. (b) Standards for Design Review. The erection, alteration or relocation of any sign, except for temporary, window and exempt signs, located within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, as depicted on the above referenced plan, shall require design approval by the South Burlington Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. Such design approval shall be required prior to issuance of a sign permit by the Code Officer. In reviewing an application for design approval, the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board shall consider the following: (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. The two signs proposed are identical with one being a smaller version of the other. This will promote consistency of design. This appears to meet this criterion. (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation. The two signs proposed are fairly simple in terms of design and color. They are easily legible for pedestrians. This appears to meet this criterion. (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes. The primary predominant color is green and forms the background color for white lettering in the foreground spelling out the name of the firm, “Regency Mortgage Corporation” and its tag line, “Advice with Purpose.” The third predominant color is grey and is used for a large, letter “R.” Consistency is promoted as both signs use this color scheme as well as the same material. This appears to meet this criterion. (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high-quality materials complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related. The signs will be fabricated of Painted Durabond Aluminum and the applicant states that they are designed to last. This appears to meet this criterion. 1. Staff recommends that the applicant consider having the fabricator coat the signs with a UV-Protective coating to minimize fading over time. SECTION 8. Master Signage Permits (a) At such time as a new or amended permit is sought after the effective date of this Ordinance, all properties in the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District seeking a sign permit or permits and all multi-tenant buildings or multi-building complexes located wholly or partially within the R7-NC district shall submit a complete, new application for a Master Signage Permit to the Design Review Committee, irrespective of the status of past approvals. The new Permit shall not invalidate the provisions of any existing approval, exemption or agreement with respect to signage; rather, it is instead intended to clarify the approved parameters for signage subject to a Master Signage Permit. Upon approval of a new Master Signage Permit, permittees shall use the review and amendment procedures set forth in this Section. (b) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, no permit shall be issued for an individual sign requiring a permit unless and until a Master Signage Permit for the lot on which the sign(s) will be erected has been approved as conforming with the provisions of this Ordinance. In the case of a planned unit development (PUD), a Master Signage Permit shall be required for the entire PUD. An owner of a multi-tenant building or multi-building commercial property located anywhere outside the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, and a sponsor of a project involving interpretive signage or wayfinding, also may apply for a Master Signage Permit as provided herein. (d) Design. (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces, sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color illustrations thereof. (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually. (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer. Please see notes above. RECOMMENDATION The proposed signs appear to meet the relevant policies and standards in both Design Review and City Center bylaws. Staff recommends that the applicant consider having the signs fabricated with a UV protective coating. Staff recommends that this hearing be closed. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 4 FT TALLoverall 5.5 FEET TALL(66 INCHES)“R” silkscreenedin background“ADVISE WITH PURPOSE”silkscreenedin background“REGENCY”silkscreenedin background“MORTGAGE CORPORATION” screened on a 1/8” thick piece of aluminumexisting legs made from pressure treated 5-3/8” squareBackgroundPainted Durabondthin aluminum1.5 FT Tall (Existing Legs) 6 FT ACROSS(72 INCHES)TWO SIDED FREESTANDING SIGN - SIDE ONEREGENCY MORTGAGESO. BURLINGTON REGENCY MORTGAGE SIGN FOR SO. BURLINGTONFREE STANDING SIGNSize 4ft. x6ft. = 24 sq.ft. x 2 sides = 48 square feet TOTAL SIZEDATE 5.20.14 4 FT TALLoverall 5.5 FEET TALL(66 INCHES)“R” silkscreenedin background“ADVISE WITH PURPOSE”silkscreenedin background“REGENCY”silkscreenedin background“MORTGAGE CORPORATION” screened on a 1/8” thick piece of aluminumexisting legs made from pressure treated 5-3/8” squareBackgroundPainted Durabondthin aluminum1.5 FT Tall (Existing Legs) 6 FT ACROSS(72 INCHES)TWO SIDED FREESTANDING SIGN - SIDE TWO (Same as side one)REGENCY MORTGAGESO. BURLINGTON REGENCY MORTGAGE SIGN FOR SO. BURLINGTONFREE STANDING SIGNSize 4ft. x6ft. = 24 sq.ft. x 2 sides = 48 square feet TOTAL SIZEDATE 5.20.14 .5 FT ACROSS(6 INCHES)4 FT TALLoverall 5.5 FEET TALL(66 INCHES)existing legs made from pressure treated 5-3/8” square1.5 FT Tall (Existing Legs) REGENCY MORTGAGESO. BURLINGTON REGENCY MORTGAGE SIGN FOR SO. BURLINGTONFREE STANDING SIGNSize 4ft. x6ft. = 24 sq.ft. x 2 sides = 48 square feet TOTAL SIZETWO SIDED FREESTANDING SIGN - SIDE viewDATE 5.20.14 14 INCHESENTIRE SIGNPRINTED ON 1/4 INCH SINTRA23 INCHESWALL SIGN - ONE SIDED(SECURED TO BUILDING WALL NEAR FRONT DOOR)REGENCY MORTGAGESO. BURLINGTON REGENCY MORTGAGE SIGN FOR SO. BURLINGTONWALL SIGN (Secured to building)Size 23 inches x 14 inches. = TOTAL SIZE 2.7 square feetDATE 5.20.14 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_14_06_34CortlandAve_Cardwell_Ohlsson_deck_afterfact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 11, 2014 Plans received: June 18, 2014 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-14-06 CARDWELL & OHLSSON – 34 CORTLAND AVENUE Agenda # 8 Meeting date: July 15, 2014 Owner/Applicant Carlee Cardwell & Lance Ohlsson 34 Cortland Avenue So. Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0460-00034 Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_06_34CortlandAve_Cardwell_Ohlsson_deck_afterfact.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Carlee Cardwell & Lance Ohlsson, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking after-the-fact conditional use approval to allow a new 7.5’ X 10’ entry to project three (3) feet into the front yard setback, 34 Cortland Avenue. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment, Dan Albrecht referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on June 18, 2014 and have the following comments. BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking after-the-fact conditional use approval to allow a new 7.5’ X 10’ entry to project three (3) feet into the front yard setback, 34 Cortland Avenue. Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations establishes standards for consideration of exceptions to setback requirements for lots existing prior to February 28, 1974 as a conditional use. The application is therefore reviewed as a conditional use. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. Staff feels that the proposed addition will not have an undue adverse effect on community services. (b) The planned character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The property is located within the Residential 4 Zoning District. The purpose of the District is stated as follows: 4.03 (A) Purpose. A Residential 4 District is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The Comprehensive Plan, last adopted March 9, 2011, includes several objectives and recommendations related to housing in the community. Housing Objective 2 (page 40) states: “Identify and protect existing and developing residential neighborhoods” Staff recommends that the Board discuss this item in concurrence with the standards within Section 3.06(J). Currently, the existing dwellings on this street share a common setback that creates a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_06_34CortlandAve_Cardwell_Ohlsson_deck_afterfact.doc neighborhood feel. An encroachment into this setback will allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach further into the established setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. In this case, the new entry constructed by the applicants projects into the setback more than the average of the abutting properties. In making its determination, the Board should assess whether such an encroachment creates an adverse effect, AND if so, whether the adverse effect is undue on the planned character of the area. Based on this information above, staff feels that this application does not rise to the level of creating an undue adverse affect on the planned character of the area. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. An exception is allowed for lots existing prior to February 28, 1974 in Article 3, Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. See below for these standards. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed addition will not affect the utilization of renewable energy resources. 3.06(J) EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS EXISTING PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 28, 1974. The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single-family dwelling or a two- family dwelling. (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet. (2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage, but in no event shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_06_34CortlandAve_Cardwell_Ohlsson_deck_afterfact.doc five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (c) adequate on-site parking; and (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. See discussion above. Staff feels that the proposed addition would not have an undue adverse affect on views of adjoining and/or nearby properties Staff feels that the proposed addition would not have an undue adverse affect on access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties. Staff feels that the proposed addition would not affect on adequacy of on-site parking. Staff feels that the proposed addition would not have an undue adverse affect on safety of adjoining and/or nearby properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board discuss the application and pose any questions of the applicant or other potentially interested parties before closing the hearing. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Carlee Cardwell & Lance Ohlsson, applicants Before - May 2013 After - June 2014 34 Cortland Ave South Burlington, VT 05403 34 Cortland Ave South Burlington, VT 05403 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Development Review Board\Staff Comments\2014\ CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 11, 2014 Application received: 5/22/14 AGENDA ITEM #9 333 Van Sicklen Road Conditional Use Application #CU-14-07 Meeting date: July 15, 2014 Applicants/Owners Tonaquint, Inc. Attn: Carolyn Bever 333 Van Sicklen Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel IDs Southeast Quadrant District Natural Resource Protection District Floodplain Overlay District PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-14-07 of Tonaquint, Inc. for a project consisting of: 1) constructing a 1,039 sq. ft. detached accessory residential unit, and 2) allowing a new single family dwelling and the accessory residential unit to encroach into a wetland buffer, 333 Van Sicklen Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht have reviewed the plans submitted on May 22, 2014, and offer the following comments. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Southeast Quadrant, Natural Resource Protection Area, Floodplain Overlay District, and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Normally, this project could be reviewed solely by the Administrative Officer however, the proposed project intrudes into a Class II Wetland Buffer and also includes construction of new accessory residential unit, both of which require DRB review. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: SEQ-NRP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 24,000 sq. ft. for two dwelling units 385,070.4 sq. ft. 385,070.4 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 15% 0.6% 3.8%  Max. Overall Coverage 30% 3.7% 12.7%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. >> 20 ft. >> 20 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >> 10 ft. >> 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >> 30 ft. >> 30 ft.  Max. Building Height 25/28 ft. unknown 28 ft. main house, 15’ cottage  Zoning compliance SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – SEQ: Applicable Regulations 9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling units, subject to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards: (1) Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no more than one (1) single family dwelling unit only if: (a) The portion of the lot in any other (non-NRP) SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with these Regulations, and; (b) The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer. This criterion is met. There is no portion of the lot outside the NRP SEQ subdistrict. No structures, yards or access drives are within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint 9.13 SEQ Review and Approval Process A. Single family residences and two-family residences on a single existing lot are specifically excluded from the review provisions of Section 9.13 of this article. All other development is subject to the provisions presented below. This criterion is met. 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. (4) On corner lots, accessory structures shall not be located on the side street side between the side street and the required front setback line of structures fronting on the side street. (5) When an accessory structure is attached to a principal structure, it shall comply in all respects with the requirements of these regulations applicable to the principal structure(s). (6) Accessory structures shall comply with front yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. (7) Any structure connected to another structure by an open breezeway shall be deemed to be a separate structure. (8) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. (9) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. (10) No accessory structure shall be constructed with a cellar or below-grade story. (11) No part of any such accessory structure shall be designed or used for sleeping purposes, and no cooking facilities shall be placed or permitted in any part of such accessory structure unless such structure is a duly approved location of an accessory residential unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint Criteria (1) – (11) but excluding (8) are met. 1. With regards to (8), as currently proposed, the total square footage of all accessory structures is 1,385 s.f. for the cottage unit plus approximately 192 s.f. for the existing shed indicated on the plans. This totals 1,577 s.f. which is 56% of the 2,795 s.f. footprint of the principal structure. Staff has contacted the applicant’s engineer who has indicated they will consult with the owners about the possibility of removing the shed from the property. If this were done, the percentage would drop to 49.55% which would make the project compliant with this standard. B. Poolhouse. Any accessory structure designed as a poolhouse shall be located no farther than fifteen (15) feet from the swimming pool to which it shall be accessory. Not applicable. C. Attached Garage. A private garage may be constructed as part of a main structure, provided that when so constructed the garage walls shall be regarded as the walls of the main building in applying the applicable front, side, and rear yard requirements of this chapter. Not applicable. D. Accessory Retail Uses. Where non-residential uses are permitted in a residential district, uses such as hospitals, clubs, and multi-family buildings over fifty (50) dwelling units, such uses may conduct customary and appropriate retail activities such as gift shops, cafeterias, fitness rooms, and snack shops. Such uses shall be conducted within the principal structure. There shall be no external evidence of retail activity discernible from the outside of the structure. Access to the retail activity shall only be from within the principal structure. Not applicable. E. Accessory Residential Units. One (1) accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary single-family dwelling or within an existing, permitted accessory structure shall be a permitted single family use, in accordance with the following criteria: (1) Floor space of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total habitable area of the single-family dwelling unit. This criterion is met. The unit’s floor space is 1,039 ft. The total habitable area of the single-family home is 3,744 ft. (2) The principal dwelling shall be owner-occupied. This criterion is met. The owner has indicated they will reside in the principal dwelling. This is a unique situation in that the property owner is a corporation. It must be established that at least one (1) of the owners of the corporation will reside in the principal unit. A related issue is that this corporation is not currently registered with the Secretary of State’s Office. 2. The Board should discuss whether it wants to continue the hearing until the corporation is registered or close it without that information part of the record. (3) The accessory dwelling unit shall be an efficiency or one-bedroom unit. This criterion is met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint (4) Adequate wastewater capacity is available to service the accessory unit, as demonstrated by issuance of a Wastewater Allocation or on-site wastewater permit pursuant to the South Burlington Ordinance Regulating the use of Public and Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems. This criterion is met. The applicant’s are connecting the accessory unit to the City’s wastewater system. (5) Two (2) additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot, either in a garage or in a driveway, and not in any areas required to meet coverage limitations, or any front yard area other than a driveway, required by these Regulations. This criterion is met. One (1) space will be in the garage and the other space will be nearby to the cottage. (6) If occupancy of the unit is to be restricted in the deed of the single-family home to a disabled person, no additional off-street parking is required. Not applicable. (7) A zoning permit shall be required for each accessory residential unit. The applicant’s proposal, if granted, will meet this criterion. Conditional Use Review by the Development Review Board pursuant to Article 14, Section 14.10 shall be required if the establishment of the accessory residential unit involves the construction of a new accessory structure, an increase in the height or floor area of the existing single-family dwelling or existing accessory structure, or an increase in the dimensions of the off-street parking areas (i.e. garages and driveway areas) presently existing on the site. 10.01 FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT While according to the application, this property lies within the Floodplain Overlay District (FP), none of the following standards should apply. The reason is that the owner filed for, and was granted, a “LOMA “(Letter of Map Amendment) in July 2008 from FEMA. The LOMA established a 100 year floodplain elevation of 322.5 ft. in the area proposed for construction. The basement floor elevation of the main house was established at 324.0 ft. and the first floor elevation of the cottage was established at 332.0 ft. Therefore, the structures themselves will be located in “Zone C”. This is a non-restricted zone that lies above and outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone (the standard regulated flood zone) and the 500-year flood hazard zone (which is not always regulated elsewhere, but which is regulated to a certain degree in the LDRs). 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide appropriate protection of the City’s wetland resources in order to protect wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, wildlife habitat, and flood control. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint C. Wetlands Map and Applicability of Standards. (1) All wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, whether identified on the map entitled “Wetlands Map” as set forth in Section 3.02 of these regulations or as identified through field delineation, and a buffer area fifty (50) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any such wetland, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (2) In the absence of site-specific delineations, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control as to the location of wetlands and wetland buffer areas subject to the provisions of this section. D. Submittal and Review of Field Delineation and Wetlands Report (1) For all properties for which any application for development requiring DRB review is made, and on which any wetland areas are indicated on the Wetlands Map, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit site specific field delineations indicating the location, classification, functions and values of all wetland areas (Class I, II and III) and an associated fifty (50) foot buffer area. In the absence of such site-specific delineations and information, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control. (2) Applicants are encouraged to submit a field delineation and wetlands report as early in the development review process as possible. (3) The DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant of any field delineation and wetlands report. The City’s wetlands consultant shall submit an evaluation of the field delineation and wetlands report addressing the proposed development’s consistency with the standards in (D) above, and outlining the following: (a) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources without altering the layout of the proposed project. (b) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources that involve altering the layout of the proposed project. E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The eastern edge of the proposed new single-family home and the proposed new detached accessory structure (which contains the accessory residential unit) intrude into the 50 ft. buffer for Class II wetlands and therefore paragraph (3) is operative. Several areas of the existing driveway and parking areas are also in this buffer error. The plans also indicate the presence of an existed shed in the wetland buffer. This shed may be removed by the applicant. --------Criterion (a) appears to be met. The 2008 LOMA referenced above established a 100 year floodplain elevation of 322.5 ft. The basement floor elevation of the main house is 324.0 ft. and the first floor elevation of the cottage is 332.0 ft. therefore the structures should not affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately. --------Criterion (b) is not applicable. --------It is unclear at this point if Criterion (c) is met. The applicant’s plans submitted to date do not appear to show any new mitigation measures. 2. The Board should determine if the proposed project’s encroachment on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. 3. The applicant should note that the City will only approve this project contingent upon and consistent with the issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. SECTION 14. SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW This review only applies to the proposed Accessory Residential Unit. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the planned character of the SEQ-NRP District. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. The project is consistent with the purpose of the SEQ-NRP District. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. There is no reason to believe that this will adversely affect the capacity of municipal services, as long as CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_07_333VanSicklenRd_Tonaquint it is determined that City water and wastewater services can be provided. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. See 1. and 2. above. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that this will adversely affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. Except where the DRB has discretionary authority noted above, and unless prior decisions have found otherwise, the property should be in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. See 1. and 2. above. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. No known effects. OTHER Based on the site plan, it appears that further intrusion into the wetland buffer is proposed for both the new house and the new cottage, as compared with the existing home. This warrants some level of additional review in order to determine whether any new impacts result, or whether additional mitigation is required. Please note that some existing sidewalks within the wetland buffer will be removed. Erosion control details are provided, but the areas where these would be employed are not shown clearly on any plans. DPW will have to confirm whether any required isolation distances from the existing/to be abandoned well and septic system and the new water and wastewater service lines are met. It is difficult to tell from the plans how much new or temporary construction or disruption (pump station, pit staging for directional drilling, other site work and construction for the new structures) will take place within the 50’ wetland buffer. While a silt fence is shown along the northerly boundary of the new homes, it is unusual to think that as shown, one can excavate for and pour a foundation, and then do exterior construction work, in such a limited and constrained area. RECOMMENDATION The Board and the applicant should address the concerns and issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_14_25_1485 ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 11, 2014 Application received: May 27, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SP-14-25 DBS LLP – GOSS DODGE – 1485 SHELBURNE ROAD Agenda # 10 Meeting Date: July 15, 2014 Applicant Douglas Hoar POB 2122 South Burlington, VT 05407 Contact Person Douglas Hoar Owners DBS, LLP POB 2122 South Burlington, VT 05407 Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a previously approved plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display and storage area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Lee Krohn, AICP, Planner Temporary Assistant, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 27, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit 431,244 sq. ft. 431,244 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 40% 6.7% 6.7%  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 44.8% 47.5%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. N/A N/A  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A  Max. Building Height 35ft. (flat roof) N/A N/A  Zoning compliance or existing non-complying This application is fundamentally identical to several other applications approved for this property back in 2006, with continued expansion of parking areas to serve the auto dealership. Proposed here is another parking area, 75’ x 150’ in size, to be located just behind and to the west of the existing parking areas in the southwesterly corner of the property, in an existing lawn/greenspace area. Note, however, that for purposes of analyzing this application, the proposed area ------as is the case with some of the other areas on the property previously approved------- is actually considered an Outdoor Storage and Display area. ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.05 Outdoor Storage and Display A. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and equipment shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan, conditional use and/or PUD application. This criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may comprise an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present opportunities for theft, or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of residentially-zoned parcels. Staff feels that no new enclosures or screening should be required. The proposed new area is towards the back of the property and the area is screened from view by mature trees and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview undergrowth along its western and southern parcel boundaries. B. Outdoor Display. Outdoor display of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and equipment shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Any outdoor display shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan, conditional use and/or PUD application that clearly indicates the location of any outdoor display areas. 1. The applicant’s plan should be revised to correctly identify which areas are considered customer or employee parking areas and which are already existing or proposed Outdoor Storage and Display area. (2) Outdoor display of equipment is prohibited where such equipment is fitted with arms, lifts, buckets, or other parts that can be elevated and where such parts are displayed in an elevated manner. This does not include boats with masts, bridges, or canopies. Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed Outdoor Storage and Display area will abut other display areas on the properties. This criterion is met. (2) 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. (3) 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 anticipated adjoining buildings. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Criteria (2) – (4) are not applicable. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) 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. There are no new structures, nor new utility services shown on the site plan. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. 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. Not applicable. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Noted above. C. Disposal of Wastes. 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). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No changes from existing. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. No new landscaping is shown, nor required as this project is considered an Outdoor Storage and Display area and not a parking lot. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. No modifications requested. 12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District and as such must comply with relevant standards. Although the property remains well under the theoretically permissible coverage limit of 70%, constructing a new parking lot and disturbing a new land area 11,250 sq. ft. in size may trigger new or additional stormwater management requirements. The Public Works Dept. submitted the following comments in an email to staff on 7/11/14: I reviewed a site plan titled “Plan showing Proposed Parking addition “Goss Dodge” Douglas W. & Cheryl A. Hoar Property Shelburne Road So. Burlington, Vermont” dated June 22, 2000 and last revised on May 21, 2014. To my understanding, the site plan is for the addition of a 75’ by 150’ (~11,250 square feet or ~0.25 acres) paved parking area. Below are my comments:  Portions of the site plan submitted do not match current conditions. I have attached a satellite image containing notes related to these discrepancies.  The existing impervious area on this site is approximately 234,643 square feet (5.4 acres). The total parcel area is approximately 402,850 square feet (9.2 acres). The property is approximately 58.4% impervious.  The project is located in the stormwater management overlay district as shown on the “South Burlington Overlay Districts” map dated effective “January 9, 2012”.  The resulting project impervious area is greater than one-half acre and the project is therefore subject to the requirements in section 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Requirements.  The applicant must submit the information required under section 12.03 so that compliance with these requirements can be evaluated.  The applicant should contact the Vermont DEC stormwater section and determine what, if any, State stormwater permit requirements must be obtained before this expansion can take place. The DRB should require confirmation from VT DEC regarding stormwater permitting requirements for this property and any expansion of impervious surface. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to receiving the information requested above. -Tom 2. The applicant should address the City’s Public Works Department comments regarding compliance with their recommendations on this project. OTHER CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview Existing dumpsters are shown on the plan; it is not known whether these are screened. No snow storage areas are shown on the plan. No bike rack is shown on the plan, although prior approvals stated that there was. No new exterior parking lot lights are shown, so it is presumed that no new light poles/fixtures are proposed. 3. The applicant should update the plan accordingly to detail whether or not the dumpsters are screened and identify snow storage areas and any bike racks on the property. RECOMMENDATION The Board should seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Douglas Hoar, DBS LLP #SD-14-19 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Staff Comments\WORKING FOLDER STAFF COMMENTS\SD_14_19_Sterling Construction_SouthVillagefootprintlots_ffd.doc CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING STERLING CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET. AL. SOUTH VILLAGE 334 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-19 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Sterling Construction, Inc. et. al., hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking approval for final plat application #SD-14-19 of Sterling Construction for approval of seven (7) footprint lots, 6, 10 & 14 E. Fisher Lane, 4 & 8 W. Fisher Lane and 139, 143 South Jefferson Road. Lot 13 becomes lots 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3; lot 18 becomes lots 18.1 and 18.2; and lot 46 becomes lots 46.1 and 46.2, as shown on the “Plat of Survey” for each lot. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 15, 2014. Bart Frisbie of Sterling Construction, Inc. represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The amendment consists of creating seven “footprint lots”, subdividing three previously approved lots, with one (1) lot for each dwelling unit. Lot 13 becomes lots 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3; lot 18 becomes lots 18.1 and 18.2; and lot 46 becomes lots 46.1 and 46.2, all as shown on the “Plat of Survey” for each lot. 2. The owners of record of the subject properties are: lots 13 and 46: Sterling Construction; lot 18.1: Fred Westerfeld; lot 18.2: Wendell & Martha Davis. 3. The application was received on May 30, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning subdistrict. 5. The plans submitted are entitled “Plat of Survey Lot 13 Townhouses South Village 6, 10, & 14 West Fisher Lane”, dated May 16, 2014; “Plat of Survey Lot 18 Townhouses South Village 4 & 8 West Fisher Lane”, dated March 10, 2014; and “Plat of Survey Lot 46 Townhouses South Village 139 & 143 Madison Lane”, dated May 20, 2014; all prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Dimensional Standards: The applicant proposes to create lot lines in between the individual dwelling units and including front and year yard areas with each dwelling unit previously approved in this subdivision. This action would create non-conforming lots (being of insufficient individual size, and having zero #SD-14-19 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Staff Comments\WORKING FOLDER STAFF COMMENTS\SD_14_19_Sterling Construction_SouthVillagefootprintlots_ffd.doc setback in between each unit on a lot) and therefore will not be considered individual lots for the LDRs. For purposes of the LDRs, the seven lots included in this proposal shall be considered the three lots (Lots 13, 18, and 46) as approved previously. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. DECISION Motion by ______________________, seconded by ____________________________, to approve Final Plat Application #SD-14-19 of Sterling Construction, et. al., subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations for the South Village project shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the three plats submitted by the applicants and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The three plats shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of each of the approved revised plats shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. Each plat plan shall be revised to include the seal and signature of the land surveyor. 4. For purposes of the LDRs, all seven lots included in this subdivision shall be considered three lots as approved previously (lots 13, 18, and 46). The applicants shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. 5. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 6. The final plat plans (survey plats) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plans, the applicants shall submit copies of the three survey plats in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 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 #SD-14-19 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Staff Comments\WORKING FOLDER STAFF COMMENTS\SD_14_19_Sterling Construction_SouthVillagefootprintlots_ffd.doc Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of ___-___-___ 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. E3E. FISHER LANESLADE STREETE1E2E4E5E2E3The undersigned, being a Land Surveyor licensed inand by the State of Vermont, hereby states that: To thebest of my knowledge & belief this plan includes allinformation required by 27A VSA Section 2-109"Plats and Plans", other than that information shown onarchitectural plans prepared by others. This statement validonly when accompanied by my original signature and seal.______________________________________________Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597LEGENDNOTES:1. The subject property is Lot 13 of "South Village" Subdivision, east of Spear Street, South Burlington, VT, and is aPORTION of lands conveyed to South Village Communities, LLC by deed of Paul R. Calkins, dated November 29, 2007and recorded in Volume 348 Page 416 South Burlington Land Records. Purpose of this plan is to define and depict thedivision of Lot 13 into 3 townhouse units as shown. Other property lines or details shown on neighboring parcels areshown for reference purposes only. Reference shall be made to reference plats A and B for further notations and detailsof the underlying property.2. Unit division line shown are intended to be projection of the center lines of party walls as constructed.3. Bearings shown are referenced to Grid North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based on the referenced plats.Proposed monumentation to typically consist of 5/8" rebar or 4" square concrete monuments with aluminum capsembossed "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597".4. Buried utility lines shown are approximate only. Actual locations may vary.5. Subject parcel falls within "Zone C" (outside of any flood hazard area) as identified by Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel No. 5001 950005 B, effective date 3/16/1981.6. Slade Street and East Fisher Lane are described in an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the City of South Burlington,dated October 2007 and recorded in Volume 798 Page 241 South Burlington Land Records7. The division of Lot 13 will be subject to conditions of approval by resolution of the Development review Board of theCity of South Burlington.REFERENCE PLATS:A. "Phase I Subdivision Plat - South Village", prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.,dated July 2004, last revised 3/31/2008.B. "Downing-Calkins Revocable Trust - South Village - Plat of Survey", prepared by Civil EngineeringAssociates, Inc., dated March 23, 2005, South Burlington Land Records.EASEMENT NOTES:The northwesterly corner of Lot 13 is subject to "Corner Site Triangular Restrictive Areas" as depicted on thisplan and Reference Plat A.Each of the 3 units is served by seperate water service lines entering from dedicated streets.Subject property is both subject to and benefitted by easements for buried electrical and telecommunicationslines and appurtenances. Easements conveyed to Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP) and Verizon NewEngland, Inc. (Verizon) by deed dated December 13, 2007 and recorded in Volume 803 Page 687, SouthBurlington Land Records. (All 3 units are served by lines entering the northeast corner of Unit 13.3.) Easementsare typically 10' wide, centered on utility as built, except as shown.Subject property is both subject to and benefitted by easements for buried natural gas lines and appurtenances.Easements conveyed to Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. (VGS) by deed dated January 17, 2008 and recorded inVolume 807 Page 129, South Burlington Land Records. (All 3 units are served by lines entering the southwestcorner of Unit 13.1.) Easements are typically 10' wide, centered on utility as built.All units are served by sanitary sewer service line entering the on the westerly sideline of Unit 13.1. No recordof easement was found at time of survey.E1E4E5RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____,SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OFSAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________,20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1 JULY 2014 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on 10 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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 ________________________________ Date