Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/17/2014The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 June 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, A. Klugo, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; G. Rabideau, D. Marshall, T. Barden, S. & S. Rieley, F. & M. Mazur, V. Bolduc, D. Sanqe, M. Janswold, S. Dopp, S. Gardner, M. Metz, D. Shekerjian, S. Hamilton, C. Scott, C. Snyder, A. Rowe, S. Hainley, M. Murray, D. Burke, J. & E. Goldberg, J. & S. Jewett 1. Announcements: No announcements were made. 2. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-14-15 of Rye Associates to subdivide an 18.01 acre parcel into 30 lots for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Rabideau said they have recalibrated the landscape budget. They have also received final comments on wastewater which they would like to add to the findings. Regarding elevations of the 4-plex, each of the 4 buildings will have its own color scheme. A transverse gable has also been introduced to break the eave line. An added small porch gives the stone more meaning and still fits in the budget goals. Mr. Marshall said they will construct a pump station. He gave members language related to that. All stormwater management for the commercial buildings will be in the southeast corner where it is drawn by topography. Mr. Klugo suggested varying the shape of each column (e.g., round, square, etc.) and perhaps different color doors on the multi-family buildings. Mr. Rabideau said they will entertain those comments if they can be turned into a condition as they would like a decision tonight. Different porches and different color doors they can do. Ms. Smith was not certain about mixing the shapes of the columns. She agreed they should be white. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-15. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-04 of Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) adding a handicapped ramp, and 2) adding two HVAC units, 99 Proctor Avenue; and 4. Site Plan Application #SP-14-17 of Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) adding a handicapped ramp, and 2) adding two HVAC units, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Barden said the ramp will be at the front entrance and will be ADA compliant. The HVAC pads will be on the south side of the building and on the north side of the gym. The Division for Historical Preservation is adamant that the screening around the HVAC units not be fencing. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-14-04 and #SP-14-17. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-16 of The Snyder Construction Company, LLC, for a planned unit development on two parcels totaling 13.25 acres with lot #1 developed with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1) resubdividing lot #1 to increase its size to 10.33 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #2 to 2.92 acres, and 3) developing lot #2 with a four story, 60 unit, multi-family dwelling, 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Snyder showed an aerial view of the property with the commercial building on lot #1 and the vacant adjacent lot on which the development is planned. He indicated where the new property line will be. The change is related to ownership, parking and other issues. The lot is currently open land with trees to the north. To the south and east are lands owned by the City of South Burlington. Mr. Snyder then showed the proposed building footprint on lot #2. He noted they could potentially have 92 units, and they may modify unit count and layout as they proceed. The applicant proposes to have a cross-easement for residents and commercial tenants for parking purposes in case of overflow. There will also be underground and some surface parking. Mr. Snyder noted there are currently about 50 open parking spaces on the commercial site, and there is ample space if more parking is needed. Mr. Barritt suggested a walking path around the wooded area. Mr. Snyder said they could do that but not near the parking area. Mr. Behr said he didn’t want the residential area to feel like an apartment building behind a commercial building and emphasized the need for amenities for residents. Mr. Belair said staff is suggesting this property provide a right-of-way through to the Pizzagalli property and eventually through the Green Mountain Drive as there will one day be a street to this property line. Mr. Klugo felt they didn’t have enough information for sketch plan review: no unit count, nothing to see how parking issues will be resolved, etc. Mr. Snyder said the question was how the shared parking would be perceived. He stressed they are very early on. Mr. Belair suggested a shared amenity between the two properties such as a picnic/recreation area. Ms. Smith suggested some residential parking in back by shifting the building. Mr. Snyder said they did a sketch of that and rejected it because they didn’t want residential units looking out on a parking lot on 2 sides. Mr. Barritt noted a 12-foot height waiver is being requested. Mr. Snyder said they will have a peaked roof. He added they are 3 stories above underground parking and will be below 52 feet from the average preconstruction grade. He added that there are very tall trees in the area. Mr. Barritt asked if staff can visit the property individually. Mr. Snyder had no objection. Mr. Snyder said they have agreed to provide an easement to the western property line. He showed the possibility of bringing a walkway in. They would not bring the walkway to Route 7 because of length and existing owners. Mr. Snyder noted they have to look at sewer lines, etc. Mr. Gardner said he is interested in this project because of impact on the community. He felt it was strange to put a 60-unit apartment complex behind a commercial use. He was specifically interested in the impact on intersections. Mr. Barritt noted there is bus service on Shelburne Road and the project can be well served with current infrastructure. Residential use is allowed in this location. Mr. Behr added that the area is very commercial with little residential use, and adding a residential option allows for a “live‐work” mix. No other issues were raised. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner to raze an existing single family swelling with a footprint of 2,004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3,004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Hamilton showed the existing and proposed site plans. They will remove both the house and garage and replace with a house and connecting garage with a bedroom above the garage. There will be a west-facing screened porch with open deck above and an open deck above the piece that connects the house and garage. They do not exceed the maximum allowed expansion. Mr. Barritt noted they will use the information on the site plan for calculations as there is an inconsistency. With regard to landscaping, a dead tree will be replaced with a 4-4.5 caliper red maple. Mr. Belair noted the landscaping plan should supplement the area between the house and the Lake. Mr. Hamilton noted there will be landscaping work along the shoreline as a separate application. Mr. Klugo felt it wasn’t clear which trees would be remaining. Mr. Metz, the owner, said he has no desire to remove trees. He didn’t know how many trees would have to be removed and will check with the landscape architect on this. He added that they will replace every tree they remove. Mr. Klugo also wanted to understand the lakefront plan. Mr. Metz said the bank is very stable. Mr. Belair said that to replace which is there is OK, but anything new would have to come to the Board. Mr. Belair asked if the Board would want additional plantings as a buffer. Mr. Klugo suggested the city Arborist weigh in on that. He didn’t favor adding trees in front of the west facing house, just replacing trees that are coming down. Mrs. Mazur, a neighbor, said they would like a fence put on the right property. They were also concerned with the use of the proposed generator. Mr. Metz said the generator was for emergency power. Mrs. Mazur noted it is not a good idea to put trees on the bank; they don’t do well there and will die or fall over. Mr. Gardner was concerned that the “neighborhood is getting bigger.” He said it looks like trees on his property line are coming down and the house is moving closer to the boundary. Mr. Belair said there is a 10-foot setback from the property line, and the applicant is within that. No other issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to continue #CU-14-05 to 15 July 2014 to specifically determine what will replace the dead tree and where, a plan for trees that will be removed, and any supplemental plantings between the house and the Lake. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller rejoined the Board. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-14-18 of SDMWN Associates to amend a previously approved plan for an educational facility. The amendment consists of designating temporary vehicle storage on the property for the abutting Shearer Volkswagen use, until 15 August 2014, 2 Baldwin Avenue: Ms. Hainley said the VW dealership is under renovation and a lot of inventory needs to be relocated. They will rent some spaces in the school parking lot through 15 August 2014. She showed the location on the plan. Mr. Belair said there will have to be a gate to the surround of the dumpsters before he can issue a CO. Ms. Hainley said they will take care of that. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-14-18. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-17 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six two-family dwellings, and 2) three single family lots, 232 Autumn Hill Road: Mr. Parsons disclosed that he was asked a question at a social event; he referred the person to staff. Mr. Burke noted this is the same project that had approval in 2010 but had problems with Act 250. The approval then lapsed and they began again. They have made a few modifications since sketch review. These include: a. Changes to the turn-around: it is now a T-turnaround which the Public Works Director prefers. The sidewalk used to stop at unit #8. There is now less impact to the wetland. b. They added an easement along the north boundary (this cannot be used until there is development of another property). c. The owner of the property across from the entrance has a private agreement with the developer. There is a question of sprinklering some duplex units on the private drive. Mr. Burke noted the state no longer requires this but Chief Brent is adamant. He also wants the single family homes sprinklered, but they are on a public road so it can’t be required. They have applied for a state wetland permit which is pending. The neighbors have asked for additional screening and Mr. Burke asked if they can put 6 6-foot Austrian pines in the wetland area in addition to the hardwoods. Mr. Behr suggested putting them on the neighbors’ property so the plan doesn’t have to be changed. Members were OK with the 12-14-foot street light height. Mr. Klugo supported not requiring sprinklering in the single family units. He was concerned with streets that go nowhere with no plan for the future. He also noted there were no elevations for units with drives on the outside. Mr. Klugo felt there should be “leveraging density” so the community doesn’t have to pay for roads. Mr. Burke said they are at the maximum density the property can support. Ms. Jewett was concerned they will have no protecting from drifting. They wanted conifers planted. Mr. Jewett added there is no room to put trees on their side of the road. Mr. Belair said if the trees are added, they will have to be very specifically placed and noted on the plan. Mr. Klugo said the board should not have to deal with this. It should be between the applicant and the neighbors. Ms. Goldberg said she was sure they can agree with the Jewett about the location of the trees. Mr. Belair said they can then come back with an amendment. Mr. Bolduc, neighbor to the south, encouraged approving the plan as presented. Mr. Scott, also a neighbor, supported the project. Ms. Murray said she hoped the street lights will be LED. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-17. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 20 May 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 20 May 2014 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there were no further issues to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Clerk July 15, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SD-14-15 1 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RYE ASSOCIATES LLC - 1075 HINESBURG ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-14-15 of Rye Associates to subdivide an 18.01 acre panel into 30 lots for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) a 5,000 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 3, and June 17, 2014. Greg Rabideau & Dave Marshall represented the applicant. It is noted here that this project also needed master plan approval, and that application, #MP-13-01, was approved by the DRB on February 4, 2014. 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, Rye Associates LLC, seeks final plat approval to subdivide an 18.01 acre panel for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) a 5,000 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Rye Associates, LLC. 3. The application was received on May 6, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential & Village Commercial Zoning Districts. 5. The plans submitted consist of a 62 page set of plans, page two (2) entitled, “Subdivision Plat Rye Meadow P. U. D. 1075 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated May 23, 2013, and last revised on 3/24/14. 6. Master Plan application #MP-13-01 was approved by the DRB on February 4, 2014. For purposes of judicial clarity and economy, decisions on master plans and preliminary plats are separate and distinct. Matters relevant only to Master Plan approval for this project will not be repeated here; matters relevant to both may also be included here to help all parties move forward toward final plat approval. #SD-14-15 2 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc WAIVER REQUESTS As a part of this application, the following waiver requests were submitted on 1/14/14: 1. Section 3.06(C) Setbacks and Buffers; Yards Abutting a Planned Street. See review under SEQ Residential Building Standards. 2. Section 9.07(B)(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ subdistrict 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. See review under SEQ NR Subdistrict. 3. Section 9.11 D. (4) Parking Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of these Regulations, each nonresidential use shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. The DRB may grant a parking waiver in conformance with Section 13.1(N)(3). See review under Parking, SEQ-VC. 4. Section 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading. See review under SEQ-NR Parking. 5. All the appendix Table C-2 Dimensional Standards requested except (J). DENSITY AND TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 18.01 acres, is 21 units. Up to 60 units could be permitted under Chapter 9 of the LDRs in the Neighborhood Residential sub-district under the Transfer of Development Rights program. Similarly, up to 21 units could be permitted in the Village Commercial sub-district with a Transfer of Development Rights. No dwelling units are proposed in the VC district, only commercial buildings. The applicant proposes 52 new dwelling units, for a proposed density of approximately 2.9 units per acre. This requires 31 transferable development rights (52 proposed – 21 ‘base level’ = 31). In order to ensure that these 31 TDRs are actually available, the applicant must submit legal documents confirming options to purchase these development rights for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. The applicant must also submit legal documents showing clear ownership of all of the remaining 31 development rights to the City Attorney for approval prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 21 allowed by the property’s inherent, base level density. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ-VC Zoning District Required Proposed * Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF See waiver request  Max. Building Height 40 ft. 28 ft. / TBD (1) Max. Building Coverage 15% <15% for PUD per Master #SD-14-15 3 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc Plan Approval  Max. Overall Coverage 30% <30% for PUD per Master Plan Approval  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. + 7 ft. 23’ per Master Plan Approval  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ-NR Zoning District Required Proposed * Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF* See waiver request  Max Building Height 45 ft./ 28 ft. 28 ft.(1) Max. Building Coverage 15% <15% for PUD per MP Approval  Max. Overall Coverage 30% <15% for PUD per MP Approval * Min. Front Setback 20 ft.^ See waiver request * Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. + 7 ft. See waiver request * Min. Side Setback 10 ft. See waiver request * Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. See waiver request  Zoning compliance *waiver requested (1) This decision does not address buildings on commercial lots #2 through lots #4. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A) (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B) (1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The project is proposed to be served by gravity sewer mains flowing to the existing collection system located on Oak Creek Drive. A looped water distribution system is proposed to service the project. Storm drainage will be collected in an enclosed drainage system within the local streets and will be directed to a stormwater management facility located at the low point in the southwest corner of the property. #SD-14-15 4 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (A) (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to the standards for erosion control in Section 16.03 of the LDRs, and the grading plan shall meet the standards in Section 16.04 of the LDRs. The applicant has submitted an erosion control and grading plan as part of the final plat. See the Director of Public Works’ notes within the DPW consolidated comments below. (A) (3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Hinesburg Road as well as to the existing public road of Fox Run Lane. A traffic study dated May 21, 2013 was prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson. The Director of Public Works has reviewed the plans and provides notes in the consolidated Public Works comments below. The study projects that the proposed development is expected to generate 107 pm peak vehicle trip ends (using Land Use Codes 210 and 230 for the single family and condominium units, respectively and Land Codes 710 and 710 for general office and medical office respectively). The study concludes that acceptable levels of service will be maintained at nearby intersections and that peak hour volume will not reach levels sufficient to warrant a signalized intersection at the intersection of VT-116/Meadowlands Drive/ Street D. The connection on Hinesburg Road is directly across from Meadowland Drive. This intersection had previously been studied as part of the Meadowland Drive Development and there are established thresholds for when traffic improvements are to be made, including signalizing the intersection and dedicated turn lanes. This study reviewed that mandate and incorporates the vehicle trip ends generated within into the study. If the trips generated as a result of this proposal exceed those limited by the Meadowland Drive development, then this applicant shall be responsible for the necessary improvements. As noted above, the applicant has submitted a traffic study for this project. As an addendum to that study, please see below the questions raised and the answers thereto from the applicant’s traffic engineer, Roger Dickinson, which address these concerns. From: Lee Krohn Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:37 PM To: roger@ldengineering.com Subject: Rye Associates #SD-14-15 5 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc Hi, Roger, I have reviewed your traffic study for the project, and wonder: 1. Did you review/take into account prior approvals and conditions related to traffic for Meadowland Drive development(s)? Apparently, there may be relevant issues and information from that which may affect matters here relative to cumulative impacts of new/additional traffic. Yes; the original traffic study for the Meadowland Drive development was reviewed in 1996 by VTrans. Their traffic study review letter, dated September 6, 1996, included the following conditions (in italics): "If the access intersection with VT 116 is determined to warrant a separate left turn lane sometime in the future, then the proposed design of the left turn lane will need to be brought up to today's standards (i.e., not to have a bypass lane, but a separate left turn lane, especially if signalization is contemplated). This issue should be addressed as soon as additional development within the complex is contemplated." The bypass left-turn lane in the southbound direction on VT 116 was subsequently upgraded to the separate left-turn lane that now exists. I don't have the exact date that occurred. "In conclusion, you should provide us with an updated traffic study whenever you intend to develop an individual lot within the project complex. The information we need should include the following: - For signal warrant analysis: You need to provide at least a 12-hour turning movement (to include the 0600-1800 hours at a minimum) showing distribution of all moves within the intersection. Volumes should be factored to reflect the average weekday condition. - For LOS analyses and geometric improvements: You need a minimum AM (0700- 0900) and PM (1500-1800) peak periods surveyed. The analysis should use DHV's." We have performed the above requested signal warrant and LOS analyses for various projects within Meadowland Business Park since 2002. Most recently in July 2013 for Lot 5 at 66 Bowdoin St. That analysis also included "other development" traffic from the Rye Associates development and a new building on Lot 6 proposed by Super- Temp. 2. Can you please help me understand the difference/distinction between the two LOS tables toward the end of your report (pages 3 & 4). They are quite similar, but slightly different; and each must have unique meaning. Table 3 includes two intersections, but got split between pages 3 and 4. At the bottom of pg. 3 are the results for the northerly VT 116/Meadowland Drive/Rye Associates Street D intersection. At the top of pg. 4 are the results for the southerly VT 116/Fox Run Lane/Mansfield View Lane intersection. Fox Run Lane being located immediately south of the Rye Development. Street B connects with Fox Run Lane. #SD-14-15 6 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 3. Finally, and not unique to this report or project, I will appreciate learning how adding this much new commercial and residential development will create virtually no change in LOS at this intersection, and at most only one additional second of delay for one turning movement, when comparing the 'build' and 'no build' conditions. If you look closely as the WB LT/TH lanes exiting Meadowland Drive at the northerly VT 116/Meadowland Drive/Rye Associates Street D intersection, the delays for that lane increases by 6 seconds (19 to 25). Also, while Street D's LOS D rating meets VTrans' LOS Policy for an unsignalized intersection, its delay of 29 seconds is not insignificant. That being said, this development benefits from having two access points onto VT Route 116; Street D to the north and Fox Run Lane to the south. Turning movements entering and exiting the Rye Associates development will gravitate towards the access in the direction that they are traveling to/from. This helps minimize the impact on future delays and LOS. The Board finds the application to have adequately addressed Meadowland Drive development threshold requirements. The Board finds that the connection to Fox Run Lane was anticipated with the development of Oak Creek, and that the north-south road to connect to Fox Run Lane is shown on the Official Map for South Burlington for future road connections. Finally, the Board supports the layout which calls for a short road connection with a “jog”, which enables the connection without providing a long straight road which would have the potential to encourage higher speeds. The road now named Swift Street Extension on the plans is also on the official map to connect to the property to the west. At sketch plan review, the Recreation Path Committee had reviewed the plans and provided comments; it was noted then that their comments had been incorporated into the plans. (A) (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. Wetlands issues have been addressed in a report prepared by Gilman and Briggs environmental. This report addresses relevant criteria in the LDRs. The applicant seeks approval to impact wetlands as outlined in the Gilman and Briggs report dated May 3, 2013. The Board therefore reviews the request pursuant to section 12.02 of the Land Development Regulations, excepted herein: 12.02(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 #SD-14-15 7 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 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 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 Gilman and Briggs report concludes that all wetlands on the site are Class III and addresses each of the criteria under #3 above. The applicant is seeking to directly impact a handful of isolated wetlands around the site, and to reduce the 50’ buffer to 25’ surrounding the central complex of Class III wetlands depicted within the proposed park/ open space area. Based on the information presented, and the fact that these are Class III wetlands, the Board finds the reduced buffer zone acceptable. Section 9.06(B) (5) States that “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.” Concrete monuments should be placed at the rear corners of the single family home lots to help delineate property boundaries where they adjoin the wetland buffers. The final plat submittal includes a proposal by the applicant for vegetation along the west side of lot #8 to delineate the rear lot lines of all properties that adjoin the wetland buffers to lessen the likelihood of residential uses intruding into the more sensitive wetland buffers. Section 9.06(B) (3) states that “a plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant.” To satisfy this requirement, the following conditions shall apply: 1. There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non-organic fertilizers, within the wetlands or associated 25 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. #SD-14-15 8 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 2. There shall be no mowing within 25 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. (A) (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well as planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged. The criterion is satisfied. (A) (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The homes are clustered closely and a continuous corridor of open space is present. Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south. See additional detail under SEQ standards. The criterion is satisfied. (A) (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the plans and provided comments on August 13, 2013 as follows: We have reviewed the plans for this proposed development. It looks like a pretty straight forward proposal but we have the following concerns and/or recommendations. 1. Turning radii and road widths within this development should be sized to allow for parking, set-up and operation fire apparatus. 2. There appears to be no hydrants adjacent to the “cottage units” off of Street D. 3. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. #SD-14-15 9 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 4. Commercial structures and multifamily units will need fire protection plan review from the South Burlington Fire Marshal’s office to review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes. The Fire Chief submitted additional comments in a letter dated May 30, 2014 to staff which is incorporated herein by reference. The Board is satisfied that these concerns have been met. (A) (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. (A) (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Below are the consolidated comments from Public Works and the applicant’s responses (in bold or in brackets), from emails dated January 6, January 7, and June 2, 2014: 1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed, which is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). Also, the project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. It will therefore require a stormwater permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Stormwater Division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval for the project. Acknowledged and Acceptable provided that the condition reads that this permit be acquired prior to the commencement of construction. 2. The plans indicate that the project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land. Therefore, this project will need to obtain and comply with a construction stormwater permit (3- 9020 or individual permit) from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval for the project. Acknowledged and Acceptable provided that the condition reads that this permit be acquired prior to the commencement of construction. 3. Provide hydrologic modeling for the project so that potential impacts on downstream structures can be evaluated. Providing the actual HydroCAD files would facilitate review by DPW staff. Please find attached the HydroCad modeling of the watershed characteristics. 4. Does the proposed drainage network convey the 25 year, 24 hour storm event without surcharging? The proposed stormwater management pond and the facilities downstream of the pond are design to pass the 100-year design storm. Detailed information on the infrastructure upstream will be forwarded shortly. 5. Plans have been revised so that water leaving the proposed detention pond on lot #31 no longer enters the existing drainage system north of Fox Run Lane. Water leaving the proposed pond now flows to Potash Brook via a new ~900’ swale. Flow to Potash Brook via the new swale is preferable to allowing this water to flow into the existing drainage system on Fox Run Lane. Acknowledged. #SD-14-15 10 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 6. The proposed detention basin on lot #5 discharges water into the existing closed drainage system under Oak Creek Drive. Adjacent to the proposed detention basin, the plans show an existing 18” culvert beneath Fox Run Lane that leads to an open channel along VT Route 116. Rather than send water to the closed drainage system (and eventually through an existing detention pond located downstream), could this water instead be discharged to the ditch along VT Route 116 via the existing 18” culvert? Discharge in this manner would be the City’s preference. This would be redirecting existing stormwater from the City collection system to the State of Vermont’s infrastructure on Route 116. It is our recent experience that VTrans will not allow nor will accept any increases in peak flows (for the 50-year design storm or smaller) to their stormwater infrastructure. Therefore this is not a likely outcome. 7. Confirm that the swale to the rear of lots 9-14 will be sufficiently graded to prevent water from flowing onto adjacent properties to the south. Similar to the pond and discharge swale from the pond, this swale has also been designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. 8. Backflow preventers must be installed on all foundation drains. Yes, the new plans show this requirement. 9. The pump station and detention basin on lot #31 must have an appropriate maintenance access drive identified on the plans. Yes, these facilities will have the necessary means of access. Please advise on the width requirements. 10. In a future submission, include landscaping plans for the detention basin on lot #31. Acknowledged. 11. Provide a map showing the drainage area to each proposed stormwater treatment practice. This pre and post development plans of the site are attached. 12. Please confirm that the proposed stormwater treatment pond located on lot #31 and the dry detention basin in the park will accept runoff from only residential properties. Past resolutions by the South Burlington City Council indicate that the “The City shall accept conveyance of and assume responsibility for the following types of Regulated Private Systems that serve exclusively residential development in the City:” (emphasis added). It appears that the proposed detention pond on lot #31 and the proposed dry detention basin in the park would be eligible for City take over, but the proposed detention pond on lot #5 would not. Stormwater runoff from the commercial lots on the east side of the project site have been graded to that all runoff from these properties will be directed to their own dedicated stormwater management facility. No commercial runoff is directed into the proposed stormwater treatment pond located on lot #31 and the dry detention basin in the park. 13. The proposed development shows wetlands on the project site. Is the applicant seeking wetland permit coverage from the State of Vermont or ACOE? Section 12.02 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDRs) contains provisions to protect #SD-14-15 11 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc wetlands. The applicant should provide more information on the wetlands contained on the site so that any potential impacts can be evaluated pursuant to the regulations in the LDRs. Attached is the description of the wetlands and the impacts to their functions and values. 14. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. Acknowledged and Acceptable. 15. Per section 12.03.F(1) of the City’s Land Development Regulations, the final decision should require the submission of record drawings showing pipe invert elevations, drainage structure rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc. Acknowledged and Acceptable. 16. The final decision should require that final hydrologic modeling be submitted to the Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated into the City’s watershed model for Potash Brook. Acknowledged and Acceptable. Additional Public Works Comments: 1. Remove all “Winter Parking Ban” signs from the plan. (1/24: applicant has revised plans to reflect this change) 2. All pavement markings shall be Type I Durable Tape. Applicant to submit a specific product to Public Works for approval prior to installation. (1/24: applicant has revised plans to reflect this change) 3. Pedestrian level street lighting is needed at all crosswalks. (DPW Director reports this has been addressed). 4. All foundation/perimeter drains shall be shown on plans. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for any of the single family homes without approved As-Builts showing the drain lines. 5. A foundation drain detail is needed that shows the backflow prevention method. (DPW Director reports this has been addressed) 6. No roadway striping is needed other than for crosswalks and stop bars. Each parking space does not need to be striped, nor is crosshatching necessary to highlight no parking areas. (DPW Director reports this has been addressed) 7. Remove the crosswalks through the driveways, carry the sidewalk through. (DPW Director reports this has been addressed) 8. The east radius of the proposed Edgewood Lane and Fox Run Lane shall be tightened. (DPW Director reports this has been addressed) #SD-14-15 12 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 9. Does Edgewood as a name comply with 911 naming standards? Is it too similar to other existing city streets? (This item to be addressed by the Planning Commission) 10. Illustrate via crosshatch the limits of disturbance/excavation on existing city streets necessary for utility connections, matching curb radii, etc. Additional comments from June 2, 2014 with responses from the applicant: Justin, The engineer for the Rye Meadow PUD project updated information in anticipation of their DRB meeting tomorrow. I have reviewed the updated information (sheet 3.0 dated Dec. 2011, last revised on 5/29/14, and sheet C3.1 dated Aug., 2013, last revised on 5/29/14) and would like to provide the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed, which is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). Also, the project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. It will therefore require a stormwater permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Stormwater Division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval for the project. [David Marshall] A condition of approval that requires evidence of the issuance of an State Operational Stormwater permit authorization is acceptable. 2. The plans indicate that the project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land. Therefore, this project will need to obtain and comply with a construction stormwater permit (3- 9020 or individual permit) from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval for the project. [David Marshall] A condition of approval that requires evidence of the issuance of a State Construction Stormwater permit authorization is acceptable. 3. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site.[David Marshall] Acceptable with the understanding that at some point in the future the roads and residential stormwater management facility on Lot 31 is proposed to be taken over by the City. 4. Per section 12.03.F(1) of the City’s Land Development Regulations, the final decision should require the submission of record drawings showing pipe invert elevations, drainage structure rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc.[David Marshall] This is acceptable. 5. The final decision should require that final hydrologic modeling be submitted to the Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated into the City’s watershed model for Potash Brook.[David Marshall] This is acceptable. 6. Check roads names shown on the subdivision plat versus what is in the legend. The legend indicates that dedication “E” is for Edgewood Lane, but the plans show this road named as Summer Lane. There is a similar issue for dedication “F”; the legend lists the road name as Cottage Circle and the plans show it as Morgan Circle.[David Marshall] A condition requiring reconciliation of the road names and the legend is acceptable. 7. The subdivision plat legend lists proposed dedication C to the Rye Homeowners Association and the plat labels this to be conveyed to the City of South Burlington. Which is it? [David Marshall] To the City of South Burlington The easement labeled “8” would be redundant if the entire lot 31 is to be conveyed to the City. This question applies to both sheet P1 and #SD-14-15 13 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc P2.[David Marshall] A condition requiring reconciliation of the callouts to reference the City and not the HOA is acceptable.. 8. Confirm that the proposed dedication labeled A should be to the City and not the Rye Homeowners Association. [David Marshall] To the City of South Burlington. If it should be to the Rye Homeowners Association, it should be determined whether or not the City will need a 20’ easement along the recreation path in this area.[David Marshall] Not applicable. These comments should replace those I submitted on May 5 and shown in the email below. My prior concerns specified in comments 8, 10, and 11 below have been satisfied and have been removed based on the updated information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom The applicant has sought a waiver from minimum radius of curves for local streets. Following review by the Director of Public Works, the Board finds the request acceptable. As a part of any final plat submittal, the applicant shall confirm with the Fire Chief and Public Works Director that the design of “Cottage Circle”, recently added to the plans, is acceptable. The Public Works Director in an email to the applicant’s engineer on 4/15/14 indicted that this street was acceptable as a public street. (A) (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds this criterion satisfied. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (C) Relationship of the Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. (C) (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 Board worked with the applicant at the sketch plan level to ensure suitable and safe pedestrian movement throughout the PUD. The plans include a complete sidewalk loop on the entire development of the road, safe crosswalks, and a paved recreation path. The plans also provide provisions for the adjacent neighborhood to access the recreation path, sidewalk network, and park via a sidewalk along B Street. The Board finds this criterion satisfied. #SD-14-15 14 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (B) (2) Parking (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. All parking on the preliminary plat complies with the standards above. Parking for the single family homes and Lot 7 cottage units is provided onsite as well as on- street parking limited to one side of the street. Parking for the lot 8 cottage units is provided by a shared carport and surface lot. Parking for the 16 quad-plex units is proposed via garages located to the rear of the four quad-plex buildings. The applicant is proposing 13 parking spaces for Lot 8, Cottage units. This represents a 1-space, or 7.2% waiver request. The applicant notes that these units will be smaller than average single family homes. This request is acceptable. The Board finds the proposed one (1) space, 7.2% parking waiver for lot 8 acceptable. #SD-14-15 15 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc Parking for the Commercial lots is discussed under the SEQ-VC standards below. (B)(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 adjoining buildings. The heights of all buildings are within the limits of the district and characteristic of typical and nearby single and two-family dwellings. (B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. As required in the LDRs, all newly installed utility services shall be underground. (C)(1) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report. (C)(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. The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (A) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Access is proposed via a public street connection to Hinesburg Road, to the property to the east, and to the existing public road of Fox Run Lane. The Board finds these plans consistent with the Official Map. (B) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. As already noted above, all newly installed utility lines must be underground. #SD-14-15 16 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (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). Trash disposal and recycling facilities for the single family home lots and cottage homes on lot 7 and 8 will be addressed individually. The plans show a screened dumpster enclosure to the rear of the lot 6 four-plexes. Final plans for commercial lots 2-5 shall also show dumpster locations. (D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The Board has previously reviewed landscaping plans for all portions of the PUD save for Commercial lots 2-5 (to be provided as part of subsequent applications). The Board received revised landscaping/planting plans, lists, and cost schedules for the overall project on January 28th, but for simplicity and clarity, are summarized below: Street trees: $94,592 Central open space: $12,436 Cottage units w/ garages: $18,969 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost) Cottage units w/o garages: $14,775 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost) Four-plex buildings: $28,210 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost) Professional building: $16,000 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost) The City Arborist reviewed these latest planting plans and species lists, and he stated that, “I spoke with Ray Belair last week and Ok'd the revised plans. Prior to that, I spoke with Mike Lawrence and recommended some species changes. While I haven't seen the species changes on the plans, I'm sure Mike has adequately addressed them as his plans generally only require minor adjustments when he submits them. Please let me know if there is anything specific you wish me to comment on or if you have any questions.” - Craig Lambert, South Burlington City Arborist E911 Addresses & Street Names The applicant submitted E911 addresses for the proposed project, in conformance with the E911 addressing standards. The applicant shall seek approval of any proposed new street names from the Planning Commission and revise the final plat plans prior to recording with the approved names. #SD-14-15 17 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 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 SEQ: (A) Height The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. The 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. Standards from Table C-2, Dimensional Standards Applicable in All District also apply. This criterion will be evaluated at subsequent levels of review for the project. (B)(1) Open Space and Resource Protection 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 applicant proposes a 2.54 acre park / open space to be dedicated to the City. It is centrally located and provides access to residents within the proposed project and to adjacent neighborhoods. Recreation path easements, further, are provided to ensure ease of access from adjoining parcels. See additional detail below. (B)(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub-district, and the location of development areas are consistent with the standards. The requested waivers are discussed below. (B)(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. See below under Parks. (B)(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 #SD-14-15 18 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. See above under Planned Unit Development Standards. (B)(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. See above under Planned Unit Development Standards. (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. As noted above, the approved Master Plan shows a central park / open space to be dedicated to the city. This may include some opportunities for small scale agriculture such as community gardens. The applicant is also proposing a garden area for use by the four four-plexes. In addition, the total number of housing units proposed for the project would require the use of Transferable Development Rights, the use of which would conserve open spaces elsewhere in the Southeast Quadrant. (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. 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. 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. Final plans 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. Plans were reviewed and commented on by the Fire Chief on 5/30/14. #SD-14-15 19 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (E) Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on 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. Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. 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 provisions of Section 15.12(D) (4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. The proposed project is consistent with the Official Map. A network of recreation paths and sidewalks are proposed linking the project east-west and north-south along each new street. See above under Planned Unit Development Standards and DPW comments for additional information. (D) Parks Design and Development. General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini-parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car-free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter-mile of every home. (1) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC districts: (a) Distribution and Amount of Parks: (i) A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation. (ii) Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development. #SD-14-15 20 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (iii) Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program. (iv) A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned developed recreation area. (b) Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (c) Design Guidelines (i) Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make them sociable, safe and attractive places. (ii) Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections. (iii) To the extent feasible, single-loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas. The applicant proposes an open area of 2.54 acres. This is smaller than proposed at sketch plan review, but exceeds the minimum of approximately 0.97 acres of parkland recommended based on the number of housing units. The park incorporates more “active” recreational features than before: an enhanced network of recreation paths within the site and linking to external networks of paths or sidewalks, and a dry detention basin for stormwater. The applicant is proposing an active use area to include playground equipment and benches. The applicant is proposing to install granite posts, three (3) feet in height, 6“-10” square and placed 30 feet on center to separate private spaces of the eight (8) lots abutting the park area from the public park/open space. The plans should be revised to show these posts. See above under Planned Unit Development for comments concerning clear transitions to wetland areas. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. (A) Street, Block and Lot Pattern (A) (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. #SD-14-15 21 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc The applicant proposes a block length of approximately 520 feet on the two principal north- south roads. The eastern roadway includes approximately 180 feet of park/open space frontage to be dedicated to the city, while the western roadway includes a mid-block recreation path right-of way crossing. All other streets and blocks comply with the standards. The Board finds granting this waiver acceptable. (A) (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). See above under block lengths. A street stub is proposed at the western end of Swift Street Extension as depicted on the Official Map. (A) (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. A street stub is proposed at the west end of Swift Street Extension. This criterion is satisfied. (A) (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 proposed lots largely meet or exceed the minimum standards. 19 of the 22 single home lots exceed the 2:1 ratio. Lots 15-17 are slightly below this standard, but abut recreation paths and the proposed park/open space. The remainder of lots within the District are PUDs, and so the lot width-to-depth is not applicable. Given the overall layout of the project and inclusion of recreation paths / open space, the Board finds granting this waiver acceptable. (B) Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (B)(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR 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 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. (B)(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 #SD-14-15 22 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (B)(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 tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The proposed project complies with the above criteria. (B)(4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). On street parking is appropriate in a small neighborhood. The roadway right-of-way is of sufficient width and well-planned to accommodate such. The applicant should demonstrate compliance with this criterion at subsequent levels of review for the project. On street parking is proposed along both sides of the eastern leg of “Rye Circle” and one side of “Edgewood Lane”, “Cottage Circle”, and the remainder of “Rye Circle”. Swift Street Extension is proposed to have 30’ of pavement. As a part of final plat submittal, the applicant confirmed that there would be parking on this street except within 50 feet of any street intersection. (B)(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). The Board acknowledges receipt of comments from the Fire Chief and Public Works Dept. and finds the intersection designs acceptable. (B)(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 site lighting includes 14 ft. poles along the public street and 12 ft. poles at the pedestrian crossing of Rye Circle. (C) Residential Design (C)(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). #SD-14-15 23 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (C)(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. (C)(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. (C)(4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. (C)(5) 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. (C)(6) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. The proposed plans include:  22 standard detached single family homes;  14 cottage style units;  16 units in the form of 4 quadplex buildings Overall, the project is designed in a logical framework, and the placement of the buildings around the ‘green’ in the center of the property appears to be well-designed. The location of the 4-unit buildings between the commercial uses and the residential zone also helps to transition this development from commercial, to higher density residential, to lower density residential. Architectural designs for the cottage homes and the multi-family dwellings were submitted for review. The Board finds that these designs are acceptable for the cottage units and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (TO BE COMPLETED FOLLOWING BOARD REVIEW AT THE MEETING). As described in the cover letter/narrative, the applicant has redesigned the project in order to address the Board’s concerns about design and layout; for example, providing an orderly transition from commercial buildings to multi-family to single family homes. The Board finds the design meets the goals and objectives of the Southeast Quadrant design standards in the LDRs. The applicant has submitted detailed architectural elevations and materials lists for all of the proposed buildings. The garages on the cottage units, types ‘C1’, ‘C2’, #SD-14-15 24 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc ‘D’, and ‘E’ are set back at least 8’ as required. The Board finds that the covered porches from which these are measured are substantial enough to qualify as the front lines of these houses, and that the homes are oriented toward the street(s), as required. As noted above, the four quad-plexes serve as a transition for the overall project and represent different styles and sizes from other units on the property. The designs of these four buildings are identical, but represent a small portion of the overall development. The applicant on January 28, 2014 submitted a document entitled, “Single Family Home Design Guidelines Rye Parcel Subdivision” from Rabideau Architects for the Board’s consideration. The Board finds this approach demonstrates conformance with this criterion, and this document shall be used by the Administrative Officer to determine compliance when reviewing individual zoning applications for these single family homes. This document is attached by reference as a part of this preliminary plat approval, and shall be incorporated into any subsequent final plat approval. The applicant is seeking a waiver of Section 3.06(C) Setbacks and Buffers; Yards Abutting a Planned Street. Specifically, “With the assumption that the reference to “Swift Street” also means Swift Street Extension, the applicant seeks a waiver for Cottage buildings 7-1 and 7-7 (to 30’) and residential lots #22 and #23 (to 20’) and Commercial Lot #1 (to 30’) to achieve the goals set forth in the SEQ district guidelines.” The Board finds this waiver request acceptable. The Applicant is also seeking the following waivers regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot coverage. Appendix C Table C-2 Dimensional Standards A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 9,937 SF. - B. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 20% for all lots. C. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 42% for Lot 7. D. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20’ to 10' (Cottage Units 6-1 & 6-2 off of Edgewood Drive). E. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 20’ (Cottage Units 7-2 thru 7-6). F. Multi-Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 28% for Lot 6. G. Multi-Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 55% for Lot 6. H. Commercial Lot Coverage from 30% to 54% for all lots except for Lot 3 which shall be 63% I. Commercial Building Coverage from 15% to 21% for all lots except for Lot 3 which shall be 26% The Board finds these waivers acceptable as part of a creative PUD design. Lot coverage, although exceeded for individual lots, shall comply with the overall PUD maximum of 30%. Building setbacks within the Cottage unit areas generally range from 10 to 43 feet, with one building on lot 8 setback 66 feet. The regulations do not specify whether the 25’ setback is a minimum or maximum. The cottage units meet the intent of the standards. #SD-14-15 25 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 9.10 SEQ-VC Sub-District; Specific Regulations The SEQ-VC sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated below: A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 200 and 300 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. Blocks 300 feet or longer must include mid- block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average intersection spacing shall be 200 to 300 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sacs) are discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at 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). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line per Section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations to allow connection to adjacent parcels. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. (4) Lot ratios. Lots for new residential structures shall incorporate a minimum lot width to lot depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. The portion of the project within the SEQ-VC subdistrict fronts Hinesburg Road and the eastern leg of the north-south street. The block length is approximately 740 feet along Hinesburg Road and 520 feet on the other north-south street. Both blocks line up with existing intersections / shared driveways. See the note above concerning recreation path rights-of-way. The applicant is not proposing any new roads within the SEQ-VC district, and so the Board finds that the street standards do not apply to Hinesburg Road. Given the nature of Hinesburg Road and location of intersections, the Board finds this proposal acceptable. However, the Board reserves the right to require one or more sidewalk / recreation path connections (public or private) to Hinesburg Road as part of final plat review for future projects. The proposed commercial lots along Hinesburg Road do not strictly comply with the lot depth ratio of 2:1. All lots are deeper than they are wide. The applicant is also proposing that lots be smaller than the minimum lot size. Given the narrow depth of the VC district, it would be impossible to meet both the minimum lot sizes (40,000 sf) and minimum lot - depth ratio. Given these unique, site specific circumstances, the Boards finds that the applicant has proposed a plan that allows the project to relate to both Hinesburg Road and “Rye Circle”, and finds that a waiver of the lot - depth ratio is acceptable. #SD-14-15 26 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets in the VC 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 Section 9.09(B)(1) above, and Tables 9-3 and 9-4; cross-sections shall be as set forth in Figures 9-10 and 9-11 below. (2) Sidewalks (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet in width plus a five-foot planting strip separating the sidewalk from the street. (b) Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) (4) On-street Parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4) (5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Section 9.08(B)(5) and Figure 9-6. (6) Lighting. Pedestrian scale 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. See above under SEQ-NR subdistrict analysis. D. Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District (1) Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. (2) Building Façades (a) Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. (b) Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. (c) Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. (d) All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. (e) Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. #SD-14-15 27 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (f) Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. (3) Building Setbacks. New buildings with commercial uses must be built to a ‘build- to line’ established no less than fifteen feet (15’) and no more than twenty feet (20’) from the edge of the curb. The area between the building and the curb shall provide for convenient pedestrian access via sidewalk or recreation path; see Section 9.10(C)(1) above. Parking is prohibited between the building and the sidewalk. (4) Parking (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of these Regulations, each non- residential use shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. The DRB may grant a parking waiver in conformance with Section 13.1(N)(3).The Development Review Board may allow on-street parking within 500 linear feet of the nearest building line of the use to count towards the use’s parking requirements. (b) The provisions of Section 13.1 notwithstanding, the DRB may allow shared parking anywhere within the VC district, regardless of linear distance from the proposed use. The Board has previously indicated that buildings should be oriented toward “Rye Circle”. The Board finds that the proposed building for commercial lot #1 complies with the design standard above, for the following reasons. Windows are numerous and no “blank walls” are shown. The building includes doors facing to the south as well as to the west towards “Rye Circle”. The building’s roofs comply with the standards. The building employs a “four-sided” design principle, and incorporates varied architectural features throughout. Lot 1 has a GSF of 5,000, which requires 15 parking spaces. The applicant proposes 14 spaces on the lot, with the understanding that this parking lot will be extended and shared with other commercial buildings. This represents a waiver of 6.7%. Given this future sharing and availability of on-street parking nearby, the Board finds this waiver request acceptable. 9.11 Supplemental Standards for Arterial and Collector Streets A. Setbacks. The minimum front setbacks from Dorset Street, Old Cross Road, Nowland Farm Road, Hinesburg Road, Swift Street, Swift Street Extension, and Old Cross Road Extension, shall be as set forth in Section 3.06(B) (1) and (2) of these Regulations. B. Building Orientation along Arterial and Collector Streets. (1) New developments with frontage on Dorset Street, Old Cross Road/Nowland Farm Road, or Swift Street, or which have the potential to include frontage along Swift Street Extension or Old Cross Road Extension, shall maintain a setback of twenty feet (20’) from the edge of the planned right-of-way. (2) New developments with frontage on Hinesburg Road shall maintain a setback of forty feet (40’) from the edge of the planned right-of-way. #SD-14-15 28 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc (3) This setback area shall be attractively landscaped, with suitable street trees and fencing made of natural materials, in a manner that creates a defined edge to the development, without creating a visual “wall” or barrier. Acceptable alternatives for this treatment are shown in Figures 9-12 and 9- 13. (4) A public sidewalk or recreation path planned in coordination with the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee shall be incorporated into the setback area. (5) The use of earthen berms of more than four feet (4’) in height above the average pre-construction or finished grade of the setback area, shall not be permitted. Under no circumstances shall vegetation other than grasses and low-growing shrubs be planted along the slope or top of any berms or other land shaped areas. As noted above, and given the unique, site specific circumstances existing on this property, the Board finds acceptable the proposed waiver of the setback requirements of Section 9.11(B)(2) from 57 feet to 23 feet from the existing highway right of way for all lots adjacent to Hinesburg Road to be acceptable. The Board reviewed the sidewalk/recreation path requirement and finds it not needed as a recreation path is on the opposite side of the street in this location. OTHER Buffer Strip Section 3.06(I) Buffer Strip for Non-Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries. (1) Where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district, or where an existing non-residential use, structure or parking area that is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district is proposed to be expanded, altered or enlarged, the required side or rear setback shall be increased to sixty-five (65) feet. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty- five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. The Board understands the applicant’s concern that it is difficult or perhaps even impossible to have mixed use development, a goal of the district, while still meeting the 15 foot wooded buffer requirement, especially within such a narrow strip of land as provided in this commercial zoning district. With limitations for where parking may be located, along with a significant setback requirement from Hinesburg Road, it is very difficult to meet the requirement for the buffer between zones while also providing a street and keeping parking to the rear of the lots. These are not large buildings, with footprints at or below 5,000 SF. In addition, the proposed project is designed as a mixed-use development with transitions incorporated as discussed above. The Board has previously discussed this item. Given the particular circumstances of this project, a mixed-use project in an area with a VC and NR subdistrict, the Board finds the waiver requested by the applicant acceptable. #SD-14-15 29 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc DECISION Motion by ______________, seconded by _______________ to approve final plat application #SD-14-15 of Rye Associates, LLC subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit for the first building within six (6) months of this approval. The Development Review Board grants a period of five (5) years for approval of the multi-family buildings and the commercial building. At such time as the five years is reached and the applicant has not sought a zoning permit for any of these approved buildings, they shall be eligible, per Section 17.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, for one (1) extension to an approval if the application takes place before the approval has expired and if the Development Review Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Development Review Board may specify a period of time up to one (1) year for the extension. 4. Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the 22nd dwelling unit, the applicant shall record the document entitled, “Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights” and a survey of the area from which the 31 transferable development rights have been severed as required under 24 V.S.A § 4423(b)(4), upon approval of the City Attorney in the South Burlington land records. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to use or occupancy of any of the buildings other than the single family homes. 6. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocations prior to issuance of any zoning permits. 7. The Board approves a one (1) space, 7.2% parking waiver for lot #8 for a total of 13 spaces provided. 8. The Board approves a one (1) space, 6.7% parking waiver for lot #1 for a total of 14 spaces provided. 9. The Board approves the document entitled, “Single Family Home Design Guidelines Rye Parcel Subdivision” prepared by Rabideau Architects which setforth the method by which the applicant will comply with the residential design guidelines. 10. The Board approves the following waivers: Appendix C Table C-2 Dimensional Standards #SD-14-15 30 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 9,937 SF. - B. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 20% for all lots. C. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 42% for Lot 7. D. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20’ to 10' (Cottage Units 6-1 & 6-2 off of Edgewood Drive). E. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 20’ (Cottage Units 7-2 thru 7-6). F. Multi-Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 28% for Lot 6. G. Multi-Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 55% for Lot 6. H. Commercial Lot Coverage from 30% to 54% for all lots except for Lot 3 which shall be 63% I. Commercial Building Coverage from 15% to 21% for all lots except for Lot 3 which shall be 26% Other Waivers  a waiver from minimum radius of curves for local streets 11. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 12. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 13. Per section 12.03.F(1) of the City’s Land Development Regulations, upon completion of the infrastructure, the applicant shall submit record drawings showing pipe invert elevations, drainage structure rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc. 14. There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non-organic fertilizers, within the wetlands or associated 25 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 15. There shall be no mowing within 25 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 16. Any stormwater permit required from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Stormwater Division shall be provided to the Administrative Officer prior to the issuance of the first zoning permit. 17. Pursuant to Section 12.03 (F) 1 of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit record drawings showing pipe invert elevations, drainage structure rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc. prior to acceptance of the streets as City streets. #SD-14-15 31 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 18. Prior to the issuance of the first zoning permit, the applicant shall submit final hydrologic modeling to the Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated into the City’s watershed model for Potash Brook. 19. The applicant shall be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 20. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the 5,000 sq. ft. commercial building on commercial lot #1 will generate 7.45 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 21. The final plat plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plans: a. The final plat plans shall include street names approved by the Planning Commission. b. The plans shall be revised to include two (2) bike racks for the multi-family dwellings and a bike rack for the general office building. c. The plans shall be revised to indicate snow storage area for the multi-family buildings and the general office building. d. The plans shall be revised to show granite posts, three (3) feet in height, 6“-10” square and placed 30 feet on center to separate private spaces of the eight (8) lots abutting the park area from the public park/open space. e. The survey plats shall be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. 22. 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. 23. Prior to permit issuance for the first permit in each element or “phase”, the applicant shall post landscaping bonds in the amounts indicated below. These bonds shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. a. Central open space: $12,436 b. Cottage units w/ garages: $18,969 c. Cottage units w/o garages: $14,775 d. Four-plex buildings: $28,210 e. Professional building: $16,000 24. 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. 25. Prior to start of the improvements described in #24 above, the applicant shall post a $19,500 landscape bond for the street trees, which shall remain in effect for three (3) years. #SD-14-15 32 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 26. 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. 27. Street trees must be in place along the street prior to adding the final layer of the pavement. 28. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 29. The mylars shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 30. 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. 31. Any proposed utility cabinets must be approved by the Development Review Board prior to installation. 32. The final plat plans (sheets P1, P2 & C1.0) 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 plast 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 – 0 – 0 Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair #SD-14-15 33 SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc 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. GENERAL NOTES:1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only. The Contractor shall field verify all utility conflicts. All discrepancies shall be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. All existing utilities not incorporated into the final design shall be removed or abandoned as indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer. 3. The Contractor shall maintain as-built plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those plans shall be submitted to the Owner at the completion of the project. 4. The Contractor shall repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or off the site) as a direct or indirect result of the construction. 5. All grassed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established. 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits. 7. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities. 8. If the building is to be sprinklered, backflow prevention shall be provided in accordance with AWWA M14. The Site Contractor shall construct the water line to two feet above the finished floor. See mechanical plans for riser detail. 9. The Contractor shall submit shop drawings for all items and materials incorporated into the site work. Work shall not begin on any item until shop drawing approval is granted.10. In addition to the requirements set in these plans and specifications, the Contractor shall complete the work in accordance with all permit conditions and any local Public Works Standards.11. The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and lawn areas shall be 0.1 feet.12. Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as part of the contract and shall be the Contractor's responsibility.13. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within City Road R.O.W. with City authorities.14. The Contractor shall install the electrical, cable and telephone services in accordance with the utility companies requirements.15. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved off- site location. All pavement cuts shall be made with a pavement saw.16. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineer for verification before work continues on the item in question.P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:17:58 PM, aloiselle TRCTRCCEA1" = 50'11202P1RYE MEADOWP.U.D.1075 Hinesburg RoadSouth Burlington, VTMAY 23, 2013Subdivision PlatRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKTo the best of my knowledge and belief thisplat, consisting of two sheets, depicts theresults of a survey conducted by me asdescribed in "Survey Notes" above, basedupon our analysis of land records andevidence found in the field. Existingboundaries shown are in substantialconformance with the records, except asnoted. This plat is in substantial compliancewith 17 VSA 1403, "Recording of Land Plats".This statement valid only when accompaniedby my original signature and seal.__________________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON- Legend -- Survey Notes -1. Purpose of this survey and plat is to a.) retrace the boundaries of a parcel of landconveyed to Rye Associates, LLC by warranty deed of Arthur H. Rye, TimothyBrisson et al. dated January 29, 2007 and recorded in Volume 774 at Page 592 ofthe South Burlington Land Records, and, b.) depict the subdivision of said parcel intoa Planned Unit Development as shown.2. Other (neighboring) property lines and buildings shown may be approximate only,and are shown for informational purposes only.3. Field survey was conducted during 2012 and consisted of a closed-loop traverseutilizing an electronic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North,Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations on oradjacent to the site. [Note that the bearings differ substantially from those shown onReference Plat A, since it depicts bearings from Magnetic North, while this surveyuses Grid North.4. Iron pipes shown as "found" are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods withoutside diameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods and markersfound are "Good" unless otherwise noted. Corners denoted "Proposed" shalltypically consist of 58" diameter X 40" long rebar or by 4" square concrete markers,either type capped with aluminum disks stamped "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS597", and typically set flush with existing grade.5. Land areas (acreages) shown are calculated to the sidelines of existing orproposed streets as shown.- Reference Plats -A. "Lands of Brisson & Rye - SubdivisionPlat" last revised 12/4/2006 by O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates, PLC. Recorded inMap Slide 491, South Burlington LandRecords.B. "Oak Creek Village - Final Plat" , datedAugust 1987 by Fitzpatrick-Llewellyn, Inc.Recorded in Map Slide 204, SouthBurlington Land Records.PROPOSED 10' wide sewer (force main) easement across Commercial Lot 5 to servethe Rye HOA.PROPOSED 10' wide sewer easement across Lot 20 to serve the Rye HOA.PROPOSED 10' wide easement, located along the street R.O.W. across Lots 8 -14,Lots 23 - 31 and Commercial Lots 1 - 5, to serve Green Mountain Power Corp.PROPOSED 10' wide foundation drain easement crossing Lots 8 - 14 to serve the RyeHOA.PROPOSED 10' wide foundation drain easement crossing Lots 18 - 21 to serve the Rye HOA.PROPOSED 10' wide foundation drain easement crossing Lots 23 - 30 to serve Lot 7and Lots 15 -22.PROPOSED 10' wide drainage easement crossing Lot 8.PROPOSED 20' wide access easement for maintenance of proposed pump station and detention basin on Lot 31.PROPOSED (Temporary) drainage easement across park lands of City to existing waterway.COMMERCIAL LOTS 1 - 5 shall be subject to inter-connective reciprocal access easements. Locations to be determined upon individual site plan approvals.EXISTING 20' wide utility easement over portion of Lot 113 of the "Oak Creek Village"subdivision per Vol. 262 Pg. 444. (See Ref. Plat A.)REVISED PROPERTY LINESAL/TC12.6.13EDIT LABELS & NOTESTRC12.31.13- Easement Notes -341256782.54 acre parcel to be dedicated to City for "Park / Open Space"0.07 acre parcel (20' wide) to be dedicated to City for recreation pathLot 31 (0.80 acres) to be conveyed to Rye Homeowners Association forstorm water management purposesProposed Street shown as "Rye Circle". Variable width (from 55' to 61'wide). Land area: 2.25 acres.Proposed Street shown as "Edgewood Lane". 55 feet in width.Land area: 0.21 acres.Proposed Street shown as "Cottage Circle". 45 feet in width.Land area: 0.25 acres.- Proposed Dedications -9ADD SHEET P2, DEDICATIONSEASEMENTS 8 - 11, LOT 7ATRC01.24.14See Sheet P2forStorm Easement108- Short Line Table -11REVISED ROAD NAMESAL/TC3.24.14P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202-SUBDIV-PLAT-2014-01-24.dwg, 3/24/2014 3:20:31 PM, aloiselle TRCTRCCEA1" = 50'11202P2RYE MEADOWP.U.D.1075 Hinesburg RoadSouth Burlington, VTMAY 23, 2013Subdivision PlatRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKTo the best of my knowledge and belief thisplat, consisting of two sheets, depicts theresults of a survey conducted by me asdescribed in "Survey Notes" above, basedupon our analysis of land records andevidence found in the field. Existingboundaries shown are in substantialconformance with the records, except asnoted. This plat is in substantial compliancewith 17 VSA 1403, "Recording of Land Plats".This statement valid only when accompaniedby my original signature and seal.__________________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON- Legend -- Survey Notes -See Sheet 1 of 2 for Survey Notes.- Reference Plats -A. "Lands of Brisson & Rye - Subdivision Plat" last revised 12/4/2006 byO'Leary - Burke Civil Associates, PLC. Recorded in Map Slide 491, SouthBurlington Land Records.B. "Oak Creek Village - Final Plat" , dated August 1987 by Fitzpatrick-Llewellyn,Inc. Recorded in Map Slide 204, South Burlington Land Records.PROPOSED 10' wide easement, located along the street R.O.W. across Lots8 - 14, Lots 23 - 31 and Commercial Lots 1 - 5, to serve Green MountainPower Corp.PROPOSED 20' wide access easement for maintenance of proposed pumpstation and detention basin on Lot 31.PROPOSED (Temporary) drainage easement across park lands of City toexisting waterway on City lands. To be extinguished upon acceptance ofstorm water facilities by City.EXISTING 20' wide utility easement over portion of Lot 113 of the "OakCreek Village" subdivision per Vol. 262 Pg. 444. (See Ref. Plat A.)- Easement Notes -83110.07 acre parcel (20' wide) to be dedicated to City for recreation pathLot 31 (0.80 acres) to be conveyed to Rye Homeowners Association forstorm water management purposes- Proposed Dedications -9See Sheet P1forSubdivision Details- Location Map -NOT to SCALEFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD. MEAD O WLA N D D R.89116"Temporary" StormWater Easement(Easement Note 9)REVISED PROPERTY LINESAL/TC12.6.13EDIT LABELS & NOTESTRC12.31.13ADD SHEET P2, DEDICATIONSEASEMENTS 8 - 11, LOT 7ATRC01.24.148LOT 31 CONVEYED TO S. BURL.AL/TC3.24.14P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202-SUBDIV-PLAT-2014-01-24.dwg, 3/24/2014 3:24:07 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C1.0DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'RYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTPHASE IPROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:22:43 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 15'11202C1.6MARCH, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PARK / OPENSPACE ACTIVEUSE AREAPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:26:52 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C3.0DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'GRADING &DRAINAGESITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:25:24 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 20'11202C3.2JAN., 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'COMMERCIALLOT #1SITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:26:20 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 20'11202C3.3JAN., 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'4-PLEX UNITSLOT #6SITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:27:34 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 20'11202C3.4JAN., 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'COTTAGESLOT #7SITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:28:23 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 20'11202C3.5JAN., 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'COTTAGESLOT #8SITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 11:24:31 AM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C4.0DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'OVERALLUTILITYPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTCWD Specifications: All work to be performed in accordance with theSpecifications and Details for the Installation of Waterlines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Ownedby the Champlain Water District, the City of SouthBurlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village ofJericho. Details should be modified to the abovereference specifications.RYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:32:26 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C4.1DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'SEWER &WATERPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTCWD Specifications: All work to be performed in accordance with theSpecifications and Details for the Installation of Waterlines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Ownedby the Champlain Water District, the City of SouthBurlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village ofJericho. Details should be modified to the abovereference specifications.RYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 3/25/2014 2:33:18 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202911MARCH, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'911ADDRESSESFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT11689P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202- 911 Plan.dwg, 3/25/2014 3:23:06 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 10'11202L-6DEC., 2011LOT 31STORMWATERTREATMENTPLANTING PLAN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RICE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL – 99 PROCTOR AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-14-04 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #sp-14-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional Use application #CU-14-04 of Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) adding a handicapped ramp, and 2) adding two (2) HVAC units, 99 Proctor Avenue. A hearing on this application was held on June 17, 2014 and the applicant was represented by Tom Barden. 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. Rice Memorial High School filed application #CU-14-04 to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding a handicapped ramp and adding two HVAC units, 99 Proctor Avenue. 2. The owner of the subject property is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. 3. The application was received on March 4, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the Residential – 4 Zoning District. 5. The applicant submitted a four-page set of plans; the cover sheet is entitled, “Rice Memorial H.S. South Burlington, Vermont”, prepared by Black River Design, dated 04/29/14. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Residential 4, Section 14.06 Site Plan Review, and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Two (2) new HVAC units are proposed to be located above ground on concrete pads; these would not typically be able to be installed underground. These HVAC units are approximately 18’ wide x 8’-6” deep x 8’-0” high. They sit on concrete pads & supports that make their highest point about 10’-0” above ground. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 S.F. 1,553,370 sq. ft. 1,553,370 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 30% 4.6% 4.6% #CU-14-04 & #SP-14-17 2  Max. Overall Coverage 60% 12.7% 12.7% ? Min. Front Setback 30 ft. unknown unknown ? Min. Side Setback 10 ft. unknown unknown ? Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. unknown unknown  Max. Building Height 25/28 ft. “approx. 25 ft.” “approx. 25 ft.”  Zoning compliance ? Unknown, but no changes to existing building or setbacks DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. The proposed site modifications will be in compliance with the dimensional requirements. 7. Setback requirements are being met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Vehicular access 8. Access is provided via a curb cut on Proctor Avenue. No changes proposed. Circulation 9. Circulation on the site is adequate. Parking 10. No parking Changes. 11. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G) (5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle parking shall be provided on the subject property. A bicycle rack is not shown on the plans. 12. Pursuant to Section 13.01(B) of the Land Development Regulations, internal landscaping of the parking area does not apply to this application. Landscaping 13. Each HVAC unit will be screened with nine (9) arborvitae shrubs, which when planted will be +/- 3’- 0” to 4’-0” tall. If planted roughly three feet on center, they will grow into a thick hedge. They grow about 6 inches in height per year, and the mature height of these shrubs can be anywhere from 8’-0” to much taller, depending on variety selected. Regarding a landscaping budget as required in Table 3-9 of the LDRs: the estimated construction cost for this project is $34,600. The estimated cost per shrub/tree is $100, for a total landscaping budget of $1,800. The minimum required landscaping budget is 3% of $34,600, or $1,038. $1,800 exceeds that minimum. A bond for that amount shall be required to ensure proper planting. #CU-14-04 & #SP-14-17 3 14. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (7) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plan. The plans do not indicate the snow storage areas. Outdoor Lighting 15. There are no changes to outdoor lighting proposed. Pursuant to Sections 14.06 and 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations, the following review standards shall apply to site plan applications: Traffic 16. Traffic will not be affected as a result of this application. (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objects set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 17. 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. 18. This criterion will continue to be met. (c) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. 19. No changes are proposed. This requirement is being met. 20. As noted above, bicycle rack locations are not noted on the plans. (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. 21. No changes are proposed. (e) Newly installed utility service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 22. No changes are proposed. (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. 23. This requirement is being met. #CU-14-04 & #SP-14-17 4 (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. 24. No changes are proposed. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (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. 25. 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. 26. No changes proposed except for the relocation of an electrical transformer. (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). 27. No screened dumpster enclosures are shown on the plan. If dumpsters are be stored on the property, they must be shown on the site plan and should be screened. 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. There is no change of use. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. The use of the property as an educational facility is not changing. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. There is no reason to believe that this will adversely affect the capacity of municipal services. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor #CU-14-04 & #SP-14-17 5 ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. No adverse effects are anticipated. (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. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. No known effects. The Board finds these criteria satisfied. DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve conditional use application #CU-14-04 & site plan application #SP-14-17 of Rice Memorial High School, subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The site plan shall be revised to show a bike rack. b. The site plan shall be revised to show snow storage areas. c. The site plan shall be revised to show all dumpsters screened on all four (4) sides. 4. 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. 5. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall post a $1,800 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Administrative Officer prior to any occupancy or use of the handicapped ramp and the new HVAC units. 7. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. #CU-14-04 & #SP-14-17 6 Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking- yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. NEW GROUND MOUNTEDHVAC UNITSDUCTWORK TO NEWBUILDINGNEW ADA ACCESSIBLEENTRY RAMP2014.04.18MKDMAV SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTREVISIONSLOT COVERAGE (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)SURVEY NOTESTOPOGRAPHIC AND SURVEY INFORMATION HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM THE FOLLOWINGRESOURCES:1) "EXISTING SITE PLAN-RICE HIGH SCHOOL" PREPARED BY THERMO CONSULTINGENGINEERS, APRIL, 1993.2) "PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS-RICE HIGH SCHOOL" PREPARED BY FORCIERALDRICH & ASSOCIATES, LAST REVISED 3/31/96.3) "BURLINGTON CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL-PLOT PLAN" PREPARED BY FREEMANFRENCH FREEMAN ARCHITECTS, DATE UNCLEAR.4) GOOGLE EARTH IMAGERY DATED 5/19/20125) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON LOCALIZED BENCHMARK.6) IRRIGATION LINES AND SECONDARY UNDERGROUND POWER LINES ARE NOT SHOWN.7) UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIESLOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO PROJECT PROPERTY. EXISTING UTILITIY INFORMATIONARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS(IF ANY). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (1-800-225-4977) A MINIMUMOF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL NOTES15 MARINER HEIGHTSCOLCHESTER VT 05546(802) 777-9601FCEVT.COM3 AD #3 - 3/14/142014-04-29FOR ZONING 2014.04.29MAVMKD NEW ADA ACCESSIBLEENTRY RAMP2014.04.29MAVMKD 2014.04.29MAVMKD CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenM ountainDrive_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 13, 2014 Application received: May 2, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-16 THE SNYDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC – 25-27 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE Agenda # 5 Meeting Date: June 17, 2014 Applicant The Snyder Construction Company, LLC 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Contact Person Andrew Rowe Lamoreux & Dickinson Engineers 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 Owners The Stonehenge Investment Corporation, Inc. 1 Lawson Lane Burlington, VT 05402 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenMountainDrive_sketch PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-16 of The Snyder Construction Company, LLC for a planned unit development on two (2) parcels totaling 13.25 acres with lot #1 developed with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1) resubdividing lot #1 to increase its size to 10.33 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #2 to 2.92 acres, and 3) developing lot #2 with a four (4) story 60 unit multi- family dwelling, 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Lee Krohn, AICP. Planner Temporary Assistant, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 2, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Lot #1 Proposed Lot #2  Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit residential, 40,000 sq. ft. other 9.55 ac/3.70 ac 10.33 acres 2.92 acres*  Max. Building Coverage 40% 4%/0% 4% 19%  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 23%/16% 28% 48%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. >50 ft. No change >50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. No change >10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change 47 ft.  Max. Building Height 40ft. (pitched roof) unknown No change 52 ft.  Zoning compliance  Requires a height waiver of 12 feet *In C2, up to seven housing units per acre are permitted. The City does not allocate land area/development density for commercial buildings, and as a PUD, the entire 13.25 acres are allocable toward the residential density. This would allow a theoretical maximum of 92.75 dwelling units; 60 are proposed, well under that limit. The sketch plan shows the type of basic detail anticipated at sketch plan review: enough to gain a general sense of the development proposed, but simple enough to keep the applicant’s cost down at this preliminary stage of project design. The boundary between lots 1 and 2 would be adjusted slightly, apparently to keep new/proposed parking on the sites it serves. As noted, the site is still considered one lot for purposes of PUD review and development density. The access drive serving the existing office building would be retained and used for both properties. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenMountainDrive_sketch Density As noted above, the 13.25 acres of land in the PUD yields a maximum of 92.75 housing units; 60 are proposed. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. The proposed development is an “in-fill” type of development, it is making efficient use of the land which is currently being used for parking and some undeveloped land, it is a mixed-use development which includes a shared parking arrangement, and provides a coordinated access with the adjacent office building. 1. The Board should discuss whether this criterion is being met. B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. The lot onto which this new building will be constructed does not have frontage on a public street, it will be served by a private right-of-way from Green Mountain Drive. The Public Works Director reviewed this access and found it to be acceptable. No new public street is recommended. C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. The existing private drive serving the existing office building will be shared with the new residential building; a new spur drive leads to that new building. Parking would be both new and revised to be shared between these lots and uses. The applicant has provided information calculating the legal requirements for parking under the LDRs for both uses; a shared parking analysis showing a reduced requirement based upon information from the Urban Land Institute; and then requests a further CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenMountainDrive_sketch reduction/waiver as authorized in the LDRs. The basics are as follows: Required parking per LDRs: 135 spaces for 60 dwelling units + 170 spaces for 48,578 sq. ft. of office space = 305 parking spaces Shared parking analysis: indicates a maximum need for 273 parking spaces Waiver requested: sketch plan proposal = 225 parking spaces (said to be a 25% waiver, but is actually 17.6% lower than the shared parking analysis suggests, and 26.2% lower than the LDR requirement). Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. This does not appear to apply here. 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. (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. No parking proposed to the front of the building. (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. There are other similarly large and tall structures in the vicinity. The applicant is seeking a 12 ft. height waiver from the 40 ft. height limit. 2. The Board should discuss this issue and determine whether this building would be compatible. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenMountainDrive_sketch alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Any subsequent utility plans submitted must clarify this. 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. To be considered and reviewed in subsequent reviews; no architectural elevations are yet submitted. 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. Easements are proposed for pedestrian access and utilities; 3. The Board should discuss whether more substantial easements or reserved areas are appropriate or necessary. A new sidewalk is proposed following along the existing access drive, the new spur drive serving the residential building, and also connecting to an existing sidewalk in front of the office building. It is suggested that the Board consider the route and utility of this new sidewalk, as well as further connectivity leading down Green Mountain Drive toward Shelburne Road. 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. Not typically shown or considered at sketch plan review. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenMountainDrive_sketch More detailed plans must be submitted for preliminary/final plat review. 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 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. As noted above, one modification requested is a height waiver of 12 feet. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Other than the site-related details described herein, there are likely no changes that would alter any prior decision that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_16_StonehengeInvestmentCorp_25_27GreenMountainDrive_sketch As noted in prior cases, some of these standards simply must be met; others are more subjective and will require more in depth analysis and review in preliminary and final plat review. The clear purpose of sketch plan review is to offer clarity and guidance to an applicant as to the likely approvability of a proposed project, and to identify any stumbling blocks and/or improvements needed at this preliminary stage of project design. All of these PUD standards should be addressed by the applicant, at least in general terms, if the Board is to be able to offer helpful guidance. The application materials are for this site only, and offer no neighborhood context by which to consider these issues (especially the proposed height waiver, and its relationship in scale to surrounding properties). It is also worth considering whether a part of the greenspace around the residential building be set aside for and actually designed for the use and enjoyment of the residents. This could include amenities such as a community garden, dog park, barbecue/picnic area, gazebo, and playground. With 60 dwelling units, at least some of these would certainly be practical and useful additions to the property; of low cost, yet high value. 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. Any subsequent, preliminary plat plans submitted should demonstrate compliance with these standards. Significant, new impervious area is being added in both building and parking. Although no stormwater plans are shown at this time, this matter is worth exploring with the applicant in at least a general sense at this early stage. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Andy Rowe 12spaces13spaces22spacesPROPOSED 60 UNIT BUILDINGPROPOSEDNEWPARKINGSPACESEXISTINGBUILDING15'PEDESTRIANEASEMENT10'SIDESETBACK30'REARSETBACKPROPERTYLINE(TYP)PROPOSEDSUBDIVISIONLINE30'77'42'PROPOSEDNEWDRIVEPROPOSEDNEWSIDEWALKPROPOSEDNEWSIDEWALKEXISTING PROPERTY LINE GREENMOUNTAINDRIVENEW PROPERTY LINE THEHERITAGEAUTOMOTIVEGROUP,INC.ROBERTBERMAN,LLCUNIVERSITYOFVERMONTCITYOFSOUTHBURLINGTONLARKINNS,LPKURTV.&LAURAREICHELT,TRUSTEESMDTPARTNERSHIP,LLP259.5'PROPOSEDNEWSIDEWALK320.4'599.7'179.9'160.5'292.0'PROPOSEDSHAREDACCESSDRIVE&EASEMENTSK25 & 27 Green Mountain DriveSouth Burlington, VermontDateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14MorseDrive,Essex,VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.comDate RevisionByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal LocalReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing------SKETCH PLAN OFPOSSIBLE RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT14001OTHERSDJG1/10/14AS SHOWNABRDJG1inch=50ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE50 0 25 50 100 2004.4.14ADDED NEW PROPERTY LINE & SIDEWALKSDJGLANDOWNERTHE STONEHENGE INVESTMENTCORPORATION, INC.1 LAWSON LANEBURLINGTON, VT 05401APPLICANTTHE SNYDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC4076SHELBURNEROAD,SUITE6SHELBURNE, VT 05482ZONING DISTRICT COMMERCIAL 2 (C2)OVERLAY DISTRICT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTPARCEL ID 0720-00025 (25 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE)0720-00027 (27 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE)PARCEL AREA 9.55 ACRES (25 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE)(EXISTING) 3.70 ACRES (27 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE)PARCEL AREA 10.33 ACRES (25 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE)(PROPOSED) 2.92 ACRES (27 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE)BUILDING COVERAGE 40% MAXIMUMLOT COVERAGE 70% MAXIMUMMINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT YARD 30 FEETSIDE YARD 10 FEETREAR YARD 30 FEETBUILDING HEIGHT 40 FT MAXIMUM FOR PITCHED ROOF(WAIVER REQUESTED)WATER & SEWER EXISTING MUNICIPAL SERVICESPROJECT STATISTICSLOCATION MAPN.T.S.U.S.ROUTE7SHELBURNEROADBARTLETTBAYROADGREENMOUNTAINDRPROJECT SITELAKE CHAMPLAINSHELBURNEHARBORVIEWROADINSTITUTIONAL&AGRICULTURAL-SOUTHCOMMERCIAL2PARK&RECREATIONCOMMERCIAL2LOT 1FRONT YARD COVERAGEEXISTING = 11%PROPOSED = 11%BUILDING COVERAGEEXISTING = 4%PROPOSED = 4%TOTAL LOT COVERAGEEXISTING = 23%PROPOSED = 23%LOT 2BUILDING COVERAGEEXISTING = 0%PROPOSED = 19%TOTAL LOT COVERAGEEXISTING = 16%PROPOSED = 39%LOT COVERAGE(BASED UPON PROPOSED LOT AREAS)6.10.14REDUCE PROPOSED PARKING, ADJUST BLDG FOOTPRINTABR 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive Proposed Parking Summary June 10, 2014 Parking REQUIRED Per Land Development Regulations Residential / Multi-family 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 space/4 units (garage spaces assigned) 135 spaces required (60 units x 2) Commercial / Office 3.5 spaces per 1000 sf GFA 170 spaces required (48,578 sf x 3.5 spaces/1000 sf) TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 305 spaces Parking PROPOSED on Sketch Plan Residential / Multi-family 58 garage spaces 47 surface spaces 105 spaces TOTAL (1.75 spaces per dwelling unit) Commercial / Office 120 spaces (2.5 spaces per 1000 sf GFA) TOTAL PARKING PROPOSED = 225 spaces Shared parking calculation requires a maximum of 273 spaces (see attached) 25% parking reduction waiver requested per Section 13.01.N.(2) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CHRIS CONNER – 54 BARTLETT BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-14-05 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner to raze an existing single family dwelling with a footprint of 2004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 17, 2014. The owners were represented by Chris Conner. 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, Chris Conner, seeks conditional use approval to raze an existing single family dwelling with a footprint of 2004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3004 sq. ft., 54 Bartlett Bay Road. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Michael Metz and Denise Shekerjian. 3. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District 4. The application was received on May 8, 2014. 5. The plans submitted consist of a five (5) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, “Proposed Improvements 54 Bartlett Bay Road South Burlington Vermont”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated March 26, 2012. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Chris Conner seeks conditional use approval on behalf of landowners Shekerjian and Metz to raze an existing single family dwelling with a footprint of 2004 sq. ft. and construct a new single family dwelling with a footprint of 3004 sq. ft. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner_ffd.doc Table 1. 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%  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 ? 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 hearing stated that the existing structure meets this criterion. 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 50% larger than the existing home, which does not exceed the 50% maximum possible expansion. This criterion is satisfied. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner_ffd.doc 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. The site plan indicates that one (1) mature tree (species unknown) will be removed and will not be replaced. All other trees on the property are proposed to be preserved and maintained. Staff feels that the proposed landscaping plan likely does not meet the criteria above, and is lacking sufficient information to satisfy the standards. Staff has the following comments:  The application does not explain the need to remove the existing mature tree on the site.  There appears to be a reduction in the visual buffer for the lake provided by the trees and no steps to “supplement” existing trees.  The site plan does not appear to indicate the existence – or proposal for – any ground cover vegetation other than existing trees and grass. Vegetative buffers are an important element of water quality. In order to fully assess Staff recommends that the Board seek information regarding the need to remove the one (1) tree on the property and details of the species, size (dbh), health, and the need for removal of the one (1) tree. 1. The Board should discuss the landscaping plan and determine whether the criteria are being met with the applicant. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner_ffd.doc The Board finds the proposed project consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood 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. The new home intrudes no further into the water protection buffer area. This criterion is 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 (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. (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. (e) Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (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. (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner_ffd.doc 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. (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. (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro-electric power generation 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. DECISION Motion by ________, seconded by ________, to approve conditional use application #CU-14-05 of Chris Conner, 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. 4. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons -- yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith -- yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_05_54BartlettBayRoad_Conner_ffd.doc Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. #SP-14-18 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT – 2 BALDWIN AVENUE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-14-18 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION The South Burlington School District, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, seeks approval to amend a previously approved plan for an educational facility. The amendment consists of designating temporary vehicle storage on the property for the abutting Shearer Volkswagen use until August 15, 2014, 2 Baldwin Avenue. 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 to amend a previously approved plan for an educational facility. The amendment consists of designating temporary vehicle storage on the property for the abutting Shearer Volkswagen use until August 15, 2014, 2 Baldwin Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the South Burlington School District. 3. The subject property is located in the Municipal Zoning District. 4. The application was received on May 12, 2014. 5. The plan submitted consist of a one-page plan entitled, “Orchard School Playground Improvements Baldwin Ave. South Burlington, Vermont”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated May, 2011. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. Building coverage exists at 10.2% (40% is maximum). Overall coverage remains the same at 27.1% (70% is maximum). There are no changes to the site plan. 7. Building setbacks are existing; there are no changes to the site plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Vehicular access 8. Access is provided via a curb cut off of Baldwin Avenue. No changes are proposed. Circulation 9. Circulation on the site is adequate. There are no changes to the site plan. #SP-14-18 - 2 - Parking 10. No changes to parking are proposed. 11. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G) (5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle parking shall be provided on the subject property. A bicycle rack is shown on the plan. 12. Pursuant to Section 13.01(B) of the Land Development Regulations, internal landscaping of the parking area does not apply to this application. Landscaping 13. There are no landscaping changes as part of this application. 14. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (7) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plan. The plan does not show snow storage area(s). Outdoor Lighting 15. There are no changes proposed to outdoor lighting. Pursuant to Sections 14.06 and 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations, the following review standards shall apply to site plan applications: Traffic 16. Traffic will not be affected as a result of this application. (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objects set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 17. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage development while protecting natural resources and promoting a healthy and safe environment. Using an existing parking lot for vehicle storage should not affect this criterion. (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. 18. The building exists, and no changes are proposed to the building or site. (c)Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. 19. This site has pre-existing parking areas and structures. No changes are proposed. (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. #SP-14-18 - 3 - 20. The building exists and no changes are proposed. (e) Newly installed utility service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 21. There are no changes in utility services. (f) The combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings or different architectural styles shall be encouraged. 22. The building exists and no changes are proposed. (g) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. 22. The building exists and no changes are proposed. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (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. 23. 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. 24. As noted above, there are no changes to utility services. (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). 25. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C) (1) of the Land Development Regulations, screened dumpster locations must be shown on the plans. Existing dumpsters are shown on the plan; there is no indication whether they are screened. The plan shown show that the dumpsters are screened. #SP-14-18 - 4 - DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve site plan application #SP-14-18 of the South Burlington School District, subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The plan shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plan shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The plan shall be revised to show the snow storage area(s). b. The plan shall be revised to clarify that the dumpsters are screened as required. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the parking lot for vehicle storage. 6. This approval for temporary storage shall expire on August 15, 2014. 7. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking- yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed #SP-14-18 - 5 - 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. TemporaryVehicleStorage5/1/14 Added temporaryvehicle storage #SD-14-17 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING WEDGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP. – 232 AUTUMN HILL ROAD PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Wedgewood Development Corp., hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary and final plat approval for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six, two- family dwellings, and 2) three (3) single family lots, 232 Autumn Hill Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 17, 2014. David Burke 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 applicant is requesting preliminary and final plat approval for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six, two-family dwellings, and 2) three (3) single family lots, 232 Autumn Hill Road. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Jeffrey and Elizabeth Goldberg. 3. The application was received on May 23, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the SEQ Zoning District- NRT and NRP Sub-districts. 5. The plans submitted consists of an nine (9) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, “Goldberg Parcel Dorset Street South Burlington”, prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated 3/17/2014. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements SEQ-NRT Zoning District Requirement/Limitation Proposed  Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF Units 1-12= Common land Lot 2= .99 acres Lot 3= .97 acres  Max. Density 1.2 units/acre base density 1.2/acre  Max. Building Coverage 15% 6.0%  Max. Total Coverage 30% 12.3%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft./50 ft. 25 ft.**  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. #SD-14-17 2  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft.  zoning compliance The subject property is located in two sub-districts of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District: the Neighborhood Residential Transition (NRT) and Natural Resource Protection (NRP) zones. The applicant is proposing to create lot lines around the individual duplex units. This action would create non-conforming lots and therefore will not be considered twelve (12) lots for LDR purposes. For LDR purposes, the twelve (12) footprint lots included in this proposal shall not be considered individual lots. 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. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The standards for this criterion are found below in a review of the regulations of the Southeast Quadrant. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The proposed subdivision of this property is in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub- district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. (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. #SD-14-17 3 Buildings are proposed as part of this application. The DRB shall ensure that this criterion is met when reviewing the elevations. The applicant has indicated that the buildings will remain below the height limitations of the district. 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 layout of the proposed subdivision provides for open areas to be located between the western private drive and the eastern portion of the public road. Most of this land is a class II wetland and therefore will be not be usable. Given the size of the project, at 15 units, it is unclear if improved (ie- delineated fields, courts, or playgrounds) park areas would be appropriate. The Board previously recommended that the open area located between units labeled 1-6 and Dorset Street be set aside as common land for the PUD and that it be maintained as useable open space (ie, mowed during the summer). The plans have been revised to denote “common lands to be maintained for passive recreation including common Gardening Areas”. The City Attorney should review the association documents for compliance prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the property. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The Board finds the proposed development to be partially consistent with the regulating plan. The street, block and lot pattern provides pedestrian-scaled development; sidewalks along the public road allow for direct walking and bicycling trips to the best of their ability, with consideration given to the wetlands which divide the site. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. The proposed development essentially consists of three pods- the western duplexes, eastern duplexes, and the three single family lots. Open spaces and natural areas on the site exist within the significant wetlands and watercourse buffers on the site; a mature tree line exists along the northerly property boundary and between the eastern duplexes and single family house lots. (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. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. #SD-14-17 4 The applicant has submitted a grading and erosion control details for the construction of the road and buildings. The Public Works Department, has confirmed to staff that they have no issues with this project as it is essentially the same as was approved in 2010. (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. The subject property contains identified Class II wetlands. While the buildings avoid contact with the wetlands, there is proposed grading and stormwater infrastructure within the buffers. The public road also crosses the wetland. Furthermore, the SBLDRs require that an applicant obtain a Conditional Use Determination prior to impact of any Class II wetland or buffers. The applicant received this, as noted in the Notice of Issuance of Conditional Use Determination #2010-007 but this permit has expired and the applicant has reapplied for this permit from ANR. The Board will condition this approval on the condition that the applicant obtain the necessary permit from ANR to encroach into the class II wetland and buffer. Finally, the wetland buffers located very close to units labeled as 7 and 8 shall be ground-delineated so as to reduce impact by residents of those units. The applicant is proposing a line of planted cedars along the easterly edge of the storm channel to provide a visual and physical barrier between what is to be the grassed common areas and the more sensitive wetland buffer. In addition, the applicant is proposing six (6) post mounted birdhouses at 50 ft. intervals. The Board requires additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. 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. This criterion is not applicable to this application. 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 #SD-14-17 5 evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The City of South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the plans and has provided multiple sets of comments. The last memo, dated April 19, 2010 states that no plan changes are necessary. The applicant has received preliminary wastewater allocation. The applicant should seek final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the property. (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. The applicant is proposing a 26 foot wide public road off of Dorset Street. The public road is designed in a manner that would lend to a connection to the south. While the road only serves 6 units, a number generally allowed for a private drive, Section 15.12(D)(4) of the SBLDR also states that a public roadway shall be required if “the proposed roadway will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining property.” It is very likely that this roadway will connect to the property to the south and therefore should be a public roadway. The plans depict a hammerhead turn-around to the southerly property line and a right-of-way from Windswept Lane to Autumn Hill Road for a possible future connection. Section 9.08B states that “sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ-VC and SEQ-VR sub-districts.” The proposed road is wide enough to accommodate on-road parking. Unless otherwise dictated by the City Council, the road shall permit on-street parking. The applicant is proposing to access the duplex units in the western portion via a 20 foot wide dead end private drive off of the public road, and a 20 foot private drive to serve the two single family units. The applicant is proposing to include a 5 foot wide paved pathway on the westerly side of Black Dog Drive which will connect to the recreation path along Dorset Street. The sidewalk along Windswept Lane extends to the end of the street. The westernmost private drive is not designed in a manner to connect with the property to the south. The Board finds this acceptable given the presence of wetlands to the immediate south. A recreation path has already been completed along the Dorset Street perimeter of the property, in the road right of way. (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. #SD-14-17 6 A 10 foot wide non-motorized pedestrian access easement is proposed to extend from the right-of- way connecting to Autumn Hill Road to the east to the easterly property line. This easement may not be utilized until easements are obtained on the abutting properties. (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. The City of South Burlington Fire Department has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a letter dated April 19, 2010. The applicant has since met with the Fire Chief. Items 5 and 6 were addressed in revised plans from the applicant. The regulations, SBLDR Section 15.12(D)(3)(f), which reference the requirement of residential sprinkler systems specifically state that they shall be required for “the homes built on a private roadway” to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. The two homes on the private lots are accessed via a driveway, and not what constitutes a roadway under the definitions of the SBLDR or the State E-911 standards. Confirmation on the above is being sought from the Fire Chief and will be provided at the meeting. 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. The Board has reviewed the proposed curb cut to the property. Previous attempts have been made to use the existing Autumn Hill Road to the north as the access to the property; however, the applicant and the Board have found this to be impossible, per a previous decision by the environmental court. The proposed access will suffice. However, should the property to the north be developed at any time, it shall utilize the new public road, referred to herein as Windswept Lane. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The Board has already discussed this issue at length. The property to the south, should it be developed, shall be served by a public road which will also serve units labeled 7-12 on the site plan. The property to the north, should it be developed, shall be served by a shared public road labeled as Windswept Lane on the site plan. (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 proposed public road is proposed to be 26 feet wide. This meets the standards set forth in Table 9-4, Street Design Criteria for Local Streets in the SEQ-VR zoning district. #SD-14-17 7 Again, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the plans. The Planning Commission has approved all proposed street names; addresses are included on the plans. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. There is no development blocks proposed in this application. The Board finds this sufficient given the relatively small size of the subdivision. (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) 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 westernmost drive shall not be connected to future parcels. The easternmost drive will likely connect. To avoid confusion for residents in the proposed units, covenants or deeds shall be drafted to indicate that the road will likely be continued. Generally, the regulations require that the roadways be constructed to the property line in cases where they may be continued across parcels. The applicant and staff have discussed this matter and agree that paving to the property line at this time will not be feasible as it requires construction vehicles to trespass on the abutting property. The applicant has offered to pave the road to within 10 feet of the property boundary but continue the ROW to the property boundary. This should be sufficient to allow the connection at such time as development occurs on the property to the south. (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 has already commented on this matter. #SD-14-17 8 (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 single family lots meet this requirement; all other land is common. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR 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 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. (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. Furthermore, in accordance with the pedestrian-scaled development standards, and Figure 9-7 of the SBLDR, there shall be walkways connecting the residential units to the street or sidewalk. The plans show these walkways. This is a specific requirement of the Southeast Quadrant with respect to design criteria and should be followed. (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 tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The applicant has proposed a street tree planting plan. It has been reviewed to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. (4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). The Board has already commented on this issue. No on-street parking is proposed but is allowed. (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. Four (4) Street lights are proposed. #SD-14-17 9 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 windows and surfaces shall be oriented to the south. It appears that this criterion is being met based on the buildings shown on the site plan with the exception of 35% of the translucent windows and surfaces being oriented to the south. The Board will not be requiring that this standard be met due to the north-south orientation of the streets serving the property resulting in the ends of the buildings facing south which makes it impractical to meet this standard. (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 applicant has submitted building elevations for the proposal. They have stated that the drawings depict three different gable styles, as well as notes that the singles will be three different colors, and finally that there will be four different colors used in siding. The Board finds that this adequately meets the intent of this criterion. (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. The plans show the sidewalk continuing across the front of several units. The plans include a paved path along the private road. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. (5) 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. Based upon the building elevations are submitted, this criterion is being met. The applicant has not submitted any elevations for the single family homes; they shall comply with the stipulations herein with respect to design elements. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed #SD-14-17 10 within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical units. The applicant is proposing 2 single family dwellings (carriage homes) and 6 duplexes (12 units). The Board finds this sufficient to meet this criterion for this property. This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 15.18(B). The Board finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all provisions of this section. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure. Parking on site is sufficient as all units have garages and ample driveway space. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed parking is to the front of the proposed buildings. Given the projects status as single family and duplex residential, this is in keeping with historical design. The Board finds it acceptable. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The heights of the proposed buildings are within the limitations of the district. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. In addition, the 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. #SD-14-17 11 The Board has addressed this as part of the specific SEQ design review. See notes above for concerns and necessary changes. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board has discussed this above in this report. 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. 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). No dumpsters are proposed. Landscaping and Screening Requirements The minimum landscaping budget shall be in accordance with Sections 13.06(F) and 13.06(G) and based on the value of the construction costs for the duplex units. Based on the projected costs of $2.1 million, a minimum of $28,500 in landscaping shall be provided on site. The applicant is meeting the landscaping requirements and the arborist has stated that he has no further comments. The value of the street trees being proposed is $39,465. DECISION Motion by ____________, seconded by ___________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-14-17 of Wedgewood Development Corp., 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 plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Four (4) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. The survey plat shall be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. #SD-14-17 12 4. No signs are approved, denied, or otherwise considered as part of this application. 5. The open space area to the front of units labeled 1-6 shall be maintained as common land. The space shall be maintained in summer months for useable passive recreation. The City Attorney shall review the association documents to ensure that they clearly designate maintenance requirements to the association members, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the site. 6. The plans show a scalloped line indicating those portions of the mature lines of trees that will remain. This line shall be maintained. No cutting or thinning of trees shall be permitted within this area. 7. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 8. There shall be no use of pesticides or non-organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 9. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 10. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocation from the Director of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a building. 11. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 12. The applicant shall provide association documents which prohibit the parking of RVs on site prior to permit issuance for the first building. 13. The parking/storage of recreational vehicles within the project site shall be prohibited. 14. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Water Department dated 4/19/2010. 15. The applicant shall provide covenants or association language that indicates that the public road and sidewalk are likely to connect to abutting properties to the north and south, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. 16. The single family homes shall meet the design standards of the SEQ zoning district, including setbacks of garages, variations in façade, and orientation to the street with the exception of meeting the standard that a minimum of 35% of translucent windows and surfaces be oriented to the south. #SD-14-17 13 17. The applicant shall adhere to the comments of the South Burlington Director of Public Works/City Engineer, dated April 5, 2010. 18. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded, and otherwise comply with Section 13.07 of the SBLDR. 19. In accordance with Section 15.14 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g. roads, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.) the developer shall submit to the City Engineer, “as built” construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer. 20. Street trees must be in place along the street prior to adding the final layer of the pavement. 21. The mylar shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 22. The applicant shall construct the duplex buildings using at least: 1) three (3) different gable styles, 2) three (3) different colors for the roof shingles, and 3) three (3) different colors for the siding. 23. The applicant shall post a $39,465 landscaping bond for the street trees prior to issuance of the zoning permit for road construction and a $28,500 landscaping bond for site landscaping prior to issuance of the first permit for the first building. These bonds shall remain in full effect for three (3) years from planting to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 24. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Title showing the ownership of all property and easements to be dedicated or acquired by the City to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the mylar. 25. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building or start of utility or road construction, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public road, and utility, sewer, water, recreation path, etc.) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington land records. 26. Prior to the recording of the final plat plan, the applicant shall record the appropriate legal document, approved by the City Attorney, to dissolve the existing recreation path along Dorset Street. 27. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit for the first building within six (6) months of this approval. The Development Review Board grants a period of five (5) years for approval of the remainder of the buildings. At such time as the five years is reached and the applicant has not sought a zoning permit for the remainder of the buildings, they shall be eligible, per Section 17.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, for one (1) extension to an approval if the application takes place before the approval has expired and if the Development Review Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the #SD-14-17 14 time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Development Review Board may specify a period of time up to one (1) year for the extension. 28. Prior to start of construction of the improvements described in condition #26 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. 29. Prior to recording the final plat plans, the applicant shall submit a “Notice of Conditions” for review and approval by the City Attorney which shall be recorded in the land records indicating that for LDR purposes, the footprint lots do not exist. 30. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 31. 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. 32. The final plat plans (sheet 1 and subdivision plat) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 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 ___-___-___ 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. #SD-14-17 15 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 MAY 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 May 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Bell, L. Murphy, B. Bouchard, R. Jeffers 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt noted it has been tradition for the DRB not to meet on National Night Out which is 5 August this year. Members agreed not to meet on that night. 2. Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-13 of Halverson Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft., 275 seat, standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of razing the 275 seat restaurant building and constructing a 9,200 sq. ft. retail & restaurant building, 1 Dorset Street: Ms. Bell said they have overcome several obstacles. She showed a plan of the entire property with the existing building and the lease line of the property under consideration. There are currently 80 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to bring one building forward to front on Williston Road and another to front on Dorset Street. The former would be for the restaurant; the other would be retail. A front yard setback waiver is being requested from 50 feet to 10 feet for both buildings. This will allow connection to sidewalks on both streets. There is also a request for a waiver for the percentage of impervious coverage from the required 30%. Existing coverage is 54.9% from Dorset Street and they are asking for 55%; existing coverage on Williston Rd. was 89% and they are asking for 97%. The restaurant will have an outdoor seating component. There will be 72 parking spaces, which is the required number. Ms. Bell showed the proposed location of the dumpster which will be sized to accommodate composting The stormwater plan has been reviewed by Tom DiPietro and by the Agency of Natural Resources. Ms. Bell showed the location of the 2 stormwater facilities. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 20 MAY 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Behr asked if there is any way to give up a few parking spaces to create a “plaza” between the 2 buildings so pedestrians will not have to mingle with cars moving in the parking lot. Ms. Bell said they will look at that possibility. No other issues were raised. 3. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 & Preliminary Plat Application #SD- 11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two 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. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51 to 15 July 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #SP-14-09 of 372 Dorset, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,202 sq. ft. building used for radio and television studio use. The amendment consists of converting the building to general office use, 372 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had failed to display the required placard and suggested continuing the application to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-09 to 3 June 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 5-story, 63 unit, multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bouchard said the parcel is located in the C-2 District, just south of Willy Racine’s Jeep. There is a large swale over most of the property resulting in only 4.5 usable acres. The proposal is to build a 4-story, 63 unit project on the back of the lot. These would be rental units. 131 parking spaces are proposed. The building would have a basement with laundry, lounge, storage, and an indoor pool. They are requesting a height waiver from 35 feet to 48 feet, 6 feet of which is for the elevator penthouse. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 20 MAY 2014, PAGE 3 Mr. Bouchard said they will build the entry road to city standards and will provide an offer of dedication to the city. Mr. Belair suggested that the city would not take possession of the road until it can be connected to Green Mountain Drive in the future. The road will operate as a private road until then. Mr. Bouchard asked if they could possibly reduce parking by about 12- 15 spaces so the people exiting from the parking will not be exiting onto what will become a road. Members had no issues with the height waiver as the building is not different from those around it. Mr. Bouchard said they are proposing a natural trail over the brook. He showed the concept of this. They will have to talk to the state about it. Mr. Belair said staff is suggesting an area for a dog-run. Mr. Bouchard said they can do that. Mr. Parsons asked if the wooded area will be kept intact. Mr. Bouchard said it will. Ms. Smith asked if there is any idea of what might go in the one acre. Mr. Bouchard said possibly a convenience store or some other retail. Mr. Belair noted there can be no new gas station within 1000 feet of an existing station. Mr. Bouchard said he thought they meet that requirement. Mr. Barritt wasn’t sure people in the apartments would like looking out on a gas station. Mr. Bouchard questioned the possibility of a turn lane on Rt. 7 as you come north. Mr. Belair said that is a state issue. Mr. Bouchard said they will talk with the state as it seems like a good idea. Mr. Bouchard said the building will be wood-framed, probably with balconies. They will present a rendering at the preliminary hearing. No other issues were raised. 6. Master Plan Application #MP-14-01 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved master plan for a multi-phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of specifying that for the approval of footprint lots for two-unit and three-unit multi-family dwellings the only review necessary would be final plat review, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers noted that the Master Plan contains many triplex lots which they convey to builders as a “chunk.” When they’re built, many have a big or small yard which changes the lot. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 20 MAY 2014, PAGE 4 Belair noted the developer doesn’t know where the building will be until the foundation is in. This change would eliminate an unnecessary process. Ms. Jeffers showed how the process happened in the past with a multi-faceted review. Mr. Belair said the land records will indicate lot lines would not be recognized by the LDRs but are there only for financing purposes. He added that he has no authority to do this administratively. The applicant reviewed a draft decision and was OK with it. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 15 April and 6 May 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 15 April (with the spelling of a name corrected) and 6 May 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: Mr. Belair gave members information on a planning workshop for which the city would pay the entry fee for any interested Board members to attend. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. _________________________________, Clerk _________________________________, Date