Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 03/18/2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 March 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Burke, J. Caffrey, J. & E. Bradley, P. Sheppard, P. Brogna, T. Sheppard 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt noted there will be two vacancies on the Board at the end of the fiscal year. Interested persons can submit their names to the City Manager. 2. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-02 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development on parcel “F” of the Highlands Development subdivision consisting of: 1) seven single family dwellings, and 2) two 2‐ family dwellings, Dorset Street and Foulsham Hollow Road: Mr. Burke noted that all the housing on the west side is completed. This is on the east side where it abuts the 18th green of the golf course. A public road will enter off Foulsham Hollow Road. Mr. Burke showed this location and the location of two exits into Vermont National Golf Course. He noted that Foulsham Hollow Road has not yet been accepted by the city but the anticipation is that this will happen soon. The single family homes will be custom homes on individual lots. In reviewing staff notes, Mr. Burke noted that the 11 units are based on an amended Master Plan resulting from a lawsuit. He also noted that one of the duplexes requires an 8.5 foot waiver from the 50-foot setback. Mr. Burke showed an area where they would like to put in more vegetation. Regarding the cu-de-sac, Mr. Burke showed the temporary road that would have to be removed. The applicant asked for feedback on the street layout. He noted that lots 2 and 3 have less than 12,000 sq. ft., and this will also require a waiver. Mr. Burke said they feel that increasing the lot size would make the lots a less attractive shape. Mr. Burke then showed two wetland areas and the 50-foot setback area from the wetland. This allows for nice backyards. They agree that delineation of the wetland setback is needed, but they haven’t yet decided how to do this and are open to DRB preferences. Mr. Burke noted this parcel is subject to the 2003 regulations. It may be easier to get a waiver under the more current regulations. He felt that with appropriate landscaping, the waiver should be allowed. Mr. Belair read from the regulations regarding allowing development in restricted areas. This can occur if the DRB agrees that the development is consistent with the plan for the area. Mr. Burke noted that in the past, the aim was to push things as far back from Dorset Street as possible; now it is the opposite. There are no density, setback or coverage issues. The applicant will get input from the Fire and Public Works Departments. Mr. Barritt read from the legal settlement document regarding the applicant providing the missing piece of sidewalk. Mr. Burke said they will meet with Public Works regarding a “hammerhead” vs. a cul‐de‐sac. He noted that the cu‐de‐sac is shown as it was in 2005. Other designs, including one with a center island, are possible. He was not sure a hammerhead would work here. Mr. Behr said he was not opposed to the 11 units or to the proximity to Dorset St. He expressed concern that the cul-de-sac was very close to Dorset Street. Mr. Barritt suggested some berming to deflect road noise. He was comfortable with the setback. Members had no issues with the setback, number of units, or smaller lot size. 3. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1)razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to May. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51 to 20 May 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-13-36 of Elizabeth & Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road: Mr. Barritt noted the DRB had asked for a technical review on traffic. The review found that traffic counts were within the capacity of the 12.42 limit. The applicant can now proceed to preliminary and final plats. 5. Continued site plan application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association , Inc., for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five White Pine trees and replacement with six Easter White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle: Mr. Caffrey, President of the Owners Association, noted that their arborist and the city’s arborist agree on the White Cedars on a smaller footprint. There has been no negative feedback from residents. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-02 of Hillview Design Collaborative, LLP, to: 1) demolish the single family dwelling at 3 Cedar Curt, 2) construct a 1,201 sq. ft. addition to the existing 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 88 Central Avenue, 3) create a 431 sq. ft. accessory residential unit in the expanded home, and 4) merge the two lots at 88 Central Avenue & 3 Cedar Court: Mr. Belair noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-14-02 until 1 April 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 18 February 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 18 February 2014 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Clerk May 6, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_02_FoulshamHollowDr_HighlandsDevelopment Company_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 14, 2014 Plans received: January 10, 2014 WEDGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD 14-02 Agenda #2 Meeting date: March 18, 2014 Owner Highlands Development Company, LLC c/o Jim McDonald PO Box 132 Lyndon Center, VT 05850 Applicant Wedgewood Development Corporation 41 Gauthier Drive, Suite 1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Contact Person David Burke O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0293-0000A Volume 428, Page 78 (Parcel F) SEQ – NR District 4.42 Acres PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-02 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development on parcel “F” of the Highlands Development subdivision consisting of: 1) seven (7) single family dwellings, and 2) two (2) two-family dwellings, Dorset Street & Foulsham Hollow Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_02_FoulshamHollowDr_HighlandsDevelopment Company_sketch COMMENTS Administrative Officer Raymond Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plan submitted on January 10, 2014 and offer the following comments. This is an application to develop a 4.42 acre parcel (“Parcel F”) across from the main entrance to Vermont National on Dorset Street. According to the cover letter submitted with this application, this land was originally approved for four single family homes, and subsequently received sketch plan approval for six (6) single family lots. Then, as part of a settlement agreement with the City (the JAM Golf appeal), “Parcel F was re-designated for 11 units on the master plan to offset the loss of units in other areas of the landowner”. This is the “clubhouse” lot discussed in that court settlement. Staff notes that the settlement refers to a Master Plan approval for up to 11 units. This sketch plan application seeks review for those 11 housing units, proposed as seven single family detached homes and two duplexes; these would be accessed by a new street off of Foulsham Hollow Road. Aside from any general discussion under sketch plan review, applicant seeks specific consideration of proposed waivers from the 50 foot front yard setback requirement along Dorset Street for one of the duplex buildings – an 8.5’ waiver for unit 8C, and a 14’ waiver for unit 8D (requested waivers appear to be reversed on the site plan). These intrusions into the front yard setback area are shown on the sketch plan. They appear to be within what had been designated as “restricted areas” in the 2003 LDRs (the bylaws which govern here per the court settlement); but as now, some latitude existed then for flexibility in that regard. The present proposed plan may also be consistent with the previously approved master plan, which should be confirmed in the hearing, along with any other preconditions (such as a land exchange) that were required before the master plan could take effect. Presuming these front yard setback waivers are deemed acceptable by the DRB, applicant also seeks guidance on the nature and extent of mitigation that may be required for these waivers in the form of landscaping and/or a berm, before investing in a landscape professional to create the detailed design required for any subsequent preliminary plat submittal. Apparently, similar requirements were imposed for prior housing developments along this stretch of Dorset Street. Although the settlement agreement states that the landowner may proceed directly to preliminary plat review, there are also other threshold events that must occur before any preliminary or final plat approval may be granted. These include the above-noted land swap with the City, a zoning change for part of the property, and Act 250 approval for certain aspects of the overall development described in the settlement. It is our understanding that not all of these have yet been achieved or completed. Perhaps this, in combination with the guidance sought on the setback waivers and landscaping/berm, is why the landowner has elected to first pursue sketch plan review even though it’s not legally required. Other issues to be considered here may include: Overall site design/layout. Consistency with the previously approved master plan for the overall PUD. Consistency with the settlement agreement that came out of the JAM Golf appeal. It would be prudent for us all to review in advance the agreement/settlement document between landowner and the City in order to understand the legal foundation for this proposal before us. We will include this as part of your packet for this meeting. Pages 1 – 26 include the agreement, various conditions, and the agreed upon CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_02_FoulshamHollowDr_HighlandsDevelopment Company_sketch Master Plan for all of the affected properties. Access: Foulsham Hollow Drive is a private road at this time. Landowner has been asked about, and should demonstrate to the Board, legal access to Dorset Street via Foulsham Hollow Road, currently a private road. It may also be worth discussing the penultimate timing of the City’s acceptance of this new street. Further, how does the DRB view roads ending in cul- de sacs? Typically, connectivity to adjoining land to create more of a grid network is desired, but to where would this spur road connect, except back out to Dorset Street? The regulations in 2003 regarding standards for roadways is below: 1. The Board should discuss whether the application adheres to the standard above. Development density: this parcel was approved in the court settlement for up to 11 homes; density has been calculated for the overall PUD, and not just independently on this 4+ acre parcel. As noted in the settlement, some of this density was transferred from other related lands. Lot sizes: lot #2 is shown at 105,850 sq ft, which must be a simple typo, as this lot is comparable in size to adjoining lots in the 11,000 – 16,000 sq ft range. Lot size, too, may relate to the court settlement, PUD design, and/or any former LDRs that may apply here; the current LDRs otherwise require a minimum lot size of 12,000 sq ft. All PUD standards will be considered in any subsequent preliminary plat review. Development is shown outside of the 50’ wetland buffer…as in prior cases, it’s worth discussing whether to require some form of delineation of the wetland or buffer, in order to avoid potentially harmful use of or intrusion into these areas. One key distinction here is that unlike other cases, where the wetland/buffers are common land, these are part of privately owned lots on this plan. This may change the dynamic of restriction on private use of private land, but does not change what may be appropriate or necessary to protect these natural resources. Should these wetlands/buffer areas become common land on this parcel? As noted above, the 2003 LDRs reference “restricted areas” where development was prohibited; this includes a lengthy swath of land along and parallel to Dorset Street. Based on the scale of the map in the LDRs, it is difficult to discern whether the proposed homes lie within or outside of that restricted area. That bylaw describes a process for Planning Commission determination of the restricted area boundary. If, for example, that restricted area is the 50’ setback area along Dorset Street, then that might affect the request for setback waivers for units 8C and 8D. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_02_FoulshamHollowDr_HighlandsDevelopment Company_sketch Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements – per 2003 LDRs SEQ – NR Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 12,000 sf/dwelling unit, max 1.2 units/acre 192,535.2 ft.2 Up to 11 units preapproved per court settlement Max. Building Coverage 15% 0% 13%  Max. Total Coverage 30% 0% 23% *Min. Front Setback 50 ft. on Dorset St. 20 ft on new street N/A Most OK; unit 8C 41.5’, unit 8D 36’ from Dorset Street  Min. Side Setback (multi-family) 10 ft. N/A > 5 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A > 5 ft.  Max. Building Height 40 ft. N/A 30 ft.  zoning compliance * Waivers sought for units 8C and 8D RECOMMENDATION As you can see, there are a number of interesting and unique aspects to this proposal, driven largely by the legal underpinnings provided by the court settlement in the JAM Golf appeal. As in all cases, there are also a number of site-specific questions to consider. Comments have been sought from the Fire Department and Public Works in their respective areas of concern and expertise. Any subsequent application for preliminary plat review must include the usual information and details for roadway and sidewalk construction, street trees, landscaping for the duplex lots, construction cost and planting budget, streetlights, fire hydrant(s), underground utilities and aboveground utility cabinets, justifying the “non-curbed public road” (generally considered a good approach under more current thinking about stormwater management/low impact development), and other issues as required for subdivision, site plan, PUD, et al review. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer From:Eric Farrell To:Paul Conner Cc:Danielle Fisette Subject:RE: Confirm continuance for Spear Meadows Date:Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:43:19 PM Thank you, Paul ... yes, please continue us to mid-May. I have a $50 check delivered to you/Ray. Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402-1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802-861-3000 x12 F: 802-861-3003 C: 802-343-7055 "Prosperity means a healthy, peaceful life with good relationships and enough resources to be able to be a blessing to others." - Joel Osteen From: Paul Conner [mailto:pconner@sburl.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:41 PM To: Eric Farrell Cc: ray Subject: Confirm continuance for Spear Meadows Hi Eric, If you haven’t done so already, please indicate to us that you are wanting to have a continuance for Spear Meadows and provide us with a proposed date. Also, if not yet provided, please send us the $50 check for the continuance. Thanks, Paul Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 pconner@sburl.com www.sburl.com (802) 846-4106 Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. Bradley/EMB Properties, 1197/1203 Williston Road Agenda Item #4 Application #SD-13-36 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer, and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP RE: Bradley/EMB Properties, 1197/1203 Williston Rd Application for Sketch Plan Review DATE: March 14, 2014 Sketch Plan application #SD-13-36 of Elizabeth and Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service, and four dwelling units), 1197 and 1203 Williston Road. Applicants Elizabeth and Joel Bradley own property at 1197 and 1203 Williston Road. Today, these are two separate lots, each under separate corporate ownership. If approved, this application would consider them as one lot for purposes of PUD review. Each property has a primary building upon it, one housing the Frame Game shop (1203), and the other (1197) with a tax preparer, a hair salon, and four existing dwelling units. This second property also has a rear outbuilding, for which the applicants seek ex post facto approval for conversion to another dwelling unit (a one bedroom apartment). LAND DENSITY The property is located in the C1/R12 zoning district, and is 0.57 acre in size. In this district, all land area may be applied to density for the residential uses. Up to 12 dwelling units are permissible per acre of land; with 0.57 acres, six (6) units could be allowed. Five (5) total dwelling units are proposed, so the property will conform in that respect with one additional dwelling unit. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Lot coverage is at 80% today, which is existing nonconforming under the LDR’s; 70% coverage is permitted under the current LDRs. No changes are proposed to any buildings, nor upon the land. Existing building coverage is at 33%; 40% coverage is permitted, so the property conforms in this regard. 31 parking spaces are required; 32 spaces are provided. Here is the breakdown: 5 dwelling units x 2.25 spaces/unit = 11.25 = 12 spaces 650 sq ft of general office x 3.5 spaces/1000 sq ft = 2.25 = 3 spaces 950 sq ft of personal services x 4 spaces/1000 sq ft = 3.8 = 4 spaces 3000 sq of retail space x 4 spaces/1000 sq ft = 12 spaces TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING = 31 SPACES The rear building, where the residential conversion exists/is proposed, sits very close to the rear property line. However, this is purely a conversion of existing interior space; no changes are proposed to the building or site and the interior changes are not substantial enough to warrant a nexus for relocation of buildings. TRAFFIC The LDRs allow for actual traffic counts to substitute for the vehicle trip estimates from the ITE Manual that would otherwise govern in this particular case. Since the calculations based on the ITE estimates would prohibit the additional apartment proposed here, landowner Bradley engaged the Lamoureux & Dickinson engineering firm to conduct actual traffic counts at the site on the times and days suggested by traffic expert, Georges Jacquemart. Based on those counts, the average afternoon peak hour traffic calculates at 9 vehicle trip ends. According to Roger Dickinson, adding in the projected 0.62 peak hour trips that the fifth dwelling unit would create brings the site to a total of 10 PM peak hour trips. This is less than the 12.42 PM peak hour trips allowed for the property in this traffic overlay district. The Board invoked technical review of traffic, and the independent traffic expert engaged has reviewed this information. They confirm the conclusion that actual peak hour vehicle trips generated by all uses on this property (including the additional apartment proposed in this application) will remain under the cap of 12.42. The new baseline for any future applications at this site is now 9.62 PM peak hour vehicle trip ends. Please see the additional documents from both engineers in your packet. There are no other site plan issues at this time (landscaping, screened dumpster, bike rack, municipal water/sewer allocations…). Staff recommends that the applicant proceed to the next level of review. Total 1-hour Total 15-min ExitEnterTotal 1-hour Total 15-min ExitEnter Total 1-hour Total 15-min ExitEnterTotal 1-hour Total 15-min ExitEnter LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 Morse Dr., Essex, VT 05452 1197 & 1203 Williston Road Weekday PM Peak Trip Generation Counts Tuesday, 2/04/14Tuesday, 1/28/14 TimeTime BeginBegin 62114:006114:00 804:1572114:15 82114:305224:30 8224:455114:45 7445:0052115:00 05:1505:15 2115:302115:30 115:45115:45 Thursday, 2/06/14Wednesday, 1/29/14 TimeTime BeginBegin 83124:00113124:00 82114:1510224:15 604:308114:30 83124:4595324:45 83215:0062115:00 05:1505:15 225:30225:30 335:45225:45 Chris Day / Bill HortonCounted by: Roger Dickinson, P.E, PTOETabulated by: P:\2014\14012\trip generation counts.qpw, 02/11/14 BFJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc. 115 5th Avenue New York, NY 10003 Tel (212) 353-7474 Fax (212) 353-7494 Memorandum To: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer, City of South Burlington From: Georges Jacquemart, P.E.,AICP Tel (212) 353 7477 Email g.jacquemart@bfjplanning.com Subject: Review of Bradley/EMB Properties, 1197/1203 Williston Road Date: January 14, 2014 We have reviewed the 5-page Memo prepared by you and Lee Krohn dated December 10, 2013 and updated on January 2, 2014 and the internal capture calculations prepared by Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE from Lamoureux & Dickinson and dated December 17, 2014 regarding this application. This is indeed a small traffic generator with even smaller generation estimates for each use component. And if we apply the internal capture calculation the internal trips become even smaller. How can we say that 0.2 vehicle trips would stay internal among the 3 or 4 uses on the property? Since all of these calculations are based on average rates surveyed at other sites, a 0.2 internal trip estimate means that out 5 weekdays we will have 1 day with an internal trip and the other 4 days will not experience an internal trip. Since the City’s TOD regulations do mention the benefits and credits associated with mixed uses on one site it seems appropriate that in this case we apply the same principles, even though from day to day the internal capture may vary due to the small size of the project. If we accept the internal capture methodology, we need to also use that methodology to calculate the grandfathered traffic generation. If we use the Lamoureux & Dickinson calculation the existing net traffic generation is 10.98 vehicle trips and the future generation is 11.36, a net increase of 0.38 vehicle trips caused by the addition of the one apartment. Both of these estimates are below the traffic budget as per the City’s TOD regulations, i.e. below 12.42 vehicle trips. BFJ prepared an alternate estimate of internal capture for this project, using more recent statistics prepared as part of a research project by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 8-51 Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper and Benjamin Sperry “Improved Estimation Of Internal Trip Capture For Mixed-Use Developments.” ITE Journal, Vol.80, No. 8, August 2010). The BFJ calculation is attached. As can be seen the estimates are very close to the estimates by Lamoureux & Dickinson. Our estimates project an increase from 11.02 trips to 11.25 trips with the additional apartment. It is also true that one could question the traffic generation of each individual use on this site, given the location and particular uses. Is the specialty retail use the most appropriate category for this store, and does the apartment category apply in this case, or should one use the low-rise apartment use? The most appropriate approach, and the one sanctioned by the City’s TOD regulations is the empirical approach which would consist of doing a traffic count at the existing site to determine the existing net generation. Given that the allowable TOD traffic budget is 12.42 vehicle trips, and that the worst-case increase (estimated by Lamoureux & Dickinson) is 0.38 vehicle trips for that one apartment, we Ray Belair, Administrative Officer January 14, 2014 Page 2 2 can conclude that if the current traffic generation is less than 12.04, the project is in conformance with the TOD regulations. I recommend that pm peak period traffic counts be undertaken over 2 days (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday), maybe spread over 2 weeks to calculate today’s average net traffic generation of that site. I think that would be the fairest and most objective resolution. Please let us know if you have any questions. Total Total In Out Trips In Out Trips 3950 SF 3.81 5.70 9.51 3950 SF 3.81 5.70 9.51 4 1.61 0.87 2.48 5 2.02 1.08 3.10Office650 SF 0.17 0.80 0.97 650 SF 0.17 0.80 0.97 5.59 7.37 12.96 6.00 7.58 13.58 0.42 0.42 0.84 0.53 0.53 1.05 0.37 0.37 0.73 0.45 0.45 0.91 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.97 0.97 1.94 1.17 1.17 2.33 4.62 6.40 11.02 4.84 6.42 11.25 Internal Capture %17.4%13.2%15.0%Internal Capture %19.4%15.4%17.2% BFJ January 13, 2014 2% 20% Internal % of each Exchange 26% 42% 2% 4% Building Use With 4 Apartments With 5 Apartments PM Peak Hour 26% 42% 2% 4% 2% 20% Bradley Traffic Generation with Internal Capture Office to Retail Net Total PM Peak Hour Apartments to Retail Internal Trips Gross Total Retail to Apartments Internal % of each Exchange Office to Apartments Apartments to Office Retail to Office Retail Apartments Minus Internal Trips From:ray To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: 1197-1203 Williston Road Trip Counts Date:Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:48:02 PM Importance:Low     Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Georges Jacquemart [mailto:G.Jacquemart@bfjplanning.com]  Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:21 PM To: ray Subject: [SPAM] RE: 1197-1203 Williston Road Trip Counts Importance: Low Hello Ray, I reviewed the letter and counts submitted by Lamoureux & Dickinson, dated February 11, 2014 regarding the 1197/1203 Williston Road application. I specifically reviewed the results of the traffic counts undertaken over 4 weekdays at the subject property. The counts seem reasonable in terms of their pattern, i.e. day-to-day and hour-to-hour variations. The count results confirm that the existing traffic generation of the mixed-use site plus the net addition caused by one apartment will be less than the City’s allowable TOD threshold of 12.39 vte/hour for this particular site. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need this in letter form. Thanks and best regards Georges   Georges Jacquemart, P.E., AICP Principal BFJ Planning 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003T. 212.353.7477 F. 212.353.7494E: g.jacquemart@bfjplanning.com WWW.BFJPLANNING.COM       From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com]  Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:36 PM To: Georges Jacquemart Subject: 1197-1203 Williston Road Trip Counts Hi Georges,   Please review the attached trip counts and let me know what you think. Thanks.   Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff,or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may beinspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received thismessage in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Roger Dickinson [mailto:Roger@LDEngineering.com]  Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:21 PM To: ray Cc: 'Joel.Beth Bradley' Subject: 1197-1203 Williston Road Ray,   Attached are the results of the trip generation counts that we performed for Elizabeth & Joel Bradley’s application before the DRB.  Please feel free to call or email me should you have any questions or if we may be of additional assistance.   Thanks,   Roger   Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT   05452 T:  802.878-4450     C:  802.373-7135 roger@ldengineering.com This message is sent by Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. and is intended exclusively for the persons to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that isprivileged or confidential. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate any part of this message. easement - GMPVolume 186, Page 10810' Underground powereasement - GMPVolume 89, Page 1665' Underground powerNYNEXVolume 191, Page 10815' x 15' easementSchoolBuilding101273South BurlingtonSchool DistrictRef. Plat AEMB Properties, LLCVol. 794, Pg. 5120.31 Ac.JDB Properties, LLCVol. 1032, Pg. 450.26 Ac.McDonald's USA, LLC Vol. 711, Pg. 278South BurlingtonSchool DistrictRef. Plat ASchool's fence onsubject property bypermission letterdated 10/24/2013P:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13187\1-CADD Files-13187\Dwg\13187-PUD.dwg, 11/14/2013 4:12:33 PM, tcowan 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.comCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ACELocation MapNOT to SCALEP1EMB Properties, LLC&JDB Properties, LLC1197 & 1203 Williston Road, South Burlington, VermontP.U.D. Site PlanTo the best of my knowledge and belief this plat depicts the results ofa survey conducted by me as described in "Survey Notes" above,based upon our analysis of land records and evidence found in thefield. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance withthe records, except as noted. This plat is in substantial compliancewith 17 VSA 1403, "Recording of Land Plats". This statement validonly when accompanied by my original signature and seal.____________________________________________________Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 5971. Purpose of this plan is to depict proposed PUD boundaries and visibleimprovements at 1197 and 1203 Williston Road.2. The subject properties were conveyed to:EMB Properties, LLC by deed dated August 28, 2007 (Volume 794, Page 512), andJDB Properties, LLC by deed dated October 14, 2011 (Volume 1032, Page 45).3. Field survey was conducted during autumn of 2013, and consisted of a closedtraverse utilizing an electronic total station.4. Bearings shown are from Grid North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, basedon Reference Plat A.5. Williston Road (U.S. Rte. 2) has a record right of way of four rods (66'). Sidelineshown is based upon monuments found and on referenced state highway planscirca 1955. The State of Vermont was conveyed certain slope rights and certainrights for drop inlets and drainage pipes on subject land near Williston Road per deedVolume 41, Page 41 (1956).6. Locations shown of underground utilities are approximate only, based on surfaceindications observed and/or various reference maps.7. Being outside the scope of this survey, Civil Engineering Associates hasundertaken no investigation whatsoever with respect to whether the property andeach component there of is in compliance with local or state permits.A. "Preliminary Plat of Survey - South Burlington Central School", dated May 12,2004 prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. South Burlington Land Records.B."PropertySurveyforCityofSouthBurlingtonSchoolDistrict-WillistonRoad",revised date 16 November 1982, prepared by Palmer Company Ltd.South Burlington Land Records - Plat Slide 163.C."ParcelstobeConveyedbyAliceStannardetal.toTownofSouthBurlington",datedMay1968,preparedbyHarvellAssociates.SouthBurlingtonLandRecordsV. 80, Pg. 89.D. "ALTA/ACSM ... Dana B. Alling Trust ... McDonald's Corp." dated Jan 11, 2005,prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC. S. Burlington Land RecordsSlide 449.4.2116LegendSurvey NotesReferenced Plats and Maps3PROJECTLOCATION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_13_68_StoningtonCircle_trees_afterthefact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report updated: March 14, 2014 Application received: December 27, 2013 Stonington Circle, after the fact tree replacement SITE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION #SP-13-68 Agenda #5 Meeting Date: March 18, 2014 Owner Stonington Circle Owners’ Association, Inc. c/o James Caffrey 41 Stonington Circle South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Same as owner(s) Contact Person Rob Eno Property Management Associates PO Box 1201 Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax Parcel District Location Map Please note: The above aerial photo may not accurately reflect the current conditions of the lot in question. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \SP_13_68_StoningtonCircle_trees_afterthefact.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association, Inc. for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five (5) White Pine trees and replacement with six (6) Eastern White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP, (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on December 27, 2013 and offer the following comments. This application was continued from the February 18, 2014 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the landscaping plan. The sole issue at hand is that the Stonington Circle Owners’ Association cut down five white pine trees of unknown height that were required as a part of a prior site plan approval, and which apparently offered screening from the adjoining Wellesley Grove development. Based on concerns raised by those neighbors, Stonington Circle now proposes to plant six (6) 8 – 10 foot tall Eastern white cedar trees to replace the Eastern white pines that were cut down without prior approval with a value of $5000. We note for the record that the City Arborist has reviewed the plan and finds the proposal as submitted acceptable. In addition, Section 13.06(I) of the LDRs requires replacement of trees less than 5” caliper in size to be replaced on an “inch by inch basis” with trees of the same genus at least 2” caliper each. The challenges here are that we do not know how large the pines were before they were cut down; coniferous trees are generally measured by height, not caliper; and the proposal does not offer trees of the same genus. However, as best we know, five white pines were originally planted, and were 5’-6’ tall at time of planting; proposed here are six 8’-10’ tall white cedars. At best, we had a total of 30’ (5 trees @ 6’ tall) of trees planted originally, and now we may have 60’ (6 trees @10’ tall) of trees planted as replacements. So if we apply the purpose of the “inch by inch” basis in the LDRs (which in urban forestry, measuring by caliper inch typically applies only to deciduous trees) to the standard form of measurement for conifers (by height), then this application exceeds the minimum requirement for tree replacement. Further, although these new trees are not of the same genus, they are probably a better choice for the location and intended purpose. Landowner has agreed to accept the staggered planting plan as suggested by the Board at the last meeting. A revised site plan illustrating this approach has been submitted. Recommendation: Close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer March 5, 2014 Rob Eno Property Management Associates P.O. Box 1201 Williston, VT 05495 Re: Stonington Circle Trees Amended Plan Dear Rob, This letter is an amended form of the original I sent you dated 12/10/13. I have made changes to incorporate a staggered planting design of 5 eastern white cedars. I have also run this plan by the S. Burlington city arborist, Craig Lambert, and he has said it looks good to him. The area behind unit 55 where the pine trees were removed is located down a hill, has a fence on the property line, and larger trees on both the Northeast and southwest sides. The remaining pines in those locations currently provide screening between the Stonington development, and the adjacent development to the Northwest, Wellesley Grove. There is a span of 30 feet between sections that currently have tree screening between the two developments. It is my recommendation that you install 5, 8-10’ tall, eastern white cedars as a replacement for the pines that were removed. The planting will cover this 30’ span. Trees should be installed at the 0, 7.5, 15, 22.5 and 30 foot marks as denoted on the attached map. Planting spots 0, 15, and 30 would be located 8 feet from and parallel with the fence, spots 7.5 and 22.5 would be located 11 feet from and parallel with the fence. This will allow them to retain more foliage towards the fence, as they grow larger, as well as allow them more of an open space between individual trees. Eastern white cedars have the potential to reach 50-60 feet in height, and spread 20-25 feet wide. They are tolerant of pruning to control the height and spread, so you can maintain them so the will not adversely affect the building. They have a medium rate of growth, meaning you can expect around 13-24” of growth per year. They will be able to retain lower needle cover better than white pines and won’t grow as tall. The installed height of these plants would extend above the fence another 3 to 5 feet. P.O. Box 733 Shelburne, VT 05482 800-559-0422 Limbwalker Tree Service Stonington Circle Tree Planting 3/5/14 Page 2 When planting, installation of a soaker hose watering system and completing the project with a large mulch bed to contain the entire drip line of the new trees would be advised. Thank you again and if you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely yours, Michael Fallis Certified Arborist # PN-0982A From:ray To:Cathyann LaRose Subject:FW: 88 Central Ave and Continuance of Application Date:Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:35:05 PM Cathy,   Could also add this email to the packet. Thanks.   Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: directionshome@gmail.com [mailto:directionshome@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Bromley Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:11 PM To: ray Cc: wingtao Subject: 88 Central Ave and Continuance of Application Mr. Belair, Thank you for your assistance and clarification regarding our application pertaining to 88 Central Ave. We understand that you have determined that the project may involve a setback waiver and,as such, requires a document prepared by a licensed surveyor clearly showing the boundaries of the property and setbacks for the existing building and proposed addition from thoseboundaries. We understand that this information is due on March 14 if we are to maintain our position on the agenda and our anticipated meeting scheduled for March 18. We are diligently trying to secure this information but may not be able to secure thisinformation in time for our March 18 meeting. Per your suggestion, we would like to formally request a continuance of our application with the hope that we might be able to secure a position on the April 1 meeting. We understandthat this will require submission of this additional documentation by March 21. We intend to provide the requested material by March 21. Assuming we cannot provide this material by tomorrow (3/14/14) - can you please confirm that our attendance at the meeting of March 18 is not required? Stacy Jolles is the contact person listed on our application but I'd like to request that youprovide a return email, "reply to all" confirming receipt of this request so that I can be assured of receipt and acknowledgment of our request for a continuance of the application. Thank you for your assistance, Mark Bromley AIA -- Hillview Design Collaborative hillviewdesign.com Office 802.434.2225 Mark Bromley, AIA Architect/Partner 802.461.5471Ben Bush Designer/Partner 802.310.4570 PO Box 928Richmond, VT 05477 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 FEBRUARY 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 February 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, D. Parsons, J. Smith, A. Klugo, B. Miller Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Bertsch, C. Snyder, J. Frank, A. Wynkoop, K. Mackin, J. Caffrey, R. Maynes, B. Hunter, E. Farrell, J. Owens 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt advised that DRB member Michael Sirotkin has resigned from the Board as he will be replacing his late wife in the State Senate. Mr. Barritt also noted that he had participated in a meeting in Waterbury regarding marijuana legislation. 2. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-13-40 of The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 32 single family dwellings. The amendment consists of removing one single family dwelling and replacing it with four single family dwellings, 111 Upswept Lane: Mr. Snyder said this is an extension of the South Pointe neighborhood. They will remove the Unsworth house and replace it with 4 carriage houses. In addressing comments from the last hearing, Mr. Snyder directed attention to a revised plan showing how garages are set back and there are porches on all 4 houses. There is now one 50- foot house and three 40 foot houses. Mr. Snyder showed a photo of the existing neighborhood with both 40-foot and 50-foot houses intermingled. He also showed a proposed elevation with the 50-foot house integrated with the 40-foot houses. He pointed out the variety in design with changing roof lines. There will be 15 feet between the houses, the same as for most of the existing houses. Mr. Barritt asked about delineating the separation from city-owned land with a split rail fence. Mr. Snyder said it might look out of place if it didn’t continue down the row of houses. There is an existing tree line. He also noted that it is farther to the city land from these homes than from the existing houses. Mr. Belair suggested the Board have the applicant show there is a natural barrier or propose one. Mr. Snyder said they can do that and suggested the possibility of some boulders. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 FEBRUARY 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Klugo felt the porches are great. He suggested the garages for the middle units not be next to each other. Mr. Snyder said that whatever they do, this would happen at least once. Members were OK with the placement as presented. Members were also OK with the intermingling of the 40-foot and 50-foot houses and with the different styles of the houses. Mr. Barritt noted the requirement for acceptable water pressure. Mr. Belair said this will be based on the standards of the Water Department. Mr. Klugo noted that part of lot A’s yard is taken up with the retention pond. He asked if this could possibly be moved to the back property line. Mr. Snyder said they would look at that. Mr. Frank, secretary of the homeowners’ association noted the pedestrian path from Upswept Lane to the city park. The path is 5 feet on each side of the boundary line. He assumed this would be preserved. Regarding water pressure, Mr. Frank said the problem is not easily solved. He talked with someone at the Water District who said he didn’t see any change in water pressure happening, and it would stay as low as it is. Mr. Frank added that they are not objecting to this development; they do want their presence noted at this meeting. No other issues were raised. 3. Site Plan Application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association, Inc., for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five White Pine trees and replacement with six Easter White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle: Mr. Caffrey, President of the homeowners’ association said that over the years there were issues with the pines infringing on buildings. They had an arborist look at this, and he deemed there was a lack of sunlight, and they could enhance grass growth by removing the pines. They were unaware they needed a permit to do this. Mr. Caffrey also noted there are a lot of Norwegian Pines on the property that will have to be replaced because they don’t do well in this environment. Mr. Barritt noted an alternate plan from the City Arborist. Mr. Caffrey said they are OK with the plan but are concerned with how far into the backyards the staggering will go. Mr. Belair said they will need an expert opinion on how to plant the trees. Mr. Klugo suggested increasing the caliper of the trees to provide privacy for neighbors. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 FEBRUARY 2014, PAGE 3 A resident noted that 2 of the removed trees covered up all of her windows, and there was no grass near her home. She is happy they are gone. She couldn’t sell her house because of the problem. Mr. Caffrey noted that a development on the adjacent property might remove a lot of trees that will leave a lot of spaces and erode the privacy barrier. What Stonington plans may be the only trees on that privacy line. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-13-68 until 18 March 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-13-43 of F & M Development Co, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30-unit multi-family dwelling & 3,7000 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63-unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 47-unit congregate housing facility (not yet constructed). The amendment consists of: 1) subdividing an adjacent 5.20 acre parcel developed with a television studio into two lots of 4.02 acres & 1.18 acres, 2) incorporating the 1.18 acre parcel into the existing PUD, and 3) converting the approved but not constructed 47 unit congregate housing building into a 54-unit multi-family dwelling, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive: Mr. Behr noted that he had a brief ex-parte communication with Mr. Farrell regarding the chairmanship of the DRB. No issues were raised with this. Mr. Farrell briefly reviewed the history of the project for new Board members. He noted that the land under consideration was formerly the Olympiad property. They will be changing the plan to residential units instead of congregate care as they could not work out an arrangement for the congregate care units. The proposed building will be 5 stories instead of 4 and the building will be shortened to accommodate more green space for the tenants. The building footprint will be 11,000 sq. ft. instead of the originally proposed 12,000+. They have worked out a purchase of acreage from the TV station for a pet walking and community garden area. There will also be an area for barbequing. The TV station property will still be in compliance. Mr. Farrell showed a plan for a sidewalk on the north side of Joy Drive with a path connection approved by Public Works. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 FEBRUARY 2014, PAGE 4 The plan will require a 14-1/2 foot height waiver, mainly because of the elevator shaft. Mr. Farrell showed an overhead view of the entire site and a “graphic representation” with the proposed building set in. He also showed the result of a 4-season shadow cast study. There will also have to be a waiver for a 5-foot “sliver” on Joy Drive. Mr. Farrell showed this on the plan. Mr. Barritt questioned whether the proposed amenities will be available to the whole PUD. Mr. Farrell said they won’t because there is different ownership. They would rather settle this among themselves. He felt there is plenty of space for gardens at the other buildings as well as dog-walking areas. Mr. Behr felt the garden should serve the 2 buildings in the immediate area. Mr. Belair said staff is OK with the height computation. There is a question as to whether this is measured from the property line or from the building corners. Mr. Klugo said that in his experience, it is measure from the property line. Mr. Farrell said they would like to break ground on 1 April, if the Board is comfortable what is presented. Ms. Smith said she was uncomfortable with the building height and felt it could be “precedent setting.” Mr. Klugo felt the smaller footprint and more green space and the affordable units were an acceptable trade-off. Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Klugo cited the difference between viewing the building from beside it or from a distance. He felt the impact would depend on the architecture. Mr. Farrell said it’s important to make buildings comfortable for tenants. Mr. Behr said this is a high density area, and you either go up or out. He felt the additional floor gets some good benefits. Mr. Barritt said he understood the trade-off but wasn’t yet sure whether he can support the 5th floor. Mr. Parsons said he was OK with the plan as a taller building provides some efficiencies. A question was raised about the utility cabinet in the right-of-way. Mr. Farrell said they will do what Public Works wants. To avoid a delay, they would move it. Mr. Barritt didn’t like the driveway to allow access to the basement storage. Mr. Behr agreed. He said he would rather have the tree-line impeded. Mr. Farrell asked if a sidewalk there would be OK so people can carry things to the basement storage area. They also need access to for Green Mountain Power to the utility cabinet. Mr. Klugo suggested structured turf. Mr. Farrell said he can do that and indent a pull-off for GMP. Members were OK with that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 FEBRUARY 2014, PAGE 5 Members questioned the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Farrell said it is 5.5-6 feet at the highest point. Nowhere is it higher than 8 feet. Mr. Behr asked about construction materials. Mr. Farrell said it will be stackable concrete blocks, the same as previously built. Mr. Belair said staff was OK with that. Mr. Miller then moved to continued #SD-13-43 to 4 March 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-13-67 of Peck Electric seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved site plan for a 6,400 sq. ft. building used for contractor or building trade facility use. The amendment consists of site modifications relating to parking, outside storage and dumpster storage, 4090 Williston Road: Mr. Bertsch showed the building, which is access from Palmer Heights. He noted that over the years, employees have changed the way they park. They have also been doing outside storage where it was not approved. The proposed plan shows parking as it now happens and material storage areas on the south side of the building. There are also 2 storage trailers at the north end of the building. The dumpster has been relocated. They are proposing a new cedar hedgerow for screening. The trailer area will be fenced for screening. Mr. Bertsch reviewed an agreement for an easement to get to one end of the buildings. This agreement is still pending. Mr. Belair said it will be a condition of approval that the agreement be submitted. He also noted the dumpster must be enclosed. Members were OK with the 6-foot high screening of the trailers. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Minutes of 17 December 2013, 7 January, 21 January, 27 January and 4 February 2014: It was noted that in the Minutes of 7 January, both Mr. Barritt and Mr. Parsons should be listed as present. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 18 February 2014, page 6 Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 17 December 2013, 7 January, 21, January and 4 February as written and/or amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. _________________________________, Clerk ________________________________, Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pending Applications ___________________________________________ - 1 - - Last updated – March 14, 2014 Please note that the tentative schedule is indeed tentative. Items are subject to, and frequently do, change. The tentative schedule is also not indicative of the order in which items will be placed on the agenda. MARCH 18, 2014 1. Sketch plan application #SD-14-02 of Wedgewood Development Corporation for a planned unit development on parcel “F” of the Highlands Development subdivision consisting of: 1) seven (7) single family dwellings, and 2) two (2) two-family dwellings, Dorset Street & Foulsham Hollow Road. 2. Continued master plan application #MP-11-03 & preliminary plat application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear St (TBC). 3. Continued sketch plan application #SD-13-36 of Elizabeth & Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one (1) dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two (2) lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road. 4. Continued site plan application #SP-13-68 of Stonington Circle Owners Association, Inc. for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved 47 unit multi-family unit development. The amendment consists of the removal of five (5) White Pine trees and replacement with six (6) Eastern White Cedar trees, Stonington Circle. 5. Conditional use application #CU-14-02 of Hillview Design Collaborative, LLP to: 1) demolish the single family dwelling at 3 Cedar Court, 2) construct a 1,201 sq. ft. addition to the existing 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 88 Central Avenue, 3) create a 431 sq. ft. accessory residential unit in the expanded home, and 4) merge the two (2) lots at 88 Central Avenue & 3 Cedar Court (TBC). 6. Deliberations: a. Continued site plan application #SP-13-67 of Peck Electric seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved site plan for a 6,400 sq. ft. building used for contractor or building trade facility use. The amendment consists of site modifications relating to parking, outside storage and dumpster storage, 4090 Williston Road (closed on 2/18, deadline is 4/4). b. Continued preliminary & final plat application #SD-13-43 F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30 unit multi-family SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pending Applications ___________________________________________ - 2 - dwelling & 3,700 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63 unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 47 unit congregate housing facility (not yet constructed). The amendment consists of: 1) subdividing an adjacent 5.20 acre parcel developed with a television studio into two (2) lots of 4.02 acres & 1.18 acres, 2) incorporating the 1.18 acre parcel into the existing PUD, and 3) converting the approved but not constructed 47 unit congregate housing building into a 54 unit multi-family dwelling, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive (closed on 3/4, deadline is 4/18) c. Conditional use application #CU-14-01 & site plan review application #SP-14-04 of Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a television studio. The amendment consists of relocating an eight (8) foot diameter microwave dish (antenna) from the roof of the building to an existing monopole tower at 65 feet in height, 30 Joy Drive (closed on 3/4, deadline is 4/18). APRIL 1, 2014 1. Sketch plan application #SD-14-06 of F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight (8) buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four (4) foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street. 2. Site plan application #SP-14-05 of Kingdom Ventures, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-building and mixed-use complex. The amendment consists of converting 2,750 sq. ft. of child care facility use to a tavern/night club use, 7 Fayette Road. 3. Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-07 of O’Brien Brothers Agency, Inc. for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing single family dwelling, 2) constructing a three (3) unit multi-family dwelling, and 3) constructing a four (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 636 Hinesburg Road. 4. Continued preliminary & final plant application #SD-14-05 of Greenfield Capital, LLC to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 25,840 sq. ft. addition, 35 Thompson Street. APRIL 15, 2014 1. Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-01 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) the subdivision of a 29.39 acre parcel developed with one (1) single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 5.3 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pending Applications ___________________________________________ - 3 - acres and 24.09 acres and, 2) developing the 5.3 acre parcel with nine (9) single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street.