The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/04/2014The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 November 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parson, J. Wilking Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Leinwohl, M. Lawrence, B. Avery, D. Marshall, T. McKenzie, T. Hergenrother, J. Desautels, M. McFarland, D. Rice, U. Heiss, J. Pidgeon, D. Cummings, M. Janswold, D. & P. Sande 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: Mr. Barritt advised that he and Mr. Belair had attended the VLCT Planning & Zoning Forum in Montpelier and had found it very enlightening. 3. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-23 of Synergy Development, LLC, to subdivide a 3.63 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into four lots ranging in size form 0.5 acres to 1.7 acres, 1741 Spear Street: Ms. Desautels said they had met with staff and decided to do more creative things. They have added community open space for residents of all three lots to use. They are also showing conservation open space for all the area around lots 1 & 2, outside of the building envelopes. They have inventoried all the larger diameter trees on the site and will try to avoid cutting as many of them as possible. One building envelope will be shifted to avoid a large willow tree. Ms. Desautels said they have been meeting with neighbors regarding a potential solution to stormwater concerns, especially on Harbor Ridge Road. She showed this area on the plan. Mr. Barritt asked how this qualifies as a PUD. Ms. Desautels said they have .4 acres of unique community open space, 1.1 acres of conservation open space, and they are addressing existing stormwater issues. Mr. Barritt said he is comfortable with the PUD. Mr. Behr said he will be interested to see how the stormwater ponds will work out. He suggested the possibility of a vegetative buffer. He also liked the amenities and the protection of trees. Mr. Barritt reminded the applicant that they have to speak with Public Works and with the city’s arborist. Mr. Rice, a neighbor, said he liked the new design. He then showed an area that is very wet. He indicated an easement which he and a neighbor each own half of. He believed it had been given to the city. He said they have the flexibility to let it be used to continue a drain line to Harbor Ridge Road. He then showed photos he had taken to show the extent of the flooding issues. Mr. Heiss, another neighbor, also explained what happens with stormwater at his location. Ms. McFarland said they also have issues with water coming onto their land. She did not want it to become worse. Ms. Desautels said these issues are the reason they are having 2 stormwater ponds which can hold water during larger rain events. She stressed that this is a chance to do something better than what is there now. No other issues were raised. 4. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-10 of J. Peter & Diane Sande to raze an existing 1,136 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 1,136 sq. ft. footprint and construct a new single family dwelling with a 1,703 sq. ft. footprint, 50 Bartlett Bay Road: Ms. Sande said they will tear down the existing camp and build a year-round house. They will not destroy any trees. One dead tree in front had to be taken down. They are still waiting to hear from the state as to whether the landscaping plan is acceptable. Mr. Barritt noted the applicant will need a setback waiver on the northern edge. Ms. Sande said they have talked with neighbors who are OK with the plan. Members were OK with the setback waiver. Ms. Sande said they have met with staff regarding landscaping and shoreland protection. They still have to do some work with their landscape design. They have checked with their engineer about the possibility of water going onto the neighbor’s land. This does not seem to be an issue. Members felt the application should be continued until the applicant hears from the State. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-14-10 until 16 December 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch plan application #SD-14-28 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction for a planned unit development to construct two general office buildings of 27,100 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft. on lot C-1 of a proposed four lot subdivision, 284 Meadowland Drive: and 6. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-09 of SBRC Properties, LLC for after-the-face approval to leave in place 70,000 cubic yards of fill which was required to be removed by 12,11/09, 284 Meadowland Drive: and 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-29 of SBRC Properties, LLC to subdivide a 39.5 acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 3.0 acres to 27.8 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive: Members agreed to hear the three applications together as they are interrelated. Mr. Marshall noted that staff had asked them to review the overall goals of the I-O District. He noted that this plan shows protected wetland areas, 200 feet of open space adjacent to the residential neighborhood, etc. Mr. Marshall then showed lot #1 and noted that this plan aims to create 3 lots with what remains of lot #1. He showed the route of the roadway to serve those lots and noted the potential for extension of that road. As an alternate, it could become a loop road. The plan now is to bring the road in with a turnaround. They will work out the specifics for this with Public Works. Mr. Marshall showed a rec path on the east side of the roadway. There is also a rec path easement along all of the north side of the property. They would like to create green space along that path, so they have brought the buildings further from that space. The applicant is willing to construct the gravel base for that rec path. There may also be an opportunity to tie into the rec path on the neighboring property. Regarding the fill (item #6), a temporary fill permit was issued by the city at this location. The expiration date of that permit has passed. The applicant feels the best thing is to leave the fill where it is. They understand this will not change the pre-existing grades for computation of building heights. Regarding parking in front of buildings, Mr. Marshall showed one building with two frontages and indicated which parking spaces would have to be eliminated. He said they have to decide which is the front and which is the side. They also question whether having the buildings behind each other would achieve compliance with the “no parking in front” standard. Mr. Marshall said the dumpster location can be changed. The building is currently being viewed as a general office building. It was originally planned as 3 stories, but they have reduced this to 2. This would change the parking requirement. They need to understand that they can accommodate the proposed tenant’s parking needs. Employees are not all there at the same time, but there are occasions when there are “all aboard” meetings. Mr. Belair said if the building becomes 2 stories, the 10 parking spaces in front could be the ones that get removed. Mr. Barritt said the best outcome would be to use the building to shield parking from the road. The applicant stressed their desire to keep the north side of the property “green” so employees don’t have to cross a road to walk at lunchtime. Mr. Behr said he saw the potential for a shared parking agreement. He also felt the site could be made to “coalesce” more. There may be some natural areas they haven’t considered if they are not so heavily “parked.” He suggested the possibility of picnic tables or other amenities for employees. Mr. Barritt said they should try to “undersize” parking as much as possible without “under parking.” He didn’t feel they should plan for one day a year when everyone is present. Mr. Avery said the company has monthly meetings for all employees, and their current parking lot is always full. They are open to the shared parking concept, but they may be the only ones there for a considerable time. The plan is to build building #1 first, then review their options for building #2 when they can financially accommodate it. Ms. Smith asked about the possibility of under building parking. Mr. Avery said they are coming to such a large site so they don’t have to do that. He thought it might be possible with building #2. With regard to traffic, Mr. Marshall said they are not yet at the point where the need for a traffic signal if triggered. Mr. Belair explained staff’s thinking with regard to parking in front of the building. He said they feel what is proposed is “parking in front.” Mr. Marshall noted that if there were only one building, parking will be on the side. The applicant felt they have enough feedback to go to preliminary but they will run a concept by staff first to assess the “comfort level.” Mr. Miller then moved to close MS-14-09. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-14-30 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a planned unit development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact construction of a 215 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Gate 11 aircraft boarding hallway and pedestal footing for aircraft boarding bridge equipment, and 2) removing landscaping along security fence and replacing this landscaping elsewhere on the property, 1130 & 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl explained that TSA had safety concerns with the cedar hedge so close to the security fence and asked that it be taken down. It will be replaced with plantings further from the fence. Three other trees were removed for the same reason and are being replaced as part of this plan. Mr. Lawrence then showed the Heritage Building. There is a chain link fence with white pines near the fence. These and the honey locust were found to be OK by TSA. As it is a shady environment, they are proposing yews be planted back from the fence. They will screen the airfield and the fence. On Airport Drive, there is a concrete block wall with some shade trees along the wall. The intent is to create large planting beds to anchor those trees. They will use a mix of evergreen ground cover and junipers with some perennials for color. They also propose to bring in some attractive boulders to soften the wall. Since TSA wants to be able to see inside the fence, nothing will be planted near the fence that is over 3 feet high. Mr. Barritt asked about the Board’s suggestions for the sign. Mr. Leinwohl said the Airport people are interested, but want that to be separate from this application. Members were OK with the landscape plan. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-30. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 21 October 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 21 October 2014 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. , Clerk ______5/5/2015_____________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Nov 4_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 31, 2014 Plans received: August 18, 2014 SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-14-23 Agenda #3 Meeting date: November 4, 2014 Owner Synergy Development, LLC 151 Murphy Road Charlotte, VT 05445 Applicant same Contact Person Jeremy Matosky TCE, Inc. 478 Blair Road Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01741 Residential 1 and Residential 2 3.62 Acres CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Nov4_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-23 of Synergy Development, LLC to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into four (4) lots ranging in size from 0.5 acres to 1.7 acres, 1741 Spear Street. Note: The Board previously discussed this application at its October 7, 2014 meeting. The applicant has now revised its application so that the application now proposes to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three (3) lots ranging in size from 0.75 acres to 2.12 acres, 1741 Spear Street, rather than the previous four (4). COMMENTS Administrative Officer Raymond Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the original plan submitted on August 18, 2014 and a revised plan submitted on October 27, 2014 and offer the following comments. Applicability of use of Planned Unit Development approach The applicant’s proposal seeks approval to use PUD in order to retain the existing single family home on a smaller lot, create two (2) additional lots each with a single family home and design a single driveway and establish a common use area and other elements. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: 15.01 Purpose It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The applicant argues, in part, that PUD review is needed in order to allow a more efficient lot layout, reduce impervious coverage, allow the use of a private drive and establish open space elements. The applicant’s full argument can be seen in their letter dated October 24, 2014 and attached plan labeled SK-2. The standards for determining whether a project warrants the flexibility provided by PUD review include the following:  To encourage innovation in design and layout. The applicant proposes a shared access and is establishing a 0.40 acre community open space, building envelopes for the two new homes, and stormwater treatment. The establishment of building envelopes and a community open space area could be considered to be innovative compared to other developments in this area of the City. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Nov4_mtg.doc The applicant has drawn building envelopes to avoid tree impacts where possible for larger trees on the property. Staff is supportive of a design which limits impacts to significant trees. Staff notes, however, that the building envelope on the western-most lot should perhaps be adjusted to move further from the 48” willow tree to avoid future conflicts between the tree’s root system and the home’s foundation.  Efficient use of land. The applicant presents that the shared driveway and common open space, combined with the proposed stormwater features, make for an efficient use of land. The Board is encouraged to discuss the applicant’s proposal for the stormwater on site. The efficiency of the use of the land will relate closely to the need and value of these stormwater improvements. The applicant’s use of a shared private drive and a shared community open space could be considered to be efficient.  The viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Core Area is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1. Core Area The core area of the City shall be defined as those areas lying north of I-89 and I- 189, and lying west of Spear Street. It is recommended that the majority of development density and new development over the next 20 years be directed to the core area of the City. It should be noted that within the core area, there will be sub- areas of varying uses and densities, natural resource preservation areas, parks and open spaces, and transportation facilities. Many of these sub-areas, such as the City Center, commercial centers and residential areas are discussed below. While the subject property in located in the Core Area (as it lies west of Spear Street), it is located in a Low Density area as depicted on Map 6 Future Land Use in the Comprehensive Plan (see map in packet). Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan notes the following with regards to Low Density areas: The Proposed Land Use Map designates areas of varying residential character which are defined as follows:  High density: 10 5.1 units/acre and greater  Moderate density: 1.1 units/acre - 9.9 5 units/acre  Low Density: 1 unit/acre and lower  Residential and Open Space: low moderate density residential use with an emphasis on innovative design and layout (e.g. clustering) to promote and preserve open space, natural features, scenic views and continued agricultural use. In light of the goals described in this section, the City recommends a general land use pattern of higher residential densities in the City Center urban core with a transition to lower densities on the periphery. As shown on Map 8, high density residential is proposed in the City's proposed urban center (i.e., city center and Kennedy Drive areas). Moving outward from the proposed urban core, residential densities transition to moderate density in the Williston Road/White Street area and Shelburne Road corridor, and then to low moderate density outside of the "core area" and on the periphery of the City, namely within the SEQ. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Nov4_mtg.doc It should be noted that Map 6 presents a general land use pattern and that there will be areas of open space, recreation, and varying density neighborhoods (i.e., single family and multi-family) scattered throughout each residential use category. In evaluating this project for PUD applicability, the Board should take into consideration all the standards above as a whole. The overall proposed density is approximately 1 unit per 1.2 acres, which falls within the “low density” discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. The Board should discuss whether the project, as presented, qualifies for a PUD review. Frontage requirements, Section 3.05(C) At the previous hearing, the Board had discussed frontage and whether it could waive the 50-feet per lot requirement. The applicant has now revised its application and is proposing to create three (3) lots. Should the Board determine that the project can be reviewed as a PUD, staff feels that the frontage requirement would be met as the total frontage available for the 3 lots is 166.28 ft? 2. The Board should confirm, if PUD review is permitted, that the requirements of Section 3.05 (C) are met. Lot layout The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 3.62 acre parcel into 3 lots as follows: Proposed Size Zoning District Lot 1 0.75 acres Primarily R-2, some R-1 Lot 2 0.75 acres Primarily R-1, some R-2 Lot 4 2.12 acres (existing SF home) R-1 Please note that he applicant is no longer requesting a shift of the zoning district boundary pursuant to Section 15.03(C). The applicant is also proposing building envelopes for lots 1 and 2 in order to prevent significant clearing of trees and vegetation, a shared access drive and a shared community open space and various on-site stormwater treatment methods. For the above to be approved, the DRB would need to approve a lot size waiver for Lot #2. The DRB has the authority to grant lot size reductions within the context of a PUD. Staff recommends that prior to final plat that: 1. The applicant meet with the City Arborist and the City Stormwater Engineer to obtain their guidance regarding retention of trees, separation of trees from building envelopes, and stormwater improvements on the site. 2. The applicant clarify whether or not the community open space area would be in perpetuity or would the owner of Lot 3 have the right to cancel its function as a community open space and/or develop it as they see fit CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Nov4_mtg.doc 3. A draft homeowners association covenant be prepared. The covenant should address use and maintenance of the shared driveway, the use, maintenance and future of community open space area, management of the areas outside the building envelope and any other relevant issues. 3. The Board should decide whether it finds the general size and location of the lots, the community open space and the shared driveway acceptable at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board address the numbered items above before proceeding with any more detailed review. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer FMFMWWWWWWWWWWFMFMWSFMFMFMFMFMFMOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPWWWWAPPROX.TREELINEGBRUSHSPEAR STREET73373372372371371371370370370370369 369369369369 368368368 367367367366366366365365365364364364363363363 362 362362 361 361361361360360360 359359359358358358357357357356 356 356355355355 354354 353 353 353352 352 352351351 351350350350349349349348348348347347347 346346346345345345344344344 343343343342342342341341341340340340339339339339339338338338337337337336336336335335335334334334 333333333332332331331331330330330329 329 329328 328328327 327327326326326325325325324324323323322322 321321321320 320319 319FMFMFMFMFMFMFMGGGGGGGGGW14" DECIDUOUS15" SUGAR MAPLE27" Oak24" Sugar Maple15" SUGAR MAPLE48" WILLOW18" RED MAPLE19 RED MAPLE27" RED MAPLE27" Oak48" WILLOW26" Oak15" DECIDUOUS14" TREE17" SUGAR MAPLE24" SUGAR MAPLE18" DECIDUOUS15" DECIDUOUS15" CONIFEROUS24" TREE26" DECIDUOUS24" CONIFEROUS19" DECIDUOUS24" CONIFEROUS29" CONIFEROUSSFM FMFMFMFMFMFMFM16" APPLE9" APPLE24" APPLE20" APPLE24" APPLE24" APPLE24" APPLE24" APPLE8" APPLE12" APPLE1" APPLE ?8" APPLE ?6" APPLE ?12" APPLE ?15" APPLE ?12" APPLE ?10" APPLE ?14" APPLE ?12" APPLE ?10" APPLE ?6" APPLE ?1" APPLE ?12" APPLE ?12" APPLE ?15" APPLE ?11" APPLE ?19" APPLE ?20" CONIFEROUS24" CONIFEROUS15" DECIDUOUS26" CONIFEROUS24" CONIFEROUS14" CONIFEROUSEXISTING ARBORVITAE HEDGEEXISTING ORCHARDWWOODEDAREAWOODEDAREALOT 392,364 SQ. FT.2.12 AcresRESIDENTIAL 1RESIDENTIAL 2166.28'49.89'50' FRONTEXISTING PAVEDDRIVE TO BERELOCATED147.71'LOT 232,670 SQ. FT. 0.75 AcresCOMMUNITYOPEN SPACE0.40 AC.139.50'125.11' 40.75'5.73'10.62'186.72'290.30'144.16'18.62'25.06'156.66'350.98'61.00'LOT 132,670 SQ. FT. 0.75 Acres16' GRAVEL DRIVE12' GRAVEL DRIVESTORMWATER PONDFOR ON-SITE40' EASEMENT 40' ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>GRASS LINED SWALE FOROFF-SITE STORMWATER(TYPICAL)PROPOSED FENCEAND/OR HEDGE ALONGPROPERTY LINEBUILDINGENVELOPEBUILDINGENVELOPEGRASS LINED SWALE(TYPICAL)POSSIBLESTORMWATER PONDFOR OFF-SITE30' 30'25'12'10'15'25'25'25'SynergyDevelopment, LLC1741 Spear StreetSouth Burlington, VermontPlanned UnitDevelopmentSketch Plan IISK-210/22/141" = 30'14-087RMP/NPCNTH0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 12015°±TrueMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable. TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project. TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUTELSSTATE OF VERMONT PROFES SIONALENGINEERLI CENSEDField Book:206APPLICANT:SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC151 MURPHY ROADCHARLOTTE, VERMONT 05445CIVIL ENGINEER:TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE)ATTN. JENNIFER DESAUTELS, PE478 BLAIR PARK ROADWILLISTON, VT 05495PHONE: (802)879-6331PROJECT INFORMATION:OWNER OF RECORD: SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC151 MURPHY ROADCHARLOTTE, VERMONT 054451. TAX PARCEL ID: 1640-017412.PHYSICAL ADDRESS 1741 SPEAR STREET OF PROPERTY: SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054033.PARCEL SIZE: 3.62 ACRES4.ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL 1, RESIDENTIAL 2PROPOSEDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAY LINEEASEMENTSBUILDING SETBACKSFENCETREE LINESEWER MANHOLE (SMH)CATCH BASIN (CB)VALVECURB STOP (CS)FIRE HYDRANT (HYD)WATER SUPPLY WELLEND CAPUTILITY POLEPUMP STATION (PS)OVERHEAD POWERSEWER FORCEMAINSTORM DRAINAGEPAVED DRIVE OR ROADGRAVEL DRIVE OR ROADTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSLEGENDSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSAND SERVICESLIQUID PROPANEOR NATURAL GASOUTLET OREND SECTIONSS124FMWGOHP124WGOHPFMDPSWSURVEY NOTES:1. THE PURPOSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN IS TO DEPICT PERTINENT EXISTINGCONDITIONS AS OF THE DATE OF SURVEY.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON VERMONT GRID NORTH.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD88 (GEIOD 12).4. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS BASED ON VERMONT STATE PLANE (U.S. SURVEY FEET).5. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED WITH RTK GPS OBSERVATIONS FROMTHE VTUV CORS STATION. A TRIMBLE R6 RTK GPS UNIT WAS EMPLOYED FOR THESEOBSERVATIONS.6. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN AREBASED ON RESEARCH, UTILITY PLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, AND/OR SURFACE EVIDENCEENCOUNTERED AND WERE OBTAINED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARYSTANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CARE AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BYTHE OWNER OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN MAY EXIST.ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED. ACTUALLOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MAY VARY. DIGSAFE MUST BE CONTACTED PRIORTO ANY EXCAVATION. CALL 1-888-DIG SAFE (344-7233).7. PERIMETER BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON FROM BOUNDARY SURVEY BY TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS DATED, 6/26/14.#1741EXISTINGTHREE BR.HOUSESHEDOPEN SPACE NOTES:STORMWATER & CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE:(INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS)R-1 DISTRICTLOT 1 = 1042 S.F.LOT 2 = 22,013 S.F.LOT 3 = 0 S.F.SUB TOTAL = 23,085 S.F. OR 0.5 AC.R-2 DISTRICTLOT 1 = 23,927 S.F.LOT 2 = 2,284 S.F.LOT 3 = 0 S.F.SUB TOTAL = 26,211 S.F. OR 0.6AC.TOTAL CONSERVATION OPEN SPACER-1 DISTRICT = 49,296 S.F. OR 1.1 AC.COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE:(INTENDED FOR RESIDENTS ONLY NOT PUBLIC USE)R-1 DISTRICTLOT 1 = 0 S.F.LOT 2 = 0 S.F.LOT 3 = 17,423 S.F.SUB TOTAL = 17,423 S.F. OR 0.4 AC.R-2 DISTRICTLOT 1 = 0 S.F.LOT 2 = 0 S.F.LOT 3 = 0 S.F.SUB TOTAL = 0 S.F. OR 0.0 AC.TOTAL COMMUNITY OPEN SPACER-2 DISTRICT = 17,423 S.F. OR 0.4 AC.TOTAL CONSERVATION & COMMUNITY OPEN SPACER-1 DISTRICT & R-2 DISTRICT= 66,719 S.F. OR 1.5 AC.% OF TOTAL PARCEL = 157,704 S.F./66,719 S.F. = 42.3% CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_14_10_50BartlettBayRoad_Sande DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 31, 2014 Application received: September 26, 2014 AGENDA ITEM #4 50 Bartlett Bay Road Conditional Use Application #CU-14-10 Meeting date: November 4, 2014 Applicants/Owners J. Peter and Diane R. Sande 149 Vista Drive Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel IDs 0130-00050 Lakeshore Neighborhood District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-14-10 of J. Peter & Diane Sande to raze an existing 1,136 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 1,136 sq. ft. footprint and construct a new single family dwelling with a 1,703 sq. ft. footprint, 50 Bartlett Bay Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht have reviewed the plans submitted on September 26, 2014, and offer the following comments. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, Section 3.06 J. Exceptions to Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements for Lots Existing Prior to February 28, 1974; Section 12.01 pre-existing structures along Lake Champlain; and Section 14.10 Conditional Uses. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: LN Zoning District Required Existing Proposed ‡ Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF 10,550 same  Max. Building Coverage 20 % 12.28% 16.0%  Max. Overall Coverage 40 % 22.82% 29%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. ~34 ft. 10 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. ~34 ft. ~44 ft. ♠ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. ~6 ft. 15 ft. ‡ Waterfront Setback 150 ft. 52 ft. 52 ft. √ Zoning Compliance ‡Pre-existing nonconforming  Waiver requested from the Board pursuant to 3.06(J)(3) ♠ Allowable by Administrative Officer pursuant to 3.06(J)(1) Subsequent to the receipt of the application, the applicant submitted more accurate measurements of the existing conditions on the property as follows: The existing square footage of the existing house including overhangs is 1,295.65 SF not 1,136 SF as indicated in the application. The existing impervious coverage (exclusive of the driveway) consisting of stairs, cement & stone is 108.1 square feet. Staff estimates the existing gravel driveway to consist of approximately 1,004 SF of impervious cover. The proposed location would require a waiver to both the front and rear setback requirements. A decision on the rear setback can be made by the Administrative Officer. The proposed 10 ft. front setback may be granted by the Board pursuant to 3.06(J) (3) which reads as follows: J. Exceptions to Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements for Lots Existing Prior to February 28, 1974. The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet. (2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage, but in no event shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse effect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (appears to be no change) (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (applicant to provide information at the meeting on this item). (c) adequate on-site parking; and (criterion being met). (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property, (criterion being met). Staff feels that the above criteria are met based on past experience with reviewing these criteria in other similar projects. 1. The Board should decide whether to grant a waiver on the 20 foot front setback requirement and if so how much of a waiver and if does grant a waiver that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse effect on items (J) (3) a-d above. 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. 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 existing building footprint area is 1,295.65 square feet. The proposed new structure is 1,703 square feet which would be 31.44% larger than the existing structure’s footprint. This criterion is satisfied. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer. As long as this plan is followed and it accomplishes its intended purposes, then this criterion is satisfied. e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. The applicant’s submission included a landscaping plan and plant list. The applicant also provided a copy of an October 23, 2014 letter from the Vermont ANR Shoreland Program which indicated receipt of their application for a permit (pursuant to 10 VSA Chapter 49) and that the standard review time is 40 days. Staff met with the applicant on October 28, 2014. The applicant clarified that the submitted landscaping plan (which includes an existing and proposed plant lists) actually represents most all of the existing landscaping. Staff also discussed the possibility that the Shoreland Program will require additional landscaping and/or landscaping in a different area than what is currently proposed to the City. Putting the issue aside of what the Shoreland Program may require, staff encouraged the applicant to consider adding areas of native vegetation (grasses, shrubs) under treed areas, in the northwest and southwest portions of the property and along the downslope areas of the property to slow any runoff. 2. The Board should discuss the landscaping plan and determine whether the criteria are satisfied. The Board may also wish to consider not commenting on this issue until the results of the Sande’s application for a State Shoreland Program are known. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (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 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 Staff considers item (a) and items (c) through (k) to be not applicable to the project. Item (b) is applicable to the project. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan and existing vegetation is to be maintained. 3. The Board should discuss the erosion control plan and determine whether criterion (b) is satisfied. The Board may also wish to consider not commenting on this issue until the results of the Sande’s application for a State Shoreland Program are known. 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. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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. The issues noted above on on a vegetated buffer remain ripe for discussion. This criterion is not yet satisfied. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. This criterion is satisfied. OTHER The property slopes to the south and staff recommends that the applicant takes steps to alter the grade by possibly adding a swale along the southerly boundary to direct stormwater away from the neighbor to the south. 4. The Board should discuss with the applicant their proposal to contain the stormwater on their property. RECOMMENDATION: The Board should address the outstanding issues noted above but keep the hearing open until the results of the applicant’s request for a State Shoreland Permit are known. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_28_SBRCPropertiesLLC_284MeadowlandDrive__Lot1C _2buildings_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 31, 2014 Application received: September 19, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-28 SBRC PROPERTIES – 284 MEADOWLAND DRIVE Agenda #5 Meeting Date: November 4, 2014 Applicant Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction 302 Mountain View Road, Suite 300 Colchester, Vermont 05446 Contact Person David Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Owners SBRC Properties LLC PO Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-28 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction for a planned unit development to construct two (2) general office buildings of 27,100 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft. on lot C-1 of a proposed four (4) lot subdivision, 284 Meadowland Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 30, 2014 and offer the following comments: The Board should note that additional development activity on the property is also proposed in applications #SD-14-29 and #MS-14-09. Pursuant to Section 6.04 of the LDRs the proposed development shall be reviewed initially pursuant to the PUD provisions of the LDRs. Development of the property will be subject to the following district and dimensional requirements:  6.04 Industrial – Open Space District IO  6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: IO Zoning District Required Existing Lot 1 Proposed Lot 1-C  Min. Lot Size 3 acres 39.5 acres 3.4 acres  Max. Building Coverage 30% 0% 10.3 %  Max. Overall Coverage 50% ~0% 47.8 %  Max. Front Yard Coverage (Meadowland Drive) 30% ~0% 0 %  Max. Front Yard Coverage (New Street) 30% ~0% 5.9 %  Min. Front Setback (Meadowland Drive) 50 ft. n/a >50 ft.  Min. Front Setback (New Street) 50 ft. n/a >50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a >35 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a >50 ft.  Max. Building Height (flat roof) 35ft. n/a 35 ft.  Zoning compliance The application includes a brief description of the proposed extension of sewer, water, power & communications as well as on stormwater and future expansion. No waivers are requested. The applicant is seeking permission to access Meadowland Drive. Access, Layout & Parking An access road from a new public street is proposed. The road bifurcates the southern property line of the proposed Lot 1-C in order to serve Lot 1-E as well as a shared access road. Two (2) buildings are proposed. Staff has recommended to the applicant that these be moved in a southerly direction to better screen parking from the New Street and to create more open space between the buildings and the southern side of the Burlington Properties Limited Partnership parcel to the north. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (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. (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 parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. Staff does not believe that the above requirement that there be no parking to the front of a building is being met. Staff pointed this out to the applicant at a technical review meeting and suggested that the building #1 be moved closer to the street, but this is not shown on the plan being presented. There is also some parking in front of building #2 which could be remedied by either moving the building closer to the street or relocating the 10 spaces in front of the building to the side or rear of the building. The applicant is proposing more parking spaces than the required 137 off-street parking spaces needed for 39,100 GFA combined in the two buildings and 143 spaces are proposed. Staff recommends that the number of spaces be reduced and that if there are occasions that require more spaces, that the on- street parking available be utilized. Pedestrian/Recreation Path Easement Five (5) feet of a 20-foot wide recreation path easement occupies the north property line in the east- west direction. The applicant has proposed a 10 ft. wide gravel recreation path along the northern edge of Lot 1-C, a 5 ft. wide gravel recreation path along the western edge of Lot 1-C and Lot 1-E and a 5 ft. sidewalk alongside the new proposed public roadway in lieu of providing a 10 ft. wide recreation path along the proposed public roadway. Staff recommends that the applicant propose a pedestrian connection between the street and the buildings. 6.04 INDUSTRIAL-OPEN SPACE DISTRICT IO A.Purpose. The Industrial-Open Space IO District is established to provide suitable locations for high- quality, large-lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to major CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high-quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth. The location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. One of the purposes listed above includes preserving “…the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City…”. The applicant has submitted a letter dated October 27, 2014 in support of its project compliance with the purpose and standards for the District. The applicant submitted revised plans late in the week and will explain further at the hearing. Staff considers the project to meet the purpose and standards. OTHER The dumpster enclosure for building #1 is proposed to be located in the front of the building. Staff recommends that it be relocated to a less visible location. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates N/FGREENFIELDCAPITAL, L.L.C.N/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FEAST MOUNTAINVIEW, L.L.CN/FCEAPROPERTIES,L.L.CN/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FSOUTH BURLINGTONREALITY CORP.N/FSOUTH BURLINGTONREALITY CORP.N/FO'BRIENMEADOWLANDS368366364362 364 366362362 372368UTTUT UT UT DR EXISTINGHOUSE EXIST I N GGARAGE6GTHOMPSON STREETBOWDOIN ST.KNOLL CIRCLEGGGGG EFM DR G G G G GG G BLOCK WALLBLOCK WALL GAS SERVIC E FM UT UT LOT 1xGGW 392PARKING346374 412412 408 408408408408 406406 406 406406 406404404404 404 404 404 402 402402 402402402 398 398 398 398 398 398398398398398 396396 396 396 396396396396 396 396 396 396 394 394394394394394394 394 394 394 394394 394394 394 392 392 392 392 392 392392 392392392392392392392392 392 392392392392 388 388 388 388388388 388388388388388388 388 388 388388388388388388388388388388388388388 388 386386 386 386386386 386 386 386 386386386 386 386386 386 386386 386 386386 386 386 386386386386 386 384 384 384384 384 384384384384 384 384 384 384 384384384 384384384384384384384384 384 384384384384 384384382382 382 382382382 382 382 382382382 382 382 382 382382 382 382382 382382 382 382 382 382 382 382382382 382382382 382382 382378 378 378 378378 378 378 378378 378 378378 378 378 378378 378 378 378 378 378 378378378378 378 378 378378 378376376376376 376376376376376376 376 376 376376 376376 376376 376 376376 376376 376 376376 376 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374374374 374374374374374 374 374 374374 374 374 374 374374374 374374 372372372372372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372372 372 372 372372372372372 372 372372372 372 372 372 372372 372372 368 368368 368 368 368 368368 368 368 368 368 368368368 368 368368 368 368368368368 368 368 368368368 368368 366 366 366366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366366 366366366 366 366 366 366 366366366 366366366366 366366 366 366366 364364364 364364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 364364364364 364364364 364 364364 364364 364 362 362 362 362 362362362 362 362 362 362 362 362362 362 362362 362 362362 362 362 362362362362 362 362358358358358 358358358358 358358 358 358 358358358 358358 358 358 358 358358358358 358358358358358358358358 356356356356356 356356 356 356 356 356 356356356356 356 356 356 356 356 356 356356356356356 356 356 356 356 356356 356356 356 354 354 354354 354354354 354 354 354354 354354354354 354 354354354 354 354354354354 354354 354354 354354 354 354 354354 354 352352 352352 352 352 352352 352 352 352352 352352 352 352 352352 352 352 352 352352352352352 352 352 352352352 352 352352 352 352352 352 35235235235235235 348 348 348 348348348 348 348 348348 348 348348348348 348348348348348348 348348 348 348 348348 348348348348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348348 348 346 346 346 346346346 346 346 346346346346 346 346346346 346346346346 346 346 346346346 346 346346 346346 346 346346 346 346 346 346 346346 346 346344344 344 344 344344 344344344344 344 344344 344 344 344 344344 344 344 344344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344344344344344344344344344 344 342342342342342342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342342 342 342 342342342 342 342 342342 342342 342 342342342342 342 342342342338338338 338338338338338 338338 338 338338 338 338 338 338 338338338338 338338338 338 338338 338338338 338338338338338 338 338 338 338338338338 338338338 338338 338 338338 336 336336 336336 336 336336 336 336 336336 336336 336 336336 336336 336336 336336 336 336 336336336336 336336336336336336336336336336 336 336336 336 336336336 336336 336 336336 336 336336336336336336 336336336334 334 334 334 334334 334334334 334334 334334334334 334 334 334 334 334334 334334334334 392388388 388388386 386 384 384 384384 382382 382 378 378 376 376374372372368368 366 366 366 366 366 366364 364 358 358356 356 354354 352 352 352 384 390 390380380380370 370360360 360 360350350 LOT 2LOT 3LOT 9LOT 7 & 8LOT 6LOT 5LOT 4LOT 11LOT 10LOT 1-ALOT 1-BLOT 12LOT 1-ELOT 1-DLOT 1-CLOT R.O.W.2.3 ACRES3.0 ACRES3.1 ACRES3.4 ACRESEXIST. - 39.5 ACRESPROP. - 29.5 ACRESPOTENTIAL FUTURER.O.W. EXTENSIONPOTENTIAL FUTURECUL-DE-SAC EXTENSIONDSMDSMSAL1" = 130'14182C1.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEOVERALLSITE PLANOCT. 29, 2014PROJECTLOCATION89116SOUTHBURLINGTONREALTY CORP.PROPOSED OFFICEBUILDINGS LOT 1-CMEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARKWILLISTON, VTVT. RTE. 116MEADOWLAND DRIVESOUTH BURLINGTON, VTBLACKROCKCONSTRUCTION,L.L.C.300 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROADSUITE 302COLCHESTER, VTPROJECTLOCATIONDESIGNATEDGREEN SPACEDESIGNATEDGREEN SPACEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14182\1-CADD Files-14182\Dwg\14182.dwg, 10/29/2014 10:07:04 AM N/FGREENFIELDCAPITAL, L.L.C.N/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FEAST MOUNTAINVIEW, L.L.CN/FCEA PROPERTIES, L.L.CN/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIP362S S S S S STST STSTSTSTST ST FMFMFMFMFMSSSTSTSTST15" HDPE15" HDPEDPOSEDSSS34W W W W W W W W W W WWS S S S S SS374392388388 388388386 384384 384 382382378378376376374372372368368366 366366366364 358 356 354354 352384 390390380380370370360360360 360D380380370370360360DSMDSMSAL1" = 30'14182C1.1LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEEXISTINGCONDITIONSPLANOCT. 29, 2014PROJECTLOCATION11689PROPOSED ROAD &GRADINGSOUTHBURLINGTONREALTY CORP.PROPOSED OFFICEBUILDINGS LOT 1-CMEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARKWILLISTON, VTVT. RTE. 116MEADOWLAND DRIVESOUTH BURLINGTON, VTBLACKROCKCONSTRUCTION,L.L.C.300 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROADSUITE 302COLCHESTER, VTLOT 1-ELOT 1-CLOT 1-DEXIST. GRAVEL ROADRECREATION PATH EASEMENTHINESBURG ROAD NORTH VIEW PROTECTION LIMITSSEWER EASEMENT TO SBRC LOT 1-BGREE N M O U N T AI N P O W E R E A SE M E N T PEDESTRIAN LOOP SYSTEM TO BECONSTRUCTED COINCIDENT WITHDEVELOPMENT OF EACH PARCELP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14182\1-CADD Files-14182\Dwg\14182.dwg, 10/29/2014 10:07:13 AM PROPOSEDBUILDING#2W/ U.G.PARKING13 + 2 H.C. SPACES 15 + 2 H.C. SPACES PROPOSED SHARED ACCESS ROADPROPOSEDBUILDING#119 SPACES 21 SPACES 14 + 2 H.C. SPACES 27 SPACESPROPOSEDSTORMWATERPOND 10 SPACESSSSSS S S SSSSS WWWWWWWWW WWSN/FGREENFIELDCAPITAL, L.L.C.N/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FEAST MOUNTAINVIEW, L.L.CN/FCEA PROPERTIES, L.L.CN/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPPROPOSED 10' GRAVELRECREATION PATHPROPOSED 5' GRAVELRECREATION PATH362S S S S S STST STSTSTSTST ST FMFMFMFMFMSSSTSTSTST15" HDPE15" HDPEDPOSEDSSS34W W W W W W W W W W WWS S S S S SS374392388388 388388386 384384 384 382382378378376376374372372368368366 366366366364 358 356 354354 352384 390390380380370370360360360 360D380380370370360360EMPLOYEEBREAK AREAEMPLOYEEBREAK AREAPEDESTRIAN BRIDGEDSMDSMSAL1" = 30'14182C1.2LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPROPOSEDCONDITIONSPLANOCT. 29, 2014PROJECTLOCATION11689SOUTHBURLINGTONREALTY CORP.PROPOSED OFFICEBUILDINGS LOT 1-CMEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARKWILLISTON, VTVT. RTE. 116MEADOWLAND DRIVESOUTH BURLINGTON, VTBLACKROCKCONSTRUCTION,L.L.C.300 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROADSUITE 302COLCHESTER, VTLOT 1-ELOT 1-CLOT 1-DHINESBURG ROAD NORTH VIEW PROTECTION LIMITSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14182\1-CADD Files-14182\Dwg\14182.dwg, 10/29/2014 10:07:18 AM #MS-14-09 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SBRC PROPERTIES, LLC – 284 MEADOWLAND DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-09 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION SBRC Properties, LLC is seeking miscellaneous after-the-fact approval to leave in place 70,000 cubic yards of fill which was required to be removed by 12/11/09, 284 Meadowland Drive. The Board held a public hearing on this application on November 4 2014. David Marshall represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. SBRC Properties, LLC is seeking miscellaneous after-the-fact approval to leave in place 70,000 cubic yards of fill which was required to be removed by 12/11/09, 284 Meadowland Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is SBRC Properties, LLC. 3. The subject property is located in the Industrial & Open Space Zoning District. 4. The plan submitted consists of three (3) pages, page one is entitled “South Burlington Realty Corp. Williston, Vermont Lot 1 Permanent Fill Replacement VT. Rte. 116 Meadowland Drive South Burlington Vermont Overall Site Plan” prepared Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. and dated Sept. 18, 2014 This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be #MS-14-09 2 filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The Board finds that this criterion is not applicable as the fill is meant to be a permanent addition to this property. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The Board finds that this criterion is not applicable as the soil is intended to be used at the site and not removed. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The Board finds that a bond is not necessary to assure compliance. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development will be the existing grade prior to the placement of the fill which is the subject of this application. The pre-construction grade shall be as shown as in Sheet C1.1 (Pre-Existing Grade Plan) of the submitted plans. DECISION Motion by _____________________, seconded by _______________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-09 of SBRC Properties, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full effect. 2. The 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 applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer upon completion of the fill placement. 5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. #MS-14-09 3 6. The pre-construction height for future development will be the existing grade prior to the placement of the fill which is the subject of this application. The pre-construction grade shall be as shown as in Sheet C1.1 (Pre- Existing Grade Plan) of the submitted plans. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – 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 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. DR EXISTINGHOUSE EXISTIN G GARAGETHOMPSON STREETBOWDOIN ST.KNOLL CIRCLEBLOCK WALL BLOCK WALLLOT 1392PARKING346 412412 408 408408408408 406406 406 406406406404404404 404 404 404402402402 402402402 398 398 398398 398398398 398 398398 396 396 396 396396 396396 396396396396396396396396 394 394394394394394394394394394 394 394 394 394 394394 394 394 392 392 392392 392 392392 392 392 392 392392392392392 392 392392 392 392392392392 388 388 388 388388388 388388388388388 388 388 388388 388388388388388388388388388 388388388 388 386386386 386386386 386 386386 386386386 386 386386 386 386386386 386386386 386 386386386386 386 384 384 384384 384 384384384 384 384384 384 384 384384384 384384384384384384384384384 384384384384384384382382 382 382382382 382382 382382382 382382 382 382382 382382382 382382 382 382 382 382382 382382382 382382382 382382 382378378 378 378378 378 378 378 378 378 378378378 378 378378 378 378 378 378 378378378378378 378 378 378378 378376376376376 376 376376376376376 376 376 376 376 376376 376376 376 376376 376376 376 376376 376 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374374 374374 374 374374374374 374 374 374374 374 374 374 374374374374374 372372372372372 372 372 372 372 372372 372 372372372 372 372372372372372 372 372 372 372372 372 372 372 372372 372372 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 368368368368 368 368 368368 368 368368368368 368 368 368368368 368368 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366366 366 366 366366 366366366 366 366366 366 366366366366366366366366366 366366 366 366366 364364364 364364 364364 364 364 364 364 364364364 364364364364 364 364364364 364 364364 364364 364 362 362 362 362 362 362 362362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362362362362 362 362 362 362 362362362362 362 362358358358358 358358 358 358 358358 358 358 358358358 358 358 358 358 358 358358358358 358358358358358358358358 356356356 356356 356356 356 356 356356 356356356356 356 356 356356 356 356 356356 356356356356 356 356 356 356356 356356356 354 354 354354 354354354 354 354 354354 354354354354 354 354354354354354354354354354 354 354354 354354 354 354 354354 354 352352 352352 352 352 352352 352 352 352352 352352 352 352 352352 352 352 352 352352352352352 352 352 352352352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 35235235235235 348 348 348 348348348 348 348 348348 348 348348348 348 348348348 348 348 348 348348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348348 348 346 346 346 346346346 346 346 346 346 346346 346 346346346 346346346346 346 346 346346346 346 346346 346346346 346 346346 346 346346 346 346 346 346344344 344 344 344344344 344344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344344 344 344 344 344 344344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344344344344344344344344344344 342342342342342342 342 342 342 342342 342 342 342342 342 342342342 342 342 342342342342 342 342342342 342 342 342342342 338338338 338338338338338 338338 338 338 338 338 338 338 338 338338338 338 338338338 338 338338 338338338 338338 338 338338 338 338 338 338 338338338 338 338338338 338338338338 336 336 336336 336 336 336336 336 336 336336 336336336 336336 336336 336336 336336 336 336 336336336336 336 336336336336336336336336336 336 336336 336 336336336 336 336 336 336336 336 336336336 336336336 336336336 334 334334 334 334334 334 334 334 334334 334334334 334 334 334 334 334 334334 334 334334 334 410 410 410410410 400400400400400400400400 400 400 390 390390390 390 390 390 390 390 390390 390 390 390 390 390390 390 390390 390390380380380380 380 380380380380 380 380380 380 380380 380380 380 380 380380380380380380 380 380 380 380 380380 370370 370 370 370 370370 370 370 370370370370 370370 370 370 370370370370 370 370370 370370370370 370 370370 370370360360 360360 360 360 360360360360 360 360 360 360360 360 360360 360 360360 360 360 360360360360360 350 350350350 350 350 350350350 350 350 350 350350350 350 350350350 350350350 350 350 350350350350350350350 350350350 350 350350350350350 350 350350 350350 350350350350350 350 350350350 350 340 340340340340340340 340 340340 340340340 340 340 340340340340 340 340 340340 340340340 340340340340340 340340340340340 LOT 2LOT 3LOT 9LOT 7 & 8LOT 6LOT 5LOT 4LOT 11LOT 10LOT 1-ALOT 1-BLOT 12N/FGREENFIELDCAPITAL, L.L.C.N/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FEAST MOUNTAINVIEW, L.L.CN/FCEAPROPERTIES,L.L.CN/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FSOUTH BURLINGTONREALITY CORP.N/FSOUTH BURLINGTONREALITY CORP.N/FO'BRIENMEADOWLANDSDSMDSMSAL1" = 130'14183C1.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEOVERALLSITE PLANSEPT. 18, 2014PROJECTLOCATION11689SOUTHBURLINGTONREALTY CORP.LOT 1PERMANENT FILLPLACEMENTWILLISTON,VERMONTVT. RTE. 116MEADOWLAND DRIVESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTAREA OF INTERESTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14183\1-CADD Files-14183\Dwg\14183 Applications.dwg, 9/18/2014 8:08:03 AM 38438438238238238238282378378 378378378 376376 376 376376376374374 374 374374374372 372 372372368368368 368 368366366366366364364364364362362362362362358358 358 358358358358356356356 356356356356354354354354354352 3352352 380 380380380380370370 370370 370360360360360 360 N/FGREENFIELDCAPITAL, L.L.C.N/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FEASTMOUNTAINVIEW,L.L.CN/FCEAPROPERTIES,L.L.CDSMDSMSAL1" = 30'14183C1.1LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPRE-EXISTINGGRADEPLANSEPT. 18, 2014NOTES:1. Contour information is based upon LiDAR data from2004. Horizontal and vertical datum based on VCS NAD83 and NAVD 88.2. This plan is not a boundary survey and is not intendedto be used as one.100EXISTING CONTOUR 2004CURBSWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFERSTREAMSEWER MANHOLECATCH BASINHYDRANTDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDLEGENDPROJECTLOCATION11689SOUTHBURLINGTONREALTY CORP.LOT 1PERMANENT FILLPLACEMENTWILLISTON,VERMONTVT. RTE. 116MEADOWLAND DRIVESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14183\1-CADD Files-14183\Dwg\14183 Applications.dwg, 9/18/2014 8:08:07 AM 38438438238238238238282378378 378378378 376376 376 376376376374374 374 374374374372 372 372372368368368 368 368366366366366364364364364362362362362362358358 358 358358358358356356356 356356356356354354354354354352 3352352 390390380380 380380 380370 360 350350380 380380380380370370 370370 370360360360360 360 392388388 388388386 386 384384384 384 382382382378378376376374374372372368368366 366366366366364364362362358358356356354354352352 384 390390380380380370370360 360350350N/FGREENFIELDCAPITAL, L.L.C.N/FBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPN/FEASTMOUNTAINVIEW,L.L.CN/FCEAPROPERTIES,L.L.CDSMDSMSAL1" = 30'14183C1.2LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEFILL PLANSEPT. 18, 2014Volumes by Triangulation (Prisms) Wed Sep 03 10:40:59 2014Existing Surface: P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14183\1-CADD Files\surfaces\2004 Lidar.tinFinal Surface: P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14183\1-CADD Files\surfaces\TOPO_DATA-AUG2014.tinCut volume: 4,380 C.Y.Fill volume: 70,100 C.Y.Average Cut Depth: 0.9 feetAverage Fill Depth: 6.6 feetImport Volume: 65,720 C.Y.NOTES:1. Site information is based upon a field survey performedby Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. in August of 2014.Horizontal and vertical datum based on VCS NAD 83and NAVD 88, respectively based upon Static GPSobservations.2. This plan is not a boundary survey and is not intendedto be used as one.100EXISTING CONTOURCURBGRAVELSWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFERSTREAMSEWER MANHOLECATCH BASINHYDRANTDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDLEGEND100PRE-EXISTING CONTOURPROJECTLOCATION11689SOUTHBURLINGTONREALTY CORP.LOT 1PERMANENT FILLPLACEMENTWILLISTON,VERMONTVT. RTE. 116MEADOWLAND DRIVESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTEXISTING CONTOURSREPRESENTING FINAL FILLELEVATIONSAPPROXIMATE DEPTH OF FILLP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14183\1-CADD Files-14183\Dwg\14183 Applications.dwg, 9/18/2014 8:08:12 AM 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_30_113_and_12000AirportDrive_BIA_prelim_and_fin al_plat_Gate11_afterfact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 31, 2014 Application received: October 3, 2014 PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT #SD-14-30 CITY OF BURLINGTON/ BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1130 & 1200 Airport Drive Agenda Item # 8 Meeting date: November 4, 2014 Owner/Applicant City of Burlington 1200 Airport Drive, #1 S. Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Airport Industrial (AIR-I) Zoning District 927 acres 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to amend a planned unit development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact construction of a 215 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Gate 11 aircraft boarding hallway and pedestal footing for aircraft boarding bridge equipment, and 2) removing landscaping along security fence and replacing this landscaping elsewhere on the property, 1130 & 1200 Airport Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Raymond Belair and Planner, Temporary Assignment, Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 3, 2014 and have the following comments: SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public water system shall be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. Not applicable. 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 standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The proposed project will have no impact on traffic. This criterion is being met. 3 The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands, streams, or wildlife habitat on the site. The subject property is an operating airport and is not identified in the Open Space Strategy. This criterion is being met. 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 Gate is identical to other gates at the airport. This criterion is being met. 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. There are no open space areas on the site. This criterion is being met. 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. Staff spoke to the Fire Chief about this project and he indicated that the project was acceptable. 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. Not applicable. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. Based upon a construction budget of $386,389, $10,227 in landscaping is required for the new construction at Gate 11. The applicant is also proposing to remove an arborvitae hedge at 1130 Airport Drive at the request of Homeland Security. The plantings to be removed have an estimated value of $12,200. The applicant will also be planting $1,400 of new plantings to make up for the removal of three (3) trees from the Heritage Hangar project. All the new landscaping proposed results in a combined total of $23,827. The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan and budget proposing $24,456 in landscaping cost. This criterion is being met. The applicant will be relocating a portion of the airport fence near the Eldridge cemetery to increase security due to a large tree within the cemetery being too close to the existing fence. 4 Staff feels that this criterion is being met. 1. The Board should discuss the proposed new plantings and landscaping plan. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The lighting is similar to those on other gates. This criterion is being met. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels the proposed project is in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 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. Staff feels that the reservation of land is not necessary. This criterion will continue to be met. (b) Electric, telephone, and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. This criterion will continue to be met. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure, and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). This criterion will continue to be met. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer AIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTNV:\1953\active\195310973\transportation\drawing\02-Locationplan.dwg, Heritage, 10/3/2014 6:17:54 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 NV:\1953\active\195310973\transportation\drawing\03-Site plan.dwg, Without Fence, 10/3/2014 6:23:14 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 LEVEL 10"T.O. Footing-4'-0"UPPER PARAPET14'-8"123A14'-8"LOWER PARAPET13'-4 1/4"T.O.S. UPPER LEVEL13'-0 3/4"T.O.S LOWER LEVEL11'-8"T.O.S. CANOPY9'-0 13/16"45PANEL3'-0 1/2"PANEL4'-0"PANEL4'-0"A5101 WALL SCONCE6'-8"LINE OF BRIDGEIN FOREGROUNDBEYONDCANOPYLINE OF BRIDGEOUTLINE OF NEW EXTERIOR PANEL MATCH EXISTING JOINTS LINE ATEXISTING BUILDING.11'-3 1/2" NEW PANELS BEYONDNEW PANEL5'-8"7 1/4"ALUM METAL COPING- MATCH EXISTING SIZE AND COLOR.0.70.92.8'J' CONT.REVEALALUMINUM STOREFRONT- TYPICALKAWNEER '451 UT' THERMAL FRAMING OR EQ.2"X4.5"D, .42 U-VALUE MAX. HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANIC COATING,WHITE TO MATCH. SEALED INSULATED GLASS UNIT, SPACE FILLEDWITH ARGON. PPG INDUSTRIES. OUTBOARD LITE TEMPERED FLOAT GLASS1/4" THICK, INTERIOR LITE TEMPERED FLOAT GLASS 1/4" THICK, 1" TOTAL THICKNESSPANEL3'-4"A51038"4"A50056'-0"4'-0"PANEL7'-4"PANEL6'-0"PANEL6'-0"PANEL6'-0"1'-0"1'-0"LEVEL 10"T.O. Footing-4'-0"UPPER PARAPET14'-8"BLOWER PARAPET13'-4 1/4"T.O.S. UPPER LEVEL13'-0 3/4"T.O.S LOWER LEVEL11'-8"A.9BCC.1DEPANEL7'-5 1/4"PANEL5'-5 1/4"PANEL5'-5 1/8"PANEL JOINTS. ALIGN W/WEST ELEVATIONALUM METAL COPING7 1/4"7 1/4"2 1/2"'J' REVEALALUMINUM STOREFRONTA51038"4'-0"4'-0"1'-2 1/2"LEVEL 10"T.O. Footing-4'-0"UPPER PARAPET14'-8"123LOWER PARAPET13'-4 1/4"T.O.S LOWER LEVEL11'-8"T.O.S. CANOPY9'-0 13/16"45ALIGN PANELS JOINTSW/ WEST ELEVATIONBEYONDCANOPYSECTIONSECTION AT EXGEXISTINGGLAZING UNIT.PROVIDEWINDOW FILM4'-3"4'-3"A510311"A510110.70.92.8A5103LEVEL 10"T.O. Footing-4'-0"UPPER PARAPET14'-8"ALOWER PARAPET13'-4 1/4"T.O.S LOWER LEVEL11'-8"T.O.S. CANOPY9'-0 13/16"A.9BCC.1DEA5103NEXTERIOR WALL SCONCE RE:RCPNEW EXTERIOR DOOR AND FRAMEEXT. GALV DOOR OR FRAMEANSI A250.8 LEVEL 3 PHYSICAL PERF.LEVELA, MODEL #2. POLYSTYRENE FOAMCORE, U-VALUE OF .37MIN.ASSA ABLOY CECO OR EQ. FACTORYPRIME AND PAINT.GLAZING TO BE SIMILAR TO ALUMSTOREFRONT GLAZING,PPG INDUSTRIESOR EQ.OUTLINE OFBRIDGE FRAME,RE:A510.LINE OF PANEL JOINT.ALIGN WITH WEST ELEVATIONOPENING7'-5"LINE OF CANOPY BEYONDOPENTOBEYOND5'-3"EXISTINGSCUPPER TO REMAINPANEL OVER CONCRETEFOUNDATION WALL'J' REVEAL6'-8"8"4'-0"PANEL3'-4"PANEL4'-0"PANEL4'-0"N0' 2' 4' 8' 16' 20' 24' 28' 32'ORIGINATION DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:FFF PROJECT NO:ISSUE LOG:SHEET CONTENTS:SHEET NO:81 Maple Street Burlington VT 054018028646844 www.fffinc.com© 2013 Freeman French Freeman Inc.Architecture Planning InteriorsAs indicated2/28/2014 4:07:25 PMA200A1338.0012/01/13KJRKJREXTERIORELEVATIONSGATE 11 BRIDGERECONSTRUCTIONBURLINGTONINTERNATIONALAIRPORTPERMIT SET12/31/13IFCADDENDUM#101/10/201401/17/2014SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2001ELEVATION WESTSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2002ELEVATION NORTHSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2003ELEVATION EASTSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A2004ELEVATION SOUTH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 OCTOBER 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 October 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, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Fahim, Design Review Board; L. Michaels, V. Hunt, S. Dopp, A. Gill, J. Hodson, S. Homsted, J. Henning, A. Krebs, D. Bell, B. Smith, J. Larkin, D. Hostmacher, R. Hillman, D. White, M. Bettenhauer, L. Murphy, D. Marshall 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Announcements: Mr. Barritt noted that he and Ms. Smith had participated in the walk at the end of Iby Street on Saturday. 3. Design Review Application #DR-14-10 of Matt Wamsganz for design approval to replace an existing stockade fence with a six foot high white vinyl fence, 31 San Remo Drive: Ms. Hunt said she and Mr. Wamsganz will be splitting the cost of the fence which runs between their properties. She showed a picture of the existing fence which is in bad shape. The plan will also extend the fence 20 feet. Ms. Hunt showed what the design of the new fence will look like and what it will enclose. It was suggested that the approval be for a 7 foot fence as there will be space under the fence and decorative caps on top. Ms. Hunt agreed to this. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing on #DR-14-10. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Design Review Application #DR-14-08 of Val Hunt for after-the-fact approval to eliminate the requirement that siding be installed on the new wall approved under design review approval #DR-13-03, 340 Dorset Street: Ms. Hunt showed a picture of a mock-up of what complete framing of the windows will look like. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Barritt read comments from a Design Review Board member regarding the sign. Mr. Barritt noted this seems to be just what the applicant is proposing. Members were OK with it. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-14-08. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-24 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 24 acres with 245 dwelling units and 55,410 sq. ft. of commercial space in to buildings, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Michaels provided an overview of the project. He showed the proposed extension of Eldridge Street. He also stressed that 4 O’Brien family members live on Old Farm Road and are committed to being good neighbors. The intent of the project is to provide a “community” in the hope that this housing will keep people from having to leave South Burlington. They are committed to build something affordable housing and are talking with Champlain Housing to see how this can be accomplished. Mr. Michaels then showed some potential parking areas and an area of trails that residents are now using. He said there will not be a “clear cut” look. They also have a floating easement with the city for a potential future park area. Mr. Michaels showed a stormwater feature and noted that it could have some benches and other amenities around it. Mr. Gill said they can dead-end Old Farm Road with a hammerhead. Mr. Conner noted that the Public Works Director has said to let the traffic study identify where the pressure points are. The applicant then showed the area of commercial buildings where there will be underground parking. Buildings would be 3 or 4 stories. They would hope to have 5 stories where the ground is the lowest. Mr. Michaels said they are looking at a potential type of hotel and would prefer 5 stories for that. Mr. Barritt asked if the project would involve any TDRs. Mr. Gill said it would not. Mr. Michaels said they would want to make the park available to non-residents of the development and to figure out a way to utilize the barn in that regard. He then showed another potential park area that could be connected with a trail. Mr. Barritt questioned whether one 1.5 acre park is sufficient. Mr. Michaels suggested another area for a small park. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 3 Mr. Michaels said that Tilley Drive will reduce a lot of pressure on Hinesburg Road. He showed how people will eventually be able to go via foot/bicycle all the way to the Whales Tales. Mr. Gill said they are looking for Master Plan approval for the commercial area. They can seek approvals for the single family and town homes individually. They could set landscape boundaries. He asked if the Board is open to a longer phasing plan. Mr. Belair said it is do-able. The sewer allocation may have a 10-year maximum for the allocation. In the past, the Board has given a 5-year approval. Mr. Barritt noted there are a lot of waivers being asked for. Mr. Gill said the parking waiver is below 25%, which is approvable. He added that the plan cries out for shared parking between the residential and commercial areas. Mr. Michaels showed one area that could become a parking deck in the future. Mr. Gill noted that the setback waivers are mostly for the front yard, which goes along with bringing the buildings closer to the road. Mr. Wilking felt this was one area where you can expand on height and still not block any views. He felt that waiver was appropriate. Mr. Wilking questioned why the road is narrower than it is further down. Mr. Homsted said the feedback is that at this point “narrower is better.” The road would be designed at 24 feet, except where there is parking on both sides. Mr. Michaels added that this helps to slow down traffic. Public Works has said this is OK. Mr. Conner said staff will work closely with Public Works on this. Members asked for a photo simulation from Old Farm Road in order to address the proposed height waivers. Mr. Behr asked for more information about the stormwater area. Mr. Homsted said that as they go into more detail, they will be able to decide on a possible fountain, paths, etc. Mr. Behr suggested a possible connection from the new city street. Mr. Henning, a resident of Old Farm Road, said he had no beef with the project but he was concerned with the danger for walkers and bicyclists. He noted the road is a “speedway” now. You also can’t get off Old Farm Road at rush hour unless you are turning right. He also noted that there appears to be no buffer between the proposed single family homes and existing homes. He suggested a possible fence, and asked the Board to “take care of the people who are already there.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 4 Ms. Krebs, a resident of Lancaster, said she hears the word “community” but sees a line of houses with commerce at the end. There appears to be no room for local conveniences. She wanted to see a “village model.” Mr. Michaels said the city is investing in a City Center, and the aim is not to compete with that. Their goal is to develop something that meets the needs of existing and new residents. Another resident asked where people using the proposed park would be able to park their cars if they don’t live in the neighborhood. She was also concerned with people exiting onto Stonington Circle, which is a small street. Mr. Barritt said there will be a traffic study done as part of this process. A Treetop resident said the roads keep getting worse in the city. She felt they need to figure out if the roads can handle this development. Mr. Barritt noted receipt of a letter from the Weiners regarding traffic concerns and concerns with buffering. Another Treetop resident asked about the height waivers. Mr. Belair noted the regulations allow for 35 feet with a flat roof and 40 with a pitched roof. The Board can grant waivers if some criteria are met. Mr. Michaels said what they are asking for won’t affect views from Treetops. Mr. Barritt added that the Board is asking for elevation drawings to see if buildings would extend above the tree line. The applicant agreed to come back with a second Sketch Plan Review. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-24 until 2 December 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Preliminary plat application #SD-14-25 of Halvorsen 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: 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, and 2) constructing an 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, 1 Dorset Street: Ms. Bell showed the site location and the specific property which is part of a PUD. She showed the lease line for this property, which they propose to straighten out. The current building is 9360 sq. ft. with 80 parking spaces in the front yard. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 5 Ms. Bell then showed the proposed plan of 1.2 acres to be developed. The existing restaurant will come down and a new building will be set up near the curb. It would be 9750 sq. ft. with a mezzanine. It is a corner lot, encumbered by the Interstate Highway Overlay District requiring a 50-foot setback around the property line. They are asking for relief from that setback to 17 feet on Dorset Street and 9 feet on Williston Road. Ms. Bell said they will be improving overall lot coverage from 68% to 65.8%. Front yard coverage would improve from 59% to 45.2% on Dorset Street. She stressed that to get parking to the rear and side of the building, they had to move the building forward. Ms. Bell noted that the current building uses over 8000 gpd of wastewater capacity. The proposed project will use on about 300 gpd. Regarding grading, Ms. Bell noted the parcel drains to Centennial Brook. They have worked with the state, city and Agency of Transportation regarding managing stormwater. They have a general agreement. She showed a grass swale and small catch basins. Regarding access, Ms. Bell said they are respecting the 55-foot width of the access to the hotel. They are asking to reduce the mountable curb height from 4 inches to 2 inches to address tractor trailer access to the site. Ms. Bell noted the Fire Department supports this request. The access serves three buildings. To address circulation, a vehicle can take an immediate right turn into the parking lot. They propose a “Do Not Block Entrance” sign to prevent backup onto Dorset Street. Mr. Barritt noted that Public Works feels traffic flow is not optimum. Mr. Behr felt the public would not respect the “Do Not Block Entrance” sign. Other members agreed. Mr. Barritt said he felt the applicant should have come back with a sketch plan, as this plan is completely different from what the Board saw as a sketch earlier. Ms. Bell said the only difference is the absence of one building. Mr. Conner encouraged the Board to look at the totality of the waivers as to what is being done creatively. He added that staff is OK with the setback waivers. Mr. Barritt then addressed the issue of there being only one entrance from the parking lot and no entrance on a public street. He cited the number of students who walk or bike down from UVM. Mr. Behr added the city wants to create a pedestrian connection to move people from a sidewalk into a building. He felt there is no benefit to having a building up to the street otherwise. He also noted there are many people who walk across from the Holiday Inn. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 6 Mr. Hostmacher, representing the prospective tenant, said this is a security issue. A second entrance would require two check-out locations. They also lose shelving space. He added that CVS doesn’t usually have 2 entrances. He suggested taking the entrance shown and sliding it to the corner. This would create an entrance from the parking lot and Dorset St. The Board then addressed the issue of parking lot width ratio. Mr. White said they feel this section of the ordinance does not apply. He read the regulation and noted they dispute the “building line” interpretation. He said they would have no parking in the lot that is at the “building line,” so, in their opinion, the standard doesn’t apply. Mr. Conner said the concern is with visibility of parking. He felt they could add more building along Dorset St. or reduce parking. Mr. White said that without conceding the point, there is an alternative if they have parking to the side of the building. Mr. Belair read from the regulations regarding the “average length of a building that fronts on 2 streets.” Mr. Murphy, representing the applicants, said there are 2 frontages here. If the purpose is to say you want to block 50% of the parking, they are blocking all the parking from Williston Road, and if you take the hotel into consideration, they are blocking an additional half of the parking from Dorset Street. He added that parking would be much less visible than it is now. Mr. White said that as staff reads this, they are getting no credit for blocking parking from Williston Road. He felt they fully meet the requirement. The Board felt they would like to speak with the City Attorney on this issue. Regarding landscaping, Ms. Bell said there are 2 options they would like to pursue for additional landscaping and some larger plants to make up for the deficit up to full value. Regarding lighting, Ms. Bell showed the pole fixture and 2 municipal goosenecks. She also showed the points on the sidewalk where staff feels they are over .3 and the average of .1. Ms. Bell said no one could ascertain where the light is coming from at this location because of the existing fixtures. She said their intent is to get adequate lighting at one corner of the building. Mr. Belair said there is no provision to waive the standard. Mr. Conner asked the DRB to reaffirm the location of the dumpster. Ms. Bell showed how it would be screened and the landscaping that would be near it. Mr. White asked the Board’s reaction to his building entrance idea. A majority felt it was “OK but not ideal.” Mr. Behr preferred a Williston Rd. entrance as this is the gateway to the city. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 7 Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-25 to 18 November 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-27 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a three phase, 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of subdividing three duplex (#39, 39A & 40) into two triplex lots, 69,73, 83, 87, 95 & 101 south Jefferson Road: The applicant was comfortable with the draft decision. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-27. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-23 of Synergy Development, LLC, to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into four lots ranging in size from 0.5 acres to 1.7 acres, 1741 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked to continue to 4 November 2014. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-13-23 until 4 November 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued Miscellaneous application #MS-14-07 of Grandview Farm, Inc., for after- the-fact approval to place 3,800 cubic yards of fill on an undeveloped lot, 596 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Marshall said this is on lot 3 of the Meadowland Business Park. The fill is from a construction site. They have no issue with the findings of fact. Mr. Barritt reminded the applicant that the pre-existing grade will be the grade before the addition of the fill for all development purposes. Mr. Marshall said the fill will remain on the site and be used for possible grading if there is future development. It will be reseeded and planted until them. He had no issue with the designation of the pre-existing grade. Mr. Miller moved to close #MS-14-07. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 2 and 16 September and 7 October 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 2 and 16 September and 7 October 2014 as written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 OCTOBER 2014, PAGE 8 11. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted the new format for agendas/minutes and agenda packets. In the future, all attachments will be placed with minutes, so that someone can search a topic all the way back. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:30 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk ____________________________, Date