Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/02/2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 02 September 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; W. Gilbert, B. Landerman, M. Scollins, S. Fahim, P. Couture, C. Franzoni, M. Esposito 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: No announcements were made. 3. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, 3) constructing two two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Barritt recommenced the continued hearing for #MP-11-03 & #SD-11-10. Mr. Barritt acknowledged receipt of letter from Burak Anderson & Melloni PLC dated September 2, 2014. The Board hosted a presentation and discussion of the item. Mr. Barritt moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-10 until 7 October 2014. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-14-09 and Site Plan Application #SP-14-36 of William Spalding to amend a previously approved 21,012 sq. ft., 62 unit, congregate care facility. The amendment consists of expanding the canopy entrance from 145 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft., 20 Harbor View Road: Mr. Barritt recommenced the continued hearing for #CU-14-09 & #SP-14-36. The Board hosted a presentation and discussion of the item. Mr. Barritt moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-14-44 of PPL 462 Shelburne Road, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 31,280 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) reducing the size of the building to 30,881 sq. ft., and 2) converting 7,752 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use, 462 Shelburne Road: The Chair opened the hearing of #SP-14-44. The Board hosted a presentation and discussion of the item. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Minutes of 19 August 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 19 August 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 p.m. Clerk October 21, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer & Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht RE: Agenda #3, Farrell Real Estate Continued master plan application #MP-11-03 and Continued preliminary plat application #SD-11-51 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street DATE: August 29, 2014 Continued Master plan application #MP-11-03 & preliminary plat application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two (2) family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear St. This memo serves to highlight various issues of concern raised by staff on the current proposal. The application has been discussed at several hearings since its inception in 2011. This memo is only a cursory review of new items and not intended to be a full review, which will follow. It should be noted that the plan materials submitted this week do not match the agenda description included above. The applicant would like cursory feedback on several substantial changes to the plan. These changes include, but are not limited to, a reduction to 55 total units, a re-located park, and various changes in the distribution of units and lot layouts throughout the various parcels that comprise the proposed development. A full review of the plans will be provided after such time as these major issues can be addressed. Parcel 8, Proposed Public Park, Parcel 7 and Recreation Path The proposed park has been discussed at prior hearings. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that “a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation.” Furthermore, “parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program” and “a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned recreation area.” Planning & Zoning staff discussed the proposal with Recreation & Park staff and have the following concerns about the proposed park. The overall size of the park is now proposed at approximately 1.5 acres which is significantly smaller than the 3.05 acre park presented at the proposal’s last hearing in February 2013. Given that this will be the first public park in this area of the City and serve both the proposed development and surrounding neighborhoods, the Board and the applicant should discuss the park in detail. Staff is concerned about the reduction in size of the park given that the 3.05 acre size was larger than required and was viewed favorably as a way to mitigate the impacts of some of the proposed waivers requested by the applicant. There are no longer any community gardens depicted on the plan. The LDRs (Section 9.06)C) state: C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. Given that there are 24 units in duplexes or triplexes and therefore limited yard space for owners, a community garden space is highly desirable. Should the applicant remove the housing units at Parcel 7, a portion of that parcel being used for gardens would make sense especially given its proximity to the park. Staff notes that the location of the proposed extension of the recreation path now crosses in front of the 15 single family homes along Vale Drive instead of along the rear edges of the parcel. As each of the homes will have a separate driveway (and potentially front walkways as well), this will create numerous sites of potential accidents between homeowner households and path users. In addition to relocating a portion of the path to the rear of the parcel as previously proposed, staff suggest that another option to explore would be locating the recreation path (or a portion thereof) along the western edge of Parcel 5. Finally, the presence of two housing units at Parcel 7 immediately adjacent to the park is problematic as this could lead to conflict over perceived excessive noise. Should applicant wish to retain the units, staff suggests that these units be located on Parcel 6, lot #16 or that the private drive to Parcel 9 be moved to the east so as to create a boundary between the park and nearby housing units. 1. Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. The applicant has begun discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department and with the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee and these should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs. Private Drive to Parcel 9 and Parcel 2 Street The plans have been revised to include five single family homes to be accessed via a narrow private road which crosses a wetland and eight single family homes on a dead end public street. The South Burlington Land Development Regulations allow for 3 homes on a private road. However, the applicant should work with the Director of Public Works and Fire Department to determine the needs for access and turn-around to these lots, as well as the details for the road construction. Subsection 9.08(A) (2) (b) notes that “(d)ead end streets (e.g. culs-de-sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” The proposed private drive servicing Parcel 9 is nearly 600 hundred feet long and is also a cul-de-sac while the proposed public street on Parcel 2 is effectively a cul-de-sac and is over 300 feet long. 2. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the proposal to meet the standards regarding both the number of single homes on a private road Parcel 1 The plans depict a multi-unit building along the western edge of the parcel. As currently shown, the building is oriented to the proposed new street, as opposed to facing Spear Street. The proposed setback of the building approximates those of abutting properties on Spear Street. 3. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this issue with the applicant and provide guidance on the orientation of the building. List of Waivers 4. Given that the Board has several new members and the proposal has changed over the last few years, staff recommends that the applicant provide an updated list of waivers. Number of Units/Density/Lot Layout/Transferred Development Rights: Based upon Site Location Plan C1.0, dated May 2014 and revised on June 30, 2014, the applicant appears to be proposing a total of 55 units distributed as follows: Lot 1 1 unit Existing SF home to remain Parcel 1 8 units 1-duplex, 2-triplexes Parcel 2 8 units 8-SF homes Parcel 5 16 units 2-duplexes, 4-triplexes Parcel 6 15 units 15-SF homes Parcel 7 2 units 1-duplex Parcel 9 5 units 5-SF homes The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 25.91 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub-district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing 54 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 55 units within the PUD. This is a proposed density of approximately 2.1 units per acre. A total of 24 transferred development rights would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff has previously recommended that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Staff has also recommended that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property’s inherent density. 5. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. a. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. b. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the 25 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. LOT 1PARCEL 10PARCEL 11PARCEL 18 UNITSPARCEL 3STORM WATER AREAACESCALE: 1"=2000'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250-2014\1-CADD Files\Dwg\02250-2014.dwg, 6/30/2014 10:07:55 AM, aloiselle LOT 1PARCEL 10PARCEL 11PARCEL 18 UNITSPARCEL 3STORM WATER AREAACEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250-2014\1-CADD Files\Dwg\02250-2014.dwg, 6/30/2014 10:05:47 AM, aloiselle #CU-14-09 #SP-14-36 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING WILLIAM SPALDING. – 20 HARBOR VIEW ROAD CONDITIONAL USE & SITE PLAN APPLICATION # CU-14-09 & #SP-14-36 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-14-09 & site plan application #SP-14-36 of William Spalding to amend a previously approved 21,012 sq. ft. 62 unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of expanding the canopy entrance from 145 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft., 20 Harbor View Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 19, 2014 and September 2, 2014. William Spalding represented himself. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant William Spalding seeks conditional use and site plan approvals to amend a previously approved 21,012 sq. ft. 62 unit congregate care facility. The amendment consists of expanding the canopy entrance from 145 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft., 20 Harbor View Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is John Larkin, Inc. 3. The applications were received on June 30, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of two pages; page one is entitled “Pillsbury Manor Re-Design of Entrance Canopy, South Burlington, Vermont, Canopy Re-Design, A1” prepared by G4 Design Studios dated June 2, 2014. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements No meaningful changes are proposed that would impact these requirements. The proposed canopy would be extended to cover current sidewalk / paved space. The Board finds that these requirements are met. 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that this criterion is met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The Board finds that this criterion is met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Board finds that these proposed changes to the entrance and canopy are consistent with these criteria. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. No changes are proposed relative to items (A) – (E) above. The Board finds these criteria satisfied. 14.10 Conditional Use Review: General Provisions and Standards 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. (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. 3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The Board finds that this project will not affect these five criteria. DECISION Motion by ________________, seconded by _________________ to approve applications #CU-14-09 and# SP-14-36 of William Spalding subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of the canopy entrance. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons – yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of ___ – 0 – 0 Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chairman 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. LANDSCAPINGPLANRE-DESIGN OF ENTRANCE CANOPYPILLSBURY MANORTHIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFG4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILD #SP-14-44 1 SP_14_44_462ShelburneRoad_PPL462ShelburneRoadLLC_ffd.doc CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING PPL 462 SHELBURNE ROAD, LLC – 462 SHELBURNE ROAD SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-14-44 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION PPL 462 Shelburne Road, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to amend a previously approved plan for a 31,280 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) reducing the size of the building to 30,881 sq. ft., and 2) converting 7,752 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use, 462 Shelburne Road. The Development Review Board held public hearing on September 2, 2014. Bob Bouchard represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PPL 462 Shelburne Road, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to amend a previously approved plan for a 31,280 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) reducing the size of the building to 30,881 sq. ft., and 2) converting 7,752 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use, 462 Shelburne Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is PPL 462 Shelburne Road, LLC. 3. The application was received on August 12, 2014. 4. The subject property is located in the Commercial 1 – Residential 15 Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of a one (1) page plan entitled “Proposed Site Redevelopment 462 Shelburne Road South Burlington Vermont 05403” prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc, dated 3/20/13 and last revised 1/19/14. 6. The Board previously approved the original project, #SD-13-19, on August 6, 2013. Parking In its approval of #SD-13-19, the Board found: Based on 31,280 square feet of general office use, the proposed building will require 110 parking spaces. 117 spaces are proposed: 45 spaces are provided on site and 72 are provided across the street in the adjacent lot. As noted in the current application, the applicant is proposing a reduced overall building size of 30,881 feet. This change requires 109 parking spaces based upon overall general office use. However, the applicant is also proposing to convert 7,752 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use. This results in additional #SP-14-44 2 SP_14_44_462ShelburneRoad_PPL462ShelburneRoadLLC_ffd.doc required parking to a total of 120 spaces. The currently approved 117 parking spaces are 3 spaces (or 2.5%) short of the 120 required. Pursuant to 13.01, Off Street Parking and Loading, N. (2) Waivers, the Board finds that the proposed project is adequately served by the proposed parking facilities and transit so it hereby grants a waiver of three (3) spaces of off-street parking for a total of 117 spaces approved. Traffic In its approval of #SD-13-19, the Board found: The proposed use (general office) is estimated to generate 47 pm peak hour trip ends. As the existing motel (motel) and home (single family detached housing) is estimated to generate 20 pm peak hour trip ends, this is an increase of 27 vehicle trip ends in the pm peak hour. The applicant shall pay traffic impact fees based on this increase. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the proposed project is now estimated to generate a total of 63.12 VTEs as follows: the 7,752 sq. ft. medical office use space will generate 27.67 VTEs while the remaining general office use space will now generate 35.45 VTEs. This now represents a total increase of 16.12 additional vehicle trip ends during the PM peak hour beyond the 47 VTEs originally approved in 2013. In the 2013 finding, the applicant was already directed to pay traffic impact fees based upon a 27 VTE increase beyond the 20 VTEs that the prior motel generated. The Board finds that the applicant shall pay additional traffic impact fees based upon an increase of 16.12 VTEs. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by ____________, to approve Site Plan application #SP-14-44 of PPL 462 Shelburne Road, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The Board grants a waiver of three (3) spaces or 2.5% of off-street parking for a total of 117 spaces approved. 4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use or occupancy of the building. #SP-14-44 3 SP_14_44_462ShelburneRoad_PPL462ShelburneRoadLLC_ffd.doc 6. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that this change in use will generate 16.12 additional vehicle trip ends during the p.m. peak hour. 7. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons – yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X– 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. PBSSAVJSO/GAC1" = 20'12197C1.1MAR. 20, 2013PROPOSEDCONDITIONS &UTILITIESSITE PLANLOCATIONPROJECT7189SOUTH BURLINGTONBURLINGTONSOUTH BURLINGTONBURLINGTONSPEEDBUMPSAHEADSPEEDBUMPEXIST.EXIST.EXIST.NEWW11-230"x30"NEWW11-230"x30"NEWW16-7P24"x12"NEWSPEEDBUMPAHEADNEWNEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 AUGUST 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 August 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; A. Davis, M. Beaudin, Design Review Committee; C. Ford, S. Menard, A. Barker, C. Stanley, J. Desautels, Ms. Frazer, J. Leinwohl, S. Vock, D. Shenk, W. Irish, B. Bolton, J. Logan, V & C Bever, J & S Menard, H. Buris, B. & L. Gerlock 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: No announcements were made. 3. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-18 and Design Review Application #DR-14-05 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC, for a planned unit development to: 1) remove an existing single family dwelling; 2) construct four three-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) establish disputed boundary line with adjoining property, 135 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Wilking recused himself during this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Shenk reviewed the changes since the last presentation including: a. The property line will shift 5 feet toward Market St. b. An increased distance to Iby Street c. The units are “jogged” so as not to be in a straight line d. One front porch got reconfigured to be like the others e. Buildings have shrunk a foot f. Increased grade along the bike path by ½ a foot g. A tree added in the corner plus trees placed for adequate screening h. Landscaping reconfigured to go along with above changes. Mr. Shenk then indicated the detail of buildings. He drew attention to the variations in second floor windows and the different number of poles on buildings. Some decks have been widened. They plan to make up some room from the back at final plat and will increase porches by a few feet to 6 or 7 feet. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 19 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Shenk then showed the rear of the buildings where parking will be shrunk about a foot. Mr. Beaudin felt the aesthetics were OK, but he felt the steps should be protected from snow and freezing rain. He suggested bringing the roofline and porches out to the end of the steps and having the steps against the building. Mr. Parsons questioned how much the front entrances will be used since parking is in the rear. Mr. Beaudin said he saw the same problem in the back. Mr. Shenk said it is easy to deal with in the back. Mr. Barritt felt the plan was much better than the last time. Mr. Shenk showed the location for a fence and where it will end. He reviewed discussions with neighbors regarding fencing and/or vegetation. There is a setback waiver which is supported by staff. Members were OK with the use of cement. Mr. Belair said staff is OK with the 5-foot encroachment onto Market Street. This will have to be approved by the City Council as that 5 feet will be deeded to the applicant. Mr. Shenk then showed the area for snow storage. He acknowledged they will probably have to truck some snow away. Mr. Shenk said there have been no changes in lighting from the last review. Members of the public who live in the area expressed concern with stormwater and the continuing flooding of their basements. Mr. Belair said an engineer is addressing the applicant’s removal of water from the site. There will also be a state review and a review by the city’s Stormwater Department. Mr. Barritt stressed that the applicant is responsible only for stormwater that originates on the project site. Residents said that since Market Street went in they have water in their basements which they never had before. They were also concerned that removal of trees will add to this. Mr. Barritt noted the changes in weather patterns with far more severe storms in past years. Mr. Davis said if the applicant is not raising the grade at the wall, there shouldn’t be a problem with water from this site. Mr. Barritt said the Board will ask Mr. DiPietro to come in at final plat hearing. He stressed that the Board can’t ask the applicant to take care of water not coming from the applicant’s property. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 19 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 3 Ms. Smith then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Wilking rejoined the Board. 4. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-10 of Farrell Real Estate for a Planned Unit Development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, 3) constructing two two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Ms. Smith moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-10 until 2 September 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-14-07 of Tonaquint, Inc., for a project consisting of: 1) constructing a 1,039 sq. ft. detached accessory residential unit, and 2) allowing a new single family dwelling and the accessory residential unit to encroach into a wetland buffer, 333 Van Sicklen Road: Ms. Desautels showed a diagram of the two buildings. She also showed the existing vs. proposed plan to indicate the impact. Mr. Barritt noted that if the shed is removed, the impact is less and they are closer to compliance. The homeowner said they understand but hope to be able to keep it until they have a basement. Mr. Belair said it should be removed before the house is occupied. The applicant agreed to this. Mr. Belair directed attention to a document indicating that the owners are residing in the principal residence. Ms. Desautels noted they are awaiting final paperwork from the state environmental people. Ms. Frazer, who had previously written to the Board, said she would withdraw her letter as she has met with the project engineer. Ms. Smith moved to close the hearing on #CU-14-07. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a previously approved plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 19 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 4 7. amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display and storage area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 7 October. Ms. Smith moved to continue #SP-14-25 until 7 October 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-08 of David T. Austin for the installation of erosion control measures (slope stabilization) and water oriented development (stairs to lake), 58 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Belair advised that this is a reapproval of an application from December 2011. Mr. Vock said the application has changed a bit because more erosion has occurred. He indicated where there was a wood retaining wall that has eroded away. He also showed a masonry wall in bad condition. The plan is to install a natural stone wall rather than riprap. The side of the stairway is also eroded and has to come out. They will put in a stairway coming down the side as this is easier to maintain. Mr. Vock gave members a letter regarding impact of potential flooding. The letter indicates there is no impact. No issues were raised. Ms. Smith moved to close the hearing on #CU-14-08. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-21 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a planned unit development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of 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, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Belair noted this application includes a request to cut down trees which are too close to the airport fence at the request of TSA. The value of these trees will be determined and trees will be planted elsewhere on the Airport property. That is still to be worked out. Mr. Leinwohl said the plan is to remove the cedar trees (2 groups) which are very close the fence and pose a security issue. They will provide a replacement value for these trees. They DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 19 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 5 could possibly plant some smaller trees further from the fence or add trees at the Williston Rd. end of the Airport, or a combination of both. Mr. Leinwohl also showed a picture of a huge oak near the cemetery that is also too close to the fence. Because of the age of the tree (estimated at 100 years), they will put a fence around it to save the tree. The nearby cedars will come down. Mr. Leinwohl then showed the Gate 11 construction, including the boarding bridge. Mr. Belair noted three other trees that were cut down and will have to be replaced. Mr. Leinwohl showed a rendering of what the landscaping on the corner of Williston Road will look like. They will assess sight lines to see if there is any obstruction for traffic. Mr. Belair noted that a sign that is 20 feet from a right-of-way doesn’t count as signage. He suggested the Airport may want to consider the sign they didn’t put in before the rules are changed. 10. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-09 and Site Plan Application #SP-14-36 of William Spalding to amend a previously approved 21,012 sq. ft., 62 unit, congregate care facility. The amendment consists of expanding the canopy entrance from 145 sq. ft. to 345 sq. ft., 20 Harbor View Road: Mr. Belair noted the applicant did not pick up the placard to display for the required time. He recommended continuing the hearing until 2 September. Ms. Smith moved to continue #CU-14-09 and #SP-14-36 until 2 September 2014. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Reorganizational: a. Election of Officers: Mr. Belair opened the floor for nominations for Chair. Mr. Miller nominated Mr. Barritt. Mr. Parsons seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Barritt was elected unanimously. Ms. Smith then nominated Mr. Miller for Vice Chair. Mr. Wilking seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Miller was elected unanimously. Mr. Miller nominated Mr. Parsons for Clerk. Ms. Smith seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Parsons was elected unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 19 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 6 b. Set date and time for regular meetings. Mr. Miller moved to keep the meeting schedule of first and third Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: Mr. Belair advised that he will not be present at the next meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk _______________________________, Date