Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/21/2015The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 April 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: B. Miller, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Smith, J. Wilking, D. Parsons, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; E. Farrell, J. Owens, N. Farrell, B. Bouchard, D. Little, D. Heil, F. Kochman, P. O’Leary, C. Galipeau 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued site plan application #SP-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road: The applicant noted there had been an issue with the value for existing trees. Mr. Owens said they met with the City Arborist on site and decided that if they removed the white pines that were not in good shape they could get more landscaping on the site. Mr. Owens indicated an area where there would now be a row of maples. He also indicated the hillside where more trees will be placed. They are replacing the trees on a 2 to 1 value basis. Mr. Lambert was OK with this. Mr. Belair said staff had no further issues. Mr. Behr moved to close #SP-15-10. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Preliminary and final plat application #SP-15-08 of F&M Development Co, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in 8 buildings, 2) a 91-unit congregate Housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) re-subdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a 4-foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell showed lot #10 and indicated the section to be taken off and added to lot #1 for a dog park. He noted that the fence that will come down is in bad shape and is no longer needed because landscaping has grown in. He also noted that the City Arborist is OK with the trees to be taken down. Mr. Owens said the area is actually overplanted and the trees need to be removed to insure the health of other trees. There were 287 trees planted and they will be taking out about 24. The new dog park will be fenced in with vinyl coated, black chain link, about 4 feet high. The stockade fence on the north side will remain. No issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close #SP-15-08. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-15-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 4-story, 63-unit multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bouchard showed the rendering they were asked to provide showing what the project will look like from Route 7. Mr. Bouchard said the only major changes are that previously they had some improvements on the south side of the property. After meeting with people from the State, they were able to make improvements to the existing stormwater system. They then eliminated the tennis court and added raised planting beds in front of the building. There were also some small changes made at the request of Public Works. Mr. Miller noted there is a request for a height waiver from 35 feet to 47 feet. Members had no issue with this. Mr. Behr moved to close #SD-15-09. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-15-11 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit development in two phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) shifting Russett Road & Puritan Street to minimize wetland intrusions, 2) revising the storm drains so as to connect all footing drains directly into the stormwater system, and 3) residential design review for the single family dwelling on lots #1- #66, 1580 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair noted the applicant had asked for a continuance to the second meeting in May. Mr. Behr moved to continue #SD-15-11 to 19 May 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-15-10 of 4 On The Floor, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 2 lots and 2 general office buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 9,622 sq. ft. building for commercial kennel and pet day care use, 1035, 1037 & 1045 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Heil noted that since sketch plan review in January, they have eliminated the second story. He showed the new elevations. Because of concerns with noise, they are proposing some noise mitigation including a 7-foot sound-absorbing fence to enclose the play area. They have also changed the buildings from steel to wood, which is more sound-absorbing. There will be rolled rubber flooring. Staff will communicate with headsets instead of overhead speakers. Mr. Heil showed design changes in radii to accommodate Fire Department Vehicles. The square footage of the facility has decreased to 9,622 sq. ft. Overall lot coverage is at 48.9%. Though it is not required, they will install a sprinkler system. Cooling units will be within the fencing, so they won’t be visible from the road. Mr. Heil indicated a tree that will be protected during construction. This meets with the City Arborist’s approval. Mr. Miller noted there is a request for a setback waiver from the required 57 feet to 39 feet. Mr. Belair noted they will be 8 feet further back than the building next door. Mr. Belair also noted that staff received no further comments from the Fire Department, so he assumes they are OK with how the applicant has addressed concerns. Mr. Belair circulated a memo from absent Board Chair Tim Barritt who is concerned with noise and suggested a technical review to determine if what the applicant is proposing is adequate. Mr. Wilking was also concerned with noise so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Behr said this will be an enforcement issue. Mr. Belair reminded members that the applicant is doing more than required to mitigate noise. Mr. Belair noted that traffic consideration was inadvertently eliminated from staff’s memo. There is no ITE manual category for this use. The applicant conducted on-site counts at a similar facility with a 100-dog maximum. The estimate for traffic is 29 peak hour trip ends. Members were OK with this number. Ms. Little, owner of the day care use, said the building is U-shaped with fencing on the open side. She noted that at night, the animals will be taken out one or two at a time on a leash. No other issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close #SD-15-10. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 7 April 2015: As minutes were not included in the package, members agreed to postpone approval until the next meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:55 p.m. , Clerk _______________5/5/2015_________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SP-15-03 - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION – 5 HOLMES ROAD SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-10 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 7, 2015 and April 21, 2015. Steve Vock & Todd Bouton 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. Farrell Distributing Corporation, hereafter applicant, is requesting site plan review to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are D. M. Farrell & S. McConaughy. 3. The application was submitted on March 24, 2015 4. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of a thirty-five (35) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, “Farrell Distributing Illustrative Plan South Burlington, VT”, prepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, with a stamped received date of April 9, 2015. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Commercial 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 S.F. 584,148 s.f. 584,148 s.f.  Max. Building Coverage 40% 25.9% 29.9 %  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 55.9% 61.9 %  Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 12.7% 24.6 %  Min. Front Setback 30 ft > 30 ft 338 ft  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. 68 ft. #SP-15-03 - 2 –  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. 35 ft.  Max. Building Height 40 ft. < 40 ft. 28 ft.  Zoning Compliance Site Plan Review Standards 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 the proposed building and uses to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Existing parking at the site is divided as follows: existing spaces are 58 truck spaces and 109 car spaces while proposed parking is 37 truck spaces and 133 car spaces. Based upon a proposed final square footage of 175,000 SF of predominantly warehouse space, 88 car parking spaces are required. This requirement is met. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. 2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (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) …………… (ii) ………….. (iii) ……………… (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); The Board recognizes the goal of the applicant to improve safety on the property by creating a new truck only curb cut and segregating the flow of truck traffic and employee traffic and parking. Vehicle parking areas have been maximized in areas away from truck traffic. Given the existing conditions on the site and improvements to be made, the Board finds that the proposal meets condition (iv) noted above. (v) ……………………… (vi) …………………… (c) ………………………….. #SP-15-03 - 3 – (d) …………………………… (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. The proposed addition is 28 ft. high and similar in size to other buildings on the lot. The Board finds that this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. The Board finds that this criterion has been 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. A rear addition to the property’s main building is proposed as well as other improvements. As noted above, the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which the City Arborist found acceptable with the exception of a minor detail. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. (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 proposed addition, gas canopy and deck are consistent with the surrounding landscape and with others in the vicinity. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. 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. No reservation of land is required. 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. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. #SP-15-03 - 4 – 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. The plans show a proposed location for a concrete pad to site a trash compactor which will be enclosed. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Building construction cost is estimated at $1,658,719. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: First $250,000 x 3% = $7,500 Next 250,000 x 2% = $5,000 Balance over $500,000 x 1% = $11,587 Minimum required landscaping budget = $23,587. The applicant is proposing to remove many existing trees on the property, however. The applicant met with the City Arborist to discuss how to replace the proposed trees to be removed and sent the following email to staff on April 9, 2015 outlining the details of their agreement along with a revised landscaping plan and schedule. Ray, Per our phone conversation, I met with Craig Lambert at the Farrell Distributing site this and we came to an agreement on proposed tree replacements. I’ve attached the revised demo plan, landscape plan and planting estimate. I’ll follow up in a separate email with the rendering, and will stop by to drop off the hard copies today. In summary of our meeting, there will be a 2 to 1 replacement ratio (two new trees to replace each single tree removed). Conversely, there is a 1 to 2 ratio for the diameter inch replacement (69.5” to replace the existing 140”). In particular, we’re proposing additional trees immediately east of the building as well as further up the hill, and we will remove the remaining white pines in the parking area so as to fit in additional hardwoods. I’ve included some of Craig’s suggestions on species, and replacement tree plantings are highlighted in green on the attached landscape plan. Thanks to you and Craig for working with us on this, and please stay tuned for the updated rendering. Jeremy JEREMY B. OWENS, PLA Associate Landscape Architect #SP-15-03 - 5 – T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC In total, the applicant is proposing a final planting cost of $45,157.05 with the “trees and shrubs” portion of the landscaping costs amounting to $43,350.00. The Board finds that this criterion is met. 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 waivers are required. STORMWATER The Public Works Department provided the following comments to staff on April 7, 2015 Ray, I reviewed the “Farrell Distributing Corp.” site plan for the property located at 5 Holmes Road, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, dated 2/25/15 and last updated on 2/25/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located outside of the City’s stormwater impaired watersheds in an area that discharges directly into Shelburne Bay via an unnamed stream. 2. The applicant should confirm that the dimensional summary tables provided on sheet C2.0 accurately list the proposed dimensions. 3. The project will require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division if greater than 1 acre of land is disturbed. If necessary, the applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 4. The property is covered by an existing State stormwater permit issued by Vermont DEC. The proposed increase in impervious area will require an update to this existing State permit. The applicant should provide information regarding the status of this State permit application. 5. The applicant should provide drainage area maps and hydrologic modeling (the same modeling that was submitted to DEC is sufficient) for all new or improved stormwater treatment practices. #SP-15-03 - 6 – 6. Water drains from this site to the west and reaches the lake after passing through a culvert under the railroad and a culvert under the driveway for an adjacent property. The applicant should confirm that these culverts can safely pass the 25 year storm event under proposed conditions. This is a requirements of section 15.13.F(3) of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 7. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the site plan. 8. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS In an email to staff dated March 25, 2015 the Fire Chief provided the following comments: Dear Ray: Myself and Deputy Chief Francis have reviewed the site plans for Farrell Distributing at 5 Holmes Road. This is for their proposed expansion project. We have the following comments: 1. The fire hydrant relocation plans are good. 2. Fire Department access is good. 3. Landscaping plan does not seem to interfere with fire department access and Emergency equipment deployment. 4. Building plans should be approved by the South Burlington Fire Marshal prior to any construction. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, #SP-15-03 - 7 – Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Fire Chief. Traffic Generation Based upon a final construction total of a 175,000 SF of predominantly warehouse building (ITE LUC #110), the weekday PM Peak Hour average vehicle trip ends is calculated as follows: 0.32 (trip generation per 1,000 SF g.f.a.) x 175 = estimated number of vehicle trip ends generated by current uses is 87.5 trip ends. The property’s current allocation of trip ends is 153 VTEs as established in a prior Findings of Fact & Decision signed on February 25, 1997. The Board therefore finds that no additional traffic is expected from the expansion. DECISION Motion by ___________________, seconded by ______________________ to approve Site Plan Application #SP-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The plans shall be revised to comply with the comments of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works per the email dated April 7, 2015. 4. 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 should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent shall visit the site as construction progresses to ensure compliance with this criterion. 5. The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 6. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall confirm that a culvert under the railroad and a culvert under the driveway for an adjacent property can safely pass the 25 year storm event under proposed conditions. #SP-15-03 - 8 – 7. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the proposed expansion will generate a total of zero (0) additional vtes. 8. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications should be underground. 9. Prior to zoning permit issuance for construction of the project, the applicant shall post a $43,350 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 10. 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. 11. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded, and otherwise comply with Section 13.07 of the SBLDR. 12. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the addition, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 13. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of the addition. 14. Any change to the site plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend 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 __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING F & M DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC --- 25 BACON STREET PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-08 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-15-08 of F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight (8) buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four (4) foot fence on lot #10, 3) after- the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 21, 2015. Eric Farrell represented the applicant. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. F & M Development Co., LLC, hereafter applicant, seeks Preliminary & Final plat plan review to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight (8) buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four (4) foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is F & M Development Co., LLC. 3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 1 – Residential 15 Zoning District. 4. The application was received on February 26, 2015. 5. The plan set submitted consists of five (5) page set of plans entitled “Revised Final Plat O’Dell Parkway PUD Farrell Street South Burlington Vermont” prepared by Civil Engineering Associates dated June 20, 2005 and last revised on May 29, 2013. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: No new construction is proposed here, so there should be no change to any of the overall dimensional requirements in this PUD as previously approved. The boundary line adjustment between lots 1 and 10 may alter various setbacks, or coverage or greenspace percentages #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 2 previously calculated, for these individual lots. All the lots within this PUD are substandard and were approved as a whole with a Notice of Conditions recorded which indicates that for the purposes of the Land Development Regulations, all lots are to be treated as one (1) lot. The Board finds that the applicant shall record a new Notice of Conditions for the entire PUD reflecting the changes in the two (2) lots. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds that all of the above criteria are being met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 3 Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (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) … (ii) … (iii) … (iv) …. (v) … (vi) … . (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. 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. No changes are proposed to driveways, parking, structures, or other significant aspects of the overall PUD. Other than the lot line adjustment described above, the proposed site changes (see #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 4 especially page #7 of the Plans labeled “Proposed Landscape Plan Including Berm Tree Removal 08/27/2014”) and include: a. Remove a 4’ tall fence on top of the landscape berm on lot #10 that was required in prior approvals. The applicant argues that the plantings have matured such that the fence (which has also deteriorated) is completely screened. b. Reduce in size the community garden area on lot #1, which applicant states has not been used by the residents. The 2009 approved plan for this area (see packet for partial plan labeled Exhibit 1 showed a community garden area with 11 raised planting beds. The applicant is proposing to reduce the area of the garden to now accommodate four (4) smaller raised beds and to designate the remaining area as a “dog park”. c. Modify landscape plantings on lots #1 and #10. d. Install three benches on lot #10. e. Remove dead trees and thin out maturing trees on Lot 10. The applicant’s landscape architect contacted Craig Lambert to seek his input on the tree removal plan on April 14, 2015 with the following email: Hi Craig, per my voicemail, Ray Belair has asked us to get your input on proposed planting removal at a site near the Shaw’s market on Shelburne Road. Starting about 10 years ago, the neighborhood to the north asked for and received a significant number of plantings (in the 100’s) on a screening berm in order to buffer the Eastwood Commons and Cathedral Square developments. An agreement was made to densely plant a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees on the berm, although at the time we protested the density. Fast forward to present day, and Eric Farrell would like to remove plantings to help promote a healthier stand of trees. We met with the neighborhood representative in the Fall and came to an agreement on removing about 24 trees. The neighbors have signed off on the attached plan (berm along the top of the sheet), but Ray is recommending that you chime in. Do you have time to swing by there and review the proposed tree removal? FYI, I think the neighbors would balk at removing more trees. I’m available to discuss via phone, and can meet you there if needed. Thanks for your help, Jeremy JEREMY B. OWENS, PLA Associate Landscape Architect T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 5 The applicant consulted with the City Arborist. The City Arborist, via an email to staff on April 14, 2015 provided the following comments: Jeremy, I took a look at the site this afternoon. I agree that the site is overcrowded and would benefit from thinning. I don’t have any problems with you proposed removals. I think you’ve probably already done this, but I’d concentrate on the dead and/or damaged trees as much as possible (it looks like most of them were flagged but there were a few trees along the edge of the parking lots that suffered plow damage and this will only get worse as the trees increase in size). Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist The Board finds the proposed landscaping and other changes to be consistent with the Site Plan standards noted above. The Board finds these criteria are met. Sheet Numbering The Board notes that several different sheets are labeled as Sheet N2.3. The Board finds that the sheet labeling should be corrected so that individual drawings have their own unique sheet number. DECISION Motion by __________________, seconded by __________________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-15-08 of F & M Development Co., LLC: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The plans shall be revised so that so that individual drawings have their own unique sheet number. 4. 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 should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent shall visit the site as construction progresses to ensure compliance with this criterion. #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 6 5. The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 6. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications should be underground. 7. For purposes of the LDRs, all lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot as approved previously. The applicant shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect, reflecting the changes herein approved, which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. 8. 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. 9. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded, and otherwise comply with Section 13.07 of the SBLDR. 10. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the new building, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 11. The mylar shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 12. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of the site modifications. 13. Any change to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend 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 approved by a vote of X– Y – Z. The application is approved Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, 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 #SD-15-08 SD_15_08_25BaconStreet_PUD_amend_landscaping_ffd.doc 7 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment _bldg_FINAL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 17, 2015 Application received: March 2, 2015 FINAL PLAT REVIEW #SD-15-09 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES – 1690 SHELBURNE ROAD Meeting Date: April 21, 2015 Applicant Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 Contact Person Robert Bouchard Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 Owners Kurt V. Reichelt and Laura M. Reichelt Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat application #SD-15-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 4-story, 63 unit, multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 2, 2015 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Lot #1  Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit 398,271 sq. ft. 6322 sq. ft./unit  Max. Building Coverage 40% 0% 4.0%  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 0% 22.7%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. N/A 280 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A 20 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 216 ft.  Max. Building Height 35ft. (flat roof) N/A 47 ft. Note: Coverage percentages are from site plan not application form.  Zoning compliance  Requires a height waiver of 12 feet Staff is comfortable with the requested height waiver. The building is set well back from Shelburne Road, and no scenic views are blocked. At preliminary plat review, the Board granted the same waiver request of 12 ft. 1. The Board should discuss whether to grant the requested height waiver. Density The overall lot size of 9.14 acres allows a maximum density of 63 units at 7 units/acre and 63 units are proposed. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. Compliance with this standard is addressed in the Site Plan review section below. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. N/A C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. 126 parking spaces are required (no reserved spaces) for 63 dwelling units and 126 are proposed. The access drive will be shared with the adjoining one-acre proposed commercial lot. Staff feels that these criteria have been met. D. Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc 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. The parking is located to the rear of the building. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (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. The proposed building is to be 47 ft. in height, 12 ft. taller than the 35 foot limit otherwise permitted. 2. The Board should discuss the granting of the height waiver as noted on page 2. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans depict that the proposed utilities are underground. Staff feels that this criterion has been 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. Architectural elevations are provided. The building’s colors are muted tones which will help the building blend in with the wooded area adjacent to Bartlett Brook. Substantial landscaping and new trees are proposed throughout the property. Staff feels these criteria have been met. 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. See discussion below in Section (A)(8) under PUD standards. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Noted above. Staff feels these criterion have been met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. A fenced trash/recycling enclosure is shown on the plans. Staff feels this criterion has been met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum landscape requirement. The total construction cost for the building is $7,820,000. The minimum landscaping requirement is calculated as follows: Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $73,200 Minimum Landscaping $ >> $85,700 A landscape plan and plant list has been submitted with a value of $91,262.25. Of this value, $39,922.25 consists of ornamental grasses, perennials, landscape boulders and wet meadow / detention basin mix which technically do not meet the definition of a trees and shrubs. At preliminary plat review and here again with this review, staff notes that the detention basin is similar to a rain garden feature and adds considerable aesthetic value to the necessary parking lot. The applicant has indicated that several of the species of proposed grasses are 3-4 ft. tall. In addition the staff considers these four landscaping features coupled with the retention of some existing to be substantial in their own right. See the email below from the City Arborist dated January 15, 2015: Bob, Thank you for meeting with me and Mike Willard of SE Group on Thursday January 15, 2015 15th to discuss the landscape plan for Bartlett Brook Apartments. I am in agreement that the ornamental grasses and perennials will enhance the landscape and should qualify for credit in the landscaping budget. The fact that many of these plants will be used in bio retention areas should make their use even more desirable. Feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc At preliminary plat review, the Board found this criterion to be met and that the full value of these four elements (then at $37,698) could be used towards meeting the landscaping requirements. The City Arborist reviewed the landscaping plan and schedule submitted via email on March 30, 2015 as part of this Final Plat application and indicated in an email to Staff dated that same day that they were acceptable. 2. The Board should indicate whether it considers the landscaping requirements and budget to have been met. 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. The only modifications requested are a height waiver of 12 feet as noted above and a waiver to Section 13.04 A.(1) noted below to allow the placement of a proposed pool in the front yard of the building. 13.04 Swimming Pools A. General Restrictions. Swimming pools may be allowed, subject to the following provisions: (1) No pool shall be constructed in a required front yard. (2) No pool shall be closer than ten feet as measured from water's edge to any side or rear yard lot lines (3) Any lighting in conjunction with the pool shall be so situated that there is no direct glare beyond lot line. (4) Every in-ground swimming pool shall be completely enclosed by a wall, fence, or other substantial structure not less than four (4) feet in height measured on the outside of the enclosure. No openings other than doors and gates with any dimensions greater than four inches shall be permitted therein except that picket fences may be erected or maintained having horizontal spacing between pickets not more than four (4) inches. All gates or door opening through such enclosures shall be equipped with self-closing and self-latching devices capable of remaining securely closed at all times when not in actual use; provided however, that the door of any residence forming any part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. Any self-latching device accessible from the outside of the pool enclosure shall be located at least four (4) feet above the ground or otherwise equally inaccessible to small children. (5) A natural barrier, hedge, or other protective device approved by the Administrative Officer may be used in place of the above as long as the degree of protection afforded by the substituted devices or structures is not less than the aforementioned protection by the enclosure, gate and latch. All above-ground pools shall bar step access when not in use. (6) No poolhouse or structure accessory to the pool shall be used for habitation or for home CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc occupation. The proposed pool is clearly compliant with standards (2) through (5). It is the staff’s opinion that within the context of the overall PUD the pool can be considered to not be in a front yard for several reasons. First, the lot is located within the PUD and the adjacent 1.0 acre commercial lot when developed will screen the pool from Shelburne Road. Second, the pool is located approximately 240 ft. from Shelburne Road. At preliminary plat review, the Board found that the area of the pool’s location is in compliance with the front yard standard. 3. The Board should confirm that the area of the pool’s location is in compliance with the front yard standard. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The applicant shall obtain final water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to 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. Erosion control specifications and grading plans have been submitted with the application. Staff feels this criterion has been met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Department of Public Works provided its comments in an email to staff dated March 23, 2015 as follows: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc Ray, I have reviewed the referenced set of plans and have no further comment at this point. The applicant has done an excellent job incorporating my previous comments into this plan set. Our office will still review the project’s stormwater, landscaping and water system designs and be providing comment up to the 4/10 deadline. Thanks, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer Staff feels that criterion A(3) above has been met. The relevant portion of Section 15 of the LDRs is as follows: (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. If the DRB finds that a roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the connector roadway to the property line or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection. (a) In any such application, the DRB shall require sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated to accommodate two (2) lanes of vehicle travel, City utilities, and a ten-foot wide grade-separated recreation path. Staff has discussed future connectivity with the applicant. At this time, a roadway right-of-way pursuant to (a) above is not recommended by staff. However, the applicant has agreed to provide an access easement to allow public use of the private road/driveway to access that parcel should it be developed. 4. See discussion under section (A) (8) below. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. Most of the project area is already cleared. Selective clearing of understory growth is proposed to occur near the proposed common grill & picnic area. The project adheres to the required protections for Bartlett Brook and its associated wetlands. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Pursuant to Section 5.05 COMMERCIAL 2 DISTRICT C2 A. Purpose. A Commercial 2 District is hereby formed in order to encourage general commercial activity. In addition to uses permitted in the C1 District, large lot-retail uses, such as sale of motor vehicles and building materials, may be permitted. A range of industrial uses as well as clustered CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc residential development may be permitted in locations that are mutually compatible with general commercial activity. Development shall be subject to site plan review to coordinate traffic movements, encourage mixed-use developments, to provide shared parking opportunities and to provide a potential location for high-traffic generation commercial uses. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed project will create a new mixed use area in this portion of the District. This project is consistent with the standards of the Commercial 2 District. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The project will not intrude into the stream buffer areas or impact contiguous open spaces. Some wooded area along the eastern edge of the parcel (which abuts a wooded area on the adjacent parcel) will be maintained. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In an email to staff dated March 25, 2015, the Fire Department commented as follows: Dear Ray: We have reviewed the plans for this proposed development. We have the following concerns and/or recommendations. 1. Commercial structures and multifamily units will need fire protection plan review from the South Burlington Fire Marshal’s office to review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes. 2. Provide emergency key boxes, location to be specified by SBFD. 3. Sprinklers, fire alarms, and standpipes per the VFBSC. 4. Provide 24 hour per day off-site (central station) monitoring of all fire alarm and protection systems. 5. Fire locations are good 6. Parking island and fire department access is good. 7. Natural gas powered fire pit is good. 8. Landscaping plan does not seem to interfere with fire department access and Emergency equipment deployment. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief 5. The applicant shall comply with the Fire Department’s recommendations. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The presence of Bartlett Brook to the south and the UVM Horticultural Farms likely precludes extension of such services. An existing sidewalk connecting to the Berman property to the north is proposed to remain. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. Staff recommends that in lieu of a future street right-of-way (ROW) comprising a two-lane road and a pedestrian path connecting the adjacent property to the east, that the applicant provide an access easement through lot #2, which would facilitate a connection through the adjacent property and then east to Green Mountain Drive. The applicant has agreed and the plans submitted indicate the proposed 50 ft. wide ROW. 6. The Board should direct the applicant to record this easement deed prior to recording the Final Plat plan. (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. As noted above in (A) (3), the proposed sidewalk is a welcomed improvement. The plans submitted indicate that this criterion has been met. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The project will expand housing options in the area especially for those who work in the Shelburne Road area and are in need of rental housing. Staff considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_apartment_bldg_FINAL.doc In an email to staff dated April 7, 2015, the Department of Public Works provided the following comments to Staff: Justin, I reviewed plans for the Bartlett Brook Apartments project that were prepared by Wilson Consulting Engineers, PLC, dated 1/6/14 and last revised on 2/20/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and stormwater construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction. 2. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works 7. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Department’s comments. OTHER – Site amenities Staff notes that the applicant has included a variety of project amenities (pool, deck, fire pit, tennis court, community garden, and grill area) which are not required per the regulations, and is supportive of each. These provide attractive features and demonstrate innovation. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above prior to closing the final plat hearing. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Robert Bouchard, Pizzagalli Properties, LLC P1SHELBURNESOUTH BURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATION7A. "Property Plan - Green Mountain Power Corp.",dated September 1967, by Webster-Martin, Inc. Map Sl ides88.2 and 88.4 of South Burlington Land Records (SBLR).B. "National L ife Insurance Co.",12 June 1973, byWebster-Martin. Slide 101.3, SBLR.C. "Overall Site Plan - Staybridge Suites Lot 11", lastrevised 7 August 2000, by Krebs & Lansing Consu lt ingEngineers, Inc. Slide 381.5, SBLR.D. "Boundary Retracement Survey ... MDTPartnership, LLP", last dated 26 July 2010, by ButtonProfessional Land Surveyors, PC. Map Slide 546.3 SBLR.E."R.O.W. Plans - Shelburne-So. Burlington Proj.F-EGC-019-4(19)",circa 2002, by VTrans. Of record inDistrict Engineer's Off ice.1. Purpose of this survey and plat is to: a.) retrace, monument and document the exterior boundar ies oflands conveyed to Kurt V. Reichelt Revocable Trust by two (2) deeds of Kurt V. Reichelt, dated July 24, 1997and recorded in Vol. 415 Pg. 131 and Vol. 415 Pg. 134 of the South Burlington Land Records; and b.) depictthe proposed lot lines, rights-of-way, and easements of a proposed 2-lot PUD. Other property lines andnames of abutters shown are for reference only, and are not embraced by the certification statement below.2. Field survey was conducted during May-June 2013 and consisted of a closed traverse utilizing anelectronic total station. Bearings shown are referenced to Grid North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983,based on our GPS observations on or near the site.3. Corner markers set / proposed consist of 4" square concrete monuments with a luminum caps stamped"Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597", typically set flush with ground.Pole & guy easement deedsrecorded in Vol. 395 Pg. 117 andVol. 415 Pg. 202 call for polesnumbered 53 & 53-30. in the fieldthe poles are numbered 52 and52-30.APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE ____ DAY OF _____________,2014,SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 20__,BY _____________________________, CHAIRPERSON. DATE: 01.31.15SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTBARTLETT BROOK APARTMENTSCOPYRIGHT © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDUNCAN • WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTUREA Professional CorporationD u n c a nW i s ni e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRD u n c a nW i s ni e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRBURLINGTON, VERMONTT: 802.864.669305401SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREETA-P255VIEW FROM SHELBURNE ROAD LOOKING EAST 80'40'20'0GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'1" = 40'MKWMKWLANDSCAPE PLANLA-100ByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:02.06.2015BARTLETT BROOKAPARTMENTSSouth Burlington, Vermont802.660.6800Burlington, VT 05401346 Shelburne Road - Suite 601DeveloperPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIESmkw02.27.15Addendum 11131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersIssued for Constructionmkw03.30.15Revisions per city comments21 Adjusted plan per RFI 0017 10/22/13 mkwPLANT LISTKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZEREMARKSTREES:AG Amelanchier grandiflora 'Robin Hill' Serviceberry 9 2-2.5" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.AR Acer freemani 'Sienna Glenn' Red Maple 11 2.5-3" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.BN Betula nigra 'Heritage' River Birch 15 14-16' Tall B&B, Multi StemGT Gleditsia triacanthos 'Halka' Honeylocust 11 2.5-3" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.PGa Picea glauca White Spruce 3 8-10' B&B, FullPGb Picea glauca White Spruce 7 6-7' B&B, FullZS Zelkova serata 'Green Vase' Japanese Zelkova 17 2.5-3" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.SHRUBS:CS Cornus sericea 'Isanti' Red Twig Dogwood 51 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 60" o.c.HP Hydrangea paniculata 'Pinky Winky' Pinky Winky Hydrangea 14 30-36" Wide C.G., Plant 48" o.c.IJ Ilex verticillata 'Jim Dandy' Winterberry Holly 8 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 30" o.c.IV Ilex verticillata 'Red Sprite' Winterberry Holly 45 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 30" o.c.RA Rhus aromatica 'Gro Low' Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 108 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 48" o.c.SD Salix discolor Pussy Willow 41 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 36" o.c.ORNAMENTAL GRASSES:CA Calamagrostis acutiflora stricta 'Karl Forester' Feather Reed Grass 395 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 24" o.c.DC Deschampsia cespitosa 'Schottland' Tufted Hair Grass 74 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 24" o.c.HO Helicotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass 91 1 Gal. C.G., Plant 18" o.c.MS Miscanthus sinensis gracillimus Maiden Grass 59 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 48" o.c.PH Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Fountain Grass 59 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 30" o.c.PV Panicum virgatum 'Shenandoah' Shenandoah Switch Grass 35 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 30" o.c.PERENNIALS:AI Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 100 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.CH Chrysanthemum x superbum 'Becky' Becky Shasta Daisy 25 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.EP Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower 25 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.EJ Eupatorium purpureum Joe-Pye Weed 55 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.HS Hemerocallis 'Stella Doro' Stella Dora Daylily 94 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.IE Iris versicolor Blue Flag Iris 35 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.RF Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldstrum' Blackeyed Susan 145 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.SL Salvia x superba 'May Night' May Night Salvia 25 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.ST Sedum 'Autumn Joy' Sedum 177 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.PERENNIALS:Seed Mix-B Wet Meadow/Detention Basin Mix (Vermont Wetland Supply, Co.) Apply at a rate of 1lb per 1,200sfNOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES FOUND IN THE PLANTING PLANS. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.2. FINAL LAYOUT AND PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND LAWN DETAIL.4. REFER TO DRAWING LA-102 FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION DETAILS.5. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS, COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL TO DEPTH SPECIFIED IN DETAILS AND SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION.6. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES, ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING.7. FOR SOIL BACKFILL IN THE RAIN GARDEN BASINS, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS. 40'20'10'0GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=20'1" = 20'MKWMKWLANDSCAPE PLANLA-101ByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:02.06.2015BARTLETT BROOKAPARTMENTSSouth Burlington, Vermont802.660.6800Burlington, VT 05401346 Shelburne Road - Suite 601DeveloperPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIESmkw02.27.15Addendum 11131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersIssued for Construction CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_ Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 17, 2015 Application received: March 6, 2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT PLAN APPLICATION - #SD-15-10 1035, 1037, & 1045 HINESBURG ROAD – 4 ON THE FLOOR, LLC Meeting Date: April 21, 2015 Applicant Donna Little 38 Roosevelt Highway Colchester, VT 05446 Contact Person David Burke O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite #1 Essex, VT 05452 Owner Mansfield View Properties, LLC c/o Richard Lunt 1037 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary & Final Plat plan application #SD-15-10 of 4 On The Floor, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) lots and two (2) general office buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 9,622 sq. ft. building for commercial kennel and pet day care use, 1035, 1037 & 1045 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 6, 2015 and offer the following comments: ZONING AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Industrial- Open Space Zoning District Required Existing Proposed * Min. Lot Size 3 acres 1 acres 1 acre  Max. Building Coverage 30% 0 % 24.1 % ?? Max. Overall Coverage 50% 8.6 % [ 46.5 % ] ??  Front Yard Coverage 30% 10.0 % 26.0 %  Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 57 ft. from planned ROW n/a 39 ft.  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a 35. ft.  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a 98 ft.  Max. Building Height 35 ft. (flat roof) n/a ~28.5 ft.  Zoning compliance * Pre-existing non-conforming ??-possible discrepancy  Waiver required. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 18 ft. to allow a 39 ft. front setback. For reference staff notes that the existing office building at 1035 Hinesburg Road which is part of the PUD has a setback of 31 ft. Staff supports the requested waiver. ?? – The Site Plan (sheet #1) indicates 46.5% overall lot coverage while the application form indicates 47.5%. 1. The Board should request the applicant to clarify the correct percentage of overall coverage especially in light of the potential for changes in coverage to address fire apparatus turning areas noted below. 2. The Board should discuss the proposed setback and take action on the requested waiver. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc 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. Staff feels that the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The existing buildings of #1035 and #1037 Hinesburg Road are allocated 19 spaces per previous approval. For the new building at #1045, 11 spaces are required. Therefore a total of 30 spaces are required for the entire PUD. 35 spaces are proposed to be provided including two handicapped spaces. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. All new parking spaces are located to the side and rear of the new building. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (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. The proposed building is compatible with the site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicated that such services shall be underground. Staff feels that this criterion has been 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 proposed building is compatible with the terrain and with existing buildings and roads in the vicinity. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc 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. The reservation of land is not required. 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. The plans indicated that such services shall be underground. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant’s plan indicates that a dumpster pad would be located in the southeast corner of the property and be enclosed. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Building construction cost is estimated at $1,200,000. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: First $250,000 x 3% = $7,500 Next $250,000 x 2% = $5,000 Balance over $500,000 [$700,000] x 1% = $7,000 Minimum required landscaping budget = $19,500. The applicant has proposed --$12,745 in new landscaping --a credit of $7,500 for an existing Silver Maple adjacent to Hinesburg Road. The landscaping budget requirement is met. In email comments to Staff on March 27, 2015, the City Arborist commented as follows:  A more detailed Tree Protection Plan for the existing trees that are to remain should be included. The plan looks good otherwise. 3. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to comply with the City Arborist’s CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc recommendations. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. As noted above, the project as proposed would require waivers to the front yard setback requirements. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. 4. The project shall connect to municipal water and sewer. The applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to recording the Final Plat plan. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to 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 plans were reviewed by the Department of Public Works and no formal comments on issues other than Stormwater and Landscaping were offered. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant is proposing to use the existing curb cut shared with 1035/1037 Hinesburg Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc The Department of Public Works reviewed the plans and indicated that they had no issues with access. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The parcel contains neither resources identified in the Open Space strategy nor any unique natural features. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. 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 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. The proposed project represents an increase in employment and business growth. The design of the building is consistent with several other buildings recently constructed in this district. The building includes attractive architectural features including a partial 2-story. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The property contains no open space areas. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In an email to Staff dated April 13, 2015 the Fire Department provided the following comments in response to the applicant’s response to the Department’s initial comments: Ray: Thank you for forwarding Mr. Burke’s response. Unfortunately as the access has not been improved to meet the minimum standards, found in NFPA 1-18.2.3.4, we will not support this application. The current proposal on the curb cut presumes that the fire apparatus can encroach into the center line of an arterial road, or into oncoming traffic., The 20’ radius has no allowance for snow banks found along the curbs of our roadways 5 months of the year. An acceptable turnaround on the West end is required. There are options for this latter requirement. As always, the Chief and I are available to meet with the client to find solutions that meets the minimum requirements for access as required by law. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc The applicant responded as follows: Ray: I am writing as a follow-up to the Fire Department review comments as received in a 4/8/15 email, copy clipped and responded to below. Comment: The building should have a sprinkler system installed. Response: The building was previously greater than 10,000 s.f. and as such required to be sprinklered. The revised building is slightly less than 10,000 s.f. and as such I suggest the need for a sprinkler system will be determined directly by the Fire Department as they have permitting authority, not L & I. It appears that the sprinkler system is not necessary, as their comment is “should”. Regardless, per the initial review with Fire at the informal pre Sketch meeting with Staff, the plans were revised to increase the water service size to 8” to allow for / provide a hydrant near the building to avoid dragging a hose across Hinesburg Road. Comment: Curb radius on north entrance (R-20) does not allow FD vehicle to enter the parking area without scrubbing the tires on the curb. Recommend matching radius on south curb (R-30). Response: The proposed 20’ radius on the northern side of the entrance was sized to avoid conflicts with existing utilities. A turning exhibit is attached demonstrating that the 20’ radius is acceptable for a large truck (B-40). The entrance has received a Letter of Intent from VTrans. Comment: The throat of the new access to the existing buildings’ new parking area on west side of lot, needs to be modified to allow apparatus to turn around in a three point “K” turn. Response: The throat of the new access to the existing buildings’ new parking area was not designed to accommodate a large trucks for a three point “K” turn and can’t be revised to do so. In the event a large FD vehicle visits the site for a fire alarm and/or a fire event, it will require additional turning movements and/or will need to back out onto Hinesburg Road. This proposal does provide for improved maneuverability on-site, including to the existing buildings. Please let me know, if you need anything else. I will be at the 11 AM meeting with Staff on Wednesday (15th) and if the Fire Chief or Assistant Chief is present, we can discuss further. David The applicant and the Fire Department have discussed these concerns and the applicant intends to provide an updated plan at the meeting which satisfies the Department’s concerns. 4. Staff recommends the Board confirm that the applicant has met the concerns of the Fire Department. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The plans were reviewed by the Department of Public Works and no formal comments on issues other CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc than Stormwater and Landscaping were offered. With regards to Stormwater, in an email to staff dated April 7, 2015 the Department of Public Works provided the following comments: Justin, I reviewed the “Happy Tails” project site plan prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated 1/26/15 with revisions on 3/25/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure on site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works 6. Staff considers this criterion to be met however recommends that the Board include the condition as requested by Mr. DiPietro. (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. The plans were reviewed by the Department of Public Works and no formal comments on issues other than Stormwater and Landscaping were offered. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels that the project, as currently proposed, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 13.23 Outdoor exercise facilities for animal shelters, commercial kennels, pet day cares, and veterinary hospitals A. Specific Standards: (1) All outdoor exercise areas shall be fully enclosed and screened on all sides. (2) Animals shall not be permitted in outdoor exercise areas between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. (3) Where a planned outdoor exercise facility is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district or existing residential use, the required side or rear setback for the outdoor exercise facilities shall be sixty-five (65) feet from the residential or residentially-zoned CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_10_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_4_On_The_Floor_LLC_PrelimAndFinal_PUDamend_kennel.doc property. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. The outdoor exercise area for the project is fully enclosed and screened on all sides consistent with criterion A (1). Criterion A (3) is not applicable to the project. Should the project receive final plat approval, the Board should include a condition that animals shall not be permitted in the outdoor exercise areas between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. The building is also designed to maximize sound-proofing of the dog play area. Applicant has submitted Spec Sheets for the fencing material to the south for review to assure it is opaque. 7. The Board should determine that the project is consistent with Section 12.23 of the LDRs and secondly, consider requiring a condition that animals shall not be permitted in the outdoor exercise areas between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: David W. Burke