Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 12/01/2015
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1 DECEMBER 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 December 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, J. Wilking, ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Rabideau, J. Larkin, E. Farrell, L. O’Farrell, M. Jarvis, J. Owens, M. & M. Lipson, T. & K. Easton, R. Dickenson, D. Kern, L. Williams, P. Simon, J. Curran, B. Shearer, T. Chittenden, T. Ryan, G. Hooks, W. Milliken, D. Sherman R. & D. Rekocevic 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. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) constructing a 100 room hotel, 3) constructing a 51-room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Rabideau said they are at the very beginning of an intense master planning process. They will also have to find a way to minimize the impact on the people who are living at Larkin Terrace now. He then showed the location of the property and identified the surrounding uses including a piece of property which Eric Farrell will transfer to Larkin Realty (Mr. Farrell will have a plan for developing the rear portion of the property). They are looking at a form based concept with buildings fronting on roadways and a making an effort to conceal parking beneath and behind buildings. They are also proposing a mix of uses. The uses will include a 100-room extended stay hotel, a large mixed use building (with commercial uses on the first level and residential above) and town house units as a transitional element to Lakewood Commons. They propose to extend the connector road to provide secondary circulation parallel to Shelburne Road. They will build the right-of-way up to Lakewood Commons. They will also maintain the existing curb cut at Eastwood as a secondary access until a southerly access is completed. Mr. Rabideau then showed a rendered image of the concept and noted what 3-4 story buildings will look like at this intersection. He indicated the possible garage entrances and possible green space on top of the garage serving the hotel. Some parking will have to be reconfigured to replace parking for the movie theatre. Mr. Barritt asked about the building heights. Mr. Rabideau said they are showing 4 stories above grade, but there may be some breaks of 3 stories. He showed some recent projects in South Burlington and Waterbury and some “inspirational” designs. Mr. Rabideau noted that the existing Larkin Terrace is quite old and not very energy efficient. He stressed the sensitivity to the needs of those currently living there. Mr. Barritt said he is not entirely opposed to the height on Shelburne Road but does have a concern with the mass. He noted that the DRB has no purview over the displacement of the current residents. Mr. Wilking expressed concern that very little in the way of outdoor amenities was shown for the apartment dwellers. Mr. Larkin agreed and said they will work on that for the next variation. Mr. Belair noted there is no requirement for open space, but there is a coverage requirement with 30% “open.” Mr. Miller felt this would put this end of Shelburne Road “on the map.” He felt this was not “a quiet building” but he liked it a lot as long as the green space issue and traffic concerns are addressed. Ms. Smith was intrigued by the plan but would like softer lines and multiple roof lines. She felt it was time for something new at that corner. Mr. Barritt appreciated that parking is hidden. He asked about shared parking with the theatre but noted that there is a time conflict for that. Mr. Larkin said they need to see how that overlap works. It will be based on what form the building ultimately takes. Mr. Larkin said they’re looking seriously at an affordable component. Mr. Barritt cited the importance of walkability and suggested the applicant work with Mr. Farrell on that to take advantage of the western views. With regard to traffic, Mr. Rabideau indicated a probable right turn out only. He noted there is a bus stop right out front. He also felt the traffic capacity is there as they have signalized intersections. Those intersections may require some improvement. Mr. Barritt noted the potential for better stormwater control and suggested the applicant work closely with Public Works on that. Mr. Jarvis expressed concern with how customers to his movie theatre will get to the theatre. He was worried about cars whizzing through as children and senior citizens are walking to the building. He added that they don’t have enough parking as it is. Mr. Belair stressed that all parking is to be shared with all commercial users. Mr. Rabideau said the road connection was always in the city’s plans. He added that at the street level, there will be parking; it will just have a cover over it. Mr. Larkin said they will honor the current lease agreement. He felt that covering the parking is a net improvement. They will also consider crosswalks, etc. Mr. Rabideau said they don’t propose to close down any of the curb cuts to the movie theatre. Mr. Conner said the city will want to insure that any pedestrian access is safe. There may have to be some adjustments to benefit pedestrians. Mr. Benremo, a resident of Larkin Terrace said it took him a long time to find affordable housing, and he was scared to think of losing the place he now has. Ms. Johnson thought it was an exciting idea. She noted a lot of hotels popping up when what is needed is housing, especially apartments. She added that people who graduate from college want to stay here, and they have no affordable place to live. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-15-40 to 16 February 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-41 of Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 6.7 acre parcel into two lots of 44.1 acres and 2.6 acres, and 2) construction of a 50-unit multi-family dwelling on the 4.1 acre parcel, 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Farrell identified the property as the Allenwood property which used to be an inn. He stressed that this plan has nothing to do with the property on the other side of the railroad tracks. He showed an overhead photo of the property and surrounding properties and indicated where the subdivision would occur and which property would be attached to the Larkin property and which would be for this development. Mr. Farrell noted that the railroad crossing is not used any more, and the gates are closed. The crossing would be maintained; it is technically a “farm crossing” and will be kept as a safety‐emergency access to Mr. Farrell’s cousin’s property. Mr. Farrell indicated the municipal sewer line which runs through the property. He also noted the challenging change of grade. The plan proposes a 50-unit, 5-story apartment building with surface parking (73 spaces, 1.5 per unit). A 60-foot right-of-way will be dedicated to the city. They will also build the road up to Lakewood Commons. All apartments will be studio apartments except for the top story where they will be one bedroom. Mr. Farrell said he is comfortable with the parking based on uses at his other buildings. They will enclose an area for pets to use off-leash. There will also be an area for passive recreation/grilling for residents. Mr. Farrell indicated the existing stormwater pond. He noted that Public Works wants them to see how that pond functions and to make any necessary improvements. They will also build their own stormwater retention system. Mr. Farrell said they will retain as many of the mature trees as possible, so they have wedged the building in. This will be coordinated with the Larkin development. Mr. Farrell then showed the proposed elevations. The main entrance will face Shelburne Road. He explained the concept for HVAC installation. The building will have a lobby, lounge and fitness center. There will also be a storage area for tenants’ use. Almost all of the parking will be on the west side of the building. The plan results in 35% overall coverage and 1.5% front yard coverage. Primary access will be down Fayette Road. The second access will be across the Larkin property. Mr. Barritt noted there is a request for a height waiver to 57.6’, which represents a 22.6’ waiver. Mr. Miller said he would like to see what this looks like in relation to the Larkin building. Mr. Farrell said this building won’t be seen once the Larkin project is built out. Ms. Smith asked about the relation to Lakewood Commons. Mr. Farrell said those are 3-story buildings on a pretty heavily treed lot. Mr. Barritt asked what will happen with the rest of the property. Mr. Farrell said it is pretty undevelopable and can be used for recreation for residents. Mr. Barritt asked if they would allow non-residents to use the walking paths. Mr. Farrell said there is no view of the Lake from the ground. Mr. Barritt said he had no issue with the height waiver. Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilking said they didn’t have enough detail to decide. Mr. Wilking said he did like the design. Mr. Lipson, a resident of Holmes Rd. Ext. and is concerned with traffic on that road. He suggested accessing the property at the Allenwood entrance with a right turn only onto Shelburne Road. Mr. Barritt explained where the roads will go and the possible future connections. Mr. Belair added there will be no connection with the Lakewood Commons property until Lakewood comes in with a proposal. Mr. Easton, who also lives on Holmes Rd. Ext., was concerned with the development of both properties from the point of view of water runoff. He said there is a stream on his property which carries a lot of water, and after a severe rain, water ends up in that stream. In a heavy rain, a lot of silt goes into the Bay. He felt this should be looked at very carefully by Public Works to see how this will affect the environment. Mr. Easton added he was not opposed to the development. Mr. Barritt said there is a whole stormwater process that both properties will have to go through; there is also a State process. He was confident that stormwater will be addressed. Mr. Easton said they should also see how this will affect the wetland. Mr. Conner said that Public Works sees both of these properties as an opportunity for enhancement. He also noted that the applicants have been encouraged to speak with the Lakewood Commons people regarding connectivity. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-41 to 16 February 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-15-69 of Greer Family, LLC, for after-the fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 15,608 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of converting 775 sq. ft. of retail use to tavern-night club use, 10 Dorset Street: Mr. Barritt said the issue is how to define the use for traffic/trip generation analysis. He noted that staff has recommended a technical review of traffic because of the complexities. Mr. Dickinson said the property was approved for 71 parking spaces, but they have counted 70. The missing space is in the northeast corner and is undersized and not very useful. The applicant is willing to fix it to make it usable. With regard to trip generation, Mr. Dickinson said they did traffic counts during the peak period. The site is permitted for 43.2 peak hour trip ends. Existing volumes are much lower. The Growler Garage generates only 6 trip ends; the ITE estimate is 9 per hour. Mr. Dickinson said it is their feeling that Growler Garage is a “specialty retail” establishing which would not result in an increase in peak hour trip ends. He didn’t feel a technical review was needed. Mr. Belair said the “specialty retail” estimate is 2.71 trip ends per 1,000 sq. ft.; the actual count is double that which doesn’t seem appropriate. Mr. O’Farrell said they signed their lease in May, 2014 as a retail store with no liquor sales. When they added the consumption of alcohol they got approval through the City Council and the State. They thought everything was OK, and nothing has changed since they opened. A person can sample a beer, then buy one and take it home. People don’t stay to consume the product. Mr. Belair said when Growler’s opened, it was approved as retail sales only to sell ‘growlers.” Staff later learned a portion of the site was used for on-site consumption. Mr. Wilking asked if a portion of the space can be considered “specialty retail” and a portion “on site consumption.” Mr. Belair said it can. Mr. Wiling said he felt the Board should think of a way to get this approved for 6 trip ends. Mr. Belair said that would exceed the number for the whole property (42.3), which they can’t do. That number was determined by uses on the property and a long-ago approval. Nothing has changed to allow an increase as it is in a traffic overlay district. Members felt they needed to make individual site visits before making a decision. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-69 to 5 January 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-15-42 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 10-lot subdivision. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the water service serving lots #1 and #10, 2) replacing previously approved pavers at the temporary cul-de-sac to crushed stone, 3) designating the community garden area as being reserved for use by the residents of the development only, and 4) creating two footprint lots on lot #9, 1630 Dorset Street: Mr. Williams noted there is also a plan to replace the trees by the wetland buffer with shrubs. He gave members pictures of the proposed shrubs. Mr. Belair recommended not closing the application until they know the size of the plantings, locations, etc. A budget is also needed. Mr. Williams said they will be in exactly the same place on the plan. He said he will show this to the arborist. After some discussion, Mr. Williams agreed to go back to the original trees. There will be a stipulation that the second landscape plan is no longer part of the application. Mr. Williams said lot #9 was originally for a duplex; they want to replace that with 2 single family units on the one lot. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-42. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-15-70 and Design Review Application #DR-15-06 of Jeffrey Taylor to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of 1) constructing 5’x 67’ cart corral enclosure, 200 Dorset Street: Mr. Simon showed the location of the cart corral. He noted that staff notes indicated the enclosure would be 16 feet high, but it is actually 11 feet, 9 inches. He also noted that the vertical supports don’t match up with the shop drawing. He gave members a corrected printout of the elevations. The roof will be red metal. The panels will be removed in the summer. Mr. Belair said the Board needs to approve the plan with and without the panels. Members had no issues. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-70 & DR-15-06. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Minutes of 17 November 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 17 November as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. , Clerk 12-15-2015 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_40_1185_1195_ShelburneRd_Larkin_PUD_hotels_r esidential_commercial_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 24, 2015 Plans received: October 30, 2015 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-15-40 JOHN P. LARKIN – 1185 & 1195 SHELBURNE ROAD Meeting date: December 1, 2015 Owner/Applicant John P. Larkin 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Person Joe Larkin (802) 864-7444 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Commercial 1 – Automobile Zoning District- Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) constructing a 100 room hotel, 3) constructing a 51 room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Administrative Office Ray Belair and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 30, 2015 and have the following comments. Based upon the information submitted at this time, the staff is generally comfortable with the elements of this Sketch Plan. Full compliance with the City’s LDRs will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat Review. Staff comments herein are focused on the following major issues: - Visual & Size Compatibility of the development with the area -Traffic Circulation & Access -Parking -Stormwater The applicant has expressed a desire to show how it proposes to create a “quality space” via the overall layout, size and massing of the multiple buildings, the use of an internal parking garage and internal streets and potential north-south connectivity to adjacent lots. The applicant wants to have this “big picture” conversation with the Board to make sure that they are comfortable not only with the various elements of the proposal but that the overall project is consistent with the vision of the City. -Visual Compatibility and the Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area While full compliance of the project will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat Plan Review, given the scope, size and character of the proposed development, it is appropriate for this Sketch Review to adequately address the proposal’s conformity with Section 15.18, (A)(5) and Section 14.06 (C) which read as as follows: Section 15.18 (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. And Section 14.06 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 1. The Board should direct the applicant to describe how the project anticipates meeting these two standards and provide as much illustrative materials, details and examples as possible at this time. Traffic Circulation & Access Based upon the Overall Site Plan submitted, the property is bounded by Shelburne Road, Fayette Road and a proposed Connector Road located in the area of the movie theater parking lot. Primary access to the property will be via Fayette Road to the Connector Drive leading to a parking garage and smaller entrance drive both located on the west side of the property. There are also two access/egress points: one on the north side leading to Fayette Road and one on the east side leading to Shelburne Road. Given the concurrent proposal (#SD-15-41) for development of the 6.7 acre parcel to the west of the subject property, staff recommends that the access drive in the southwest corner of the subject property align with that proposed in #SD-15-41. Similarly, the access drive on the north side of the property should align with that serving the property on the north side of Fayette Road. 2. The Board should direct the applicant to describe the intended traffic circulation to, from and within the property. Parking The applicant’s proposed uses and parking requirements at this time, include the following: -a 100 room hotel but with no public meeting or banquet rooms [100 spaces] -9,000 SF of commercial space [36 spaces] -a 51 unit extended stay hotel [55 spaces] -49 apartment units [98 spaces] -28 units in townhouses/brownstones [56 spaces] The applicant’s calculation using the existing LDRs is 345 spaces with 346 spaces constructed. The applicant notes that the plan depends upon a shared parking arrangement with the adjacent theater to accommodate 83 spaces for the theater Staff notes that the draft changes to the Land Development Regulations currently under consideration include the following change to the required parking calculation for multi-family dwellings: 1 space per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units for studio and 1- bedroom DUs; 2 spaces per DU plus 1 space for every 4 units for all other DUs. Depending upon the number of studio and 1-bedroom dwelling units constructed, this would have the effect of lowering the required number of parking spaces. 3. The Board should direct the applicant to describe the intended parking facilities (below ground and above ground) and on street parking as well as describe if any parking will be non-reserved. Stormwater In an email to staff dated November 18, 2015, the Department of Public Works provided the following comments: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Ray, The Stormwater Section has reviewed “Larking Terrace, Sketch Plan Application” prepared by Rabideau Architects, dated 10/16/2015. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The site is located in the Shelburne Bay East watershed and North Brook watershed, which is part of the City’s Stormwater Management Overlay (SMO) District. Current LDR regulations require the applicant to provide a stormwater management plan (SMP) for projects located in the SMO District. (Preliminary Site Plans submitted after November 19, 2015 will be subject to review by the updated Land Development Regulations.) 2. Soil mapping indicates that there may be sandy soils in this area, so infiltration practices are our strong preference. 3. In addition, we are aware of stormwater issues located downstream of this project. This includes streambank erosion, damage to existing drainage infrastructure, and sedimentation of an existing pond. We would like to discuss potential opportunities for treating off site water (from Route 7 or Fayette Road) as part of the project so that we may further address the existing downstream water quality issues. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 4. Given the concerns raised by the Department of Public Works, the Board should direct the applicant to work closely with the Department as it develops its Preliminary Plat application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board, if desired, make suggestions to the applicant on measures/changes to be included in any Preliminary/Final Plat application. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer cc: Joe Larkin CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_41_1195_ShelburneRd_Farrell_PUD_50unit_dwellin g_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 24, 2015 Plans received: October 30, 2015 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-15-41 ERIC FARRELL – 1195 SHELBURNE ROAD Meeting date: December 1, 2015 Owner David M. Farrell Trust Applicant Eric Farrell PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT Contact Person Eric Farrell (802) 861-3000, x12 PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Commercial 1 – Automobile Zoning District- Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-41 of Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 6.7 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 4.1 acres & 2.6 acres, and 2) construction of a 50 unit multi-family dwelling on the 4.1 acre parcel, 1195 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Administrative Office Ray Belair and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 30, 2015 and have the following comments. Based upon the information submitted at this time, the staff is generally comfortable with the elements of this Sketch Plan. Full compliance with the City’s LDRs will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat Review. Staff comments herein are focused on the following major issues: -Traffic Circulation & Access -Height of Structure - Visual & Size Compatibility of the development with the area -Stormwater Given the concurrent proposal (#SD-15-40) for development of 1185 Shelburne Road to the east, the Board should review this application in that light and provide any necessary guidance to the applicant especially with regards to traffic flow and connectivity. Traffic Circulation & Access Based upon the Proposed Conditions Site Plan, primary access to and egress from the property will be via a paved road that would extend south of the driveway serving the parking lot for the movie theater located at 10 Fayette Road. Given the concurrent proposal (#SD-15-40) for development of 1185 Shelburne Road to the east ( including the proposed transfer of the applicant’s subdivided 2.6 acre parcel), staff recommends that the access drive in the northwest corner of the subject property align with the access drive proposed in #SD-15-40. Staff recommends as well that the applicant explore if the owners at Lakewood Commons at 1233 Shelburne Road would be amenable to connecting a roadway between the two parcels. 1. The Board should direct the applicant to describe the intended traffic circulation to, from and within the property. Height of Structure 3.07 Height of Structures A. General Provisions. Structures in all districts shall comply with the height standards presented below in this section. Maximum allowable building heights are illustrated in Figure 3-1, Height of Structures. B. Stories. The requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. ………………… C. Maximum Height. Except as allowed below in this section 3.07, the requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING …………. D. Waiver of Height Requirements (1) Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations, and steeples for places of worship that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C-2 above may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses. (2) R12, IA, PR, MU, C1-R12, C1-R15 C1-Auto, C1-Air, C1-LR, AR, SW, IO, C2, Mixed IC, AIR, and AIR-IND Districts. (a) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the limitations set forth in Table C-2. For each foot of additional height, all front and rear setbacks shall be increased by one (1) foot and all side yard setbacks shall be increased by one half (1/2) foot. (b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre- construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. (c) Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations, that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C-2 may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses. Such structures do not need to comply with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) above. In the C-1 Auto Zoning District the height limit for flat roof structures is 35 ft. The applicant is proposing a 4- story building with an effective height of 57.6 feet above pre-construction grade. This would require a height waiver of 22.6 feet. 2. The Board should provide guidance to the applicant if it is comfortable with the necessary height waiver and also ask the applicant to demonstrate that it’s proposal is compliant with the setback requirements in 3.07D.(2)(a) and also demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. -Visual Compatibility and the Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area While full compliance of the project will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat Plan Review, given the scope, size and character of the proposed development, it is appropriate for this Sketch Review to adequately address the proposal’s conformity with Section 15.18, (A)(5) and Section 14.06 (C) which read as as follows: Section 15.18 (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING And Section 14.06 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. 3. The Board should direct the applicant to describe how the project anticipates meeting these two standards and provide as much illustrative materials, details and examples as possible at this time. Stormwater In an email to staff dated November 18, 2015, the Department of Public Works provided the following comments: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Inn Lot Proposed 3 Lot Subdivisoin, 1195 Shelburne Rd” sketch plan prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, not dated. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The site is located in the Shelburne Bay East watershed and North Brook watershed, which is part of the City’s Stormwater Management Overlay (SMO) District. Current LDR regulations require the applicant to provide a stormwater management plan (SMP) for projects located in the SMO District. (Preliminary Site Plans submitted after November 19, 2015 will be subject to review by the updated Land Development Regulations.) 2. Soil mapping indicates that there may be sandy soils in this area, so infiltration practices are our strong preference. 3. In addition, we are aware of stormwater issues located downstream of this project. This includes streambank erosion, damage to existing drainage infrastructure, and sedimentation of an existing pond. We would like to discuss potential opportunities for treating off site water (from Route 7 or Fayette Road) as part of the project so that we may further address the existing downstream water quality issues. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 4. Given the concerns raised by the Department of Public Works, the Board should direct the applicant to work closely with the Department as it develops its Preliminary Plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board, if desired, make suggestions to the applicant on measures/changes to be included in any Preliminary/Final Plat application. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer cc: Eric Farrell, applicant C0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ORTHO PHOTOBOUNDARY PLANACEPROGRESS PLANSNOTES1. ORTHO BOUNDARY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ALL CONTIGUOUS LANDSBELONGING TO DAVID M. FARRELL2. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ASONE.3. SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A PLAT ENTITLED "BOUNDARY SURVEY - "ALLENWOOD PROPERTY" DAVID M. FARRELL TRUST"PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED FEB. 2, 2008.ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON TAX MAP INFORMATION.SAVSAVMAB1" = 250'1423310/29/2015PROJECTLOCATION7INN LOTPROPOSED 3 LOTSUBDIVISIONDAVID M. FARRELLTRUST1195 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VT.5 HOLMES ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VT.P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14233\1-CADD Files-14233\dwg\14233-Site.dwg, 10/29/2015 4:04:22 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SMH#5RIM=149.62INV.IN=140.8 (18" NW)INV.OUT=140.7 (18" E)WOVEN WIRE FENCEABANDONED LIGHT POLEBOX CULVERTINV=139.53WWWWWSTONE WALL(TYP.)3X3 STONE PILLAR(TYP.)PONDGUARDRAIL4X4 STONEPILLARGATECBRIM=197.8INV.=195.0CBRIM=194.33X3 STONEPILLAR (TYP.)BOULDERGATECB#2RIM=149.05INV.IN=142.3 (8" W)INV.IN=137.8 (15" E)INV.IN=138.3 (8" SE)INV.OUT=137.7 (15" NW)ST18" CMPINV.=144.3618" CMPINV.=142.01CROSSINGGATESMHRIM=193.5SMH#1RIM=168.8INV.=157.9 (12")SHELF=159.036" CMPINV.=146.32PIPE DIRECTION UNKNOWCONCRETE STAIRSINV.=143.8INV.=141.56EXISTINGSTORMWATERPONDCB#3RIM=149.12INV. IN=139.0 (12" N)INV.OUT=139.0 (15" NW)SECURITY CAMERAEXISTINGBUILDINGPAVEMENTU.S. ROUTE 7 - SHELBURNE ROADFAYETTE ROAD28" SPRUCE18" SPRUCE20" SPRUCE30" SPRUCE16" SPRUCE22" SPRUCE24" SPRUCE12" PINE6" BIRCH202202201201200200200200200199 199199199199198198198 198197 197 197196 196 196 195 195195 194 194 193 193 193 192 192 192191 191 191190 190 190189 189 189 188 188188 187 187 186 186 185 185 184 184 183 183182 182 181181 180180 164175174 170166165160 145160159158 157156 155155154 153 152 151150150148147147140146139146146 146145 137145145145144144144144143143 143142142142 142141 141 1411411401391381361351341332- 6" BIRCH30" PINE30" PINE30" PINE24" PINE30" PINE30" PINE28" PINE14" PINE14" SPRUCE16" SPRUCE20" SPRUCE12" PINE14" PINE10" PINE12" PINE20" PINE10" PINE18" PINE12" PINE12" PINE6" PINE10" PINE12" PINE(DEAD)26" SPRUCE20" SPRUCE14" PINE10" PINE10" PINE12" PINE18" PINE12" PINE28" PINE6" PINE18" SPRUCE18" SPRUCE12" SPRUCE14" BIRCH14" PINE32" PINE32" SPRUCE32" PINE34" PINE20" PINE20" PINE20" SPRUCE32" SPRUCE174 20'4" BIRCH175 1195 Shelburne Rd.David M. FarrellTrust1233 Shelburne Rd.n/f"Lakewood Commons"Condominium10'SETBACK15'SETBACK30'SETBACK15'SETBACK10'SETBACK30'SETBACKEEE1185 Shelburne Rd.n/fJ.P. Larkin10 Fayette Rd.n/fLarkin MilotPartnership1-7 Old Orchard Parkn/f"Old Orchard Park"Condominium1200 Shelburne Rd.n/fW. Wilson1210 Shelburne Rd.n/fSisters &BrothersInvestmentGroup LLC.1220 Shelburne Rd.n/fMagni Holdings LTD265'±235'±711'±217'±492'±6'±765'±209'±51'±TEMPORARY BENCHMARKRIM OF SANITARY SEWER MHELEV.=148.32TEMPORARY BENCHMARKRIM OF CATCH BASINELEV.=197.78STORMWATER MGT.OVERLAY DISTRICTSSSCBRIM=197.0INV.IN=193.6 (12")INV.OUT=192.4 (24")STST ST161 165 162 163 164 161 167 166 169 168 170171 173 172 176 177 178179 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWATER MAIN LOCATION ISAPPROXIMATE AND BASEDON PLANS PROVIDED BYCHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT OCTOBER 2015WWWWW WSSSSSSSSSS198 C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'EXISTINGCONDITIONS SITEPLANACEPROGRESS PLANSNOTES1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALLUTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES.EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTORSHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BEREPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE(888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ASONE.3. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A PLAT ENTITLED " BOUNDARYSURVEY - "ALLENWOOD PROPERTY" DAVID M. FARRELL TRUST" PREPARED BYCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED FEB. 2, 2008. MONUMENTATIONRECOVERED IS CONSISTENT WITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS.4. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC FALL OF 2014. CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONTCOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL) AND NAVD88 (VERTICAL)ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE.4. SETBACKS BASED ON CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS. DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013.5. SUBJECT LOT LAYS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 15,COMMERCIAL 1 - AUTO, THE TRANSIT OVERLAY, THE STORMWATERMANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS.SAVSAVMAB1" = 50'1423310/29/2015PROJECTLOCATION7INN LOTPROPOSED 3 LOTSUBDIVISIONDAVID M. FARRELLTRUST1195 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VT.5 HOLMES ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VT.LEGENDESTSW199EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING WATEREXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DISTRICT LINESP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14233\1-CADD Files-14233\dwg\14233-Site.dwg, 10/29/2015 4:04:28 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SMH#5RIM=149.62INV.IN=140.8 (18" NW)INV.OUT=140.7 (18" E)WOVEN WIRE FENCEBOX CULVERTINV=139.53WWWWWSTONE WALL(TYP.)3X3 STONE PILLAR(TYP.)PONDGUARDRAIL4X4 STONEPILLARGATECBRIM=197.8INV.=195.0CBRIM=194.33X3 STONEPILLAR (TYP.)GATECB#2RIM=149.05INV.IN=142.3 (8" W)INV.IN=137.8 (15" E)INV.IN=138.3 (8" SE)INV.OUT=137.7 (15" NW)ST18" CMPINV.=144.3618" CMPINV.=142.01CROSSINGGATESMHRIM=193.5SMH#1RIM=168.8INV.=157.9 (12")SHELF=159.036" CMPINV.=146.32PIPE DIRECTION UNKNOWCONCRETE STAIRSINV.=143.8INV.=141.56EXISTINGSTORMWATERPONDCB#3RIM=149.12INV. IN=139.0 (12" N)INV.OUT=139.0 (15" NW)SECURITY CAMERAEXISTINGBUILDINGPAVEMENTPROPOSED PARCEL2.6 AC.±PROPOSED 60' R.O.W.24'U.S. ROUTE 7 - SHELBURNE ROADFAYETTE ROAD12" PINE6" BIRCH202202201201200200200200200199 199199199199198198198 198197 197 197196 196 196 195 195195 194 194 193 193 193 192 192 192191 191 191190 190 190189 189 189 188 188188 187 187 186 186 185 185 184 184 183 183182 182 181181 180180 164175174 170166165160 145160159158 157 156 155155154 153 152151150150148147147140146139146146 146145 137145145145144144144144143143 143142142142 142141 141 1411411401391381361351341332- 6" BIRCH30" PINE30" PINE30" PINE24" PINE30" PINE30" PINE28" PINE14" PINE14" SPRUCE16" SPRUCE20" SPRUCE12" PINE14" PINE10" PINE12" PINE20" PINE10" PINE18" PINE12" PINE12" PINE6" PINE10" PINE12" PINE(DEAD)20" SPRUCE14" PINE10" PINE10" PINE12" PINE18" PINE12" PINE28" PINE6" PINE18" SPRUCE18" SPRUCE12" SPRUCE14" PINE32" PINE32" PINE20" PINE20" SPRUCE461'±179'±174 20'265'±175246'±1195 Shelburne Rd.David M. FarrellTrust1233 Shelburne Rd.n/f"Lakewood Commons"Condominium10'SETBACK15'SETBACK30'SETBACK15'SETBACK10'SETBACK30'SETBACK30'SETBACK30'SETBACKEEEPROPOSED PARCEL4.1 AC.±1185 Shelburne Rd.n/fJ.P. Larkin10 Fayette Rd.n/fLarkin MilotPartnership1-7 Old Orchard Parkn/f"Old Orchard Park"Condominium1200 Shelburne Rd.n/fW. Wilson1210 Shelburne Rd.n/fSisters &BrothersInvestmentGroup LLC.1220 Shelburne Rd.n/fMagni Holdings LTD305'±209'±51'±492'±6'±TEMPORARY BENCHMARKRIM OF SANITARY SEWER MHELEV.=148.32TEMPORARY BENCHMARKRIM OF CATCH BASINELEV.=197.78SSSCBRIM=197.0INV.IN=193.6 (12")INV.OUT=192.4 (24")STST ST161 165 162 163 164 161 167 166 169 168 170 171 173 172 176 177 178 179 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWATER MAIN LOCATION ISAPPROXIMATE AND BASEDON PLANS PROVIDED BYCHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT OCTOBER 2015FENCEDDOG PARKGRILLING /PARK AREA11101168STORMWATERPONDGRAVEL PATHWWWWW WSSSSSSSSSSPROPOSED NEW TAPPINGSLEEVE AND VALVE(FIELD VERIFY EXISTINGWATER LINE SIZE ANDLOCATION)CONNECT NEW SEWERSERVICE TO EXISTINGSMH#4PROPOSED HYDRANTST1098198 10'MIN.PROPOSEDBUILDINGSAVSAVMAB1" = 50'14233C1.1--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'INN LOTPROPOSEDCONDITIONS SITEPLANACEPROGRESS PLANS10/29/2015PROJECTLOCATION71. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITYLOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THECOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE AND OPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALS INCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTILSHOP DRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMITCONDITIONS AND ANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE 0.1 FEET.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWN AUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT AN APPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH APAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFOREWORK CONTINUES ON THE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAP INFORMATION. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BEUSED AS ONE.17. IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCTTHE WATER LINE TO TWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES INDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOILTESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILLPROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILE WHERE APPLICABLE.20. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALL SAFETY FENCES OR RAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNER SHALLVERIFY LOCAL, STATE AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.LEGENDESTSW199EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING WATEREXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDDAVID M. FARRELLTRUSTPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED SETBACK LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEGENERAL NOTES1195 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VT.5 HOLMES ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VT.REBAR SETNOTES1. PURPOSE OF THIS SKETCH PLAN IS TO DEPICT THE SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OFTHE DAVID M. FARRELL TRUST KNOW AS THE "INN LOT" INTO 2 PARCELS TO BESERVED BY A NEW 60 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY.2. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ASONE.3. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A PLAT ENTITLED " BOUNDARYSURVEY - "ALLENWOOD PROPERTY" DAVID M. FARRELL TRUST" PREPARED BYCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED FEB. 2, 2008. MONUMENTATIONRECOVERED IS CONSISTENT WITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS.4. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC FALL OF 2014. CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONTCOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL) AND NAVD88 (VERTICAL)ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE.4. SETBACKS BASED ON CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS. DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013.5. SUBJECT LOT LAYS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 15,COMMERCIAL 1 - AUTO, THE TRANSIT OVERLAY, THE STORMWATERMANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS.SWPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED WATERPROPOSED SHUT OFFSPROPOSED SEWER MANHOLEPROPOSED HYDRANTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14233\1-CADD Files-14233\dwg\14233-Site.dwg, 10/29/2015 4:04:33 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 10.28.15SOUTH BURLINGTONALLENWOODCOPYRIGHT © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDUNCAN • WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTUREA Professional CorporationSDD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRBURLINGTON, VERMONTT: 802.864.669305401SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREET A-1.1255NORTH ELEVATIONScale: 3/32" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONScale: 3/32" = 1'-0"63'-6"HIGHEST POINT57'-6"EFFECTIVE BUILDING HEIGHTEAST ELEVATIONScale: 3/32" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIONScale: 3/32" = 1'-0" 10.28.15ALLENWOODCOPYRIGHT © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDUNCAN • WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTUREA Professional CorporationSOUTH BURLINGTONA-3SDD u n c anW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRAERUTCETIHCRD u n c anW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRBURLINGTON, VERMONTT: 802.864.669305401SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREET255VIEW FROM SOUTH WESTVIEW FROM NORTH WESTVIEW FROM NORTH EAST CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_70_10DorsetSt_Greers_afterfact_tavern DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 25, 2015 Plans received: 10/30/15 10 DORSET STREET SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-70 Meeting date: December 1, 2015 Owner/Applicant Greer Family LLC 81 Maple Leaf Farm Road Underhill, VT 05489 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570-00010 Commercial 1 Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_15_70_10DorsetSt_Greers_afterfact_tavern.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Greer Family LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 15,608 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of converting 775 sq. ft. of retail use to tavern/night club use, 10 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on 10/30/15 and have the following comments. The applicant converted the retail space to tavern/night club use a while ago without approval and this application is an attempt to bring the property into compliance. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Commercial 1 Zoning District Requirement/Limitation Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 1.35 acres Max. Building Coverage 40% 26.5% Max. Total Coverage 70% 81.8% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 40-50 ft Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft Pre-existing non-compliance SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The Board has previously addressed parking issues at this property in its Findings of Fact & Decision for Site Plan Application, #SP-13-15. The applicant requested a 25% parking waiver in order to be able to accommodate the parking needs of current tenants as well as potential tenants who would move into currently unoccupied space. In that decision, the Board granted a 25% waiver to increase the parking allowance by 17.75 spaces (rounded to 17) for a total of 88 spaces. Future uses of the building shall be limited by this number. The applicant submitted a shared parking analysis dated 10/28/15 which was prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson. This analysis indicates that the existing and proposed uses require a total of 85 parking spaces which CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_15_70_10DorsetSt_Greers_afterfact_tavern.doc exceeds the 88 spaces which are available for all the tenants, when the previously approved 25% waiver is calculated into the total. This report also pointed out that there are effectively only 70 spaces available on the site and 71 spaces were previously approved. The site should be modified to provide 71 spaces as shown on the previously approved site plan. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. As part of previous Findings of Fact & Decision for this parcel, the Board found this criterion to be met. Staff feels that this application has no impact on this previous finding. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The height of the building will remain unchanged and below 35 feet. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes to the existing buildings are being proposed as part of this application which should require new utility services. However, if any are proposed, they shall be in compliance with this criterion. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The proposed project does not fall within a design review district. However, there is no change proposed to the architecture or materials of the building. (f) 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. See staff comments above. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. There are already sufficient shared accesses to this site via surrounding properties. No additional changes are necessary. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_15_70_10DorsetSt_Greers_afterfact_tavern.doc (b) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). There are no changes proposed to the existing trash facilities. The existing facility is screened. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As there is no building construction proposed for this site, there are no new minimum landscaping requirements. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall depict snow storage areas that will minimize the potential for run-off. Adequate snow storage areas are shown on the plans. Traffic The site is located in Traffic Overlay District 1 and is subject to a traffic budget. The property is grandfathered for the existing traffic generation. Based on ITE 7th Edition trip generation figures for Specialty Retail Center (LUC #826), the existing site is estimated to generate 2.71 trip ends per 1,000 SF for a total of 42.3 p.m. peak vehicle trip ends. This is in excess of the amount which would be allowed for a vacant lot in the same overlay district. Therefore, the site shall not be permitted to generate more than 42.3 PM peak vehicle trip ends. The applicant submitted a report prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson dated 5/4/15 which discusses the estimated traffic generation for the property with the proposed use. The report list several options on how to handle estimating the traffic to be generated by the conversion of 775 sq. ft. from retail to tavern/night club use. Staff believes that the fact that there are three (3) possible options for estimating traffic for the new use that technical review be invoked to have this issue independently reviewed. Option “A” uses the Drinking Place ITE use category #925. The description of this category is included in your packet and as can be seen, does not include uses like a tavern/night club. The ITE manual does include a category called “Drinking Place” which seems to describe the proposed use. Staff encourages the Board to review these descriptions which are in your packet. Section 10.02 (F) (2) of the LDRs describes how to estimate the traffic generation of a proposed use. It states as follows: (2) Estimating the traffic generation of the proposed use: Traffic generation estimates for the use under consideration shall be based on the latest TRIP GENERATION manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (the 7th Edition of 2003 and subsequent editions). The Development Review Board may approve or may require traffic generation estimates from other sources, including local traffic counts, if the ITE Trip Generation manual does not contain any data for a specified use, or sufficient data for a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_15_70_10DorsetSt_Greers_afterfact_tavern.doc specified use, or if a use contains unique characteristics that cause it to differ from national traffic estimates. See Appendix B for guidance. This provision requires the use of the ITE manual when a use under consideration is available, which in this case it is, and allows for other methods of estimating traffic when the manual “does not contain any data for a specific use”. Due to the complexity involved, staff recommends the Board invoke technical review by an independent traffic consultant to review the applicant’s traffic estimate. 1. Recommend technical review on traffic. RECOMMENDATION Continue the application to allow for receipt of the technical review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Jory Curran, Greer Family LLC, applicant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SD-15-42 Larry Williams DATE: December 1, 2015 DRB Meeting. Final plat application #SD-15-42 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 10 lot subdivision. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the water service serving lots #1 and #10, 2) replacing previously approved pervious pavers at the temporary cul-de-sac to crushed stone, 3) designating the community garden area as being reserved for use by the residents of the development only, and 4) creating two (2) footprint lots on lot #9, 1630 Dorset Street. Staff has left the discussion regarding landscaping blank in the draft decision. The applicant is proposing to substitute shrubs in place of trees for the wetland buffer marker plantings. Staff doesn’t consider that shrubs would represent a permanent marker for this wetland buffer and suggest that the applicant propose a more permanent buffer marker. Once this issue is resolved, either at the meeting such that a very specific condition can be included or as a result of a continuation and a revised plan, the hearing can then be closed. #SD-15-42 - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LARRY & LESLIE WILLIAMS – 1630 DORSET STREET FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-42 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-15-42 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 10 lot subdivision. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the water service serving lots #1 and #10, 2) replacing previously approved pervious pavers at the temporary cul-de-sac to crushed stone, 3) designating the community garden area as being reserved for use by the residents of the development only, and 4) creating two (2) footprint lots on lot #9, 1630 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on December 1, 2015. Larry Williams represented the applicant. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant seeks final approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a 10 lot subdivision. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the water service serving lots #1 and #10, 2) replacing previously approved pervious pavers at the temporary cul-de-sac to crushed stone, 3) designating the community garden area as being reserved for use by the residents of the development only, and 4) creating two (2) footprint lots on lot #9, 1630 Dorset Street. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Larry & Leslie Williams. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District and Village Residential Subdistrict. 4. The application was received on November 2, 2015. 5. The final approved plans consist of a five (5) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled “Williams Subdivision 1630 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT”, prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 1/15/13 and last revised on October 26, 2015. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The Board finds that no changes from what was previously approved in #SD-14-20 are proposed and the project continues to be in compliance with these 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: #SD-15-42 - 2 – (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 proposal includes revisions to the water service for Lots #1 and #10 so that service is provided via an 8” water main on Sadie Lane rather than the existing 12” water main on Dorset Street. The applicant has submitted a Grading & Utility Plan. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (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 applicant has submitted a Grading & Utility Plan and a Landscaping & Erosion Control Plan. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Board finds that no changes from what was previously approved in #SD-14-20 are proposed that would impact access, circulation and traffic management strategies. (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. As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD-14-20, the Board found this criterion to be met. The Board finds that none of changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (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. As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD-14-20, the Board found this criterion to be met. The Board finds that none of changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (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. As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD-14-20, the Board found this criterion to be met. The Board finds that none of changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. #SD-15-42 - 3 – (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. As indicated in the applicant’s letter of October 27, 2015 the Fire Chief has reviewed and approved the proposed change for removal of the pervious pavers and construction of the cul-de-sac with crushed stone only. The Board finds that this criterion continues to be met. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The applicant’s submitted plan addresses these elements in an adequate manner. As noted above, this proposal proposes a shared water line from Sadie Lane to service Lots #1 and Lot #10. This proposal also adds a common easement to the subdivision plat to reflect this shared service. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (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 part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. Lighting is discussed under Section 9.09, SEQ Village Residential. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (A) Relationship of the proposed development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. #SD-15-42 - 4 – As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (B)(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. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (B)(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. c. … (iii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; Only single family homes are proposed for this subdivision. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (B)(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted by the applicant indicate that all new utility lines are underground. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (C)(1) The Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. #SD-15-42 - 5 – (C)(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (A) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board finds that the reservation of land is not necessary. (B) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted by the applicant indicate that all new utility lines are underground. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (C) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The proposed development consists only of single-family homes. This criterion is not applicable. (D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. A. Height. #SD-15-42 - 6 – (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. Not applicable. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub-district shall not exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels. The Board previously found in its Findings for #SD-14-20 that this requirement was met by proposing that the houses be placed close to the street, thereby leaving contiguous open space amongst lots 1 – 4 & 10 and amongst lots 5 – 9. The Board hereby reaffirms this finding. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable subdistrict allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The applicant has submitted a Grading & Utility Plan and a Landscaping & Erosion Control Plan. The Board finds that this criterion is met. #SD-15-42 - 7 – (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. The applicant’s proposal includes a previously approved community garden. With this proposal, the applicant requests that the community garden area be reserved for use by the residents of the development only. The Board finds that the community garden area shall be reserved for use by the residents of the development only and that this criterion is met. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. The applicant’s proposal includes both construction of recreation path segments and designation of easements for the same. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. See discussion of compliance with Section 15.18(A)(1) above. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. See also discussion of compliance with Section 15.18(A)(8) & (A)(9) above. #SD-15-42 - 8 – The Board previously found this requirement to be met as the property is currently served by an existing recreation path running east-west, and a new sidewalk will run along the east side of the new street running north-south. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. The Fire Chief previously reviewed the proposal as part of application #SD-14-20. As indicated in the applicant’s letter of October 27, 2015 the Fire Chief has reviewed and approved the proposed change for removal of the pervious pavers and construction of the cul-de-sac with crushed stone only. The Board finds that this criterion is met. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D) (4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. 9.09 SEQ-VR Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-VR sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets #SD-15-42 - 9 – (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 400 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. (4) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. In its previous Findings of Fact & Decision for the PUD, #SD-14-20, the Board found that the project does not meet the strict guidelines of the SEQ which call for short development blocks and limits the lengths of roadways, in order to minimize impacts on the wetlands which traverse the site from north to south and fit into the unique shape of the lot. However, the Board also found that the design presented achieved the best possible layout given the restrictions on the site and that lot width to length ratios were met. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR sub-district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below. (2) Sidewalks (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) (4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision for this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. #SD-15-42 - 10 – C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. As part of previously approved Findings of Fact & Decision this project, the Board found these criteria to be met. The Board finds that none of the changes proposed as part of this application affect this finding. Stormwater In an email to staff dated November 18, 2015, the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed “Williams Subdivision” prepared by Lamoureau & Dickinson, dated 1/15/13, last updated 10/26/15. We do not have any additional comments to the changes made to the previously approved site plane. 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. Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent The Board finds that the applicant shall regularly maintain the stormwater treatment practice. Notice of Conditions #SD-15-42 - 11 – There are “footprint” lots proposed on Lot 9. For purposes of the Land Development Regulations, the Board finds that all footprint lots within a cluster will be considered one lot. DECISION Motion by ____________________, seconded by ___________________, to approve final plat application #SD-15-42 of Larry & Leslie Williams subject to the following conditions: 1) All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2) This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicants, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3) Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 4) All land development, including but not limited to expansions, sunrooms, patios, and decks, shall be limited to the building envelope shown on the plans to be reviewed and approved as part of the final plat application and applicable dimensional requirements of the district. Said structures shall be permitted through zoning permits by the Administrative Officer. Any land development on said lots extending beyond the approved building envelopes shall require an amendment to the PUD in application to the Development Review Board. 5) Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 6) The Board finds that the community garden area shall be reserved for use by the residents of the development only. 7) The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 8) The mylar shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 9) The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 10) Prior to issuance of any zoning permit for site work or construction, a digital copy of the final project plans in pdf format shall be delivered to the Administrative Officer. 11) The final plat plans shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 12) Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Matt Cota – yea nay abstain not present #SD-15-42 - 12 – Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons – yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X – 0 – 0 Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. (;,67,1*:,//,$065(6,'(1&())((;,67,1*321'(;,67,1*%$51(;,67,1*5(&5($7,213$7+1(:&('$5+('*(&2&2&2&2&26)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6) :(7/$1'%8))(51(:675((7/,*+7)8785( :,'(3$7+ )5203$9('('*( :(7/$1'%8))(5 :(7/$1'%8))(5&/$66,,:(7/$1'/27 )22735,17/27 /27 )22735,17/27 8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'8'::::::)')')'(7&(7&(7&(7&(7&(7&(7&(7&(7&(7&)' 3 ???GZJ?GZJ 30 'DWH6KWQR6FDOH&KHFNHG'UDZQ'HVLJQ6XUYH\7+(6(3/$16:,7+/$7(675(9,6,2166+28/'21/<%(86(')257+(385326(6+2:1%(/2: 6.(7&+&21&(3735(/,0,1$5<),1$/5(&25''5$:,1*5(9,6,2163URMQR6+((762)5'%+5'%<27+(56'$7( %<7+(&2175$&7256+$//127,)<',*6$)($7',*6$)(35,2572$1<(;&$9$7,21 8'3(5,0(7(53523(57</,1([[[[(;,67,1*)(1&(:(7/$1'%8))(5(;,67,1*&2172856:(7/$1'(;,67,1*($60(17/,1(352326('($60(17/,1($%877,1*3523(57</,1(352326('/27/,1(%8,/',1*6(7%$&.(;,67,1*:$7(5/,1( 9$/9((;,67,1*6$1,7$5<6(:(50$1+2/( )25&(0$,1(;,67,1*1$785$/*$6/,1((;,67,1*87,/,7<32/(),1,6+*5$'(&217285352326(':$7(5/,1(+<'5$179$/9( 6(59,&(352326('6$1,7$5<6(:(50$1+2/( 0$,1352326('81'(5'5$,1 &/($1287&2/(*(1'40$&$)%27$1,&$/1$0(48(5&860$&52&$53$$/186&25'$7$$&(5;)5((0$1,,&200211$0(%852$.,7$/,$1$/'(5)5((0$10$3/(48$17,7<6,=(&$/&$/&$/6)6)7(0325$5<6,/7)(1&(08/&+,1*127( $//',6785%('$5($62876,'(7+(/,0,762)7+(1(:3$9(0(1725*5$9(/685)$&(6+$//%(6(('('$1'08/&+(':,7+,1+28562)),1$/*5$',1*+$<08/&+6+$//%($33/,('$7$0,1,0805$7(2)72163(5$&5((526,210$77,1*6+$//%(3/$&('21$//6/23(667((3(57+$1+ 935,25726(37(0%(5$//',6785%('$5($66+$//%(67$%,/,=(':,7+7(0325$5<6(('$1'08/&+25(526,210$77,1*$0 $521,$0(/$12&$53$ $521,$ +*75(9,6(':(7/$1'%8))(50$5.(575((63(&,(65'&6 &251866(5,&($ 5('7:,*'2*:22' +*7$''(')22735,17/27672/27 02',),('&8/'(6$&./5(9,6(':(7/$1'%8))(50$5.(563(&,(65'352326('75((3/$17,1*352326('6+58%3/$17,1* 42.95'70.00'43.51'70.00'42.95' 43.51'70.00'DateSht. No.ScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey SKETCH/CONCEPTPRELIMINARYFINALRECORD DRAWINGREVISIONSProj. No.Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450# OFSHEETSTHESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULDONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:12/16/13JMRPROPERTY EDITS9/28/15RDLOTS 1 & 10 ADDED WATER SERVICE EASEMENT10/26/15DHADDED FOOTPRINT LOTS 9-1 AND 9-2 TO LOT 9&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*72197BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$77(67 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB&,7<&/(5.BBBBBB0$1'5(&25'(',16/,'(BBBBBBBBBBB5(&(,9(')255(&25'$7BBBBBBBBBBBB2 &/2&.&,7<&/(5. 62)),&(3 ???GZJ?SOGZJ $0 42.95'70.00'43.51'EXISTING POND &CLASS III WETLANDDORSET STREETHOEHN IIIN/FT.B.M. ELEV. = 377.00SEWER MANHOLE RIMEXISTINGRESIDENCE#1630EXISTING CEDAR HEDGE50'WETL AND BUFF ER50'WETL AND BUFFERN/FDORSET STREETASSOC., LLC50'WETLAND BUFFEREXISTINGBARNEXISTING RECREATION PATHCHITTENDENN/FCHITTENDENN/FLANDERLN/FEXISTING 60' ACCESS/UTILITYEASEMENT TO DORSET STREETASSOC., LLC TO BE EXTINGUISHEDEXISTING 20' RECREATION PATH & SANITARYSEWER EASEMENT. LAND TO BETRANSFERRED TO CITY IN FEE SIMPLE.WATER MAIN EASEMENT TO CITY EXTENDING TOA LINE 10' NORTH OF INSTALLED WATER MAINEXISTING 8" WATER MAINEXISTING 3" FORCE MAIN(WILLIAMS)50'WETLAND BUFFER25'WETLANDBUFFER60'418'105'50'80' 137'289'133'185'85'90'95'300'289'20'80' 80' 81' 81' 80'80' 80'80' 80'289'186'80'80' 85'301'85' 177'537'20'289'289'289'186'50'WETLAND BUF FER EXISTING 6" FORCE MAIN(DORSET STREET ASSOC.)50' WETLAND BUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFERCLASS II WETLANDCLASS II WETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDEXISTINGNWL = 370.2PROPOSEDNWL = 368.0LOT 9-1(FOOTPRINT LOT)LOT 9-2(FOOTPRINT LOT)DateSht. no.ScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULDONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:SKETCH/CONCEPTPRELIMINARYFINALRECORD DRAWINGREVISIONSProj. no.SHEETS# OF1-15-2013RDBHRDBY OTHERS05153DATE BY101" = 40'NTSTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT 1-888-DIG-SAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.NOTES1. APPLICANT: J. LARRY & LESLIE WILLIAMS1630 DORSET STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 054032. TOTAL EXISTING LOT AREA = 347,130 SF (7.97 ACRES)3. ZONING DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST QUADRANT (SEQ), VR SUB-DISTRICT4. MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY OF 1.2 UNITS/ACRE RESULTS IN 9PERMITTED UNITS. TOTAL OF 10 UNITS PROPOSED (INCLUDINGEXISTING RESIDENCE) WITH TDR.5. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 12,000 SF (SINGLE FAMILY)24,000 SF (TWO FAMILY)40,000 SF (ALL OTHER USES)FRONT SETBACK: 20'SIDE SETBACK: 10'REAR SETBACK: 30'6. REQUESTED WAIVERS: 50' WETLAND BUFFER (LOTS 2-4)DORSET STREETMIDLAND AVE.NOWLAND FARM RD.NOWLAND FARM RD.TOWN OF SHELBURNE 373PERIMETER PROPERTY LINExxxxEXISTING FENCEWETLAND BUFFER & MARKER TREEEXISTING CONTOURSWETLANDEXISTING EASMENT LINEPROPOSED EASMENT LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING UTILITY POLEFINISH GRADE CONTOURPROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPECOMMUNITY GARDENSLABELED WETLANDS & BUFFER LIMITS10-25-13CDADDED FOOTPRINT LOTS TO LOT 9, MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC10-26-15KL3 ???GZJ?GZJ $0 UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD8"W8"W8"W8"W8"W8"W6" FD 6" FD 6" FDE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/C6" FD42.95'70.00'43.51'#1630EXISTINGRESIDENCEFFE 381.38±EXISTING POND - EXISTING NWL = 370.2 ±DREDGE TO NEW BOTTOM ELEV = 365.0WITH 1V:4H SIDE SLOPES. NEW NWL = 368.0EXISTINGBARN20' 24'YI #3RIM = 378.7515" INV OUT = 374.75YI#2RIM = 378.50(2)15" INV IN = 374.5015" INV OUT = 374.50YI #4RIM = 376.015" INV OUT =373.0END SECTIONINV OUT = 374.0END SECTIONINV OUT = 372.5NEW OUTLET STRUCTURESEE DETAIL SHEET 4REMOVE EXISTING 15"STORM PIPE AND REPLACEWITH NEW 24" HDPE PIPEOUTLET INV = 367.0REMOVE EXISTINGOUTLET STRUCTURERIM = 370.2115" INV = 367.15CONNECT TO EXISTING8" WATER MAIN. CONCRETE ENCASEALL JOINTS WITHIN 50 FT OFWASTEWATER PUMP STATION. SEEENCASEMENT DETAIL SHEET 7STONE OUTFALL24'83' R103' RNEW 5' CONCRETESIDEWALKNEW 4" SEWER SERVICE (TYP.)NEW 3/4" WATER SERVICE (TYP.)CONNECT TO EXISTING3" FORCE MAIN8" SEWER STUB15" PE15" PE15" PE8" CL52 DI8" SDR35 PVCEXISTING RECREATION PATHCO.CO.CO.CO.CO.6" INV. = 367.56" UNDERDRAINOUTLET INV = 367.012+50 RT.END TAPERSMH #1 STA. 19+21, CLSMH #2 STA. 16+98, CLNEW STREET LIGHTREMOVE EXISTING MOUNDWASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMSEE ROAD CROSSSECTION SHEET 510' UTLITY EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE & CATVWASTEWATER PUMPSTATION EASEMENTTO CITYNEW FOREBAYEXISTING 60' WIDE ACCESS / UTILITYEASEMENT TO DORSET STREET ASSOC., LLC20' RECREATION PATH & SANITARYSEWER EASEMENT TO CITYWATER MAIN EASEMENT TO CITY EXTENDING TOA LINE 10' NORTH OF INSTALLED WATER MAIN25' WETLAND BUFFER(APPROVED WAIVER)NEW COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE HAMMERHEADCUL-DE-SAC - SEE DETAILS SHEETS 4 & 5.CUL-DE-SAC TO BE REMOVED UPON FUTUREEXTENSION OF SADIE LANE20' WIDE EASEMENTCENTERED ON WATER MAIN10' WIDE EASEMENTS CENTERED ONEXISTING AND NEW SEWER FORCE MAINSREMOVECULVERTREMOVECULVERTR = 25'END NEW DRIVEWAYCONSTRUCTIONFUTURE 8' WIDE REC. PATHSEE CROSS-SECTION SHEET 450' WETLAND BUFFERNEW WASTEWATER PUMPSTATION - SEE DETAILSSHEET 7NEW POND EDGEELEV = 368.0LIMIT OF STONE =BOTTOM OF PONDU.D. CLEANOUT (TYP.)MAINTAIN 0.5% SLOPEINV ELEV.= 372.6U.D. CLEANOUT (TYP.)INV ELEV.= 372.650' WETLAND BUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFER11+50 RT.START TAPERCLASS II WETLANDCLASS II WETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDCLASS IIIWETLANDBUILDING ENVELOPERESTRICTION UNTILCUL-DE-SAC REMOVEDBUILDING ENVELOPERESTRICTION UNTILCUL-DE-SAC REMOVEDNEW PUMPSTATIONNEW 34" WATER SERVICESNEW 1" CURB STOP5'5'5'5'ȭ CURVE DATA ǻ = 89° 05' 24" R = 95.00' L = 147.72'3 ???GZJ?GZJ $0 DateSht. no.ScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULDONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:SKETCH/CONCEPTPRELIMINARYFINALRECORD DRAWINGREVISIONSProj. no.SHEETS# OF1-15-2013RDBHRDBY OTHERS05153DATE BY10THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT 1-888-DIG-SAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.05153-021" = 30'UDPERIMETER PROPERTY LINExxxxEXISTING FENCEWETLAND BUFFEREXISTING CONTOURSWETLANDEXISTING EASMENT LINEPROPOSED EASMENT LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING WATERLINE & VALVEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE & FORCEMAINEXISTING NATURAL GAS LINEEXISTING UTILITY POLEFINISH GRADE CONTOURPROPOSED WATERLINE, HYDRANT,VALVE & SERVICEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE & MAINPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN & CLEANOUTCO.NOTES:1. LOTS WITHIN THIS PROJECT WILL BE GRADED BY THE FUTURE LOT OWNERS. IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2002 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RULE, IT WAS NECESSARYTO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AS SUMMARIZED IN THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS TABLE ON THIS SHEET. NO GRADING SHALL BE ALLOWED ON LOTS 2-4 WITHIN THE 25' WETLAND BUFFER OR ON LOTS 5-9 WITHIN THE 50' WETLAND BUFFER SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.2. ALL STRUCTURES EXISTING AND PROPOSED SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES.3. PROPOSED BUILDING ON LOT 2 SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROMLOCATION OF PROPOSED SEWER FORCE MAIN.6" FDPROPOSED FOUNDATION DRAINPROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPECOMMUNITY GARDENSLOTLOT 1LOT 2LOT 30 sf * CONDITIONSLOT 4LOT 5LOT 6R.O.W.ASSUMED NEWIMPERVIOUSTOTAL 3,400 sf25,880 sf* DOES NOT INCLUDE 0.2 ACRES OF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS ON LOT #157,110 sf (1.3 acres)*LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 103,400 sf3,400 sf3,400 sf3,400 sf3,400 sf3,400 sf3,400 sf3,400 sfROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE GUTTERED TO DRAIN TOWARD THEROADSIDE SWALE THAT LEADS TO THE POND FOREBAY.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE GUTTERED TO DRAIN TOWARD THEROADSIDE SWALE THAT LEADS TO THE POND FOREBAY.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE GUTTERED TO DRAIN TOWARD THEROADSIDE SWALE THAT LEADS TO THE POND FOREBAY.EXISTING DEVELOPED LOTROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND TREATED VIAOVERLAND FLOW TOWARDS THE EASTERN END OF LOT 10.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND TREATED VIAOVERLAND FLOW TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND TREATED VIAOVERLAND FLOW TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND TREATED VIAOVERLAND FLOW TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND TREATED VIAOVERLAND FLOW TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST.ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND TREATED VIAOVERLAND FLOW TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST.EXISTING POND AND OUTLET STRUCTURE REVISIONS10-25-13CDADDED FM AND PUMP STATION SERVING LOT 102-27-14CDREVISED WATER SERVICES TO LOTS 1 & 104-24-15KLREVISED WATER SERVICES TO LOTS 1 & 108-17-15KLADDED FOOTPRINT LOTS TO LOT 9, MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC10-26-15KL EXISTINGWILLIAMSRESIDENCEFFE 381.38±EXISTING PONDEXISTINGBARNEXISTING RECREATION PATHNEW CEDAR HEDGECO.CO.CO.CO.CO.SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF50' WETLAND BUFFERNEW STREET LIGHTFUTURE 8' WIDEPATH, 3' FROMPAVED EDGE50' WETLAND BUFFER25'WETLANDBUFFERCLASS II WETLANDLOT 9-1(FOOTPRINT LOT)LOT 9-2(FOOTPRINT LOT)UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD8"W8"W8"W8"W8"W8"W6" FD 6" FD 6" FDE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/CE/T/C6" FD42.95'70.00'43.51'3 ???GZJ?GZJ $0 DateSht. no.ScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULDONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:SKETCH/CONCEPTPRELIMINARYFINALRECORD DRAWINGREVISIONSProj. no.SHEETS# OF1-15-2013RDBHRDBY OTHERS05153DATE BY10THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT 1-888-DIG-SAFE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.05153-021" = 30'UD373PERIMETER PROPERTY LINExxxxEXISTING FENCEWETLAND BUFFEREXISTING CONTOURSWETLANDEXISTING EASMENT LINEPROPOSED EASMENT LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING WATERLINE & VALVEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE & FORCEMAINEXISTING NATURAL GAS LINEEXISTING UTILITY POLEFINISH GRADE CONTOURPROPOSED WATERLINE, HYDRANT,VALVE & SERVICEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE & MAINPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN & CLEANOUTCO.LEGENDQMACAFBOTANICAL NAMEQUERCUS MACROCARPAALNUS CORDATAACER X FREEMANIICOMMON NAMEBUR OAKITALIAN ALDERFREEMAN MAPLEQUANTITY444SIZE2.5" CAL.2.5" CAL.2.5" CAL.SFSFTEMPORARY SILT FENCEMULCHING NOTE:1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THENEW PAVEMENT OR GRAVEL SURFACE SHALL BESEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINALGRADING.2. HAY MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT A MINIMUM RATEOF 2 TONS PER ACRE.3. EROSION MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALLSLOPES STEEPER THAN 3H:1V.4. PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, ALL DISTURBED AREASSHALL BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SEED ANDMULCH OR EROSION MATTING.HB OSTRYA VIRGINIANA HOPHORNBEAM 8 2" CAL.REVISED WETLAND BUFFER MARKER TREE SPECIES10-25-13RDSOAEQUERCUS IMBRICARIAULMUS AMERICANA*SHINGLE OAKAMERICAN ELM*1272" CAL.2" CAL.* NEW HARMONY, VALLEY FORGE AND/OR PRINCETONDUTCH ELM DISEASE RESISTANT CULTIVARSADDED FOOTPRINT LOTS TO LOT 9, MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC10-26-15KL 37038039010+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+0015+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00100' VCK = 35.97A.D. = 2.78PVI ELEV = 371.68PVI STA = 12+31.31BVCS: 11+81.31BVCE: 373.07EVCS: 12+81.31EVCE: 371.68372.60371.82378.11376.72375.33373.94100' VCK = 40.47A.D. = 2.47PVI ELEV = 371.68PVI STA = 14+32.74BVCS: 13+82.74BVCE: 371.68EVCS: 14+82.74EVCE: 372.92371.72372.24371.68371.68373.34374.58375.81377.05378.28379.52380.76381.99383.23384.00365375385370380390365375385EXISTING GROUNDFINISH GRADEEXISTING EDGE OF DORSETSTREET PAVEMENTFINISH GRADEEXISTING GROUND223' x 8" SDR35 PVCS = 0.0253 FT/FTSMH #1 STATION 19+21, CLRIM = 383.758" INV. OUT = 375.75SMH #2 STATION 16+98, CLRIM = 378.244" INV. IN = 370.608" INV. IN = 370.108" INV. OUT = 370.00131' x 8" SDR35 PVCS = 0.0114 FT/FTPUMP STATION STATION 15+66, 38.6 LTRIM ELEV. = 374.5INVERT IN = 368.58" CL52 D.I. WATER MAINNEW FORCE MAINFROM LOT 10MAINTAIN 6' MIN. COVEROVER WATER LINE (TYP.)STATION 19+28 - END PAVEMENT15" PE15" PEEXISTING FORCE MAINFROM LOT 1NEW 24" HDPE STORM31'24'7.5'31'33.5'60 °120°42.5'16.5'CUL-DE-SAC SUBBASELIMITS (TYP)INSTALL 4"x4" PT WOOD POSTSWITH REFLECTIVE MARKERS ATEACH CORNER (TYP)COMPACTEDDENSEGRADEDCRUSHEDSTONECOMPACTEDDENSEGRADEDCRUSHEDSTONEDateSht. no.ScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULDONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:SKETCH/CONCEPTPRELIMINARYFINALRECORD DRAWINGREVISIONSProj. no.SHEETS# OF1-15-2013RDBHRDBY OTHERS05153DATE BY10AS SHOWNHORIZONTAL: 1"=40'VERTICAL: 1"=4'842804020003/4" CRUSHED STONE BEDDINGLEDGE PAYMENT LIMIT8"VARIES6"12"24" SUMPN.T.S.WATERTIGHT RUBBER BOOTTOP VIEWOUTLET130°48" DIAMETERBASIN OUTLET STRUCTUREORIFICE HOOD DETAIL4TH STAGE WEIRPRECAST IN STRUCTURE3RD STAGE WEIRPRECAST IN STRUCTUREPRECAST REINFORCEDCONCRETE COVEREJIW 2925 FRAME AND COVEROR APPROVED EQUAL.ASTM 478 PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETESTRUCTURE DESIGNED FOR AASHTO H-20LOADING WITH PRECAST OPENINGSSEE PLANS FORSUMP DEPTH6" OF THOROUGHLY COMPACTED3/4" CRUSHED STONEBASIN OUTLET STRUCTURE ELEVATIONSNEW 24" HDPE OUTLETBASIN OUTLET STRUCTUREHAMMER-HEAD CUL-DE-SAC DIMENSIONSNTSOPEN BOTTOM1ST STAGE AND 2ND STAGE ORIFICESPRECAST IN STRUCTURE (ORIFICES MAY BEOFFSET HORIZONTALLY IF NECESSARY,ORIFICE HOOD REQUIRED ON 1ST AND 2NDSTAGE ORIFICESNTSSEE SITE PLAN FOR GRADINGCOMPACTED DENSE GRADEDCRUSHED STONE4" TOPSOIL, SEEDAND MULCHEDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENTDORSET ST NORTHBOUND LANE12313' GRASSSTRIP8' FUTURERECREATION PATH1'2'313'12" SAND BORROW (VTrans 703.03A)EXISTING GRADE4" TOPSOIL, SEED & MULCHMIRAFI 600X FABRIC ORAPPROVED EQUALPRECAST OPENING FOR 3RD STAGEWEIR WITH #4 HORIZONTAL REBARAT MID-OPENINGPRECAST OPENING FOR 4TH STAGEWEIR WITH #4 HORIZONTAL REBARAT MID-OPENINGROCK BORROW OR TYPE II STONEON BASIN SIDE SLOPES ANDAROUND OUTLET STRUCTUREORIFICE PRECAST INCONCRETE WITHORIFICE HOOD24" THICK ROCK BORROWOR TYPE II STONEEXTEND BEDDING TOLIMITS OF EXCAVATIONADDED CUL-DE-SAC MARKER POSTS, REV. STORMWATEROUTLET STRUCTURE10-25-13CD19"MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC DETAIL10-26-15KL3 ???GZJ?GZJ $0 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LOJA BURLINGTON, LLC – 200 DORSET STREET SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-70 & #DR-15-06 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-15-70 & design review application #DR-15-06 of Jeffrey Taylor to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of constructing 5’ X 67’ cart corral enclosure, 200 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on December 1, 2015. _____________ represented the applicant. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant seeks to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of constructing 5’ X 67’ cart corral enclosure, 200 Dorset Street. 2. The owner of record is Loja Burlington, LLC. 3. The subject property is located in the Central District 1 Zoning District and City Center Design Overlay District 1. 4. The application was received on November 2, 2015. 5. The plan submitted consists of a six (6) page set of plans, the cover sheet of which is entitled, “Trader Joe’s Cart Corral Enclosure 200 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont”, prepared by Jeffrey Taylor Architect and dated August 23, 2013 #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 2 ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The proposed cart enclosure is open-sided and not considered as part of the building for coverage purposes. The enclosure will be placed on top of existing impervious surface. The Board therefore finds that there is no increase in building coverage or lot coverage and that zoning district and dimensional requirements continue to be met. Central District Requirements 8.01 General Purpose of the Central District The Central District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of a balanced and coordinated mixture of residential, commercial, public and private uses adjacent to Dorset Street that support the city center goals and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It is designed to promote efficient use of land by concentrating mixed uses within a well-defined Central District. This will provide a pedestrian-oriented circulation network that minimizes vehicular traffic. It also encourages the traditional town center pattern of appropriately scaled buildings facing onto a well-defined and active public street. Innovative site planning and master planning are encouraged to maximize uses, shared parking, public open space and pedestrian amenities which create an aesthetically pleasing and socially active community center on and around Dorset Street. To this end, all applications involving ten (10) or more acres of land in any Central District shall require a Master Plan approval pursuant to Article 15 of these Regulations. 8.02 Establishment of Sub-Districts The Central District is divided into four (4) sub-districts - Central District 1, Central District 2, Central District 3 and Central District 4. Permitted and Conditional Uses and dimensional standards vary by sub-district as established in Sections 8.06 through 8.10 of these Regulations. The subject lot is located within Central District 1. 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts A. Purpose. The general intent of the building setbacks in the Central District is to require all buildings to front on to public streets and to require that parking facilities are located in the center of the blocks to the greatest extent practicable, occupy only minimal frontage on public streets, and are thoroughly screened from view from public streets and rights-of-way. B. Location of buildings and structures. (1) All buildings and structures, with the exception of parking facilities, are required to be constructed within an allowable building envelope. The maximum depth of allowable building envelopes shall be eighty (80) feet and, in general, shall be measured from the nearest planned public street right-of-way as shown on the South Burlington Official Map. (2) The Development Review Board may approve a building, a portion of which extends beyond the building envelope provided the building contains a minimum of two (2) stories and the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. (3) Exemption for master planned buildings and structures. Buildings and structures whose #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 3 footprint, parking, and access are subject to and reviewed in conjunction with an approved master plan in the Central District 1 shall be exempt from requirements for the maximum depth of an allowable building envelope. C. Special Standards for Setbacks (1) Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet, or between zero (0) and five (5) feet if a fire wall is provided. (2) The front yard setback area along Dorset Street, Brookwood Drive and Sherry Road shall be restricted to the following uses or improvements: (a) landscaping and green space (b) access drives (c) pedestrian oriented improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, plazas, benches, and bicycle racks. (d) utility services provided they are placed underground. Appurtenant facilities such as transformers and amplifiers may be installed at ground level where such is in accordance with Section 13.18 of these Regulations (utility cabinets and structures). D. Location of Parking Areas and Structures (1) Multi-level parking garages and decks may be constructed within an allowable building envelope, and/or outside of an allowable building envelope if located in the center of a block. (2) Surface parking may be provided within the allowable building envelope if it is located behind a building and is hidden from view from the public street. (3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within the allowable building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the public street by a building, provided: (a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the total parking required for the property, (b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope area existing on the property, (c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the amount of surface parking required, and (d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Central District. E. Parking Requirements (1) The parking requirements of Table 13 are required in the Central District. These standards may be met on-site or off-site if the parking facility is located within seven hundred (700) feet of the main entrance of the establishment and is approved by the Development Review Board. (2) The Development Review Board may accept a contribution to the parking trust fund to establish a municipal parking lot in lieu of parking spaces. The amount of the contribution shall be based on a per space fee set by the City Council. (3) The Development Review Board may further reduce the amount of parking required, up to a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the number of spaces required, in conjunction with an approved master plan upon a showing by the applicant that the master plan includes viable provisions for off- site employee parking and transportation and construction of mass transit stops within the master planned area sufficient to further reduce parking demand. (4) Parking lots located in the centers of blocks shall be connected with openings between lots to #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 4 allow traffic flow between lots. F. Density. Height, coverage, setbacks, floor area ratios (F.A.R.) and the maximum size of units will govern the density of the Central District. The F.A.R. is the ratio of building square footage to lot size. The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has no impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that these criteria continue to be met. 8.05 Specific Sub-District Regulations A. Central District 1 (1) Building envelopes: Allowable building envelopes shall be in accordance with Section 8.04(B), with the exception of Dorset Street. The standards for review of a proposed building envelope and setbacks shall be: (a) The proposed site layout shall provide for a strong building presence of habitable or leasable building area along all public streets on which the property fronts. Interruptions in the street presence of the proposed building shall be located to front on service thoroughfares. (b) Surface and structured parking areas shall be screened from all public thoroughfares by habitable or leasable areas of buildings. The DRB may allow a minor portion of the parking on a site to be screened by building facades if in the DRB's judgment the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the City Center are met. (c) For lots fronting on public streets on three or more sides, a strong building presence of habitable or leasable building area shall be required along a length of street frontage equivalent to the combined length of the two longest street frontages on the property. (d) Surface parking may only be allowed along public street frontage or service thoroughfares if in the DRB's judgment all practicable measures to avoid such location have been taken and all parking areas will be completely screened from view by the habitable or leasable area of a building or by a building façade. (2) Allowable building envelopes in the Central District 1 along Dorset Street: In the Central District 1 along Dorset Street, the envelope is measured from a point twenty (20) feet east of the right- of-way, thereby creating a twenty (20) foot minimum front yard setback from Dorset Street. (3) Building Coverage. For buildings not subject to an approved master plan, the maximum coverage shall be forty percent (40%) for buildings only and ninety percent (90%) overall. The overall site coverage for all non-landscaped surfaces (including buildings) for a master plan shall be sixty percent (60%). For individual parcels subject to an approved master plan, the maximum coverage shall be eighty percent (80%) for buildings only and ninety-five percent (95%) overall (including buildings, parking, walks, and all other non-landscaped surfaces), provided the overall site coverage for all properties subject to the approved master plan is not exceeded by the grant of an individual permit. (4) Density in Central District 1: The base maximum density of development shall not exceed an F.A.R. of 0.8. The Development Review Board may explicitly approve development up to an overall F.A.R. of 1.5 in conjunction with a master plan approval of a parcel or parcels within the CD1 district as a bonus for the provision of special, public-oriented amenities such as parks, courtyards, pedestrian ways, etc. The maximum residential density shall be forty (40) units per acre (with a minimum unit size of five hundred (500) square feet). The maximum F.A.R. for an individual parcel subject to an approved #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 5 master plan shall be 0.8, provided the overall maximum approved F.A.R. for all properties subject to the approved master plan is not exceeded by the grant of an individual permit. The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has no impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that these criteria continue to be met. SECTION 11- CITY CENTER DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design District 1. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry shall predominate. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), and architectural concrete. Glass may predominate if used in combination with brick or stone. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include vinyl siding, metal skin, synthetic stucco and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 6 (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. The proposed cart enclosure is 5 feet wide by 67 feet long and 16 feet high with a standing seam metal #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 7 roof with removable acrylic panels. The metal roof will be red in color while the frame of the cart corral will be a dark bronze color to match the storefront. The location will be along the east side of the building with most of the enclosure fitting underneath the existing canopy. The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has little impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that the project continues to conform substantially to the design criteria above. 11.02 Site Design for City Center Design Review District A. Landscape and plantings. Significant trees and vegetation should be preserved in its natural state insofar as practicable. Any grade changes should be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Landscape plantings and amenities shall be well designed with appropriate variations and shall be included as an integral enhancement of the site and, where needed, for screening purposes. In particular, parking areas shall be well screened by berms, plantings, or other screening methods to minimize their visual impact. Planting islands shall be used to break up larger expanses of paved parking areas. B. Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. HVAC equipment should not be pad mounted at grade. Utility connections shall be installed underground and utilities shall co-exist to the greatest extent possible. C. Walls, fences or other screening features: Such elements, if used, shall be employed in a skillful manner and in harmony with the architectural context of the development. Such features should be used to enhance building appearance and to strengthen visual linkages between a building and its surroundings. D. Accessible open space. When providing open space on a site, it shall be designed to be visually and physically accessible from the public street. Open space should add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing by or overlooking the site from neighboring properties. If open space is intended for active use, it should include such elements as benches, shade trees, and refuse containers and be so designed to maximize its accessibility for all individuals, including the disabled, and encourage social interaction. The siting of open space on a lot shall also consider the potential impact of buildings, both existing and potential, on shadow casting and solar access. E. Provide efficient and effective circulation. With respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, special attention shall be given to the location and number of access points to public streets and sidewalks, to the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, to the arrangement of parking areas and to service and loading areas, and to the location of accessible routes and ramps for the disabled. Site design shall also provide for interconnections, both vehicular and pedestrian, between adjacent properties. F. Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to be both aesthetically pleasing and #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 8 functional. The lighting type or types shall be metal halide, compact fluorescent and/or induction lamps and shall be of a white color with a Color Rendering Index (CRI) of seventy (70) or greater recommended. Light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded to preclude glare and overall illumination levels should be evenly distributed. G. Provide for nature’s events. Attention shall be accorded to design features which address the affects of rain, snow and ice at building entrances and on sidewalks, and to provisions for snow and ice removal from circulation areas. H. Make spaces secure and safe. With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces should be designed to facilitate building evacuation, and provide reasonable accessibility by fire, police or other emergency personnel and equipment. I. Streetscape improvements. An applicant for new development shall be responsible for implementing streetscape improvements (e.g., sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, etc.) within the portion of the public street ROW directly fronting the parcel of land for which development is proposed. Such streetscape improvements shall be in accord with the specifications contained in the City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines. The proposed cart enclosure is 5 feet wide by 67 feet long and 16 feet high with a standing seam metal roof with removable acrylic panels. The metal roof will be red in color while the frame of the cart corral will be a dark bronze color to match the storefront. The location will be along the east side of the building with most of the enclosure fitting underneath the existing canopy. The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has little impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that the project continues to conform substantially to the design criteria above. 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 (paraphrased): A. General Standards (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. (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. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. (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. (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. #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 9 (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. (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. (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. (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. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has no impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that these criteria continue to be met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) 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. Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 10 front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. (b) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. (c) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. (d) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (e) 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 cart enclosure is 5 feet wide by 67 feet long and 16 feet high with a standing seam metal roof with removable acrylic panels. The metal roof will be red in color while the frame of the cart corral will be a dark bronze color to match the storefront. The location will be along the east side of the building with most of the enclosure fitting underneath the existing canopy. The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has little impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that the project continues to conform substantially to the design criteria above. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. The Board finds that the proposed cart enclosure has no impact with regards to the project’s compliance with these criteria and that these criteria continue to be met. Snow Storage Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. Snow storage areas are shown on the plans. #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 11 DECISION Motion by ________________________, seconded by _______________, to approve site plan and design review applications #SP-15-70 and #DR-15-06 of Loja Burlington, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 3. This approval does not include the signs for Trader Joe’s shown on the elevations submitted. 4. All new exterior lighting shall consist of downcast, shielded fixtures. Any change to approved lights shall require approval of the Administrative Officer prior to installation. 5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit for within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 6. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the new cart corral. 7. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans shall be delivered to the Administrative Officer before any zoning permit may be issued for the subject property. 8. Any changes to the site plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 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-x-x Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair #SP15-70 & #DR-15-06 Page 12 Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. ONLY ONLYPLANT LISTKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZEDECIDUOUSTREES:ACAmelanchier canadensis Serviceberyy52 1/2"-3" Cal.ACMAmelanchier canadensis Serviceberyy12 1/2"-3" Cal.AFAcer x freemanliAutumn Blaze Maple33"-3 1/2" Cal.GTGleditsia triacanthos var. inermis'Shademaster'Shademaster Honey Locust93"-3 1/2" Cal.MRGMalus 'Royal Gala' Royal Gala Apple Tree12 1/2"-3" Cal.MLMalus 'Liberty' Liberty Apple Tree12 1/2"-3" Cal.MHMalus 'Honeycrisp' Honeycrisp Apple tree32 1/2"-3" Cal.PCPyrus calleryana 'Chantideer' Chantideer Pear63"-3 1/2" Cal.ZSZelkova serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova62 1/2"-3" Cal.SHRUBS:AAArcinia arbutifolia 'Brilliantissima'Red Chokeberry113'-4' Ht.CHClethra alnifolia 'Hummingbird'HummingbirdSummersweet3624"-30" SpreadCACorylus avellana 'Contorta' Harry Lauder's Walking Stick3 5'-6' Ht.CSComus Bailey Bailey Dogwood142'-3' Ht.FGFothergilla gardenii 'Jane Platt'Dwarf fothergilla2424"-30" SpreadHMHydrangea marcophylia'Endless Summer'Endless Summer Nydrangea1824"-30" SpreadIGIlex glabra 'Compata' Compact Inkberry02'-3'IJIlex verticillata 'Jim Dandy' Winterberry2 3'-4' Ht.IVIlex verticillata 'Red Sprite' Winterberry9 2'-3' Ht.PFPotentilla fruticosa 'Mango Tango'Mango Tango Potentilla33 24"-30" Ht.RARhus aromatica 'Grow Low'Grow Low Sumac 6515"-18" SpreadSBSpiraea x bumaids 'AnthonyWaterer'Anthony Waterer spirea25 2'3' Ht.TOThuja occidentalis 'Nigra' Northern White Cedar18 5'-6' Ht.PERENNIALS:AIAsdepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed401 Gal.ANAster novae-angliae New England Aster881 Gal.AEAstilbe 'Erica'Astilbe (pink)301 Gal.CKLCalamagrostis acutiflora'Karl Forester'Feather Reed Grass421 Gal.EPEchinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower511 Gal.EPWEupatoriumpurpureum351 Gal.GSGeranium sanguimeum 'Max Frei'Cranesbill Geranium301 Gal.HSHemerocallis 'Stella D'Oro' Stell D'Oro Daylily2741 Gal.HPHeuchera 'Palace Purple' Coral Bell341 Gal.HBCHosta 'Blue Cadet' Blue Cadet Hosta441 Gal.IEIris versicolor Blue Flag Iris351 Gal.NRNepeta racemosa 'Walkers Low' Walkers Low Catmint241 Gal.PAPennisetum alopcuroides'Haemeln'Dwarf Fountain Grass941 Gal.RFRudbeckia fulgida 'Godsturm';Symphyotrichum novae-angliaeGoldsturm Black-Eyed Susan611 Gal. PLANT LEGEND -AREAS A & BKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZETREES:PCPyruscalleryana 'Chanticleer' Callery pear42 1/2-3' Cal.SHRUBS:CSComus Sericea 'Baileyi' Redosier Dogwood55-6'POPhysocarpusopulifolius 'Nanus' Dwarf ninebank12 24-30"SASymphortcarpos albus Snowberry12 24-30"PLANT LEGEND -AREAS C & DKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZESHRUBS:FJRibesjostaberryJosta26'YAAchilleamillefoliumYarrow 73'COCoreopsisCalliopsis and tickseed418-47"SLSalviaSage 2 18"-5'PR Prunus Prunus 1CIAllium schoenoprasum Chives4 12-20"PSPyrussorbus American Mountain-ash2SYSymphytum Comfrey4LULupinus Lupine11-4.92'APAllium proliferum Tree Onions, Walking Onions2AHAgastache foeniculumAnise hyssop perennial21-8'SDLeucanthemum x superbum Shasta Daisy21'-3'PERENNIALS:AIAsdepiasincarnata Swamp Milkweed41 Gal.EPEchinacea purpurea Purple coneflower11 Gal.Sympthyotrichum novae-angliae Goldsturm Black-Eyed Susan11 Gal.PLANT LEGEND -AREA EKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZESHRUBS:YAAchilleamillefoliumYarrow 43'COCoreopsisCalliopsis and tickseed2 18-47"SLSalviaSage 2 18"-5'PR Prunus Prunus 1CIAllium schoenoprasum Chives2 12-20"SYSymphytum Comfrey2LULupinus Lupine11-4.92'BABaptistafalse indigo, wild indigo23-4'AHAgastache foeniculumAnise hyssop perennial21-8'AMAronia melanocarpa black chokeberry23-6'HBLoniceracaeruleaHoney Berry 43-8'LVLevisticum officinaleloveage15-9'MOMonarda bee balm, horsemint18-35"PLPlum Plum412mSKCrambe maritima Sea kale130"SDLeucanthemum x superbum Shasta Daisy11-3'SS Sium sisarumSkirret115-20cmPERENNIALS:EPEchinacea purpurea Purple coneflower11 Gal.Sympthyotrichum novae-angliae Goldsturm Black-Eyed Susan11 Gal.PLANT LEGEND -AREA FKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZESHRUBS:LOLonicera caerulea Sweet Berry Honeysuckle41.5-2mPSPyrus sorbus American Mountain-ash2PLANT LEGEND -AREA GKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZETREES:PCPyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' Callery Pear22 1/2-3" Cal.SHRUBS:SASymphoricarpos albus Snowberry11 24-30"PLANT LEGEND -AREA HKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZESHRUBS:BNBetulanigra River Birch52-2 1/2" Cal.CACorylus Avellana 'Contorta' Harry Lauder's Walking Stick6 5'-6' Ht.CSComusbaileyi Bailey Dogwood6 2'-3' Ht.HIHippophae rhamnoides Seaberry158-12'TOThujaoccidentalis 'Homstrup' Dark American Arboviae115'-6'VINES:KAActindia argutaKiwi on Arbor arguta1 20'PLANT LEGEND -AREA IKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZESHRUBS:RIRibesrubrum Redcurrent63-5'PSPyrus sorbus American Mountain-ash1PLANT LEGEND -AREA JKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZESHRUBS:WIIlex verticillata Winterberry16 6-15'AVArbor vitae Eastern White Cedar18 10-20'BBBlueberry Blueberry19 13'PLANT LEGEND -OTHERKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZETREE:ARAcer RubrumRed Maple72 1/2-3" Cal.PCPyrus Calleryana Callery Pear12 1/2-3" Cal. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Albrecht, D. Marshall, D. Burke, P. O’Leary, R. Jeffers, P. O’Brien, M. Cypes, A. Peterson, R. Horn, N. Andrews, A. Patterson, 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Barritt advised that items #7, 8, and 9 on the Agenda will be continued to a later date. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-15-36 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved 334 unit planned unit development in three phases. The amendment consists of constructing the first 500 feet of East Jefferson Avenue and the parallel recreation path in phase 3 of the development, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Marshall noted that South Village has Master Plan approval. Phase 1 is almost built out. Phase 2 is being worked on. Phase 3 has an east-west connector through Phase 1, across some streams and out to Dorset Farms. This application represents the first part of that connector, the first 500 feet and a bridge over one of the streams. There are no residences involved. They would like to construct the bridge under frozen conditions as it would have less of an impact on the stream. Mr. Marshall said they met with Public Works to review the road and the bridge. He then showed a plan of the southern half of South Village, including Phase 1. He noted an area of future residential development, still to be worked out. 2 The road at this time will be identified as East Jefferson. Mr. Marshall showed the route of the existing water main and future connector. Mr. Barritt noted that Public Works had no comments. Mr. Marshall then indicated a round-about that was approved by the DRB 10 years ago. It is fully mountable by the Fire Department. He indicated what has been constructed and identified mounted dividers that direct traffic into the round-about. They will meet with the Fire Department to be sure they are happy with this. Mr. Barritt noted this is South Burlington’s first round-about. Mr. Cypes of Dorset Farms expressed concern with the east-west road. He said the goal of round-about is to convey traffic, and this will be a preferred path for a lot of traffic. He was concerned with putting that traffic on Midland Avenue. Mr. Barritt noted the road has been on the Official City Map for a long time. Mr. Marshall added that once they reach 210 units, the road connection to Midland Avenue will be completed. Ms. Jeffers said that will probably happen in 2 or 3 years. Mr. Andrews said he would be happier if the connector didn’t happen. Mr. Wilking said he was sympathetic, but on the other hand, in his area the amount of cross traffic is much less than had been anticipated. They had thought it would be devastating; it is not. Mr. Miller then moved to close #SD-15-36. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Continued site plan application #SP-15-60 of South Village Communities, LLC, to construct two 12-unit, multi-family dwellings, 109 & 127 Churchill Street: Mr. Burke reviewed what had previously been presented. He noted an added snow storage area west of the above-ground parking. The plan also now includes the location of air conditioning compressors under the second floor balconies and plantings around them for screening. Mr. Burke showed the location on the plans and noted that Craig Lambert has approved this. There will be a mix of styles. They have also added one parking light at pedestrian scale. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-60. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 3 6. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-15-32 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of revising the plans for Phase II of the development to: 1) add curbs along the roads, 2) add sidewalks along the north side of Preserve Road and the southerly sections of North Jefferson Road, 3) revise the lot layout between Churchill Street, North Jefferson Road and Preserve Road, 4) add new single family lots on lot #48, and 5) reduce the number of units in this phase from 99 to 96 units, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Burke said the changes are being made to be more consistent with Phase I. There will be 2 sections of split rail fencing behind units 26N to 36N. Street trees have been revised to be 32 feet on center. Craig Lambert is OK with this. Units #92-96N are being removed from this proposal to simplify things. This results in 91 units. The Fire Chief had comments on some driveways, so they have put in a fire hydrant that would serve the one home in that area. Mr. Belair noted that with 32-foot spacing, there are some trees missing. Mr. Burke said there are 51 additional apple trees outside the right-of-way which they would like to have accepted to offset the 32-foot spacing. Mr. Barritt asked if they would plant the additional trees somewhere. Mr. Burke said they already have. He noted significant plantings at the exit. Members were OK with the trees. Mr. Barritt noted some 12-foot expanse of buildings with nothing on it. He felt it is mostly a garage problem. Mr. Burke said there are no windows in the back of the garages. Mr. Barritt suggested a condition that any exterior garage wall in the back 50% that is greater than 12 feet must have a window. Mr. Albrecht asked if the proposal tonight includes anything on lot #48, specifically a rec path. Mr. Burke said it does not. It is still open space. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-32. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 4 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-37 of 900 Dorset Street, LLC, to construct a three- unit multi-family dwelling on a 2-acre lot +/- lot developed with a single family dwelling, 900 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked to continue. He suggested 15 December. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-37 to 15 December 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-38 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of relocating taxiways A and G, 1200 Airport Drive: and, 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-39 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of installing 10,000 above-ground aviation fuel tank, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Belair noted that the applicant had failed to pick up the placards for posting, so the two applications must be continued. He suggested 15 December as a date. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-38 and #SD-15-39 until 15 December 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-15-36 of Arlo Cota to amend a previously approved plan for an 11,074 sq. ft. boat, recreational vehicle and auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of: 1) removing a large tree in the front yard, 2) adding four light poles, and 3) filling in a stormwater pond and constructing a new dry detention swale in front of auto display area, 3017 Williston Road: Mr. Mr. O’Leary indicated the 4 trees to be planted. Mr. Belair said the Arborist is OK with these. Mr. O’Leary also noted that Public Works is OK with the stormwater pond. 5 There is now a split rail fence on the property. Mr. Cota would like to change this to “concrete wheel stops” instead of a fence. Mr. Belair noted the rail fence has been gone for years. Mr. O’Leary showed the location. Members were OK with the “concrete wheel stops” as long as the intent is not a “Jersey barrier.” Mr. O’Leary noted the display area will move back about 5 feet from where it is today to meet with coverage requirement. Mr. Barritt stressed that cars are not to be parked on the roadways. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-36. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Minutes of 4 March 2014, 20 October and 3 November 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 4 March 2014, 20 October and 3 November 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:15 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk ______________________________, Date