Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/15/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 DECEMBER 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 15, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT – T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, Vice-Chair, D. Parsons, Clerk, J. Smith, M. Cota, J. Wilking, M. Behr ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Planning Director, M. Scollins, D. Fisette, Spender & Nancy Baker, Patrick Gallivan, B. Bertsch, A. Senecal, M. Thibeault, J. Leinwohl, J. Dougherty, B. Gardner, M. Courcelle, B. Leahy, P. Netreba, B. Cimonetti, G. Farrell, C. Sampler, P. Walcott, D. St. Jean, W. Gilbert, D. Seff, S. Vock, D. Lovering, G. Guyette, T. Tavares, J. Foster, J. Polubinski, R. Rushford, A. Rowe, 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: No Announcements were made. 4. Continued 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 consist of relocating taxiways A and G, 1200 Airport Drive. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. No action taken. 5. Continued 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 consist of installing a 10,000 gallon above-ground aviation fuel tank, 1200 Airport Drive. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. No action taken. 6. Continued sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 14 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 12 3-unit multi-family dwellings totaling 50 new units, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to January 19, 2016 seconded by Jennifer Smith. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six (6) boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to January 19, 2016 seconded by Jennifer Smith. The motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-37 of 900 Dorset Street, LLC to construct a three (3) unit multi-family dwelling on a 2 acre +/- lot developed with a single family dwelling, 900 Dorset Street. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. No action taken. 9. Minutes of December 1, 2015. Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Minutes of 1 December 2015 as written. Jennifer Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. , Clerk 1/19/2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_38_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_reloca te_taxiways_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 11, 2015 Plans received: October 9, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-38 CITY OF BURLINGTON / BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – 1200 AIRPORT DRIVE Meeting Date: December 15, 2015 Applicant /Owner Burlington International Airport/City of Burlington 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_38_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_relocate_taxiways_sketch_Dec15mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 9, 2015 and offer the following comments: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Airport District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Airport Zoning District Required Proposed Existing  Min. Lot Size 3 acres ?? 770 acres  Max. Building Coverage 30% n/a n/a  Max. Overall Coverage 50% n/a n/a  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. n/a n/a  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a n/a  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a n/a - zoning compliance The current 770 acre parcel is 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: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The project appears to have no impact on water and wastewater use. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (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. An erosion control plan has not yet been submitted. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project will have no impact on vehicular traffic. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_38_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_relocate_taxiways_sketch_Dec15mtg.doc detail at Final Plat review. (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. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy nor unique natural features on the area of the airport’s taxiways and runways that would be affected by this project. (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. No buildings or structures are proposed which might have an impact on the visual compatibility of the airport with the planned development patterns in the area. (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. There are no open space areas on this portion of the airport’s taxiways and runways that would be affected by this project. (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. The South Burlington Fire Department does not provide primary response services to incidents at the Airport. This criterion is not applicable. (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 proposed project appears at this juncture to be compatible with the extension of such services. See comments on Stormwater below. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff considers that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Airport Zoning District. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. 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 Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_38_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_relocate_taxiways_sketch_Dec15mtg.doc policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that this criterion is being met. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No new structures or changes to existing structures are proposed and the project will have no impacts on planting, pedestrian movement or parking. (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. No new structures or changes to existing structures are proposed and the project will have no impact on parking. (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. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No new structures or changes to existing structures are proposed. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No new structures or changes to existing structures are proposed. These two criteria are not applicable. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_38_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_relocate_taxiways_sketch_Dec15mtg.doc In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not consider that the reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. 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. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The project will be served by existing dumpsters and other facilities on the property. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) No buildings are proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable. Stormwater In an email to staff dated November 4, 2015, the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Taxiway G-K Relocation and Taxiway A-E Relocation” sketch plan prepared by Stantec, dated 10/08/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. In a future application, the applicant should indicate the percent coverage on the existing lot, as well as the percent coverage proposed. 2. The taxiway area that is proposed to be removed is likely heavily compacted. The applicant should include details and a description of how the taxiway area and subbase will be restored to an impervious condition. 3. The applicant should indicate all stormwater and drainage infrastructure that is proposed to be removed and/or relocated. 4. In a future application, the applicant should provide delineated drainage area maps for proposed stormwater treatment practices in the project area, as well as drainage area maps for existing stormwater treatment practices that are impacted by the proposed changes to the site. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_38_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_relocate_taxiways_sketch_Dec15mtg.doc 5. The applicant is requested to provide copies of stormwater modeling in a digital format along with the submission of a future application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 1. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Department’s comments prior to submission of a Preliminary and/or Final Plat Application. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through final plat review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Gene Richards, applicant REL O C AT E D TA XI WA Y ' G' FUT U R E P HAS E 2PHAS E 1 NEW T A XI W A Y ' G/ K'FUTUR E PH A SE 3 NEW T AXI W A Y ' G'AIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTPROJECT LOCATIONNV:\1953\active\195311140\transportation\drawing\Locationplan.dwg, Location, 10/8/2015 11:03:04 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 V:\1953\active\195311140\transportation\drawing\Taxiway G Phasing 2.dwg, Layout1, 10/8/2015 11:09:32 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_39_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_Sporn AviationFuelTank_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 11, 2015 Plans received: October 9, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-39 CITY OF BURLINGTON / BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – 1200 AIRPORT DRIVE Meeting Date: December 15, 2015 Applicant /Owner Burlington International Airport/City of Burlington 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_39_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_SpornAviationFuelTank_sketch_Dec15_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 a 10,000 gallon above-ground aviation fuel tank, 1200 Airport Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 9, 2015 and offer the following comments: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Airport Industrial District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Airport Industrial Zoning District Required Proposed Existing  Min. Lot Size 3 acres ?? 770 acres  Max. Building Coverage 30% n/a n/a  Max. Overall Coverage 50% n/a n/a  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. n/a n/a  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a n/a  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a n/a - zoning compliance The current 770 acre parcel is 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: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The project appears to have no impact on water and wastewater use. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (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. An erosion control plan has not yet been submitted. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project appears to have no impact on vehicular traffic. Full compliance with this standard will be CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_39_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_SpornAviationFuelTank_sketch_Dec15_mtg.doc addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (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. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy nor unique natural features that would be affected by this project. (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. The proposed fuel tank would be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area. (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. There are no open space areas that would be affected by this project. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In a letter to staff dated November 6, 2015 the Fire Chief commented as follows: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of 10,000 gallon above ground aviation fuel tank at the airport complex on Eagle Drive. We have the following recommendations:  Securing of proper permits from South Burlington Fire Marshal and/or the State of Vermont.  Construction to relative codes for petroleum installations. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and the South Burlington Fire Marshal. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief 1. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Chief’s comments prior to submission of a Preliminary and/or Final Plat Application. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_39_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_SpornAviationFuelTank_sketch_Dec15_mtg.doc The proposed project appears at this juncture to be compatible with the extension of such services. See comments on Stormwater below. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff feels that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Airport Zoning District. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. 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 Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that this criterion is being met. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The project will have no impacts on planting, pedestrian movement or parking. (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. No new structures or changes to existing structures are proposed and the project will have no impact on parking. (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. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No buildings are proposed. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_39_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_SpornAviationFuelTank_sketch_Dec15_mtg.doc C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No new structures or changes to existing structures are proposed. These two criteria are not applicable. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not consider that the reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. 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. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The project will be served by existing dumpsters and other facilities on the property. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) No buildings are proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable. Stormwater In an email to staff dated November 4, 2015, the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Sporn Aviation Fuel Tank Facility Eagle Drive” sketch plan prepared by Stantec, dated 10/08/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. In a future application, the applicant should indicate the percent coverage proposed on the lot. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_39_1200AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_SpornAviationFuelTank_sketch_Dec15_mtg.doc 2. In a future application, the applicant should include design details, stormwater modeling and delineated drainage area maps for all proposed stormwater treatment practices. 3. The City recommends that the fuel storage area be provided with adequate containment for the volume of fuel storage proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 2. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Department’s comments prior to submission of a Preliminary and/or Final Plat Application. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through final plat review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Gene Richards, applicant AIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTPROJECTLOCATIONNV:\1953\active\195311135\transportation\drawing\Locationplan.dwg, Location, 10/8/2015 11:27:21 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 NV:\1953\active\195311135\transportation\drawing\Sketch footprint.dwg, Location, 10/8/2015 11:20:23 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_ sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 11, 2015 Plans received: November 17, 2015 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-37 Meeting date: December 15, 2015 Owner Spear Meadows, Inc Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Chris Snyder Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Plans not stamped by an Engineer Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 14 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 12 3-unit multi-family dwellings totaling 50 new units, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. The above description has been revised from the original request to reflect the current proposal. Proposed development in this area has been discussed in depth at multiple prior DRB meetings in connection with applications #SD-11-51 and #MP-11-03. The proposal has a new applicant under this Sketch Plan, however. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for landscaping, traffic and other issues certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the revised plans submitted on September 16, 2015 and a revised plan submitted on November 17, 2015 and offer the following comments. Issues for discussion  Development on dead-end roads 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have 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 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly 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. Development in southwest portion of property In the past the Board has seen various proposals for development of the SW corner of the property. One version showed a public street to serve a large park, another showed a private road serving three (3) homes with a centralized park elsewhere in the development and the version discussed on October 6, 2015 proposed a road to serve two (2) large home lots and a park. The current November 17, 2015 proposal consists of a private drive serving nine (9) housing units in three (3) triplex buildings. The length of this private drive at almost 800 feet in length is not consistent with section (A)(2)(b) which states that “(d)ead end streets (e.g. culs-de-sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” At a prior DRB meeting held on November 17, 2009, the DRB reviewed a plan submitted on Sept. 3, 2009 wherein development in the SW corner of the property consisted of a 700 ft. long cul-de- sac road with seven (7) triplexes. An excerpt of the minutes reads as follows: 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-09-42 of Gary Farrell et al for a planned unit development on a 26.1 acre parcel developed with two single family dwellings. The proposal consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 13 two-family dwelling, and 3) constructing 22 three-unit multi-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Dinklage explained the history of Southeast Quadrant zoning. He showed the area that is to be left open as two significant wildlife corridors. This includes a lot of privately owned land which lost the ability to develop on that land. In exchange, the city gave these land owners the right to develop those units elsewhere in the Southeast Quadrant via the TDR process. The property in question is one of those “receiving areas.” Mr. Farrell said he had no new information for the Board. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The Board then reviewed a list of items needing DRB concurrence, as follows: A. allowing a cul de sac and concurring on its length Mr. Dinklage noted the city will probably want a right-of-way to the property line. He also noted that the proposed length of the cul de sac is 700 feet to the circle. Mr. Belair said the recommended maximum length is 200 feet. Mr. Stuono said he does not favor the cul de sac but feels the land should remain open since it is adjacent to an NRP area. He showed the area he felt should remain open. Mr. Knudsen said the reason for the short cul de sac requirement is to allow for “neighborhoods,” and 700 feet doesn’t do that. He indicated he would not want a 700 foot cul de sac. Mr. Dinklage noted there will be a connection to the Gilbert property which will make that a shorter cul de sac. Mr. Farley said he was comfortable with the request. Ms. Quimby said she agrees with Mr. Knudsen. Mr. Gilbert said he does not want that connection and he doesn’t want the 700-foot road. Mr. Dinklage noted there was not a majority of the Board in favor of the cul de sac, but two Board members are not present. 1. Given this prior discussion and the language in section (A)(2)(b), the Board should first discuss whether it is a likelihood that this road serving this portion of the property could reasonably connect through to other properties to Spear Street or another road and if such a connection is desirable and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At this time staff is not aware of any likely connections: the property to the south is association land for an adjacent development and the properties to the west are single family home lots with minimal road frontage. If the Board determines that this road could connect, then the Board should have further discussions regarding where such connections are likely. If the Board determines no, then the Board should provide guidance on what this area of the property should be used for. Development off Spear Meadow Road The proposed “private drive” serving units #27 - #35 is 320 ft. in length stopping just short of the property line shared with the Gilbert property to the south. Staff notes that this rear portion of the Gilbert property could be reasonably be developed in the future. Staff recommends that this private drive be constructed to City road standards if the Board determines that the property to the south is potentially developable. Otherwise, this is a dead end street which exceeds the 200 ft. length limit. Moreover, if the Gilbert property were later developed and there was no possible connection to the road serving units #27-#35, then the eastern end of the Gilbert property would likely have to create an access from Spear Street resulting in creation of another cul-dec sac. Staff notes that if this road is constructed as a public street the applicant could add additional units along this street. Staff recommends it be planned to be connected and that it be public in the future. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 2. The Board should discuss this “private drive” and whether it should be constructed to City road standards and include an irrevocable offer of dedication such that it could be extended into the adjacent property to serve future development.  Proposed Public Park Section 9 of the SBLDR states that “a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation.” Furthermore, “parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program” and “a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned recreation area.” The area set aside for the proposed public park is approximately 1.4 acres. The currently proposed location appears to be more centralized and accessible. This meets the minimum standard of approximately one (1) acre. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss the proposed location of the park, as it has changed from the previously location in the southwest corner of the property discussed at the October 6th meeting. The Board should consider the proposed park in the context of the overall PUD. A few notes for consideration: o How does the park contribute to the innovation and creativity requirement of being a PUD? Other than the “neighborhood gardens” illustrated, what other amenities and features are anticipated to be constructed? 4. Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. The applicant should engage in discussions with the Director of Public Works, Director of the Recreation Department and with the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee and these should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address the location, the overall size of the park and which facilities shall be planned for the space (i.e. - basketball courts, play structures, etc.), as well as parking needs. Block Lengths Staff notes that the proposed 820 ft. block length along single-family footprint lots, 1-14, is inconsistent with standards for the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict, stated as follows. 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. As recommend by staff at prior meeting, the applicant has added a mid-block, necked down crosswalk connection in the portion of Vale Drive near lots #8 & #9 and a sidewalk connection from that crosswalk to the recreation path along the eastern edge of the property. 5. The Board should determine if the proposed development block length which exceeds 500 ft. is unavoidable. At previous review meetings for prior versions of the project (2009- 2013), the Board found this length to be acceptable with the addition of crosswalks and traffic calming measures. 14.06 General Review Standards ……………. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) 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); (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: Staff notes that the revised plan now shows extensive use of triplex flats and triplex town homes. With regards to the flats, parking for two (2) of the three (3) units appears to be located to the sides of the building so that the parking is partially consistent with B (2) (a) above. For the triplex townhome units, this standard does not appear to be met at all as CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING the driveways on which people would park lead directly from the street to the front facing garages of the townhomes. 6. The Board should ask the applicant to provide additional details on how it proposes to meet the parking standards. 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards A.…... B…… 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; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (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. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages where the vehicle entrance is parallel to the front building line of a house, the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side yard, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the main house and (ii) the front building line of the garage is no more than eight (8) feet in front of the front building line of the house. Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses. Figure 9-7: Residential Garage Placement Options CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (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. Staff notes that with the triplex flat units and with the end units of the townhomes it is unclear if the buildings are oriented toward the street. Staff also notes that the applicant will need to comply with Section 9.08 C (4) which requires that “the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet.” 7. The Board should ask the applicant to provide additional details on how the buildings will orient to the street as well comply with other elements of Section 9.08 C.  Northwesterly Parcel The plans depict a building, units #39-#41, along the western edge of the parcel. As currently shown, the building is oriented to the proposed new street, as opposed to facing Spear Street. The proposed setback of the building approximates those of abutting properties on Spear Street. All the other existing homes along Spear Street face Spear Street. 8. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this issue with the applicant and provide guidance on the orientation of the building.  Density The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.15 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood Residential sub-district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing to construct 50 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 51 units within the PUD. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Lot 1 1 unit one, existing SF home to remain Units 1-14 14 units SF home footprint lots Units 15-26 and 36-41 18 units 6 triplex flats Units 16 thru 24 18 units 6 triplex townhouses This is a proposed density of approximately 1.99 units per acre. A total of 22 transferred development rights (TDRs) would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. In previous cases, the Board has previously required that the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney as part of the preliminary plat submittal. Staff has also recommended that the TDRs be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property’s inherent density. 9. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. a. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. b. Staff recommends that the applicant submit all legal documents showing clear ownership and transfer of the development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit.  Roads and Circulation and Stormwater Given the different versions of this plan that have been discussed, staff feels that it is best for the Board to provide guidance on the outlines of the plan prior to a more detail analysis by Public Works staff.  Phasing The Board should discuss phasing for the following items:  Road completion;  Road connection to Vale Drive;  Timing for construction and completion of Park;  General phasing for the order of construction of buildings;  Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection;  Notice of Conditions There are “footprint” lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of the LDRs, all lots CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING will be considered one lot. 10. For purposes of the LDRs, the footprint lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot within each grouping. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans.  Mix of Housing Types (6) 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. Staff notes that the applicant has mixed duplexes and single family homes on both Vale Drive and the proposed private drive. The triplex building with units #16-18 does not face the street This does not comply with the residential design standards requiring that “residential buildings must be oriented to the street”. 11. While most details will be addressed at preliminary and final plat, staff notes the applicant’s proposal may or may not be consistent with Section 9.08 C.(5)  Agriculture The LDRs (Section 9.06 (C)) state: C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. The applicant has proposed community garden space to be located in the proposed park. Given that the layout of the PUD (especially the issue of the park location and its amenities) has not been settled, staff recommends that the issue of the location of garden space be resolved during Preliminary Plat review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Staff notes that as the project evolves, additional questions not raised herein may be posed. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Christopher Snyder, applicant SPEAR MEADOWSSKETCH PLANNOVEMBER 15, 20151inch=60ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE60 0 30 60 120 240 575 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 RE: Sketch plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC, 65 Shunpike Road December 15, 2015 Meeting DATE: December 11, 2015 Sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six (6) boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road. COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and materials received on June 26, 2015 and subsequently. Please note that the applicant is no longer proposing the razing an existing single family dwelling and the installation of six (6) gasoline fueling pumps. The number of proposed boundary line adjustments has also changed. As this is a large project, at this time, staff recommends the Board’s initial reviews focus on a handful of major issues: 1) Proposed uses and purpose 2) Access, Circulation and traffic 3) Lot layout / PUD status / Relationship to buildings in the vicinity 4) Related necessary applications 5) Lot survey 6) Stormwater 7) Fire Department comments Please note that this represents a partial sketch plan-level review, focused solely on the items above and not addressing all applicable elements and standards of the Land Development Regulations. 1. Due to the scale of this project, staff strongly encourages the Board to provide clear guidance to the applicant by the conclusion of the Sketch Plan on the above items and others that the Board may elect to address. 2 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc 2. In preparing its guidance, staff also strongly urges the Board to take the time it needs to gather information, employ Technical Review of elements, and hold deliberative session as appropriate. 1) Proposed Uses and Purpose: In considering this application, the Board will need to determine whether the proposed activities are permissible in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District. To help determine this, staff recommends that the Board look at the full context of the Land Development Regulations. This includes the Purpose Statement of the Mixed I/C District, Uses Definitions, and the Table of Uses. As the Board digs further into the application, other standards such as site plan and planned unit development requirements related to transitions between sites structures should also be considered. The Purpose Statement. In the current and proposed [and warned for City Council public hearing] versions of the City’s Land Development Regulations, the purpose of the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District reads as follows: 6.01 MIXED INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IC A. Purpose. The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. This purpose statement – and notably the section that reads “Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted” – is largely unchanged since 1982 when the district was first enacted. 3. To answer the question of whether the proposal is or is not consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District, as the Board reviews the following initial seven issues the Board should consistently consider:  does the proposal constitute a major commercial use?  does the proposal constitute a supermarket?  does the proposal constitute a shopping center? In order to answer these and other related questions, the Board will have to consider not only the purpose statement but the list of permitted uses in the Table of Uses, and the definitions of the uses in order to come to an understanding of the scope of the application. 3 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc Use Definitions. The Land Development Regulations contain several potentially relevant Use Definitions. The following are the definitions from the LDRs which would seem to apply or possibly apply to the proposed facility: Retail sales. An establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Typically such an establishment (A) is a place of business and is engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy, (B) buys and receives as well as sells merchandise, (C) may process or manufacture some of the products for sale, such as a jeweler or baker, but such production or manufacture is incidental and subordinate to the selling activities, and (D) sells to customers for their own personal, household, or business use. Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own. Retail food establishment. An establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready-to-eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises, and where the consumption of food on site is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats. Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with a retail food establishment. Auto & motorcycle service and repair. A business enterprise engaged in the servicing and repair of automobiles and/or motorcycles, including auto body repair or auto detailing, including the sale and installation of automobile and/or motorcycle parts and accessories. Includes Auto & Motorcycle Sales, Limited in conformance with these regulations. Supermarket or grocery store. See retail food establishment. Staff believes that the proposed establishment includes a combination of each of the above, all as principal uses. In reviewing the above definitions, it is staff’s view that this facility includes a combination of “retail food establishment”, “retail sales”, and “auto & motorcycle service and repair” uses. This facility sells a variety of dry goods (retail sales) and food items (retail food/supermarket). It is not unusual for a dry goods store to sell some food items and vice versa. The definition of “supermarket” refers back to “retail food establishment”. A portion of this facility qualifies as an “auto & motorcycle service and repair” use as tires will be sold and installed. The only use component in this facility which would be “accessory” would be the propane refilling tanks located in the parking area. As you can see, there is not a clear cut use or uses involved, hence the need to consider the facility as a whole while acknowledging that this facility includes a mixture of uses. It is not uncommon for a single entity to include several principal uses in South Burlington. In this particular case, the proposed main building is 88,548 square feet in size and therefore any one of the uses within a multi-use establishment could be considered to be of similar size and scale to counterparts around the city and region. a. Retail sales. It is staff’s understanding that a portion of the BJ’s base building will be dedicated to selling a variety of goods or merchandise consistent with the definition above. Staff notes 4 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc that while “general merchandise stores” are not permitted in this district, the draft amendments to the LDRs before the City Council eliminates this term. Staff therefore recommends that “general merchandise” be treated no different than retail sales. See below under “retail food establishment” for additional discussion regarding the definition above. b. Retail food establishment. Retail food establishment, as defined above, includes two related but distinct elements: supermarkets, and entities which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready-to-eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises. The definition is written this way, we believe, to reference grocery stores and also to clearly distinguish a retail food establishment from an eat-in restaurant. Examples include Hannaford’s, Price Chopper, Trader Joe’s, Healthy Living, and the Euro Market. It is staff’s understanding that the sale of groceries is a significant and substantial portion of the proposed BJ’s. The retail food sales portion of this building based on general information provided by the applicant appears to clearly indicate a business that includes a supermarket operation. Enclosed (in packet) are two references from BJ’s’ website and related social media (see attached web excerpt dated 12/10/15 and titled “BJ’s Inner Circle Membership – BJs wholesale club” and attached web excerpt dated 12/3/2015 and titled “BJ’s Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I Living Social”) also indicates that BJ’s both functions and promotes itself as a supermarket. Staff recognizes that the proposed use may not be a “traditional” supermarket or grocery. The business approach and line of products does differ, but staff also notes that significant variability exists within grocery stores / supermarkets today, from those including or excluding on-site butchers, bakeries, focus on natural foods, etc. c. Auto & motorcycle service and repair. Staff understands that the project will include a 3,348 SF Tire Center operating consistent with this definition. The facility will sell, install, and replace tires. Staff would also like to acknowledge that there are a handful of other definitions that the Board should be aware of that relate, somewhat, to the proposed activity. They are used in or relate to the definitions above: They include: Shopping center. A group of two (2) or more retail establishments or restaurants, including all associated out-parcels (whether or not they have been subdivided from the original tract), having a unified design of buildings, coordinated parking and service areas, and development plan in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, and where customer and employee parking are provided on-site, and provision for goods delivery is separated from customer access. The shopping center shall be planned, constructed, and developed and/or managed as a unified entity. Non-retail uses, such as offices, theaters, hotels, and automotive repair facilities, may be included in the overall development plan provided such uses are approved by the DRB in conjunction with the overall shopping center. Accessory Use. A use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located 5 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc on the same lot. An accessory use shall not be accessory to another accessory use. Wholesale establishment. An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in selling goods, products, material, and merchandise stored on the premises to retailers or persons who are the intermediaries between the producer and the consumer; to industrial, commercial, institutional or professional business users; to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies. Staff understands that while BJ’s may use the colloquial term of “wholesaler” for marketing purposes, the business’s use of the term is not consistent with the definition of the word in the Land Development Regulations. Staff understands that BJ’s primary customers are not intermediaries; they are individuals and households who have chosen to purchase a membership. The LDRs’ definition of wholesale establishment is clear on this. Staff, in brief, does not see the proposed use as being a “wholesale establishment”. A note on accessory vs. principal use. Staff notes that the definition for retails sales in the Land Development Regulations includes an allowance for some amount of retail food sales: “Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own.” Based on the definition above, it appears clear that a full-sized grocery operation located within a much larger building is not an accessory use. Staff’s understanding of the BJ’s model, assuming this store would be similar to others, is that the retail food portion is not incidental and subordinate in its area, extent, or purpose. Therefore, the retail food sales portion of the facility should be treated as an additional principal use. 4. Use questions for the Board to consider:  Does the proposed building include more than one (1) principal use or is the entire facility one (1) use?  Which use definitions are most applicable to this operation?  What additional information, if any, will the Board need to determine the answers to these questions?  Is the use a use other than those uses listed as prohibited in the purpose statement? We are including the following information to assist the Board with the complex task of answering these questions. Table of Uses The Table of Uses lists those uses which are permitted and conditional. The relevant items are listed below: Commercial & Industrial Uses Mixed IC District Retail Sales Permitted Retail food establishments > 5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets Auto & motorcycle service and repair Permitted Shopping Center 6 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc As stated in the application, the applicant proposes the following uses: “Retail Store (81,840 SF Base Building, 3,360 SF Receiving Appendage, 3,348 SF Tire Center, 2,052 SF Breezeway) and related uses including ancillary fuel pumps. Approximately 300 total parking spaces.” As noted above, staff’s view is that the proposed activity consists of three principal use categories within this building: [ 1. ] Retail Sales [ 2. ] Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets [ 3. ] Auto & motorcycle service & repair Staff draws the Board’s attention to a small but relevant distinction between the Use Definitions and the Table of Uses: The Table of Uses refers to “retail food establishment > 5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets” [emphasis added]. This is important in staff’s view because it helps to clarify how staff sees that the definition of retail food establishment includes both supermarkets and establishments whose design encourages the sale of pre-packaged food. Last but not least, it is useful to note that “Retail food establishment > 5,000 SF GRA and supermarkets” is allowed as a Permitted Use in the Commercial-1, C1-R12, C1-R15 and Commercial-2 zoning districts and as a Conditional Use in the City Center CD-1 and City Center CD-2 subdistricts. 5. Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed use or uses on the property, pose questions to the applicant, deliberate to discuss whether the proposed activities are permissible in this location, and then provide guidance to the applicant. 2) Circulation and Traffic The Department of Public Works offered the following comments to staff via email on September 2, 2015. I have looked at the sketch plans for the referenced project and have the following big picture comments to offer: 1. The main technical component of this project for Public Works is the overall traffic impact of the proposal, including: a. Proposed mitigation measures to provide safe and efficient traffic flow for all modes at the project’s three main intersections b. The offset nature of the Kimball Drive intersection relative to Community Drive west c. The reliance of a primarily residential street, Shunpike Road, as an access/egress point d. The offset nature of the US2 intersection relative to Calkins Court especially considering Valley Road is not a public street e. The regional transportation impact of the project f. How will the project provide for and enhance bicycle and pedestrian movements through this area 2. Other staff members have provided comments on the stormwater concept Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer It is staff’s understanding that a traffic study is underway. The Board can ask the applicant for an update. 7 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc Once the study is provided, staff will review and may recommend an independent technical review. As with the discussion of uses above, staff will urge the Board to provide high-level guidance to the applicant at this sketch level. 6. Staff recommends that the Board request the applicant to address the questions above and propose a methodology to respond. The applicant should address the questions above – at least at a broad level – to the satisfaction of the public works director and Board prior to proceeding to a next step in the application. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions A. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more than one dwelling unit. Staff notes that it is not standard practice to have a public street (Comcast Way) end into a private drive. Public streets should connect through to another street or to other lots pursuant to 15.12 above. The proposed application does not continue Comcast Way; it simply ends it into a parking area. Its function, therefore, is not a public street, rather a driveway. 7. Staff recommends that the Board discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding continuation of Comcast Way and/or altering its intent. 3) Lot Layout / PUD status / Relationship to buildings in the vicinity Staff notes the proposed lot layout is potentially problematic and does not seem to be creative, efficient or innovative as is required by the PUD standards. PUD Provision The following is a portion of the purpose statement for PUDs: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant should provide information to substantiate that this project is innovative in design and layout, makes efficient use of land and is a viable infill project. 8 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc 8. Staff recommends that the Board make a determination as to whether or not this project qualifies as a PUD and is therefore entitled to relief from the strict dimensional standards. Section 14.08 of the LDRs state, as part of site Plan review: (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 harmoniously related to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed development is located very close to the Shunpike Road neighborhood. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not consistent with these standards. 9. The Board should review, at a big-picture scale, the consistency of the proposed project with standards regarding Lot Layout, innovation in PUD status, and relationship to buildings in the vicinity. Section 3.06 (I) of the LDRs state as follows: I. Buffer Strip for Non-Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries. 1 Where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district, or where an existing non-residential use, structure or parking area that is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district is proposed to be expanded, altered or enlarged, the required side or rear setback shall be increased to sixty-five (65) feet. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. 2 The Development Review Board may permit new or expanded nonresidential uses, structures and/or parking areas, and new external light fixtures, within the setback and/or buffer as set forth in (1) above, and may approve a modification of the width of the required setback and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above. In doing so the DRB shall find that the proposed lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to be provided adjacent to the boundary of the residential district will provide equivalent screening of the noise, light and visual impacts of the new non- residential use to that which would be provided by the standard setback and buffer requirements in (1) above. However in no case may the required side or rear setback be reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning district in which the non-residential use is located. The proposal involves constructing the ingress only access drive from Shunpike Road within a few feet from the northerly border of the residential lot at 69 Shunpike Road. This property line is also a residential district boundary requiring, at a minimum, a strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide to be 9 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. This requirement is not being met. 10. The Board should provide the applicant with guidance on this non-compliance and what changes the applicant should make to the plan to comply with this section of the LDRs. 4) Related necessary applications Staff notes that the proposed application will involve changes to other parcels in the area and that applications for those parcels should be submitted so that continued compliance of those parcels with the LDRs can be evaluated in a timely manner. In particular staff notes that reducing the size of the Cota parcel via the proposed purchase of 37,597 SF from it may render the Cota parcel non-compliant with lot coverage maximums. That would not be permissible. 11. The Board should inquire as to the status of applications from adjacent properties. Staff recommends that this present application not proceed to a next step without receipt and review of these related applications. 5) Lot survey Staff has explored the history of the lot in question via a review of land development records. The lot was originally part of the Imported Car Center lot abutting Shelburne Road. In 1981, the lot was subdivided from this lot and was 12 acres in size and included approximately 165 feet of road frontage along Shunpike Road. In 1994 the lot was apparently reduced to slightly more than 10 acres in size and there was no longer any road frontage and the lot was landlocked. Staff recommends that the applicant review this history and provide additional clarity on the status and configuration of the lot presently. 6) Stormwater The Department of Public Works has performed an initial review of the application. For the purposes of this initial, broad-level discussion, staff is highlighting one component: The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. Further comments can be provided to the applicant at any time and / or to the Board at a future meeting. 12. Staff recommends that any future versions of the application address the stormwater recommendations. Fire Department comments In an email to staff dated August 31, 2015, the Fire Department provided the following comments: 10 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc Regarding the very preliminary plan for the three structures on or about 7 Commerce, SBFD has no significant issues at this juncture. BJs: Gas islands shall have gas island suppression system installed. LPG storage/dispensary is in a high traffic area and shall be relocated to an area away from the building access for the general public. Coordinate with SBFD. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department The Board should note the gas islands referred to above have been removed from the plan. 13. The applicant should address the Department’s comments in detail in its Preliminary Plat application. ………………. In conclusion, staff encourages the Board to address the major issues noted above with the applicant and provide direction to the applicant. Staff notes that the proposed project also raises other issues such as wetland impacts, floodplain impacts, setback waivers and performance standards such as noise and fumes from delivery truck operations. Staff will provide additional analysis on these issues and others in future staff comments regarding this application. If this application moves to the end of the sketch plan review process, the Board have to make decisions on all issues raised. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board and applicants address the above-listed items before proceeding to additional levels of detail in review of the sketch plan or any future stage in the application process. BJs Wholesale Club Illustrative Context PlanSouth Burlington, VT - October 2015BJs Wholesale ClubRoute 2Kimball AvenueShunpike Road 80’0’160’320’SCALE 1” = 80’N BJs Wholesale Club Illustrative Site PlanSouth Burlington, VT - October 2015BJs WholesaleClubShunpike Road 30’0’60’120’SCALE 1” = 30’NLEGENDLARGE DECIDUOUS TREE MEDIUM DECIDUOUS TREEMULTI-STEM DECIDUOUS TREELARGE CONIFER TREESHADE CONIFER TREESMALL CONIFER TREEORNAMENTAL TREE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBSMALL SHRUB Barbara Pickard Sirvis, Ed.D. 24 Arbor Road South Burlington, VT 05403 December 10, 2015 To whom it may concern: While I would like to provide public testimony on the proposed BJ’s Wholesale Club, I am unable to attend the meetings. Sadly, that means you will not be able to hear the passion in my voice, but please know I feel very strongly about this particular proposal. A retired college president, I chose South Burlington because it had a sense of community and was not a “big box town” like Williston or a “downtown” like Burlington. South Burlington’s ongoing conversations about a City Center and the future vision of our town included public discourse that supported continued protection of residential neighborhoods and expansion of low-impact industrial usage like the other businesses on Kimball Avenue. The proposed addition of a large big-box store goes against that vision. It would mean more traffic day and night for seven days a week. It was my understanding from the Community Forums that the intent of redesign of parts of Williston Road was to slow people driving through town. However, the reasons for them to stop in South Burlington would be for local businesses and to enjoy the benefits of the proposed City Center. Since Kimball Avenue and Williston Road are single lanes in each direction, this proposal would increase traffic congestion on both streets. The LDR maps designate this property as “Mixed Commercial-Industrial.” The purpose statement for such development clearly indicates that “Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. . . .” A major wholesale club that includes both groceries and a wide variety of consumer goods should be prohibited based on this statement. That should be a significant enough reason to deny BJ’s application. I also examined the list in the Table of Uses (C-1), and “general merchandise stores” are not allowed in the IC. The regulations seem clear that a major retail establishment such as BJs does NOT fit within the LDRs for the property proposed for a location. If these assumptions are true, then I commend those who developed the LDRs. The business/office nature of development around this area allows the residential areas to maintain some semblance of community. If BJs is allowed to build, any sense of neighborhood in the small residential areas around Shunpike and Williston Road will be destroyed. University Mall is a good location for a large footprint consumer facility. Shelburne Road has major commercial spaces. Those two locations are more than enough for our community. Approval of the application by BJs would create a third and unnecessary consumer focus and virtually assure South Burlington becomes another “big box community” like Williston. I implore you not to let that happen to our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Barbara P. Sirvis Barbara P. Sirvis, Ed.D. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_37_900DorsetSt_900DorsetStreetLLC_3_unit_town house_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 11, 2015 Plans received: October 5, 2015 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-15-37 900 Dorset Street, LLC - 900 Dorset Street Meeting date: December 15, 2015 Owner/Applicant 900 Dorset Street, LLC 168 Summit Street Burlington, VT 05401 Contact Person Steve Vock Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington VT 05403 Property Information Residential 2 Zoning District- Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-37 of 900 Dorset Street, LLC to construct a three (3) unit multi-family dwelling on a 2 acre +/- lot developed with a single family dwelling, 900 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Administrative Office Ray Belair and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on October 5, 2015 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R-2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 44,000 SF 86,982 SF 86,982 SF  Max. Density 2 units/acre 1 unit on 2 acres 4 units on 2 acres  Max. Building Coverage 20% 4,9 % 10.2 %  Max. Overall Coverage 40% 14.3 % 24.0 %  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 43 43 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 10 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 46 46 ft. ♠ Max. Building Height 28 ft. 25 ft. / 35 ft. 25 ft. / 35 ft. √ Zoning Compliance ♠ Pre-existing non-conforming. The existing farmhouse and proposed Townhouse are approximately 25 ft. in height. The existing barn, a non-conforming structure, is 35 feet high and is to remain. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public water system shall be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of water, at acceptable pressure. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The City Engineer has not yet reviewed the plans and has stated that they will do so at the preliminary plat level when more details are available. 1. The City Engineer shall review the plans prior to preliminary plat approval. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to preliminary plat approval and final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 2. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to preliminary plat approval and final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (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 included an erosion control plan which appears at this sketch stage to be sufficient. Full compliance with this standard will be determined at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 3. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant proposes closing the existing curb cut and creating a new one to serve the existing home and the new, proposed multi-family dwelling. Staff notes that the new curb cut is not located directly across from the curb cut for the property located directly across Dorset Street and that this might lead to an unsafe condition if cars are turning left simultaneously from both properties. The City Engineer should comment on this matter. 4. The applicant should consult with City Engineer prior to submission of a Preliminary Plat application. (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. There are no wetlands, streams, or wildlife habitat on the site. The subject property is located in a developed area and is not identified on the Open Space Strategy. (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. See below under Section 14.06 (B) (1). (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The location of the proposed multi-family dwelling results in the building being sited in the middle of largest open area on the site. It might be better if it were sited either closer to the street or further away as this would create a larger continuous open area. Staff has concerns about the large size of the parking area abutting the barn and the intended use of the barn. At the April 16, 2013 hearing for an earlier version of this sketch (#SD-13-08), the following exchange took place: Mr. Belair asked about the use of the existing barn. Mr. Olesky said it is for the current owner’s use. Mr. Belair said that would be a zoning violation unless the owner is living on the property. It can be used only for residents on the site. Mr. Olesky said he would discuss this with the owner. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 5. The Board should ask the applicant to discuss why they need such a large parking area abutting the barn and remind the applicant that the barn may only be for the use of residents on the property and may not be used as ad hoc storage facility by the owner unless the owner is living on the property. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In a letter to staff dated November 6, 2015 the Fire Chief commented as follows: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of a 3 unit townhouse off from Dorset Street. We have the following recommendations:  Compliance with all requirements of the Vermont Fire Building and Safety Code for any applicable structures.  All turning radii shall be compatible with a WB-40 straight profile.  On page C5.3 there is discussion about fire hydrant installation. Nothing was shown on the plan relative to fire hydrant installation so we will need clarification.  Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and the South Burlington Fire Marshal. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief In additional discussions via email with the applicant’s engineer, the Fire Chief provided additional comments on December 9, 2015 as follows: Steve - Per our conversation relative to adding a hydrant at 900 Dorset Street, I have discussed this with Deputy Francis, and made a site visit to look at the property and its proximity to the existing hydrant. As I told you, we came up with the following idea as an alternative to adding a hydrant. Install an NFPA compliant 13R residential sprinkler system into the new 3 unit townhouse and as a trade-off we would not request adding a hydrant. I will copy Ray Belair on this email. Let me know if you have any further questions. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Doug Brent Fire Chief The applicant’s engineer then responded as follows: Here is a pdf that shows the hydrant, force main, grading, driveway, snow storage, and other site utilities. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Tom I did not have David Wheeler’ e- mail, so I forwarded this on to you. Thanks For help Stephen Vock President Civil Engineering Associates, Inc 6. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Chief’s comments of November 6, 2015 and December 9, 2015. (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 has agreed to the City’s request made at a prior sketch application (#SD-13-08) to relocate the municipal bike path slightly to the east and to install a 5 wide grass median between the path and Dorset Street. Full compliance with this standard will be determined at Preliminary and Final Plat review. See below for comments regarding Stormwater. (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. Staff has already noted that the City Engineer shall review the preliminary plat plans and provide comments prior to approval of the preliminary plat application. 7. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The proposed project represents an in-fill project. Staff feels the proposed project and PUD is in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Full compliance with this standard will be determined at Preliminary and Final Plat review. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the proposed project to be generally consistent with this standard. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The applicant is proposing to close one existing curb cut and replace it with a new one located slightly to the north of the existing cut. The cut will serve the existing house and barn as well as the new multi-family dwelling. Staff has already noted that the new cut is not located directly across the street from the curb cut serving the property directly across on Spear Street. Staff recommends that the applicant confer with the Director of Public Works on the location of the curb cut. The location of the proposed multi-family dwelling results in the building being sited in the middle of largest open area on the site without having yet seen elevations for the new building, it is difficult to access compliance with this criteria. However, staff is concerned about the new building relationship to the site and established buildings. All other buildings in the area face Dorset Street, for example, and most have porches. 8. The Board should discuss siting of the new building, its relationship to the existing house and barn, and how the architecture of the new building can complement that of the historic house and barn. Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re- used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. Parking for the barn property is proposed to be screened with vegetation. Parking for the multi-family dwelling is proposed to be within garages associated with each unit. Full compliance with this standard will be determined at Preliminary and Final Plat review. (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. The existing farmhouse and proposed townhouse are approximately 25 ft. in height. The existing barn, a non-conforming structure, is 35 feet high and is to remain. Full compliance with this standard will be determined at Preliminary and Final Plat review. (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 Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. Full compliance with this standard will be determined at Preliminary and Final Plat review. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has submitted Elevations of the proposed 3-unit townhouse as well as photos of the existing home and barn. Staff recommends that the unit closest to the street have a street presence similar to the existing single family dwelling. 9. The Board should review the Elevations and provide guidance to the applicant on changes, if needed, to the design of the new building. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not feel the reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. 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. 10. The preliminary plat plans shall show all ground mounted HVAC units, generators, and utility cabinets. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). 11. The preliminary plat plan should depict proposed dumpsters and recycling facilities, adequately screened. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans should show snow storage areas for the subject property. 12. The plans should depict snow storage areas as part of the preliminary plat plan application. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. Staff is concerned that the buildings are very close to City owned land to the north and this may result in encroachments into the City land by the residents. The applicant should consider some type of barrier along the north boundary to prevent any encroachments by the residents. 13. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and budget in compliance with Section 13.06 of the SBLDR as part of the preliminary plat plan application. 14. The applicant should submit estimated construction costs with the preliminary plat application, so that the exact minimum landscaping requirement can be determined. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 15. The Board should discuss how to delineate the north boundary in such a manner as to prevent encroachment by the residents. Staff has concerns about the proposed location of the Community Garden. While the provision of this amenity is to be applauded, it is located almost 200 ft. distant from the new townhouses as well as out of site from the townhouses. A better location would be in the center of the property to the west of the barn. This would make it more of a true “community asset”, make it more usable to all residents of the property, place it in a quieter location away from the traffic noise of Dorset Street and make it closer to the barn where garden tools could be stored. Another consideration to be considered is access to water. The applicant could also consider planting fruit trees and/or placing a bench or two in this area to enhance this central area. 16. The Board and the applicant should discuss the proposed location of the community garden as well the overall landscaping plan for the property. Lighting Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30’ above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10 (b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. All lighting shall be shielded and downcast. 17. The applicant should submit a lighting point by point plan and lighting cut-sheets with submission of the preliminary plat plan application. Stormwater In an email to staff dated November 4, 2015, the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “900 Dorset Street Planned Residential Development” site plan prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, dated May 8, 2012 and last revised 9/16/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the submitted site plan. 3. On Sheet C3.0, specify a minimum rigid insulation thickness of 2”. 4. On Sheet C3.1, the proposed pump station design does not meet City requirements as indicated on the City’s website: http://www.sburl.com/vertical/sites/%7BD1A8A14E-F9A2-40BE-A701- 417111F9426B%7D/uploads/%7B2E091A86-BF03-41DD-B505-2B962883AFDC%7D.PDF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 5. On Sheet C3.1, Note 7, the project is located in the City of South Burlington, not Town of Shelburne. Water Supply System notes shall be in accordance with Champlain Water District specifications and details. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 18. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Department’s comments prior to submission of a Preliminary Plat Application. OTHER The applicant should be aware that Veterans Memorial Park is immediately adjacent to this development. Frequent activities at the park include live music performances, City wide celebrations/events and athletic events, all of which can generate lots of noise which might be deemed objectionable by the residents of the proposed multi-family dwelling. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant address the numbered items in the “Comments Section” of this document before proceeding to any further plan review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer cc: Steve Vock, Civil Engineering Associates SAVJSOACL/JSO1" = 30'12165C1.0MAY 8, 2012LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ECAEXISTINGCONDITIONSSITE PLANPLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCLOCATIONPROJECT89P:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:08 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 +SAVJSOACL/JSO1" = 20'12165C2.0MAY 8, 2012LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ECAPROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLANPLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCLOCATIONPROJECT89P:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:15 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SAVJSOACL/JSOAS SHOWN12165C3.0MAY 8, 2012LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ECASITE DETAILSPLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCLOCATIONPROJECT89TYPICAL SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S.TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONN.T.S.GRAVEL SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S.TYPICAL GRAVEL ROADWAY SECTION NTSGENERAL PIPE DETAILN.T.S.FOUNDATION DRAIN6" SDR 35 PERF. PVC3/4" WASHED STONEWRAPPED W/ DRAINAGEFABRIC. COORDINATEDRAINAGE W/ ARCH.STRUCTURAL DETAIL±6"TOP OF FTG.ELEV. (SEE PLAN)GRANULAR BACKFILL(TYP.)GROUND LINE (SLOPEAWAY FROM BUILD.)FIN. SLAB EL.(SEE PLAN)N.T.S.GRASS CHANNEL1313EXISTINGGRADEPROVIDE 4" TOPSOIL ANDGRASS COVER(CONSERVATION MIX)NORTH AMERICAN GREEN575 EROSION CONTROLMATTING IN ALL GRASSEDCHANNELS w/ PROFILEGRADES EXCEEDING 5%.OR WHERE SHOWN ONPLANS. INSTALL PER MFG.RECOMMENDATIONS12"MIN.REFER TO SITE PLANSFOR BOTTOM WIDTHP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:20 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SAVSAVACLAS SHOWN12165C3.1SEPT., 2015LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ECAUTILITYDETAILSPLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCLOCATIONPROJECT89WATER SERVICE CONNECTION DETAILN.T.S.TYPICAL CLEANOUT DETAILNOTES:PAVEDN.T.S.DD+2'6"6"TYPICAL SEWER TRENCH DETAIL5'-0" MIN. COVER (PLOWED AREAS)4'-0" MIN. COVER (TYPICAL)6"1. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL AND BEDDING SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF 90% (95% UNDER ROADWAY SURFACES) OFMAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED IN THE STANDARDPROCTOR TEST (ASTM D698).2. BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON FROZENSUBGRADE.3. APPROVED BACKFILL SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY STONES MORETHAN 12" IN LARGEST DIMENSION (6" IN ROADWAYS, 1 1/2""MAXIMUM DIAMETER WITHIN 24" OF THE OUTSIDE OF THEPIPE), OR CONTAIN ANY FROZEN, WET, OR ORGANIC MATERIAL.4. TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPLETELY DEWATERED PRIOR TOPLACING OF PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL AND KEPTDEWATERED DURING INSTALLATION OF PIPE AND BACKFILL.5. IN TRENCHES WITH UNSTABLE MATERIALS, TRENCH BOTTOMSHALL FIRST BE STABILIZED BY PLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRICTHEN CRUSHED STONE (3/4" MAXIMUM).6. THE SIDES OF TRENCHES 4' OR MORE IN DEPTH ENTERED BYPERSONNEL SHALL BE SHEETED OR SLOPED TO THE ANGLE OFREPOSE AS DEFINED BY O.S.H.A. STANDARDS.7. BEDDING MATERIAL FOR WASTEWATER LINES SHALL CONSISTOF CRUSHED STONE OR GRAVEL WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 34".SUBMIT A SAMPLE TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL.8. ALL JOINTS TO BE INSPECTED BY OWNER/ENGINEER/TOWNPRIOR TO BACKFILL.APPROVED BACKFILLTHOROUGHLY COMPACTEDIN 8" LIFTS2" RIGID INSULATION WHENDEPTH OF PIPING IS LESSTHAN MINIMUM NOTED4" WIDE MAGNETIC"SEWER" TAPE INSTALLEDAPPROX. 2' BELOW SURFACESEWER LINE AND FORCEMAIN, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEAND SIZEPIPE BEDDINGUNDISTURBED SOILOR ROCKTOPSOIL, RAKE,SEED & MULCHUNPAVED(SEE SITE PLAN)5'-0" MIN. COVER OVER FORCE MAINSN.T.S.1,500 GALLON PUMP STATIONPUMP ONALARM ONPUMP OFFGROUND5'-6" MIN.6" DRAINAGE STONEWIDE ANGLENON-MERCURY SWITCHALARM FLOAT14"Ø WEEP HOLERUBBER BOOT2" SCH. 40 or SDR 26 PVCPIPING TO DISPOSAL FIELDCHECK VALVEGATE VALVE1,000 GAL. PRECASTCONCRETE TANK -ASPHALT COVERED36"Ø (MIN.) RISER SHALLBE CAST INTO TANKNEMA 4JUNCTIONBOXUNION24"Ø (MIN.) RISER w/EXPOSED FIBERGLASS LIDFOR INSPECTION (TYP.)RUBBER BOOT4" SCH. 40 PVC 14"PER FT. (MIN.)FROM SEPTIC TANKPROVIDE 840 GAL. OFEMERGENCYGROUT3" GALV. PIPE*SUBMERSIBLEGRINDER SEWAGEPUMP, SEE PUMPREQUIREMENTSSET PUMP FLOATFOR 100 GALLONVOLUME3" VENT w/ BIRDSCREEN & GAC FILTERCONTINUE CABLE INCONDUIT TO AUDIO ANDVISUAL ALARM. AUDIO &VISUAL ALARMS SHALL BEPROVIDED (ON SEPARATECIRCUITS)6"6"*VERIFY PUMP REQUIREMENTS WITHTHE ENGINEER IF FINAL SITESELECTED IS OTHER THAN SHOWNON PLANRIM=338.5INV.=331.0ANTI-SIPHONP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:25 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 +SAVSAVACL1" = 20'12165C4.0SEPT., 2015LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ECAEROSIONCONTROLPLANPLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCLOCATIONPROJECT89P:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:30 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SAVSAVACLNONE12165C4.1SEPT., 2015LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ECAEROSIONCONTROLDETAILS &SPECSPLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCLOCATIONPROJECT89IntroductionThis project is subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizationfrom the State of Vermont to discharge construction related storm waterrunoff.Coverage under the State Construction General Permit 3-9020 isrequired for any construction activity that disturbs 1 or more acres ofland, or is part of a larger development plan that will disturb 1 or moreacres.This project has been deemed to qualify as a Low Risk Site which issubject to the erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC)standards set for in the State of Vermont'sLow Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and SedimentControlThe following narrative and implementation requirements represent theminimum standard for which this site is required to be maintained asregulated by the State of Vermont.Any best management practices (BMP's) depicted on the project's EPSCSite plan which go beyond the Handbook requirements are consideredto be integral to the management of the site and represent componentsof the municipal EPSC approval for the project which shall beimplemented.The EPSC plan depicts one snap shot in time of the site. Allconstruction sites are fluid in their day to day exposures and risks as itrelates to minimizing sediment loss from the site. It is theresponsibility of the Contractor to implement the necessary BMP'sto comply with the Low Risk Handbook standards outlined on thissheet based on the interim site disturbance conditions which may ormay not be shown on the EPSC Site Plan.Specific BMP's which are critical to allowing the project to be considereda Low risk site include the items checked below:Limit the amount of disturbed earth to two acres or less at any onetime.There shall be a maximum of 7 consecutive days of disturbed earthexposure in any location before temporary or final stabilization isimplemented.1. Mark Site BoundariesPurpose:Mark the site boundaries to identify the limits of construction. Delineatingyour site will help to limit the area of disturbance, preserve existingvegetation and limit erosion potential on the site.How to comply:Before beginning construction, walk the site boundaries and flag trees,post signs, or install orange safety fence. Fence is required on anyboundary within 50 feet of a stream, lake, pond or wetland, unless thearea is already developed (existing roads, buildings, etc.)2. Limit Disturbance AreaPurpose:Limit the amount of soil exposed at one time to reduce the potentialerosion on site.Requirements:The permitted disturbance area is specified on the site's writtenauthorization to discharge. Only the acreage listed on the authorizationform may be exposed at any given time.How to comply:Plan ahead and phase the construction activities to ensure that no morethan the permitted acreage is disturbed at one time. Be sure to properlystabilize exposed soil with seed and mulch or erosion control mattingbefore beginning work in a new section of the site.3. Stabilize Construction EntrancePurpose:A stabilized construction entrance helps remove mud from vehiclewheels to prevent tracking onto streets.Requirements:If there will be any vehicle traffic off of the construction site, you mustinstall a stabilized construction entrance before construction begins.How to installRock Size: Use a mix of 1 to 4 inch stoneDepth: 8 inches minimumWidth: 12 feet minimumLength: 40 feet minimum (or length of driveway, if shorter)Geotextile: Place filter cloth under entire gravel bedMaintenance:Redress with clean stone as required to keep sediment from trackingonto the street.4. Install Silt FencePurpose:Silt fences intercept runoff and allow suspended sediment to settle out.Requirements:Silt fence must be installed:on the downhill side of the construction activitiesbetween any ditch, swale, storm sewer inlet, or waters of the Stateand the disturbed soil* Hay bales must not be used as sediment barriers due to theirtendency to degrade and fall apart.Where to place:Place silt fence on the downhill edge of bare soil. At the bottom ofslopes, place fence 10 feet downhill from the end of the slope (ifspace is available).Ensure the silt fence catches all runoff from bare soil.Maximum drainage area is ¼ acre for 100 feet of silt fence.Install silt fence across the slope (not up and down hills!)Install multiple rows of silt fence on long hills to break up flow.Do not install silt fence across ditches, channels, or streams or instream buffers.How to install silt fence:Dig a trench 6 inches deep across the slopeUnroll silt fence along the trenchEnsure stakes are on the downhill side of the fenceJoin fencing by rolling the end stakes togetherDrive stakes in against downhill side of trenchDrive stakes until 16 inches of fabric is in trenchPush fabric into trench; spread along bottomFill trench with soil and pack downMaintenance:Remove accumulated sediment before it is halfway up the fence.Ensure that silt fence is trenched in ground and there are no gaps.5. Divert Upland RunoffPurpose:Diversion berms intercept runoff from above the construction site anddirect it around the disturbed area. This prevents clean water frombecoming muddied with soil from the construction site.Requirements:If storm water runs onto your site from upslope areas and your sitemeets the following two conditions, you must install a diversion bermbefore disturbing any soil.1. You plan to have one or more acres of soil exposed at any one time(excluding roads).2. Average slope of the disturbed area is 20% or steeper.How to install:1. Compact the berm with a shovel or earth-moving equipment.2. Seed and mulch berm or cover with erosion control mattingimmediately after installation.3. Stabilize the flow channel with seed and straw mulch or erosioncontrol matting. Line the channel with 4 inch stone if the channelslope is greater than 20%.4. Ensure the berm drains to an outlet stabilized with riprap. Ensure thatthere is no erosion at the outlet.5. The diversion berm shall remain in place until the disturbed areas arecompletely stabilized.6. Slow Down Channelized RunoffPurpose:Stone check dams reduce erosion in drainage channels by slowingdown the storm water flow.Requirements:If there is a concentrated flow (e.g. in a ditch or channel) of storm wateron your site, then you must install stone check dams. Hay bales mustnot be used as check dams.How to install:Height: No greater than 2 feet. Center of dam should be 9 inches lowerthan the side elevationSide slopes: 2:1 or flatterStone size: Use a mixture of 2 to 9 inch stoneWidth: Dams should span the width of the channel and extend up thesides of the banksSpacing: Space the dams so that the bottom (toe) of the upstream damis at the elevation of the top (crest) of the downstream dam. Thisspacing is equal to the height of the check dam divided by the channelslope.Spacing (in feet) = Height of check dam (in feet)/Slope in channel (ft/ft)Maintenance:Remove sediment accumulated behind the dam as needed to allowchannel to drain through the stone check dam and prevent large flowsfrom carrying sediment over the dam. If significant erosion occursbetween check dams, a liner of stone should be installed.7. Construct Permanent ControlsPurpose:Permanent storm water treatment practices are constructed to maintainwater quality, ensure groundwater flows, and prevent downstreamflooding. Practices include detention ponds and wetlands, infiltrationbasins, and storm water filters.Requirements:If the total impervious* area on your site, or within the common plan ofdevelopment, will be 1 or more acres, you must apply for a State Stormwater Discharge Permit and construct permanent storm water treatmentpractices on your site. These practices must be installed before theconstruction of any impervious surfaces.How to comply:Contact the Vermont Storm water Program and follow the requirementsin the Vermont Storm water Management Manual. The Storm waterManagement Manual is available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htm*An impervious surface is a manmade surface, including, butnot limited to, paved and unpaved roads, parking areas, roofs,driveways, and walkways, from which precipitation runs off ratherthan infiltrates.8. Stabilize Exposed SoilPurpose:Seeding and mulching, applying erosion control matting, andhydroseeding are all methods to stabilize exposed soil. Mulches andmatting protect the soil surface while grass is establishing.Requirements:All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilizationwithin 7, 14, or 21 days of initial disturbance, as stated in the projectauthorization. After this time, any disturbance in the area must bestabilized at the end of each work day.The following exceptions apply:Stabilization is not required if earthwork is to continue in the areawithin the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast forthe next 24 hours.Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in aself-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet orgreater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches).All areas of disturbance must have permanent stabilization within 48hours of reaching final grade.How to comply:Prepare bare soil for seeding by grading the top 3 to 6 inches of soil andremoving any large rocks or debris.Seeding Rates for Temporary StabilizationApril 15 - Sept. 15 --- Ryegrass (annual or perennial: 20 lbs/acre)Sept. 15 - April 15 --- Winter rye: 120 lbs/acreSeeding Rates for Final Stabilization:ChooseMulching RatesApril 15 - Sept.15 -- Hay or Straw: 1 inch deep (1-2 bales/1000 s.f.)Sept.15 - April 15 -- Hay or Straw: 2 in. deep (2-4 bales/1000 s.f.)Erosion Control MattingAs per manufacturer's instructionsHydroseedAs per manufacturer's instructions9. Winter StabilizationPurpose:Managing construction sites to minimize erosion and prevent sedimentloading of waters is a year-round challenge. In Vermont, this challengebecomes even greater during the late fall, winter, and early springmonths.'Winter construction' as discussed here, describes the period betweenOctober 15 and April 15, when erosion prevention and sediment controlis significantly more difficult.Rains in late fall, thaws throughout the winter, and spring melt and rainscan produce significant flows over frozen and saturated ground, greatlyincreasing the potential for erosion.Requirements for Winter Shutdown:For those projects that will complete earth disturbance activities prior tothe winter period (October 15), the following requirements must beadhered to:1. For areas to be stabilized by vegetation, seeding shall be completedno later than September 15 to ensure adequate growth and cover.2. If seeding is not completed by September 15, additionalnon-vegetative protection must be used to stabilize the site for thewinter period. This includes use of Erosion Control Matting or nettingof a heavy mulch layer. Seeding with winter rye is recommended toallow for early germination during wet spring conditions.3. Where mulch is specified, apply roughly 2 inches with an 80-90%cover. Mulch should be tracked in or stabilized with netting in openareas vulnerable to wind.Requirements for Winter ConstructionIf construction activities involving earth disturbance continue pastOctober 15 or begin before April 15, the following requirements must beadhered to:1. Enlarged access points, stabilized to provide for snow stockpiling.2. Limits of disturbance moved or replaced to reflect boundary of winterwork.3. A snow management plan prepared with adequate storage andcontrol of meltwater, requiring cleared snow to be stored down slopeof all areas of disturbance and out of storm water treatment structures.4. A minimum 25 foot buffer shall be maintained from perimeter controlssuch as silt fence.5. In areas of disturbance that drain to a water body within 100 feet, tworows of silt fence must be installed along the contour.6. Drainage structures must be kept open and free of snow and icedams.7. Silt fence and other practices requiring earth disturbance must beinstalled ahead of frozen ground.8. Mulch used for temporary stabilization must be applied at double thestandard rate, or a minimum of 3 inches with an 80-90% cover.9. To ensure cover of disturbed soil in advance of a melt event, areas ofdisturbed soil must be stabilized at the end of each work day, with thefollowing exceptions: If no precipitation within 24 hours is forecast and work will resumein the same disturbed area within 24 hours, daily stabilization is notnecessary. Disturbed areas that collect and retain runoff, such as housefoundations or open utility trenches.10. Prior to stabilization, snow or ice must be removed to less than 1inch thickness.11. Use stone to stabilize areas such as the perimeter of buildingsunder construction or where construction vehicle traffic is anticipated.Stone paths should be 10 to 20 feet wide to accommodate vehiculartraffic.10. Stabilize Soil at Final GradePurpose:Stabilizing the site with seed and mulch or erosion control matting whenit reaches final grade is the best way to prevent erosion whileconstruction continues.Requirements:Within 48 hours of final grading, the exposed soil must be seeded andmulched or covered with erosion control matting.How to comply:Bring the site or sections of the site to final grade as soon as possibleafter construction is completed. This will reduce the need for additionalsediment and erosion control measures and will reduce the totaldisturbed area.For seeding and mulching rates, follow the specifications under Rule 8,Stabilizing Exposed Soil.11. Dewatering ActivitiesPurpose:Treat water pumped from dewatering activities so that it is clear whenleaving the construction site.Requirements:Water from dewatering activities that flows off of the construction sitemust be clear. Water must not be pumped into storm sewers, lakes, orwetlands unless the water is clear.How to comply:Using sock filters or sediment filter bags on dewatering discharge hosesor pipes, discharge water into silt fence enclosures installed in vegetatedareas away from waterways. Remove accumulated sediment after thewater has dispersed and stabilize the area with seed and mulch.12. Inspect Your SitePurpose:Perform site inspections to ensure that all sediment and erosion controlpractices are functioning properly. Regular inspections and maintenanceof practices will help to reduce costs and protect water quality.Requirements:Inspect the site at least once every 7 days and after every rainfall orsnow melt that results in a discharge from the site. Perform maintenanceto ensure that practices are functioning according to the specificationsoutlined in this handbook.In the event of a noticeable sediment discharge from the constructionsite, you must take immediate action to inspect and maintain existingerosion prevention and sediment control practices. Any visiblydiscolored storm water runoff to waters of the State must be reported.Forms for reporting discharges are available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htmN.T.S.CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAILREVISED 08/01/2014E-002E-002 Constr FenceWOOD POST30"18"EXISTING GRADENATIVE MATERIALPLASTIC ORANGECONSTRUCTION FENCEREVISED 08/01/2014E-004E-004 Constr. Ent20' (6m) RROADWAYAASTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEN.T.S.12'. MIN.50' MIN.SECTION A-ADIVERSION RIDGE REQUIREDWHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2%ROADWAY2% OR GREATERSPILLWAYFILTER FABRICSANDBAGS ORCONTINUOUS BERM OFEQUIVALENT HEIGHTDIVERSION RIDGESUPPLY WATER TO WASHWHEELS IF NECESSARY2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSEAGGREGATE MIN. 8"(150mm) THICKPLAN VIEWNOTES:1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAYREQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TOTRAP SEDIMENT.2. WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY.3. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITHCRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENTBASIN.NOTE:USE SANDBAGS OR OTHERAPPROVED METHODS TOCHANNELIZE RUNOFF TOBASIN AS REQUIREDREVISED 08/01/2014E-003E-003 Silt FenceN.T.S.SILT FENCE DETAILNOTES:1. INSTALL MIRIFI ENVIROFENCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL OR AS DETAILED HEREIN.2. INSTALL SILT FENCES AT TOES OF ALL UNPROTECTED SLOPES AND AS PARALLEL TOCONTOURS AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FILLED OR UNPROTECTED SLOPESCREATED DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED ON THE FINALPLANS. CURVE THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UP INTO THE SLOPE. REMOVE SEDIMENTWHEN ACCUMULATED TO HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SILT FENCES ARE TO BEMAINTAINED UNTIL SLOPES ARE STABILIZED.3. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER, THEY SHALL BEOVERLAPPED BY 6", FOLDED AND STAPLED.10'10'2.5'METAL POST4 x 4 WOODPOST SPACING212 X 212 WOOD36" MIN.12" MIN.POST2"8"FILTER FABRIC TO BEMIRAFI 100X OR APPROVEDEQUALFILTER FABRIC TO BECLIPPED, BACKFILLED ANDTAMPED 8" BELOW GRADESTEEL OR WOOD STAKES(SEE CHART AT RIGHT)REVISED 08/01/2014E-005E-005 StockpileTEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAILN.T.S.TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHOR NETTINGSILT FENCE OR HAYBALES INSTALLED ONDOWN GRADIENT SIDEREVISED 08/01/2014E-007E-007 Infilt SectSILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAILN.T.S.2. ATTACH SILT FENCEAND EXTEND IT TOTHE TRENCH.3. STAPLE THE SILTFENCING TO THEEND POSTS.BACKFILL TRENCH.1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X8" TRENCH, SET POST DOWNSLOPE.ANGLE 10°UPSLOPE FORSTABILITY ANDSELF CLEANINGPOSTSSILTFENCE100°12"MIN.8"COMPACTEDBACKFILLP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:35 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 C5.0SITESPECIFICATIONSACESAVSAVACLNONE12165SEPT., 2015PLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:40 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ACENONEC5.1SITESPECIFICATIONSSAVSAVACL12165SEPT., 2015PLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:45 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ACENONEC5.2SITESPECIFICATIONSSAVSAVACL12165SEPT., 2015PLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:50 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ACENONEC5.3SITESPECIFICATIONSSAVSAVACL12165SEPT., 2015PLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:00:55 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ACENONEC5.4SITESPECIFICATIONSSAVSAVACL12165SEPT., 2015PLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:01:00 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ACENONEC5.5SITESPECIFICATIONSSAVSAVACL12165SEPT., 2015PLANNEDRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900 DORSETSTREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403900DORSETST., LLCP:\AutoCADD Projects\2012\12165\1-CADD Files-12165\Dwg\12165-Site Plan.dwg, 9/30/2015 4:01:05 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 City of South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 December 2015 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 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 7 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. 8 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-15-79. 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 _______________________________ Date City of South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 December 2015 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 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 7 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. 8 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-15-79. 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 _______________________________ Date