Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/03/2015 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 FEBRUARY 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 February 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking, B. Breslend ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Myers, D. Main, L. Michaels, A. Gill, S. Homsted, J. Jarvis, J. Beattie, A. Dery, A. Truax 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: No announcements were made. 4. Continued Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-11 of G. E. Healthcare to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive: Mr. Main advised that they do this every 10-15 years as required by their permit. The sediment goes to a licensed landfill. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #MS-14-11. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-14-60 of Technology Park Campus, LLC., to construct a 3-story 54,459 sq. ft. general office building, 88 Technology Park Way: Mr. Barritt reminded the board that there had been a traffic question. The Board now has a letter from Justin Rabidoux indicating the project will not create an undue influence on South Burlington traffic. Members were OK that they now have enough information. The applicant advised that they had commissioned Trudell to do a traffic study a few weeks ago, and the numbers supported their claim that there is less traffic than estimated. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-14-60. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously 6. Sketch plan application #SD-14-40 of CPA Partnership for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 76-unit congregate care facility and 24 multi-family units in three buildings. The amendment consists of constructing 24 multi-family units in three buildings, 635 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Gill said this is a 7.2 acre parcel near the corner of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. There are 2 existing uses: senior housing and a 24-unit apartment complex. There is a large front yard with parking and community gardens. There is density that is not being utilized, and the proposal is to add 24 one-bedroom apartments in three 2-story buildings. Parking would be hidden behind the buildings. They are hoping to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Michaels said they got a call from a neighbor regarding visibility of the buildings. He noted they would be visible now but not in the summer when the trees are in leaf. Mr. Michaels indicated which trees they propose to save. He also noted that the gardens that currently exist would be available to new residents, and they would add a garden in the back area. They also want an option to have a garden shed for storing gardening tools. There would be an access created so people from Country Park could exit their building and go to the garden. Mr. Gill said they are proposing 12 new parking spaces nearer to the building. This will result in the loss of some trees, but they will re-landscape. He noted that residents with disabilities have been saying it’s too far to walk from where they park to the building’s door. Mr. Barritt noted there is a sidewalk that goes all around the building. Mr. Michaels said this is maintained all winter. Ms. Smith questioned the necessity of the missing sidewalk to Hinesburg Road for the middle building. Mr. Michaels noted the bus stops there. Members supported this. Mr. Gill said their only waiver request is for the front yard setback. Members supported this. Mr. Barritt noted a request to reduce parking spaces by 4. Members had no problem with this. Mr. Gill showed options for placement of dumpsters or “totes.” There will be a new fence around the existing dumpster, which could be expanded. Mr. Gill then showed some preliminary elevations. Colors are not yet decided upon. Mr. Miller stressed the need for all elevations to be attractive because of visibility. Mr. Behr expressed concern that these buildings will come off as urban residential-commercial buildings as opposed to residential infill. Mr. Barritt agreed. Mr. Wilking felt they should stick with the style of buildings that already exist on the property. Ms. Jarvis, a resident of Foxcroft felt the parking lot will affect them the most. Mr. Gill said there are 32 spaces. Ms. Jarvis also asked when the stormwater treatment pond gets triggered. Mr. Homsted said most treatment will be in a swale and in a small pond near the entrance. Melting snow will also go into the drainage system. Mr. Gill showed potential locations for snow storage. Ms. Jarvis asked if the parking lot will be lighted. Mr. Michaels said the whole lighting plan will change to improve conditions for elderly residents. No lights will be added toward Foxcroft. They are planning for low fixtures, no pole lights in the back. Mr. Michaels reminded Foxcroft residents that there was a time before Foxcroft was built that people in Country Park enjoyed a view that is now gone. No other issues were raised. 7. Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-41 or SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide an undeveloped lot of 39.7 acres into four lots ranging in size from 3.0 acres to 29.1 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive: and 8. Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-42 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock construction for a planned unit development to construct two general office buildings of 18,500 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft., 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the staff had asked for a continuance of these two (2) applications to the next meeting due to the applicant not displaying the placard as required. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-41 and #SD-14-42 to 17 February 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-43 of F & M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street: The applicant was not present when this item was to be heard. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-43 to 17 February 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 20 January 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 20 January 2015 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:30 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #MS-14-11 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING G.E. HEALTHCARE – 40 IDX DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION The applicant, G. E. Healthcare, is seeking after-the-fact Miscellaneous Approval to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive. The Board held a public hearing on this application on January 6, 2015, January 20, 2015 and February 3, 2015. ______ represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. G. E. Healthcare, is seeking after-the-fact Miscellaneous Approval to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is IDX Systems Corporation. 3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 District. 4. The plan submitted consists of two (2) pages, page one is entitled “G.E. Healthcare Stormwater Detention Pond Pre & Post Excavation Bottom Pond Elevations,” dated Nov. 2014 and prepared by Stantec. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. #MS-14-11 2 The applicant has submitted detailed plans. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The work was completed in September 2014. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. No plan is required as the proposed action will restore the stormwater pond to its original design specifications. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The work was done to comply with a State Stormwater Permit. The Board finds that a bond is not necessary to assure compliance. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. No changes to the height of the stormwater pond features are proposed. DECISION Motion by __________________ seconded by ____________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-11 of GE Healthcare 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full effect. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer upon completion of the fill placement. 5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. #MS-14-11 3 Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Brian Breslend – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking- yea nay abstain not present Motion __________ by a vote of X– X – X Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 SOUTH - 1SOUTH - 2 & DUPLICATESOUTH - 3SOUTH - 4SOUTH - 5SOUTH - 6 ABCDEF1234SOUTH - 1 SOUTH - 2 & DUPLICATE SOUTH - 3 SOUTH - 4 SOUTH - 5 SOUTH - 6 A R C H I T E C T S W A G N E RO F F I C E O F H. K E I T HF R E E M A NF R E N C H F R E E M A N 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: SP-14-60 88 Technology Park Way DATE: February 3, 2015 Development Review Board meeting At the last hearing on the proposed building at 88 Technology Park Way, the only outstanding item for review related to traffic. The applicant has provided a traffic analysis dated January 14, 2015 enclosed. Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works, reviewed the analysis and provided the following comments on January 15, 2015. From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:49 PM To: Paul Conner Cc: Evan Langfeldt; Abby A. Dery, P.E.; Dan Albrecht Subject: 88 Tech Park Way - Traffic Study Paul, I have reviewed the traffic study for the proposed 54,459 square foot office building at 88 Technology Park Way, prepared on 1/14/15 by Trudell Consulting Engineers on behalf of the applicant, Technology Park Campus, LLC, and have the below comments to offer. 1. Growth Factor: I agree with the study’s use of no traffic growth factor for background traffic in the build year when projecting past year’s data forward into the study. In fact, recent work conducted by the City elsewhere has shown average annual daily traffic reductions, so using a zero growth factor is a proper, conservative way to best forecast this project’s traffic impacts. 2. Project Generated Traffic: I agree with the study’s methodology of using the existing, identical building to the west to arrive at a trip generation amount of 77 cars in the PM peak hour. This represents a more accurate measurement when compared to using the ITE Trip Generation Manual since the office building located at 124 Technology Park Way is a direct analog to the proposed use. The Manual, while appropriate to use in many cases when better alternatives are not available, gathers data from around the country and groups that data into sets of wide ranges with unknown variables. 3. Level of Service: When the City installed the referenced four-way stop sign at Kimball Avenue and Community Way a few years ago it was done in direct response to valid safety concerns. In doing so, it was a reasonable expectation that the new stop signs would result in mainline (Kimball Avenue) delays, 2 since the prior condition was mainline free flow. Accordingly, as I was then, I remain comfortable today with the intersection’s congestion and its level of service, which this project is estimated to lower from a D to an E. Ultimately, in the future the City will have to consider its transportation network in the greater Community Drive area (and possible connections to the Tilley Drive/Hinesburg Road area) if its build out continues and at that time plan for necessary traffic flow improvements. These improvements could be traffic signals, dual traffic circles at both Community Drive intersections, consideration of one- way street system, parallel service roads, etc. 4. Conclusion: I support the study’s conclusion that this project’s traffic will “negligibly impact the area’s traffic operations” and find further that this project will not result in undue, adverse impacts on South Burlington’s transportation network. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of South Burlington Recommendation: The Board should review the information provided by the applicant and Director of Public Works and should close the site plan application once it is satisfied. No other outstanding items remain. Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers 1 January 14, 2015 Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: 88 Technology Park Way Traffic Impact Dear DRB: Technology Park Campus, LLC is seeking approval for a new building with 54,459 square feet of office space and 200 employees to be located on Lot 3 in Technology Park, or 88 Technology Park Way. The private Technology Park Way intersects Community Drive East, a public street, approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Kimball Avenue, Gregory Drive, and Community Drive East. The purpose of this report is to analyze the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed project. Included are an analysis of the Tech Park Way/Community Dr. East intersection, and an analysis of the Kimball Ave/Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr. intersection, as an excess of 75 PM peak hour trips are anticipated to route through the intersection. Existing Conditions Background traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed project were determined using data from Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) stations. The following table contains the ATR station number and the corresponding annual average daily traffic (AADT) in vehicles per day (vpd) for the most recent year that a count has taken place. Figure 2 is a map of the physical locations of each ATR. D450 D451 SOBR60 D412 SOBR56 Figure 2: ATR Station Locations N Figure 1: Location Map Kimball Ave Tech Park Way 2 Table 1: AADT at ATR Stations ATR Year AADT Location D412 2004 9,500 vpd Kimball Ave, just east of Community Dr. East 2009 9,700 vpd D451 2005 7,700 vpd Kimball Ave, between Shunpike and Comm. West 2013 9,800 vpd D450 2005 11,300 vpd Kimball Ave, west of Community Drive West 2013 10,600 vpd SOBR56 2003 1,600 vpd Gregory Drive SOBR 60 2003 830 vpd Shunpike Dr. 2008 700 vpd Traffic growth rates within the study area over the past 10-years, as determined from historic data at local VTrans and CCRPC Automatic Traffic Recording Stations (ATR), vary station to station. Overall, per VTrans Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis (2013), traffic growth on urban roadways has leveled, so no growth factor was applied to project to a future build year. Trudell Consulting Engineers performed a manual Turning Movement Count (TMC) at the Community East & Kimball Avenue intersection on 12/5/2014 to determine the background traffic distribution. The overall PM peak hour for the study is from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Turning movement short counts are generally adjusted to correspond to the design hour volume (DHV) for each intersection approach using VTrans’ DHV Determination Based on AADTs and Highway Class-General Highway. Approach volumes exceeded the calculated DHV, and therefore an adjustment factor was applied to the short count volumes. Technology Park Way is a private street. Both Community Drive and Kimball Avenue are public roads under the jurisdiction of the City of South Burlington. Existing traffic generators within Technology Park are 124 Tech Park Way: a 54,459 square foot commercial building, 30 Community Drive: a 275,000 commercial complex, and a 65,000 sq. ft. commercial building located at 55 Community Drive. Traffic from these properties was captured during the recent turning movement count. Project Generated Traffic Project-generated traffic for the proposed office building was determined using a local trip generation rate developed for the site. Peak hour traffic data was collected from the existing 54,459 sq. ft. office building located at 124 Tech Park Way for a period of one work week. The peak hour trips generated ranged from 69 trips to 90 trips, the average being 77. Distribution is expected to be 7 vehicles entering and 70 vehicles exiting. Table 2: PM Peak Hour Project-Generated Traffic Enter Exit Total enter%exit% 5-Jan-15 7 83 90 8%92% 6-Jan-15 6 66 72 8%92% 7-Jan-15 8 72 80 10%90% 8-Jan-15 5 66 71 7%93% 9-Jan-15 3 66 69 4%96% Avg 77 8%92% 3 It is anticipated that the new building, being identical in size and use, will generate roughly the same level of peak hour traffic. Employing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies reduces the peak hour volume of project-generated trips. Encouraging carpools, transit use, allowing alternative work schedules or staggered scheduling would contribute to a reduction in trips. The building is sited on a bus route – accessible both via Community Drive and Kimball Avenue. Additionally, there is an existing shared-use path along the property’s frontage. This infrastructure encourages alternative transportation modes and will also result in fewer peak hour trips. Traffic Distribution Distribution of vehicle trips from project-generated traffic was determined using analogy to the short count. Given the short distance between Technology Park Way and the Kimball Ave/Community Drive East intersection, it is assumed that most, if not all, vehicles will access the site via Community East. The diagrams below illustrate the estimated turning movement distribution at the study intersections. Gregory Drive 1 Kimball Ave. 4 Kimball Ave. 2 33 5 32 7 70 Community Drive East N 70 7 Technology Park Way Figure 3: Project-Generated Trip Distribution 4 Level of Service Vehicle delay, level of service (LOS), volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio), and 95th percentile queue length were calculated at the intersections using Synchro8 w/ 2010 HCM methodology. A peak hour factor of 1.0 with a 60 minute analysis period was used, as recommended by VTrans. Level of service grades correspond directly to a range of vehicular delay at intersection approaches. The following table describes the delay range, in seconds per vehicle, for each grade of LOS. Table 3: Level of Service Descriptions -Unsignalized Level of Service Control Delay A < 10 B >10 and < 15 C >15 and <25 D >25 and <35 E >35 and <50 F >50 The table below shows the results of the analysis for Technology Park Way and Community Drive. As indicated in the tables, the intersection has adequate capacity for the addition of project-generated traffic. Level of service on the stop controlled side street remains a B under “Build” conditions and there will be no change to delay on Community Drive. Table 4: Intersection Analysis – Technology Park Way/Community Dr. 2015 No-Build 2015 Build Approach Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Approach Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Eastbound 10.9 B 0.106 0.4 11.8 B 0.211 0.8 Northbound 7.4 A 0.001 0 7.4 A 0.001 0 The nearby intersection of Kimball Avenue and Community Drive was also analyzed to determine existing operations as well as impact of new trips. This intersection currently experiences delays on the westbound approach nearing the 50-second threshold for Level of Service “F” during the peak hour. The 4-way stop, while increasing safety, greatly reduces capacity on Kimball Avenue which experiences at least twice the traffic volume of Community East and Gregory Drive during the peak hour. Per the analysis results, with or without traffic from the proposed project, the intersection experiences peak hour delay and queues at the east and westbound approaches. Overall intersection delay is 32.5, or a “D”. The addition of project-generated traffic will increase delay by 7 seconds to 39.5 s, or an “E”. 5 Table 5: Intersection Analysis –Kimball Avenue/ Community Dr. East 2015 No-Build 2015 Build Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Overall Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Overall EB 31.9 D 0.781 9 32.5 s “D” 38.9 E 0.820 10.8 39.5 s “E” WB 50 E 0.876 14.5 65.3 F 0.917 17.5 NB 15.1 C 0.368 1.7 17.3 C 0.454 2.5 SB 15.5 C 0.334 1.5 16.6 C 0.354 1.6 Table 6: Net Change Summary Delay Queue Overall Eastbound +7 sec delay + 1.8 veh +7 s delay Westbound +15.3 sec delay +3 veh Northbound +2.2 sec delay +0.8 veh Southbound +1.1 sec delay +0.1 veh Safety The installation of stop control on Kimball Avenue reduced capacity significantly. However, the crash severity is reduced and safety increased by not allowing free- flowing traffic on Kimball Avenue. A review of the VTrans High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2008-2012 indicates that the intersection of Kimball and Community Drive is not a High Crash Location. Conclusion The proposed 54,459 sq. ft. office building located at 88 Technology Park Way will generate approximately 70 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips, based on a local trip generation rate. Traffic operations at the Technology Park Way/ Community Drive intersection are negligibly impacted by the proposed project. An analysis of the nearby intersection of Kimball Avenue & Community Drive East indicates that the 4-way stop controlled intersection does currently experience delay and queueing on the east and westbound approaches. The addition of project- generated traffic to the intersection will incrementally increases delay and queueing, but will not significantly change the overall level of operation of the intersection. New trips account for approximately 5% of total traffic entering the intersection. 6 Infrastructure is in place to encourage alternative commuting options and employing additional TDM strategies such as carpools and staggered scheduling will contribute to fewer peak hour trips. The City of South Burlington is working with the Regional Planning Commission on extending the shared use path into Williston to the east. Technology Park Campus will continue to work with the City of South Burlington on monitoring the intersection and future traffic improvement projects. Sincerely, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE) Abigail Dery, P.E. Project Engineer Encl. HCM Analysis Summary cc. Evan Langfeldt HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM No-Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 32.5 Intersection LOS D Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 45 361 25 0 38 425 15 0 156 28 143 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 45 361 25 0 38 425 15 0 156 28 143 Number of Lanes 011001100110 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 31.9 50 15.1 HCM LOS D E C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 29% Vol Thru, % 0% 16% 0% 94% 0% 97% 7% Vol Right, % 0% 84% 0% 6% 0% 3% 64% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 156 171 45 386 38 440 145 LT Vol 156 0 45 0 38 0 42 Through Vol 0 28 0 361 0 425 10 RT Vol 0 143 0 25 0 15 93 Lane Flow Rate 156 171 45 386 38 440 145 Geometry Grp 7777776 Degree of Util (X) 0.366 0.348 0.098 0.778 0.081 0.877 0.336 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.444 7.326 7.818 7.257 7.717 7.179 8.343 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 424 487 456 494 462 502 434 Service Time 6.238 5.119 5.608 5.047 5.505 4.967 6.343 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.368 0.351 0.099 0.781 0.082 0.876 0.334 HCM Control Delay 16.1 14.1 11.5 34.3 11.2 53.3 15.5 HCM Lane LOS C B B D B F C HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 1.6 0.3 9 0.3 14.5 1.5 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM No-Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 42 10 93 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 Mvmt Flow 0 42 10 93 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 15.5 HCM LOS C Lane HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 39.5 Intersection LOS E Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 45 361 27 0 42 425 15 0 189 33 175 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 45 361 27 0 42 425 15 0 189 33 175 Number of Lanes 011001100110 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 38.9 65.3 17.3 HCM LOS E F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 29% Vol Thru, % 0% 16% 0% 93% 0% 97% 8% Vol Right, % 0% 84% 0% 7% 0% 3% 64% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 208 45 388 42 440 146 LT Vol 189 0 45 0 42 0 42 Through Vol 0 33 0 361 0 425 11 RT Vol 0 175 0 27 0 15 93 Lane Flow Rate 189 208 45 388 42 440 146 Geometry Grp 7777776 Degree of Util (X) 0.456 0.437 0.102 0.818 0.094 0.917 0.355 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.695 7.57 8.283 7.716 8.168 7.628 8.745 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 416 478 435 473 441 480 413 Service Time 6.406 5.281 5.983 5.416 5.868 5.328 6.759 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.454 0.435 0.103 0.82 0.095 0.917 0.354 HCM Control Delay 18.7 16.1 11.9 42 11.7 70.4 16.6 HCM Lane LOS C C B E B F C HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 2.3 0.3 10.8 0.3 17.5 1.6 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 42 11 93 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 Mvmt Flow 0 42 11 93 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 16.6 HCM LOS C Lane VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATIONPolicy, Planning and Intermodal Development DivisionTraffic Research UnitBEGINNING REFERENCE: ENDING REFERENCE:Scheduled TYPE NO. NAME FC TOWNMM NAMENUMBER MM NAMENUMBERATR2005AADT2009AADT2013AADTFAU 5715 HINESBURG ROAD 16 SHELBURNE0.000 HINESBURG TL0.910 DORSET ST EXT FAU 57102300 A 2200 A 2400 EFAU 5716 IRISH HILL RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 THOMPSON RD TH 13 0.480SPEAR STFAU 57207500 E 4500 E 4700 EFAU 5716 IRISH HILL RD16 SHELBURNE0.480 SPEAR STFAU 5720 1.560 DORSET STFAU 5710 D343 4400 E 2800 A 3500 AFAU 5718 MARSETT RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 SHELBURNE RD US 7 0.350 FALLS RDFAU 57124700 E 4400 E 4400 EFAU 5720SPEAR ST17 SHELBURNE0.000 CHARLOTTE TL0.390 THOMAS STFAU 57211800 E 1800 E 1900 EFAU 5720SPEAR ST16 SHELBURNE0.390 IRISH HILL RDFAU 5716 1.640 WEBSTER RDFAU 5722 D034 5800 A 3500 A 4100 AFAU 5720SPEAR ST16 SHELBURNE1.640 WEBSTER RDFAU 5722 2.890 BARSTOW RDFAU 5702 D2494900 EFAU 5720SPEAR ST16 SHELBURNE2.890 BARSTOW RDFAU 5702 3.420 S BURLINGTON CLD454 9300 A 5500 A 6100 A(CONTINUES AS FAU 5222)FAU 5721 THOMAS RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 FALLS RDFAU 5712 1.090SPEAR STFAU 5720510 E 650 E 410 EFAU 5722 WEBSTER RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 SHELBURNE RD US 7 1.210SPEAR STFAU 5720 D550 4500 A 2600 A 2700 AFAU 5202 AIRPORT DR16 S BURLINGTON0.000 WILLISTON RDUS 2 0.110 AIRPORT RDTH 89200 E 9400 E 9600 EFAU 5202 AIRPORT DR16 S BURLINGTON0.110 AIRPORT RDTH 8 0.410 ELIZABETH STTH 58 D218 9800 A 9900 A 9900 EFAU 5202 AIRPORT DR16 S BURLINGTON0.410 ELIZABETH STTH 58 0.680 WHITE STFAU 5226 D333 6200 A 6300 A 5700 AFAU 5206 AIRPORT PKWY16 S BURLINGTON0.000 WHITE STFAU 5226 0.380 KIRBY RDFAU 52128000 E 6700 E 7700 EFAU 5206 AIRPORT PKWY16 S BURLINGTON0.380 KIRBY RDFAU 5212 1.390 ETHAN ALLEN DRTH 37 D331 7900 A 6400 A 7400 AFAU 5206 AIRPORT PKWY16 S BURLINGTON1.390 ETHAN ALLEN DR TH 37 1.720 COLCHESTER TLD259 7800 A 7300 A 7300 E(CONTINUES AS FAU 5602)FAU 5207 ALLEN RD17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHELBURNE RD US 7 0.810SPEAR STFAU 5222 D425 4000 A 4100 A 4800 A(BEGINS AS FAU 5708)FAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHELBURNE TL2.300 SWIFT STFAU 5224 D344 5500 A 5000 A 6300 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON2.300 SWIFT STFAU 5224 2.970 KENNEDY DRFAU 9998 D226 10500 A 9200 A 9200 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON2.970 KENNEDY DRFAU 9998 3.710 U-MALL SOUTHD335 14700 A 12500 A 13700 AFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON3.710 U-MALL SOUTH3.853 U-MALL NORTH/MARKET ST FAU 522815500 A 13400 A 12800 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON3.853 U-MALL NORTH/MARKETFAU 5228 3.990 100 DORSET/CHITT. BANK 23200 E 16600 E 15600 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON3.990 100 DORSET/CHITT. BANK 4.110 WILLISTON RDUS 2 D225 24300 E 14100 E 17500 A(BEGINS AS FAU 5706)FAU 5209 CHEESEFACTORY RD 17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHELBURNE TL0.790 HINESBURG RDVT 116 D067 3900 A 3000 A 3400 AFAU 5211 KIMBALL AVE 17 S BURLINGTON0.000 OLD FARM RDTH 9 0.610 COMMUNITY DRTH 199 D450 11300 A 9800 A 10600 AFAU 5211 KIMBALL AVE 17 S BURLINGTON0.610 COMMUNITY DR TH 199 0.770 SHUNPIKE RDTH 13 D451 7700 A 7400 A 9800 AFAU 5214 KIMBALL AVE 17S BURLINGTON0.000 OLD FARM RD0.050 KENNEDY DR11300 A 11000 E 9900 EFAU 5216 PATCHEN RD17 S BURLINGTON0.000 WILLISTON RDUS 2 0.090 WHITE STFAU 52266300 E 6700 E 6700 EFAU 5216 PATCHEN RD17 S BURLINGTON0.090 WHITE STFAU 5226 1.120 BURLINGTON CLD332 7100 A 6000 A 6700 A(CONTINUES AS FAU 5018)FAU 5220 KIMBALL AVE 17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHUNPIKE RDTH 13 0.230 WILLISTON TLD412 10700 A 8700 A 8700 EPage 17 of 21 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUD amend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 30, 2015 Plans received: December 23, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-40 CPA PARTNERSHIP – 635 HINESBURG ROAD Agenda # 6 Meeting Date: February 3, 2015 Applicant CPA Partnership 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Owners Same as applicant Contact Person Andrew Gill Same as above (802) 658-5000 Andrew@obrienbrothersagency.com Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-40 of CPA Partnership for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 76 unit congregate care facility and 24 multi-family units in three (3) buildings. The amendment consists of constructing 24 multi-family units in three (3) buildings, 635 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 23, 2014 and offer the following comments: Overall, staff feels that the proposed project is an infill project that makes efficient use of land and better frames Hinesburg Road. Applicant is proposing to have operable doors facing the Hinesburg Road sidewalk. ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS Table 1a. Dimensional Requirements R-7 Zoning District Maximum allowed (Commercial) Existing Congregate Care Facility (Commercial)  Residential Density  Max. Building Coverage 40 % 27.0 %  Max. Overall Coverage 60 % 59.0 %  Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Rd.) 50 ft. > 50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft.  Max Building Height 25 ft. (flat) < 25 ft.  Zoning compliance Table 1b. Dimensional Requirements R-7 Zoning District Maximum allowed (Residential) Proposed Residential  Residential Density 7 units/acre 6.6 units/acre  Max. Building Coverage 20 % 14.6 %  Max. Overall Coverage 40 % 35.4 % * Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Rd.) 57 ft. 30 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft.  Max Building Height 25 ft. (flat) < 25 ft.  Zoning compliance * Waiver requested There are two (2) charts because there are different dimensional standards for residential & nonresidential uses. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc 1. The Board should discuss the applicant’s request for a waiver of 27 ft. to reduce the setback to 30 ft. from the 57 ft. required setback along Hinesburg Road. Staff supports the setback waiver because this configuration promotes better pedestrian connectivity and makes more efficient use of the undeveloped portion of this property. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1). Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13 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. The City of South Burlington Water Department shall review the plans for the subject project, prior to preliminary plat approval. 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 shall review the plans prior to preliminary plat approval. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval and final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (A)(2). Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The applicant shall include sufficient site grading and erosion control plans as part of the preliminary plat application. 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. (A)(3). The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project will utilize an existing access drive. This access drive has a dedicated right-turn entry lane on Hinesburg Road. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc There are no unique natural features on the site. There are no impact resources identified in the Open Space Strategy. (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 applicant has not submitted building elevations so staff cannot make an assessment at this time. (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 significant open spaces on adjoining parcels. There are no nearby stream buffer areas. (A)(7). The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The SBFD Chief has some concern with regards to egress from the property for a fire engine and the need for installation of an additional fire hydrant. The Fire Chief will review the plans at preliminary plat review. (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 project will connect to existing water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure and will not impact the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. (A)(9). Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Staff notes that the applicant should investigate if it can include a sidewalk for building #2 to connect to the sidewalk along Hinesburg Road. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (A)(10). The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff considers the project to be in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 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: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc B. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Forty-four (44) new parking spaces are proposed for the site. This is four (4) spaces short of the 48 spaces required due to the standard of 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 4 spaces and argues that it can be supported based upon its experience with rental property management, the fact that the 24 new apartments will be 1-bedrooom units and that the property is serviced by a CCTA bus which turns around in the property’s parking lot. Staff considers the proposed waiver request to be reasonable. 2. The Board should discuss the applicant’s requested waiver of four (4) spaces or 8.33% to the required 48 spaces. This project promotes safe pedestrian movement due to the orientation of the buildings which in turn supports the use of the Hinesburg Road sidewalk. This project accomplishes a desirable transition from structure to structure as this is an infill project and will be os a similar scale, hiding a portion of the existing parking. Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: B. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. This requirement is met. (b) ….. (c) …. (d) …. Section 13.01(G) (5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. No bicycle racks are shown on the plans. The applicant should detail the location of a bike rack(s) with its submission for preliminary plat review. B.(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The applicant has not provided building elevations so staff cannot make a formal comment at this time. B. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc C. (1) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The applicant should submit architectural details, building elevations and a landscaping plan with the preliminary plat plans. C. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant should submit architectural details, building elevations and a landscaping plan with the preliminary plat plans. 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 feels the reservation of additional land is not warranted to provide an additional access to an adjoining property. 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). Although the existing dumpster enclosure along the back edge of the property is proposed to be reconstructed, no new dumpster or trash and recycling tote storage area is included to serve the proposed 24 rental units despite the substantial distance of these new units from the existing dumpster location. The applicant should detail a location of new trash and recycling facilities to serve the proposed 24 rental units with its preliminary plat submission. D. Landscaping and Screening 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. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc 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. The applicant should submit a landscape plan and budget in compliance with Section 13.06 of the SBLDR as part of the preliminary plat plan application. The applicant should submit estimated construction costs with the preliminary plat application, so that the exact minimum landscaping requirement can be determined. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. No snow storage areas are delineated. 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. The applicant should submit a point-by-point lighting plan and cut sheets for the proposed light fixtures with its preliminary plat application. Other The sketch plan should be revised to correctly label (a) the Congregate Care facility as Congregate Care facility rather than as “existing apartment building” and (b) correctly label the three garages at the western corner of the property as Garages rather than “carport” or “existing carport.” The preliminary plat plans should show all ground mounted HVAC units, generators, and utility cabinets. The applicant is proposing to formalize and add additional community garden space. Phasing The applicant should provide information as to the proposed dates of construction and/or phasing for the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board address the comments noted above especially those in red, italicized and numbered. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_40_635HinesburgRoad_CPA_Partnership_PUDamend_3_apartment_buildings_sketch.doc ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Andrew Gill, O’Brien Brothers Agency 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: Agenda #7, Application #SD-14-41 DATE: January 30, 2015 Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-41 of SBRC Properties, LLC to subdivide an undeveloped lot of 39.7 acres into four (4) lots ranging in size from 3.0 acres to 29.1 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive. The applicant did not pick up the placard to be displayed on the property in time to provide the required 15 day public notice. Staff therefore recommends the Board continue this application to the next meeting scheduled for February 17th. 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: Agenda #8, Application #SD-14-42 DATE: January 30, 2015 Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-42 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction for a planned unit development to construct two (2) general office buildings of 18,500 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft., 284 Meadowland Drive. The applicant did not pick up the placard to be displayed on the property in time to provide the required 15 day public notice. Staff therefore recommends the Board continue this application to the next meeting scheduled for February 17th. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_43_F+MDevelopment_25BaconSt_PUDamend_ sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 30, 2015 Plans received: December 30, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-43 O’DELL PARKWAY PUD Agenda # 6 Meeting Date: February 3, 2015 Applicant F&M Development Corporation LLC PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Owners O’Dell Parkway PUD Association, Inc. c/o PO Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_43_F+MDevelopment_25BaconSt_PUDamend_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-43 of F + M Development Co., LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight (8) buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four (4) foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street. This is a resubmission of sketch plan application #SD-14-06 (discussed by the DRB on April 15, 2014) as the applicant did not submit a Preliminary Plat application within 6 months of sketch plan review. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 30, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: No new construction is proposed here, so there should be no change to any of the overall dimensional requirements in this PUD as previously approved. The boundary line adjustment between lots 1 and 10 may alter various setbacks, or coverage or greenspace percentages previously calculated, for these individual lots. All the lots within this PUD are substandard and were approved as a whole with a Notice of Conditions recorded which indicates that for the purposes of the Land Development Regulations, all lots are to be treated as one (1) lot. If this project is approved, a new Notice of Conditions would have to be recorded. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_43_F+MDevelopment_25BaconSt_PUDamend_sketch.doc (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). All the above criteria are being met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) … (ii) … (iii) … (iv) …. (v) … (vi) … . (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_43_F+MDevelopment_25BaconSt_PUDamend_sketch.doc alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No changes are proposed to driveways, parking, structures, or other significant aspects of the overall PUD. Other than the lot line adjustment described above, the proposed site changes (see especially page #7 of the Plans labeled “Proposed Landscape Plan Including Berm Tree Removal 08/27/2014”) and include: a. Remove a 4’ tall fence on top of the landscape berm on lot #10 that was required in prior approvals. The applicant argues that the plantings have matured such that the fence (which has also deteriorated) is completely screened. The applicant has included a copy of an August 20, 2014 email from Frank Kochman whose home abuts the property. b. Reduce in size the community garden area on lot #1, which applicant states has not been used by the residents. The 2009 approved plan for this area (see packet for partial plan labeled Exhibit 1) showed a community garden area with 11 raised planting beds. The applicant is proposing to reduce the area of the garden to now accommodate four (4) smaller raised beds and to designate the remaining area as a “dog park”. Staff notes the May 2012 Google earth photo shown above and the applicant’s “As-Built Landscape Plan” dated 06/29/2013 show that the originally-approved 11 raised garden beds appear to have never been installed. Therefore it makes it a challenge to assess the applicant’s claim that the community garden area has not been utilized by the residents at Bacon Street Lofts which has 42 units. It should be noted that the area previously approved for the community gardens and the area now proposed for the “dog park” and a few raised beds remains the same size. 1. The Board should discuss the appropriateness of reducing the size of the originally approved community garden area as well as designating a portion of this area for a “dog park”. c. Modify landscape plantings on lots 1 and 10. d. Install three benches on lot #10. e. Remove dead trees and thin out maturing trees on Lot 10 that. Staff has no objections to items c. – e. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_43_F+MDevelopment_25BaconSt_PUDamend_sketch.doc Staff recommends that the applicant consult with the City Arborist prior to submission of a Preliminary and Final Plat application. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through preliminary and final review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Eric Farrell, F&M Development Development Review Board 1/20/15 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on 20 January 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Bouchard, C. Thabault, C. Snyder, B. Gilbert, M. Scollins, S. Dopp, P. Walcott, S. Fahim, J. Pidgeon, D. Rice, S. Swanson, C. Franzoni, L. Barfod, M. Sheeran, J. Desautels 1. Additions, deletions or changes to order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Design Review Application #DR-14-11 of So. Burlington Realty Co., LLC, for an initial Master Signage Permit for new signage, 60 San Remo Drive: Mr. Thabault showed a picture of the proposed sign. He noted that Glidden Paints is now PPG Paints. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-14-11. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-11 of G. E. Healthcare to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MS-14-11 until 3 February 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project Development Review Board 1/20/15 2 consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder said they propose to build 27 town house units and 23 carriage house units. The latter have a smaller footprint and are one story with an option to continue to the attic and/or basement. Mr. Snyder then showed the location of these units on the plan. The town homes have garages in front, but they are set back at least 8 feet. Entrances for the end units are on the side. Every unit has a private entrance. Lots 25, 26 and 27 are single family homes. They have created bends in the road to Vale Drive to slow traffic down. A park is also proposed in that area. Mr. Barritt noted the proposed park is 1.5 acres, more than the minimum standard. He suggested the applicant talk with the Rec Path and Recreation Committees about what is appropriate for a park in this area. Mr. Snyder said this area is a receiver for TDRs, and they will be purchasing 24 TDRs for use here. Mr. Snyder asked whether it would be allowed to have garden space within the wetland buffer. Mr. Belair suggested he explore that with the state which oversees these issues. Mr. Barritt expressed concern with the rec path going along so many driveways. He felt this makes no sense and could be dangerous. The path along the boundary make more sense since the UVM adjacent property will one day have a change of use. Mr. Snyder said they moved it for privacy of the people in the carriage homes. They also had a concern from an abutter. Mr. Snyder said they would be agreeable to moving it back to where it was, if the Board wants it. Members agreed they want it back where it had been. Mr. Barritt said there had to be a way to cross Vale Drive near the middle. Mr. Barritt also said the applicant needs to talk with Public Works about the plans for the turn-around. It was noted that parking is not permitted in front of multi-family buildings. Mr. Snyder said they can break them up into 2-unit blocks, but that takes up more space and eliminates yards for people, which is a marketability concern. They would also rather not have another road in back. Mr. Barritt said they may have to sacrifice some density for that. Mr. Wilking agreed and said that is a regulation that’s hard to get around. Ms. Smith noted that on a previous application the Board asked for some kind of separation with Development Review Board 1/20/15 3 the double driveways. Members agreed. Mr. Barritt said the applicant will also have to provide a plan to delineate the wetland buffer from people’s property. With regard to phasing, Mr. Snyder said they are looking at a 2 or 3-year cycle. If the park is just left as open space, it can be left at an early time. Mr. Snyder said there will be a mix of housing types, similar to what is being done at South Pointe. They are proposing a minimum of 6 different plans between the two types of housing. All units will have full basements. Mr. Wilking questioned the wisdom of “building a rec path to nowhere” because when you get to Spear Street, there’s nothing there. He didn’t have a problem with just having an easement until there is a plan for the UVM property. Dr. Scollins said there is now a “de facto” rec path, which has gotten overgrown but is occasionally used by mountain bikers, cross country skiers and walkers. He felt what is proposed is “defensible.” Mr. Gilbert noted that Attorney Dan Seff has entered an appearance on behalf of a number of neighbors. He felt there will be issues with respect to the TDRs. Residents don’t believe the city’s TDR regulation is enforceable and that the DRB doesn’t have the power to allow them. He said the property is zoned for 31 single family homes, and neighbors feel that would work. Ms. Fahim expressed concerns with the safety of children on Vale Drive and asked that it be made as narrow as possible and have speed bumps and a speed limit sign. Mr. Walcott opposed Vale Drive being a through connection. Mr. Barritt noted this is on the city’s Official City Map. He felt most traffic would be only people who live there, and there could be a connection to the park which residents didn’t have before. Ms. Dopp also expressed concern with density. She asked if there has been thought to the orientation of roofs so as to be solar/solar ready. Mr. Barritt said the Board can suggest but not regulate that. Mr. Barritt noted that at a later date the Board may bring the TDR issue to the City Attorney. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-37 until 17 March 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Development Review Board 1/20/15 4 7. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-14-38 of Synergy Development, LLC, for a planned unit development to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three lots ranging in size from 0.75 acres to 2.12 acres, 1741 Spear Street: Ms. Desautels reviewed changes since the last review: 1. They met with the arborist and created a tree protection plan for specific trees 2. They have provided additional shrubs for screening along the south boundary on the east side 3. They have met with neighbors regarding stormwater concerns 4. They have made progress with open space and have some usable open space for homeowners and some conservation open space. A total of 42% of the parcel is open space. 5. There is a well-defined swale along the entire south boundary to convey stormwater and also a swale on the north side of the driveway. Water from the swales will go to a detention pond. They will provide new covers for storm basins so neighbors don’t have to keep raking leaves and debris during storms. Board members were OK with considering this a PUD. They were also OK with the setback waiver on Lot #1 to protect the trees as much as possible. Mr. Pidgeon then read the terms of the easements that were of interest to the Board. Ms. Desautels said they will accommodate the Fire Chief’s request for the gravel drive to be 15 feet wide as opposed to 12 feet. Homes will be sprinklered. Mr. Belair reminded the applicants that they need to submit names for private street to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Rice, a neighbor said he was very satisfied until the turn-around was discussed. He was concerned that the turnaround could upset natural drainage. Mr. Swanson echoed those concerns. Mr. Barritt said he hoped the Fire Chief would be able to negotiate if there is a stormwater concern. Another neighbor expressed concern with groundwater near the northwest corner. Ms. Desautels said there won’t be any additional water heading that way and won’t be doing any grading on that side of the property. Members were OK with anything approved by the Fire Chief and/or Stormwater Superintendent. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-38. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Development Review Board 1/20/15 5 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-39 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 4-story, 63-unit multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bouchard showed the common drive coming in from Route 7. They will be providing 126 parking spaces, 2 per unit. There is a bio-retention area in the middle of the parking lot. Stormwater from the roofs will be going into a retention pond and then into Bartlett Brook. Mr. Barritt noted the request for a 12-foot height waiver. Mr. Bouchard said half of that is for the elevator pent house. Each unit will have air conditioning capability. Units will consist of efficiencies, one and two-bedroom units. There will be an exercise room, downstairs lounge, pool, and basement storage units and bicycle maintenance area. Mr. Bouchard showed landscaping around the building and a barbecue area. Mr. Barritt suggested they check with the Stormwater Superintendent regarding handling of grease from the barbecue. Mr. Bouchard said they may put additional stormwater installations that will capture some stormwater from the adjacent property. They will be using the same light fixtures as the new office building on Shelburne Road. Pets will be allowed in the units, and there will be dog refuse stations. There will be balconies on the 3rd and 4th floors. Mr. Miller thought the building was most “unVermont” looking and asked why there are not pitched roofs. Mr. Bouchard said it is personal preference. Mr. Wilking was impressed with the amenities. Mr. Barritt asked to have the Board see pictures of elevations as seen from the road. Mr. Barritt asked if the building will be solar ready. Mr. Bouchard said the roof is already too heavy for that. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-39. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Development Review Board 1/20/15 6 9. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-14-60 of Technology Park Campus, LLC, to construct a 3-story 54,459 sq. ft. general office building, 88 Technology Park Way: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant asked to be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-60 to 3 February 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 16 December 2014 and 6 January 2015: The misspelling of a name was pointed out. In the minutes of 6 January 2015, it was noted that on p. 5, last item, both Mr. Miller and Mr. Behr voiced opinions on this. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 16 December 2014 and 6 January 2015 with the noted amendments. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: There was no other business brought to the Board. As there was no business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. _____________________________ Clerk _____________________________ Date