Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/06/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6 JANUARY 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 January 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, Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Brown, J. & H. Soren, C. Geske, T. Chittenden, D. Henson, D. Little, D. Burke, D. Heil, C. Snyder, K. Franklin, B. Rabinowitz, P. Kennedy, A. Rowe 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. 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 has asked to continue the application to a future meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MS-14-11 to 20 January 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-34 of The Snyder Construction Company, LLC, for a planned unit development on two parcels totaling 13.25 acres with lot #1 developed with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1) resubdividing lot #2 to increase its size to 9.96 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #1 to 3.29 acres, and 3) developing lot #1 with a four story, 65 unit, multi-family dwelling, 25 and 27 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Snyder showed a slide of the site with surrounding uses including both residential and commercial. The UVM Horticulture Farm is directly to the north. Another slide indicated how the proposed building has been rotated to make the most efficient use of the property. They can also utilize a shared parking system with existing parking. Mr. Snyder then showed the site plan. He said this was an “underutilized” property, and they feel the proposed plan is an “interesting fit.” It will allow people to walk to work or to take a walk in the woods. The only new infrastructure elements are a few new parking spaces and a trash building. There is access to the Route 7 corridor, rec paths and public transit. The proposal is for 65 apartments in the building with underneath parking. Apartments will vary from studio to 1 and 2 bedroom. There will be an exercise room, a nice lobby and outdoor space for residents’ use. Mr. Barritt noted the need for a height waiver to 52 feet and a parking space waiver of 14%. The Board had no issues with the waivers. Mr. Barritt noted there is a $34,000 shortfall of landscaping because the applicant is asking for credit for existing foliage. One alternative would be for the applicant to build a sidewalk on Green Mountain Drive. Mr. Snyder said they can increase the landscaping to equal the dollar amount or give the city money to utilize for a sidewalk on Green Mountain Drive. Mr. Rowe cited issues with the sidewalk, making it more expensive. Mr. Belair said he would look into whether it is possible for the applicant to give the city money. Mr. Rowe then showed the buffer between the trail and the building’s first floor. He also showed the stormwater collection system (infiltration trenches). Mr. Barritt asked if there will be any affordable component to the units. Mr. Snyder said not specifically, but there will be affordable housing, depending on which unit someone chooses. Mr. Barritt noted that Public Works was OK with the traffic study. He asked the applicant to address the Fire Chief’s items. Mr. Rowe said they are adjusting the location of the hydrants (he showed this on the plan) and eliminating a few parking spaces to facilitate turning of fire trucks. The parking spaces can be reclaimed in another location. Mr. Barritt asked about a pedestrian right-of-way. Mr. Belair indicated a possible location near the proposed private street. Mr. Snyder said they are already providing a sidewalk (or helping to do it). Mr. Barritt said this would be instead of that, a road connection. Mr. Snyder said there is already an easement for sewer, etc., and they can add this use to that easement. Mr. Barritt asked if there will be an electrical car-charging unit in the garage. Mr. Snyder said no, but there will be the potential for one. They also specifically explored roof-top solar and are looking at that across the board. Mr. Franklin, who works in the area, noted that parking next door is already at capacity. The upper lot is half full. He was concerned with how much of the commercial lot the applicant plans to use. Mr. Snyder said the uses will “flip‐flop,” with residents using the lot when the businesses are not open. Mr. Franklin also noted there is now a walking path from the lower parking lot that goes across the gully into the neighborhood to the east. He also cited the “incomplete” sidewalk making it necessary for people to walk in the street. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close SD-14-34. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-11 of Brad Rabinowitz to amend a previously approved plan to expand a single family footprint. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the landscaping plan, 2) raisin the elevation of the top of the wall at the edge of the patio, and 3) revising the driveway layout, 17 Twin Brook Court: Mr. Rabinowitz said there are some dead trees on the lake side that need to come down and another that is leaning toward the house. These will be replaced but not in the flood plain. They have a letter from the state saying it’s OK to take down the trees. The applicant also wants to add 18 inches to the seawall to make it usable for sitting. They have added planting on the north and south sides. They will be adding more parking and will need a permit from the state to do this. Mr. Rabinowitz said he thought this could be an administrative state approval because they are using permeable paving. They want to add an 8 inch curb (Mr. Rabinowitz indicated where) to control water between the house and the property line. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-14-11 until 17 February 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-35 of Donna Little to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two lots and two general office buildings. The amendment consists of: 1) reducing the size of the office building at 1037 Hinesburg Road from 3,640 sq. ft. to 2,730 sq. ft. and 2) constructing a 10,974 sq. ft. building for commercial kennel and pet day care use, 1035, 1037 and 1045 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Burke showed the location on the west side of Hinesburg Road below the interstate. It is a one-acre parcel. Mr. Burke identified the adjacent properties and reviewed the history of approvals. He noted that the Planning Commission has said the proposed use is permitted. All impacts will be less than what was previously planned. Mr. Burke then showed proposed parking that will be for 1037 Hinesburg Road to offset the loss of parking which is now on this parcel. “Happy Tails” will be a pet spa/boarding facility. It will include 2 small office areas. Mr. Burke showed the elevations and indicated the office areas. Chief Brent has asked for a hydrant, which they will provide. There was an issue with front yard calculation, and Mr. Burke said staff is correct. They are asking for a 39 foot setback, which requires a waiver from the 57-foot requirement. Mr. Burke said staff supports this waiver. Members were OK with it. Regarding parking, Mr. Burke said staff has said that for 1035 and 1037, they are 3 spaces shy and should request a waiver. Happy Tails is OK for parking. They have slid the parking area back so it is not in front of the Happy Tails building. Mr. Burke noted that in a preliminary meeting Public Works was OK with the plans. Regarding landscaping, they will keep the large silver maples and significant scotch pines, though some will be impacted. The requirement is for $19,000 in landscaping which, Mr. Burke felt, was “a lot of landscaping.” At present, they are $8500 short. He felt the value of the silver maple should equal that. Mr. Belair suggested having the arborist agree on a value for the trees, then assign credit. Mr. Burke said they will do that. There is a proposed 7-foot high solid vinyl fence, brown in color. Mr. Behr suggested they pull the fence back a few feet and have some landscaping on the property line. Mr. Burke said they want as much open area for dogs as possible. Mr. Behr asked the maximum number of dogs. Mr. Burke said 100, though they might not get that high for 18 months. Mr. Behr asked if they will all be outside at once. Ms. Little said they would be outside in ‘shifts,” 25 or so at a time. Mr. Burke then showed members some information on building materials, including trim on the windows facing the road. Members expressed concern with noise issues as this is becoming a heavily residential area with additional office uses. Mr. Wilking felt they would need to do something to mitigate noise. Mr. Burke suggested something on the back side of the building to absorb some of the sound. Mr. Behr said he would like to see some more architectural interest. Mr. Burke said their hope is to combine preliminary and final plats. Members were OK with the parking waiver. No other issues were raised. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-14-36 of Leon Brown for a planned unit development on a 0.37 acre lot developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) razing the existing single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a four-unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Henson showed the location of the property with the existing house and garage. Both will be removed. He also showed the location of a new driveway to the 4-unit condo building. Each unit will have a garage with a parking space in front of it. The proposed units will be 2 or 3 bedrooms. The unit facing Hinesburg Road will have a large covered porch. Other units will have smaller covered porches. Units will have 6'x12' decks, uncovered. Units can be entered from the garages. Mr. Henson showed the location of an enclosed dumpster. Mr. Wilking expressed concern with the setback. Mr. Henson noted that under T-3 (form based code), this is at the “build to” zone. Mr. Parsons asked about snow storage. Mr. Henson indicated a possible area for snow storage. They may have to remove it from the site. Mr. Henson then showed the route for the sewer. Each unit will have its own water meter. Mr. Miller thought this was a huge change to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Henson indicated that there are other multi-family buildings in the area with more coming. Mr. Miller and Mr. Behr said the Board should look carefully at architectural design. No other issues were raised. 9. Minutes of 4 March, 4 November, 2 & 16 December: Minutes were not available for approval. 10. 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 9:05 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstruc tionCompany_apartment_building DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 2, 2015 Application received: November 13, 2014 PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-34 THE SNYDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC – 25-27 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE Agenda # 5 Meeting Date: January 6, 2015 Applicant The Snyder Construction Company, LLC 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Contact Person Andrew Rowe Lamoreux & Dickinson Engineers 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 Owners The Stonehenge Investment Corporation, Inc. 1 Lawson Lane Burlington, VT 05402 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-14-16 of The Snyder Construction Company, LLC for a planned unit development on two (2) parcels totaling 13.25 acres with lot #1 developed with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1) resubdividing lot #2 to increase its size to 9.96 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #1 to 3.29 acres, and 3) developing lot #1 with a four (4) story 65 unit multi- family dwelling, 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on November 13, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Lot #1/Lot #2 Proposed Lot #1 Proposed Lot #2 *Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit residential, 40,000 sq. ft. other 3.70 / 9.55 acres 3.29 acres 9.96  Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% n.a. / 9.2% n.a. 11.2%  Max. Building Coverage 40% 0% / 4.3% 18.6% 4.2%  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 18.0% / 22.9% 40.7% 24.8%  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >50 ft. No change  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. >10 ft. No change  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. 47 ft. No change  Max. Building Height 40ft. (pitched roof) unknown 52 ft. No change  Zoning compliance  Requires a height waiver of 12 feet * The two (2) lots are being combined for purposes of the LDRs (i.e., density) and function as a single Planned Unit Development. Staff is comfortable with the proposed height waiver. The building will be located on the uphill side of the parcel adjacent to the woods and will not obscure any views. The proposed height waiver also facilitates a higher density of housing units on the parcel, lower overall lot coverage, and maintaining greater wooded areas. 1. The Board should discuss whether to grant the requested height waiver. Density In the C-2 District, up to seven (7) housing units per acre are permitted. The City does not allocate land area/development density for commercial buildings, and as a PUD, the entire 13.25 acres are allocable toward the residential density. This would allow a theoretical maximum of 92.75 dwelling units; 65 are proposed, well under that limit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. The proposed development is an “in-fill” type of development that makes use of the land which is currently being used for parking and some undeveloped land. It is also a mixed-use development that includes a shared parking arrangement, and a coordinated access with the adjacent office building. Staff considers this criterion to be met. B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. The lot onto which this new building will be constructed does not have frontage on a public street but will be served by a private right-of-way from Green Mountain Drive. The Public Works Director reviewed this access at sketch and found it to be acceptable. No new public street is recommended. C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. The existing private drive serving the existing office building will be shared with the new residential building; a new spur drive leads to that new building. Parking would be both new and revised to be shared between these lots and uses. The applicant has provided information calculating the legal requirements for parking under the LDRs for both uses; a shared parking analysis showing a reduced requirement based upon information from the Urban Land Institute; and then requests a further reduction/waiver as authorized in the LDRs. The basics are as follows: Required parking per LDRs: 147 spaces for 65 dwelling units + 170 spaces for 48,578 sq. ft. of office space = 317 parking spaces CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc Shared parking analysis: indicates a maximum need for 282 parking spaces Proposed parking is as follows: 64 garage spaces, 54 surface spaces for a total of 118 spaces for the residential apartment building plus 125 spaces for the existing commercial building. The total proposed parking is therefore 243 spaces a shortage of 39 spaces. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 39 spaces or 14%. Staff is comfortable with the proposed waiver as 37 of the 65 units will be one-bedroom units and the project is located near employment opportunities and the CCTA bus route on U.S. Route 7. 2. The Board should discuss whether to grant the requested minimum parking space waiver. Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. This criterion is not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to be consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (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. Staff believes that no parking is proposed to the front of the building as the front lot line faces west and the overall property’s public road frontage is on a separate lot and facing north. (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. There are other similarly large and tall structures in the vicinity. The applicant is seeking a 12 ft. height waiver from the 40 ft. height limit as noted on page 2. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The applicant has submitted plans detailing how they propose to meet this criterion. The Department of Public Works has reviewed and accepted these plans. This criterion is met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has submitted plans detailing how they propose to meet this criterion. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. A new 20 ft.-wide utility easement to the City is proposed. This easement serves only a new water service to the new building. This easement is not necessary because it is for a private water service and should be removed from the plan. Several other easements are already in place and new sidewalk is proposed along the northern perimeter of the parcel as well as extensions of and connections to a nearby walking trail. As noted in the applicant’s letter dated November 13, 2014, an easement plan will be prepared prior to construction to note easements and reciprocal rights between Lots 1 and 2. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Noted above. This criterion is met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant has provided detailed plans and elevations for a fully enclosed dumpster building. Staff considers this criterion to be met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan and budget. The City Arborist provided the following comments in an email to staff dated 12/17/14: “Overall the landscape plan looks good. My only recommendation is that a specification for the landscape planting mix that is called for in the planting details be included in the plan. 3. The Board should include a condition that the landscaping plans be amended to incorporate the City Arborist’s recommendations. Based upon proposed construction costs of $6,500,000 the required minimum landscaping value is $72,500. The value of the proposed trees and shrubs to be planted is $38,100 (the applicant’s proposal states $48,576 but incorrectly includes the value of perennials, ground cover and stormwater basin plantings). This leaves a shortfall of $34,400, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a portion of the stormwater plantings qualify as shrubs to count towards landscaping minimums. The applicant argues that they are entitled to a credit of $82,400 for the estimated value of the existing trees located east of the new multi-family building within the area of the understory clearing. Staff has concerns with the applicant’s argument. Notwithstanding the overall positive aspects of the project, it could set a problematic precedent were the Board to accept the applicant’s rationale. In the past, the Board has credited the preservation of existing trees where such trees are in prominent locations and/or where an applicant took special measures to design around specific trees. As shown on the site plan, construction of the new parking area and the building itself will require substantial clearing of vegetation. In addition, staff is concerned about the lack of substantial plantings along the southern side of the building given the topography and the project’s proximity to Bartlett Brook. That area will be heavily compacted by the time construction is complete such that rainfall will not be adequately absorbed even with plantings of tall grass. While the runoff would be caught and piped into the stormwater pond, given the sandy soils on site it would be best to handle as much runoff as possible using shrubs and/or a vegetated swale. Staff recommends that additional shrubs be planted in this area on the uphill side of the relocated trail. Given the unique situation of not having any sidewalk along Green Mountain Drive, however, staff offers that the applicant and Board may be able to meet any remaining landscape requirement for the construction of a sidewalk along Green Mountain Drive beyond the subject property’s boundary. 4. The Board should discuss the applicant’s request to include the value of existing trees as a credit towards meeting the landscaping budget, applying a credit for the shortfall towards the construction of a sidewalk further along the street than currently proposed, and also discuss whether additional plantings should be required. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. As noted above, one modification requested is a height waiver of 12 feet. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. Applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to submittal of a final plat. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Erosion control specifications and grading plans have been submitted with the application. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant is proposing to use an existing curb cut and driveway. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson dated November 6, 2014. The result for the year 2022 (five years after the anticipated 2017 construction) show an incremental increase in traffic between the build and no-build scenario with the overall Level of Service remaining at a “B.” The Department of Public Works provided its comments on this Assessment in an email to staff dated December 17, 2014 as follows: From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:58 AM CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc To: ray Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Study - 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive Ray, I have reviewed the referenced study and its technical attachments. I have no concerns and agree with the study's conclusions that the project will not result in unacceptable levels of service nor cause safety concerns. The project building a new sidewalk to connect its building to the road and along its frontage is a welcomed improvement. Justin Staff considers this criterion to be met. The relevant portion of Section 15 of the LDRs is as follows: (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. If the DRB finds that a roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the connector roadway to the property line or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection. (a) In any such application, the DRB shall require sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated to accommodate two (2) lanes of vehicle travel, City utilities, and a ten-foot wide grade-separated recreation path. No roadway extensions or connections are anticipated. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. Most of the project area is already cleared. Selective clearing of understory growth will occur near the proposed common grill & picnic area. While the project area will not intrude into the 50 ft. Surface Water Protection Buffer for Bartlett Brook, as noted above in Section 14.07 D, staff recommends additional shrub plantings along the sloped hillside on the south side of the proposed building. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Pursuant to Section 5.05 COMMERCIAL 2 DISTRICT C2 A. Purpose. A Commercial 2 District is hereby formed in order to encourage general commercial activity. In addition to uses permitted in the C1 District, large lot-retail uses, such as sale of motor vehicles and building materials, may be permitted. A range of industrial uses as well as clustered residential development may be permitted in locations that are mutually compatible with general commercial activity. Development shall be subject to site plan review to coordinate traffic movements, encourage mixed-use developments, to provide shared parking opportunities and to provide a potential location for high-traffic generation commercial uses. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed project will create a new mixed use area in this portion of the District. This project is consistent with the standards of the Commercial 2 District. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.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. The project will not intrude into stream buffer areas or impact. Some wooded area along the eastern edge of the parcel (which abuts a wooded area on the adjacent parcel) will be maintained. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In an email to staff dated December 31 2014, the Fire Department commented as follows: Dear Ray: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of a new multi-family residential building at 25 – 27 Green Mountain Drive. We have the following recommendations: 1.Multifamily units will need fire protection plan review from the South Burlington Fire Marshal’s office to review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes. 2. Provide 2 additional fire hydrants for the project. 3. 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. 4. Turning radii and road widths within this property should be sized to allow for entry, exit, parking, set-up and operation fire apparatus. This may involve modification of some of the current parking patterns. 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. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent 5. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the Fire Department’s recommendations. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc The presence of Bartlett Brook to the south and the UVM Horticultural Farms likely precludes extension of such services. An existing sidewalk connecting to the Berman property to the north is proposed to remain. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. Staff recommends that in lieu of a future street right-of-way (ROW) connecting the adjacent property to the west (presently under review by the Board) to Green Mountain Drive, that the applicant provide a pedestrian ROW through lot #2, which would then connect the property to the west to Green Mountain Drive. 6. The Board should discuss the merits of having the pedestrian ROW discussed above. (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. As noted above in (A) (3), the proposed sidewalk is a welcomed improvement. The plans submitted indicate that this criterion has been met. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The applicant is proposing to maintain the connectivity of existing trail loops and proposing to designate an area to the rear of the building as a “common grill & picnic area”. Staff considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District, and as such, must comply with relevant standards. The applicant has submitted a “Stormwater Management Narrative” prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson. The Public Works Department submitted the following comments in an email dated 12/29/14: I reviewed plans for the “25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive” project that were prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineer, LLC, dated 11/1/14 with no revision date. I would like to offer the following comments: 1.This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed, which is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the property is already subject to a State of Vermont stormwater discharge permit (3017-9010.R). Since the project proposes to expand upon the existing impervious area the existing State permit must be revised before construction begins. 2.The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc 3.The project stormwater management narrative indicates that there are areas of contaminated soil on site, but does not specify the location or type of soil contamination. The project also proposes to infiltrate stormwater runoff. Does the proposed stormwater infiltration increase the chances of mobilizing soil contamination onto adjacent properties or into adjacent surface waters? 4.The existing parking area to be reconstructed will utilize existing drywells and piping for infiltration and conveyance of runoff. During large storm events water would be conveyed to an existing discharge point at the west end of the site. What is the condition of this existing drywells, piping, and outfall? Are the existing drywells functioning as intended? Have the drywells and outfall been maintained? The applicant should be aware that these areas will be inspected to ensure their proper operation prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5.Will the stormwater pre-treatment area in the parking lot median contain curb cuts to allow water into this area or is there no curb along the front of these parking stalls? If there is no curb, the applicant may want to consider adding measures to prevent vehicles from accidentally pulling forward into and damaging the pretreatment area. 6.The applicant should confirm that the pretreatment provided meets requirements of the 2002 Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM). 7.Hydrologic modeling utilizes a 12.5 in/hr infiltration rate for the infiltration trench and basin. The applicant should confirm that this is a reasonable (if not conservative) rate based on infiltration testing and/or soil testing conducted on site? 8.The project is located in the City’s Stormwater Management Overlay district and must therefore meet the requirements in section 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). a.The applicant must confirm that the post construction peak runoff rate for the 1yr, 24hr storm event does not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event. 9.The applicant must confirm that the infiltration basin meets design requirements of the VSMM. For example, an emergency spillway is not visible in the project plans. 10.The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 11.The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to provide record drawings per the requirements of section 12.03F. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Since the DRB hearing is only a week away (1/6/14) I’ve copied the project engineer onto this email. -Tom In an email dated December 30, 2014 Tom DiPietro wrote: Ray-All my questions/comments have been satisfactorily addressed. OTHER CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_34_25&27GreenMountainDrive_SnyderConstructionCompany_apartment_building.doc Since this project is a PUD and the lots involved cannot stand alone and meet the area and dimension requirements (i.e. density) that a “Notice of Conditions” legal document should be recorded in the land records that indicates that for the purposes of the LDRs, both lots are to be treated as one (1) lot. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Andy Rowe CU-14-11 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BRAD RABINOWITZ – 17 TWIN BROOK COURT CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-14-11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-14-11 of Brad Rabinowitz to amend a previously approved plan to expand a single family footprint. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the landscaping plan, 2) raising the elevation of the top of wall at the edge of the patio, and 3) revising the driveway layout, 17 Twin Brook Court. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 6, 2015. The applicant represented himself. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Brad Rabinowitz, seeks conditional use approval to amend a previously approved plan to expand a single family footprint. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the landscaping plan, 2) raising the elevation of the top of wall at the edge of the patio, and 3) revising the driveway layout, 17 Twin Brook Court. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is RR Charlebois, Inc. 3. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. 4. The application was received on December 4, 2014. 5. The plans submitted consist of a three (3) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, “Site/Landscaping/Erosion Control Plan Twin Brook Cottage 17 Twin Brook Court South Burlington, Vermont”, prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 8, 2012 and last revised on November 14, 2013. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Brad Rabinowitz, seeks conditional use approval to amend a previously approved plan to expand a single family footprint. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the landscaping plan, 2) raising the elevation of the top of wall at the edge of the patio, and 3) revising the driveway layout, 17 Twin Brook Court. The original plan (#SD-13-06) was approved on January 8, 2014. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_11_17 Twin Brook Court_Brad Rabinowitz_amendment_ffd.doc Table 1. Dimensional Requirements LN Zoning District Required Originally Approved Proposed  Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF 23,422 SF No change  Max. Building Coverage 20 % 8.8 % No change  Max. Overall Coverage 40 % 20.37 % 25.27%  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 36 ft No change  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. No change  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change √ Zoning Compliance Section 12.01(D) Pre-Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met: a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. No change to previously approved structure. b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. No change to previously approved structure. c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. No change to previously approved structure. d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. The applicant’s previously approved erosion control plan is still in effect. The Board finds that this criterion is satisfied. e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_11_17 Twin Brook Court_Brad Rabinowitz_amendment_ffd.doc The applicant proposes a variety of changes to the landscaping plan previously approved in #SD- 13-06. These changes are outlined in the applicant’s letter dated November 13, 2014 and detailed in the plan submitted. In summary, these changes include substitutions of some of the American Elder with Winterberry, the addition of Cinnamon fern, the substitution of some Virginia Rose with low bush blueberries and last the removal of dead and dying trees and the addition of new trees. The Board finds these changes acceptable and this criterion is satisfied. 1. However, the Board requires that the applicant revise the Site/Landscaping/Erosion Control plan (Sheet C1) be revised to reflect the changes requested in this application including those shown in Sheet S.1 CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations () Pre-existing structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park), the proposed structure shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E): 14.10(E) General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. This criterion is satisfied. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The Board finds the proposed project consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, which is “to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Homes Road.” This criterion is satisfied. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This criterion is satisfied. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The project is consistent with current bylaws and ordinances in effect. This criterion is satisfied. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_11_17 Twin Brook Court_Brad Rabinowitz_amendment_ffd.doc This project will not affect renewable energy resources. This criterion is satisfied. Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards (4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review. (a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer. (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. (e) Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer. (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or extending utility services. (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro-electric power generation The applicant’s previously approved erosion control measures, designed by a licensed professional engineer, includes vegetated rip-rap and additional re-vegetation of a slope within the stream buffer. The Board finds that the proposed changes and substitutions in plantings, the removal of dead and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_11_17 Twin Brook Court_Brad Rabinowitz_amendment_ffd.doc dying trees and the replacement with new trees meets the requirement of subsection (b) above. This criterion is satisfied. DECISION Motion by _______________, seconded by ___________, to approve conditional use application #CU- 14-11 of Brad Rabinowitz, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The Site/Landscaping/Erosion Control plan (Sheet C1) be revised to reflect the changes requested in this application including those shown on Sheet S.1 4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Brian Breslend – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons – yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of x– x – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_14_11_17 Twin Brook Court_Brad Rabinowitz_amendment_ffd.doc 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. (10) VA(10) VA(1) AR(1) CC(4) IV(4) SC(25) OCD(20) TOBCCAB(9) AP(9) J(8) IV(6) SC105.5'2(1) TREETO BE REMOVED(4-5) DEAD TREESTO BE REMOVEDPLANT SCHEDULE FOR TWIN BROOK COTTAGEBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMEQTY / SIZE AT PLANTINGTREESAR Acer rubrum / Red Maple 1 / 2 ½-3” cal.CC Carpinus caroliniana / American Hornbeam 1 / 2-2 ½” cal.TO Thuja occidentalis 'Emerald Green' / Arborvitae 20 / 4-5' hgt.SHRUBSIV Ilex verticillata 'Berry Heavy' / Female Winterberry 10 / 3-4' hgt.IV Ilex verticillata 'Jim Dandy' / Male Pollinator Winterberry 2 / 2-3' hgt.SC Sambucus canadensis / American Elderberry 10 / 5gVA Vaccinium angustifolium / Lowbush Blueberry 20 / 1gGROUNDCOVERAP Andromeda polifolia 'Breton Blue' / Bog Rosemary 9 / 3gJ Juniperus horizontalis / Groundcover Juniper 9 / 2gOC Osmunda cinnamomea / Cinnamon Fern 25HARDSCAPE NOTESA. PATIO AND RAMPDry laid bluestone pavers over 12” of drainagestone foundation.B. STONE SEAT WALLDry laid local stone wall, 18” high for seating atpatio.C. BOULDER RIP-RAP BANKBank stabilization and erosion control with localboulders interspersed throughout bank.Fill plant pockets with native lowbush blueberry.D. STEPPING STONE PATHLocal field stone path through drifts of fern.T.O. SEAT WALL107.0'T.O. RIP-RAP WALL/PATIO105.5'103.0'TYPE IV RIP RAP SLOPEDRAINAGE FABRICUNDER COMPACTEDSTONE FILLDRY-LAID STONESEAT WALLDRY-LAIDSTONE PATIOEXISTINGBEACHLOW BUSH BLUEBERRY PLANTED IN SOILPOCKETS OF RIP RAPL1.1Planting Plan1"=10'-0"ABC11.13.14DATE:REVISIONS:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEETPROJECT NAMESHEET TITLETwin Brook CottageTwin Brook Court South Burlington, Vermont© OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA KNAUF LANDSCAPE DESIGN, INC. This schematic design and construction bid set are exclusively owned by Cynthia Knauf Landscape Design, Inc., which retains all rights, including copyrights, in these documents. They have been prepared by Cynthia Knauf Landscape Design, Inc., based on information, documents, and design specifications provided by Civil / Structural Engineer and Architect, Cynthia Knauf Landscape Design, Inc. is not responsible for any alterations or adjustments to the schematic design and construction bid set during any phase of construction which are not preapproved and authorized in writing by Cynthia Knauf Landscape Design, Inc.ARCHITECT200 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401Tel: (802) 658-0430 / Fax: (802) 863-6876Email: office@bradrabinowitzarchitect.comBrad Rabinowitz, ArchitectSCALE: 1" = 10'TYPICAL VEGETATED RIP-RAP SLOPE AND SEAT WALL AT PATIONTS2 0+001+850+501+50#'#'##Approximate locaccess easementhe benefit ofCharlebois. Map S118, Plat of SubdivTrono ConstructioPreserve existing cedarhedgePreserveexisting cedartreePreserveexisting treesPreserveexisting treePreserveexisting treePreserveexisting hedgePreserve existingtree linePreserve existingtree line. Installsilt fence andbarrier fenceprior tocommencing anywork.Remove existingVegetated rip rap.Use 14 Vermont NativeVirginia Rose (Rosa Virginia)planted approximately 5 ft.on center at base of rip rapslope in gaps. 2 ft. spread B &B.Revegetation of Slope withNative SpeciesUse 8 Vermont NativeAmerican Elder plantedapproximately 5 ft. on center,3'-4' high B & B.Revegetation of Slope withNative SpeciesUse 14 Vermont NativeAmerican Elder plantedapproximately 5 ft. on center,3'-4' high B & B.Border Informal HedgeUse 20 Vermont NativeAmerican Arborvitae plantedapproximately 5 ft. on center,4'-5' high.StabilziedConstructionEntranceTo be razedRevegetation of Slope withNative SpeciesUse 30 creeping juniper(juniperus horizontalis)planted 3' o.c. with 18"spreads.Revegetation of Slope withNative SpeciesUse 15 creeping juniper(juniperus horizontalis)planted 3' o.c. with 18"spreads.xTop of Wall =105.5'xTop of Wall =105.5'SawabiniN/FGarciaN/F50'fromstreamCL20'frontyard150'fromelev.102'10'sideyardAA84°20'37".108109 1071051041061031071061051041031 0 6 105107 1031009910510210110099989999101103105107110108108991011001021041041039899101103102110105106106107PLANTING SCHEDULEDescriptionVirginia Rose (Rosa Virginia)Flowering Crabapple (Malus baccata)American Elder (Sambucus conadensis))Grey Dogwood (Cornus race)2' spread1.5-2" cal3'-4' high2' high3563318size QL a k e C h a m p l a i n65' - 0"Existing Setback- see Krebs & Lansing Dwg X.1Green Shaded Areais added footprint to50% max increase..Grey Shaded Areais Existing FootprintExisting & NewFirst Floor El.107.9'ProposedTerraceEl.105.5'0'92#8'49#.-0'9#52*#.6&4+8' 2#4-+0)20'-0".HIGHPOINT.11' - 9".WATER DRAINSIN BOTHDIRECTIONS.R13'-0"10'-0".10'-9".25'-0".26'-0"21'-9".26'-0"SITE DATAEXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT.......................1,376 sfALLOWABLE ADDITION = 50% = 688 sf 2,064 max footprintPROPOSED TOTAL FOOTPRINT..........................2,056 sfEXISTING TOTAL ROOF OVERHANG..................1,747 sfALLOWABLE ADDITION = 50% = 874 sf 2,621 max overhangPROPOSED TOTAL OVERHANG.........................2,493 sfTOTAL SITE AREA...............................................23,423 sfTOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING.............................2,056 SF = 8.8%TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING, ETC....3,865 SFBUILDING + SITE COVERAGE.............................5,921 SF = 25.27%Design:SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTDRAWING TITLE:TWIN BROOK COTTAGEBRAD RABINOWITZ ARCHITECT200 MAIN STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401802 658 0430 T 802 863 6876Fwww.bradrabinowitzarchitect.comDATEREVISION 11/5/2014 4:12:39 PM Z:\201321\Revit\TwinBrookCottage2.rvtAs indicatedS.111/07/13Site Plan)4''05*#&'&#4'#+5+0%4'#5'1((11624+06 Revision Issue November 5, 2014 1" = 10'-0"1Site Copy 110.21.14 REVISION10.23.14 REVISION11.5.14 REVISION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_ PUDamend_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 2, 2015 Application received: November 20, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-35 DONNA LITTLE – 1035, 1037, & 1045 HINESBURG ROAD Agenda # 7 Meeting Date: January 6, 2015 Applicant Donna Little 38 Roosevelt Highway Colchester, VT 05446 Contact Person David Burke O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite #1 Essex, VT 05452 Owner Mansfield View Properties, LLC c/o Richard Lunt 1037 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_PUDamend_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-35 of Donna Little to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of two (2) lots and two (2) general office buildings. The amendment consists of: 1) reducing the size of the office building at 1037 Hinesburg Road from 3,640 sq. ft. to 2,730 sq. ft., and 2) constructing a 10,974 sq. ft. building for commercial kennel and pet day care use, 1035, 1037 & 1045 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on November 20, 2104 and offer the following comments: ZONING AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Industrial- Open Space Zoning District Required Existing Proposed * Min. Lot Size 3 acres 1 acres 1 acre  Max. Building Coverage 30% 0% 24% (10,974 SF)  Max. Overall Coverage 50% 8.6%% 46.7% ?? Front Yard Coverage 30% n/a 1.7%  Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. from planned ROW n/a 39 ft.  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a 35. ft.  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a 98 ft.  Max. Building Height 35 ft. (flat roof) n/a ~28.5 ft.  Zoning compliance * Pre-existing non-conforming ??-possible discrepancy The applicant indicates that front yard coverage is only 1.7%. Staff thinks this calculation is low and asks the applicant to check its calculation.  Waiver required. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 11 ft. to allow a 39 ft. front setback. For reference staff notes that the existing office building at 1035 Hinesburg Road which is part of the PUD has a setback of 31 ft. Staff supports this waiver but recommends enhancing the architectural details on the portion of the building facing Hinesburg Raod. 1. The Board should discuss the proposed setback and provide guidance to the applicant on whether this is acceptable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_PUDamend_sketch.doc improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to be consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The existing buildings of #1035 and #1037 Hinesburg Road are allocated 19 spaces per previous approval. The applicant is proposing to reduce the lower level approval for #1037 by 910 SF thereby reducing the parking requirement by three (3) spaces to 16 spaces. Staff recommends that since the building will not actually be reduced in size, that the applicant request a parking waiver of three (3) spaces for a 15.8% shortfall. The applicant is requesting to allow four (4) of the 16 spaces to be located off-site on the adjacent property. For the new building at 1045, 12 spaces are required and 16 on-site spaces are being provided. 2. The Board should discuss the request for a parking waiver and for the off-site 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. Staff has indicated to the applicant the need for a revision as the first parking space to the left as one enters the driveway protrudes into the front yard. Otherwise, the project appears to be in compliance. (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. Although formal conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review, the project as proposed appears to be consistent with this criterion. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Although formal conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review, the project as proposed appears to be consistent with this criterion. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_PUDamend_sketch.doc (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. Although formal conformance with this criteria will be addressed at preliminary plat review, the project as proposed appears to be consistent with these criteria. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The reservation of land is not required. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant’s plan indicates that a dumpster pad would be located in the southeast corner of the property. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. While the applicant’s sketch plan shows existing trees on the property, no landscaping information is yet provided (nor is it required). Staff has indicated to the applicant the desire to preserve as many of the existing trees as is feasible. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. Staff encourages sufficient landscaping, especially along the parking lot, the eastern façade and around the dog play area. The applicant should consult with the City Arborist prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_PUDamend_sketch.doc condition exceeds the applicable limit. As noted above, the project as proposed would require waivers to the front yard setback requirements. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The project shall connect to municipal water and sewer. The applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to submittal of a final plat. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant is proposing to use the existing curb cut shared with 1035/1037 Hinesburg Road. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The parcel contains neither resources identified in the Open Space strategy nor any unique natural features. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_PUDamend_sketch.doc (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. A. Purpose. The Industrial-Open Space IO District is established to provide suitable locations for high-quality, large-lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to major arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high-quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth. The location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed project represents an increase in employment and business growth. The design of the building is consistent with several other buildings recently constructed in this district. The building includes attractive architectural features including a partial 2-story. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The property contains no open space areas. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Fire Chief prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. Staff recommends the applicant incorporate a feature within the dog play area to pretreat runoff from this area. (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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_35_1035&1037&1045HinesburgRd_DonnaLittle_PUDamend_sketch.doc (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff considers the project, as currently proposed, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 13.23 Outdoor exercise facilities for animal shelters, commercial kennels, pet day cares, and veterinary hospitals A. Specific Standards: (1) All outdoor exercise areas shall be fully enclosed and screened on all sides. (2) Animals shall not be permitted in outdoor exercise areas between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. (3) Where a planned outdoor exercise facility is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district or existing residential use, the required side or rear setback for the outdoor exercise facilities shall be sixty-five (65) feet from the residential or residentially-zoned property. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. The outdoor exercise area for the project is fully enclosed and screened on all sides consistent with criterion A (1). Criterion A (3) is not applicable to the project. Should the project receive final plat approval, the Board should include a condition that animals shall not be permitted in the outdoor exercise areas between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. The building is also designed to maximize sound-proofing of the dog play area. Applicant should show a sample of the fencing material to the south at preliminary plat review to assure it is opaque. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: David W. Burke FOOT PRINTPROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 20146' 0"72' 0"42' 0"69' 0"42' 0"6' 0"24' 0"153' 0"(Area=9622 SF)16' 0"26' 0"85' 0"16' 0"10' 0"14' 1 11/16"68' 0" 99 DOG SUITES GROUND LEVELCLOSETDOG KITCHEN AREA#1 #2 #3SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC SOCSTAFF & DOG WALKWAYSRECEPTION DESKMENLADIESVIEWING WINDOWSSOCSOC INDOOR WATER PARKMECHANICALSGROOM4 SUPPORT COLUMNS3 SUPPORT COLUMNSCARRYING BEAM6' 0"11' 6 1/2"21' 0"21' 0"17' 11"6' 0"21' 3 1/2"18' 10"23' 6 1/2"11' 3 3/4"11' 9 1/4"6' 0"34' 2"STAFF KITCHENFIRST FLOOR PLAN (OUTLINE SECOND FLOOR)PROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 201472' 0"42' 0"69' 0"42' 0"16' 0"26' 0"85' 0"16' 0"6' 0"24' 0"48' 0"7' 0"7' 0"6' 0"24' 10"27' 3 1/2"LAUNDRYSTORAGE[Q]26' 0"14' 1 11/16"10' 0"10' 0"68' 0"26' 0"26' 0"-NOTE-EXTERIOR MEASURMENTS END TO ENDINTERIOR MEASURMENTS STUD TO STUDINTERIOR MEASURMENTS STUD TO STUDSECOND LEVEL28' 1"15' 0"13' 6 11/16"3' 6"8' 10"4' 0"SUPPORT COLUMN 99 DOG SUITES GROUND LEVELCLOSETDOG KITCHEN AREA#1 #2 #3SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC SOCSTAFF & DOG WALKWAYSMENLADIESVIEWING WINDOWSSOCSOC INDOOR WATER PARKCATTERY SECOND LEVELOFFICE SECOND LEVELMECHANICALSGROOM4 SUPPORT COLUMNSCARRYING BEAM6' 0"11' 6 1/2"21' 0"21' 0"17' 11"6' 0"24' 10"21' 3 1/2"18' 10"23' 6 1/2"11' 3 3/4"11' 9 1/4"6' 0"34' 2"STAFF KITCHENSECOND FLOOR PLAN (FIRST FLOOR BELOW)PROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 201472' 0"42' 0"69' 0"42' 0"16' 0"26' 0"85' 0"26' 0"78' 0"6' 0"24' 0"48' 0"24' 7"24' 7"4' 0"8' 1"16' 6"20' 3"OFFICEOFFICEBATHSITTING AREAVIEWING WINDOWS12' 1 3/4"12' 1 3/4"12' 1 3/4"12' 1 3/4"CLOSET4' 8 5/16"8' 6 13/16"8' 4 1/4"[Q]7' 7 1/4"4' 3"STORAGE-NOTE-EXTERIOR MEASURMENTS END TO ENDINTERIOR MEASURMENTS STUD TO STUDINTERIOR MEASURMENTS STUD TO STUDSECOND LEVELCOPY ROOMLAUNDRY8' 10" FRONT ELEVATIONPROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 2014Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa REAR ELEVATIONPROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 2014 LEFT SIDE ELEVATIONPROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 2014 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONPROJECT: Happy Tails Pet Resort & Spa (SCALE 1/8"=1'-0") Sun, Nov 16, 2014 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sk etch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 2, 2015 Application received: November 21, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-36 LEON BROWN – 57 HINESBURG ROAD Agenda # 8 Meeting Date: January 6, 2015 Applicant Leon Brown 15 Ruth Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Person Doug Henson Lamoureux & Dickinson 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 Owner Same as applicant Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-36 of Leon Brown for a planned unit development on a 0.37 acre lot developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) razing the existing single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a four (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on November 21, 2104 and offer the following comments: C1 – R12 – Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size (residential) 3,500 sq. ft./unit 16,025 sq. ft. 16,025 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 40% 8% 35% (~5,570 SF)  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 22% 66% *Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. unknown 8 ft. *Min. Side Setback 10 ft. unknown 8 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. unknown 23 ft.  Max. Building Height 40ft. (pitched roof) unknown 38 ft.  Zoning compliance  * Waiver required. The Planning & Zoning Department has encouraged the applicant to build towards the draft Form Based Code requirements which this proposal approaches with regards to setbacks. Therefore, waivers to the front, side and rear setbacks would be required. 1. The Board should discuss the proposed setback and provide guidance to the applicant on whether they are acceptable. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. While not a mixed use development the proposed project uses most all of the lot and provides needed housing within the City’s core. B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc normal maximum for the applicable district. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. The applicant is proposing to abandon its existing curb cut near the southeast corner of the property and create a new one at the northeast corner. Conformance with Criteria C (1) – (3) will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. This criterion is not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to be consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc (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 parking is proposed to the front of the building. (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. While the proposed units would be taller than those on adjoining residential parcels, the proposed 38 ft. high would be compatible with this criterion. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Conformance with these two criteria will be addressed at preliminary plat review wherein elevations and landscaping plans will be presented. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The reservation of land is not required. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant’s plan indicates that a dumpster enclosure would be located in the northwest corner of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc the property. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the City Arborist prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. As noted above, the project as proposed would require waivers to the front, side and rear yard setback requirements. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. Applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to submittal of a final plat. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant is proposing to abandon its existing curb cut near the southeast corner of the property and create a new one at the northeast corner. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The parcel contains neither resources identified in the Open Space strategy nor any unique natural features. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The proposed project will increase the overall density on the parcel from one residential unit to four residential units. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The property contains no open space areas. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Fire Chief prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. Presence of street trees along Hinesburg Road should be verified prior to 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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_36_57HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff considers the project, as currently proposed, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 10.02 Traffic Overlay District The property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 3. Based on a parcel size of 16,025 square feet, which is 40.10% of 40,000 SF, the maximum number of trip ends allowed is 18.05. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers TRIP GENERATION manual, the four residential units would generate an estimated 3.12 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends. Although formal conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review, the project as proposed appears to be consistent with the requirements of the Traffic Overlay District. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Doug Henson 24'30'24'16'24'24'34'12'12'4'12'3'12'4'16'26'16'34'34'34'34'34'18'16'16'16'12'6'6'6'6'6'12'6'6'12'6'6'26'6'3'4'4'24'30'32'18'66'DECKGARAGENEW PAVED ACCESS DRIVEENTRYWAYHINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON ROADTO KENNEDY DRIVEEXIST ING STOCKADE FENCEEXISTING VINYL STOCKADE FENCE6'20'8'8'DUMPSTERENCLOSUREPORCH20' "BUILD TO" ZONESIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER PROPOSED FORM-BASED CODE T-3 D ISTR ICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENT COMMERC IAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTFRONT YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODE T-3DISTRICTFRONT YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER PROPOSED FORM-BASED CODE T-3 D ISTR ICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENT COMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTREAR YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTREAR YARD SETBACK UNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODE T-3 DISTRICTCHANG MING & XIANG YONG JIANGN/FRESIDENTIALANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FSHOPPING CENTERSONRISE PARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FRESIDENTIALJAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLE GILBERT-FULLERN/FRESIDENTIAL 8'23'24'8'GARAGEGARAGEGARAGE1234EXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING SHRUBS(TO BE RETAINED)EXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING SHEDEXISTING TW IN CEDARJOHN L. WOLFF, IIIN/FRESIDENTIALHUEN YUN POONN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKGUESTPARKING57 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesign SurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering .comDate Rev ision ByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing11-21-14DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLC1" = 10'PROJECTSITEMARKET STREETRICKMARCOTTECENTRALSCHOOLWILLISTON ROADTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLEGENDEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING GROUND CONTOUREXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING UTILITY POLE AND OVERHEAD WIREPOSSIBLE LOCATION OF NEW TREEPOSSIBLE LOCATION OF NEW SHRUBPROVIDEDREQUIREDEXISTING USE - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED USE - MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:MINIMUM LOT AREAMINIMUM FRONT SETBACKMINIMUM SIDE SETBACKMINIMUM REAR SETBACKMAXIMUM COVERAGE BUILDINGS ONLY TOTALMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTPROJECT STATISTICSWATER/WASTEWATER:MUNICIPAL SERVICES.ZONING DISTRICT - COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 123,500 SF/ UNIT6-20 FT8 FT20 FT40%75%4016,025 SF (0.37 ACRES) EXISTING8 FT8 FT23FT35%66%38PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTSKETCH PLANSK 1BROWN ESTATESLOCATION PLANNTS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 DECEMBER 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 December 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking, B. Breslend ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; T. Chittenden, G. Stampl, R. Jeffers, P. O’Leary, D. Sherman, G. Rabideau, D. Burke, D. & P. Sande, J. Larkin, P. O’Brien, P. Kahn, B. Bartlett, D. O’Rourke, A. Dery, E. Langfeldt, S. Schenker, J. Boyd 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. Site plan application #SP-14-65 of Larkin Tarrant & Hoel Partnership for after-the- fact approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel (Homewood Suites). The amendment consists of revising the landscaping plan, 5 Dorset St. Following discussion, Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-14-65. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Continued final plat application #SD-14-31 of Gristmill Builders, Ltd. For approval to create two footprint lots, 110 Chipman Street & 53 Frost Street: Following discussion, Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-31. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued final plat application #SD-14-33 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase II of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase II is to consist of the following: 1) 31 single family dwellings, 2) 13 two-family dwellings, 3) one 3- unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) 39 multi-family dwelling units in four buildings, 1840 Spear Street: Following discussion, Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-33. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued conditional use application #CU-14-10 of J. Peter & Diane Sande to raze an existing 1,136 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 1,136 sq. ft. footprint and construct a new single family dwelling with a 1,703 sq. ft. footprint, 50 Bartlett Bay Road: Following discussion, Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-14-10. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-32 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) the subdivision of a 31.87 acre parcel developed with one single family dwelling into two lots of 5.0 acres and 26.87 acres and, 2) developing the 5.0 acre parcel with nine single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street: Following discussion, Mr. Miller moved to close Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-32. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. 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: Following discussion, Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-60 to 20 January 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Minutes of 2 December 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 2 December 2014 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for a 6-month extension to Wedgewood Development Corp. final approval #SD-14-17. Mr. Miller moved to approve the 6-month extension to final approval #SD-14-17. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk